{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_559","title":"Priorities","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":["1995/2001"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Priorities"],"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/559"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["63 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building LtUe Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: Novembers, 1995 To: From: Subject: Bobby Lester, James Smi, Hank Williams * C^'^frknn Brown ODM 1995-96 Monitoring Priorities and Procedures My staff and I have identified our monitoring priorities for the 1995-96 school year, which are listed on e enclosure. As is our custom, we identified our monitoring emphasis by reviewing the desegregation plans and mandates from bo the circuit and district courts. We also noted court orders and directives issued during hearings that require ODM to review certain desegregation activities or to scrutinize specific provisions of the plans or court orders. It is possible that some of the attached topics will change depending upon unforeseen events that may develop, such as new court orders. Some of our monitoring will be in the nature of a follow-up on previous reports, such as those on the alternative schools, racial balance in school enrollment and the LRSD incentive schools. A few of the topics we will address appeared on our monitoring list for the last school year, but we are not initiating them until this year, such as the specialty programs in the PCSSD and the secondary LRSD schools with magnet programs. At the conclusion of each monitoring project, we will summarize our findings to the Court in some type of written report. Some of our reports will be brief and limited in scope, such as double finding of the incentive schools\nothers, such as that on the secondary interdistrict schools, will be more comprehensive and, therefore, lengthier. You can expect our monitoring procedures to remain essentially unchanged from previous years, continuing to include review of records and other written information, interviews with principals and other administrators, and visits to schools. Our observations will be guided by a written monitoring guide, the same type of instrument we've used in the past. As usual, we will review e guide with your staff before beginning formal monitoring so you'll know what we are looking for.November 8, 1995 As our monitoring timetable develops, we will notify you so you can plan accordingly. We are trying to establish a schedule that avoids dates which would conflict with the schedule of other monitoring groups, such as the Btracial Committees. As you're aware, some of our monitoring guides include charts that reflect various data, such as school enrollment and staffing. Because ODM monitors gather this date from the annual school profiles, rather than asking school staff to fill out forms or charts, please send the 1995-96 profiles QUall schools to ODM by November 22. 1995 if you have not yet forwarded that information to my office. If you have any questions or comments, please call me. We're looking forward to being in your schools during the year ahead. cc: Bobby Acklin Bill Bowles Russ Mayo Counsel of Record1995-96 ODM Monitoring Priorities  Radal balance in student enrollment within individual schools  Staffing patterns and staff recruitment for racial balance among administrators, non-certified personnel, and secondary teachers  Academic achievement and closing disparity in achievement between the races  The alternative learning centers in the three districts  Recruitment for the four-year-old program to promote desegregation  Facilities, with emphasis on schools having an enrollment outside the racial balance guidelines  M-to-M transfers of special education students among the three school districts  Finance: assuring that settlement money use is consistent with the desegregation plans and court orders\ndetermining that the districts exercise fiscal responsibility such that they can fulfill their plan obligations\nwhether money is being wasted  Incentive schools, with emphasis on facilities, theme implementation, programs and those aspects of the schools that previously have been cited as needing improvement  Staffing in the incentive schools to determine the extent of racial balance within employee categories  Double funding of the incentive schools  The extended year program for incentive schools during the summer of 1995  Secondary schools with magnet programs: Henderson, Dunbar, Central, and McClellan secondary schools in the LRSD  Specialty programs in the PCSSD at Mills and Sylvan Hills High Schools, Fuller Junior High, and Fuller, Landmark, Bates, and College Station Elementaries and racial integration within those schools  Multicultural education in the PCSSD *\u0026lt; viei^'\"^- *, -Ji? .'. ... -* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS DATE\nSeptember 24, 1998 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent of Schools RE\nDistrict Priorities I am recommending the Boards approval of the priorities we have discussed and established for the current school year. These are: Desegregation and Education Plan A. B. C. D. Policies Middle School Marketing and Communication Student Assignment (Neighborhood Schools) II. Technology B. C. D. Wide Area Network Technology Labs -Tech 2000 or similar High School, Middle \u0026amp; Elementary School ACC Learning Labs Training III. ClusterCampus Leadership A. B. Quality Index Student Success Model 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Skills \u0026amp; Knowledge Continuum Personalized Education Staff Development Community Support Assessment Communication IV. Financial Plan A. B. C. D. E. Management Audit Campus and District NeedsCapital Transportation Security Technologyrecewed 00 2^998 06sbwmS**** PRIORITIES 1998-99 Introduction I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS Desegregation and Education Plan A. Policies B. Middle School C. Marketing and Communication D. Student Assignment (Neighborhood Schools) Technology A. B. Wide Area Network Technology Labs - Tech 2000 or similar C. High School, Middle School \u0026amp; Elementary ACC Learning labs D. Training Campus Leadership A. Quality Index 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Customer Service \u0026amp; Campus Learning Climate Student Achievement - Value Added Incentives Attendance - Teacher/Student and Dropout Guidelines, Administrative Policy \u0026amp; Report Card Planning \u0026amp; Campus goals (COE) B. Student Success Model 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Skills \u0026amp; Knowledge Continuum Personalized Education Professional development Community Support Communication Assessment Financial Plan A. B. C. D. E. Management Audit Campus and District Needs - - Capital T ransportation Security Technology PAGE 1 3 6 7 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 26 29 30 31 33 33 39 40 41INTRODUCTION The 1998-99 District Priorities are an ambitious plan to provide a foundation for achieving the goals of the Strategic Plan. Within the scope of the Strategic Plan are four important systemic initiatives for the Little Rock School District. The following narrative does not list these initiatives in a priority placement, but each is interwoven into the fabric necessary to support a quality public education all children: The first priority is to establish the policies and to implement the major organizational initiatives of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Marketing and communication are emphasized to initially maintain the enrollment but more importantly to establish the base to ensure a balanced growth for the Little Rock School District. The second priority establishes technology as strategic advantage for Little Rock teachers and children. Technology as an integral learning support will be the major contributor to enhanced achievement. Furthermore, students whose education has been enriched with technology will gain a competitive advantage in post secondary education and the work place. The Quality Initiative is the basis for ensuring rigorous world class standards and achievement of those by Little Rock School District students. Campus leadership with campus accountability will be used as the primary energy for determining and accomplishing instructional and institutional quality. The fourth priority is a multi faceted initiative to ensure financial and operational stability for the Little Rock School District. Efficient and effective use of resources will always be a goal of the district.1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan / A. Policies Major Tasks/Activities Review and revise Board policy Section A. Foundations Review and revise Board policy Section B. Board By-laws Review and revise Board policy Section C. General Administration Review and revise Board policy Section D. Fiscal Management Review and revise Board policy Section H. Negotiations Review and revise Board policy Section G. Personnel Review and revise Board policy Section E Support Services Reference to Plan(s) Deseg. Plan 2.1. Deseg. Plan 2.1 Deseg. Plan 2.13. Deseg. Plan. 2.9 Strategic Plan (Strategy 9) Deseg. Plan 2.2. Strategic Plan (Strategy 6) Deseg. Plan 2.10. Timeline August 1998 November 1998 November 1998 January 1999 February 1999 March 1999 April 1999 Responsibility Board Linda Young Board Linda Young Board Linda Young, Les Gamine Board Linda Young, Mark Milhollen Board Linda Young, Brady Gadberry Board Linda Young, Dick Hurley Board Linda Young, Vic Anderson Evidence of Success Board review and/or action Board review and/or action Board review and/or action Board review and/or action Board review and/or action Board review and/or action Board review and/or actionMajor Tasks/Activities Review and revise Board policy Section J. Students Review and revise Board policy Section 1. Instruction Review and revise Board policy Section K. Community/School Relations Reference to Plan(s) Deseg. Plan 2.5., 2.12. Deseg. Plan Section 5,2.4., 2.5., 2.6. Strategic Plan (Strategy 1) Strategic Plan (Strategy 4, 5) Timeline May 1999 June 1999 July 1999 Responsibility Board Linda Young, Linda Watson, Jo Evelyn Elston Board Linda Young, Bonnie Leslie Board Linda Young, Debbie Milam, Suellen Vann, Vic Anderson Evidence of Success Board review and/or action Board review and/or action Board review and/or action 21998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan / B. Middle School Major Tasks/Activities 1. Establish planning committee structure and identify the charge and tasks of each committee 2. Develop District middle school mission statement Submit for Board approval 3. Coordinate planning and implementation issues for middle school transition 4. Steering committee approval of focus committee recommendations on athletic program, curriculum standards, and professional development program 5. Curriculum standards presented for Board approval 6. Brown Bag Lunch session for parents Reference to Plan(s) Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Timeline April 1998 May 1998 August 1999 Oct. 1998 Oct. 1998 Oct. 1998 Responsibility LRSD Administration, Linda Young Steering committee, Linda Young Linda Young, Bonnie Lesley, LRSD Administration Steering committee, focus committee chairpersons (Gene Parker, Ann Blaylock, Wayne Knight) Bonnie Lesley, Linda Young Les Camine, Bonnie Lesley Suellen Vann, Linda Young, LRSD administration Evidence of Success Committee meetings, active involvement of committee members, committee recommendations Board approved middle school mission statement Completed recommendations submitted to Superintendent, task timeline, and completion of tasks Completed focus committee proposals and steering committee approval Board approval Agenda 3JMajor Tasks/Activltles 7. Vacancy letter announcement/opening preferences to teachers 8. Staffing placement and teacher notification 9. Steering committee approval of middle school and 9**' grade curriculum 10. Middle school and 9* grade curriculum submitted for Board approval 11. Steering committee approval of focus committee recommendations on student program and family and community involvement 12. Implementation of professional development program 13. Logistical plan finalized and implemented Reference to Plan($) Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Timeline Nov. 1998 Jan. 1999 Nov. 1998 Nov. 1998 Jan. 1999 Nov. 1998 July 1999 Responsibility Brady Gadberry, Dick Hurley Brady Gadberry, Dick Hurley Steering committee, Bonnie Lesley, Gene Parker, Kathy Lease, LRSD administrators, Linda Young Les Gamine, Bonnie Lesley Steering committee, Jo Evelyn Elston, Liz Lucker, Linda Young LRSD admin., principals, technical assistance team, Linda Young Vic Anderson, LRSD administration Evidence of Success Letter Final staffing assignments and notification to teachers. Board approval Board approval Steering committee approval of focus committee recommendations. Leadership team session agendas, individual building professional development plans and agendas, team leader development agendas, high school professional development agendas Logistical plan, timeline and completion of tasks 4'Major Tasks/Activities te 14. Middle school handbook submitted for Board approval 15, Policy development for middle school program for Board approval Reference to Plan(s) Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Timeline April 1999 May 1999 Responsibility Les Gamine, Linda Watson Les Gamine, Bonnie Lesley, Linda Young Evidence of Success e Board approval of handbook Developed policies and Board approval 51998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan / C. Marketing and Communication Major Tasks/Activities Implement assignment programs. Conversion to middle schools. Implement programs...designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students.... Implement programs, policies and/or procedures.. .to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD.... School construction/closing. Desegregated housing. Attract/recmit students to Interdistrict schools. Reference to Plan(s) Desegregation: 2.3, 3.1 Desegregation: 3.4 Desegregation: 2.7 Desegregation: 2.8 Strategic Plan: (Strategy 4) Desegregation: 3.6 Desegregation: 3.9 Desegregation: 4.5 Timeline September - October, 1998 July 1998  June 1999 October, 1998 July 1998 - June 1999 July 1998  June 1999 September - October 1998 July 1998 - June 1999 Responsibility Junious Babbs, Suellen Vann Suellen Vann and other district administrators Suellen Vann Dr. Les Camine, Suellen Vann and other district administrators Sadie Mitchell, Suellen Vann, and other district administrators Dr. Les Camine Junious Babbs, Suellen Vann Evidence of Success Copies of meeting notices and newsletters about neighborhood school zones on file. Copies of meeting notices, parent letters and newsletters on file. Copy of front-page story about National Science Foundation grant in Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on file. Development and implementation of communications plan. Copies of newsletters and meeting notices on file. Copies of flyers and meeting notices related to meetings for Stephens community and parents of Garland and Mitchell students. Copy of letter to Little Rock Board of Directors regarding annexation of west Little Rock property. Copies of school calendar and other published information are on file. 61998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan / D. Student Assignment (Neighborhood Schools) Major Tasks / Activities 1. School attendance zone ! baseline information compiled. 2. LRSD Student Assignment Work Team reconvenes / meets weekly. 3. Proposed attendance zones are approved by the Student Assignment Work Team Committee. 4. Establish 99-2000 data base of proposed attendance zones. 5. Building capacity study review to determine building utilization! capacities at high schools. 6. Educate the community surrounding Mitchell and Garland regarding the scheduled closing for the 2000-2001 school year. 7. Inservice building staff / cabinet on proposed zones Reference to Plan(s) Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Timeline July, Aug. 98 Aug., Sept. 98 Sept. 98 Sept. 98 Sept. 98 Sept. 98 Oct. 98 Responsibility Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs John Ruffins Julie Wiedower Victor Anderson Junious Babbs Victor Anderson Junious Babbs Sadie Mitchell Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Evidence of Success T Report generated by Edulog mapping software. Committee agendas! minutes Minutes reflect adoption of proposed attendance zones 99-2000 Data Base Principal agenda / Distribution of capacity recommendations Agendas and meeting dates of community meetings Agendas / Meeting dates for inservice sessions 7SH|3rTMl/Artlvitie8 I RefeTenceta Plan{s) Timeline ResjransibiUiy 8. A series of informational announcements! programs will be provided (i.e. media ! press releases, publications. Town Hall meetings, cable program presentations). 9. Reassessment of magnet seat allocation for elementary / high schools. 10. Survey students and parents to seek input toward the proposed restructing and their 99-2000 intended school assignment. 11. Adopt LRSD attendance zones. 12. Registration for voluntary transfers 13. Notify parents of 1999-2000 school assignment 14. Notify parents of 1999-2000 4-year-old assignment. 15. LRSD will continue to promote and participate in Interdistrict school agreement with PCSSD. Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg. Plan Section 4 Oct., Nov. 98 Oct. 98 Nov. 98 Dec. 98 Feb. 99 March 99 April 99 June 99 Junious Babbs Suellen Vann Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs Sadie Mitchell Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower LRSD Board of Directors Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Publication of informational materials MRC report recommending revised magnet seat allocations Survey Document mailing Board vote / approval of new attendance zones Student / Parent application Parent / Student notification letters Parent! Student notification letters Meeting dates and agendas for work sessions. 8Priority\nIL Technology A-D \nMajoriiTaskaZActivlties - Plan Reference A. Wide Area Network 2.9 5.4 B. Technology Labs 2.9 5.4 1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities ..Timeline -\nJanuary 1999 Original implementation McClellan 1998-99 Responsibility.\n,i Ruffins/Lyon Lyon/Carter , Evidence of Success , All schools will have minimum Internet access to library and office Lab(s) operational with corresponding levels of student utilization and success. C. ACC Learning Labs 1) Metro-ACC 2) ALC 2.9 5.4 5.6 Original implementation 08-98 Expansion 1999 Ruffins/Lyon/Green/Sain Lower drop out rate D. Training 2.9 5.4 On-going Lyon/Staff % of initially trained staff1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority: III. Quality Index: 1) Customer Service \u0026amp; Campus Learning Climate Major Tasks/Activities 1) Provide assessment documents to ascertain customer service level of satisfaction based on quality indicators 2) Provide assessment documents to ascertain level of satisfaction of campus learning climate. 3) Recommend and provide for appropriate staff development for increasing levels of satisfaction (quality) for customer service and campus learning climate Plan Reference 2.8 2.12 5.7 6.4 2.5.1-4 2.6 2.7 5.7 6.4 2.12.1 2.13 Timeline June 1999 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Lease / Cluster A Lease / Cluster A Lease / Cluster A Evidence of Success a. assessment document b. state approval c. long-term improvement plan a. assessment document b. state approved c. long term improvement plan a. plaiy of communication b. staff development activities JO-CLUSTER A QUALITY INDEX: CUSTOMER SERVICE \u0026amp; SCHOOL CLIMATE 1998-99 MEETING DATES Monday, September 14, 1998 1:30-3:30 p.m. Monday, November 16,1998 1:30-3:30 p.m. Wednesday, February 17, 1999 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. Thursday, May 6, 1999 9:30-11:30 a.m. SCHOOL PRINCIPAL/STAFF REPRESENTATIVE Central Dunbar Henderson Pulaski Heights Jr. Badgett Bale Forest Park Jefferson Mitchell Pulaski Heights ADMINISTRATION Rudolph Howard Betsy Hall-Jones Debbie Berry Julie Western James Washington Kim Dobbins-Owens Nancy Rousseau Janet Buford Mary Golston Janice Gunderman Barbara Anderson Judith Courtney Teresa Courtney Janet Ghant Susan Beard Lucy Rhodes Lillie Scull Margaret Regnier Lillie Carter LauraBeth Arnold Kathy Lease (Lead) Linda Watson Suellen Vann Junious Babbs Debbie Milam Pat Price Doug Eaton Darrel Paradis Mike Martello Morlin McCoy Terrence Roberts IV1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority: Quality Index: 2) Student Achievement \u0026amp; Value Added Incentives Major Tasks/Activities 1) Identify specific achievement indicators 2) Identify specific standards/ benchmarks 3) Value added indicators Plan Reference 2.7 5.2.1 5.3 2.7 5.2 5.3 5.8 Timeline June 1999 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Lesley / Cluster B Lesley / Cluster B Lesley / Cluster B Evidence of Success a. Board approval b. communication plan c. curriculum aligned for improved results a. aligned with state standards b. Board approval c. communication plan a. Board approval b. communication planCLUSTER B QUALITY INDEX: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT \u0026amp; VALUE ADDES INCENTIVE 1998-99 MEETING DATES SCHOOL PRINCIPAUSTAFF REPRESENTATIVE Fair William Broadnax Rosie Beyah Tuesday, September 15, 1998 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. Friday, November 20, 1998 9:30-11:30 a.m. Thursday, February 18, 1999 9:30-11:30 a.m. Wednesday, May 5, 1999 1:30-3:30 p.m. Mabelvale Jr. Jim Fullerton Dorothy Jones Southwest Jim Mosby Betty Williford Booker Magnet Cheryl Carson Vivian Dooley Garland Lionel Ward King Tyrone Harris Ann Gregory Mabelvale Tab Phillips Marilyn Jacuzzi Meadowcliff Jerry Worm Karen Burgess Otter Creek Janis Tucker Beverly Kinneman Wilson Beverly Jones Susan West ADMINISTRATION Bonnie Lesley (Lead) Gene Parker Yvette Dillingham Marie McNeal John Ruffins Dick Hurley Stephen Ross1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority: Quality Index: 3) Attendance - Teacher/Student/At Risk Dropout Major Tasks/Activities 1) Identify specific standards for student attendance by grade level 2) Identify specific standards for teacher attendance. 3) Create incentives for 1 \u0026amp; 2 to recognize and create improvement in 1 \u0026amp;2 4) Identify students for at-risk and drop out reduction Plan Reference 2.6 2.9 2.11 2.6 5.8 2.4 2.5.4 2.7 Timeline June 1999 June 1999 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Evidence of Success Board adopted standards Board adopted standards Budgetary allowances for plan 1999-2000 Reduction in drop-outs ItCLUSTER C QUALITY INDEX: ATTENDANCE \u0026amp; AT-RISK/DROP OUT PREVENTION 1998-99 MEETING DATES SCHOOL PRINCIPAL/STAFF REPRESENTATIVE Hall Gayle Bradford Dennis Brant Wednesday, September 16, 1998 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, November 17,1998 1:30-3:30 p.m. Tuesday, February 16, 1999 9:30-11:30 a.m. Wednesday, May 5,1999 9:30-11:30 am. Forest Heights Vernon Smith Vincent Dodson Brady Carver Magnet Fair Park Franklin Fulbright McDermott Romine Williams Magnet ADMINISTRATION Ada Keown Susanne Gamble Dianne Barksdale Linda Ammel Samuel Branch Lee Etta Lewis Ethel Dunbar Sheryl Jackson Deborah Mitchell Beth Johnson Virginia Ashley Darlene Dial Sharon Davis Mary Menking Nancy Morton Sadie Mitchell (Lead) Jo Evelyn Elston Carol Green Lloyd Sain Bobby Jones Paulette Martin Valerie Hudson Mark Mllhollen Brady Gadberry1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority: Quality Index: 4) Guidelines, Administrative Policy \u0026amp; Campus Report Card Major TasksZActivities 1) Develop guidelines and administrative policy for campus leadership implementation 2) State developed campus report card is modified to include district quality indicators Plan Reference 6 5 6 Timeline On-going June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Carnine / Cluster D Carnine / Cluster D Evidence of Success Guidelines and policies are published and communicated. Document and plan for communication complete.CLUSTER D CAMPUS LEADERSHIP: GUIDELINES, ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY \u0026amp; CAMPUS REPORT CARD 1998-99 MEETING DATES SCHOOL PRINCIPAUSTAFF REPRESENTATIVE McClellan Jodie Carter Loretta Davenport Thursday, September 17, 1998 1:30-3:30 p.m. Wednesday, November 18,1998 9:30-11:30 a.m. Tuesday, February 16,1999 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. Thursday, May 6, 1999 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. Cloverdale Jr. Cassandra Norman Fran Ables Chicot Jane Harkey Barbara Williams Cloverdale Elem. Frederick Fields Les Taylor Geyer Springs Donna Hall Evelyn Stubblefield Rightsell Sharon Brooks Delwin Smith Rockefeller Anne Mangan Dana Keller Wakefield Mary Jane Cheatham Gail Washington Washington Gwen Ziegler Rose Barnes Watson Mike Oliver Lisa Maxwell ADMINISTRATION Les Gamine (Lead) Marion Woods Brady Gadberry Dennis Glasgow Patty Kohler Linda Young Mona Briggs in1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority: Quality Index: 5) Planning and Campus Goals (COE) Major Tasks/Activities Create planning process to support LR charge for Total Quality Schools and state campus accountability Plan Reference 5 6 Timeline June 1999 Responsibility Cawthon/Lacey/Cluster E Evidence of Success Planning documents and procedures ready for campus leadership team implementation.CLUSTER E CAMPUS LEADERSHIP: PLANNING \u0026amp; CAMPUS GOALS 1998-99 MEETING DATES SCHOOL PRINCIPAL/STAFF REPRESENTATIVE Parkview Linda Brown Marcelline Carr Metropolitan Monday, September 21,1998 1:30-3:30 p.m. Wednesday, November 18,1998 1:30-3:30 p.m. Wednesday, February 17, 1999 9:30-11:30 a.m. Tuesday, May 4,1999 1:30-3:30 p.m. ALC Mann Magnet Baseline Dodd Gibbs Magnet Terry Western Hills Woodruff ADMINISTRATION Mike Peterson Darrell Berry Lloyd Sain Brenda James Bonnie Bumpers Eleanor Cox Cathy Koehler Faith Donovan Barbara Kennedy Felicia Hobbs Nancy Mitchell Nancy Acre Margo Rowe Scott Morgan Ruth Schwerin Pat Higginbotham Janice Wilson Marian Lacey (Co-Lead) Frances Cawthon (Co-Lead) Mable Donaldson Lucy Lyon Leon Adams Ed Williams Vanessa CleaverIII. B 1998-99 Work Plan for the Division of Instruction Little Rock School District I) CONTINUUM OF KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS 1. Review and recommend revisions of the Boards Instruction policies. 2. Complete the 7-12 curriculum standards in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 bTCgyTTBi  April 1999 Jan. 1999 Bonnie Lesley Linda Young A!'-Ri' T -.5^ Report to Dr. Camine of recommended changes. Board approval of recommended changes 3. Construct curriculum maps of LRSD standards/benchmarks with Arkansas standards, SAT9 testing objectives (plus other tests as appropriate), and instructional materials. 4. Review and revise middle and high school Curriculum Catalog: conduct orientation sessions for central office staff, principals, and counselors. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 1 Jan. 1999 Dec. 1998 Gene Parker, Team Leader Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon ADE___________ Gene Parker, Team Leader Dermis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon ADE____________ Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon Carol Green Jo Evelyn Elston Board approval of Standards documents. Publication of curriculum standards. Publication of K-12 curriculum maps. Publication of new K-12 Curriculum Catalog. Agendas and meeting dates for orientation sessions. JO5. Develop specific plan for implementation of K-6 curriculum standards in English language arts and social studies. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Feb. 1999 6. Pilot new science curriculum in selected classes at grades K-8. NSF Project. Goals 2000. 1998-99 7. Pilot new mathematics curriculum in selected classes at grades K-8. NSF Project. Goals 2000. 1998-99 8. Complete plan for middle school curriculum for fall 1999. 9. Publish Middle and High School Student/Parent Curriculum Handbooks. 10. Define and establish Delivery Standards. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section 5.4. Goals 2000. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 and Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Goals 2000.____________ Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Oct. 1998 Jan. 1999 Jan. 1999 Gene Parker Marie McNeal Pat Price Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Dermis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Linda Young Gene Parker Bonnie Lesley Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacy Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Professional development agendas and meeting dates. Publication of curriculum documents. Teacher familiarity with K-6 standards as measured on end-of-year survey. Professional development agendas and meeting dates. Publication of curriculum documents. Teacher familiarity of K-8 standards as measured on end-of-year survey. Professional development agendas and meeting dates. Publication of curriculum documents. Teacher familiarity of K-8 standards as measured on end-of-year survey. Publication of committee recommendations. Board approval of recommendations. Publication of Middle and High School Curriculum Catalogs. Publication of Middle and High School Student/Parent Curriculum Handbooks. Agendas and meeting dates for committee meetings. Publication of committee recommendations. Board approval of Delivery Standards. Agendas and meeting dates for professional development sessions for principals.11. Align school schedules, Pre- K12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/ coaching, and parent information/ education with Strategic Plan, Desegregation Plan, and Smart Start. 12. Align school schedules, mathematics curriculum, and professional development with Strategic Plan and Desegregation Plan. 13. Develop in collaboration wi Linda Watson a list of behavior standards\nadopt a discipline/ classroom management/ character education program and curriculum for teaching the behavior standards to all students. 14. Propose for Board adoption revised Graduation Standards and revision of the core curriculum requirements to align with new state requirements. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. abd igaitf^ j. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2, and 5.2.3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4,5.3.5. NSF Project. Strategic Plan: Strategy 10. Goals 2000 State law. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section 5.4. Goals 2000 Nov. 1998 Nov. 1998 Mar. 1999 Nov. 1998 ^SK^SBiSSl^SKSS Gene Parker Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Leon Adams Marion Woods ADE Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Leon Adams Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Pat Price Marion Woods ADE__________ Marie McNeal Jo Evelyn Elston Patty Kohler Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Terrence Roberts Kathy Lease Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacy Report on review of school schedules. Agendas and meeting dates for teacher training. Publication of curriculum documents. Board adoption of proposed Reading Curriculum goals. Report on review of school schedules. Agendas and meeting dates for teacher training. Publication of curriculum documents. Board adoption of proposed Mathematics Curriculum goals. Agendas and dates of committee meetings. Board approval of Behavior Standards. Board approval of character education curriculum. Publication of curriculum documents. Agendas and dates of teacher training during summer 1999. Board adoption of new Graduation Standards. Publication of new requirements in Curriculum Catalog and in the Middle/High School Student/ Parent Curriculum Handbooks.15. Implement Year One of NSF grant project: Extended Year Alg. I\nAP examinations\nnew teacher training\nVital Link\nand Family Math/Science programs. NSF Project Sept. 1999 Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Records relating to Extended Year Alg. I. Board adoption of policy relating to AP examinations. Agendas and dates of teacher training. Agendas and dates of meetings with Vertical Teams. Agendas and dates of Family Math/Science meetings. Copy of report submitted to NSF.2) PERSONALIZED EDUCATION 16. Develop Early Childhood Education plan for fall 1999, to include plan to implement any grant-funded early childhood initiatives. 17. Develop K-12 talent development plan to improve G/T, honors, and AP student enrollment and success (e.g.. Project AVID). 18. Review Title I programs and services to align with COE, Smart Start, Campus Leadership Plan, NSF, Strategic Plan, and Desegregation and Education Plan. 19. Complete plaiming for middle schools and smooth transitions from elementary and to high schools. Strategic Plan: Strategy 8. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section 2.7 and 5.1. Goals 2000 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Sections 2.6,2.6.1, and 2.6.2. NSF Project Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section 2.7. NSF Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section 3.4. Goals 2000 Feb. 1999 Nov. 1998 Jan. 1999 Dec. 1998 Pat Price Marian Shead-Jackson Patty Kohler Carol Green Aleecia Starkey Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Marie McNeal Dennis Glasgow Mona Gibbs Jo Evelyn Elston Marion Woods Terrence Roberts ADE__________ Bonnie Lesley Leon Adams Kathy Lease Dermis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Steve Ross Phyllis McClure ADE_______ Kathy Lease Linda Young M.S. Committees Report on current status of Early Childhood programs. Publication of Early Childhood Improvement Plan. Board adoption of Early Childhood Improvement Plan. Publication of reorganization of Early Childhood programs and services as per Plan. Agendas and meeting dates of committee. Publication of recommended revisions to current policies, procedures, and programs. Board adoption of recommended changes. Publication of revised Quality Index that included requirements of Title I Publication of consolidated School Improvement Plan format to include requirements of Title I Report from consultant, Phyllis McClure Documentation of changes in Title I programs and services Publication of committee recommendations Board approval of committee recommendations20. Complete planning for ninth grade curriculum aligned with new graduation requirements and the districts standards. 21. Assess ESL program and services and develop program improvement plan with estimated budget. 22. Review special education programs, policies, and/or procedures to ensure no racial discrimination in referral and placement. 23. Begin needs assessment and initial planning for implementation of Smart Start program from ADE. Strategic Plan\nStrategy 2 and Strategy 3 State laws. Strategic Plan: Strategy! Goals 2000 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section 2.4. Arkansas initiative. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section 2.7. Nov. 1998 June 1998 Dec. 1998 Jan. 1999 Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Leon Adams Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Pat Price Patty Kohler Publication of committee recommendations. Board approval of committee recommendations. Publication of report and improvement plan. Board approval of plan and budget. Copies of recommended changes in programs, policies, and/or procedures Board approval of recommended changes Dates and agendas of Division and team meetings. Publication of implementation plan Report to Board-minutes3) PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 24. Complete planning and begin implementation of middle school professional development program. 25. Conduct in collaboration with Sadie Mitchell and her staff the Year One training for Campus Leadership Plan. 26. Restructure the districts professional development program and services so that they build professional learning communities at the district and school levels. 27. Implement Year One of ASCDs UPDI project with focus on school change and improving achievment in reading and mathematics. 28. Provide training in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. 29. Consolidate COE, Campus Leadership, Title I, and Instructional Technology planning requirements in collaboration with cluster assignment\ndesign and plan training for Campus Leadership Teams. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section 2.12. Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 7 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 2.6.1,2.12.1, 5.2. Ij, 5.2.2g, 5.2.3e, 5.3.1 Campus Leadership Plan NSF ASCDs UPDI ASCDs UPDI Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section 2.12 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section 2.12 and 2.12.1. COE Campus Leadership Plan Title I Instructional Technology Plan Jan. 1999 June 1999 Oct. 1998 June 1999 June 1999 Jan. 1999 Linda Young Marion Woods Mona Briggs Kathy Lease Prof. Dev.Committee Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Gene Parker Kathy Lease Patty Kohler Boimie Lesley Director, Professional Development Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Director, Professional Development Marion Woods Marion Woods City of Little Rock Terrence Roberts Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell and her cluster team Leon Adams Lucy Lyon Director, Professional Development Marion Woods Publication of committee recommendations Agendas and meeting dates for professional development sessions Publication of training plan Agendas and meeting dates for sessions Agendas and meeting dates of team meetings Copy of restucturing plan Board approval of plan Agendas and dates of activities Copies of quarterly reports to ASCD Agendas and dates of sessions Copies of new planning format and process Publication of training plan Agendas and dates of training sessions 3-^30. Develop menus of researchbased and approved schoolwide change models and instructional/curriculum interventions to guide schools in improvement efforts. 31. Assemble a library of reference folders on a wide variety of topics related to school improvement to send to schools upon request. 32. Write and prepare for Fall 1999 distribution a Beginning Teachers Handbook. 33. Provide focussed and appropriate training for certified staff in Division of Instruction to improve productivity and leadership. 34. Provide appropriate technology and general training for clerical staff of Division of Instruction to improve productivity and communication. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Title I Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Title I Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 6 Goals 2000 Goals 2000 Campus Leadership Plan Strategic Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Smart Start Title I COE Strategic Plan Feb. 1999 Jan. 1999 May 1999 June 1999 June 1999 Bonnie Lesley Leon Adams Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Vanessa Cleaver ' Marion Woods Selma Hobby Marion Woods Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Lucy Lyon 'iL Publication of recommended menus. Publication and agendas for training the Campus Leadership Teams. Publication of list of resource topics available and the procedures to access them. Publication of handbook. Agendas and meeting dates for training sessions. Copies of needs assessments Agendas and dates of training sessions35. Provide training for teachers and counselors to improve minority student access and success in Pre-AP and AP courses. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section 2.6.2 NSF Project Nov. 1998 Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Mable Donaldson Vanessa Cleaver Gene Parker Marie McNeal Dennis Glasgow Mona Gibbs Jo Evelyn Elston Marion Woods Terrence Roberts ADE Agendas and meeting dates of committee. Publication of recommended revisions to current policies, procedures, and programs. Board adoption of recommended changes.4) BUILDING COMMUNITY SUPPORT 36. Design plan to collaborate with the business community to deliver the Arkansas Scholars program in grade 8 during spring 1999._______________________ 37. Restructure the districts parent/community programs and services to align with the Strategic Plan, the Desegregation and Education Plan, the Campus Leadership Plan, the NSF project. Smart Start, and the requirements of Title 1. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (sections of enriched, honors, gifted, and advanced placement- courses). Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Strategy 8. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section 2.8, 5.7. Campus Leadership Plan Goals 2000 Dec. 1999 Dec. 1998 Debbie Milam Linda Young Gene Parker Bonnie Lesley Debbie Milam Leon Adams Catherine Gill Linda Young Patty Kohler Pat Price Paulette Martin Marian Shead-Jackson Marian Baldwin Vanessa Cleaver Terrence Roberts Dates and agendas for meetings. Incorporation in and publication of K-12 Talent Development Plan. Agendas and meeting dates of restructuring team Publication of reorganization and restructuring plan Board approval of reorganization and restructuring plan5) COMMUNICATION . K j\ni C4 j iTF 38. Communicate curriculum standards so that all parents and students understand the expected knowledge and skills by grade level and course. 39. Communicate aspects of middle school planning to students, parents, and community for fall 1999.________________ 40. Provide second-language translations of key documents for students and parents. 41. Implement Learning Links, a weekly publication for principals from the Division of Instruction. 42. Publish at least six issues of a newsletter for teachers from the Division of Instruction. 43. Conduct twice-a-month meetings for staff in the Division of Instruction. 44. Conduct quarterly meetings of all clerical staff in the Division of Instruction. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Strategic Plan: Strategy 3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Student Success Model Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Student Success Model Student Success Model Student Success Model May 1999 May 1999 May 1999 September 1998 June 1999 June 1999 August 1998 June 1999 Bonnie Lesley Suellen Vann Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Terrence Roberts Kathy Lease 'Linda Young Terrence Roberts Gene Parker Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Anita Gilliam Regina Moore Marian Baldwin Suellen Vann Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley and designated staff Agendas and meeting dates of team Publication of communications plan Agendas and publications to implement plan Agendas and meeting dates of team Publication of communications plan Agendas and publications to implement plan Publication of documents in second languages Copies of weekly publications Copies of publications. Dates and agendas of meetings. Agendas and dates of meetings6) ASSESSMENT 45. Design and administer CRTs for fall 1998 in reading and mathematics. 46. Design refined CRTs for reading, mathematics, science, and social studies for piloting in spring 1999 and for implementation in fall 1999. 47. Establish Performance Standards in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. 48. Reinvent PRE programs and services to support the Campus Leadership Plan. 49. Refine the Quality Index indicators and develop district and school profiles according to the proposed Quality Index. 50. Embed Title 1 and Smart Start accountability requirements into the Quality Index. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy 8 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 5.2.1g, 5.2.2e,5.2.3r, and 5.3.2 Campus Leadership Plan NSF Title I and Smart Start COE Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan Title I requirements Sept. 1998 Dec. 1998 Feb. 1999 Dec. 1998 Feb. 1999 Feb. 1999 Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Kathy Lease Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Dennis Glasgow Gene Parker Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Steve Ross Bonnie Lesley Cluster B Kathy Lease Steve Ross ADE Bonnie Lesley Cluster B Kathy Lease Leon Adams Steve Ross ADE Publication of CRTs Agendas and dates for training sessions Publication of plan Agendas and dates for training sessions Publication of communications plan for staff, parents, and students Agendas and dates of team meetings Publication of proposed Performance Standards Board approval of proposed Performance Standards Copy of reorganization plan Copy of revised Quality Index Copy of revised Quality Index J51. Begin transition plan for a way of reporting to parents on student progress toward meeting the standards and develop plan to redesign the student grading and reporting system to reflect the standards-based focus of the district. 52. Design waiver form and process for schools seeking waivers from policy relating to Campus Leadership. 53. Redesign end-of-year climate survey to include items relating to measuring progress of reform. 54. Design for Board approval an agenda for evaluation of the Districts academic programs. Strategic Plan: Strategy 2. Campus Leadership Plan Campus Leadership Plan Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Section 2.7.1 Campus Leadership Plan June 1999 October 1998 Feb. 1999 March 1999 Kathy Lease Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Steve Ross Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell Kathy Lease Bonnie Lesley Steve Ross Agendas and dates of team meetings Publication of report and recommendations Board approval of changes in grading system and reporting system Plan for teacher/principal training Budget for redesign of report cardsand paper Jectronic Copy of proposed waiver form and process Copy of new survey instruments Agenda item for Board approval. Minutes of the Board meeting.IV. FINANCIAL PLAN A Management Audit Major Tasks/Actlvtties Plan Reference 1. Review and discuss issues among the parties 2. Develop RFP 3. Select vendor 4. Schedule management study activities 5. Conduct stud\\' 6. Implementation of recommendations 7. Public report of implementation results B. Campus and District Needs - Capital 1. Campus Facilities I Major Tasks/Activities 1. Review Facilities Study for recommendations on facilities repair and renovation Plan Reference Facilities Study, Volumes 1-13 Financial Priorities Action Plan - Outline Little Rock School District Timeline July 1998 July 1998 September 19998 October 1998 October 1998- March 1999 March 1999- August 1999 August 1999 Timeline October 1998 - November 1998 Responsibility Alliance Board, LRSD Board, LRSD Administration, Chamber of Commerce and business community rcpreselitatives Victor Anderson, Darial Paradis Alliance Board Chamber of Commerce Victor Anderson, LRSD Administration MGT of America LRSD Administration LRSD Administration, LRSD Board, Alliance Board, Chamber reps, business community reps Responsibffity Victor Anderson, Doug Eaton Evidence of Success Recommendation to proceed with management audit Completed RFP Selection of vendor Time line of activities Completed study Completed implementation report Completed report of implementation results Evidence of Success_________________ List of recommended repairs and renovationsMajor Tisks/Activitics 2. Review Facilities Services current recommendations for facilities repairs, renovations 3. Survey school communities for current recommendations for repairs and renovations 4. Review repairs and renovations lists and determine priorities for projects 5. Determine costs of priority list of repair and renovation projects 6. Form Capital Development Team 7. Capital Development Team reviews recommendations of MGT relative to stmcturing capital campaign, reviews cost data on renovation and repair project list, and designs a strategy for raising the capital necessary for the repair and renovation projects 8. Form Capital Needs Awareness Team Finn Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Sections 2.9, 5.5 Timeline October 1998 - November 1998 October 1998 - November 1998 January 1999 - February 1999 March 1999 - April 1999 May 1999 May 1999 - June 1999 June 1999 - Responsibility Victor Anderson, Doug Eaton, Sadie Mitchell, Sue Ellen Vann, Frances Cawthon, Marian Lacey, Principals, Campus Leadership Teams, PTAs Evidence of Success List of recommended repairs and renovations Sadie Mitchell, Doug Eaton, Les Camine, Victor Anderson List of recommended repairs and renovations Victor Anderson, Doug Eaton, Morl in McCoy, Sadie Mitchell, Frances Cawthon, Marian Lacey, Principals, Campus Leadership Teams, PTAs Doug Eaton and Facilities Services staff Les Camine, LRSD Board, Alliance Board, Chamber reps, business community reps Capital Development Team, Victor Anderson, Mark Milhollen Les Camine, LRSD Board, Alliance Board, Chamber reps. Business I community reps Completed list of priorities for projects Completed list of costs for projects Team is organized Capital strategy for renovation and repair projects completed Team is organizedMajor Tasks/Activities 9. Capital Needs Awareness Team reviews the renovation and repair project list, and the capital strategy for renovation and repair, and develops an awareness campaign for the community 10. Delivery of the Capital Needs Awareness Campaign 11. Schedule and begin repair and renovation projects Plan Reference Timeline July 1999- August 1999 August 1999 - September 1999 October 1999- June 2000 Campus and District Needs - Capital 2. New Construction Major Tasks/Activities 1. . Review revised Desegregation and Education Plan for direction on new school construction 2. Develop plan for the constmction of Stephens School 3. Begin construction on Stephens school Responsibility Capital Needs Awareness Team, Victor Anderson, Sue Ellen Vann Capital Needs Awareness Team, LRSD Board, LRSD Administration, Victor Anderson, Sue Ellen Vann, Principals, Campus Leadership Teams, PTAs, Alliance Board, Chamber reps. Business community reps Doug Eaton, Darral Paradis, Victor Anderson Evidence of Success Completion of community awareness campaign design Campaign results in positive vote in millage election Completion of repair and renovation projects, improved customer service, increased customer satisfaction, greater public and faculty support Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Section 3.6 Timeline Spring 1998 May 1998 - September 1998 May 1999 Responsibility__________ LRSD Board, Les Camine, Doug Eaton, Sadie Mitchell LRSD Board, Les Camine, Doug Eaton, Sadie Mitchell, Stephens School community. City of Little Rock reps Construction contractor Evidence of Success Determine plan requirements Plan is completed Regular construction progress reportsMajor Tasks/Activities 4, Order furniture and Plan Reference 5. equipment for Stephens school Provide new construction cost data to MGT for inclusion in management study relative to structuring a capital campaign 6. Develop plan for the construction of a West Little Rock School 7. 8. Determine costs for the West Little Rock School project Provide new construction project list and cost data to Capital Development Team 9. Capital Development Team reviews recommendations of MGT relative to structuring capital campaign, reviews cost data on the new construction project list, and designs a strategy for raising the capital necessary for the new construction projects Timeline December 1999 December 1998 May 1998 - November 1998 May 1999 May 1999 May 1999 - June 1999 Responsibility_______ Sadie Mitchell, Stephens Principal, Stephens faculty, Doug Eaton, Darral Paradis, Victor Anderson Victor Anderson LRSD Board, Les Camine, Doug Eaton'. Sadie Mitchell, Victor Anderson, West Little Rock School community Doug Eaton, architects Victor Anderson, Doug Eaton Capital Development Team, Victor Anderson, Mark Milhollen Evidence of Success Orders processed by the Procurement Department Cost data provided Plan is completed List of project costs determined Team receives list Capital strategy for new construction projects completed 3^Major Tasks/Activities 10. Capital Needs Awareness Team reviews the new construction project list, and the capital strategy for new construction, and develops an awareness campaign for the community 11. Delivery of the Capital Needs Awareness Campaign 12. Complete construction of Stephens school 13. Open new Stephens School 14. Finalize plan for the construction of West Little Rock School 15. Begin construction 16. Complete construction of West Little Rock School 17. Deliver Furniture and other furnishings_____ 18. Open new West Little Rock School Plan Reference Timeline July 1999- August 1999 August 1999 - September 1999 June 2000 August 2000 October 1999- December 1999 May 2000 June 2001 June - July 2001 August 2001 Responsibility Capital Needs Awareness Team, Victor Anderson, Sue Ellen Vann Capital Needs Awareness Team, LRSD Board, LRSD Administration, Victor Anderson, Sue Ellen Vann, Principals, Campus Leadership Teams, PTAs, Alliance Board, Chamber reps. Business community reps Contractor, Doug Eaton, Victor Anderson Sadie Mitchell, Principal, Faculty LRSD Board, Les Camine, Doug Eaton, Sadie Mitchell, West Little Rock community. City of Little Rock reps Building Contractor__________ Contractor, Doug Eaton, Victor Anderson______ Darral Paradis, Victor Anderson Sadie Mitchell, Principal, Faculty Evidence of Success Completion of community awareness campaign design Campaign results in positive vote in millage election Construction completed Occupy the new Stephens building Plan is completed Regular building construction reports Construction completed School ready for opening Occupy the new West Little Rock buildingCampus and District Needs - Capital 3. Planning for Surplus Buildings Major Tasks/Activities I. Review Revised Desegregation and Desegregation Plan for direction on use of surplus buildings. 2. Develop plan for the continuing use of Garland School and Mitchell School after the opening of Stephens in August 2000. 3. Develop action plan for the implementation of the continuing use plan for Garland and Mitchell sites 4. Implement continuing use plan for Mitchell and Garland sites following end of 1999-2000 school year Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Section 3.6 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Section 3.6 Facilities Study, Volumes 1-13 Campus and District Needs-Capital 4. Timeline September 1998 October 1998 - March 1999 October 1999- December 1999 January 2000- June 2000 Planning for Relocation of Administrative Space Major Tasks/Activities 1. Determine need to relocate administrative office space 2. . Assess space needs, determine costs, allocate funding for new site Responsibility Victor Anderson, Doug Eaton, Junious Babbs, Sadie Mitchell Victor Anderson, Doug Eaton, Sadie Mitchell, Junious Babbs, LRSD Board, Les Camine, Garland and Mitchell school communities Doug Eaton, Mark Milhollen, Sadie Mitchell, Victor Anderson Doug Eaton, Mark Milhollen, Sadie Mitchell, Victor Anderson Evidence of Success Determine plan requirements Plan for continuing use developed Completed action plan District houses a program or tenant that is acceptable to the surrounding community in the Garland and Mitchell sites Plan Reference Facilities Study, Volume 13 Timeline September 1998 - June 1999 July 1999 - January 2000 Responsibility Doug Eaton, Victor Anderson Doug Eaton, Mark Milhollen, Victor Anderson Evidence of Success__________ Completion of needs assessment Completed space utilization plan, cost determination, search of comparable available sites, budget allocatedMajor Tasks/Activities Plan Reference 3. Select site for administrative relocation, negotiate lease or purchase 4. Advertise and sell administrative site to be sold 5. Relocate administrative space C. Transportation Major Tasks/Activities 1. Review Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for direction regarding transportation 2. Develop and implement action plan to ensure compliance with plan obligations 3. Negotiate contract with Laidlaw for 1999-2000 school year 4. Develop action plan for Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and education Plan, applicable sections 5. improvement of operations - Transportation Dept. Determine cost and develop the budget for the Transportation Department for the 1999-200 budget year Timeline February 2000 May 2000- February 2000 May 2000 - June 2000-July 2000 Timeline September - October 1998 October 1998- June 1999 November 1998-December 1998 January 1999 January 1999- February 1999 Responsibility Doug Eaton, Mark Milhollen, Victor Anderson, reps of the administrative unit to be relocated Doug Eaton, Victor Anderson Doug Eaton, Victor Anderson Responsibility Victor Anderson Mike Martello, Darral Paradis, Victor Anderson, Junious Babbs, Principals Mike Martello, Darral Paradis, Victor Anderson, Mark Milhollen Mike Martello, Victor Anderson Mike Martello, Darral Paradis, Mark Milhollen, Victor Anderson Evidence of Success Site selection documents, completed lease or purchase documents Property listed with agent, sale closed New administrative space occupied Evidence of Success Completed review Completed action plan, plan obligations regarding transportation are met Negotiated contract Completed action plan Completed Transportation Department budget for 1999-2000Major Tasks/Activities 6. Implement action plan Plan Reference Timeline February 1999- June 1999 Responsibility Mike Martello, Victor Anderson Evidence of Success Improved operational efficiency, improved customer service, greater customer satisfaction and support D. Security Major Tasks/Activities 1. Survey buildings for adequacy of fire and intrusion alarm systems and video surveillance equipment systems Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Section 2.9 Timeline September 1998- October 1998 Responsibility Bobby Jones and Security staff Evidence of Success Report on system adequacy 2. 3. Determine priorities for system replacement, costs, and develop projects for system replacement Develop funding strategy for projects 4. Implement alarm and video system projects 5. Develop Quality Index relative to school climate - safety and security 6. Implement Quality Index relative to safety and security 7. Develop action plan to address results of Quality Index relative to security 8. Implement action plans November- December 1998 May 1999 October 1999- June 2000 January 1999 - February 1999 March 1999 March-April 1999 May -June 1999 Bobby Jones, Darral Paradis Bobby Jones , Victor Anderson Bobby Jones, Darral Paradis, Mark Milhollen, Victor Anderson Cluster A, Campus Leadership Teams Bobby Jones, Victor Anderson Campus Leadership Teams Campus Leadership Teams, Bobby Jones, Victor Anderson Campus Leadership Teams, Bobby Jones, Victor Anderson Alarm replacement project list completed Funding strategy implemented Alarm and video system upgrades are installed in buildings Quality Index completed Results of Quality Index Completed action plan Improved security conditions, improved customer service, greater patron supportTechnology Major Tasks/Activities 1 Provide technology project list and cost data to Capital Development Team 2. Capital Development Team reviews recommendations of MGT relative to structuring capital campaign, reviews cost data on the technology project list, and designs a strategy for raising the capital necessary for the technology projects 3. Capital Needs Awareness Team reviews the technology project list, and the capital strategy for technology, and develops an awareness campaign for the community 4. Delivery of the Capital Needs Awareness Campaign 5. Implement Technology projects Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Section 2.9 - Strategic Plan, Strategy 11, Action step 3 Timeline May 1999 May 1999 - June 1999 July 1999 - August 1999 August 1999 - September 1999 October 1999- June 2000 Responsibility Victor Anderson, John Ruffins, Lucy Lyon, Technology Work Team rep Capital Development Team, Victor Anderson, Mark Milhollen Capital Needs Awareness Team, Victor Anderson, Sue Ellen Vann Capital Needs Awareness Team, LRSD Board, LRSD Administration, Victor Anderson, Sue Ellen Vann, Principals, Campus Leadership Teams, PTAs, Alliance Board, Chamber reps. Business community reps John Ruffins, Lucy Lyon, Darral Paradis, Mark Milhollen, Victor Anderson Evidence of Success Team receives list Capital strategy for technology projects completed Completion of community awareness campaign design Campaign results in positive vote in millage election Technology projects implemented in buildingsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE RECEWED FEB 3 1999 School Board Presentation February 3, 1999 5:00 P.M. Outline I. Desegregation and Education Plan A. B. Policies: A major effort which continues very close to schedule Middle School I. Curriculum 2. Staffing J. Staff Development c. 4. Budget Communication 1. Neighborhood Schools 2. Middle Schools / 9*^ Grade Transition J. Registration D. 4. StephensGarland / Mitchell Registration 1. Neighborhood Schools 2. Early Childhood II. Technology A. B. Wide Area Net Work Technology Labs I. EASTMcClellan 2. ACCPlato J. ALCJostens C. D. Training Planning for the Future (Lyon memo) III. Campus Leadership A. Quality Index 1. Customer Service \u0026amp; Campus Learning Climate 2. Student Achievement- QUALITY INDICATORS J. Attendance 4. Administrative Regulations \u0026amp; Guidelines 5. Quality Initiative and Planning ModelTechnical Assistance to C.L.T. February 3, 1999 Page 2 Outline B. Student Success Model 1. Knowledge \u0026amp; Skills Continuum a. b. c. d. e. Standards Assessment Graduation Requirements Curriculum Behavior Standards 2. Personalized Education a. b. c. d. e. G/T Early Childhood Title I Special Education ESL J. Staff Development a. b. c. d. Middle School Campus Leadership Urban InitiativeASCD NSF (PreAP \u0026amp; AP) 4. Building Community Support a. b. c. Arkansas Scholars Program Restructure of Community Programs \u0026amp; Services, i.e. CLT, Title 1, NSF Utilization of District Cable Channel and New Outlets 5. CommunicationInstruction a. b. c. d. Learning LinksBuilding Principals CLT Written MaterialsStudents and Parents Staff Newsletter 6. Assessment a. b. c. d. e. CRT Data Analysis Program Standards! Quality Indicators Imbed Title 1, Smart Start Accountability requirements in Quality Index Program Evaluation IV. Financial Plan A. B. C. D. MGT Capital Needs 1. New 2. Renovation Transportation: Contract Technologyreceived FEB 3 ^999 desegrega^ oswwms PRIORITIES MID-YEAR REPORT 1998-99 Introduction I. Desegregation and Education Plan A. B. C. Policies Middle School Marketing and Communication II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS D. Student Assignment (Neighborhood Schools) Technology A. B. Wide Area Network Technology Labs - Tech 2000 or similar C. High School, Middle School \u0026amp; Elementary ACC Learning labs D. Training Memo to Lucy Lyon Campus Leadership A. Quality Index 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Customer Service \u0026amp; Campus Learning Climate Student Achievement - Value Added Incentives Attendance - Teacher/Student and Dropout Guidelines. Administrative Policy \u0026amp; Report Card Letter to Senator Argue Planning \u0026amp; Campus goals (COE) B. Student Success Model 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Skills \u0026amp; Knowledge Continuum Personalized Education Professional development Community Support Communication Assessment Financial Plan A. B. C. D. E. Management Audit Campus and District Needs - - Capital Transportation Security Technology PAGE 1-3 4 6 9 10 12 14 15 15 15 16 47 17 18 25 26 28 30 36 41 44 45 46 48-49 48 \u0026amp; 49 48 \u0026amp; 55 48 \u0026amp; 56 48 \u0026amp; 57INTRODUCTION MID TERM REPORT PRIORITY I: DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN A. B. C. POLICIES MIDDLE SCHOOL MARKETING AND COMMUNICATION D. STUDENT ASSIGNMENT (NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS) As you review Priority I, you should note that you have already played a critical role. Much of the background has been set in place by the strategic plan and the working groups that have been championed by Board members. I dont really feel that additional explanation is necessary, but I'm sure that as you review you will note that we are entering a critical stage of the planning and implementation. I predict those areas will also be completed and final implementation will not have significant problems. PRIORITY 2: TECHNOLOGY A. WIDE AREA NETWORK B. TECHNOLOGY LABS c. HIGH SCHOOL, MIDDLE SCHOOL \u0026amp; ELEMENTARY ACC LEARNING LABS D. TRAINING The work that has been completed in this area has been exemplary. The departments met their goal of having all campuses and divisions ready for on-line communication. As noted in the written explanation however, we are stalled momentarily because of Southwestern Bells inability to provide 56Kb line. That problem should be rectified within the next 30 days. Also note that the technology labs and ALC / ACC labs are all on-line and teachers and student have given those facilities excellent marks. If you remember, we were not able to provide all the software or hardware and we hope that the settlement may provide some relief for that effort. Training continues though the recent storm has interrupted the training facilities, which will delay us in the neighborhood of 20 days. On-line communication to all departments and campuses will be a reality and it becomes obvious that we must keep up the training.The future aspect of technology and the campuses is not contained within this priority, but will be addressed under the Financial Priority. Please note the memorandum to Lucy Lyon regarding the report she is preparing with staff for inclusion with Priority IV. PRIORITY 3: CAMPUS LEADERSHIP A. QUALITY INDEX I. CUSTOMER SERVICE AND CAMPUS LEARNING CLIMATE 2. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENTVALUE ADDED INCENTIVES 3. ATTENDANCETEACHER/STUDENT/DROPOUT 4. GUIDELINES, ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY \u0026amp; REPORT CARD 5. PLANNING \u0026amp; CAMPUS GOALS (CCOE) B. STUDENT SUCCESS MODEL 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SKILLS \u0026amp; KNOWLEDGE CONTINUUM PERSONALIZED EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY SUPPORT COMMUNICATION ASSESSMENT Please be aware that some of the information which addresses those items noted in A - Quality Index will be discussed in B - Student Success Model. Particularly, Customer Service \u0026amp; Learning Climate are referenced under B. Also, I want you to be aware that we are attempting to coordinate initiatives with the State and National agencies. We are fairly comfortable in the Quality Index arena that the Cluster representatives will be able to have documents for your review by the stated June 1999 completion date. An example of that coordination is that there is a discrepancy in the definitions, i.e. dropout, or an issue which is being currently debated at the Capitol...school safety and how you would quantify? We are very pleased with the progress and see this initiative as way of bringing the district not only in compliance with the campus based accountability initiative but also to focus on improved student achievement. Secondly, we are in the process of designing the training program and timelines. The Brokers have had their initial training and principals are currently being trained. Training for Campus Leadership Teams will begin within 30 to 45 days. The teams have been named and initiation of training and technical assistance is a high priority.The complexity of the efforts in the areas of the Student Success Model is almost mind boggling, yet Dr. Lesley s organizational skills have kept not only the focus but also the productivity has been outstanding. Much of the work in this area is foundational in nature but truly is critical to instructional improvement. There are numerous details and communication gaps that are now being targeted for action. Much of the efforts by the staff in this area interrelate to the Quality Index, which in turn relates to the States initiative Smart Start and campus accountability. Based on the Mid Term Report we not only have made great progress but we are well positioned not only to be in compliance but the student improvement initiative will be in place. FINANCIAL PLAN A. MANAGEMENT AUDIT B. CAMPUS AND DISTRICT NEEDSCAPITAL C. TRANSPORTATION D. SECURITY E. TECHNOLOGY The report indicates major work has not only been completed, but we are well positioned to reach several objectives. First the MGT audit staff should have received all the data requested and they should be in the process of writing their report. In previous communication I noted that we should have a data check, etc. in February or early March. Presently we are not aware of anything that would delay their report to the Board and the Alliance. Currently the staff is preparing a comprehensive review of campus and district requests for facility upgrades. Campuses compiled their recommendations and we hope to have the technology portion within 30 days My thought is that we should have a general understanding developed at a work session on how we should progress from this point. Note the activities involving transportation and security, which were scheduled for resolution, have been completed and those which are scheduled for this spring continue on track for completion. Respectfully Submitted Leslie V. Gamine 2? \u0026lt;1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan / A. Policies Major Tasks/Activities Review and revise Board policy Section A. Foundations Review and revise Board policy Section B. Board By-laws Review and revise Board policy Section C. General Administration Review and revise Board policy Section D. Fiscal Management Review and revise Board policy Section H. Negotiations Review and revise Board policy Section G. Personnel Review and revise Board policy Section E Support Services Reference to Plan(s) Deseg. Plan 2.1. Deseg. Plan 2.1 Deseg. Plan 2.13. Deseg. Plan. 2.9 Strategic Plan (Strategy 9) Deseg. Plan 2.2. Strategic Plan (Strategy 6) Deseg. Plan 2.10. Timeline August 1998 November 1998 November 1998 January 1999 February 1999 March 1999 April 1999 Responsibility Board Linda Young Board Linda Young Board Linda Young, Les Camine Board Linda Young, Mark Milhollen Board Linda Young, Brady Gadberry Board Linda Young, Dick Hurley Board Linda Young, Vic Anderson Mid-term Report t x\" Completed and adopted by tlie Board 8/98. Partially completed portions due for adoption on second reading on 2/28/99. Partially completed and due for adoption on second reading 2/28/99. Examples of national policies reviewed and referenced. Scheduled for partial submission February 1999. Examples of national policies reviewed and referenced. Scheduled for partial submission February 1999. Examples of national policies reviewed and referenced. Scheduled for submission March 1999. Examples of national policies reviewed and referenced. Scheduled for submission April 1999. 'VMajor Tasks/Activities Review and revise Board policy Section J. Students Review and revise Board policy Section 1. Instruction Review and revise Board policy Section K. Community/School Relations Reference to Plan(s) Deseg. Plan 2.5., 2.12. Deseg. Plan Section 5, 2.4., 2.5., 2.6. Strategic Plan (Strategy 1) Strategic Plan (Strategy 4, 5) Timeline May 1999 June 1999 July 1999 Responsibility Board Linda Young, Linda Watson, Jo Evelyn Elston Board Linda Young, Bonnie Leslie Board Linda Young, Debbie Milam, Suellen Vann, Vic Anderson Mid-term Report National policies reviewed and referenced. All dept, heads notified to begin reviewing relevant policies and submit on 1/21/99. District-wide committee formed and scheduled to meet last week in Jan. Policies developed on Sex and Child Offender Notification for Board approval Dec., 1998. Enrollment of Foreign Exchange Students policy developed for Board approval July 23, 1998._________________________________________________ National Policies reviewed and referenced. Scheduled for submission June, 1999. Arkansas Accreditation Standards reviewed. Revised graduation policy for Board approval in December. National policies reviewed and referenced. Scheduled for submission June, 1999.1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan / B. Middle School Major Tasks/Activities 1. Establish planning committee structure and identify the charge and tasks of each committee 2. Develop District middle school mission statement Submit for Board approval 3. Coordinate planning and implementation issues for middle school transition 4. Steering committee approval of focus committee recommendations on athletic program, curriculum standards, and professional development program 5, Curriculum standards presented for Board approval 6. Brown Bag Lunch session for parents Reference to Plan(s) Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Timeline April 1998 May 1998 August 1999 Oct. 1998 Oct. 1998 Oct. 1998 Responsibility LRSD Administration, Linda Young Steering committee, Linda Young Linda Young, Bonnie Lesley, LRSD Administration Steering committee, focus committee chairpersons (Gene Parker, Ann Blaylock, Wayne Knight) Bonnie Lesley, Linda Young Les Camine, Bonnie Lesley Suellen Vann, Linda Young, LRSD administration Mid-term Report J A Steering committee meeting monthly. Committee forwarded to supt. recommendations in athletics, curriculum, high school transition, and professional development. Focus committees on community/family involvement and student programs scheduled to submit recommendations by February Board approved middle school mission statement May 1998. Developed task timeline and periodically updated timeline. Support Services completed two planning meetings and developed tasks chart and timelines. Identified cross-departmental issues for coordination. Held cross-departmental meetings and developed strategies for identified tasks. Developed summer assistance program for each middle school principal. Obtained grant money to provide 15 days of service by a summer transition teacher for each middle school. Completed. Submitted recommendation to superintendent. Board approved middle school program standards in October 1998. Three Brown Bag Lunch sessions completed in November 1998. All sessions taped and are airing periodically on local access channel.Major Tasks/Activities 7. Vacancy letter announcement/opening preferences to teachers 8. Staffing placement and teacher notification 9. Steering committee approval of middle school and 9\"' grade curriculum 10. Middle school and 9* grade curriculum submitted for Board approval 11. Steering committee approval of focus committee recommendations on student program and family and community involvement Reference to Plan(s) Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Timeline J' Nov. 1998 Jan. 1999 Nov. 1998 Nov. 1998 Jan. 1999 Responsibility J Brady Gadberry, Dick Hurley Brady Gadberry, Dick Hurley Steering committee, Bonnie Lesley, Gene Parker, Kathy Lease, LRSD administrators, Linda Young Les Camine, Bonnie Lesley Steering committee, Jo Evelyn Elston, Liz Lucker, Linda Young Mid-term Report Letter provided to teachers January 1999. High school staffing for displaced 9'*' grade teachers held on January 25, 1999. Middle school staffing for displaced b* grade teachers to be held on January 28, 1999. Approved and submitted to superintendent October 1998. T Board approved curriculum October 1998. Curriculum brochures, course selection sheets, counselor briefings completed and preparations for completion of course selection sheets finalized. Scheduled for presentation February 1999 steering committee meeting. 'I\nMajor TasksZActivities A   :: n,. iyfof' *  12. Implementation of professional development program Reference to Plan(s) 4 [ A\u0026lt; Responsibility\n Mid-term Report k A-'? 13. Logistical plan finalized and implemented 14. Middle school handbook submitted for Board approval 15. Policy development for middle school program for Board approval Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan\n3.4 Desegregation: 3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation\n3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Desegregation\n3.3.4 Strategic Plan: 3.4 Nov. 1998 July 1999 April 1999 May 1999 LRSD admin., principals, technical assistance team, Linda Young Vic Anderson, LRSD administration Les Camine, Linda Watson Les Carnine, Bonnie Lesley, Linda Young bi 4^^ Secured funding for six days of services from four national consultants. Each consultant will provide services to two middle schools. Developed one day profession development seminar on middle school scheduling to be held on Feb. 1, 1999. Secured funding to provide national expert for scheduling seminar. All middle school principals and a team of 5-6 teachers and registrars will participate as well as representatives from information services, exceptional children and curriculum. Secured agreement from Foundation from the Mid South for all middle schools to participate in the Carnegie self study process over a three year period. Each school will have 3-5 teachers trained to facilitate local school discussions utilizing the data generated from the self study with the objective of developing and reviewing schools practices and programs. This agreement provides of $120,000 of services for the District Coordinated plan and timeline developed, tasks assigned to responsible department heads, cross-departmental tasks identified and assigned. Committee to develop middle school handbook scheduled to begin meeting January 1999. District administrators reviewing policies relevant to their departments. Reviewed existing District policies. Policy development occurring throughout implementation process. Retention and promotion policy developed for new grade level configuration and submitted for Board approval January 1999.1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan / C. Marketing and Communication Major Tasks/Activities Implement assignment programs. Conversion to middle schools. Implement programs...designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students.... Implement programs, policies and/or procedures...to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD.... School construction/closing. Desegregated housing. Attract/recruit students to Interdistrict schools. Reference to Plan(s) Desegregation: 2.3, 3.1 Desegregation: 3.4 Desegregation: 2.7 Desegregation: 2.8 Strategic Plan: (Strategy 4) Desegregation: 3.6 Desegregation: 3.9 Desegregation: 4.5 Timeline September - October, 1998 July 1998  June 1999 October, 1998 July 1998- June 1999 July 1998  June 1999 September - October 1998 July 1998 - June 1999 Responsibility Junious Babbs, Suellen Vann Suellen Vann and other district administrators Suellen Vann Dr. Les Camine, Suellen Vann and other district administrators Sadie Mitchell, Suellen Vann, and other district administrators Dr. Les Camine Junious Babbs, Suellen Vann Mid-term Report Completed Ongoing Vann???? Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority I\nDesegregation and Education Plan / D. Student Assignment (Neighborhood Schools)  Major Tasks / Activitin '. - r f School attendance zone / baseline information compiled. 2. LRSD Student Assignment Work Team reconvenes / meets weekly. 3. Proposed attendance zones are approved by the Student Assignment Work Team Committee. 4. Establish 99-2000 data base of proposed attendance zones. 5. Building capacity study review to determine building utilization! capacities at high schools. 6. Educate the community surrounding Mitchell and Garland regarding the scheduled closing for the 2000-2001 school year. 7. Inservice building principals! cabinet on proposed zones Reference to i-Xs  ^Timeline  = 4c4 i ?,. -V'. I. \u0026gt; Responsibility, r- Mid-term Report - \u0026gt; W*. 'V 's .7 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 July, Aug. 98 Aug., Sept. 98 Sept. 98 Sept. 98 Sept. 98 Sept. 98 Oct. 98 r\nJunious Babbs Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs John Ruffins Julie Wiedower Victor Anderson Junious Babbs Victor Anderson Junious Babbs Sadie Mitchell Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Completed - August 1998 Completed - August, September, October 1998 Completed - October 1998 Completed - October 1998 Completed - September 1998 Completed - October 1998 Completed - October 1998 \\o'Major/Tasks A Activitii\u0026lt;'is\n.'fi Reference to Timeline Plan(s) * i- Responsibility^ Mid-term Report -J.. , 8. A senes of informational announcements / programs will be provided (i.e. media / press releases, publications. Town Hall meetings, cable program presentations). Deseg Plan Section 3 Oct., Nov. 98 Junious Babbs Suellen Vann Julie Wiedower Completed - October 1998 9. Reassessment of magnet seat allocation for elementary ! high schools. 10. Survey students and parents to seek input toward the proposed restructing and their 99-2000 intended school assignment. 11. Adopt LRSD attendance zones. 12. Registration for new students and voluntary transfers 13. Notify parents of 1999-2000 school assignment 14. Notify parents of 1999-2000 4-year-old assignment. 15. LRSD will continue to promote and participate in Interdistrict school agreement with PCSSD. Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg Plan Section 3 Deseg. Plan Section 4 Oct. 98 Nov. 98 Dec. 98 Feb.99 March 99 April 99 June 99 Junious Babbs Sadie Mitchell Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower LRSD Board of Directors Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Junious Babbs Julie Wiedower Completed - December 1998 Completed-November 1998 Completed-November 1998 1Priority: Technology Wide Area Network Since July 1998 more than one third of LRSD sites have been added to the Districts wide area network. In only a few months and with no additional staff (until December) capability for connectivity has been established at sixty District sites. All sites have data wiring to the office and library and all sites have file servers with e-mail capability. Nine sites are ready and waiting for the delivery of phone lines requested through the Arkansas Department of Information Services. When complete connectivity is in place, staff will be able to communicate electronically within the District and throughout the world. Access to the Internet is another key component of the wide area network that is now available in most schools. District technical staff has become more proficient in supporting the complex local and wide area networking architecture. Staff is to be commended for their growing knowledge base needed to support the WAN and for their tireless efforts in seeing that connectivity is achieved as soon as possible. Technology Labs The EAST (Environmental and Spatial Technology) lab at McClellan was installed during the summer of 1998. A cooperative effort with Wellsco Graphics Solutions and Integraph Corporation, this program is part of a larger project begun at Greenbrier High School. Students work through a curriculum that integrates advanced software applications into the learning process. The focal point of this lab is to develop student learning through the use of sophisticated tools, teaming, and real-life situations. Content area cuniculum is supported through the work done on projects. As of January, nineteen students were enrolled in this program. An effort is underway at McClellan to recruit additional students.ACC Learning Labs Metro-ACC In a very short time period in the summer of 1998 the Accelerated Learning Center at Metropolitan was installed. The building was wired, the network installed, the teachers trained and the program was operational. Students registered and were scheduled by August and by December, ten students had earned a diploma. New students are being continually enrolled and there is a waiting list that is growing every day. Students work on curriculum content through the use of computer-based instruction from Plato. Staff at Metro is currently investigating the possibility of expanding the program to a year-round school. The Evening High School continues to be successful. All students who were on the fall waiting list have now earned credits. Approximately 100 students were enrolled in the month of December. ALC The ALC is another example of substantial accomplishment being done in a short period of time. Since last summer a needs assessment of the ALC program was completed, staff was hired and trained and the network installed. Over one hundred students were enrolled first semester and forty-two returned to their schools. Students are actively participating in computerbased instruction daily, using curriculum software from Jostens Learning. Training Technology training for all staff occurs continually both at the central level and at the building level. During the first semester over 600 staff members completed computer training classes. District staff has designed a training program for principals and secretaries that will provide basic computer skills that will enable them to use the Districts network for electronic communication. Specialists in the Department of Instructional Technology have created all the teaching materials required for these classes and trained the instructors who will provide the training. Classes begin February 1 and most of them are filled.Priority: Technology Major Tasks/Activities Wide Area Network Plan Reference 2.9 5.4 1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Timeline January 1999 Responsibility Ruffins/Lyon Mid-term Report All LRSD sites are wired for Local Area Network connectivity. All sites have file servers with email capability. Fifty-one of sixty sites now have access to the internet, the other nine sites are waiting for 56Kb line.Priority: TechnoloKV Major Tasks/Activities Technology Labs Plan Reference 2.9 5.4 ACC Learning Labs 2.9 5.4 5.6 Training 2.9 5.4 1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Timeline Original implementation McClellan 1998-99 Original implementation 08-98 Expansion 1999 On-going i Responsibility Lyon/Carter Ruffins/Lyon/Green/Sain Lyon/Staff Mid-term Report  All software and hardware installed in McClellan EAST lab by start of school  Teacher hired and trained  19 students enrolled as of 1/99 Metro-ACC  Staff hired (July/August 98)  Hardware installed 8/98  Staff trained 8/98  Students registered and scheduled 8/98  10 students earned diploma by 12/98  All students on EHS waiting list completed credits  Enrollment of new students continuing  Staff development continuing ALC  Needs assessment of ALC program completed  Staff hired  Hardware and software installed  Staff trained  105 students enrolled first semester  42 students returned to their schools  629 staff completed computer training classes between 7/98 and 1/99  Basic technology training for principals/secretaries scheduled to begin February 1  Materials created and instructors trained for principals/secretaries training projectDate: January 12, 1999 To: Lucy Lyon From: Les Camine I enjoyed the visit this morning and following is the outline that I thought we should follow. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. Vision of technology based on the educational benefits, along with a multiyear plan and detailed budget for implemeritation. An implementation plan with infrastructure to support teaching and learning with a reasonable access for all. Focus of integration of technology into curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Develop and maintain administrative leadership and community support for the technology initiative. Modify or restructure the district to gain efficiency and effectiveness, which is possible with the use oHechnology. Develop a training and development plan which will encourage use and develop the benefits of technology. Emphasis on using the tool of technology to enhance teaching and learning. . Develop a plan of technical support to address the ongoing care and feeding of the technology system. The list or outline should not be thought of as a major thesis. Please condense to no more than four pages. Obviously, this should not be narrative form but more an outline or bullets to establish the content. For example in the training (VI) note my thought that the first hurdle is to get people using the technology on a daily basis (email) and direct input for grades at the quarter. Simplify the use of progress reports and with a similar system so that we automate the system. My thought was we should bring secondary up first because we can save the teachers time. The following were the areas that I suggest should be resolved by April 1,1999 I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Note outline for Bond and Levy Issue. List of technology Users by School. Grade Book Package Sufficient terminals for teacher use at each secondary school for direct grade entry. Instructional and Curriculum management system which will support assessment, personalized education plans, and standards based education. {Start meetings with special education, and other parties who need specialized data to unify the system. We need to discuss prior to moving on this issue. Suggest after M.L. King break.)Priority: Quality Index: (2) Student Achievement and Value-Added Incentives Major Tasks/Activities_______ 1. Identify specific achievement indicators. 2. Identify specific standards/ benchmarks. 3. Identify value-added incentives. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.7,5.2.1, and 5.3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 2.7, 5.2, and 5.3. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.8 Timeline June 1999 June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Lesley/Cluster B Lesley/Cluster B Lesley/Cluster B Mid-Term Report______________________________________ Conducted first meeting of Cluster B on Nov. 20, 1998. Reviewed charge, draft of Campus Leadership Plan, and resource documents\ndiscussed and approved proposed work plan for completion of tasks. Conducted Internet search and purchased other resources to determine practices in other states and districts, especially those with value-added approaches. Drafted preliminary list of academic indicators for elementary, middle, and high schools for the Quality Index to use for discussion purposes, Jan. 1999. Met with Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis on Jan. 15, 1999, to discuss Tennessee's value-added accountability system and preliminary LRSD draft of academic indicators. Second meeting of Cluster B scheduled for Feb. 15, 1999. Discussed with Dr. Steve Ross (see #1 above) ways to assign weights of importance and ways to assess progress toward standards at Jan. 15, 1999, meeting. Consulted research documents on practices in other states and districts. Conducted preliminary research on practices in other states and districts. 1'1\\QUALITYIND^ Cluster C Sadie Mitchell January 25, 1999 A. B. C. Student Dropout - Valerie Hudson Teacher Attendance - Carol Green Student Attendance - Jo Evelyn Elston Cluster C has been charged to review Student Attendance, Teacher Attendance and Student Dropout. The Cluster has been divided into three subcommittees who are meeting on a regular basis. The committee feels that the significance of their work is important and will assist in supporting quality schools. It has been critical to identify the personnel and others who are responsible or involved in the three areas. Student Dropout There have been many discussions regarding problems centered around student dropout. Many of these when corrected will have an impact on reducing the Districts dropout rate.  Attendance secretaries not having open access to the LRSD AS400 computer system,  Registrars have open access but debate about whose responsibility it is to track dropouts and change the code in the system. No accountability if it doesnt get done.  In the past, Student Assignment had a central person communicating with the schools continuously tracking students. This person was never replaced.  Sixteen and seventeen year olds obtaining a waiver and not getting their GED. No tracking is done. Can they return to public school after they have dropped out?  The over use of NE code, meaning on record the previous year and not presently enrolled.  Withdrawal codes need to be more clearly defined and become more simplified.  We need to set policies for all students K - 12 who dropout from the LRSD, realizing students in K - 6 are not reported as dropouts. The last time policies were made in regards to dropping out was in 1991.  The termination of 3 truancy positions and the dropout prevention coordinator assuming the responsibility.  Dropout records must be accurate as it affects DFA reporting.  Timeline of reports.The Student Dropout Committee is making recommendations for resolving issues listed above as well as reviewing old Board Policies as they relate to student dropout. Recommendations to provide a central location for secretaries to report will be made from the Student and Teacher Attendance Committee. It will be recommended for the Administrative Services Department to develop/update a Student Attendance Reporting Procedures Manual as a reference for district registrar and attendance secretaries. Teacher Attendance The sub-committee has defined the definition for teacher attendance. Measurements and school rubrics are being established. The majority of the time has been given to addressing incentive programs whether individual or school-wide. The Districts Strategic Plan recommendations for teacher attendance has been a guide. Committee members are securing teacher incentive plans from other school districts. scheduled to complete Board adopted standards. Future meetings have been Student Attendance The Committee has agreed to recommend using the State Department of Educations definition for student attendance. Immediate changes include drafting another student attendance reporting form, which will be simplified. Suggested incentives are still being pursued for schools improving student attendance. (See Attachment)Quality Index Committee: Student Attendance The Quality Index Committee on Student Attendance met five times following its initial organization on November 9, 1998. Meetings were held on November 16'*', December 1\" \u0026amp; 15'*', January 12'*' and 21, 1999. After much discussion, review of district policies and procedures relating to student attendance, and a review of research-based strategies that have proven effective in improving student attendance, the committee submits the following recommendations for consideration. L Student Attendance Definition Bring the student attendance definition used in the Quality Index in line with the definition used by the Arkansas Department of Education. Definition: Student Attendance - The total number of days attended plus the total number of days absent by students in an individual school divided by the number of school days taught in the District during that quarter (Pre-K enrollment totals not included). EL Student Attendance Incentive Plan Establish a district level committee to annually select the school/schools to receive an incentive award for achieving significant irrqjrovement in the annual student attendance rate based on defined criteria. Committee Composition The committee shall be composed of an associate superintendent, community representatives, a representative from the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and a representative from the Financial Accounting Department of the Little Rock School District. Incentive Categories Awards will be made in four categories: Category I Diamond Superlative Award - Presented to the school that had the greatest percentage increase in student attendance over the previous school year. An additional bonus will be awarded if the increase is 6% or above. Category 2 Gold A ward- Presented to the school (s) whose attendance for the past school year was in the 95-100% range and achieved a 1% increase in the annual student attendance rate. Category 3 Silver Award - Presented to the school (s) whose annual student attendance rate for the past school year was in the 91-94% range and achieved a 2% increase in the annual rate when compared to the previous year. Category 4 Bronze Award -Presented to the school (s) whose annual student attendance rate for the past school year was in the 86-90% range and achieved a 3% increase in the annual student attendance rate when compared to the previous year.Suggested Incentives School Monetary Awards for Exemplary Improvements Free No Student Contact Day School Plaque and Board Recognition Catered Meals on Teacher Workday Full Page Newspaper Ad and Achievement Banner School Van that rotates year to year Complete Landscaping of School Campus Top of the List School for School Improvements Outdoor Recreational Equipment Staff Membership in Fitness Center or equipment placed In building, if space peirmits Individual Bonus for all School Staff III. Implementation Procedures The LRSD Board of Directors will annually establish a Student Attendance Incentive Fund to be awarded to District schools that achieve significant improvements in the annual student attendance rate. it The LRSD superintendent designee shall convene the Student Attendance Incentive Selection Committee to review the district's 3rd quarter attendance report and determine the recipients of the annual Student it it it Attendance Incentive awards. In the event of a tie in the Diamond Category, the percentages will be rounded to three decimal places. One-fourth of the annual Student Attendance Incentive Fund will be aside for the Diamond Category. set A minimum of one-third of the Diamond Category funds will be pledged for the bonus award. - _ - ----- The remaining incentive funds will be divided equally among the Gold, Silver S Bronze Categories. Recipients of the annual Student Attendance Incentive awards will be announced at the April Board of Directors meeting. Procedural guidelines and the awards for each category will be distributed each year to building administrators at the Principals' Institute. The District Student Attendance Incentive Initiative shall be evaluated annually to determine is effectiveness in improving student attendance. In addition to the District level school incentives to improve student attendance,e each school, through its Campus Leadership Team, will implement an incentive plan that rewards/recognizes individual students for exemplary school attendance and/or for significant improvement in school attendance. 2Implementation Timeline Activity Beginning Date End Date Person Responsible 1. Determine Student Attendance Award pool 2. Organize Incentive Committee 3. Convene Incentive Committee to establish awards for each category 4. Distribute Procedural guidelines and award incentive data 5. Prepare announcement S present awards 6. Evaluate effectiveness of Incentive Awards Initiative As important as research-based data confirm, May 1 May 1 June 1 July 1 April 15 May July 1 J une 1 July 15 August 1 Principal's Institute April Board Meeting August LRSD Board of Directors Supt/Designee Committee Chairperson Assoc. Supt. for School Services Assoc. Supt. School Services LRSD Supt. \u0026amp; Incentive Comm. Incentive Comm. \u0026amp; Assoc.Supt. School Services the District-level school incentives are, we believe and that the most significant changes to improve attendance and the schools' holding power can and must occur at each individual school. These efforts should include strategies which enhance academic success, promote membership and belonging by improving school climate so that students will want to come to school and feel welcomed by all staff\nstrategies that involve parents and students in meaningful roles, and strategies that encourage collaboration between the school and community partners. A list of research-based practices which have been shown to improve school attendance are listed below: Research-based Practices Which Increased Attendance Individualization of Teaching Activity Teaching Cooperative Learning Mentoring Peer Tutoring Respect for Students Attention to Learning Styles Reducing Number of Retention Reducing Suspensions Rapport from Staff Safe school Violence Prevention Programs School Transfers Help with Personal Problems Help Making up Work Minimize Punishment S Verbal Reprimands Promote Personal Attention from Teachers Provide Parent Workshops Create Informal Learning Environments Empower Students and Parents 3other Recontmendatlons 1 . Standardize procedures district-wide for recording and reporting student attendance and tardies. 2. Develop an daily absentee report, which could be run by teachers showing only those students who were scanned as absent in class for that day. This report would be similar to the current kdd/Drop Report, which was developed by Information Services. The Attendance Secretary would run this report after completing the scanning each day and teachers would be asked to review it and turn in corrections daily. This would eliminate the Confirming Attendance Reports, which are currently run every two weeks and would provide administrators. a more up-to-date attendance record for use by the 3. Create a Support Staff/Clerical Supervisor position. which would be available for training and supervision of school secretaries, attendance secretaries, and registrars. At present. Information Services trains new personnel in the use of the computers but there is no one available to train new secretaries regarding other procedures or to help with policy questions. As a result, we do not have consistency among the schools with the way things are done. maintaining secretarial/registrar handbooks. This supervisor would also be responsible for 4 . Clearly define to whom the responsibility for attendance reporting is assigned at the local school. what attendance related duties. There appears to be some confusion as to if any. are the registrars and what responsibilities are assigned the attendance secretary/clerk. 5. Consider establishing a board policy that makes three tardies equivalent to an absence. 6. Develop a procedure that is used by the district to drop from the rolls those students who are 18 and older and have quit attending. Since we do not drop for non-attendance, many of these students are carried on roll long after they have attending and we have quit receiving funding from the State. These students are beyond the compulsory attendance age so there is no threat from the law to force them to attend. The district needs a policy that after so many absences that are unexcused, 18 year old students can be dropped from roll. 41998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority: Quality Index: 3) Attendance - Teacher/Student/At Risk Dropout Major Tasks/Activities Plan Reference Timeline Responsibility Mid-term Report 1. Identify specific standards for student attendance by grade level 2.6 2.9 2.11 June 1999 Mitchell Committee reviewing existing policy and guidelines for student attendance 2. Identify specific standards for teacher attendance. June 1999 Mitchell Committee reviewing options for acceptable standards 3. Create incentives for 1 \u0026amp; 2 to recognize and create improvement in 1 \u0026amp; 2 2.6 5.8 June 1999 Mitchell Committees are still meeting and brainstorming guidelines and procedures for incentives 4. Identify students for at- risk and drop out reduction 2.4 2.5.4 2.7 June 1999 Mitchell Counselors and principals are identifying students who are at risk. A schoolbased committee is being organized to review at-risk students as they enter school and attempt to drop out. Committee making efforts to redesign drop out/withdrawal procedure.1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority: Guidelines, Administrative Policy \u0026amp; Report Card Major Tasks/Activities Develop guidelines and administrative policy for campus leadership implementation State developed campus report card is modified to include quality indicators Plan Reference 6 5 6 Timeline June 1999 June 1999 Responsibility Carnine/Cluster D Carnine/Cluster D Mid-term Report Reviewed current handbook for content Established timeline for additional items for inclusion from clusters A, B, C and E Reviewed report card and proposed legislation Reviewed Smart Start accountability plan Reviewed examples of current application of Smart Start accountability Created report card with Clusters A, B, C indicators Established format for LR report card 3^sSSs*^ Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 19, 1999 Senator Jim Argue 5905 Forest Place #210 Little Rock, AR 72207 Re: School Report Card Dear Senator: Recommended Indicators: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Graduation Rate Dropout Rates ACT (Percentage taking and Average Score) Attendance Rates (Students) Test Scores on Standardized and Norm Referenced Tests Learning Climate (Includes school safety information)* Qualification of teachers There are certainly other indicators that could be used but most of the research suggests parents will only pay attention to a fairly small number and these appear most often in the literature. Comparison Data: 1. 2. 3. 4. District / State / National Test Scores District / Socio economic strata / State Ibid. / National  District /Mobility Factor / State Urban / Urban ** Communication: I suggest that a public meeting be required at the campus not only to explain the report card, but also to gain understanding of the improvement initiative that has been developed by the campus leadership team. Also, mailing after the public meeting or giving out on parent conference day? * Important that this not be an incident report but the combined assessment of teachers, parents and students. \" Socio-economic data for L.R. Public Schools and L.R. has 2.4 times the state average for low income students / educationally disadvantaged. Mobility data for L.R. campuses indicate many have rates exceeding 50%. It is hard to be accountable for children you have not taught. Important to have comparative data with other urban centers since L.R. is the only urban area within the state. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 334-2000 January 21, 1999 Page 2 mm Explanation: Comparison data should not be biased based on students' scores. That information should be reported. However, research has indicated that you can get a much better view of a successful school by eliminating bias factors such as socio-economic status, race, gender, education attainment of parents, etc. The recently released U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1999 on successful high schools used a statistical model to discover and report factors that note schools that do great jobs regardless of the aforementioned bias factors. As noted in the article anyone can come up with a list of Americas best high schools where kids have high SAT scores. Such a list would not reveal much about the quality of the schools, but it would reveal that family circumstances strongly influence achievement in school and that well-to-do kids with college-educated parents tend to do well academically no matter what school they attend. U. S. News and World Report. Furthermore, the educational effectiveness is no longer the score a child makes on a given test but the gain a child achieves from year to year. Utilizing statistical methodology would allow you to take the bias out yet insure the rigor of the programs based on the gains or value added after the child enters the classroom. Tennessees Valued-Added Assessment System The thesis that Im supporting as a report card is then more than just report on family circumstances. It is a school report which not only gives a snap shof but also adjusts the data (academic gains) for comparative purposes on judging the effectiveness of the campus. If the system is not treated in a similar fashion I suspect from past battles in this area that it will become bogged down with charges of economic and racial bias. Secondly, from experience, 1 think you would understand it is much easier to work with the staff to ensure a high quality education is being provided regardless of family circumstances, etc. I have been extremely brief, and Im sure opened up more questions than I have provided answers but given the opportunity, I can produce expert testimony which could be favorable to your indicated policy initiative. Respectfully, Leslie V. Camine Superintendent of Schools cc: Senator John RiggsCluster E Quality Index: 5) Planning and Campus Goals (COE) Cluster E has met twice as a total group and three times in a small group setting to plan for the group meetings. The first meeting was an overview of total Quality schools with focus on its characteristics, the process for integrating Campus Leadership Teams with TQS and its value to student achievement. The second meeting was discussions and modeling of the basic principles of teamwork and developing team plans. Future meetings will undertake the task of developing a document that will outline the planning process and procedures to support Total Quality Schools and campus accountability. Inclusive in the process will be tools to be used in planning at the school level using the criteria based on achieving the overall campus goals. Curriculum, instructional equity, data collection and analysis, accountability, student achievement will be areas considered in developing this instrument.1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority: Quality Index: 5) Planning and Campus Goals (COE) Major Tasks/Activities 1. Create planning process to support LR charge for Total Quality Schools and state campus accountability Plan Reference 5 6 Timeline June 1999 Responsibility Cawthon/Lacey/Cluster E Mid-term Report Cluster E and subcommittees will continue work on a document for the planning process and procedures for TQS1998-99 Work Plan for LRSD Priorities Priority: III. B (1) Continuum of Knowledge and Skills Major Tasks/Activltles___________ 1. Review and recommend revisions of the Board's Instruction policies. 2. Complete the 7-12 curriculum standards in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. Plan Reference Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Timeline April 1999 January 1999 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Linda Young Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Marie McNeal Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon Mid-Term Report______________________________________ 'Reviewed existing Board policies and Administrative Directives to determine needs for revision and new policy statements. 'Obtained copies of NSBA model policies for curriculum, instruction, and assessment. 'Revised graduation policy for Board approval in December 1998. 'Reviewed 1991 Curriculum Audit for suggestions on necessary curriculum/instruction policies. 'Reviewed Arkansas Accreditation Standards. 'See also Priority I: Desegregation and Education Plan/ A. Policies, #9. 'Drafted a new policy on Credit-by-Examination to be submitted to the Board of Education in February 1999. 'Drafted new regulations on elementary to middle school and from middle school to high school promotion to be submitted to the Board of Education for information at January 1999 meeting. 'Middle school program standards drafted, presented to the Board, and approved for use in developing core curriculum standards in October 1998. 'Teacher committees appointed to complete curriculum/program standards for reading/language arts and tor ESL courses for grades 6-12 (work to be completed by March 1, 1999). 'Social studies curriculum standards drafted for grades 7-12 (work to be completed by March 1999). 'Standards in mathematics and science have been completed for grades 7-8. 'Standards for high school mathematics and science courses are under development.___________________Major Tasks/ActlvItles________ 3. Construct curriculum maps of LRSD standards/benchmarks with Arkansas standards, SAT9 testing objectives (plus other tests as appropriate), and instructional materials. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Goals 2000 Timeline January 1999 Responsibility Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon Mid-Term Report *K-6 language arts curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in December 1998. *7-12 reading/language arts curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in January 1999. *K-6 social studies curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in December 1998. *7-12 social studies curriculum maps drafted, completed, and prepared for publication and dissemination in January 1999. Curriculum maps for science and mathematics, grades K-4, have been completed and submitted to the Assoc. Supt. Curriculum maps for science and mathematics, grades 5-8, are substantially complete and will be submitted by the end of January.Major Tasks/Activities____________ 4. Review and revise middle and high school Curriculum Catalog\nconduct orientation sessions for central office staff, principals, and counselors. 5. Develop specific plan for implementation of K-6 curriculum standards in English language arts and social studies. 6. Pilot new science curriculum in selected classes at grades K-8. Plan Reference_______ Strategic Plan: Strategy Goals 2000 2 Strategic Plan. Strategy 2 NSF Project Goals 2000 Timeline______ December 1998 February 1999 1998-99 Responsibility Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Marie McNeal Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Lucy Lyon Carol Green Jo Evelyn Elston Gene Parker Marie McNeal Pat Price Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Mid-Term Report_____________________________________ Notified central and school-level staff of deadline of October 16, 1998, for submitting proposed new courses. Worked with school-level staff (teachers, counselors, registrars, principals) and with central curriculum staff in October, November, and early December to ensure accuracy of documented curriculum. Middle school curriculum committee approved proposed new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Middle School Steering Committee approved proposed new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Board approval of new middle school curriculum in November 1998. Published middle school course selection sheets for each of the eight middle schools in December 1998. Decided to publish triple-fold brochure on middle school curriculum for students and parents instead of a curriculum catalog: available in January 1999. Board approval of new high school courses and new high school curriculum in November 1998. Published High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (tor students and parents) in December 1998\ndistributed to Board members at December meeting. Published high school course selection sheets in December 1998. Published High School Curriculum Catalog, 1999-2000 (for principals, counselors, registrars, and teachers) in December 1998. Submitted new course numbers for middle and high school courses to technology department. Staff orientation meetings scheduled for elementary counselors, middle school principals and counselors, and high school teams during early January 1999.__________________ K-3 reading/language arts curriculum implementation plan drafted and revised. 4-5 reading/language arts curriculum implementation plan drafted in January 1999. Science and Technology for Children kits have been and will continue to be piloted during the remainder of the school year at Rockefeller, Franklin, Wakefield, and Chicot.Major Tasks/Activities___________ 7. Pilot new mathematics curriculum in selected classes at grades K-8. 8. Complete plan for middle school curriculum for fall 1999. 9. Publish Middle and High School Student/Parent Curriculum Handbooks. 10. Define and establish Delivery Standards. 11. Align school schedules, PreK-12 reading curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, assessment, professional development, monitoring/ coaching, and parent information/ education with Strategic Plan, Desegregation Plan, and Smart Start. Plan Reference NSF Project Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategic 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5.4 Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 and 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Goals 2000 Strategic Plan: Strategy 2 Strategic Plan: Strategy Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 521., 5.2.2, and 5.2.3 3. Timeline 1998-99 October 1998 January 1999 January 1999 November 1998 Reeponsibllity Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mable Donaldson Patty Kohler Pat Price Linda Young Gene Parker Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacey Suellen Vann Bonnie Lesley Gene Parker Gene Parker Pat Price Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Leon Adams Marion Woods Mid-Term Report Investigations in Data, Time, and Space have been and will continue to be piloted during the remainder of the school year at Romine, grades K-5. Connected Math Project has been piloted as a replacement module in all grade 6 and 7 classrooms in the District.________ See #4 above. Board approved middle school program standards in October 1998. Board approved new middle school curriculum in November 1999. See also Priority 1. Desegregation and Education Plan/ B. Middle School #4, #5, and #10. See #4 above. High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) published in December 1998. Middle school curriculum brochure scheduled to be published in January 1999. ____________________________________ Reviewed research syntheses on delivery standards for Far West Lab. Conducted preliminary conversations on what Delivery Standards for LRSD might look like._______________________ K-3 Literacy Committee met on Aug. 31, Sept. 16, Oct. 30, Dec. 17, and Jan. 8. Draft report of recommendations was completed on Dec. 18, 1998. Report includes the following: Review of current District curriculum, assessment, and implementation. Review of Arkansas Smart Start Initiative to identify possible gaps between the Initiative components and the District's curricular focus. Identification of all supplemental \" reading programs currently in use in primary level classrooms and noted compatibility with the goal, the District curriculum, and the Smart Start Initiative. Comparison of District student performance to statewide student performance for the purpose of creating a context for District benchmarking. Summary of key components of best practice efforts in early reading education nationwide. Outline of recommendations. Proposed budget for 1999-2000. ^3Major Tasks/Activltles_________ 12. Align school schedules, mathematics curriculum, and professional development with Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 13. Develop in collaboration with Linda Watson a list of behavior standards\nadopt a discipline/ classroom management/ character education program and curriculum for teaching the behavior standards to all students. 14. Propose for Board adoption revised Graduation Standards and revision of the core curriculum requirements to align with new state requirements. Plan Reference Strategic Plan: Strategy 3 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, sections 5.3, 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.5 NSF Project Strategic Plan: Strategy 10 Goals 2000 State law Strategy Plan: Strategy 2 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, section 5.4 Goals 2000 Timeline November 1998 March 1999 November 1998 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Leon Adams Patty Kohler Mable Donaldson Pat Price Marion Woods Marie McNeal Jo Evelyn Elson Patty Kohler Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Kathy Lease Jo Evelyn Elston Marian Lacey Bonnie Lesley Mld'Term Report 'The mathematics curriculum has been revised by a teacher committee to include a smaller number of concepts at each grade level. Training tor teachers on the revised curriculum has begun and continued training will occur as the NSF standards-based math curricula are phased in over the next few years. CRTs are being developed tor use each quarter in grades 2-6 to measure student mastery of the mathematics grade-level standards and benchmarks. NSF grant strategies are underway to improve student performance in Algebra I and to increase enrollment and success rate in upper-level mathematics courses. The extended-year Algebra I program will take place during summer 1999 to help students achieve better in Algebra I. Conducted research on model classroom management programs. Exchanged information with Linda Watson. Scheduled a representative from each school to attend the ADE conference on Character-Center Teaching and Learning on January 26, 1999. Scheduled a meeting with Dr. Terry Roberts to consult with the District on this initiative on January 26, 1999. Board approval of new graduation policy in December 1999. Published new graduation policy in High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 (for students and parents) in December 1998. Published new graduation policy in High School Curriculum Catalog, 1999-2000 (for staff) in December 1998. Conducted orientation meetings on new graduation policy and high school curriculum for staff in early January 1999.Major Tasks/Activltles____________ 15. Implement Year One of NSF grant project: Extended Year Algebra I\nAP examinations\nnew teacher training\nVital Link\nand Family Math/Science programs. Plan Reference NSF Project Timeline September 1999 Responsibility Dennis Glasgow Vanessa Cleaver Mid-Term Report______________________________________ Extended Year Algebra ITimeline has been established and Algebra I teachers will be invited in January to participate in planning the implementation of the Summer 1999 program. A possible collaboration with New Futures is being discussed. Initial meeting was held in December 1998\nanother scheduled in late January. *AP ExamsDrafted proposed new policy in November 1998 to require all students who take AP courses to take the corresponding AP exams. Item was withdrawn for more work. Will be resubmitted in February 1999. New Teacher TrainingFirst-year secondary mathematics and science teachers received two days of training on Oct. 13 and Dec. 10, 1998. Vital LinkPlanning began on January 15 for recruiting additional Vital Link sites that focus on careers in the field of mathematics and science. Family Math/SciencePlanning has occurred for teams of teachers from seven schools to participate in the February 8-9 training. Advisory Committee MeetingsCommittee met on Sept. 22, Oct. 27, and Dec. 8 to review and discuss student performance data and upcoming grant activities. Management Team MeetingsCommittee met monthly with the exception of December. January meeting scheduled. Math/Science Vertical TeamsRegistered teachers for College Board sponsored vertical teams conference on Feb. 5-6 (mathematics) and Feb. 19-20 (science). Two mathematics vertical teams have met monthly. High School VisitsMet with three high schools to review and discuss first quarter data and to set improvement targets. Remaining two high school visits scheduled in late January.Priority III. B. (2): Personalized Education Major Tasks/Activities____________ 16. Develop Early Childhood Education Plan for tall 1999, to include plan to implem\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":"bcas_bcmss0837_1175","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence","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":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1993-01-14/1993-12-16"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence"],"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/1175"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["109 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n,____,/    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting January 14, 1993 RECEl\\/fED OCT 2 7 1995 Office of Desegregation tvioniwtino The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully called special meeting at 6: 20 p. m. immediately following the Board agenda review meeting on January 14, 1993. The special meeting was conducted in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 6:20 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of conducting student disciplinary hearings and to consider reinstatement petitions. NON-CONTESTED EXPULSIONS AND LONG-TERM SUSPENSIONS: Mr. Rudolph Howard directed the Board members' attention to the non-contested expulsion recommendations of Tyrone Banks, Roger Crusterson, Bara Nichols, Phillip Watts, and Timothy White. He also directed the Board members' attention to the non-contested recommendation for the long-term suspension of Brent Armstrong, Derrick Bowman, Quentin Davis, David Faison, Keith Farr, Stacy Givens, Andre Harris, Deshun Hollis, Mervyn Johnson, Kendrick Land, Norman Miles, Shawn Moseley, Bilal Muhammad, Albert Porter, Kevin Pugh, Carlos Reese, and Jerry Roberson. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the administration's recommendations on the non-contested expulsions and long-term suspensions. Mr. John Moore seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. CONTESTED EXPULSIONS: The Board conducted a hearing with regard to the expulsion recommendation for Janice Harris. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented to it, Mr. John Moore moved to long-term suspend Janice Harris and if she comes back to the Board and shows that she has been involved in counseling and that it has had an effect and if Mr. Watts agrees, we will admit her back. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried with six (6) to one (1). Dr. Katherine Mitchell dissented . . The Board conducted a hearing with regard to the expulsion recommendation of Ronnie Scott. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented to it, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved that Ronnie Scott be placed back in school on strict probation and if any further incident or violation of any school rules occur in any way, he will be expelled immediately. Mr. Bill Hamil ton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board considered the petition of Michael Hornes for reinstatement to school from the Juvenile Justice Center. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented to it, Mr. John Riggs moved to reinstate Michael Hornes preferably to a school other than McClellan, on strict probation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board considered the petition of Phillip Conway for reinstatement to school. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented to it, Mr. John Moore moved to reinstate Phillip Conway. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board considered the petition of Dana Stephens for reinstatement to school. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence presented to it, Mr. John Moore moved to reinstate Dana Stephens to the Alternative Learning Center and put her on the list for the Elizabeth Mitchell Residential Treatment Program. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board considered reinstatement to school. the petition of Ylanna Value After hearing all testimony for and  considering the evidence presented, Mr. John Moore moved to reinstate Ylanna Value on strict probation for the second semester of the 1992-93 school year. Mr. John Moore moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to adjourn. the motion, and it carried unanimously. business to come within the call for the Board of Directors, the meeting adjourned Mr. John Riggs seconded There being no further special meeting of the at 8:25 p.m. O. G. Jacoveli,President 1~:dfl J!J J-V Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Regular Meeting January 28, 1993 OCT 2 7 IY~.5 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled monthly meeting at 6:22 p.m. on January 28, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: None EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frederick Fields, Teacher Representative Miss Candace Jones, student Representative ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the regular meeting to order at 6:22 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. II. READING OF THE MINUTES The chair asked for a motion to remove the November 19, 1992 minutes from the table. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved to remove the November 19, 1992 minutes from the table. Mr. John Moore seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the November 19, 1992 minutes of the regular meeting of the Board. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The chair directed the Board members' attention to the minutes of the special meeting on September 16, 1992\nthe special meeting on October 5, 1992\nthe special meeting on October 15, 1992\nthe special meeting on November 5, 1992\nthe special meeting on November 12, 1992\nand the regular meeting on December 17, 1992. Mr. Bill Hamilton moved approval of the minutes. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. III. PRESENTATIONS: A. Superintendent's citations Dr. Bernd presented certificates to the winners of the American Education Week Essay Contest that was sponsored by the Little Rock PTA Council and the Central Arkansas Reading Council. The theme was \"America's Schools: Take a New Look.\" The winners who received certificates were: Primary Level (K-3 Grade): First Place - Danielle Dushkin, Brady Elementary Second Place - Sarah Pollard, Williams Magnet Third Place - Jessica Slaughter, Western Hills Elementary Intermediate Level (4th - 6th) First Place - Jonathan Jones, carver Magnet Second Place - John Crain, Carver Magnet Third Place - Lakeisha Palmer, Cloverdale Elementary Junior High Level (7th - 9th) First Place - Tonya Andrews, Mabelvale Jr. High Second Place - Walter Coleman, Mabelvale Jr. High Third Place - Heather Gregg, Mabelvale Jr. High Senior High Level - 10th - 12th) First Place - Keith Harvey, McClellan High Second Place - James Vardaman, McClellan High Third Place - Amy Ramer, McClellan High. Dr. Bernd also recognized the teachers of the winning students: Becky Dugan, Karen Latch, Shirley Thomas, Betty Glenn, Donna Hall, taking the liberty of making the decision for the Board not to meet with the group. She called for the resignation of Mrs. Jacovelli and Dr. Bernd and urged the remaining members of the Board to act responsibly when the community desires to share its concerns. Mr. \"Say\" McIntosh told the Board that this group are concerned about the safety of their children in the schools. He told the Board that the safety of our children should cause us to get as mad as the suspension of Mr. Hickman. He urged the Board to not let the news media twist them and get them to try the case in the media. He alleged that the news media is trying to cause a riot. A Little Rock Central High School senior (name unknown) questioned the methods of the Board and why things were done like they were. She told the Board that the problem is ignorance, and she feels that her rights have been violated. Mr. Melvin Moss told the Board that the actions taken by the administration and Board are peculiar and has caused students and parents a lot of frustration. He told the Board that the important things are God, the family, and the community, stupid. At this point in the \"Remarks from Citizens\" section on the agenda, Mr. Chris Heller, legal counsel for the District, responded to the unrest in the audience by explaining that it is the Board's responsibility to remain neutral in personnel issues until they hear all evidence in a formal hearing. He told the audience that he had advised the Board not to listen to any comments. Mr. John Riggs asked for a recess. The Board recessed at 7:10 p.m. and reconvened at 7:25 p.m. Upon reconvening, an unidentified speaker urged the Board get its priorities in order. Mr. Ari Merretizon told the Board that there is a lot of tension in the community and asked the Board to instruct Dr. Bernd to engage in discussion about their concerns. He expressed his view that the group would understand the limitations of the discussion. V. ACTION ITEMS: A. Election of Officers Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to remove from the table the election of officers. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Jackson moved to elect John Moore as President of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors.by acclamation. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Gloria Russ, Nancy Jones, and Gloria Blakely. The Superintendent also awarded certificates to the winners of the \"My Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages Wish\" program. Honored were: Tequesia Neal, Cloverdale Elementary, $50.00 for Little Caesar's Pizza\nShiree Lawson, Rockefeller Elementary, $100 for Wordsworth Book Stores\nMaquinta Davis, Romine Elementary, $150.00 for Lenderman Paint Company\nErica James, Badgett Elementary, $2 00 for Microcomputer Center\nKrystal Rose Marks, Romine Elementary, $250 for Radio Shack, and the first place winner, Nikkola Hadley, Badgett Elementary, $1000 for ABC Playground Equipment. Patty McNeil, principal at Dodd Elementary School, introduced the winners of the White House Replica Contest held at Dodd School. Ms. Raines' second grade class won the primary division, and Ms. Riddle's sixth grade class won the intermediate division. Dr. Bernd also presented Superintendent's Citations to the ex officio members of the Board for January: Candice Jones, student ex officio from Fair High School\nand Frederick Fields, teacher ex officio from Cloverdale Elementary. He and members of the Board thanked them for their service to the Board. IV. C. Citizens Committees None reporting. D. Board Members None. E. Partnerships None. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS: Dr. Bernd read a statement concerning the Board's policy on receiving information or commenting on pending personnel issues. Mrs. Jacovelli reiterated that it would be inappropriate for the Board to hear comments concerning a personnel issue that might ultimately come before the Board for a hearing. She stated that all of the speakers signed up to address the Board have indicated that the subject of their remarks would be \"Central High School\" or \"John Hickman.\" She told the audience that if the subject of Mr. Hickman comes up during remarks, she would gavel the speaker and the Board would go into recess. Mrs. Hafeeza Majeed asked for the resignation of Mrs. Jacovelli and Dr. Bernd. She told the Board that she had obtained the signature of fifty patrons and voters asking for a meeting with the Board under Arkansas statute. She admonished Dr. Bernd for Mr. John Moore assumed the presidency and opened the floor for nominations for vice president. Mr. Riggs nominated Dorsey Jackson for vice president. Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli seconded the nomination. Mr. Jackson was elected unanimously. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to elect Dr. Katherine Mitchell as secretary of the Board by acclamation. Mr. Bill Hamil ton seconded the motion , and it =cc.=a:..:rc..:r,....,1=-e ::.d=-w-=ia.ot:.:.h.o......:s\"\"'1\"\"x =-..(..-.= 6_,_)---=a::..:f:..cf=-=i-=r=m=a\"\"\"'t\"\"'1=-v -'-=e'--'-v-=o:....:t::..:e:.\ns=--=-. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli abstained. B. Henderson Athletic Field Agreement Dr. Bernd directed the Board members' attention to the maintenance agreement between the District and the City of Little Rock for the maintenance of the athletic field at Henderson Junior High School. He recommended that the Board approve the maintenance agreement as submitted in the printed agenda and to direct the administration to process the necessary documents. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. C. Position Paper on School Health The Superintendent recommended that the Board act to support the position as submitted in the printed agenda. Dr. Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. D. Community Study Center Program Dr. Bernd informed the Board that he had signed a letter of support of the Community Study Center and asked the Board to endorse the concept and support the collaborative effort with the Little Rock Boys Club in the establishment of the Community Study Center, including seeking funds through specific grants to assist with the program. Ms. Linda Young, the District's New Futures Liaison, introduced members of the Hoover Collaborative. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation for the endorsement of the collaborative efforts with the Little Rock Boys Club in the establishment of the Community study Center including seeking funding through specific grants and the approval of a waiver allowing course credit to be granted for students participating in the Center. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. E. Personnel Changes Dr. Bernd directed the Board members' attention to the personnel changes in the printed agenda and the slip sheet containing the resignation of Catherine Johnson. He recommended that the Board approve the personnel changes. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. F. Financial Reports The Superintendent pointed out the new format. Mr. Gary Jones answered questions from Board members. He told the Board that the new format was the first pass and that revisions and simplification will probably follow. Mr. Jackson moved approval of the financial reports. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Sibling Transfers Mrs. Marie Parker reported on the requirements of the desegregation plan concerning siblings going to the same schools whether they be attendance zone, non-attendance zone, or magnet schools. Board members asked questions and expressed a desire that every effort be made to get siblings in the same school. B. The Incentive Schools' Master Teacher Program Mrs. Janet Bernard highlighted the report contained in the printed agenda. Board members asked questions. Mrs. Bernard told the Board that these schools will serve as lab schools for student teachers. She also reported that this report will be sent to the Court and to the Desegregation Monitor. C. Educational Programs Report GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL'S EDUCATION BEYOND THE CLASSROOM Mrs. Arma Hart introduced Mr. Robert Brown, principal at Garland Incentive School. Mr. Brown reported on some of the events that are scheduled after school hours to help students learn and to involve parents in the life of their child. Some of the programs are group discussions on social issues within the community, trips to movies and dinner engagements at different ethnic restaurants. He also told the Board that the school had been engaged in many changes, including the lowering of class sizes, obtaining instructional aides and supervision aides, and establishing the Writing to Read labs. They have mentor programs to raise self esteem, the IRC specialists work with new teachers, they have established a staffing committee that includes parents, teachers, and administrators. He reported that the school has began the Effective Schools training for all staff members, including the custodial staff. VII. CONSENT AGENDA Dr. Bernd presented the items for the consent of the Board as follows: Donations of Property A computer disk drive to Fair Park Elementary by Mr. Howard Muldrow\nA scoreboard to Cloverdale Jr. High by Mr. John Twyford/Twin City Bank\n$6,000 to fund an art teacher to Forest Park Elementary by Forest Park PTA\nPea gravel for playground at Fulbright Elementary by Glacial Concrete, Mark \u0026amp; Mary Rose Breckenridge, and Chuck Germer\nComputer equipment to HIPPY Program by IBM/HIPPY USA\n1992 GMC Pickup Truck to Metropolitan Vo-Tech Center by Landers Trucks, Benton\nComputer equipment to Rockefeller Incentive School by Arkansas Power \u0026amp; Light Company\nand Software valued at $1500 to Central High School by Systematics. Lease Agreement - King Elementary School Property A 99-year lease agreement between the District and the City of Little Rock for approximately 3.5 acres of land to be used for the new Martin Luther King School site. The lease is to be $1.00 per year for the 99 years. Air Space Agreement - King Elementary School Property An air space agreement between the District and the Arkansas State Highway Commission to lease approximately three acres of land for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a parking lot for the new Martin Luther King Elementary School. Authorization to Apply for School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas Assurances - P.L. 81-874 A request for authorization and approval of the Resolution from the Board of Directors so the District can submit this year's application in a timely manner. The Superintendent recommended that the Board approve all the items listed in the consent section of the printed agenda. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the consent agenda. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None VOTE OF APPRECIATION: Mr. Bill Hamilton moved to give Mrs. Jacovelli a vote of thanks for serving as the Board president and commended her for the manner in which she has served. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. RECESS: The Board recessed at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:59 p.m. IX. STUDENT DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Howard directed the Board members' attention to the non-contested expulsions of Tellys Clemmons, Lynn Davis, Shawn Henson, Quawn Marshall, Trimmell McIntosh, William Teague, and Terrance Williams. He asked that the non-contested recommendations include Jason Perkins, who was listed as a contested expulsion recommendation. He also directed the Board members' attention to the non-contested long-term suspensions of Avianca Adrow, Lakeisha Barnes, Antonio Beasley, Chris Bell, Araby Branch, Gailisa Bryant, Timmy Dewitt, Patrick Ellis, Jimmy Frazier, Eric Howard, Tamika Johnson, Lourenco Lee, James May, Wendy Montgomery, Leticia Nelson, Billy Robinson, and Walter Zinamon. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved approval of all the non-contested expulsions and long-term suspensions. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried with five affirmative votes. Mr. Bill Hamilton and Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli were absent for the vote. The Board considered the reinstatement petition of Eric Allen. After hearing all the testimony and evidence presented to it, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to reinstate Eric Allen to Cloverdale Jr. High if that can be accomplished in order to give Eric's father an opportunity to serve as a positive role model and to give Eric a final chance to get an education in the Little Rock School District. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion. After discussion, Mr. Jackson amended his motion to allow for reinstatement to the Alternative Learning Center on strict probation. Mrs. Jacovelli accepted the amended motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hamilton was absent. The Board considered the reinstatement petition of Eleta Spencer. After hearing all the evidence presented to it and the recommendation of the administration to grant the reinstatement petition, Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli moved the administration's recommendation that Eleta Spencer be reinstated on strict probation regarding weapons for the balance of the 1992-93 school year. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mrs. Jacovelli moved to adjourn. Mr. Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. rs. O. G. Jcovelli, President ~JIZJJ~ Ms. Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED: d-)'f+ 5 ' t} .3 ---'\"\"--i1'--'-\"--=-+, --'-=--- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting January 28, 1993 REC OCT 2 7 199.5 Office of Oe:::-(lrE-gak,n fl:c1 .. :0.,r J The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:35 p.m. on January 28, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Moore Ms. Pat Gee Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: None EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frederick Fields, Teacher Representative CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) members of the Board of Directors. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering the Aerospace Magnet School. CONSIDERATION OF AEROSPACE MAGNET: Mr. John Riggs expressed the reasons for his initial support of the proposed Aerospace Magnet School and the reason that he has now changed his mind about the viability of the proposal. He cited as major reasons for his change of mind, (1) strong opposition from Board of Directors Special Meeting January 28, 1993 2 the North Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School, and the Magnet Review Committee\n(2) the improbability of the Aerospace Education Committee raising the required $20 million in operating funds within the next five months\nand (3) the wisdom of investing in a declining aerospace industry. Mr. Riggs reiterated his strong support for business and the aerospace industry. He also indicated that he realized the political consequences of his action. Following his statement, Mr. Riggs moved to rescind the Resolution adopted on November 24, 1992 regarding the building of an aerospace senior high school and the offering of companion aerospace courses in junior high schools, and that all work on the aerospace school and grant application cease. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion ensued, and Ms. Pat Gee moved to amend the motion to table the aerospace project until the July, 1994 Board meeting. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the amendment. Discussion ensued. Mr. Dick Holbert, representing the Aerospace Education Committee, urged the Board to submit the grant to the U. S. Department of Education and defended the viability of the project. Following Mr. Holbert's address to the Board, further discussion ensued. Mr. John Moore called the question. The amendment to the motion failed three ( 3) to four ( 4) . Dr. Mitchell, Ms. Gee, and Mr. Hamilton voted in favor of the amendment. Mr. Riggs, Mr. Jackson, Mrs. Jacovelli, and Mr. Moore voted in opposition to the amendment. The main motion carried four (4) to three (3). Mr. Riggs, Mr. Jackson, Mrs. Jacovelli, and Mr. Moore voted in favor of the motion. Dr. Mitchell, Ms. Gee, and Mr. Hamilton dissented. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. John Riggs moved to adjourn. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come within the call for the special meeting, the meeting adjourned at 6:17 p.m. coveiiCPresident Ms. Pat Gee, Secretary APPROVED=----'~~) -\u0026lt;.,.cd-=s:........i)c_.q.._3_ I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting February 11, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 6:37 p.m. on February 11, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli Ms. Pat Gee MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. John Riggs ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) Board members, which constituted a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The special meeting was called for the purpose of conducting student disciplinary hearings and considering disciplinary recommendations. Board of Directors Special Meeting February 11, 1993 STUDENT DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS: 2 The Board conducted a hearing on behalf of Marty L. Page. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, the Superintendent recommended that Marty Page be expelled from the Little Rock School District\nhowever, noting that he is a senior with good grades, records, etc., and that nothing would be accomplished by having him return next year, the Superintendent recommended that the credit al~eady earned for the first semester be awarded\nthat he enroll in a correspondence course and/or vocational school to earn the needed credit for graduation\nand upon acquisition of the 1 unit that the school award him a diploma. The recommendation included the provision that he not participate in any school activity, inclusive of graduation, while the expulsion is in effect. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The chair directed the Board members' attention to the noncontested expulsion recommendations of Corey Caldwell, Willena Darrough, Michael Monroe, and Angela Redden. Mrs. Jacovelli moved the administration's recommendation for the expulsion of these students. Mr. Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing on behalf of Avery Page. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, the Superintendent recommended that Avery Page be assigned to the Juvenile Justice Center Alternative Program for the remainder of the 1992-93 school year and that he receive counseling there on a weekly basis. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the Superintendent's recommendation and stated that if Avery and his parents want to make the decision not to go, it is their decision. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing on behalf of Briann Guin. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, the Superintendent recommended that Brian Guinn be expelled for the designated period of 20 days (1/22/93 to 2/22/93) or time served. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing on behalf of Derrick Galvin. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, the Superintendent recommended that Derrick Galvin be Board of Directors Special Meeting February 11, 1993 3 expelled for the remainder of the year\nhowever, if Galvin wants to attend the Juvenile Justice Center, the District will facilitate this. Ms. Pat Gee moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. o. G. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Mrs. Jacovelli moved to adjourn. Mrs. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the special meeting of the Board of Directors, the meeting adjourned at 7 :21 p.m. Mr. hn Moore, President ,i~ Dr:-='Katherine Mitchell, Secretary APPROVED:_---'-/~, _-- _\n_,-' - _~, __\n__ _ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting February 16, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:09 p.m. on February 16, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Pat Gee Mr. Bill Hamilton (joined meeting at 6:05 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli Mr. John Riggs EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Sue Rogers, Teacher Representative Miss Gillettie Bennett, Student Representative ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 5:09 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) Board members, which constituted a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called to hear from individuals who have petitioned the Board to discuss Little Rock Central High School. The president explained to the audience that the speakers must refrain from speaking to the Board about Mr. John Hickman, suspended principal at Central High. INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS: Mrs. Hafeeza Majeed led in a silent prayer. She read a letter from Willie Lynch, a slave owner, which was written in 1712 about how to control slaves. She told the Board that our children are being neglected because a superintendent has been brought here to do a job. She compared the Little Rock School District as the plantation and the group, Fifty for the Future, as the overseer. She said the District is making sure that black children don't learn and are pitting black women against black men. She complained about Mrs. Bernard's investigating tactics with students. She asked that an impartial panel be appointed and asked that Mr. Moore resign as president and that Mr. Jackson resign as vice-president because they are insensitive to black children. A member of the audience accused Dr. Bernd of cracking sexual jokes when he spoke to teachers at a pre-school meeting last fall. Ms. Sheila Parker told the Board that the students should be first and called for Dr. Bernd's resignation. Mr. Byron Jenkins told the Board that by taking Mr. Hickman out of the school the students, mostly seniors, have really been hurt. He said there was no loyalty at the building now and that the body can't function without the head. He asked that the Board take into consideration the way students feel. The Board recessed at 5:39 p.m. Upon reconvening, Mr. Moore again asked that the speakers keep their remarks about Central High in general and not about Mr. Hickman. Mr. Say McIntosh told the Board that in 1992 the city had 52 black youngsters killed, and he had not seen the people as mad about these young people being killed as they are over the suspension of Mr. Hickman. He called on black people to stop killing each other. Ms. Bahiyyah Ward told the Board that she is a senior at Central High and that this is the worst year of her life. She said the situation at Central has destroyed the senior class. She told the Board that it underestimates the students and parents of Central are going to bring the truth to the public. Ms. Cory Smith told the Board that the school is just not the same. People are smoking and shooting dice on campus. He said there is no evidence to support what has happened. Ms. Lois Brown said her daughter goes to Central and she does not appreciate Mrs. Bernard asking her questions about her relationship with Mr. Hickman. She said the questioning has caused friction between her and her husband. Rochelle Wells, a sophomore at Central High, said Mr. Hickman treats everyone with respect. She asked the Board why it did not - ask the students what they think. Ms. Susie May, a teacher at Central, expressed concern about some of the comments. She told the Board that morale at Central is high, that the atmosphere is quiet and calm. She said they are no longer interrupted by assemblies and announcements. Ms. Nancy Wilson, an art teacher at Central, said she grew up in Detroit. She assured the Board that Central High is not out of control. She said she had noticed that the number of students in the halls have been reduced as are other incidents. She said teachers feel supported and that morale has improved. Mr. Bill Hamilton joined the meeting at 6:05 p.m. Mr. C. E. McAdoo, pastor of Wesley United Methodist Church, said he was representing the Christian Ministerial Alliance. He said the wind has moved a reed and they will keep hitting the anvil. In allegorical language, Rev. McAdoo expressed that there is a great deal of support in the community for Mr. Hickman. Miss Bahiyyah Ward told the Board that if Mr. Hickman is not returned to Central the (the students) will tear the school apart brick by brick. Mr. Charles Davis told the Board that it had taken away a role model and said they were put on this Board for a reason. He told the Board that the kids in the school are most important. Rev. J. E. Booker, Pastor of Saint Peter's Rock Baptist Church, told the Board that they have created a powder keg and not to call on the black pastors for help. Lawrence Allen, Sr. said one of the ladies caught up in the rumors at Central is his daughter. He said he talked to Mrs. Bernard and tried to stop the allegation. He now knows they are false but a man has been destroyed\nhe has been destroyed\nand he is mad as hell. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to adjourn. Ms. motion, and it carried three (3) to two (2). and Mr. Jackson voted in favor of adjournment\nMitchell voted in opposition to adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 6:37 p.m. Approved: /  ,\nJj , _., _$ Pat Gee seconded the Mr. Moore, Ms. Gee, Mr. Hamilton and Dr. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 JUN 4 1993 Otrice of Desegregation Monitoring Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:10 p.m. on February 25, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. John Riggs - MEMBERS ABSENT: Ms. Pat Gee Mr. Willie D. \"Bill\" Hamilton Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Norma Rodgers, Acting Recorder of Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. ACTION: CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The president called the regular Board meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) Board members, which constituted a quorum. II. ACTION: READING OF THE MINUTES Minutes for the Special Meetings on November 24, 1992\nDecember 10, 1992\nJanuary 14, 1993\nJanuary 28, 1993\nand the Regular Meeting on January 28, 1993 were read. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved approval of the minutes as submitted. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 III. REPORT: PRESENTATIONS A. Superintendent's Comments 2 Dr. Bernd presented Mr. Franklin Davis, Principal at Franklin Incentive School who introduced Mr. Billy McFarland, troop leader of the Boy Scouts at Franklin. The Boy Scout Troop presented a reading of Martin Luther King's address entitled, \"I Have a Dream\" in observance of Black History Month. Each troop member recited from memory a portion of King's address. Dr. Bernd presented a citation to Craig O'Neill who has been a very \"creative\" supporter of our District. Mr. O'Neill recently began including a small but significant time slot on his early morning radio show at KURB in which he announces school business. The Ward, Cundiff and Aaron Memorial Recognition Program, sponsored by the Pulaski Heights Lions Club, presented awards to students and teachers who have gone the extra mile in serving their community. Students are selected on the basis of having a grade point average of 3.5 or above, participation in extra-curricular activities and demonstrated community leadership. Teachers were selected on the basis of excellence in teaching, volunteering extra time with students in need and for their community involvement. Four teachers and eight students received the award. The teachers were: Mary Carter - Pulaski Heights Jr. High Geraldine Johnson - McDermott Elementary Joann Williams - Jefferson Elementary Sherrie Snowden - Fair High School Students who received the award were: Christopher Hendrix - Central High School Rob Marus - Central High School Tammi Keeton - McClellan Community School Denise Bauer - McClellan Community School Candice Jones - Fair High School Shaundra Harris - Hall High School Ashley Bailey - Hall High School Susan Russenberger - McClellan Community School The Superintendent presented a citation to Mr. Jimmy Brown who helped organize the mentoring program at Cloverdale Elementary School. The program matches adult mentors with students as a way to provide a positive role model. A citation was presented to the student and teacher ex-officio Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 3 Board Members for the month of February - student Gilettie Bennett, Hall High School and our teacher, Sue Rogers, Dodd Elementary. B. Citizens Committees None reporting C. Board Members Dr. Katherine Mitchell issued congratulations to Coach Charles Ripley, Parkview Magnet School's basketball coach, who has been named to coach the McDonald's All-American basketball team, and also congratulations to Coach Al Flanigan who will serve as the assistant. Dr. Mitchell also thanked New Futures for paying her expenses to attend the conference on \"Effective Schools\" in Phoenix, Arizona. Dorsey Jackson reported he attended an \"Our Town\" Seminar at DeGray Lake sponsored by the Junior Chamber of Commerce during the week-end of February 19. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS: Ms. Shelia Parker asked that consideration be given to the children. She asked that Dr. Bernd step down as Superintendent. Ms. Venessa Frazier stated she is a parent of children in the Little Rock School District. She stated that she had moved to Little Rock from another school district where her child was a 4.0 student. She stated he now has a grade point average of 1.7. She spoke on the loss of the population in Arkansas. She encouraged people not to hate, but rather to encourage our children to love one another. She thinks this has a great deal to do with her child's loss of interest in school. V. ACTION: A. New Partnerships Dr. Bernd directed the Board members' attention to the new partnerships between Dean's Donut Factory and Cloverdale Elementary School. After representatives of the partners were recognized and presented with certificates, Mr. John Riggs moved approval of the partnership, Dr.Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 4 B. Applied Math I - Request for New Math Course Offering for the 1993-94 School Year. Ms. Matthis announced that we were asking the Board for approval to offer Applied Math I for the 1993-94 School Year, and she in turn introduced Dianne Wood, Supervisor of Math, who explained the course. Mr. John Riggs moved the implementation of the new Applied Math I course for the 1993-94 school year, seconded by Mr. Dorsey Jackson, and it carried unanimously. C. Child Care and Development Block Grant Application Mrs. Matthis reported that the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission has announced a grant program available to all registered and licensed child day care providers. The Little Rock School District's grant proposal for the school year 1992-93 is $37,500. These grant proposals are for appropriate playground equipment for pre-kindergarten children. The grants are in the amount of $2,500 per school, and applications are being submitted for the following schools: Badgett Bale Cloverdale Franklin Garland Geyer Springs Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Washington Watson Wilson Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved acceptance of this Block Grant. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. D. Policy on Approval of Budget - First Reading There was discussion on this first reading of the policy on Approval of Budget. This policy requires approval by the Board of any transfer in excess of $25,000. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved approval of this policy on a first reading, seconded by Mr. John Riggs, and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Biracial Committee Incentive Schools Monitoring Report Ms. Shirley Thomas, Chairperson of the Biracial Committee was introduced by Ms. Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity. Ms. Thomas presented the Biracial Committee Incentive Schools' Monitoring Report (printed in Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 5 agenda). Ms. Thomas reported that there is evidence if varying degrees of compliance from school to school reflected in equitable staff composition, student awards and honors, and improvement plans and strategies for the schools as well as students. Ms. Thomas also reported that the Superintendent will make a presentation on Effective Schools at the March 9 Meeting of the Biracial Committee. B. Desegregation Update Dr. Bernd reported that Judge Wright has made it very clear that she wants a budget from LRSD that can be monitored by the Court. A job description is being developed for the budget person to work through the Court with the Little Rock School District in preparing a budget. It has been made very clear that when the budget preparation is accomplished, this person will no longer be employed by the District. During discussion of this report, Mr. Jackson asked the Board if they thought our desegregation plan needed to be overhauled and questioned the need for another budget person to serve at the discretion of the Federal District Court. Mr. Moore expressed his view that Board members are charged with the responsibility of hiring employees. Dr. Mitchell asked if we might just develop a new plan. Additional discussion centered around the concern for focusing our attention and resources on teaching all children instead of programs that don't appear to make a difference. C. Educational Programs Report: J. A. Fair's Mock Trial Team Mrs. Janet Bernard introduced students from Fair High School's Mock Trial Team together with the team's sponsor, Mrs. Gay McDaniel. It was announced that this team won the state competition and went to Harvard University where they competed in the national competition. Ms. McDaniel explained that the team is strictly extracurricular in nature. The students come before school and stay late in order to participate. When the team went to Harvard to participate, the District paid one-half the cost and the team raised funds for the remainder of the trip. The students gave a very interesting presentation on their \"trial\" procedure where some of the students appeared as lawyers and some as witnesses. D. Report on Policies on Suspension of Elementary students Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 6 Mrs. Bernard presented a comparative report on the number of out-of-school suspensions for elementary school students during the first semester of the 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 school year. The report shows a decline in the number of black students who have been suspended. VII. CONSENT AGENDA Dr. Bernd presented the items for the consent of the Board as follows: Donations of Property Donations to Washington Magnet School: $200 for RIF Program from Twin City Bank $1,300 for RIF Program from Washington Magnet PTA $600 from Levi Strauss Foundation 3 Books for Media Center from Little Rock Wastewater Utility\nTelevision/Videocamcorder to Brady Elementary from Holiday Inn West\n$4,500 from the 1942 Graduating Class to Central High School\nLight Table to Metropolitan Vo-Tech from BEI Motion Systems Company\nWord Processor from Sam's Club to Meadowcliff Elementary School. Youth Apprenticeship/Work-based Learning Grant - Second Year Funding. It has been learned that funding will continue for the existing six demonstration Youth Apprenticeship/Workbased Learning Projects - providing that the projects have met and/or have shown significant progress toward meeting the requirements as outlined in the 1992 RFP (Request for Proposals) and have demonstrated productivity regarding the number of student apprentices participating in the program. Ms. Matthis distributed a corrected budget for this project wherein the corrected amount for 1993-94 should read: $101,186.00 instead of $98,248.00 as printed in the agenda. Financial Reports Financial Reports for the period ended January 31, 1993 were presented along with Bond Account for the period ended Board of Directors Regular Meeting February 25, 1993 January 31, 1993. Personnel Changes 7 Personnel Changes with recommendations for acceptance of resignations/terminations and employment of new staff at the positions, salaries and classifications were presented for consideration and approval. The Superintendent recommended that the Board approve all the items listed in the consent section of the printed agenda. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the approval of the consent agenda. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None ADJOURNMENT: Mr. John Riggs moved to adjourn. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Dr. Katherine Mitchell,Secretary APPROVED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting March 11, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 6:07 p.m. on March 11, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The special meeting was called to order immediately following the Board Agenda Review Meeting. The president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering the 1993-94 school calendar, considering the lease agreement for the Parkin Building, and to conduct student hearings. 1992-93 SCHOOL CALENDAR: Dr. Bernd reviewed the proposed school calendar and recommended that the Board approve it for the 1992-93 school year. A Board members asked questions and discussion ensued concerning  various aspects of the calendar. Mr. John Moore moved that the school calendar be amended to include Christmas vacation where it is marked Winter Vacation. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion. The motion carried three (3) to two (2). Mr. Jackson, Mr. Riggs, and Mr. Moore voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Hamilton and Ms. Gee voted in opposition to the motion. Mr. John Riggs moved to approve the proposed 1992-93 school calendar as amended. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. LEASE ON PARKIN BUILDING: Mr. Gary Jones explained that approval of the lease is the first step in the process because we are continuing to negotiate for the purchase of the facility, and leasing will give us the opportunity to evaluate the facility. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved approval of the lease agreement for the Parkin Building. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. STUDENT HEARINGS: Mr. Dorsey Jackson presided over the student hearings in the absence of President John Moore. Mr. Rudolph Howard reported that he would like to change his recommendation on Toyia Williams from non-contested expulsion to a long term suspension and reported that the principal concurs with the change in recommendation. Her name was moved to the long-term suspension recommendations list. The chair directed the Board members' attention to the longterm suspensions listed under Part II of the agenda, which now includes the name of Toyia Williams. Mr. John Riggs moved approval of the long-term suspensions. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Students included in this motion are Sharon Betts, Bridgette Bynum, Katherine Kreech, Darryl Lea, Toyia Williams, and Anthony Smith. REINSTATEMENT PETITIONS: Mr. Howard presented the following students' reinstatement: Darrell Freeman, Tekia Johnson, and Clifton Thomas. Mr. Bill Hamilton moved the reinstatement recommendations. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing in connection with the expulsion recommendation of Delores Hubbert. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, Mr. John Riggs moved the administration's recommendation for expulsion for the 1992-93 school year. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing in connection with the long-term - suspension recommendation of Duane Wilson. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, Dr. Bernd recommended that the suspension be for 36 days. Ms. Pat Gee moved the administration's recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board conducted a hearing in connection with the long-term suspension recommendation of Anthony Farissa. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, Dr. Bernd recommended that the suspension be for 36 days. Mr. John Riggs moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the special meeting of the Board of Directprs, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. upon motion of Mr. Riggs, a second by Ms. Gee, and unanimous approval of the Board members. :~ore, President ~ APPROVED: ------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School Districts met in its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:06 p.m. on March 25, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The vice-president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Riggs - MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Moore Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL The vice-president called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of five (5) Board members. II. READING OF THE MINUTES The chair directed the Board members' attention to the minutes of the regular meeting on February 25, 1993. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved approval of the minutes as submitted. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. III. PRESENTATIONS A. Superintendent A Board of Directors W Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 2 Dr. Bernd announced the winners in the \"Pennies for Pasta - Change for Change\" contest as follows: Jefferson Elementary School for raising the most money (2,590.00)\nMs. Becky Ramsey's room at Jefferson for winning the classroom category ($382.00)\nCarver Magnet Elementary School and Central High School for winning second and third place awards, respectively\nWatson Elementary School for winning the second and third place in the classroom divisio~, respectively\nAlso honored for their help in this program was Wendy Salaam, Executive Director of Fighting Back\nTed Jones, General Manager of K-Duck Radio Station\nCindy Watkins, Director of Community Relations for KATV, Channel 7\nCapt. Jean Kozusko, U. s. Air Force\nRoger Marlin, Marketing Director of Metropolitan National Bank\nJohn Pryor, City Finance Director, City of Little Rock\nMary Hunter Wagoner, Chairman, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce Partners in Education. A special thanks was given to Mr. Bruce Thompson, General Manager of The Olive Garden Restaurant, who provided a great spaghetti lunch for the winning classroom and to Mr. Herren Hickingbotham with TCBY Enterprises, who gave the winning school two IBM lap-top computers. Dr. Bernd also presented Superintendent's Citations to the Parkview Debate team that participated at Harvard University recently. Two of the four 2-person teams placed: one in second place and one in ninth place. Representing the Parkview Debate Team were Carmen Korenbandi, Yetu Robinson, Steve Broadnax, Michael Hardin, Shawn Stephens, Laura Sandage, Brandle Stillman, and Tori Humphrey. Citations were also awarded to the student and teacher ex officio Board members for this month: Allison Tedder, a student at McClellan Community High School\nand Coach Ellis Register of McClellan High School. B. Citizens Committees None reporting. c. Board Members Mr. Dorsey Jackson and Mr. John Riggs read prepared statements. The statements were entered into the record and are attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. A Board of Directors W Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 3 Dr. Katherine Mitchell reported that she had a very interesting visit at Watson Elementary School where she spent time with the child she is mentoring. She also recognized Dr. Diana Glaze, who has been selected to participate in the national Principals Hotline program on March 27th and 28th. She explained that this program will put principals in touch with parents so they can answer questions about schools. Dr. Mitchell also commended the students who participated in MATH COUNTS. Fletcher Foti was on the winning team and will represent our District in competition in Washington, D.C. She reported that Dunbar was second overall and that Mann was third. She also commended Michael Carroll and Kimberly Yeargin, who have been selected as National Merit Finalists. Mr. Dorsey Jackson congratulated the basketball teams at Parkview, McClellan, and Fair, for ending the season at number 1, 2, and 5 in the State, respectively. D. Partnerships Dr. Bernd introduced two new partnerships: Back Yard Burgers and Rockefeller Incentive Schools\nand UALR's \"Partners in the Arts\" program and LRSD elementary schools (to be determined). He recommended approval of the partnerships. Ms. Gee moved the recommendation. Mr. Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Certificates were presented to each partner commemorating the new partnerships. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS Ms. Sheila Parker told the Board that what is going on now in the District is serious\nthat when the head does not function properly, the system will not work. She urged the Board to consider her letter that she wrote last month. Mr. Marcus Eubanks, representing students from Central High School, asked the Board when they were going to meet with the students. Mr. Jackson responded that we are trying to schedule a time when the Board can get a quorum. Mr. Byron Jenkins, reiterated the students' request for a meeting with the Board members. He told the Board that Mr. Freeland had no reason to call Mr. Hickman a thief. Mr. John Walker told the Board that all the parties are tired of conflict and thought we would be able to put conflict behind us when we signed the settlement agreement -- that all parties were victorious. Further, he stated that since the Board has taken the position that the plan should be changed, then there is only one force, Judge Wright, who represents the force of the A Board of Directors W Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 4 Constitution of the United States. He further stated that this litigation is about the Constitutional rights of black children. He explained that he could not allow the Board to chastise him because he would not be equal to them. He said that Judge Wright has found this District to be out of compliance and that public opposition cannot sway decisions on desegregation. He alleged that the administration has spent more time creating conflict than trying to resolve it and unless and until we try to get back on track, it will be that way. He asked Mr. Jackson to re-evaluate his position and accept the notion that the least child in the District is entitled to the same quality of education from a teacher who has only privileged in her classroom. V. ACTION ITEMS A. Hippy-JTPA Proposal Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the request to submit the JTPA-HIPPY Proposal to the City of Little Rock as reflected in the slip-sheeted (corrected) version. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Ms. Gee urged - Board members to attend the HIPPY graduation. B. JTPA Summer Learning Proposal Dr. Bernd directed the Board's attention to the JTPA Summer Learning Program application to the City of Little Rock to provide training for students during the summer of 1993. Mr. Sam Stueart answered questions from Board members and discussion ensued concerning the tracking system which has been included in this year's program as an evaluative tool. Further discussion centered around the advisability of using GPA as an indicator of success. Dr. Mitchell advocated using diagnostic tests to determine what skills the students are lacking. Following discussion, Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board adopt the proposal with the proviso that the administration will explore the possibility of using an instrument more closely aligned with our curriculum. Mr. Bill Hamilton moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. c. Nurses Agreement Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the 1992-93 agreement reached between the District and the Nurses Association as reflected in the printed agenda. Dr. Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. D. Stephens Interdistrict School Site Selection Board of Directors Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 5 Dr. Bernd told the Board that the Committee had broad representation and has given long and careful consideration to the site for the new Stephens Interdistrict School. He commended the commitment of the neighborhood around the current Stephens School. He recommended that the Board approve for submission to the Court the site of the present Stephens School for the construction of the new Stephens Interdistrict School. Mr. Bill Hamilton moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. Mr. Sammie Mills spoke in favor of the school being constructed at the present Stephens School site. Mr. Riggs suggested that the District erect a plaque or statue that relates the history of the Stephens School and the significance of that site. Mr. Jackson reminded the Board that we must aggressively recruit students to the interdistrict school and asked that the Board see a specific recruiting plan before this is submitted to the Court. Dr. Bernd assured Mr. Jackson that a recruiting strategy is being developed with the assistance of the Pulaski County Special School District. Ms. Marie Parker told the Board that a recruiting strategy is being planned that addresses the issues of theme and safety. Mr. Jackson further suggested that we target employees at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and the Veterans Hospital. Mr. Riggs encouraged the administration to look at some of the other successful schools such as Rockefeller for indicators of what parents want for their children. Ms. Gee commended the Committee for its comprehensive study. Following discussion, the motion carried unanimously. E. Policy on Approval of Budget - Second Reading Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board adopt the Policy on Approval of the Budget on second reading. Mr. John Riggs moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. VI. REPORT AGENDA A. Terry School's Dad's Club Mrs. Margaret Gremillion introduced Mrs. LaDell Looper, Principal of Terry Elementary School. Mrs. Looper reported on the organization of the Dad's Club. Mr. Tyrone Harris, Vice-principal at Terry School, reported on his work with the Dad's Club and introduced Mr. Greg Alagood, who reported that the Club has a speaker's bureau for men to talk to classes\nthat they are organizing a mentor program\nand generally be involved in school activities to provide youngsters a positive male role model. The Board recessed at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened at 8:20 p.m. A Board of Directors  Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 B. Desegregation Update 6 Dr. Bernd reported that the administration has furnished the Court the needs assessment for incentive school staffing, a draft organizational management chart, language on New Futures, the academic support program, and the early childhood report. He reported that we are currently hiring theme specialists, auditing the plan for compliance, and developing evaluation components. He told the Board that the highest priority is to develop an audit on the status of implementation and expressed confidence that the Board will find a high level of compliance once the audit is done. Following the Supeintendent's report, Dr. Mitchell asked that we conduct a work session as to what is in the plan. Mr. Riggs suggested that the new budget ,person talk with the Board at the next Board meeting, and strongly encouraged the administration to meet with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the budget cuts. VII. CONSENT AGENDA Dr. Bernd recommended approval of the consent agenda as follows: A. Donations Requests to donate the following: (1) Catalog Files/Catalogs to Metropolitan VocationalTechnical High School by Allied Supply Incorporated\n(2) Ellison Lettering Machine to Wakefield Elementary School by the Wakefield PTA\n(3) $500 toward an art grant match to Watson Elementary School by Lucky B. for Arkansas Children's Fundraisers, Inc.\n(4) a VCR to Terry Elementary School by Linda and Kyle Bunney ( in memory of Krista Ann Bunney\n(5) assistive listening device to the Division of Exceptional Children by Gale Stewart\n(6) an outdoor school sign to Jefferson Elementary School by Janet Jones, Jefferson P.T.A., and O.D. Tucker\n(7) $1000 in teacher grants to McClellan Comunity High School by First Commercial Bank. B. Personnel Changes Approval of resignations/terminations, employment of new staff, deceased and retirees at the positions, salaries, and classifications as reflected in the printed agenda. Also the terminations of Monica Scott, Edward Paige, and William Thomas as indicated on a slip sheet\nand the appointment of Sadie Mitchell as the principal of the new Martin Luther King Elementary School for the 1993-94 school year at an annual salary of $42,881.14 plus a car allowance of $564.00. A Board of Directors  Regular Meeting March 25, 1993 7 c. Financial Reports Approval of the financial reports as reflected in the printed agenda. Mr. John Riggs moved approval of the consent agenda. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS None. IX. STUDENT DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Dr. Mac Bernd recommended that the Board approve the non-contested disciplinary recommendations as follows: Non-contested expulsion of Matthew Gallien, Andre Jennings, Gilbert Jones, Everett Mack, and Laboya Walker\nNon-contested long-term suspensions of Roderick Bradford, Germain Brown, India Brown, Desmond Davis, Preston Flowers, Shajuana Harris, Shade Holley, Carnal Jackson, Orlando Jones, Waverly Jones, Fred Lawrence, Gerald Mayo, Lajessica Mayo, Tiffany Nelson, Carlos Pace, Maxley Parker, Jericho Rideout, Steve Shelton, Jermaine Simmons, Antonio Smith, Candis Thrower, Angela Williams, Racquel Williams, and Kerry Wilson. Mr. recommendation. unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Bill Hamilton moved the Superintendent's Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried Mr. John Riggs moved to adjourn. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board of Directors, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Jo Katherine Mitchell, Secretary I \"'I ' (:- \"\n] APPROVED: l{,  2 :.\n_ ' ~ Board Comments by Dorsey Jackson March 25, 1993 Just a few days more than eighteen months ago, I was elected to be the representative of Zone 3 on the Little Rock School Board. I am still moved by the honor and trust bestowed upon me by the YQtm in that Zone. I chose to run for this position because of my strong conviction that a viable public school system is critical to the economic growth of our community. When a person runs for an elected office, they are immediately labeled a \"politician.\" If nothing else, has been accomplished during the last eighteen months, I have, at least, cast doubt on the propriety of that labeling. To perhaps further prove that I am not a typical politician, recent events have caused me to look back at my campaign platform to determine whether I have been performing in the manner in which I indicated I would. Unfortunately, and regrettably, I find tliat my track record is not that outstanding. Accomplishments in two of five objectives particularly give me concern: 1. Ensuring that the District operates in a financially responsible manner through effective management of its limited resources\nand 2. Working with the administration and the Board to see that court-ordered policies are properly and fairly implemented so that the District can get out of the Courtroom. In analyzing my failures in these two areas, I have arrived at a very troubling unfortunate conclusion. The first objective is rendered extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish because of the requirements necessitated by the second objective. My only qualifications for this position, in reality, were a fairly decent financial background and a little bit of common sense. These two qualifications inspire me to try to modify the District's desegregation plan to one that is affordable. Unfortunately, common sense apparently has no place in managing the financial affairs or any other affairs of this district While I will readily admit that the settlement plan and the desegregation plan are the plans of this district, I would like to point out one simple fact that some may be overlooking. I was not on this Board when these plans were approved and originally committed to. I have merely inherited them. Although I am normally proud of my heritage, this bequest is not particularly the best thing that ever happened to me. I am firmly convinced the Desegregation Plan needs to be changed and changed quickly. A reality of our democracy is that we are able to change. Our president recently was elected on a theme of change. The Arkansas Legislature has probably introduced four to five thousand bills during this legislative session. Why? In large part, I am sure, because the individual legislators feel a need to change. Much of the media's attention this past weekend has been devoted to the pending change in the make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court, partially how it will impact previous court decisions on such matters as Roe vs. Wade. Why all the attention, if not for the possibility of change. Earlier this week, the Arkansas House voted to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot dealing with term limitations. This is an attempt to change something just overwhelmingly approved by the voters last November, less than five months ago. - As I mentioned earlier, one of my few qualifications for this job was a little bit of common sense. Realizing that it is stupid to go to a gunfight with only a knife, common sense tells me that I must seek another solution. If by my words and actions I have offended the Court, I apologize. I realize my behavior in the courtroom this past Friday was not exemplary. Just as we expect our teachers and principals to be role models, at all times, for our students, we should expect no less of ourselves. In spite of my philosophical differences with this plan, I intend to use my influence as a Board Member to see that it is implemented. Since so much money and talent is currently being wasted in the courtroom regarding our Plan, I think it is vital that we do all that is humanly possible to expedite the compliance with all aspects of both the Plan and the monumental information requests by Parties to the plan. Implementation and compliance should be our number one objective. This is where I will be focusing my attention. I hope the remainder of the Board will as well. While this will be my focus, I will also be encouraging dialogue between all parties to try to modify the plan. I trust those in higher levels of authority will not try to suppress my rights as a board member to speak out and effect change by placing undue burdens on me or other members of the Board. Finally, I must speak to the African American community. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, a viable school system is critical to economic growth in our community. It is critical not only in attracting businesses, and accordingly jobs, but also in adequately preparing our young people for those jobs. The demands being placed on this administration by the Joshua intervenors are unreasonable. If you truly are interested in a system that educates all children and a system that remains viable, you must insist that your intervenor restrain himself and his personal hostilities. These tactics, and these demands being placed on the administration, while not stealing in the pure legal definition, are nevertheless robbing this district of precious time, time we cannot afford to waste if we are to adequately prepare the children of this district. If your objective is to have total control of this district, as some would suspect, then the district is destined for failure as is the viability of the community. I have previously admitted publicly that one word to sum me up is \"stubborn\". If anyone thinks that making my life less than pleasant through constant subpoenas, forced attendance at court hearings, or other yet to be devised techniques, is going to cause me to resign from this board, you are wrong. Dead wrong. I was elected by the citizens of Zone 3 and I intend to continue to serve them. If they are unhappy, I trust they will let me know soon. Truthfully, I would rather be crappie fishing. I ask that these remarks be made a part of the minutes of this meeting, so that should someone desire to enter them into the Court record, valuable time will not be wasted watching a video. s1TEMENT OF JOHN RIGGS. IV TO THE LITTLE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT AT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL BOARD MEETING --3/25/93 Last Friday, March 19th, was my first visit to a federal court. I have a few observations on that first visit that I would like to share with our board our administration, and our students and patrons. First, for the mo~ part, people involved in the federal court system are nice folks. Although at times some folks do get a tab over emotional, on the whole I was very well treated. The court folks were kind enough to reserve a nice big chair especially for me that was in front so that I could see the action up close and personal--if the proceedings had been a Razorback basketball game we would have had the equivalent of court side seats. Being fairly naive about courts and lawyers in general, I found the day to be a very interesting civics lesson, much like the civics lesson Dr. Bernd referred to when discussing some of our Central students and our hearing for Mr. Hickman. I would say on the whole, I enjoyed most of the day and look forward to my next indoctrination into how our court system works. I just wish you lawyers would stop suing me for trying to do the best I can in this job. I do feel I did pick the best profession for me by becoming a simple tractor salesman rather than a lawyer or judge While we were in court, the judge was nice enough to give us a report on our conduct and what she expects ofus as the ultimate leaders of the LRSD. Some patrons and citizens I have talked with since Friday think the Judge was way out of line with this document--! do not. Frequently, as a manager, I give folks who work with and for me oral and written evaluations so that they can become better at their jobs by working on weaknesses and emphasizing strengths. Any good manager ( and surly our federal judge would want to be construed as a good manager) does this--so I do not think her actions were out of line.  I concur with Judge Wright that we have a legal if not moral obligation to do everything under our power t sure that the LRSD is pursuing a course of quality desegregated education. I also happen to believe that we should do what ever it takes to comply with Judge Wright's orders--after all, she is a federal judge, makes a hell of a lot more money than we do, and can not be fired or beat in an election. But besides those reasons, I believe we should do what we can to carry out this plan because the Little Rock School District Board of Directors voted to implement it to the best of the school district's ability, and I believe there are parts of it that are effective in achieving the goal of a quality, desegregated educational experience for our students though I again agree with the judge that there are parts of the plan that are expensive and may not be the most economical or effective means to achieve our goals. I do take offense to some of the statements made by Judge Wright in her report to us. First of all, I am not a whiner or a complainer. It offends me that the Judge feels the need to stereotype me for comments that were not made by me nor that reflect the official and stated policy of the LRSD. I would remind the Judge of her own words from the hearing last week \"impressions are important\". I believe that we should not allow ourselves to be involved in name call--it will serve no useful purpose. Again, though I find other areas of agreement with Judge Wright. Her statement that the LRSD acts as if it lost its court case is a dead solid perfect description of how many of the patrons and even this board feels about our current situation. And understandably so, for any time that people lose the right to direct their lives and institutions, then those people have LOST. And in a real sense, the citizens of LR have lost most of the ability to direct the most important institution in our fair city--our schools. The vital, important lesson here is this: do the moral and right thing the first time and hold people accountable so that you do not put yourself in the position where you have to seek help from the federal court system. I also am very concerned about the judge's statements seemingly discouraging discussion by duly elected  lie officials at an official public meeting. Discussion and debate are key elements in a true democracy. ainly public debate over the direction of our most important political entity, our schools, should be enAraged. Again, I am not suggesting in an way that we disregard the federal authorities in this case--we should m!l'every reasonable effort to carry out our desegregation plan and Judge Wright' orders with all deliberate speed. I also have some concerns over Judge Wright's orders in regards to our attendance at court hearings. I chose to believe that Judge Wright is being truthful in her document when she requested our attendance at this particular hearing because she feared we do not understand our obligations or her orders--others in the community believe Judge Wright's actions to be purely punitive and vindictive. I chose to reject this argument. I truly believe the judge is concerned about our understanding of some of the issues and her orders in this case. I would ask, though, that the judge give some considerations to the nature of this board when she requires our attendance at more hearings. The LRSD board is composed of non-paid volunteers who are elected by the ta,\"(payers of the school district. Each of us have a job we are employed at in order that we can pay the rent, cloth and feed our family, and pay our taxes. We serve because we are committed to public service and to quality public education. The court must be mindful of the already countless hours of time that we take away from our jobs to serve our patrons. I believe the judge runs a very real risk of implying that only the independently wealthy who do not have to work can serve on this or any other public board--this is a dangerous and wrong signal to send to our community, and again I will remind the Judge that in her own words that \"impressions are important\". I would contend that if the judge is truthful in her belief that we do not understand her orders ( and again I believe that she is) then I would say that if this board does not understand what Judge Wright expects after Friday's hearing then there is absolutely no hope for us and Judge Wright should go ahead and hold us in contempt and take over complete control of the school district. I believe that this board certainly got the message and that there is no need to continue to require us to attend hearings for the expressed reason of understanding her orders. The judge also expressed concern that our council and superintendent were not relaying to the board the full concern o court. I would suggest that as a compromise, if the judge will cancel her order to require us to attend ha gs, I will agree to attend all hearings in the next year and give a personal report back to the board on just exactly what the court expects. Although I am like the rest of the board with a job outside of my school board activities, I am very fortunate to work for an employer who will allow me to make this time commitment to the court and fortunate to work with very competent and thoughtful co-workers who will take up the slack in my absence. So I believe the judge has accomplished her goal of getting our attention and I will be willing to attend further hearings to ensure the board keeps the message, although I am sure other board members will want from time to time to attend hearings as they can and as they have done in the past. I would like to explain to the judge and our patrons also why sometimes members of this board seemed confused ( as I am most of the time) about our desegregation plan. Partly, and especially as it relates to our budget, we get mixed signals from the court. Ont the one hand the judge and Mr. Morgan at the ODM(and certainly me and rm sure other board members) are insisting that we spend the proceeds of our desegregation settlement wisely and where it will do the most good. Yet, the judge also directs us to fund programs that the school district, this board, perhaps the Joshua Intervenors, and the judge herself feel are ineffective and a waste of money. So here is the great dilemma: we get accused of not spending money wisely by the court and then we are told by the court to spend money on programs that the court feels are wasteful and will not further us on our road to achieve unitary status by having excellent desegregated education in Little Rock. It is no wonder that my wife thinks rm turning into a schizoid. I talked at the February board meeting about how my company produces a marketing document first and then puts the dollars to it, not vice-versa. This statement was made in the context of agreeing with the court for the need to hire someone to assist us with developing a budgeting process along those lines. I would also remind the court that one of the values of a marketing document is that it is flexible and can be changed as market  itions change. An inflexible document or plan is the surest way I know of to send a company or a school ct into bankruptcy. Judge Wright stated in court Friday that we have some latitude to modify this plan. Ta are only a very few provisions of the plan that are sacred according to the 8th Circuit court of appeals. I h9those items and will pass them out to our board in case some of us have forgotten what they were. Anything else is fair game as long as the parties in the case agree that the plan needs to be changed and the changes are not facially unconstitutional. ,\\nd finally, since I have taken up too much time already, let me address some thoughts to the Joshua intervenors. the LRSD administration, this board , the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the court and most importantly, our patrons. I find it very disheartening that this board and district seem to always find themselves in some sort of battle on a continuing basis. What particularly bothers me is that most times those that we fight have the exact same goals as we do!! And that goal is this: that Little Rock should have the finest desegregated school system that we can afford where fairness and equity are found as the rule and where our patrons and students feel that they are getting the best education possible in our town. As I was leaving the hearing Friday, Iv1r. John Walker was holding the elevator door for me and said, \"come on Ivir. Riggs, as long as you don't mind riding with the enemy.\" Now I know Ivir. Walker said this in jest because he knows that I consider him a friend and have great respect for him, but it is this misconception that since we sometimes do not agree on strategies that we must be enemies that holds this district and even this city back from greatness. We are not the enemy of the Joshua Intervenors\nwe are not the enemy of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring\nwe are not the enemy of Judge Wright and the eighth circuit court\nwe are not the enemy of the patrons of our gifted and talent programs\nwe are not the enemy of the students and parents from Central High\nwe are not the enemy of the Aero Space Education Center advocates. We are the enemy of ignorance\nwe are the enemy of prejudice\nwe are the enemy of inequity in education. I believe all these other groups believe ignorance, prejudice and inequity to be their enemy also. And so instead of enemies, we are allies in this school district's attempt to be an example of excellent desegregated education. It is ~ aradigm that we must go forward with from this day on. This paradigm must have at its core inclusiveness\n- aradigm must go along the lines of this: that to accomplish our ambitious and noble dream YOU AND I , not you OR I, but you AND I must work together, hand in hand to make our dream reality. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting April 1, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District conducted a special meeting at 11:09 a.m. on April 1, 1993, in the employee lounge of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The meeting was hastily called as a result of a group of Central High School students and parents who presented themselves at the AdJninistration Building requesting a meeting. The vice-president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Riggs - MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Moore Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli OTHERS PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The vice-president called the meeting to order at 11:09 a.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four ( 4) Board members, which constituted a quorum. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The vice-president announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of responding to a petition of citizens which was submitted on March 17, 1993. Extensive discussion ensued regarding whether or not this special meeting is the special meeting asked for in the petition. It was finally decided that the Board would conduct another meeting when all Board members could be present. The students were particularly interested in Mr. John - Moore being present at the next meeting. Board members explained their time constraints and it was decided that the students would share some of their concerns in this meeting but with the understanding that another meeting would be held in response to the petition. The students did not identify themselves, but they shared the following concerns: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. That they were not getting a good education. That teachers are not following the curriculum. There are too many kids outside the building at Central. There is no leadership at the school. Some teachers curse in the classroom. Students who demonstrated are being harassed. People spray MACE in the bathrooms\ntherefore, they can't go to the bathroom. People smoke marijuana in the bathrooms. Teachers do not dress professionally\nthey wear very short skirts or warm-ups. Teachers say things like \"sit your ass down.\" At lunch all white students are in the front and all black students are in back. Black or African history. is not taught and that one month of black history emphasis is insulting, artificial and divisive. There are very few library books on African-Americans. They think that the exclusion of black people is deliberate. Textbooks ignore African-Americans. Teachers wait until you leave their room before writing students up and then the student has D-Hall but doesn't know anything about it. Extensive discussion ensued concerning the students' complaints about the lack of African and African-American history. The students asked that an elective course in African studies be offered and that the curriculum be truly multi-cultural. Mr. Bill Hamilton had to leave the meeting at 11:58 a.m. to attend another meeting. Mrs. Hafeeza Majeed complained that she did not get a reply to her letter which contained the petition asking for a special meeting and that she was directed to go through the chain of command when she complained of the harassment of students. The students pointed out that a great deal of attention is given to the 6 million Jews that were killed by Nazi's in Germany but very little is said about the 100 million African-American slaves that have been killed in the United States. Mrs. Frazier, a parent, complained that there is a complete disregard and respect for citizens as people who can go to Central - and voice their opinions. Mr. Dorsey Jackson left the meeting at 12:50 p.m. because of a prior commitment. After discussion was completed, the special meeting adjourned at 1:02 p.m. John~:esident ,~A,..Jdhll@ Katherine Mitchell, Secretary ( ~- , ,  -, APPROVED: __- '-~----_\n'~- ~- --_\"-~_) _____ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in its regularly scheduled monthly meeting at 6:04 p.m. on April 22, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli Ms. Pat Gee Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: None - EX OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Caroline Bryant, Teacher Representative Miss Terry Luster, Student Representative ALSO PRESENT: I. Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: President John Moore called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of all seven (7) Board members. II. READING OF THE MINUTES: The chair directed the Board members' attention to the minutes of the special meeting on February 16, 1993\nthe regular meeting on March 25, 1993\nand the special meeting on April 1, 1993. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli moved approval of the minutes as submitted. Mr. Dorsey Jackson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 III. PRESENTATIONS: A. Superintendent 2 Dr. Mac Bernd presented a Superintendent's Citation to Mrs. Mary Guinn, Principal of Carver Magnet Elementary School, in recognition of Carver School being named one of \"America's Best Elementary Schools\" by REDBOOK MAGAZINE. Carver will receive $2,000 from the SEGA Youth Education and Health Foundation as a result of this distinction. Also honored with a Superintendent's Citation was Coach Charles Ripley of Parkview Magnet High School and his 1992-93 basketball team who won the ,l\\rkansas State Championship. Mr. Ripley was also recognized for being named by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette as the 1993 High School Coach of the Year. Dr. Diana Glaze was presented a Superintendent's Citation in honor of her being chosen as one of 50 educators to receiving training in a National Association of School Principals SAAC workshop held last month in San Francisco. She was also chosen to participate in the convention's Principal' s Hotline, which was organized to offer a toll-free telephone line to parents, students, and educators from throughout the nation giving them the opportunity to ask questions concerning learning problems, interpretation of school policies, and basic parenting. Dr. Glaze also presided at one of the NASP meetings entitled \"Make a Difference in the Lives of Children -- Building a Winning Team.\" Citations were also given to the student and teacher ex officio members of the Board for this month: Ms. Caroline Bryant of Fair Park Elementary, and Miss Terri Luster of Parkview Magnet School. B. Citizens Committees None. c. Board Members Ms. Pat Gee reminded the Board members and audience that this is Arkansas Childrens' Week. Mrs. Gee also asked that the agenda be re-ordered to allow the educational report to be given after the educational partnerships are recognized. The Board approved of the request\ntherefore, Ms. Gee moved to re-order the agenda to allow the educational report to be given after the partnerships on the agenda. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Dorsey Jackson directed the Board members' attention to a Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 3 program called \"Arkansas Designated Driver Highway Hero Program\" and the \"Prom Promise\" program for an alcohol and drug free prom. He expressed appreciation and thanks on behalf of the Board for those fine programs. Mr. Jackson also asked the Board to consider taking the desegregation plan and begin to get regular reports on it at each month's Board meeting. He asked the Board members to begin thinking about the types of reports and information it would like to receive. In addition, Mr. Jackson asked that the administration and Board begin to review Board policies and start revising and updating the policies as necessary. Dr. Katherine Mitchell said she believed the Board should have a work session to find out what is in the desegregation plan and make sure the different school administrators and teachers know what is in the plan. Mr. John Riggs agreed with Mr. Jackson's request to begin receiving regular reports on the desegregation plan. He also told Board members that he found it educational to learn of the concerns of the Judge and of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring but it was heartening to learn that ODM and the administration agreed on many items. Mr. Riggs also announced that he attended the VIPS Evening with the Stars and expressed that he felt the success of individual schools is directly proportionate to the amount of input and time spent in the schools by parents. He also called for the administration and Board to begin strategic planning and to \"create a vision\" for our schools. Mr. John Moore said that he and other Board members who missed Court this week will go back for a private session with the Judge to catch up. Mr. John Moore presented a souvenir gavel to Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli commemorating her service to the Board of Directors as president of the Board. Mrs. Jacovelli thanked everyone for their expressions of good wishes during her recent illness and asked for their continued thoughts and prayers. D. Partnerships Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the following schools and businesses who have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives: University of Arkansas at Little Rock College of Arts, Humanities \u0026amp; Social Sciences, and Mann Arts and Math/Science Magnet\nthe Arkansas cattlemen's Association and Romine Interdistrict School\nand the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated, and Wilson Elementary School. Representatives of all partnerhips were introduced and awarded certificates to commemorate the new partnerships. Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS REPORT 4 Mrs. Janet Bernard introduced Mr. Larry Robertson, Assistant Superintendent. Mr. Larry Robertson introduced Ms. Mary Golston, principal of Badgett Elementary School. Mrs. Golston reported that the \"Operation Excel\" program at Badgett Elementary School was a mentoring program that brings together several advocates of the school, including Dr. Brown from the University of Georgia, and the school's partner in education, Webster University's Jerry Peters. She reviewed some of the volunteer work that is taking place at the school and introduced Mr. Greg Gipson, Youth Minister at First United Methodist Church. Mr. Gipson reported the his church has a program called ASEP (A Student Enrichment Program) to work with at-risk students. Each Tuesday evening church members pick up children at their home and bring them to the church for tutoring and a meal. They also maintain a relationship with the children throughout the school year. Mr. Jerry Peters reported on some of his activities at Badgett, including a contract for good behavior. He also recognized the Rebsamen Golf Association for donating 250 golf clubs for Badgett's golf course. He challenged the Board to be leaders because vision is developed by leaders. IV. REMARKS FROM CITIZENS: Dr. Lloyd Benjamin, representing the Board of Overseers of KLRE/KUAR, reviewed the District's history of support for the radio station and the partnership with UALR. He urged the Board not to cut the District's share of funding for the station. Dr. Tom Munson, representing the Friends of KLRE/KUAR, emphasized the broad educational ventures that the programming at KLRE/KUAR provides. He urged the Board to continue its support of the station. Mr. Somers Matthews spoke in opposition to the use of calculators in grades K-6. He asked the Board to re-visit this practice and abolish the use of calculators in grades K-6. Ms. Sheila Parker told the Board that she is sick of what is going on in the District and asked the Board to bring the evidence before the community. She suggested that if the Board cuts the budget, it should start with the administration. - Mr. Bill Lambright asked the Board to reconsider the decision to change the name of winter vacation to Christmas vacation. Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 RECESS: The Board recessed at 7:22 p.m. and reconvened at 7:55 p.m. v. A. ACTION ITEMS: Proposal for Naming the Mann Magnet Junior High School Gymnasium in Honor of Coach Oliver Elders 5 Mrs. Marion Lacey, principal of Mann Magnet Junior High School, introduced the contingency of alumni who support the naming of the gymnasium at Mann in honor of Coach Oliver Elders. The alumni members present were Mr. Grant Cochran, Mr. Morris Williams, Mrs. Gwen Ziegler, Coach Oliver Elders, and Mr. Sterling Ingram. She also recognized Dr. Katherine Mitchell as an alumnus. Dr. Grant Cochran briefly spoke in favor of the naming of the gymnasium. Dr. Mac Bernd recommended that the Board approve this tribute to Coach Elders by naming the Horace Mann Gymnasium the OLIVER ELDERS GYMNASIUM. Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli moved the recommendation. Mr. Bill Hamilton seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. B. King Attendance Zones Dr. Bernd introduced Ms. Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity. Mrs. Parker made a presentation concerning the proposed zones, explaining the significance of each zone block. She also reported on her meetings with the parents of Ish Incentive School concerning the possibility of closing the school. Extensive discussion ensued concerning the incentive schools, their purpose, and the need to desegregate the incentive schools. Mrs. Sarah Facen, representing the Ish community, urged the Board to keep Ish Incentive School open and suggested that it not be included in the King attendance boundary. Following discussion, Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the proposed attendance zone for the new Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict School. Mr. John Riggs moved the administration's recommendation. Mrs. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. A copy of the attendance zones are attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. VI . REPORT AGENDA: A. Report on 1993-94 Budget A Dr. Bernd told the Board that this report is really a W \"Financial Forecast,\" which is preliminary to proposing a budget. Board of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 6 He reviewed the process that has been and will be used to develop the final 1993-94 budget which he will present for the Board's adoption in July. He also reviewed the Citizens Budget Report which is attached to the materials forwarded to the Board. Dr. Bernd introduced Mr. Gary Jones, Manager of Resources and School Support. Mr. Jones presented the District's revenue/expense forecast. Using an overhead projector, his presentation included an examination of the budget reduction criteria, which is (a) compliance with the desegregation plan\n(b) minimize impact to programs\nand (c) streamline organizational pyramid. He reviewed the budget recommendations and position reductions, all of which will reduce the growth in the pudget by $7.5 million. Mr. Jones reviewed the reinstatement of programs and the revenue forecast for 1993-94. Board members expressed concern about Mabelvale Junior High being the only junior high with a six period day, the seniority of the former Pulaski County teachers, the impact of the reduction of 50 computer aides, a need to listen to the staff members from the bottom up, and the need for Board members to be provided with an organizational chart and accompanying job descriptions. A copy of the budget presentation is attached to these minutes and made a part hereof. B. Report on Summer School Plans Mrs. Janet Bernard directed the Board members' attention to the report contained in the printed agenda. Board members asked questions. VII. CONSENT AGENDA: Mrs. Jacovelli moved the consent agenda. seconded the motion. The consent agenda included: Dr. Mitchell A. approval of the donations as listed in the printed agenda\nB. approval of the right-of-way at Wakefield Elementary School as described in the printed agenda\ne C. approval of the submission of the Levi Strauss grant as described in the printed agenda\nBoard of Directors Regular Meeting April 22, 1993 7 D. approval of the personnel changes as reflected in the printed agenda: and E. approval of the financial reports as submitted in the printed agenda. The motion to approve the items in the consent agenda carried unanimously. VIII. AUDIENCE WITH INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS Dr. Selma Hobby suggested that employees have an opportunity to suggest budget cuts. IX. STUDENT AND/OR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY RECOMMENDATIONS Dr. Bernd directed the Board's attention to the noncontested expulsion recommendation of Eric Dailey and the long-term suspensions of the following students. Adrienne Alexander, Bridget Austin, Latisha Austin, Gary Brown, Galisa Bryant, Branden Cage, Rondale Cox, Jalal Dawson, Damien Ellison, Melvin Floyd, Cyrus Gamble, Bobby Harris, Martin Henderson, Leroy Hurd, Kamil Jabara, Mervyn Johnson, Tameka Johnson, Kendall Jones, Naomi Jones, Calvin Long, Owen McMullen, Jermaine Morris, Robert Porter, Marcus Rafter, Bobby Salazar, Shannon Scales, Antwan Scott, DeAngela Staples, Willie Tyler, Shantae Whale, Keenan Wheeler, and Undra Williams. Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the administration's noncontested recommendations on the above students. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the regular meeting of the Board of Directors, upon motion by Mr. Riggs, a second by Mrs. Jacovelli, and unanimous approval of the Board members, the meeting adjourned at 10:34 p.m. JJ?de]~ Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Secretary APPROVED: 0 _, ru\ni ~ 7 ~ -~---------------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting April 28, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5: 11 p. m. on April 28, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, ~rkansas. The president, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the meeting to order at 5:11 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called for the purpose of considering the District's budget reductions and for the re-election of personnel. CITIZENS COMMENTS: Mr. Michael Nellums spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruiter Coordinator. Mr. Eric Coleman spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruiter Coordinator. Ms. Stephanie Copes spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruiter Coordinator. Ms. Pamela Staton spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruiter Coordinator. Ms. Georgia Wells spoke in opposition to the recommendation to reduce the hours of library clerks. Ms. Judith Runyon spoke in opposition to the recommendation to ablish the position of computer lab attendant. Rev. C. E. McAdoo spoke in .opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruiter Coordinator. Ms. Valarie Scarbrough spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Ms. Linda Battisto spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruiter Coordinator. Ms. Eleanor Reasoner spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Mr. Calvin Carter spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Mr. Frank Martin expressed his view that lack of planning and mismanagement has caused the current budget deficit. Ms. Ginny Kurrus spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Ms. Susan Hood spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Ms. Judith Yeager spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Ms. Joyce Lamb spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of computer lab attendant. Rev. James Thrower spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruitment Coordinator. Mr. Donald Richardson spoke in opposition to the recommendation to abolish the position of Minority Recruitment Coordinator. Mr. Don Umfleet spoke in opposition to the recommendation to - abolish his position. PERSONNEL RENEWALS: Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the personnel actions listed in sections 1 through 5 on the handout given to each Board member. Board members asked questions. Following discussion concerning the recruitment of students for classes at Metropolitan and the method for removing deficiencies in certification, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved the recommendation of the administration on the staff renewals as presented. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried four (4) to two (2). Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Gee voted in opposition to the motion. PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS: Dr. Bernd directed the ,Board members' attention to the restructuring of the budget reduction in the Volunteers in Public Schools department. He explained that this restructuring will reduce the contract lengths of six (6) VIPS staff members in order to realize the necessary savings. The Board recessed at 6:47 p.m. and reconvened at 7:15 p.m. Upon reconvening, Dr. Bernd presented the remainder of the list of reductions as follows: 1) two driver trainers\n2) two custodial supervisors\n3) one construction manager\n4) one EPA Coordinator\n5) one assistant director for media services\n6) one recruitment coordinator\n7) one communications specialist\n8) onehalf assistant principal at Gibbs Magnet School\n9) one Partners in Education Manager\n10) one secretary in Human Resources\n11) one secretary to an assistant superintendent\n12) one vocational secretary\n13) one plant services secretary\n14) one transportation shop clerk\n15) one food service data entry person\n16) reduction in contract lengths of VIPS staff members\n17) 50 computer aides\n18) reduction of the hours of media clerks\n19) one plant services painter\n20) one plant services stock clerk\n21) one plant services trade helper\nand 22) eight math teachers. Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the personnel reductions and reviewed the process and timeline for approving a tentative budget at the end of May so the tentative budget can be submitted to Judge Wright for approval. Extensive discussion ensued concerning the District's ability to meet its obligations under the Desegregation Plan in light of the budget reduction recommendations. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Gee indicated that they would like to have a budget work session. Following additional discussion and questions from Board members, Dr. Mitchell moved to table action on the recommendations for budget cuts until the Board has an opportunity to review the District's desegregation plan and the cuts' effect upon it. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion. After discussion, the motion carried five (5) to one (1). Mr. John Moore voted in opposition to the motion. SUBMISSION OF TENTATIVE BUDGET: Mr. Gary Jones presented the tentative budget document and commended his staff for their hard work in preparing the document in a timely manner. He suggested that the Board schedule individual meetings with him to discuss the format and coding. Mr. Jackson commended Dr. Bernd for fulfilling his promise to get the budget to the Board before May 1. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved for adjournment. Mr. John Riggs seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. There being no further business to come before the special meeting of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Jo] re, President '-~~ Katherine Mitchell, Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting May 3, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:08 p.m. on May 3, 1993, in the Roosevelt Thompson Auditorium at Central High School. The meeting was held in response to a petition of fifty (50) citizens requesting a meeting. The pre~ident, Mr. John Moore, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Pat Gee Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. O. G. Jacovelli ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: The president called the special meeting to order at 5:08 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of six (6) Board members. PURPOSE OF SPECIAL MEETING: The chair announced that the special meeting was called in response to a petition signed by fifty (50) citizens. The meeting was held at Central High School at the request of Mrs. Hafeeza Majeed on behalf of Central students. STUDENT COMMENTS: Mr. Reginald Taylor read the \"1993 Little Rock Central High Crisis\" philosophy statement. A copy of the philosophy statement is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Mr. Truman Hardin submitted to the Board two requests: that students be excused from school on May 27 and 28 in order to make a trip to Memphis\nand that Mr. Hickman be allowed to be a part of the 1993 graduation ceremonies. Miss Tenille Mitchell expressed her disappointment in her educational environment and complained about the lack of AfricanAmerican authors on the reading lists. Mr. Reginald Dodson reiterated the students' request to be excused on May 27 and 28. He also expressed disappointment that his previous complaints about harrassment has not been followed up. He told the Board that two of the teachers who are harassing him are Robin Davis and Joe Gray. He also complained about the lack of a multi-cultural curriculum. He complained that the students did not have enough notice on the NCCJ sponsored retreat. Ms. Pat Gee asked Mr. Dodson to send her an itinerary on the trip to Memphis. Willis Bailey asked for fairness and equitable treatment of personnel. He told the Board that he was afraid to come to Central High before Mr. Hickman came. Tracy Oliver expressed disappointment that there are no caucasian students at this meeting. She expressed that she was offended that someone would feel threatened by those who demonstrated and that she felt a strong sense of racism because of it. Naima Majeed told the Board that she wanted Mr. Hickman to get his job back because he is innocent. She expressed her view that Central is a hateful place since Mr. Hickman left and that teachers are not dressing professionally and not coming to school. She said she had been looked at funny, harassed by teachers, and called stupid. Pauline Williams said the students' personal lives have been affected and that the image of the community has been affected by what has happened to Mr. Hickman. She expressed that she is proud of the mature way in which the students have handled the situation. She urged the students to continue to do that. She urged them to search out assistance from adults they respect. She urged the - students to use \"reverse peer pressure.\" Dr. Katherine Mitchell told the students that she applauds their efforts and commended them for the way in which they have conducted themselves. She expressed regret that the students who marched to the Administration Building was not allowed to enter the building. She urged them to continue to stand for what they believe in a peaceful and orderly way. Mr. James H. Powell commended the students for their presentations to the Board. He reviewed his background in the civil rights movement and his work with Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. He said he had fought for his daughter, who is now a student at Central High School. He suggested that if Mr. Hickman is a criminal he should be prosecuted. He expressed concern that \"droplets\" of 1957 are still here at Central., i.e., students do not intermingle. Ms. Linda Williams expressed concern that the children are hurting. She asked that the school set another date for the NCCJ program and give more notice to the students. Mr. Byron Jenkins, a senior at Central High School, said Mr. Hickman was a great role model. Miss Tenille Mitchell asked if the District administers drug tests to teachers. She said there is a lot of \"stuff\" going on at Central and she doesn't see the Board doing its job. She said education here is a joke. Mr. Akim Majeed told the Board that everyone needs to \"get off their seats downtown\" and find out what is going on. He said he could name people who are under the influence of drugs at Central High School. Mr. Sammy Mills told the Board that the kids are reaching out for help. He urged the Board to find another date for the NCCJ program and offer it again. He expressed disappointment that there are not more parents and students at this meeting. He said there should be white students and parents and teachers here. Mr. Rochelle Webb told the Board that she loves Mr. Hickman and wants him back. Ms. Dorothy Oliver asked if suspension was the only option the administration had or could a less drastic action been taken. She asked why this meeting could not have been scheduled during the day to allow all students, parents, and teachers to attend. Ms. Sheila Parker told the Board that she is trying to get rid of Dr. Bernd. Miss Michelle Wallace complained that Ms. Swain never comes out of her office except when the students are in class. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the special meeting, Mr. Dorsey Jackson moved to adjnurn. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried five (5) to one (1). Dr. Katherine Mitchell voted against adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Jo~e, President 4,,J~ Katherine Mitchell, Secretary PREAMBLE \"1993 LIT'rLE ROCK CENTRAL HIGH CRISIS\" PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT We, the undersigned students of Little Rock Central High School, Little Rock, Arkansas, do hereby adopt the following Philosophy Statement. The groundwork for the development of this statement was achieved by conducting student surveys at LRCH, copies of which are attached . This statement addresses our concerns and resolutions for the current \"crisis\" at our school and the resulting racial polarization of our city and state. This \"crisis\" is the result of the suspension of our principal, Mr. John L. Hickman, Jr., an African American male who, single-handedly, restored a safe educational and social environment to the school. Furthermore, the educational goals and aspirations of many students presently enrolled at Little Rock Central, have been greatly impacted by the sudden loss of this \"Mr. Joe Clark\" personality, because, in the words of many parents and students, \"Mr. Hickman is the only reason that I am attending Little Rock Central High today.\" e we, therefore, submit our names as representation that we believe the time has come for the students of this great and historical institution to begin writing the history of the \"second\" crisis at Little Rock Central High, the \"1993 Crisis of Little Rock Central High.\" STATEMENT During the crisis at Little Rock Central High School in 1957, nine African American students were denied the right to a \"quality\" integrated education . In 1993, we believe that the \"crisis\" at Little Rock Central High still remains the same, because the right to a \"quality\" integrated education for all children continues to be attacked. The education that we seek and the lessons that we are currently learning can no longer be contained within the four walls of the physical building. For many of us, \"learning\" has advanced from the \"pages\" of our textbooks and has spilled over into our city's streets, neighborhoods and communities. Clearly, for many of us, \"education\" has become a lesson about racism, which is alive and well at Little Rock Central High, and throughout our city and state. - The \"one--of-a-kind\" educational environment that Mr. John L. Hickman, Jr. created in our school has been attacked and destroyed by the racist attitudes of the \"leaders\" of our school district. The dominoe effect of this racism is evidenced by the racial polarization that is plagueing our school and our city. LRCH PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT Page 2 As children, we learn from the examples of our parents and other adults. Thus, we have witnessed African American students actively supporting the \"cause'', and Anglo-Saxon students have been absent in expressing support for the safe educational and social environment that was present under the administration of Mr. Hickman. The racial polarization is further evidenced by a majority Caucasian Board of Directors who continue to make decisions based on \"color\" instead of \"content.\" Furthermore, the present \"crisis\" has resulted in a placed on the local media, preventing them from entering to report peaceful assemblies by students who have express themselves through demoristrations. ban being the campus chosen to Inevitably, many students at Little Rock Central High have experienced strained relationships among students, teachers, and other administrative staff. Some students, along with parents, have been arrested, handcuffed and jailed as a result of a March 31 demonstration (\"sit-in\") in the school's cafeteria. The demonstration, ironically, was in protest of the refusal by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to honor Ark. State - La\\-:, AR Code Annotated 6-13-619, which states that \"School Boards are required to meet with citizens to address the issues of concern to those citizens when the petition is signed by fifty (50) or more registered voters of the school district.\" Thus, the students of Little Rock Central High who, hereby, agree with this philosophy statement, do offer the following resolutions for a peaceful end to the \"1993 Crisis at Little Rock Central High School, Little Rock, AR: 1. We believe that it is fair and rational for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to immediately reinstate Mr. John L. Hickman, Jr., as the Principal of Little Rock Central High School. 2. In the absence of \"fair and impartial\" conduct by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, we believe that a thorough investigation must be conducted that will ultimately result in the termination of the contract of Dr. Cloyde \"Mac\" Bernd as Superintendent of the Little Rock Public Schools. 3. We believe that the presence of Associate Superintendent, Ms. Janet Bernard, in our District, has greatly hampered and ultimately destroyed the safe educational and social environment at Little Rock Central High. We further believe that the degrading actions of Ms. Bernard has negatively impacted the lives of many students and parents in our city. We, therefore, appeal to Little Rock residents, and the parents and students of Little Rock Central High to join us in seeking to have the contract of Mrs. Bernard terminated. LRCH PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT Page 3 4. The Ad Hoc Committee for Fairness and Equity in Little Rock Public Schools believe that the members of the Board of Directors should be representative of the majority population of African American students in our District. We, therefore, have agreed to actively participate in seating at least four African American Board members. We, the student representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee For Fairness and Equity in Little Rock Public Schools, and all other students whose names appear below, do invite all members of the community and media representatives to a \"send-off\" ceremony, on Tuesday, May 4, 2:00 p.m., at 1723 S. Broadway, Little Rock, AR. This ceremony will be held to send our Philosophy Statement and the attached signatures, via facsimile and Federal Express, to the following individuals: 1. The Honorable Bill Clinton, President of the United States, Washington, D.C. 2. The Honorable Jim Guy Tucker, Governor, State of Arkansas Little Rock, AR 3. Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, President, National Rainbow Coalition Washington, D.C .  Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Board of Directors Special Meeting May 13, 1993 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District met in a lawfully-called special meeting at 5:22 p.m. on Thursday, May 13, 1993, in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. The vice-president, Mr. Dorsey Jackson, presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Dorsey Jackson Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli Ms. Pat Gee Mr. John Riggs MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Moore Mr. Willie D. (Bill) Hamilton ALSO PRESENT: Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Mrs. Pat Kumpuris, Recorder of the Minutes Mr. Don Umfleet, Audio Specialist CALL TO ORDER: The Vice President called the meeting to order at 5:22 p.m. The roll call revealed the presence of four (4) Board members. Mr. Riggs joined the meeting at 5:35 p.m. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION ON TRANS: Dr. Bernd explained the Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory notes and Fixing Form and Terms Thereof. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli moved approval of the Resolution. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. A copy of the Resolution is attached to these minutes and made a part hereof. - ADOPTION OF COMPUTER SCIENCE TEXTBOOK: Board of Directors Special Meeting May 13, 1993 2 Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the Selection Committee's recommendation as shown on the Local Adoption Form furnished to the Board members. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. A copy of the Local Adoption Form is attached to these minutes and made a part hereof. ADOPTION OF SECONDARY MATHEMATICS TEXTBOOK: Dr. Bernd recommended th~t the Board approve the Selection Committee's recommendations as shown on the memo from Mrs. Estelle Matthis to the Board members. Mrs. 0. G. Jacovelli moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Dr. Katherine Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. A copy of the memo listing the secondary mathematics textbook recommendations is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ABC CONTINUING GRANT: Dr. Bernd directed the Board members' attention to the information previously furnished to them concerning the Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) grant for third-year funding of developmentally appropriate early childhood education programs. Dr. Bernd recommended that the Board approve the submission of the 1993-94 grant application in the amount of $233,992.00. Dr. Katherine Mitchell moved the Superintendent's recommendation. Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. RECESS: The special meeting was recessed at 6:38 p.m. to convene the regularly scheduled agenda review meeting. Following the agenda review meeting, the special meeting was reconvened. DISCUSSION OF STUDENT REQUESTS: Dr. Bernd reminded the Board members that the Central High School students had made two requests during the meeting with them on May 3. Discussion ensued concerning the requests for excused absences to go on a trip to Memphis and for Mr. Hickman to preside over their graduation. By consensus, the Board decided that the absence request should be handled by the school administrato\"r in compliance with the LRSD Attendance Policy and that the exact rules used in similar cases should be followed. Dr. Bernd also mentioned that Mr. Hickman's attendance at graduation should depend upon his employment status at the time. Board of Directors Special Meeting May 13, 1993 EMPLOYEE HEARING: 3 The Board conducted a closed hearing on behalf of Monica Scott. After hearing all testimony and considering the evidence in the case, Mrs. o. G. Jacovelli moved for an executive session. Ms. Pat Gee seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The Board recessed into executive session at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:31 p. m. Upon reconvening, Dr. Mac Bernd recommended that Ms. Scott be su\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_661","title":"Obligations","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":["1993/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Obligations"],"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/661"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["202 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nIncludes ''Audit of Obligations'' (October 1993-1994)\n''Obligations from the Pulaski County Desegregation Case'' (August 1995, draft copy)\nand news clippings\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL JAN 3 1 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Cffics Ct Desegn 9' tVtOi uiCf'PQ INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached audit of obligations, October 1993 October 1994. The attached audit of obligations is being filed in order to apprise the court, the monitor and the parties of the desegregation efforts being made by LRSD. LRSD's progress in meeting its desegregation obligations will be shown in the LRSD Program Budget Document. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 27th day of January 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 It Christopher Heller U' 2RECEIV^rD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 4 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS . No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS The Plaintiff, \"District\"), NOTICE OF FILING Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. Representatives of the District attended budget hearings before this Court on Tuesday, August 1, and Wednesday, August 2, 1995 . During the hearing on the afternoon of August 2, this Court heard testimony and evidence regarding the desegregation obligations of the District and efforts which had been made to compile a listing of the obligations under subject categories and identify those persons who are primarily and secondarily responsible for those obligations. 2 . The examination initially related to the desegregation duties and responsibilities of the deputy superintendent and the assistant to the deputy superintendent as well as those persons who would now be assigned those duties and, thereby, become responsible d iana\\pcssd\\lll i ng-4. ikx -1-for insuring that the District complies with those obligations. Specifically, it is the District's understanding that this Court wanted to be apprised of those desegregation-related responsibilities of the deputy superintendent which will now be performed by other persons within the District. 3 . Attached hereto as Exhibit One (1) is a true and accurate copy of the District's rough draft listing of its desegregation- related obligations from the various sources as identified in the document. Please note that this document is by no means intended to represent the District's final representation of its desegregation obligations. Rather, it is envisioned that further clean up, adjustment and refinement to this document will occur to remove redundancies, items which are not obligations and the like. As identified in the document, certain subject areas were previously assigned to and under the supervision of the deputy superintendent. In those instances, the deputy superintendent served as the primary leader for those subject areas during the 1994-95 school year. During the 1995-96 school year, the attached document reflects the job titles of the persons who will now be the primary leaders for those subject areas. The District understands that this Court has also 4 . 5. requested revised job descriptions for those persons who will assume responsibility for duties formerly performed by the deputy superintendent. The District will prepare those job descriptions and provide them to the Court, ODM and the parties upon their completion. diana\\pcssd\\ti}ing-4.no( -2-WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District does hereby submit the foregoing in accordance with the order of this Court made from the bench on Wednesday, August 2, 1995, and requests that it be awarded any and all legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201-3493 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT diana\\pcssd\\fiiing-4.rxx Jerry L. Malone Bar I. D. No. 85096 -3- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, except as otherwise indicated, on August 4, 1995, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. (Hand-delivered) Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered as per Order by the Court) Attorney at Law Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone diana'pcssdifiling-J.rxx -4-March 12, 1996 AR \"^S EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 1 y \u0026lt;'./ 1500 WEST 4TH STREET UTTIEROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1064 PHONE: (501) 375-4611 FAX: (5011375-4620 GRAINGER lEDBETTER President CORA D. McHENRY Executive Director An NEA Stole Affiliate Memorandum Office To: From: Little Rock Desegregation Committee Cora D. McHenry, Co-Chair Bill Bowen, Co-Chair Enclosed you will find materials to review in preparation for our meeting on March 14, 1996. If you have any questions, please feel free to give us a call. Thanks. Enclosure BB/CDMcH:at-jDesegregation Committee The Role of the Committee: 1. Determine the extent to which the Board has been able to meet the goals of the current desegregation plan. 2, Identify barriers impeding the Boards ability to implement the current plan. 3. Make recommendations for possible alternative actions that will make it feasible for the Board to meet its desegregation obligations. Desegregation Charges\nReview the current desegregation plan for the following purposes: 1) to determine the goals of the plan 2) to identify the expected outcomes from the established goals 3) to appraise whether the District has been successful in reaching the established goal 4) If the answer to question 3, is no, was the goal unmet because it was not implemented or because the goal was unattainable? 5) . to identify the measurement tool used to determine success or failure 6) to identify internal or external forces which preclude the Little Rock School District from being able to attract and maintain a desegregated student body. 7) to determine the publics commitment to maintain school structures in their community and to gamer from them ways the District may develop a sounder fiscal base without school closures 8) to ascertain how the patrons of the Pulaski County School System will respond to restructuring schools (i.e. site-based decisionmaking, middles schools, alternative schools, etc.). I Office may J996 KI ' I . Little Rock School District CFFiCE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 3, 1996 I 0 J996 3 Ms. Melissa Guildin Assoc. Monitor, ODAI 201 E. Markham, Suite 510  Office Ot Gti: 'C.'( Little Hock, AH 7 01 Dear Ms. Guildin\nYou are cordially invited to join me for a very special announcement concerning the progress of the Little Rock School District in its ongoing effort to meet the obligations of the Desegregation Plan. The announcement will be made as part of a press conference to be held on Wednesday, May 8, 1996, 1:00 p.m. at 1500 Park Street. We will meet in the auditorium in the event of inclement weather. I look forward to seeing you on May 8. Sincerelv, Henry P. Williams Superintendent 810 West .Markliam Street  Little Rock, zVrkansaa 72201 (501) 324-2(X)0 1 K r ^'f t- a:*' A 4 \u0026gt; f *\u0026gt; ! ? A. t 9: A\" t ) t .V, V t., ji .4  V lA^, isff*\"'*^'fx'.  'j\nADMIN. BULLING Fax:1-5G1-324-2032 May 8  96 9:12 P.02/02 1 r 5? Tjttle Rqcjl^chqoiJDistrici LRSD Press Conference May 8, ! 996 For more information: Suellen Vann,, 324-2020 [jlttle Rock School District Superintendent Dr. Henry P. Williams will hold a Dress terence today at 1\n00 p.m. to make an aruiouncement concerning the districts desegregation plan. The press conference will take place on the steps of Central Higli School, 1500 Park In the event of inclement weather, the event will be held in the Central High aaditorium. iiif#J.i?9i ADMIN. EULDING Fax:l 1-324-2032 Maq 8 96 9:12 P. 02/02 1 iiTLE Hock School JhsrRici I I'Si) Press Comfereocc \\by K. ! 906 For more information\nSuellen V.tnn. 324--2020 Little Reck School District Superintendent Dr. Henn' E. 'Wil'ianis will hold a cies' cimfer-mce 'oday at L.OO p.m. to make an announcement concerning the district's deegrcgaM'ip plan. The press conference will take place on the steps ct Central High School, 1500 P,yk In the event of inclejnent weather, the event will be held in the Central High aadnotiuni. 810 West Markha-m Street  Little Rock, Arkaiisaa 7ii401  (501)324-3000 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-G-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MAY ^1996 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Decosregaiian Msniiontfa INTERVENORS SPECIAL-STATUS REPORT ...__ For its special status report, the Little Rock School District states: 1. The Little Rock School District has recently reviewed the status of its compliance with its desegregation obligations and determined that the district is in substantial compliance with those obligations. The attached \"Little Rock School District Position Paper On Desegregation Obligations\" describes the process used by LRSD to determine its compliance and reports the conclusion that LRSD has implemented 96.3 percent of its desegregation obligations. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Bar No CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Special Status Report has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 8th day of May, 1996: Mr. John Walker JOHN WTILKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 2 RECEIVED Little Rock School District MAY 1996 Office of Desegfegaiion Monncnntf Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 1. Purpose of Position Paper 2. Background 3. Response Groupings and Definitions of Terms 4. Results of Audit and Interviews 3 4 8 11 5. Position on Not Begun Items 6. Internal Enhancements 13 15 7. Conclusions 16 May 8,1996 This report was prepared by the LRSD administrative team of Brady Gadberry, Sterling Ingram, Dr. Ed Jackson, Deana Keathley, Dr. Patty Kohler, Dr. Russ Mayo, Leon Modeste, Ken Savage, and Marvin Schwartz. Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, Little Rock, AR 72201 #501-324-2000Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Findings  The District is in substantial compliance with its desegregation obligations. This is based on implementation of 96.3% of its obligations.  Some of the goals of the plan have not been achieved and are not likely to be ACHIEVED THROUGH THE CURRENT OBLIGATIONS. Recommendations  Recognition of the Districts substantial compliance should be made by the Court.  Obligations where substantial compliance has been achieved should be RELEASED FROM COURT SUPERVISION.  Obligations which do not meet the needs of students should be revised.  Revised obligations should be modeled on action items in the recently COMPLETED STRATEGIC PLAN. Page 1Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations Summary of Position Paper Sections 1. Purpose of position paper Assess Districts performance in 4. Results of Audit and Interviews  Final assessment of the audit showed meeting desegregation obligations.  Inform the public of status of these accomplishments.  Prove good faith effort in achieving substantial compliance. substantial compliance with all desegregation obligations. This is based on implementation of 96.3% of those items. The interview process allowed comprehensive review of all evidence 2. Background  The District has accepted desegregation obligations as a binding contract.  Desegregation obligations are reviewed through regular updates of the Program Budget Document.  A LRSD obligations audit identified more than 2,000 items and published the listing as the Abbreviated Summary. Scan sheets were developed for each item and completed by District staff.  Compilation of scan sheet responses provided the overall status for this report. supporting obligations. implementation of 5. Position on Not Begun Items  Obligations identified as Not Begun reveal barriers to effective implementation such as unrealistic expectations.  The obligations modification process lags behind current implementation plans. 6. Internal Enhancements  An automated PBD will show new patterns of completion, allowing 3. Response Groupingsand Definition OF Terms  Responses to the scan sheets were grouped to match program names.  Responses within each program name were sorted to identify total items in compliance and items not yet begun. assessment of obligations by individual items and by schools.  The automated process increases overall accountability toward fulfillment of the obligations. Page 2Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 1. Purpose of Position Paper The daily operation of the Little Rock School District is centered on providing the public with the highest quality education available in Arkansas and the nation. With an October 1995 enrollment of 24,922 students and the employment of 3,513 people, the tasks required to provide that quality education are quite numerous. Effective coordination of those tasks and obligations the District has fully or partially accomplished, and it will show the results from those actions. public accountability for their The overall intent of this paper is to prove a good faith response by the LRSD to the complex task of meeting desegregation obligations. implementation are some of the criteria by which the District should be measured. The numerous obligations approved for the District by the Sth Circuit Court of Appeals have resulted in a lengthy and highly detailed document containing more than 2,000 obligations or specific tasks. Additionally, the LRSD Desegregation Plan is one of several plans approved by the Court for Pulaski County public school districts. The District commits significant personnel and financial resources to Further, this paper will address those obligations which the District has not fulfilled, and it will give an account for those nonaccomplishments. In some cases, an appropriate response to the obligation was not possible. In other cases, a response was possible but not attempted because circumstances made the effort unfeasible. Finally, this paper will provide an update on District efforts to meet reasonable obligations where progress is lacking. implementation and reporting of desegregation obligations. Some of these resources could be used more effectively to meet student educational needs. The primary purpose of this position paper is to More specifically, the overall intent of this paper is to prove a good faith response by the LRSD to the complex task of meeting desegregation requirements. assess District desegregation obligations. progress in meeting Secondary purposes of this position paper follow in logical sequence. To assure accountability by the District in response to desegregation obligations, this paper will identify the status of those accomplishments. It will show which It is the goal of the LRSD to meet the educational needs of all its students. In the process of meeting those needs, the District seeks to achieve unitary status or release from Court jurisdiction. We believe an objective reading of this position paper will advance that effort and better serve the interests of Little Rock students and all citizens of the community. Page 3LrrTLE Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 2. Background The desegregation obligations currently in place for the LRSD have evolved from legal actions and court supervision of Pulaski County school districts that began in the early 1980s. These obligations derive from the consent decrees the District has entered into with several parties, including:  North Little Rock School District  Pulaski County Special School District  Knight Intervenors  Joshua Intervenors  State of Arkansas (no longer current) toward obligations is key to the assessment and conclusions reached in this position paper. This process is the Program Budget Document (PBD). An explanation of the development and implementation of the PBD will help identify the reporting burden and the tendency for duplication imposed by the system. The PBD was developed to monitor progress on all obligations. The document identifies every obligation relating to the case and provides essential information to track relevant activity. In 1993, an audit of desegregation obligations was undertaken by LRSD attorneys at the Friday Law Firm. After review by District management, the obligations listing was filed with the court. The District's response to the desegregation obligations has been to accept them as a binding contract. The Districts response to all desegregation obligations has been to accept them as a binding contract. As a whole, this imposes a weighty burden on the District. Finances for instructional programs have been diverted toward legal fees, and an administrative capacity for the development of creative instruction has been dissipated in time spent in the legal process or in The PBD is updated quarterly with information provided by the primary leaders to reflect progress. However, many items on the PBD are repeated yearly or are part of a continuous process. These can include items such as principals writing school profiles or District Equity Monitors visiting schools. Such items are never completed in preparation of desegregation-related documents. These impositions have limited the Districts ability to meet the needs of a diverse student population. A reporting process used by the District to update the Court on progress themselves, but reports are required within the year to show how much of the task has been accomplished. Conversely, some items are maintained on the PBD and addressed even after they have been completed. (This weakness in the PBD design has been corrected in the new automated version. See Section 7. Internal Enhancements'). Page 4Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations The LRSD process for reporting to the Court is centered on updates of the obligations and activities contained in the PBD. One barrier to the PBD reporting process, however, is the lack of a quantifiable assessment which clearly shows how well the District has done in meeting all its obligations. The original version of the PBD did not provide a numerical or percentage summary. duplicative obligations fSee Figure 1. Examnles of Duplication among Desegregation Obligations) and obligations being implemented for which no legal reference could be located. Additionally, numerous legal As a preliminary step toward overall assessment, the comprehensive review District began a in mid 1995 to identify every distinct obligation. The Abbreviated Summary, as the project came to be known, involved cross referencing items from the PBD and all legal documents. The audit identified 2,098 distinct obligations. A refining of the list yielded a final count of 2,008 obligations. Further, the Abbreviated Summary identified numerous inconsistencies such as documents had made separate contributions to the obligations by this time, each introducing additional requirements. Legal Documents Influencing Obligations  8th Circuit Court Orders  District Court Orders  Interdistrict Plan  LRSD Desegregation Plan  Settlement Agreement  Stipulations  McClellan Plan  Henderson Plan  Court Transcripts  Exhibit  June 5,1992 Monitoring Report Figure 1. Examples of Duplication among Desegregation Obligations Subject Abbreviated Text I Original Legal Document ID#' Incentive School Staffing 1. Make recommendations to the Board 2. Make staff recommendations 3. Make staff recommendations for ! employment to the Board LR Deseg. Plan LR Deseg. Plan LR Deseg. Plan 1783 1788 1789 M-to-M 1. Develop recruitment plan with PCSSD for Interdistrict Plan 1481 Transfers i M-to-M transfers 2. Parties to promote M-to-M transfers Interdistrict Plan 3154  ID numbers for obligations refer to listings in the Abbrc\\'iated Summary. Page 5Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations The assessment process chosen for the task was for the LRSD Division of Planning Research and Evaluation (PRE) to develop computer scan sheets relating to the status and evidence of all obligations. (See Figure 2. Obligations Scan Sheet) In 1995, a process was begun in which primary leaders answered six concise questions and sent the sheets back to PRE for compiling of responses. The scan sheets asked direct questions and gave multiple choice answers. The Primary Leaders had to identify if their obligations were a) not begun, b) completed, c) completed periodically, or d) continuous/never completed (See Figure 3. Response Categories for Scan Sheet Survey of Obligations). To assure accountability, they also had to identify the specific location where evidence concerning the obligation was kept and who was responsible for that evidence. The assessment process continued with a 1996 follow-up survey to address items that had been recently added as well as allow a Figure 2. Obligations Scan Sheet Questions relating to the evidence available for the above named obligation. (e\n(i' (c) I () 1. What IS the status of the obligation? A) Not begun (If answer is A. do not complete the rest of the form.) B) Completed (If answer is B. go to question # 2.) C) Completed Periodically (If answer is C. go to question #3.) D) Continuous/Never Completed (If answer is D. go to question #3.} 2. In what school year was the obligation completed' A) Priorto1992-93 (If answer is A, go to question 114.) B) 1992-93 (If answer is B. go to question # 4.) C) 1993-94 (If answer is C, go to question # 4.) D) 1994-95 (If answer is D, go to question # 4.) (i) r lr-.k :  I  I  I  I  1 .l-StT' I  \nJ  I    I    I      .. i . ! e 3. If the obligation is on-going, in what school year was the obligation first accomplished? A) Priorto 1992-93 B) 1992-93 C) 1993-94 D) 1994-95 '!  J    'l i   i  !  5. In what form does the primary evidence for this obligation exists A) Pamphlet or Publication B) Written Evaluation, Survey or Summary Report C) Bill or Requisition D) Document {written agenda, sign-in sheet, notice of meeting, invitation, etc.) E) No evidence exists (If answer is E. do not comolete the rest of the form: however, explain why in AREA 2 on the Pack of this sheet.) I:  '  d\u0026gt;. I  I' T  'p I  f?)   fS) ' (? ffl l-(cptaa I Location where pr/mary evidence concerning this obligation is kept A) School B) District Offices. LRSD Annex. IRC, Student Assignment C) Plant Services, Procurement Food Services. Safety \u0026amp; Security, Transportation D) Adult Education |.l4\u0026gt;\n|ia4a8E) i tU Si!' 4  I f'  C   .! li I    i  I  '  .1   I  i  I  '  6 Who IS the keeper of the primary evidence? A) Primary Leader B) Secondary Leader C) Person Responsible ii\u0026gt;,| _l. . (.4 J li/   d) Signature: Date: Si    '  Page 6Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations second reporting on items previously identified as not begun. The processing of scan sheets gave the District a clear and comprehensive understanding of the degree of compliance it had achieved regarding the identified obligations. r/ie scan sheets gave the District a clear understanding of the degree of compliance it had achieved regarding the identified obligations. I I I I Progress since 1993 has resulted from the improved tracking accuracy of the original PBD. A recent upgrade to a computerized PBD process will further improve its accuracy. The audit of obligations and scan sheet surveys represent other distinct improvements in the Districts overall obligations. response to desegregation Figure 3. Response Categories for Scan Sheet Survey of Obligations CO - Completed. Items done once which need no repeating. Example: Motion granted for construction of cafeteria at Chicot Elementary. ID *1177. Court Order. 4/30/93. Pg. 1 CP - Completed Periodically. Items which have repetitive schedules within fixed time frames. Example: Establish a summer school program, id #1208. inteixustnct pian. 4/29/93. pg. 13 NC - Continuous/Never Completed. Items which require on-going implementation. Example: Monitor the Desegregation Plan, id msse. lr pian. 4/29/32, pg. 28 NB - Not Begun. Items which have not been addressed. Example: Plan new junior high school construction, id #1326. lr pian, 4/29/92. pg. 129 Page 7Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 3. Response Groupings and Definition of Terms To fully understand the information reflected on the scan sheets and to communicate those results to the public in a precise manner, certain groupings of responses were made. This process included three broad steps, summarized below and detailed in the remaining sections of this report. 1 2 3 The status of individual obligations were identified on the scan sheets as CO, CP, NC, orNB. All obligations were categorized as CO or NB. Overall response to desegregation requirements was identified as Substantial Compliance (SC). The process began by grouping the scan sheet responses into PBD Program Areas. In this manner, thousands of individual obligations and strategies were brought together under distinct program names.  Restore Gifted Coordinator to Budget, ID if 5144, Court Transcript, 7/6/95. Pg. 7  Court Requires Long-Range Facilities Plan, ID 5I27. Court Order. 2/8/95. Pg. 2 All A items have been addressed in the follow up survey of February 1996, and their tally is included in the final results. As represented in Figure 4. Obligation Status - Grouping Process, the grouping process condensed five categories of responses into three. Each category represents total responses for that status and does not relate to specific programs or activities. For example, responses marked completed include those which are addressed periodically and those which are continuous/never completed or cyclical. These items are considered completed because the District has met all possible requirements for their fulfillment during the time frame or cycle. The process then gave abbreviated titles to the distinct categones of response as culminated Final grouping of the responses in the two categories, shown on the scan sheets. These abbreviations are presented in Figure 3, and examples of obligations for each category are provided. An additional category is Completed (CO) or Not Begun (NB), represented in the next section of this report. In this manner, the District has been able to provide the most direct presentation of its substantial compliance with desegregation obligations. represented with the letter A. This group includes obligations which were identified after the 1995 scan sheet survey. Examples of A items include: To assure the most accurate reporting possible, the District identified the legal definitions of the categories of response and other terms used when describing desegregation obligations. Many Page 8Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations of these terms have had their original meanings transformed through usage by the media, the public, and by educators who did not fully understand them in the proper context. As a legal document, however, the Plan requires a strict and consistent interpretation. The following items are key terms^in understanding desegregation obligations and the Districts response. Obligation - a legal requirement that constrains to a course of action, an imperative for specific action. An Page 9 LtTTLE Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations obligation is something one is bound to do. It leaves no room for negotiation, compromise, or alternative. Example: LRSD -will pay an increase of S52,604.09 in the ODM budget. ID #4113 . Court Order. 4/8/94, Pg. 1 defraud or seek advantage. Example: Provide Homework Hotlines, id ^918, lr Desegregation Plan. 4/2/92, Pg. 180 Recommendation - something which is offered or suggested as a favored action. A recommendation is worthy of acceptance, but there are no constraints upon its action. Recommendation refers to an action which is advisory in nature rather than one having a binding effect. Example: The following full time positions are recommended for each Incentive School. (20 positions are listed, including classroom teachers, counselors, etc.) lr Desegregation Plan. Incentive School Section, 4/2/92. Pg. 190 Completion - something which is fully realized, which possesses all necessary parts. Completion means an action has been brought to an end or to an intended condition. With desired results achieved, no further action is necessary. Example: Install Rockefeller Elementary Heat/AC. id # 1350. Monuonng Report, 6/5/92. Pg. 43 On-Going Obligations - certain items identified as obligations which need to be repeated on a regular basis. These on-going obligations' l can not be Substantial Compliance: conformity with the essential requirements in fulfilling formal or official obligations of a contract or a statute. Being in substantial compliance means that you have done substantially all you were required to do to fulfill the obligation. The concept of substantial compliance is the primary assessment criteria for this report. Example: Establish six thematic interdistrict schools, id #1479. imerdistnct Plan. 4/29/93. Pg. 3 totally completed because further action is necessary throughout the term of the desegregation plans. The District considers itself in compliance with these items if it fulfills the necessary action within each scheduled reporting period. These items are represented in the CP (completed periodically) or the NC (never completed) groups. Example: Maintain all school facilities for safe/operable condition. ID a950. LR Desegregation Plan. 4/2/9/92. Pg. J 29 Good Faith Effort - an effort based on an honest belief, the absence of malice, and the absence of the design to Page 10Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 4. Results of Audit and Interviews showed Results of the preliminary surveys the District in substantial compliance with its desegregation requirements. This was based on initial findings which showed implementation of 97.5% of obligations. was achieved in 1.1% or 19 obligations, and only 45 obligations or 2.6% of the total remained as Not Begun items. The need for evidence of compliance with obligations led to a final round of interviews. The intent of the interviews was to gain proof in addition to the scan sheets that all information was accurate. Interviews were conducted with all primary and secondary leaders and all persons responsible for implementation of the obligations. Evidence of all activities was reviewed by committees, and a new and more specific assessment was obtained. As illustrated in Figure 5. Results of the Interview Audit, the final number of obligations became 1,753. This was achieved by the removal of additional duplicates, recommendations, goals, and items which were obligations. identified as not The District is in substantial compliance with its desegregation requirements based on 96.3% ! implementation of its obligations. Of that group of 1,753 obligations, 96.3% or 1,689 were identified as being in substantial compliance. Partial compliance Page 11Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations Figure 5. Results of Interview Audit ORIGINALLY IDENTIFIED OBLIGATIONS REVIEWED - NOT OBLIGATIONS DUPLICATE OBLIGATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS GOALS NET OBLIGATIONS AFTER AUDIT 2008 12 224 9 10 1753 RELEASED FROM COURT SUPERVISION SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE COMPLETED ON-GOING PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT BEGUN 203 52 429 1005 19 45 1753 11.6% 3.0% 24.5% 57.3% 1.1% 2.6% 100.0% } 96.3% Substantial Compliance I SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE PARTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT BEGUN 1689 19 45 1753 96.3% 1.1% 2.6% 100.0% I I i i I NOT BEGUN 3% PARTIAL COMPLIANCE 1 i SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE 96% Page 12 Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 5. Position on Not Begun Items As previously stated in this report , the District has identified desegregation obligations with a Not Begun status. Analysis of those obligations showed that in some cases, the premise upon which the obligations were based was found to be flawed. In other areas, obligations were shown to be dependent on numerous factors outside the Districts control. Accountability for the Not Begun obligations is best represented through the following broad categories.  Conditional Obligation: These items are dependent on external factors which have not been met, such as partnership relations with other organizations, receipt of grant funds, or other conditions outside District control. Example: Two obligations under the Library Media section of the Interdistrict Plan and cross referenced in the LRSD Desegregation Plan call for Utilization of TV Technology and Implement Utilization of Cable Channel 19. (id #1033, Interdistrict Plan. Pg. 34, 4/29/92) The Plan states these obligations will be done if funded by a federal Star grant. The grant was not funded, therefore, the obligations were not begun.  Unrealistic Expectation: These items are unfeasible or do not generate a sufficient return to justify the effort of implementation. This decision is based on District experience in the field and is a realistic response to items developed as part of a wish list by framers of the obligations. Example: The Incentive School Support Section of the LRSD Plan requires the District to meet at homes with groups of parents, (id #2049, lrsd Desegregation Plan, Pg. 210, 4/29/92) The District has found the effort to locate and coordinate a home-based meeting of parents is a time consuming and laborious process. This obligation does not address the reality that people must be invited into a home. They can not be mandated to offer that hospitality.  Changed by Court Order: Changes in the LRSD Desegregation Plan by the Court, such as rulings from the bench and Court orders, have not been reflected as revised the language in the Plan. Example: Numerous items within the Focused Activity section of the LRSD Desegregation Plan have been superseded or redefined by a May 1, 1992 Court Order.  On Appeal: The District is involved in an appeal process to the Sth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding an the obligation. In this instance, obligation is not appropriately aligned with contemporary events. Example: A Court Order currently under appeal states that the LRSD will reimburse PCSSD SI 67,113 within 60 days of the order, (id #4111, coun order, pg. 3, 3/16/94) Page 13Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations  Improperly Reported: Errors in reporting were discovered as a result of of the desegregation obligations scan sheets and audit. Example: An item erroneously reported as NB requires the LRSD to develop or enhance site-based management at designated schools, (id #0501, LRSD Desegregation Plan, Pg. 42, 4/29/92) The obligation is being implemented through staff development for principals, revision of District procedures, and enhanced principal accountability for programs. The implementation is being addressed through the Strategic Planning Action Team 8 and will continue through the 1996-97 school year.  Not Begun: These are obligations which the District has not yet implemented.The District recognizes the validity of these obligations and intends to comply with them. Example: An obligation addressing the Incentive School Latin Program calls for the District to evaluate the elementary Latin Program, (id #2021, lrsd Desegregation Plan, Pg. 164, 4/29'92) This will be done as soon as possible. Similarly, an obligation requires the District to form a media coalition that involves a series of meetings between the superintendents of the three school districts and representatives of the local media, (id #1555, Interdistrict Plan. Pg. 3, 4'29'92) Scheduling for these meetings is currently being arranged. Page 14Little Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 6. Internal Enhancements The LRSD has completed a revision of the Program Budget Document (PBD) reporting process which will provide information in greater detail and with instant computer access. The computerized PBD will greatly enhance the Districts ability to track on-going compliance with obligations. Staff inservice is underway for the recently designed program automation, which is expected to be implemented in the spring of 1996. updates and changes to the obligations, thereby avoiding errors resulting from changing text or phrasing of obligations. An automated computer linkage will allow primary leaders to access the system and input directly to the LRSD mainframe AS400 system. Information will address activities done toward the fulfillment of obligations. The automation replaces a manual system where computer diskettes were submitted quarterly and updated reports printed. Another improvement in the system is the automated programs ability to identify responses to single items by individual schools and across the District. This will allow school-by-school reports on specific obligations, an option not previously available. If questioned about a specific obligation, the District has immediate access to its status at each setting. The system will also show patterns of completion and allow deactivation and storage of completed obligations. PBD automation will control the publishing of Page 15LrTTLE Rock School District Position Paper on Desegregation Obligations 7. Conclusions Major accomplishments such as the identification of obligations and the implementation of a strategic planning process show the District is doing a good job of meeting its desegregation obligations. A 96.3% level of implementation affirms that achievement. The District should be recognized for its accomplishments and certain items should be released further court supervision. from The District should be recognized for its accomplishmentsand certain items released from further court supervision. The District is accountable for its response to desegregation obligations, a response represented in this report. But it should not be held accountable for all of the goals of the Plan, some of which have proved to be unobtainable in this district or any other district in the country. The desegregation plans of the District have resulted in significant desegregation accomplishments. As we near the end of the six-year life of those plans, however, it is apparent that in some ways they have outlived their usefulness. The recently completed Strategic Plan, developed as a result of significant community input and involvement, should be used to guide decisions about LRSDs future. Page 16-LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Rax:1-501-' 4-jo: Man 9:12 o 1.12 I Little Rqtk School Distbjci LRSD Press Conference May 8, 1996 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Little Rock School District Superintendent Dr. Henry P. Williams will hold a press conference today at 1:00 p.m. to make an announcement concerning the districts desegregation plan. The press conterence will lake place on the steps ot Central High School, 1500 Park. In the event of inclement weather, the event will be held in the Central High auditorium. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, .ArkaMsas 73301  (501)324-3000 W5S LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations DIUFr Subject'\"! Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities  Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs.  Fed. Progs.  Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Fed. Progs. Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Pli LdjMF^I Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Asst Supts Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Sac Ld Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Plant Serv Dir Transport Principal Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Dir Fed Progs Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance De MR MR MR MR MR CO CO CO CO I CO LR LR LR LR LR LR LR L^ LR LR LR LR LR LR LR CO C8 MR MR CO CO CO CO CO CO 43 43 43 47 47 1 1 1 1 5 1 97 96 96 97 97 97 Hl 9? 97 97 97 97 97 97 1 5 2 47 1 1 1 1 1 1 * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 6 Data jft 6/5/92 6/5/92 6/5/92 6/5/92 6/5/92 3/21/91 9/13/93 9/27/93 9/27/93 4/29/92 3/24/93 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 5/1/95 7/12/95 6/5/92 6/5/92 1/4/91 8/4/92 11/5/92 12/30/92 12/30/92 7/9/93 Install Rockefeller Heat/AC Complete Repairs/Stephens Incentive School Landscaping Incentive schools priority in district capital improvement Incentive schools high priority in capital funding Constr. proj. approved for Rightsell, Mitchell, Cloverdale Elem/JH, etc. Court approves sub. language on J. A. Fair constr. Old Stephens must be demolished or used for community - not left vacant Court requires LRSD to report to ODM plans for old Stephens's Bldg. Schs. in lower socio-econ. areas shall receive equal attention \u0026amp; resources May delete PAL after submission of prg. that can be monitored Pursue Federal Magnet School Grant Develop Grants To Enhance Desegregation Identify Programs/Funding Areas Submit Application to USDE for Funding Be Placed on Mailing List for Grant Applic. Form Grant Devel. Committee Develop Grant Proposal Appoint Grant Development Comm. Conclude Grant Proposal Ready for Admission Provide Grant Proposal to Board for Approval Submit Grants to A. Supt. for Review Submit Grant Proposal to USDE Submit Grants to Board for Approval Submit Grants to Agencies for Approval Pursue federal magnet school grants and funds Identity major adjust, made since 1995-96 propos. budget doc. last month. Place pooling of M-to-M funds into a central account. Demonstrate Invest, pd. for children before settlement money lost Dist. is bound to keep pledge to double fund incent, school Continue double fund, after six yrs. if inc. schs. over 80% black Restore certain cuts to 92-93 budget Reinstate individuals listed for 93-94 Restore 22.8 FTE music teachers for 93-94 \u0026amp; 7th per. at Hendersonz Any changes to budget must be court approved for budget 93-94 Revise budget so not so dependent on non-recurring revenue sources LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95 nn^Sullj^WW  Gifted Prog  Gifted Prog Gifted Prog  Guid/Cnsing  Guid/CnsIng  Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing  Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing  Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing * Guid/Cnsing Guid/Cnsing Guid/Cnsing Guid/Cnsing Guid/Cnsing Guid/Cnsing Guid/Cnsing Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Dir Except Child Dir Except Child Supt Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Asst Supts Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 9 w? )W Dir Gifted Dir Gifted LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations Mng Sup Serv Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Principals Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal DUAll Pc LR 62 Date?\n'.' 4/29/92 LR 62 4/29/92 TR 1 LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR HN HN HN HN HN HN HN HN CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 37 37 37 37 37 37 25 25 15 25 26 26 26 26 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 7/6/95 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 Implement Objectives Relating to Plan Implement Strategies/Activities to Refine Plan Restore Gifted Coordinator to Budget Inform Students of All Opportunities Publish Annual Document of Financial Aid, Higher Ed. Opportunities Encourage Students to Take Advantage of Opportunities Follow-up on Referral Make Parents Part. In Ed. by Keeping Them Informed Hold Community Ed. Mtg. Each Year During Spring Provide Written Info to Parents on Curriculum 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 2/11/92 Make Students Aware of Ed./Post Ed. Opportunities Hold Annual Skills/Employment Fair with Business Community Provide Guidance/Counseling to Address Student Needs Create Community Linkage to Assist Students Provide Linkages w/Service Providers and Guidance Staff Provide Minicourses in Sequenced Program Gr 4-12 Develop Sequential Minicourses Beginning w/Gr 4 Provide Teacher Staff Development in Use of Curr. Raise Awareness of Student Career Options Use Resourse Volunteers in Classes/Assem. - Career Options Provide Guidance/Counseling making Students Aware of future Options Require A/Z Students Submit Magnet Application Require Non-A/Z Students Complete OERF Use Random Selection Process for Non-A/Z Applicants Require Interdistrict Students Complete M-M and OERF Consider Applications on Basis of Deseg Requirements Only Process Applications During Spring Each Year Grant StaffTransfers According to PN Agreement Ensure Staff Racial Balance Complies w/Deseg Requirements Provide Clearly Stated Program Goals/Objectives Provide Comprehensive Description of Program Components Describe Selection Criteria for Students/Teachers/Staff Identify Students by Grade/Teachers \u0026amp; Staff by Role Identify Necessary Resources\nIdentify Costs Itemize Necessary Teacher Training (Preparatory \u0026amp; Ongoingl Provide Evaluation Criteria/Timelines LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95r^^wsubjMi^^ Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag Hender. Mag ^Pri Ld ^1 jjgse Ld ' ~ LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations De  HIPPY  HIPPY Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Asst Supt Sec Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY CO CO CO HN HN HN HN HN CO LR LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY  HIPPY HIPPY  HIPPY  HIPPY  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY LR LR LR LR LR  HIPPY  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY LR LR  HIPPY  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY Dir HIPPY LR LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR  HIPPY Dir Staff Dev Dir HIPPY LR LR 4 4 28 4 26 26 26 26 3 6 6 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 Jl 5 DUAIT 2/11/92 2/11/92 2l-iyi92 81^182 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 2/11/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 10 Anticipate Impact on School Capacity, Facilities, Enrollment Identify Community Involvement in Program Development Address Program Implementation/Completion Timelines Establish 7-penod Day Hold Mtg. During 2nd Semester to Familiarize New Students Principal Meets Prior to 4/23/92 w/Staff re Commitment Ascertain Future Applicants' Commitment to Magnet Program Specialist Coordinates Program and Teaches Part-Time Do written plan for Henderson Mag. in 30 days 1 Initiate Home-based and 4-yr-old collaboration in training areas  Collaborate Implementation LRSD and PCSSD Promote the HIPPY Program with mailed flyers \u0026amp; PSA's Mail PSAs/Distribute Flyers Select 14 HIPPY Aides ' \" Select 14 Aides Conduct Initial Training Aides/Staff Arrange Logistics w/State Regional Office for Training Conduct Home Interview /Enroll Families Conduct Home Interview /Enroll Families Recruit Families Send correspondence to Churches to Recruit Families/Aides Determine Service of Coordinators Identify Families to be Served By Each Coordinator Identify \u0026amp; assign families to be serviced by aides Identify Families to be Served by each Aide Organize Instructional Material Print Curriculum Material Familiarize Aides of Implementation in LRSD Conduct 3-day Workshop Obtain Material for Program Conduct orientation meeting for enrolled families of Conduct Orientation Meeting Identify and secure meeting sites for Secure Meeting Sites for Group Mail Notification of Meeting Sites Schedule Implementation of Curriculum groups program LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers M-M Transfers SubjectyV^ V? I Pl/ M-M Transfers M-to-M Mag M-to-M Mag M-to-M Mag M-to-M Mag M-to-M Mag M-to-M Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Mng Sup Serv Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Assoc Supt Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec td I Sc Ld I De I ajli LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations Dir Transport Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Mng Finance Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Dir SAO Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal ST ST ST ST ST LR LR LR LR LR MC Tic Tic MC mF mF MC MC 7^ CO CO CO FF MC mF\" MC MC 7^ MC MC 4 5 6 6 7 DP .  Dau syf 142 T42 143 143 144 144 2 51 51 51 FT 51 51 60 F~ 3 F\" F\" F\" 5~ F\" 5? 51 51 52 52 DRAFT 6I26IQ\u0026amp; 3l2ei3G 8/26/86 8/26/86 S/2e/B6 8/26/86 BI2BIBB BI2BIBB ^I2BIB2 4/29/92 4/29/92 ^129192 AI29I92 4/29/92 BIMB2 Bf\\l92 5/1/92 BI-\\IB2 Bf\\l92 5/1/92 BI-\\IB2 BIMB2 Bn 192 2/1 yi92 2n 1/92 2nyi92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 ' bn 192 bni92 1 bn 192 I 5/1/92 i i Provide transport, for extra-curr. act. (Cost to ADE) i ADE \u0026amp; Districts to follow payment procedures 1 ADE to pay cost of K-12 FTE students to host dist. I Current yr. payments based on previous school year i Host to report M-Ms to ADE on forms provided i Host to estimate \u0026amp; forward FTE of students to ADE in Sept. ADE to pay monthly with correction in January Host maylnof count M-M in number of reg. aide stud, number ADE pays home dist. .5 of table rate Payment provisions do not apply to magnet schools \u0026amp; programs SAO assigns students to Henderson Jr. High Magnet SAO assigns students to McClellan High Magnet SAO assigns students to Central High Magnet School SAO assigns students to Dunbar Magnet Jr. High Obtain a 60/40 ratio of either race in interdist. magnets SAO assigns students to Washington Magnet School Use Program to Achieve Racial Balance A/Z Students Must Submit Magnet Application Non- A/Z Students Must Submit OERF Use Random Selection Process tor Non-A/Z Applicants Interdistrict Students Complete M-M and OERF Consider Applications on Basis of Deseg Requirements Process Applications During Spring of Each Year Anticipate Impact on School Capacity, Facilities, Enrollment U McClellan Class Periods Provide Clearly Stated Program Goals/Objectives Provide Comprehensive Description of Program Components Describe and Use Selection Criteria for Students, Teachers, Staff Increase Academic Achievement/Decrease Disparity in Bl/Wh Interweave Business Courses With Various Subject Areas Begin 7-period Day in 1992-93 McClellan Students Also Apply When Declaring Area of Study Hold Mtg. During 2nd Semester to Familiarize New Students Familiarize Staff with Goals/Objectives of Program Principal Meets Prior to 4/23/92 w/Statf Re Commitment Grant Staff Transfers According to PN Agreement * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 29 LRSD Office of Desegregation 0/4/95Subject McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag McClell. Mag Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. LRSD Desegregation Case Obligations  Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. Multicult Curr. * Multicult Curr. * Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr. * Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr. Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Ast Supt Sec Assoc Supt Asst Supts Asst Supts Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Bd of Directors Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr. * Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr.  Multicult Curr. * Multicult Curr. * Multicult Curr. Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Dir Staff Dev Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Dir PRE Principals Principals Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Supt Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs Curr Supvs MC MC MC MC MC MC MC CO CA CA LR CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR LR 52 52 53 55 56 58 y 101 101 35 100 100 100 100 100 100 101 TT? 64 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 * Deputy Supt. was primary leader Page 30 Jii/'DateJ^L 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 imAFT Ascertain Future Candidate's Commitment to Magnet Program 5/1/92 5/1/92 5/1/92 2/11/92 12/21/90 12/21/90 4/29/92 12/21/90 12/21/90 12/21/90 12/21/90 12/21/90 12/21/90 12/21/90 12/21/90 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 ' 4/29/92  4/29/92 i 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 4/29/92 i Ensure Staff Racial Balance Complies w/Deseg Requirements ! Identify Students by Grade/Teachers \u0026amp; Staff by Role ! Provide Program Implementation/Completion Timelines ! Identify Necessary Resources \u0026amp; Costs ! Itemize Necessary Teacher Training (Preparatory \u0026amp; Ongoingl ! Provide Formative/Summative Criteria/Timelines ! Do written plan for McClellan Mag. in 30 days  Est. sequntl. Unit among data, planng., goal dev., curr. dev. and budgeting I Require 1 goal in school's annual plan be related to stud. ach. Create Academic Intervention Strategies ' Dav- \u0026amp; adopt a compreh. Bd. policy framework for curr. management ' Dev, policy establishing purpose for curr. \u0026amp; progs, of district Dev. policy that sets min. goals and obj. for all student learning outcomes Require congruence among curr. objs., tching techqs, \u0026amp; dist. test asses. Est. policy requiring texts to align w/adopted curr. outcomes est. by Board Dev, policy that outlines clear procd. for curr. dev.and includes Bd adopt Require Bd to use achieve, data in their goal-setting process Establish consistency and equity in educational programs Monitor Staffing Develop Speaker's Bureau Establish Curriculum Review by 9/30/91 Implement Curr. Review/Revision Cycle Provide Teachers Formal Course Training Obtain Info on Multi-Cultural Courses from Colleges Advertise Course Offerings to Staff Identify Summer/Fall Course Participants Develop District A/V Resource Catalog Review \u0026amp; catalogue A/V materials Purchase Addit. A/V Materials from Budget Identify Other Resources tor A/V Materials Revise A/V Catalog for LRSD Place Initial Supp. Order for A/V Materials Plan annual instructional materials fair (Multicultural) Plan Fair as Component of Pre-School Conference (more) Identify Vendors of Instructional Materials LRSD Office of Desegregation 8/4/95_ TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1995  Copyright O Uttlp Rock Nowspopors, Inc. LRSD lists mandates from suit Money running out before goals reached BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright figures the Little Rock School District has spent an average of/$34,812 on each of its more than 2,000 desegregation mandates since 1989. The judge made the calculation last week after learning school district officials had, for the first time, compiled a complete list of their desegregation obligations. Wright observed that the district has received 92 percent of the $73 million it will get from the state as the result of a 1989 financial settlement in the desegregation lawsuit. But the district estimates it has complied with about 41 percent of 2,097 obligations. Im aware that the money is being dispersed at at rate greater than the rate of meeting the goals, the judge said. She reminded district officials of a federal appeals court order that said the inability to afford the desegregation plan cant be an excuse for non- compliance. While the district has satisfied 41 percent of the obligations, officials estimate that another 51 percent are ongoing commitments, such as racially balancing enrollments at each school. After last weeks court hearing, the district on Friday submitted a copy of its mandates to the judge. Dr. Russ Mayo, associate superintendent for desegregation, called the 59-page list user-friendly. Compiling the list was a first step in determining how much progress the district has made in complying with each obligation, he said. The district plans to present evidence showing how it has met some of its obligations at a hearing Aug. 30. The obligation list gives a brief, one-line description for each mandate. It also notes the administra- tors overseeing implementation of each mandate and its source. There are 10 different possible sources for each obligation. Those sources include the districts desegregation plan, the Pulaski County interdistrict plan, the 1989 settlement agreement with the state, transcripts from past court hearings and a a 1990 audit of the districts educational programs. The people listed as having primary responsibility for implementing each desegregation obligation include school board members, the superintendent, the associate and assistant superintendents and Sterling Ingram, who Williams said was recently appointed district director of staff development. Meeting the obligations can include any thing from keep staff and citizens informed, to provide transportation for extracurricular activities and monitor and evaluate recruitment to the incentive schools. The document also includes information showing how the hundreds of desegregation duties once assigned to the deputy superintendent have been redistributed among staff members.Arkansas Democrat gazette THURSDAY, MAY 9, lg96 Schools Henry Williams LRSD 96.3%\nin compliance, Williams says BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-GazEttB Educatoi Writer The Little Rock School District has complied with 96.3 percent of its desegregation obligations and deserves to be released from federal court supervision. S__u-p erinregation. for his role in identifying fondent Henry Williams sa  obligations included in J- ' tile 1989 desegregation plan, as Stoi^g m .front of histo c i well as obligations included in fed- Central High School and speaking | , orders, court transcriots. to more than 100 school and com- JUDGE ends court-munity leaders, ordered busing in Williams pro- Cleveland. claimed the dis- Page 10A. tricts long, ar- ----- ----------------- duous journey to achieve school desegregation near an end. In li^t of the districts degree of compliance with its 1,753 desegregation obligations, Williams said, attorneys will ask a federal judge next week to release the district from court supervision, thereby ending the school systems 13-year-old desegregation lawsuit, It will be up to the judge to review the evidence and make some kind of ruling on our compliance, Williams said. We believe we have irrefutable evidence that we have substantially complied. Substantial compliance means we See SCHOOLS, Page 10A  Continued from Page 1A have done all that we can do with a particular obligation.\" The Little Rock district has been operating under a desegregation plan and court orders that touch virtually every' aspect of its operation. Williams announcement was greeted with sustained applause and congratulations from onlookers, including Little Rock Mayor Jim Dailey. Some people involved in the case expressed reservations, however. Among its many provisions, the desegregation plan requires construction of a new King Elementary School, operation of some doublefunded elementary schools, development of a multicultural curriculum, and operation of magnet programs and interdistrict student transfer programs. District officials submitted a position paper Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright describing the method used to determine the 96.3 percent rate of compliance. Williams praised Dr. Russ Mayo, associate superintendent for deseg- ' eral court orders, court transcripts. and agreements negotiated with other parties in the lawsuit. The district complies with 1.689 obligations. Williams said. There are an additional 19 obligations only partially completed and 45 never begun. The district, for e.xample, never planned for construction of a new junior high, as required by its desegregation plan. Nor did district officials meet with parents in their homes about children attending the incentive elementary schools, another requirement. Little Rock School Board member Judy Magness attended the announcement and later praised Williams for his efforts to measure the degree of compliance. Finally we have a superintendent who stayed here and dug into this to see what we had accomplished, Magness said, Im grateful for his leadership. But Linda Ponde.xter, president of the school board, was skeptical about the accomplishments and concerned that Williams made the announcement without involving the school board. This is nothing short of a miracle, said Ponde.xter, who didnt attend the announcement. Six months ago we were told by the superintendent that we had an un-\nworkable desegregation plan. Today* we have 96 percent compliance, fl believe in Biblical miracles, but? lets get real.\" She said the final as-* sessment will be up to the judge. ! The school board will discussf the compliance report withj Williams at a special board meet-i ing at 5 p.m. today, Pendexter said.: John Walker, an attorney for black families who intervened ini the desegregation lawsuit said he.' doesnt believe the district has^ made significant headway in meet4 ing its desegregation goals. The\nachievement disparity between\nblack and white children hasnt! been eliminated, and black stu-? dents are still more likely than^ whites to be bused to school and to be punished, he said. j Ill feel better when I see thej eridence that confirms what Drj Williams says. Walker said. think it will prove to be very em-t barrassing to this district if it turns? out that what he said is untrue. Walker also said the districts\nclaims contradict findings abouti compliance made in reports to the? judge by the federal Office of De-^ segregation Monitoring. 5 .And he said Wednesdays an-? nouncement will undermine the\nwork of a citizens committee com-* missioned by the school board to? propose amendments to the deseg-j regation plan. .Asked whether ther work of the citizens committee was unnecessary, Williams said his job\nis to present the school districts\nposition to the community. ,  I dont have any control over\nthe committee. Williams said, i\ncan't tell you that the committee\ndoesnt need to e.xisL The commit-3 tee members may point out other\nthings that we need to consider.^ JJ They may have value.' Williams acknowledged that en-3 rollment in some of the districts^ schools has become heavily blacki because of white flight. But raciaC composition and white students*\nhigher achievement test scores^ shouldnt preclude the district' from getting released from court\nsupervision, he said. He is opti-\nmistic that he will soon be able ten show that the academic disparity\nhas lessened.\nChris Heller, an attorney for the^ school district said the motion he! files ne.xt week will show that the' district is better desegregated than\nother districts across the countryll that have been released from court\nsupervision.  School board members Mag-? ness, John Riggs TV, Mike Daugher-! ty and Dr. Katherine Mitchell at-1 tended the announcement I 6 EDUCATION WEEK  MAY 22,1996 Across the Nation Little Rock Seeks End to Oversight of Desegregation Efforts By Jeff Archer 'The superintendent of the Little Rock schools planned last week to seek an end to court supervision of desegregation efforts in the Arkansas district. But the announcement troubled some school board members, who werent told about it in advance and who were skeptical about the prospect of a speedy end to federal court oversight. During a press conference at historic Central High School, Superintendent Henry P. Williams said a recently completed analysis showed the system has met 96 percent of its desegregation goals. We believe weve done those things we were obligated to as part of the desegregation plan, Mr. Williams said in an interview. Were not going to do anything different, but we would have the freedom to modify our programs as best as we see fit. Board members said, however, that they had yet to receive the voluminous review. u 'I havent seen it, so I cant go n out and give it a glowing report, said Linda Pondexter, the board president. I feel the board should have been informed first. At a meeting later in the week, the board decided that Mr. Williams could proceed with filing the motion with U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright in Lillie Rock. Still, there are things we said we were going to do that we simply have not done, Ms. Pondexter said. If he is able to prove that we have, then great. But the sudden announcement troubles some board members. Disagreements over the management of the 26,000-student district during the past year have split the boards support for the superintendent. Last fall, the board voted 4-3 riot to extend Mr. Williams current contract, which ends alter the 1996-97 school year. The Longest Struggle Little Rock made history in 1957 when Gov. Orval E. Faubus mobilized the Arkansas National Guard in an attempt to thwart school integration there. In response, President Eisenhower sent federal troops to protect nine black students ns they became the first to attend the traditionally all-white Central High School. The districts current desegregation case stems from the tremendous white flight that occurred in the following decades. The Little Rock case differs from most other desegregation cases because the district itself initiated the lawsuit, and so the remedy was court approved rather than court ordered. In 1982, the Little Rock schools sued the state and two surrounding districts in an effort to consolidate with them. Although a federal judge approved the idea, an appeals court overturned his ruling. Instead, the districts agreed on a greatly modified plan as part of a final settlement the court approved in 1992. The final plan involved a series of programs designed to improve education in Little Rock and to attract white students from the suburbs. As part of its settlement with Little Rock, the state agreed to pay about $73 million to subsidize the districts desegregation efforts over several years. (See Education Week, March 8, 1989.) Mr. Williams noted last week that the district will receive the last of those payments next year, although the district still will receive some other state funds for desegregation programs.Little Rock School District Audit of Obligations October 1993-October 1994 o S o o o c5 y 6' -.3 CM o ialil U..^3 a \u0026lt;0 cn rn \u0026lt;*.0 vO cn till I i i  i 1  r \u0026gt; c/i H: I I -4 November 22, 1994 toLittle Rock School District Audit of Obligations October 1993-October 1994 The purpose of the annual Audit of Obligations is to catalogue and merge into the Program Budget Document all desegregation obligations incurred during the previous year. In October 1993, all previous obligations under the desegregation plans were researched and identified. By February 1994, they were added to the Program Budget Docnnicnt. Thal Program Budget Document represents all incomplete obligations of the district through October, 1993. This years audit is for the period from October of 1993 through October of 1994. All court orders, hearing transcripts, monitoring reports, and stipulations were reviewed for that period. The obligations were extracted from the documents and listed. The list has been reviewed by Ihe Superintendents Council, the Superintendent, LRSD Aliorneys, and the LRSD Office of Desegregation. This year research on Ihe audit includes an update on Ihe status of each obligation. Responsible persons were asked to report on Ihe status on the listed obligations. Responses have been reduced Io codes. The audit is included here in chart form for easy reference. Evidence of Ihe status of each is maintained by Ihe person responsible. The chart is divided according to the documents from which the obligations were drawn. In Ihe far left column, each obligation or recommendation is numbered in sequence for easy reference. The dale of the document, type of document, page, obligation, person responsible, and Ihe date ihe obligation was completed (if completed) is included. Codes appear along the right side of the chart. They indicate the status of the obligation. Their legend appears al the bottom of each page. Those without a code cannot be attempted until other events occur. They are found in the section on the Stephens Stipulation. Final written comments from Judge Wright concerning the Stephens Stipulation are expected. Document types from which obligations came are coded as follows: MR = Monitor's Report TR = Transcript COxxxx = Court Order ST = Stipulation A copy of this audit will be sent to the following locations and people\nI. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Filed with the U. S. Federal Court, Eastern District of Arkansas (Judge Susan Wright and all parties)\nMembers of the Lillie Rock School District Board of Directors\nThe Superintendent of LRSD\nMembers of the Biracial Committee\nMembers of the Parent Council\nMembers of the Superintendents Council Each Program Manager affected (Io be included in the Program Budget Document for monitoring unless they are completed, one-time obligations)\nThe Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation as custodian of the Program Budget Document\nand. The LRSD Office of Desegregation. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 DATE 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/03/94 DOC MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR Pg 5 5 12 12 13 15 15 15 15 22 22 22 27 LRSD A udit of Obligations October, 1993 to October, 1994 Ai C. OM iJl(^ i^- INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING REPORT (1992-93) RECOMMENDATION _________________________ Make recruiting white students to the incentive schools among district priorities, focusing the energy and resources necessary to ensure that the incentive schools become fully desegregated.___________ Identify the facts that are working to make Rockefeller a desegregated school and adopt or adapt them for the other incentive schools.____________________________ Establish goals and objectives for racially balancing each incentive school staff as part of a comprehensive long-range strategic plan for implementing the incentive school features. Exempt incentive schools from being forced to accept any employees that have not been interviewed and recommended by the principal and the school's staffing committee.____________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Requirement: The Incentive Schools Staffing Committee is composed of teachers, parents, supervisors, principals, other administrators, and the Joshua Inten/enors. The committee assesses staffing needs, sets criteria, assists in recruiting quality staff, and determines hiring procedures. (LRSD Plan, pg. 190)____________________________________________________ Institute staffing needs assessments as an annual process in the incentive schools.____________ Develop a comprehensive guide for assessing staffing needs which incorporates the factors listed in the plan as well as other relevant archival and anecdotal data._____________ Train principals and staffing committees in procedures for effective assessing staffing needs. Involve the LRSD Human Resource Department as an integral part of the assessment process._______ Develop specific, comprehensive job descriptions for instructional and supervision aides. Make sure all aides receive a thorough orientation to their individual job along with comprehensive, ongoing formal training in areas such as child development, supervision and classroom management, learning styles, and discipline techniques. _______________________________________ Provide teacher inservice training in the effective use of instructional aides that include team-building activities for teacher and aide teams.____________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. Requirement: The parties shall have as a high priority the elimination of educational achievement disparities between black and white students, and recognize that eliminating disparity may place greater demands on the black students in racially identifiable school than on others. (Interdis. Plan, pg 6) - Needs to be done + In progress dX4f\u0026lt;^ PERSON Mayo, Wagner Matthis Hurley Hurley Hurley Asst. Supt. Matthis Matthis Woods Matthis Asst. Supt. Hurley Woods Woods Matthis DONE 8-94 8-92 11-93 11-93 * Completed + + + + 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 DATE 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/03/94 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 2 DOC MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR Pg 30 34 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 40 41 41 41 41 _____________________RECOMMENDATION ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. Requirement: Disaggregate data related to student discipline and review student data to address issues of racial disparity. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 27)________________ Increase the amount of time the gifted and talented program specialists spend in the incentive schools so they can fully implement the G/T program and spend more time identifying the children whose needs can be met through the program._________________ Continue to repair roof leaks at Franklin as they occur. Once a leak is corrected, repair or replace water damaged ceiling tiles and carpet._______________________ Repair or replace the leaky roof in Mitchell's reading room Replace the loose floor tiles in Mitchell's hallway.__________________ Develop a schedule of carpet repair or replacement for Rockefeller, Mitchell, and Rightsell. Repair the floor and wall in Rightsell classroom 3-B, and then replace any damaged carpet.__________ Take steps to correct the remaining drainage problems at Rightsell, including relocation of any down spout draining toward the foundation.____________________________________ Make sure all incentive school principals are aware that district funds are available to improve landscaping at their schools if a parent, teacher, or community organization will take maintenance responsibility for plantings.____________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans Requirement: The incentive school program promotes and ensures academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The incentive school program compensates the victims of segregation and serves as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-term desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149)_____________ Create job descriptions for council members that clearly identify the district's expectations of the council-membership responsibilities, and the amount of service time involved.__________ Outline the council's organizational structure and its working and reporting relationship to the school board, district administrators, the incentive schools, and other monitoring entities.___________ Provide a comprehensive orientation for the council at the beginning of each school year so all members will understand their role, district policies and procedures, communication channels, and what district resources and support are available.__________________________ Develop and carry out a specific plan for meeting council obligations that includes goals and objectives, tasks, timelines, persons responsible, and evaluation criteria that addresses the council's desegregation plan obligations. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Roberson Donaldson Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton Eaton Matthis Mayo, Buchanan Mayo, Buchanan Mayo, Buchanan Mayo, Buchanan DONE 8-94 9-94 7-94 7-93 7-92 1-94 6-94 6-94 6-94 * Completed + +28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 . 39 40 41 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ____________________________ Page 3 DATE 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 I 2/03/94 DOC MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR Pg 41 41 41 43 43 43 45 45 46 47 47 48 48 49 ____________________________________RECOMMENDATION Develop a monitoring instrument for council use that correlates specifically with desegregation plan and court order requirements. Such an instrument and the information it elicits will facilitate an ongoing assessment of how well the district is complying with its obligations.______________ Help the council develop monitoring and reporting procedures, guideline, and schedules that provide members clear direction for their monitoring tasks_____________ Coordinate monitoring activities with other internal monitoring groups including the district biraci^ committee, school biracial committee, and the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Such coordination will help avoid monitoring gaps and duplication and also help ensure more effective use of time and other resources._______________________ Include as a member of the Early Childhood Education Task Force at least one instructional aide or teacher from each school having a four-year-old program._________________________ Increase the involvement of area colleges and universities by naming active higher education representatives to the task force._________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. Requirement: Writing to Read labs, or another instructional technology program, are in place for grades K-2 at each school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 152)_____________________________________________ Base staff development on activities on areas of demonstrated need.______________ Utilize Teacher Assistance Plan (TAP) for those teachers who need the help available through the TAP approach._______________________________________________ Encourage principals and assistant principals to attend subject area in service meetings so they. too. are well informed and understand the new curriculum____________________________ Ensure that each school develops and executes a plan for fully implementing its theme by the opening of the 1993-94 school year.___________________________________________________________ Provide equal treatment for Stephens Incentive School by providing full support for a school theme. Children at Stephens are entitled to every incentive school feature guaranteed them by the Settlement Plans, unless the district should seek, and the Court grant, permission to temporarily deviate from a particular plan provision._____________________________ Establish a schedule of regular meetings among the incentive school program specialists so they can discuss effective theme implementation strategies, share ideas, and review experiences Encourage interaction among the incentive school program specialists and those specialists assigned to the magnet schools. Capitalizing on in-house expertise and encouraging cooperation among the schools will help strengthen the district's programs._________________ Schedule science inservice training for teachers who need or want help improving their science instruction. Principals should be able to determine which teachers are not fully using the science labs and steer them to staff development sessions devoted to enlivening science in the classroom. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Mayo, Buchanan Mayo. Buchanan Mayo, Buchanan Price Price Price Woods Parker Asst. Supt. Asst. Supt. Asst. Supt. Grier Grier Glasgow DONE 3-94 6-94 10-94 8-93 * Completed + + + + + + + +42 DATE 12/09/93 DOC MR Pg 49 43 12/09/93 MR 51 44 12/09/93 MR 51 45 12/09/93 MR 51 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/03/94 MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR 51 52 53 55 56 57 58 61 61 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 4 RECOMMENDATION __________________________ Ensure that the materials needed for all science experiments are available to school staff and make sure teachers are aware of procurement procedures. Capitalize on the district's resident expertise and experience to assist the incentive schools in establishing a foreign language program as an integral part of the overall school program Place as many qualified foreign language teachers as needed to provki^SpanisKlnstruction to incentive school students as part of the regular school day instructional program Encourage the Spanish teachers to develop a series of Spanish \"mini-lessons\" for each grade level to help the regular classroom teachers reinforce foreign language instruction across the curriculum Increase the amount and improve the quality of Spanish language materials available in each school. ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Requirement: Parent Home Study Guides in each core subject area for each grade (1-6) will be available by the 1993-94 school year. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)___________________________________ Provide sufficient training and support to enable all schools to fully implement Abacus during the 1993- 94 school year.________________________________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Requirement: The Effective Schools model operates in each school, with training provided for implementation. (LRSD Plan, pg. 154)________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Requirement: The school emphasizes a classics reading program and uses the basal reader to augment the classics. (LRSD Plan, pg. 154)__________________________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitment in its desegregation plans. Requirement: A Latin program, used to increase vocabulary and word attack skills, is incorporated into the fifth and sixth grade language arts program. The staff schedules time for instruction, provides materials and supplies, and documents student achievement. (LRSD Plan, pp. 154, 159-164)________ Incorporate leisure time activities, which students can pursue throughout their lifetime, as part of the physical education curriculum.___________________________________________ Strengthen efforts to recruit mentors for the students. Having at least one special friend, coach, and encourage can be so important to a child's development that every student who needs or wants a mentor should have one._________________________________________________ Consider a trainer of trainers program or similar means to equip principals or other school staff to train volunteer mentors. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Glasgow Grier, Parker Grier, Parker Grier, Parker Grier. Parker Matthis Woods Woods Asst. Supt. Grier, Parker Matthis Milam Milam DONE 8-94 8-93  Completed + + + + 7^ + .A55 DATE 12/09/93 DOC MR Pg 63 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12,'03'94 MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR 65 68 68 68 68 68 68 68 70 70 72 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 -------------------------------------------------Page 5 ___________ RECOMMENDATION Abandon the practice of limiting three-and-four-year-oid children to walking field trips and allow them to travel by bus to any appropriate site, with parental approval. Whatever the past misunderstanding that resulted in travel restrictions for young students, ADE should confirm that, with appropriate parent permission, it is lawful to transport children of these ages in public school buses. Treat and teach career skills development as an integral part of school life. Solicit candid feedback from summer school participants (including staff, parents, and students) about what they most and least valued about the summer school programs. Ask them to identify those elements that enticed them into the program, what facilitated their participation, and any barriers that impeded it._________________________________ Ask incentive school parents and students who did not take part in summer school to identify why they did not participate and what would most likely induce them to attend. Seek broad-based input from incentive school staff, parents, and students to learn what course offerings or other program features make summer school most appealing to prospective participants. Routinely monitor and evaluate summer school as part of a comprehensive, ongoing process for continuous improvement. Include the incentive school principals, teachers, students, and parents in the assessment, publish and analyze the results, and when act decisively upon what the evaluation reveals.______________________________ Mount an aggressive marketing campaign for summer school recruitment, getting ideas from staff, students, and parents and also encouraging them to help recruit. Maintain thorough and accurate records of all summer school information, including planning, recruitment efforts, surveys or other means of input and feedback, evaluations, a tally of children participating in each program category and individual class, and a record of these students' home school. Comprehensive records will enable program planners to track success and make appropriate program modifications as needed.____________________ Consider implementing the recommendations made by the extended year administrative staff in the district's summary report._________________________ Encourage partnered schools to develop some joint projects and co-activities so students will learn how to plan, organize, and cooperate on activities that they develop. Shared ventures could held increase participation in Saturday School activities. The principals should collaborate with each other to provide the necessary resources and to ensure successful projects. Consider pairing Franklin with two smaller incentive schools for Saturday School activities so no incentive school is without a partner to encourage sharing and variety. Design the extended day survey to include a description of the skills a student develops while engaged in leisure time activities. This design will help parents and students recognize the importance of a good balance between work and play. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Cheatham Elston Ingram, Asst. Supt. Ingram, Asst. Supt. Ingram, Asst. Supt, Ingram, Asst. Supt. Ingram, Asst. Supt. Ingram, Asst. Supt. Ingram, Asst. Supt. Asst. Supt. Asst. Supt Asst. Supt., Principals DONE T94 8-92 10-93 10-92 * Completed + + + + + +67 68 69 70 71 72 73  74 75 76 77 78 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ___________________________ Page 6 DATE 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 I 2/03.94 DOC MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR Pg 72 76 76 78 78 78 84 85 89 89 89 91 ____________________________________RECOMMENDATION Make sure all extended day students have an opportunity for some fun activities, such as jump rope, board games, or making up and reciting rhymes. It's developmentally and emotionally healthy for students to participate in wholesome activities just for fun.___ Make an effort to pair aides and teachers who are compatible with each other, and provide training that will enable instructional aides and classroom teachers to work together as an effective team. Provide pre-service orientation and training for ail aides, and follow-up with regular inservice, on topics that include behavior management techniques and other subjects that will contribute to the aides' effectiveness.______________________________ Consider having VIPS train incentive school principals to serve as instructors for new mentors so these building leaders can conduct their own streamlined, on-site mentor training. Allow principals to contact and select pre-professionals from institutions of higher education when the opportunity presents itself. Sometimes the best deals occur because of a chance meeting at a seminar or conference. It doesn't make sense for a good opportunity to get lost in bureaucratic wastelands.___________________________________ Expand contacts with and widen access to the variety of community-based programs designed to support children and families.______________________________ Allow teachers who want to leave the incentive schools to do so with impunity. If staff members wish to transfer elsewhere, they are not necessarily unfit or incompetent\nthey may simply not be suited for the incentive school experience. It cannot be overemphasized that the district should only assign people to the incentive schools who are not only talented, committed, and experienced, and who also want to be there. _______________________________ Comply with the requirement to develop complete student performance profiles for each child and then use the information to define and guide each student's learning path and to help determine the effect of the variables these profiles record.______ Make sure that each incentive school has a full-time certified guidance counselor on staff throughout the school year.______________________________ Decide each incentive school's need for a social worker, then staff accordingly. Require incentive school counselor to meet as a group on a regular basis. Such meetings will provide an informal atmosphere in which to discuss problems unique to incentive schools, develop solutions, share ideas and success stories, and Io explore ways to expand their resources. Counselors need the support and encouragement they could get from an organized group of peers. Assign a district employee the responsibility for fully developing and implementing the plan requirements for a program that will equip parents with job skills necessary for employment at all levels within the incentive schools. Be sure Io include program goals, objectives, timelines, persons responsible for each step of implementation, and evaluation criteria. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Asst. Supt, Principals Principals Woods Milam Asst. Supt. Principals Hurley, Asst. Supt. Principals Hurley, Asst. Supt. Hurley, Asst. Supt. Elston Marlin DONE 10-92 8-94 9-94 8-94 8-94 + + + 1-94  * Completed79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 DATE 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/03/94 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ----------------------------------------------- Page 7 DOC MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR Pg 92 92 95 97 97 98 105 105 105 106 ____________________________________RECOMMENDATION Follow up to provide appropriate assistance to survey respondents who have expressed interest in receiving specialized help from the district, such as obtaining their GED,_____________ Evaluate the cost effectiveness of using local community resources, such as the Parent Learning Center, as a means for providing education opportunities for parents._____________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans. Requirement: A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials, recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan, pp. 206, 208)___________________________________________________________________ Evaluate the parent workshops offered to determine if they are meeting the plan's goal of helping incentive school parents understand and carry out school expectations.________ Ask workshop participants to evaluate each session at its conclusion to make candid suggestions for training improvement and future session topics. Then carefully analyze the feedback to assess the quality and relevancy of the training and make changes accordingly. ______________________ ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitment in its desegregation plan. Requirement: Recognition is used as a tool for community and parent involvement. The school recognizes parents and the community at monthly PTA meetings, displays awards, gives school lunch vouchers to award winners, and involve students in the recognition selection process. (LRSD Plan, pp. 209-210)___________________________________________________________________________ Standardize the method staff uses to document and repoit home and school communication to promote data consistency and accuracy. In order to standardize reporting and minimize the burden of documentation, schools could use a simple form identifying the contact date, type of contact (such as parent/teacher conterence, home visit, interim or monthly report, phone call, success or alert card), which staff member contacted whom (parent, grandparent, or other), and a brief description of the results of the contact or any other pertinent information._________________________ Train incentive school principals and staff to serve as trainers for new mentors so they can conduct their own mentor training, if needed, and thereby expedite mentor placement.____________ Develop transportation policies and procedures, ensuring that principals are aware of this service, know how to identify parents' transportation needs, and understand how to arrange for it to support parent participation where needed.________________________________________ Provide parents with current school year contracts to sign when they register their children in the incentive schools. Contracts with old dates and information convey a sloppy message that parents can interpret as a sign that either the school, the district, or both don't place much value on the contracts or parent commitments._________________________________ - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Martin Milhollen, Martin Gill Gill Gill Principals Principals Woods Cheatham, Principals Principals DONE 3-94 4-94 * Completed + + + +89 DATE 12/09/93 DOC MR Pg 109 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 102 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/09/93 12/03/94 MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR 109 109 116 116 117 117 117 117 117 117 117 120 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 8 ________________________ RECOMIVIENDATION __________________________ Assign a LRSD employee the responsibility for coordinating the speakers bureaus and assisting the key communicators. Without consistent direction and support, those who volunteer as a speaker or key communicator can't be expected to carry out their responsibilities effectively Develop and implement a comprehensive plan for utilizing the services of the speakers bureaus and key communicators that includes specific goals, objectives, the persons responsible, and evaluation criteria to determine success and where changes need to be made. Develop job descriptions for the speakers bureau and key communicators that clearly identify the job goal, qualifications, performance expectations, the participant and district responsibilities, and the amount of time that will likely be required to successfully perform each job._____________ Seriously consider placing at Rockefeller an early childhood program specialist who has the credentials and experience that clearly illustrate adequate training and interest in the education of very young children.__________________________________________________________________ Re-establish the Rockefeller advisory group. Regularly evaluate Rockefeller's early childhood education policies as specified in the plan and then publish the results in an informational handbook for parents.__________________ Make sure that the early childhood students receive the services of the school's counselor. Very young children can need the specialized insights and services of a counselor professional just as much as older children.__________________________________________________ Concentrate the same level of attention, funding, and materials on the Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program that the district lavishes on other magnet schools and programs.________________ Broadly publicize the Early Childhood Magnet Program. This program is truly unique and the district should capitalize on its success._______________________________________________________ Refrain from placing any uncertified teacher in an early childhood classroom._____________________ Provide regular, quality staff development opportunities for the early childhood education staff._______ Ensure that Rockefeller serves as an early childhood education model, demonstration site, and training center by initiating the innovative practices described in the desegregation plan, utilizing advice and expertise from parents, teachers, and college and university staff. ODM makes no neviz recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plan. Requirements: Fundings for the Incentive Schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences and activities. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 4) The Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the Court- approved desegregation plan as incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 1) - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Wagner, Principals Wagner, Principals Wagner, Principals Matthis Price, Mangan Price, Mangan Mangan Milhollen Mangan Mangan Mangan Mangan Milhollen DONE 1-94 3-94 93-94 8-93 93-94 ongoing Annually * Completed + + +103 104 105 DATE 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 106 03/11/94 107 I 03/11/94 108 109 110 111 112  113 114 115 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 03/11/94 t2\nO3\n94 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 -------------------------------------------- Page 9 Incentive School Recruitment Monitoring Report DOC MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR MR Pg 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 19 20 20 _______________________ RECOMMENDATIONS Evaluate the means parent recruiters are using to inform the community about the incentive schools hotline, then analyze the findings to determine more effective ways to heighten awareness of this service. Ensure that prospective parents receive information about the incentive schools by expanding the target audience. Assign specific district employees the responsibility and accountability for fully developing and implementing all the district's recruitment obligations identified in the desegregation plans, marketing plan, and court orders. Develop a system to ensure that employees responsible for incentive school recruitment receive ail monitoring reports and court orders that deal with the incentive schools. Establish parent recruitment teams in each incentive school, staffing the teams according to qualification and job descriptions that clearly state the team charge, the district's expectations, qualifications (such as skills, experience, or school affiliation), the amount of time involved, and the precise duties anticipated. Implement an orientation and training schedule for the recruitment teams that utilizes the skills and expertise of parents and district personnel who have a track record of successfully promoting desegregation. Utilize up-to-date enrollment and school capacity data to develop a plan to target specific schools and neighborhoods for recruitment to the incentive schools. Survey white parents in LRSD and PCSSD to find out what features they consider when selecting a school and what would prompt them to request a desegregation transfer to an incentive school for their children. Develop a comprehensive and detailed annual recruitment plan for each incentive school. Annually identify specific recruitment goals for each incentive school and regularly track the headway made toward each goal. Establish a target date for completing recruitment efforts, measuring results, and deciding whether to petition the Court to release available pre-kindergarten and kindergarten seats to black students who could benefit from the district's early childhood education. Routinely survey parents whose children opt out of incentive schools to determine why they leave and to which schools they move. Then use this information to modify recruitment and retention strategies. Consider adding four-year-old classes at the incentive schools which have only one class, thereby achieving a more even grade structure that can help foster desegregation as children rise from one grade level to the next. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Wagner Wagner Wagner Mayo Principals, Wagner Principals, Wagner, Ingram Wagner, Principals, Wagner Principals Wagner, Principals Wagner. Mayo Principals, Ingram Matthis DONE 1-94 + 5-94 9-94 + 8-94 * CompletedAudit of Court Orders \u0026amp; Transcripts I DATE 01-25-94 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 01-26-94 01-26-94 02-04-94 02-04-94 02-25-94 03-16-94 04-05-94 04-08-94 04-22-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 10 DOC TR TR TR CO2091 CO2091 TR CO2129 CO2146 CO2155 TR TR TR TR Pg 54 227 241 2 6 115 3 5 1 39 39 150 192 OBLIGATION__________ The Court wants PCSSD and LRSD to document and track their success in efforts toward recruitment. The LRSD is obligated to build, in addition to the King Interdistrict School in the fall of 1993, the Stephens Interdistrict School.' LRSD was instructed to take a careful look at the demographic data it has supplied the ODM, and at student population shifts because black children are going from the central Little Rock area to Crystal Hill and King School.______________ The Court instructed the LRSD that it wanted the interdistrict transfers, which are at the heart of the Desegregation Plan, to be done more quickly than the District has done in the past. LRSD white students may be permitted to attend King Interdistrict School without violating the desegregation plans. The ideal goal being a student enrollment ration of 50 percent black to white. White students attending an LRSD Interdistrict school will be recruited primarily from the PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County Develop immediately specific guidelines regarding assignments to King School, by extension, apply to its other Interdistrict schools. Guidelines are to reflect past practices and promises and include intradistrict transfer eligibility criteria for both black and while children\nthey must be sufficiently comprehensive to be applicable to all of the district's interdistrict schools\nthey must be clear and unambiguous enough for district workers and parents to understand\nand while a specific numeric quota or cap is neither required nor desirable, the guidelines must describe that portion or range of intradistrict transfers that an individual interdistrict school can reasonably accommodate. The Court goes on the record that the district is to follow through in its efforts to get feedback from its budget process and public input with respect to the budget._____________ LRSD reimburse PCSSD $167,113 within 60 days of order PERSON Wagner Mayo DONE 6-94 Mayo Mayo Mayo Williams Miilhollen 5-94 8-94 9-94 11-94 Approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary should be and hereby is granted LRSD will pay an increase of $52,604.09 in the ODM Budget. The court wants something justifying the expenditures and explaining why increases, decreases or deletion are made and these business cases for expenditures above $25,000. It wants to know how white students will be recruited for the incentive school, what student assignment zones will be, and the impact on the racial balance of all the schools. Before the court gives final approval to the Stephens and Garland Schools Stipulation it wants more thought on it. The court wants more detail on how the district plans to recruit white students for Stephens in light of the demographic trends._____________________________ In addition, the court wants to know who will be responsible for recruitment. Eaton Miilhollen Miilhollen Mayo Mayo Wagner 1 The Stephens Stipulation of June 7, 1994 changes the third interdistrict school from Stephens to Washington. 12/03/94 - Needs to be done + In progress APPEAL PEND. 6-94 9-94 9-94 * Completed + +129 130 131 132 133 134 135 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 11 DATE 06-07-94 06-28-94 06-28-94 09-07-94 10-24-94 10-24-94 10-24-94 12/03/94 DOC TR CO2225 Pg 193 5 TR CO CO CO CO 81 4 5 6 8 ________________________________________OBLIGATION The court wants a long-range facilities study, which considers the 1988 study and the Deseg. Plan. Approved magnet status for King with the expectation that the LRSD will expeditiously revise its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines to facilitate intradistrict transfers of white students, thus promoting racially balanced school enrollments.__________________ The court expresses its interest in pursuing the idea of middle schools and asks the Superintendent of Schools to set a goal with interim time lines where the school district will reach point a, b, c and d and finally reach a decision as to whether middle schools are a viable option for the school district. LRSD may fill the vacant seats in kindergarten and 4 year old programs at the incentive schools, and also in the four year old programs at the other schools. The district must reserve half of all incentive school kindergarten and 4 year old seats for 1995-96 and subsequent school years, and must also remain mindful of the target racial balance in the other elementary schools so as to recruit and assign students accordingly. The LRSD must seek court permission before releasing any reserved seats in future school years.__________________________ Develop and conduct quality, continuous training on the program planning and budget process for all those who participate in that process. At a minimum, these training sessions should address the operational responsibilities of the participants in each of the components of the process (needs assessment, program inventory, goals and objectives, program development, budgeting, monitoring and reporting, and evaluation). The LRSD will work with ODM to ensure that the training is adequately defined and implemented.______________________________ Institute management processes which will actively review progress, in terms of achievements and expenditures, on a regular basis, involving every level of the organization down to at least every budget manager._________________ LRSD must submit on or before Wednesday, November 16, 1994, a concise but complete description of the Spanish program as it is being offered at each of the incentive schools - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Eaton Mayo Wiiliams Mayo Clowers Clowers Matthis DONE 9-94 10-94 * Completed + + +136 137 138 139 140 141 142 DATE 10-24-94 10-24-94 DATE 06-07-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 12 DOC CO CO DOC ST ST ST ST ST Pg 9 17 Pg 1 1 1 1 2 _________________________ OBLIGATION __________________________ The district is to submit on or before Wednesday, November 16, 1994, a description of theme implementation in each of Ihe incentive schools that includes at least the following information: 1) a summary of the theme, how it is being integrated into the curriculum and school activities, and the implementation timeline. 2) if theme implementation is contemplated in phases, the rationale for such a method and plans for seeking Court approval for that approach. 3) a summary of the special programs, activities, events, equipment, and materials which are devoted to theme support at each school. 4) the extent to which the theme is fully implemented at each school and an explanation for any delays in implementation. 5) what remains to be done to implement the theme fully. 6) the amount of money spent on each schools theme implementation during FY 1992-93 and FY 1993-94 and the amount budgeted for FY 1994-95, by line item category, if possible (e g., personnel, equipment, etc.).________________________________________ The court requires the district to file a plan or business case which explains how the district plans to spend the money on transportation. Stephens School Stipulation^ i i June 7, 1994 ' ______________________________________OBLIGATION Stephens Incentive School will be closed at the end of the 1993-94 school year.____________________ Students who would otherwise have attended Stephens Incentive School shall be assigned to Garland or Franklin Incentive School but will have the option of attending other schools where their presence will aid desegregation.____________________________________________________ LRSD shall build a new school within generally the same area in which the Stephens and Garland schools are now located.________________________________________ The new school shall accommodate approximately seven hundred students and will be constructed as soon as possible but shall be completed no late than July 31, 1996._____________ The new Stephens school shall be a magnet school. . . PERSON Matthis, Ingram Mayo PERSON Williams Mayo Eaton Eaton Matthis DONE 10-94 DONE 6-94 8-94 + 2 This stipulation was the subject of the June 7, 1994 hearing. References 126-129 on this list are related to this stipulation. Toward Ihe end of the hearing, Judge Wright approved the building of \"something\". Therefore, LRSD assumes that these items from Ihe stipulation are now obligations. From the hearing, it is clear that Judge Wright remains concerned about whether or not students can be recruited to racially balance Ihe new Stephens School and whether or not enough students exist in LRSD Io justify a planned capacity of 700. Therefore, LRSD is further assuming that items 126-129 above are still of interest to Judge Wright. 12/03/94 - Needs to be done + In progress * CompletedLRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ---------------------------------------- Page 13 1 DATE 143 I 06-07-94 DOC ST Pg 2 144 I 06-07-94 ST 2 145 146 06-07-94 06-07-94 ST ST 2 2 147 06-07-94 ST 2 148 06-07-94 ST 3 149 06-07-94 ST 3 150 06-07-94 ST 3 151 06-07-94 ST 3 _______________________________________OBLIGATION ... and the student body shall consist primarily of black and white LRSD students and some majority- to-minority transfer students from PCSSD. ____________ Garland Incentive School shall be closed as an educational learning center for elementary pupils when Stephens Magnet School is opened.__________________ The former Garland Students shall be assigned to Stephens Magnet School. Students who reside within the area of the Stephens Magnet School shall be entitled to preferential assignment to the new school.____________________ Stephens Magnet School shall have a bi-racial faculty with at least forty percent black certified faculty members not including administrators. They will also promote the use of uniforms as is done at Williams Magnet School unless it is demonstrated to be unfeasible.__________________________ The double funding provisions for Stephens and Garland Schools shall apply to Stephens Magnet School unless and until the new school becomes an effectively desegregated school. (At or below 80% black population)________________________________ Moreover, the Stephens Magnet School shall be funded at the level contemplated for the highest quality educational programs in the LRSD.__________________ Stephens Magnet shall provide the following benefits which are found in LRSD incentive schools: PERSON Mayo Williams Mayo Mayo Hurley, Principal Matthis, Principal Williams Williams 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Extended Day Program\nExtended Week Program\nExtended Year Program\nEarly Childhood Program\nCurriculum Specialist\nStudent Educational Plans\nComputer Loan Program\nParent Programs including parents as tutors, instructional aides and advisors. . . . Parent support workshops shall be provided at least once each quarter of the school year. Parents shall be Matthis, Principal 152 06-07-94 ST 4 DONE 153 154 06-07-94 06-07-94 ST ST 4 5 155 06-07-94 I CT 5 employed as instructional aides with the expectation that they may, in accordance with the desegregation plans, complete college teaching degree programs leading to teacher certification at LRSD's expense and enjoy possible career opportunities in the districts. The goal for the racial composition of the new Stephens Magnet School shall be fifty-five percent black student enrollment with a target racial composition range of fifty percent black to sixty-five percent black.________________________________________________ LRSD will pursue federal magnet school grants and funds from other potential funding sources. All parties will be fully involved in the development of the new Stephens Magnet School to ensure that the desegregation plan objectives can be achieved. ________________ The parlies agree to withdraw their appeal regarding Stephens School. Mayo Williams Matthis + + 12/03/94 - Needs to be done + In progress Attorneys * Completed156 157 158 159 LRSD Audit of Obligations, November 1994 ------------------------------------------------ Page 14 DATE 06-07-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 06-07-94 1 2/03/94 DOC ST ST ST ST Pg 5 6 6 6 _________OBLIGATION The parties agree that early childhood programs within LRSD should be located in accordance with LRSDs motion and substituted Exhibit 1 {Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites, April 6 1994 and substitute Exhibit 1 to that motion, April 21, 1994.___________ The LRSD agrees to either resolve the matter of costs with Joshua or, failing resolution, to have the amount of same referred to the Court for disposition at the cost of the LRSD. The parties agree that the combination of the operation of Washington Interdistrict Magnet School and the agreements contained in this stipulation and settlement satisfy the desegregation plan requirements for interdistrict schools required to be constructed within LRSD. No additional interdistrict schools within LRSD are required by the desegregation plans. The parties agree to cooperate with the City of Little Rock in an effort to enhance the facilities and educational opportunities of Stephens Magnet School. - Needs to be done + In progress PERSON Matthis Williams Williams Williams DONE 6-94 6-94 * CompletedLittle Rock School District Obligations from the Pulaski County Desegregation Case Abbreviated Summary August, 1995 Previous responsibilities of Deputy Superintendent notedRECEIVED RECBVeo AUG 41995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District Obligations from the Pulaski County Desegregation Case Summary IW5 Office of Desegregation twoniioring The attached list is a summary of obligations essential to the Little Rock School District in the Pulaski Couhfy Desegregation Case. The list was excerpted from documents relating to the case. Documents reviewed include the Little Rock Desegregation Plan, The Interdistrict Plan, court orders, stipulations, transcripts, exhibits, and monitoring reports to name a few. The first audit of LRSD obligations was completed by attorneys of the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark law firm in December 1993. After extensive review by LRSD senior management, the obligations were filed with the U. S. Court, Eastern District of Arkansas. The Program Budget Document (PBD) was then developed to monitor these obligations. To keep the PBD current, an audit of new obligations is done each year. During the first six months of 1995, a study was repeated. All legal documents relating directly to LRSD obligations m the Pulaski County Desegregation Case were reviewed again to verify the accuracy of the original audit. The attached list is the result of this research, defined generally as statements that require action. They include those that are routinely done m a school district. They are Obligations are \u0026lt; included here because they are specifically mentioned in a document relating to this case. This document includes two parts as follows: 1. Explanation of Codes for List of Obligations (Figure 1) is an explanation of headings across the top of the obligations list and the meaning of codes found in that column\nand, 2. Pulaski County Desegregation Case Obligations is the list of obligations abbreviated for quick reference. It is a working document. We believe it includes all possible obligations including those from stipulations dating back to 1986. It includes approximately 75 redundant items that will be considered for removal after consulting with the appropriate leader. There are 2098 listed. It is still m draft form. NOTE: Under no circumstances should the abbreviated text of the Pulaski County Desegregation Case Obligations list be considered a complete statement of the obligation. The original legal reference should be read when making decisions about the implementation or meaning of the item\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":"bcas_bcmss0837_434","title":"Finances","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":["1992/2002"],"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--Finance","Educational planning","School management and organization","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Finances"],"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/434"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["186 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nTable 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION BUDGET 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS SETTLEMENT LOAN PROCEEDS 12,559,250 3,000,000- 8,356,778 3,000,000 8,637,482 6,000,000 TOTAL REVENUE 15,559,250 11,356,778 14,637,482 EXPENSES: RUN BUS SYSTEM ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION AREA SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ART AVIATION AND TRANSPORTAT BADGETT THEME BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL CURRICULUM AUDIT DATA PROCESSING DEBT SERVICE DIVISION OF SCHOOLS DOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD DUNBAR ENGLISH ENHANCEMENT SCHOOLS SPEC ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE MA EXTRACURRICULAR COSTS FOREIGN LANGUAGE FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM GRANTS PROCUREMENT OFFIC HEARING OFFICER c f''\" HOMEWORK CENTERS HUMAN RELATIONS H.I.P.P.Y. INCENTIVE SCHOOLS INFORMATION SYSTEM JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURIN LIBRARY LITTLE ROCK CENTRAL MATH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY PROG METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR MINORITY RECRUITER MULTI-ETHNIC CURRICULUM MUSIC OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 22,300 308,373 48,739 474,100 85,800 28,920 2,363,885 600,000- 800,000 75,000 400,000 22,300 15,000 50,000 292,854 50,000 75,000 942,481 43,800 400,000 399,000 45,920 618,000 800,000 77,250 500,000 22,300 1,700,000 25,000 301,640 24,806 1,442,481 35,800 420,000 300,000 39,920 c t: / PAL r PARENT CENTERS PARENT INVOLVEMENT PARKVIEW SCIENCE PLANT SERVICES -POSITIVE STUDENT DISCIPL PRECOLLEGE TESTS 21,190 431,313 144,805 15,000 120,000 11,190 556,313 208,156 360,000 27,000 110,493 40,279 143,000 9,510 470,302 3,750,834 48,755 37,133 293,340 40,000 149,149 50,000 220,645 2,894,240 200,000 848,000 370,800 10,000 19,000 25,000 110,493 42,696 500 9,510 588,520 2,750,184 20,000 51,680 215,580 310,940 15,000 50,000 200,000 120,000 11,190 681,313 45,000 42,400 153,624 50,000 233,884 2,126,067 . 250,000 893,000 381,924 12,125 25,000 110,493 45,257 9,510 623,831 2,848,154 25,000 54,781 113,225 329,597 15,000 50,000 /Table 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION BUDGET 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 READING ROMINE SAFETY SCIENCE SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE PR SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIAL WORKERS/COUNSELOR SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFF DEVELOPMENT SUMMER SCHOOL UNIVERSITY LAB SCHOOL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION WASHINGTON 113,120 35,000 9,750 102,490 317,297 80,000 800 113,120 50,000 800,000 15,750 300,000 15,575 200,000 82,940 386,335 90,000 17,000 113,120 50,000 824,000 10,875 318,000 14,225 300,000 107,940 409,515 200,000 185,000 155,000 TOTAL EXPENS 10,086,683 16,161,516 18,260,247 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 5,472,567 (4,804,738) (3,622,765) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (5,500,000) (27,433) (4,832,171) ENDING FUND BALANCE (27,433) (4,832,171) (8,454,936)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 310 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 18, 1992 TO: FROM: Board of Directors Pat Kumpuris SUBJECT: SPECIAL BOARD MEETING After the Board Committee meeting Thursday, received FEB 1 9 Office of Desegregation Monitoring we will convene a special meeting to conduct an employee hearing and to consider approval of a Resolution Authorizing Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes. I am enclosing a copy of the Resolution. cc: Management Team LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHT^M STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 February 20, 1992 TO: Board of Directors FROM: J im V Ivey, Manager of Support Services THROUGH: SUBJECT: Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent^!)^ Resolution Approving the Issuance of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory Notes Attached is a resolution approving the issuance of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory Notes in the principal amount of approximately $15,000,000 necessary to pay the expenses of operating and maintaining the District through June 30, 1992. This issuance is the second year of the program that began in 1991, at which time the Board approved a similar issuance. It is recommended that the Board approve the resolution as submitted and direct the administration to proceed with necessary documents. execution of theRESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION PROMISSORY NOTES IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $15,000,000\nAND PRESCRIBING OTHER MATTERS PERTAINING THERETO. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors (\"Board\") of Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (\"LRSD\") that: Section 1. Recitals. The Board finds and determines that: (a) LRSD will not have sufficient cash receipts during the remainder of the school year ending June 30, 1992 (\"Fiscal Year 1992\") to pay the expenses of operating and maintaining the school system for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1992. (b) It is necessary and in the best interest of LRSD that funds to supplement cash receipts in order to pay expenses for Fiscal Year 1992 be borrowed pursuant to 6-20-402, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated. (c) Stephens Inc. has proposed to underwrite tax-exempt tax and revenue anticipation promissory notes (\"Notes\") of LRSD in order to provide additional funds for payment of expenses for Fiscal Year 1992. Section 2. Approval of Issuance of Notes. The issuance of Notes in the principal amount of approximately $15,000,000 is approved. Section 3. Negotiation of Terms\nFinal Authorization. The Superintendent of Schools and her designees are authorized to negotiate with Stephens Inc. concerning the terms of the Notes and the terms of their sale, and to make recommendations to the Board. The terms of the Notes and of their sale shall be subject to the approval of this Board. Section 4. repealed to the extent of the conflict. All resolutions in conflict herewith are Section 5. Effective Date. full force and effect from and after its adoption. This resolution shall be inCERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a special) meeting of the Board held on the (regular or 1992 . The Resolution appears minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. in the day of of f icial meeting the duly elected (or appointed), At the time of the gualified and serving members of the Board and their respective votes on the adoption of the Resolution were as follows: Director Vote (Ave, Nay, Abstain or Absent) I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law\nthat to the extent required by law due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public\nthat the meeting was open to the public\nthat a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting\nthat all other requirements and proceedings under the law incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed\nand that I am authorized to execute this Certificate. CERTIFIED under my hand and seal of the District this day of 1992. (SEAL) SecretaryOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: January 3, 1992 To: Judge Wright From: Subject: Brown Follow-up on LRSD Budgeting Process Last week. Bob Morgan and I met with our consultants from the Arkansas Financial Group to discuss the next steps regarding the LRSDs finances and budgeting process. Ive talked this over briefly with Greg, too. Heres our thinking along with some suggestions for what you may wish to include in an order: 1. The attached addition to the LRSD May Submission wasnt discussed during the hearing. This \"note\", added in two places in the LRSD plan (after page 132 and page 286), states that the cost figures origin^y submitted with the LRSD desegregation plan are outdated and that \"revised cost figures will be provided in a separate desegregation budget.\" To date, no revised figures have been received here and Greg isnt aware of any that have been filed with the Court. As a first step, LRSD should be given a period of time (30 days is probably reasonable) to submit these revised cost figures. Since LRSD high-handedly stressed in court that the budget ODM was discussing wasnt even prepared for the settlement plan, they set themselves up for the obvious: where is their budget for the plan they are now following? Its certainly interestingand chagrining-to note that the LRSD budget (the one which wasnt prepared for the settlement plan) had to have been prepared after the December 12, 1990 order was issued by the Circuit Court. They really have no excuse for having run for over a calendar year on two separate school year budgets that evidently bear no relationship to the plan theyve been ordered to follow. Unless LRSD submits a budget that is based upon the settlement plan they are required to implement and we are required to monitor, we will not be able to effectively carry out our monitoring duties. The budget must be directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan\neach budget component should be referenced to plan page numbers and be reflected on the implementation timelines which are contained in the plan.January 3, 1992 Page Two 2. Not only should the LRSD be required to submit a 1991-92 budget for the settlement plan, they also should have to submit a long range budget projection on a per annum basis for the entire term of the desegregation agreement. (PCSSD has such a projection so it certainly can be done. An examples attached.) This budget shouldnt be for \"Code 13\" (the desegregation budget\") alone since the district maintains that settlement monies must be supplemented with \"regular\" budget funds in order to fulfill the desegregation obligations. So, in order to paint the whole picture of the districts financial planning in relation to the entire desegregation plan, theyll need to identify whats over and above Code 13. There should also be a long range revenues projection covering the same period of time. It should include anticipated revenues not only from the settlement monies and Ioan, but also show state and millage revenues and any other money sources as well. This projection should enable the district to predict when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any necessary millage should be indicated along with the date when it needs to kick m. To force them to do these budget and revenue projections is really in their best interest: unless they soon have a rendezvous with reality and see when they are going to run out of money, it will be too late to prevent the enormous shortfall that is, at this point, inevitable. 3. Since the LRSD has stated that a major portion of desegregation costs has been expended for \"start up\", its reasonable to ask them to specifically identify (a) which costs are start up and (b) when these start up costs will terminate. The fact is that new expenditures for personnel, not program or facility start up costs, account for the bulk of financial outlay. Ill be in California at my parents Golden Wedding Anniversary celebration beginning January 8 and will return on the 14th. Ill talk with you before I leave and when I get back. Polly will know where to reach me if you should need me while Im on the west coastI PLEASE NOTE\nTwo areas of information contained in the \"Implementation Timeline\" for this section sxibmitted with the original LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan have been omitted from this timeline submitted May 1, 1991. These are heading information found above the columnar timeline which listed the plan date and the person, division and prcgram/area responsible, and a \"cost\" column in the timeline. The information that was in the heading area is - now either out of date or is repeated in a column in the timeline. outdated. The cost figures previously provided are Revised cost figures will be provided in a iseparate desegregation budget. The columnar heading \"Completion Date\" has been changed to \"Ending Date.\" For the sake of clarity, all timeline headings have been changed to LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline.\" I5Z/ //I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ,T(i C CONTINGENCY REVENUES\nPROPERTY TAXES OTHER LOCAL REVENUE COUNTY REVENUE MIN. FOUND. PROG. AID TRANSPORTATION AID ST. DESEG. SETTLEMENT OTHER STATE AID UNRESTRICTED FED. AID NON-REV.A TRANSF. REC. TOTAL RECEIPTS TOTAL REC. \u0026amp; CONT. EXPENDITURES\nSALARY FD. EXPENSE: AMOUNT OF RAISE TEACHER SALARIES ADMIN. SALARIES OTHER SAL. FD. EXP. TOTAL SAL. FD. EXP. OPERATION EXPENSE: AMOUNT OF RAISE SALARIES: OTHER OPERATION EXP. TOTAL OPERATION EXr' ALL SALARIES\nDEBT EXPENSE: TOTAL DEBT EXP. CUR. NEW DESEG COST NEW DEBT TOTAL NEVVDESEG_EXP. I of AL FXPffjSES CONIINGENCY I) 1909-1990 ($1,576,291) SWITCH .OIOM $24,003,281 $2,900,911 $80,551 $36,103,754 $2,910,418 $4,000,000 $1,756,845 $1,592,873 $501,287 $73,849,920 $72,273,629 3.50% $34,744,905 $3,916,830 $3,260,457 $41,922,192 3.50% $9,262,038 $12,992,868 $22,255,706 $47,924,573 $5,591,688 $69,769,586 $2,5()4.()4,3 PULASKI COUNTY special SCHOOL DISTRICT LONG RANGE BUDGET PROJECTIONS E F G II I J K 1990-1991 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-199C $2,504,043 $2,464,501 $16,269 ($2,686,894) ($5,227,820) ($6,396,037) $21,757,960 $3,169,317 $80,801 $37,423,541 $3,251,781 $4,500,000 $2,701,773 $1,086,128 $379,165 $74,350,467 $76,854,510 2.00% $36,871,144 $4,561,235 $3,148,830 $44,581,209 PRE AUDIT 2.00% $9,932,471 $14,451,800 $24,384,271 $51,364,850 $5,424,529 $74739(LO()9 $2,464,501 $21,995,000 $2,682,000 $79,000 $42,535,873 $3,345,000 $5,200,000 $2,868,451 $1,010,000 $280,000 $79,995,324 $82,459,825 13.05% $41,405,290 $5,644,377 $3,511,000 $50,560,667 5.00% $10,878,767 $15,568,197 $26,446,964 $57,928,434 $5,435,925 _______ $0 $82,4471,55(1 $16,269 $22,654,850 $23,334,496 $24,034,530 $24,755,566 12/07/91 1996-1997 ($9,381,269) ASSUMPTIONS GROWTH RATE\n00:01 L % RAISE 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 $2,557,191 $81,370 $43,811,949 $3,445,350 $5,200,000 $2,954,505 $1,000,000 $288,400 $81,993,615 $82,009,885 $2,594,377 $83,811 $45,126,308 $3,548,711 $5,200,000 $3,043,140 _$_1,000,000 $297,052 $84,227,894 $81,541,000 _$2,180JG1 $85,325^ $46,480,097 $3,655,172 $5,200,000 $3,134,434 _$ 1,000,000  $305?964 $06,076,603 $00,84(L863 $2,207,750 $88,915 $47,874,500 $3,764,827 $2,700,000 $3,228,467 $1,000,000 \" ~$31s7i'4'2 $85,93M60' $79,539,131 GTHRATE* L.R.DUT GROWTH RATE\nGROWTH RATE: GROWTH RATE: ACTUAL PAYM T GROWTH RATE: NOGROWril GROwfiinATE: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 7 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.0014 8 9 10 11 12 J 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 $41,835,290 $5,734,377 $3,616,330 $51,185,997 $42,265,290 $5,824,377 $3,724,820 $51,814,487 $42,695,290 $5,914,377 $3,836,564 $52,446,232 $43,125,290 $6,004,377 $3,951,661 $53,081,329 $430,000 PER YR. STEP $90,000 PER YR. STEP GROWTH RAfr? \" T 3.00% 20 21 22* 23 24 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25 $11,198,767 $16,035,243 $27,234,009 $58,768,434 $11,518,767 $16,516,300 $28,035,067 $59,600,434 $11,038,767 $17^11.789 $207050^56 '$6074487434' $12,158,767 $17,522,143 $29,680,909' $61,200,434 $320,000 PER YR. STEP GROWTH RATE\n3.00% 26 27' 28 $5,026,772 $5,069,266 $3,898,113 $3,908,162 STEP  RAISE FROM SCHEDULE 29 30 31 $500,000 $75(L000' ~$L2M,OOO $n4\n096^779 ($2,686,1194) $1,200,000 $G50,000 _$M50^_ T()G7G(LO2O '($5,227\n020) $1,400,000 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;55'0,000 $2,O5oT66o $87,244,901 ($6,396,037) $1,600,000 '$2r2\"503Tdd $n892()',466 ($9,381,269) 32 EST. NEW DBT/VOTED MILLS 33 34 35 36LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 1, 1992 Deceived JUN 1 1992 , Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge and Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Office of Desegregalicn Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: Attached are budget projections for the Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as specified in the January 21, 1992 Court Order. The Order's requirement for a revised 1991-92 budget is met by Exhibit A showing the projected cost of certain desegregation programs in this year through agreement with Mr. Bob Morgan of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. list of notes and assumptions is included and is an integral part of the document. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. A Also attached is a procedure that the LRSD will use in future desegregation budgeting so that these costs can be more accurately known. The formats and procedures shown have been reviewed with Mr. Morgan, and we believe he understands and approves. We have stated to Mr. Morgan, however, that we view this as only a step in the process of working with his office on the definition and tracking of desegregation costs, and we will continue to work with him to perfect this process to our mutual benefit. Sincerely, (Jim Ivey 'J^anager of Suppdjr' t Services JI/ch Attachment cc: R. R. Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring w/attachment c:\\project.wpdLRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation with the Office of 2 . 3 . 4. 5. Monitoring (ODM). Desegregation Although the LRSD implemented the Tri- District Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD Desegregation Plan, is committed to the programs of the precise commitments of funds. these figures should not be viewed as It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be done with accuracy, and for the District administration to do so precludes good faith negotiation. The ODM understands this problem but feels that projecting no increases presents an unrealistic picture. a 3% annual increase in these costs. Consequently, they have asked us to use We agree to do that but wish to publicly state that this represents no commitment or intent on the part of the LRSD. If the Court desires, we can present updated projections when these figures are known. have also used a factor of 1 non-salary costs. We for inflationary increases in The LRSD is currently working to produce a balanced budget for 1992-93. Although this cannot be completed until union negotiations are settled, programs must be reviewed and some must be cut in order to meet the legal requirement of a balanced budget. The projections herein assume that sufficient reductions will be made to balance the 1992-93 budget. These reductions will not result in violation of the Desegregation Plan nor of State law. shown as a line item entitled II These reductions are 1992-93 Budget Reductions\". If the Court desires, we will define these reductions for the Court when they are known. As stated in the previous paragraph, it is assumed that $7.7 million in expense reductions will be implemented in 1992-93 and carried forward. Additional shortfalls will further reductions or increased revenues are not found. occur if We are assuming a millage increase of five mills in September, 1993 . be found. This will not be required if sufficient reduction can Note that the projections do not show use of the Desegregation loan in the revenues. It is our intent to use that as a reserve in the event that we cannot get millage rates increased at the time desired. The $1.5 million available in 1992-93 may, however, have to be used to balance the budget.LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 6. Program discussion. #51-75, Incentive School Programs, requires 7. 8 . 9. 10. 11. 12 . 13. 14. cost of programs In the years through the 1991-92 school year, the in the Incentive Schools exceeded the mandatory level of two times the area school instructional cost per student. Since the programs are now functioning and the mandatory level is increasing, the mandatory funding level will exceed program costs in 1992-93 and beyond. Therefore, we have shown the cost of Incentive School programs in 1991-92 and have shown the mandatory funding level differential in 1992-93 and beyond. The projections show the cost of programs that are funded by the revenue sources shown. Federal funds are utilized in some programs but are not shown in the expense. We don't show federal funds in our operating budgets and to do so' here, we believe, would create confusion for the Court and for the public. Court desires. We can provide information on federal funds if the Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. of this is planned for. second-lien issues. The 1993-94 reduction We believe most Any additional will be covered with in Programs, equipment. equipment. reflects the program completion #10, Academic Support of payments for PAL Some funding is added for replacement of this The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not included in the projections because they are funded by federal grants or because their cost is small and the cost of information, broken out. tracking them exceeds the value of the The costs are not omitted\nthey are just not The operating costs of the new King and Stephens Schools are shown as opening at the times requested in motions before the Court. If these motions are not granted, revised budgets if the Court desires. we can submit Operating costs in other schools are reduced somewhat upon the opening of these schools because 400 students will move to each of the new schools from others in the LRSD. The fifth and sixth positions (from the left) of the LRSD standard account code will be used for coding desegregation expenses. The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified. Since most of this has been expended in previous years, the only significant one remaining is the PAL cost discussed above.Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. B. C. D. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number, so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. After the normal budget planning process is complete, a memo will be sent to each budget manager telling them what costs or types of cost may be charged to Desegregation and how they are to be coded. This will be agreed to by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager of Support Services. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will review Desegregation expenses monthly to assure proper charging.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 05-29-92 1991-92 1992- 93 1993-94 1994 - 95 1995- 96 1996 - 97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN UEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTERESTON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 3,900,000 140,000 400,000 224,667 420,850 300,000 85,000 39,088,120 21,736,595 3,500,000 140,000 365,000 225,000 461,000 300,000 85,000 40,093,227 25,253,744 3,805,000 141,400 368,650 227,250 484,050 309,000 86,700 45,616,117 25,996,645 3,819,150 142,814 372,337 229,523 508,253 318,270 88,434 47,086,512 26,766,307 3,933,725 144,242 376,060 231,818 533,665 327,818 90,203 48,506,276 27,518,335 4,051,736 145,685 379,820 234,136 560,348 337,653 92,007 TOTAL 64,749,329 65,900,715 70,769,021 77,091,542 79,490,349 81,825,996 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 28,118,907 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,419 1,474,485 629,752 147,050 3,000 2,983,190 874,311 1,798,665 624,119 28,118,907 8,926,606 28,759,387 8,094,112 29,419,081 6,042,591 30,102,462 3,829,942 30,862,449 683,125 TOTAL 49,864,380 73,419 1,500,000 675,000 147,050 3,000 3,100,000 875,000 2,490,900 653,094 73,419 1,545,000 742,500 154,403 3,000 3,348,000 918,750 3,248,910 672,687 73,419 1,591,350 816,750 162,123 3,000 3,615,840 964,688 3,760,540 692,867 73,419 1,639,091 898,425 170,229 3,000 3,905,107 1,012,922 4,140,580 713,653 73,419 1,688,263 988,268 178,740 3,000 4,217,516 1,063,568 4,491,150 735,063 46,562,976 47,560,167 47,142,248 46,488,830 44,984,560 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 44,625 111,453 800,000 40,000 112,000 600,000 35,000 116,480 400,000 30,000 121,139 300,000 25,000 125,985 200,000 20,000 131,024 100,000 TOTAL 956,078 752,000 551,480 451,139 350,985 251,024 TOTAL REVENUE 115,654,206 113,300,110 118,965,087 124,769,348 126,414,583 127,146,000UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 05-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994-95 1995- 96 1996- 97 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES \u0026amp; MATERIALS OTHER OBJECTS CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY BUDGET REDUCTION 67,748,508 7,808,935 16,910,424 6,791,207 3,817,539 887,696 1,606,543 8,718,196 0 71,437,088 9,022,067 19,141,451 6,992,544 3,927,703 755,079 1,621,715 9,597,115 500,000 (7,700,000) 73,765,037 9,202,508 18,887,119 7,202,320 4,045,534 777,731 1,670,366 9,090,123 600,000 (7,931,000) 75,316,854 9,386,558 22,144,629 7.418,390 4,166,900 801,063 1,720,477 8,845,248 700,000 (8,168,930) 76,822,807 9,574,289 24,940,080 7,640,942 4,291,907 825,095 1,772,092 8,258,921 800,000 (8,413,998) 79,373,940 9,765,775 25,864,401 7,870,170 4,420,664 849,848 1,825,255 8,041,468 900,000 (8,666,418) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 114,289,048 115,294,762 117,309,739 122,331,190 126,512,136 130,245,103 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 1,365,158 (1,994,652) 1,655,348 2,438,158 (97,553) (3,099,103) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 4,001,302 ENDING FUNO BALANCE 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 4,001,302 902,199Prog # Pago # Doseription Unit/FunH # 1 2 5 0 7 8 0 10 12 13 14 15 10 17 18 10 21 22 24 25 20 27 28 20 32 33 34 35 49 51 -75 5 6 28 28 30 44 40 48 03 82 80 114 120 120 143 148 148 224 227 1-0 03 34 35 28 100 1-56 131 125 00 Hippy 4 Yr Old Programs Student H \u0026gt;ring Officer Office of Desegregation Extra  Cu rricu lar T' ch er Recruiter Staff Development Academic Support Multlcultral Programs Incentive Grants Original Magnets Sp Ed Learning Center Security Data Processing System M lo-M Magnet Schools King School Stephens School Monitoring Activities Computerized Transportation Romine Themi Community School In School Suspension Job Pair Testing Assistance Library Services Parent Recruiting VIPS  Recruiting Prejudice Reduction To Be Allocated Incentive School Programs TOTAL 70 1105 121 04 81 50 1580 75 42 87 82 35 41 71/75 82 40 12 14/08/120 00 60 00 72/45 73 75 SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET 1 ~02 02-03 03-rO4 0ft~O6 ge-07 244.077 204,350 101.048 432,504 110.000 46.782 418,570 2,084.728 200.005 738,732 3,800,000 103,415 080,002 200,835 400,272 0 0 345,320 10,000 17,207 270,002 741.217 1.500 12,850 501,404 52,000 62,688 50,000 200,000 4.128.058 10,010,424 252,320 502,073 102.477 430,148 110,000 40.020 507,074 2,730,374 200,005 800,000 3,800,000 110,342 704.553 410,304 1,330,038 0 0 300.270 10,000 70,000 270,002 760.381 1.500 11,350 580.017 52,000 04,048 5.000 200.000 4,437,312 10,141,451 250.800 857.450 105.552 462,323 113,300 48.337 584,704 2,102,810 278,002 0 3,014,000 113.053 818,300 422.074 1,013,020 0 0 401,004 10,500 81,370 285,271 782.102 1.545 11.001 508,035 53,560 66,807 5,000 200,000 4.614.378 18.887,110 207,003 1.286,131 100.718 405.802 110.000 40.787 002.245 2.250.505 280,342 0 4,031,420 117,002 842,042 435.355 1,440,552 2,003,300 0 414,043 11,025 83,811 203,820 806,027 1.501 12.041 015.077 55,107 08,004 5.000 200,000 4,050.880 22,144,620 276,724 1,184,723 111.080 470.800 120.200 51.281 020,313 2.320,353 204,032 0 4,152,303 120,574 808,230 448.415 1,404,007 2,707,432 2,707,000 428,405 11.570 80,325 302,044 820.700 1.030 12.402 034,450 50,822 70,071 5,000 200,000 4.307,028 24,040.080 283,005 1.232,112 116,330 404,205 123,800 52.810 038,022 2,300,143 303,780 0 4,270,033 124,101 804,277 401.808 1,484,110 2,815.720 2.815.280 430.250 12,155 88.015 311,723 054.000 1.088 12.775 053,400 58,520 73,100 5.000 200.000 4,030.500 25.864.401Exhibit A 1105 1110 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA KINDERGARTEN 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 2410 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 3000'S COMMUNITY SERVICES 5100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURE PROJECTION BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER SALARY 52,349.84 2,795,060.64 28,811,085.64 4,037,827.87 4,071,829.27 756,490.90 1,156,944.86 2,598,700.99 2,684,664.92 183,975.48 3,939,101.54 290,883.38 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OPERATING FUND 44,337.94 325,000.00 7,562,955.21 1,224,081.75 1,238,599.52 698,543.12 537,715.75 214,094.16 1,102,812.86 2,077,880.91 734,945.29 1,861,405.13 16,625,075.77 2,194,315.26 839,750.00 8,718,196.00 DESEG FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL 204.356.00 6,686,389.30 11,626.28 118,050.36 35,608.75 1,649,581.34 317,475.66 1,653,162.72 4,265,335.80 107,044.21 710,699.21 510,528.09 640,566.28 362,373.04 351,162.00 130,509.54 3,522,602.96 67,162.00 428,580.73 444,781.18 115,554.79 425,733.12 9,069,517.95 273,945.79 601,212.16 6,880.00 187,848.98 651,786.63 423,530.00 3,000.00 464,212.24 TOTAL 1,195,556.85 1,051,829.76 301,043.78 3,545,793.76 52,129,948.10 5,909,854.73 6,380,853.31 864,661.41 6,473,270.95 1,626,050.00 5,099,356.87 7,284,019.73 5,299,811.36 7,103,107.73 18,390,604.74 2,995,726.73 1,944,528.52 8,718,196.00 51,378,915.33 45,999,708.67 16,910,424.00 5,889,938.48 13,887,841.24 134,066,827.72ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  MONDAY, JUNE 15. 1992  Desegregation costs helped $7.7 million shortfall, Steele create BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-GazeWe Staff Writer The Little Rock School Districts projected $7.7 million budget deficit for next year is largely the result of implementing parts of two desegregation plans while trying to meet other financial demands, Superintendent Ruth Steele said last week. Friday, Steele released a 17- page chronology of budget-related events that date back to July 1989, when she became superintendent. The superintendent said 9 her report was not an attempt to cast the districts financial problems in a better light or to shirk responsibility for the districts financial condition. On several occasions re- cently, questions pertaining to the districts financial situation have been raised, Steele said. Specifically, several district employees and one board member on a radio talk show have asked why we now face budget problems after an 8- mill tax increase was obtained in a successful election a little over two years ago. says The question deserves response. a Steele, who is retiring from the district June 30. said she thought the explanation of the complex finances would be helpful to her successor. Dr Mac Bernd of San Marcos Calif. Bernd said last week that balancing the budget will be a top priority. In her report. Steele said the districts financial position IS actually better than it was projected to be in 1989. But, See SCHOOL, Page 3A--npg^^CL 3 2^ 2 3 Si o .5 O (fl  ?2 3 ^3 3. 7 3 3 _ 3\" 2  S' 2 S o H X g g *0 o  5 5 o w *5 \"O *\u0026lt; \"O S . O n e 2- o o \u0026lt;\u0026gt; c \u0026gt; 3 \"J. S CT z 0.^0 ^.- J..O 2- 2\n2 00.  o* 9   tn 9 o 3 9* 3 71 3 g 9 3 9 ft q-S-2.   - o --  srnaf* kJ *\u0026lt;332 -  fD OO o 5-0 a a a a* a- 3 'S I * a a  = 8.5 8  \"Xa 3c- 3 9 p g 9:\u0026lt; = S9- Cl pb!Dg-.a.2 2 5wgg\u0026lt;5^ o 9 o o V Q .a 3 S e-r. t^i L? ffQ \u0026lt;5 o O o w rt\u0026gt; o o c 9 f\u0026gt;  tn r* p ^3 p \u0026gt; \u0026lt; 3* Q 3 w Z- o *\u0026lt; 3 Ui rt) 3 g era 3 o 9 c 2.5: o \u0026lt;  c 3 trt rt O p 3 g (D r* 3 1/1 9 XJ \u0026gt; f^ Co 0,09 3'PoH--^'O,4 5ttS\u0026amp;5i5|3'S P-  sr-o ^oo^39-^cs: O,,,^3^S,2.3- 92.33-\n-^\"g ^5\" p 3 O O o 2- r 9* era (D n\u0026gt; * a Cl c O      S - 3 i- 5 3 o o O S ' 3 *9 M X33ao29 ^P    5'sg tn 9 3 O 2. 3 2 3 2,0 O o\u0026gt; a 9 i? 2 tn O 3 p p - 0\u0026gt; Rj .3. tn Si 5.S2S- ssg-$s 9 ? o P 9 V) O O 9. O rt\u0026gt; UI  -* c. a 9 9 3 0$ \u0026gt; P \u0026lt; o 3 5. Q cz\u0026gt; w 9\" . - N 3 O- .O 7. 3 2. \" 3 y, P 2^ 5 S  S' s\n= O P \u0026gt;-1 fV OQ CU O p o O 9\" x M 9 V Q is   Ji 9 rt\u0026gt; SSg-g. cn .-o S  3 g '* r\nn o = \u0026lt;\u0026lt;9 c c ti\u0026gt; 9 5ggg 3 O m UI c 9 3 8 g _ .a 5 u .3 3^ .^32, - ft_R OJ'TXP \u0026lt;0 p3'\u0026lt;^\nS^3.9S-S *2ft2 Jft  tnto 2,3 w 5.^3(xa  - '- - 3  3 H 3 2 3* w o. 0 - ^i-O r* a ft -t- 5 .,2.0 3 53 g jS-o 3-  S\u0026lt;?.EiJ-S9ft-~33 TftOc-RV* -      ^0 3 c\n3- 9*\u0026lt; 2 c::3 2 5 o to o o X \"O w O \u0026lt; o fi\u0026gt; U) := fij C/3 CtJ? o' O S D\u0026gt; a C ? a a 4, a G f? a a a Oo .s '-^ a a O* a o ?r c -S 00 5 o 3  9 O :. V) a H. 3 tn _ O. P TS 3- (Xa tn o tn 3 52Orj- r-- 3 M- \u0026lt;-\u0026lt; v\u0026gt; cn p  \" 2  3 E:r 3 x 3^ p era TO 3 3 o 9 o  tn 9- n o \u0026lt; 3 O 9  tn 3 J2  o ,-. 3 5 3 2 3 3 Ui 9 U) ft) tn CD (XQ O HQ P p 5 o P UI p to 3 O 9 O o 9 o n Si g g \u0026lt;9* 2^3 3i o-^ 0 0 3^ w O Xj 5. 3  ft p 3 3 S Ei O Ei 9 2-3^*0 3^ 9 ..  i3E:bSo2SCi2'.- S *^S-^ o^.^Oco ,2 3  0) cn tn St O*Xa3uj(IQpEJ- -*O .^3ag9-3oo2.-i- s 3 o Ei 0 $= g ? \" *3 P 9 \"ft Ui S  ^9  S S  og-\"?' \u0026gt;SS \u0026gt;b a . s:- O ft) X, so-O * 5? Ei 52. H 0) W ft M r ft O t-i 2 n o 2 2 9 ft ito'to' fl) 3-9- p Q) sg rp 9   3 3 ^.  o Ui 9 9 \u0026lt;352.^w23Mft-S9'bi *37i -^sr3,^3,  i'-\u0026gt;9323XJ hr\u0026lt;-n P 9 p 3 . P y,' O 9. '3 7:\"ft9 3 .2 C Si 3- Ei ^Oc.- 9 ft^9^tnft9\u0026lt;^ft9ftft g B b' S..g - S.ZS -^  -  ?S3'ggS'. ex ft Q si^  r cz) CA f\" 9 o 9^ O 3 ?3 \u0026amp; - 3 cn S^S.a-2 2^ Q o P o \u0026lt;1 o o X3 3 9 CA SS - \u0026gt; 3 - 3 Q =Ss  3   3 2 p \u0026lt; 3 5 2 o \u0026lt; o era 9 _ Ui 3 tn  o o O 3 p \u0026gt;-] m 3 O.  O Q 5 9* oa 52- p -J \u0026lt;z 9 0, 2. O tn  ev O tn wcn OOra C?3-9\nO -------------3\n323tnO ii) 3 9 0^ -n  u: _ tn \"-I 3Po39tn^r  \"^^.1^9 0 K- o 9 2 - 9 O 3 X-5- gSSvS^- W'\u0026lt; 5 o-ira p\no. eo w 9 eo n (i\u0026gt; (T\u0026gt; (la o o O OQ P *-| (A O (TO g X 3 o o 9 Sg 3 3ft '\u0026lt; _ S 3 Si3 O'S fto g ft r-*' tn 9 r* O P 9 \u0026lt; tn cn JT s g-S- Ui M A n p p C p 1 o 3 2^ o 3- p  3 S- 3-2 2 0* n\u0026gt; T -j Sg'Sg S \u0026gt;g.-e  3 o o \u0026lt; x- 9- 9.X) CT :\ng g q 2.= n. 3 0-. \" 5' ora \u0026lt;5 3 =* r-^O o  \"O o o 9 =\"52 p .- *** 3 3 _ *-\u0026gt; (n G o -gSS S gg O 3 O2.^o O O O \"\u0026gt; go sra'g.eg- i5o2--S8 P 3 tn O 0,3 to *9 (ra p .-\u0026lt;- 3 3 g.g o Ui o ft p Ui fSS 2 3 o X **\u0026lt; ^ p P cn rt O  = \u0026amp; o o UI -\u0026gt;^2  S^ 0-3 p o  o\u0026gt; 2 9 o o s 9 p cn era P-- sr 3  w O o tn y tf Ui CO 9  2,\u0026lt; $ 9 cn tn er ,. B\u0026gt;  o 75 9. o 3 9 O- t9 9 - 2-2^-3 O 3 tn p s (la to o p 2 Q 9 cj da O'  9 9* tn O 2 S w 9 * Q g* 9 CL? 5:? p 3 O OS 9' O O _ CL O P g.R.,9O.fti_aP CT-Cl'9 O tn 5 CO 9.3 Si n. 3  3 UI ^ Ui  22 0.3^ H. \" S  g  S S-2. \u0026lt;: cl\n-. 2 - \u0026lt;0  3 57 3- 9 O o o tn P O  3 o c  3 3 p JJ. O- o, O 3 EJ Sera 2: p 3 5 p 3 O (fl tn 95 w ? Sg B gw -. c g ? 5sg!??S:s- S.s'g o 9 O rt\u0026gt; ft) P O O ? 9 3- O p P p o 2 tn P 2. S 3 . s s  _ \u0026lt;t 3 [-\u0026gt;  0\u0026gt; Q r ^\n3 5-^S s 3-8-3\u0026gt; ? 5 -J SJCX*1O'XJiW* SCOQ 3 oO 9-3'9fl !=r^\u0026gt;:rt3 P 9.0Q \u0026lt;OfD(raO_. X\"-* O B- e\u0026gt;q 5'^ *\u0026lt; Er 3 X  3 J I ft- 9 ' ft '' -4 ' ^ ( w'O 33-?j35ftp9R, ^Ss\u0026amp;SgB.slSXs-^S^SS ,..^3^3 ft, ftft32-.22 . CZ3 i-h fO M M (0 2 rr gera c r* 9  STP  2L 2 sr 9 3 3, O P (t\u0026gt; 3 9 O a* (A 9 Oi exQ P 9 cn C M o _  -baS-SS -\" o b g,-2,5. b 5 339.3_. O-.-MEX.,\u0026lt; ^'-JPt_^39g--'~ \".g = -i\u0026lt;JSgOgWB Ogg\u0026lt;g-c-.O Cv^9 99C.O_n9323T,9^OirX9S9 Ego, ^30 0^^ 9\u0026lt;X5^ 29.y\u0026gt;5 \u0026amp;g-5 h = K \"ss  31 \"s=s ^3 S.3 3 ^g-?\u0026amp;3 Si 0-73 \"O 3 _ ^\u0026lt;30.2-9SoO) P\"^oCoengt^f-* S  3 0 St \u0026lt;  \u0026lt; o p '. 9- ?. C 3 003 3 9 P M 3 (Zl5' o o g g ng's g s F ? g^ p  0 3 o tn O- 52. ' ^ ^3 9 p 3 3- O X o 9 CL n\u0026gt; c 3 , n 3 O - S3 g 3 J O 3 3 9 O 5^,2 3 9 p Q. 1 \"O O A,  . Ui O P 9 Lo 9 W (XQ O p  ?' 2 3 Ol. 5 co  3 2 ^3 9 E* ^00 I rt\u0026gt; rt) Q O\u0026lt;^ S' a * Sac a a a 9 O e, .* ez) 0 ft 9* o.  __ -b, \"\u0026gt;TO 9 2 ? 3 BS:: i\na 5- s a r. o tn a '1 p Q 9 ^l\u0026gt;ftp  -- - oa ft 3 cn ex x^jS 2.0a 3 PXp9rt'-'9- -., 3 i-'i r- o 2 3  9 W 3 p  5. 3 P Slg^a.S-o2  \"O 3 M P  o X3 tn tn : 3 3 Pt 3 a i'? L a o - 9 y c i Q ft) s \"S. s- 5  SS'o g's- a  . ,. _ 3 23 gprS'oE.g.g' o a 5 o a. g  cn ^ , 3 tn S cT a' a a - a . S 5 S'5g' F 3  o s 9 p Q a. a w o 3 g- o  , r *-t- 3 1:^0 5^ sX' 2^ 3 3 p 0 3  a. a o a o  K tn 3 3- c gw p \" 2-O2*3 2:2.0 s\na 5 3 a o UI \u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026lt; r4' 3- O 2 O p 3- 3 3 \u0026lt; pO99crao3\u0026gt;3 \u0026lt; 9 cn O 3 i-j 9 O.\" ? S' Q n 5=^3 2 t\u0026lt;\nffa ex tn X3 P 3 ------- g-era 3 O' g 3  2 9 \u0026lt;'^3 2 X5 3 3 S 9\" o 7^  3tn3c,j:fpO,y,\u0026lt;-* 5 co H 9 a (D 2.P S P (X 9 \u0026lt; O 9 O tn _''9- 9-0 tn 9 3 O J2 3- 9- O-. fi^cra ss g\np 3 3 fc Ui fu p a- a- a- a O ft) S' 9. 9 O H. S 3 2\nS''f igp =-o tw 9 \u0026lt;* 9 to 3. 3 r-i CX^ 9-S-(WrT 7 o 2 5- T 0 3 0 9 9 = fD CT 9  ' G g2 'H-'H-rt 9- 9H9-i9-pg. 39-oPOjj ,22pp2333 era 33oexa3oerapg^,^ dgo.33cX3-^\u0026lt;3o.X^2tnj\n rc9- go o  SoS Sob 'g-' 2q9'q9\u0026lt;b3 9 rm rt X (TO n g-g as'^s g' S. -T- 3 era tn p Op S 9 9 3 0 2 CfQ - .9 9. C. O  ?r 03 $ P ^^o^E? 0^3\n p 3l  M n.2 \u0026lt;  9 9. in t^S O Sg o P O -o 0*3 'I W 03 O '\u0026lt; g -o \" So 9*S^ ^0-03(b9mo eZ\u0026gt;.32t23^\u0026lt;3 9'*3 ^-*3a2. o^Qog cren -  h^S-o =r 2- 5 w 3 \u0026lt;\u0026lt; UI Q,(xa . J* . O cn 3^ 3 9 O P 0-3 TO o cn Q w -K  71 O' O 9 (0 O o 2. o -J ft)  r \u0026gt;Xi!i35?i3P^ 32^w^3X5*\n\u0026lt;2  tn . -, cn 3 9 2. S o S  C 3xj -* h^9 0 \u0026gt;1 3 TO 9 o UI O 9 5)\nfO rt- 3' 9 O p C S  P -o  U. 3 2m p 3 -2(0 S 9 fj O o . 9 o\u0026lt;a 3- * 3 o' 9- ' S 3 \u0026lt; S S ^^,3-0-gg 9 o 0 P 3 o 9 P j^fio _ - 00 CO w ^g H. s|.-= o 3  S    '^2  3-90^ - r*era 3-_ 2 p 3 3 -3 2-'  tn 3 3 3 2. ri 3 o 3 3 g SoS a'= s' p \u0026gt;1 tn '1 3 JO ^crg o 9 O 0'^2tn3O\u0026gt;p,,. gSS.s^.^g- p 9 t\u0026lt;3S5.g S 3 9-3 9 --t- C_i 9 3 o' O Q  3 \u0026lt; ' \u0026gt;tn 3 2. 3 cn 3 -- ex 2 5 P 0\u0026gt; 9  3\no sr g  O 9 U. 9. 3 - P  O _ 3^S7o3\u0026lt;-O. 5t-r oZs.\u0026gt;Sr)0 tn02. 3 \u0026gt;'  M 40 3 tn 3 r 3\no o 3 9 M 2 9-3 3-^^  C:: 3 9 o to 0^ J2 w \u0026lt; '? PT '-I 5 3 to O- ? s:: ? -^ o 2.9* O 3 9 ffO 2 3 3 23 32 co to O9.Q--O^O- gs-gS' ^S' = 2 \u0026lt; \u0026gt;-j tn 3 (XQ Ui o o o o - 5 .S 3  S'^ g.o O s 9 n 9- tn O Q :'3 co \u0026lt; U! o 3 p 9. o O 3 5 5fi  ft\u0026gt; tn P UI O S fl) p tn 4, g p ^-57 g 2 3 \u0026amp; g.za o Lra 3 - cn o 3 3 2^ o o  P X w o 3 p o OhO^ 52. 3 c -- 2 raoiffiajg-sxs:. *53 9 I.  S ES \u0026lt;- P tn 3 ff^ .sl^Sog- '|g=3S co 2-0 o 3 So \"o  **: 2 9 to tn 9 , 9'0 3 c t- _ 39 *33 c w fo 5 3 2.era ftfnft-_.9J^ 3 -3 g g^w 0 ft ?52of?SoF^S.p. o 2-0 5?392 fU 3 O 9 (XQ P p 5 9 ? o p ? o  ? g 9 XJ 9- UI tn 3-O P 2 3 5* S  ^^^^3 \"  5'gS'\n5 S5'g RoE'5'\u0026lt; b.-' Sg 2.g 3 B s SS^S-'S o 9 o |(X0 UI ^2'^S9 '5'\u0026lt; 3^ 3 I 9 (3 3 SI g 2 3 O 3 e I-.- f* CO 9 % /T\u0026gt; fn C 3 UI M O JT 2 Q O ft 3 3 3  ^ g-^JE-^^g^ 0 3 3* O 3 3 s s.^ S- n\u0026gt; - m ff. O 9 ^2. - bSXss ...?2'3 39g^g^3-ft^3 O era o Q p r\" .. 3 2  \" o . 5. 9 o S a P rt o o  P'S O g-'s^w'\" a. gpssSsffSg-g 3\u0026lt;3' \u0026lt;^9^ ftoe/eR\u0026gt;- 2 0 3^ 9 . 3 9 o i- o slg.s'^e-i 2- \"S 3: Etoo'S g 0.3 o 2-o - 9 3 tn O o o Q ex 9:o\u0026gt; 3 J? o tn 3- 9^ K- P 9 n 3 E s: sS- 9  ^ _____ P ? O) 3 ci i- 9 P 9 3 tn o p 3 N 03 S - 2 c\u0026lt; O ra 3 S.g.^ O O 3^9- \u0026lt; 3 goSiS 3 57 0) 9 0^9 2 52 9 9 w n 9 era J* 3_ p O W 3-3335.0.2? O 2 '\nS *0 ? 7 3p5 \u0026lt;'^-a933^3-PO,.^t-^9-j--g.oa\u0026lt;p M3^-CXS*2.33r-r-- OSS:cnrfooP3E33g'2- 3c33.3 S3p3.'*3X  ^XJ 2^ 3  S 3 *3 3 \u0026lt; oo 2.  9 \u0026lt;- ES i tn 2 (ra O(^ o. \u0026lt; S O\u0026lt;--n s B EoS'\u0026lt; o--0^oj^--q w ? D, '5' ffq 5^  S o' S ,- n 'c \"S5'2oS\"\u0026amp;=\"3ooi: O 5'0 s 5'0 g-S ss\u0026gt; o ra Ui O P P cn' O .qs era o  M/ J3 o 3 3 O n tn e S- CL era .^o p (D o o (XCi o 3 cn ft ^ \u0026gt; '5:o'S5-Sb- HS3-^.8^3Sg 2 . so -- y o 2 O Ui 9 o p era o to p-, Ui o  iS p X lJ. 9. O 0-9 0 0.^ 9 g  p iw 3. 9 en'o Sterji'^ Ei* ' fn ft g p |J5 9: -e ii iiP'C t i n TT c o s -3^ S3x2, iOSa - STotnx.  tn I  p 9 tn i-jl o co TO i ri 3 3 9 0 S: 9 9 :. a2^- 3 tn tn - - .tihj- ^3'1.3E2}3  3O-\u0026gt;-j2 i ?. -h3\u0026lt;?07:cn P-PP \u0026lt;3 TJ ** ^OotnpSTtnqf-o 5  B  g.S^ K 3 2 2- O* 3 S' o (w C3 o ra o \u0026lt;- o   !. ts3  o 1 B $  9 o ^2 W 3 w 01 . \u0026gt; o O- cn ^- r--  - 9 0^9 9 O o tn TO S 2 _.. 9- -r 00  00^3 - (O 9- p 3 i *3 f o Q  g S^era o o y? \u0026lt;t\u0026gt; o o o 2 2 9 P1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET RECEIVED TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, AR June 18, 1992 Board of Directors 72201 JUN 1 9 1992 Office of Desegregation uiOfni. 1-3 Ivey, Manager of Support Services Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent . Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent (a))\u0026gt; Proposed Budget for Annual School Election Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-622 (1951) states \"The requirement of Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 40, for publication of the budget shall be discharged by the board of directors of each school district by publication of its budget one (1) time...not less than sixty (60) days before the annual school election.\" It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the proposed budget of expenditures for 1993-94 as attached. c:\\memos\\elecbud.wpdPROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1993, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 1994 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County, Arkansas in compliance with the requirements of Act 403 of 1951, as amended by Act 117 of 1979 and Amendment 40 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, has prepared, approved, and does hereby make public a proposed budget of expenditures for the District in 1993-94 together with a supporting tax rate follows: as Salaries \u0026amp; Fringe Benefits Purchased Services, Supplies, Capital Outlay Debt Service $ 82,967,545 25,252,071 9,090,123 To provide for the foregoing proposed budget of expenditures, the Board of Directors proposes a total tax levy of 43.9 mills. This total tax levy includes 34 mills for the maintenance and operation of schools and 9.9 mills for debt service previously voted as a continuing levy pledged for the retirement of existing bonded indebtedness. Surplus revenues produced each year by debt service millage may be used by the District for other purposes. Given this 18th day of June, 1992. Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County 0. G. Jacovelli, President Patricia Gee, Secretaryet _ ' TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 18, 1992 Board of Directors rasa '^.ID w .-.7 f \u0026gt;-. JUN 1 8 1992 C!fic3 of uoso^rev\n.\nn Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools APPOINTMENT OF EX OFFICIO FINANCIAL SECRETARY Because the current Ex Officio Financial Secretary will leave the District on June 30, 1992, appointed to begin serving on July 1, 1992. it is necessary to have a successor Bernd concurs, I recommend, and Dr. that the Board approve the appointment of Mark Milhollen as the District's Interim Ex Officio Financial Secretary effective July 1, 1992. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 5 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring October 15, 1992 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Gary E. Jones,/Manager of Resources and School Support THROUGH: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Proposed Refinancing of Bonds It appears that the District could realize an estimated savings of $323,632 by refinancing the May 15, 1988 bonds. The Department of Education requires that a refunding produce a $100,000 savings or a five percent reduction in debt service. whichever is less. criteria. This proposed issue meets both refunding In order to initiate this process, the Board will need to adopt an intent resolution. With the State Board of Education approval, the bond forms will be filed in February, 1993. Should interest rates increase between now and the time the bonds are scheduled to be refinanced. the District can cancel the refinancing proposal. In the event this refunding cannot be sold so as to produce sufficient savings, there will not be any charge for the services of Stephens, Inc. I recommend that the Board approve proceeding with the refinancing of this debt by adoption of the attached resolution.NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE REFUNDING BONDS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: A meeting of the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District was held at the Administration Building in Pulaski County, Arkansas on the 15th day of October, 1992, at the hour of p.m. All members of the Board had due notice of the time and place of said meeting, and the purpose thereof, and a quorum consisting of the following members were present: After consideration, the Board adopted a resolution reading as follows: \"This School Board will authorize Stephens Inc. to file application with the State Board of Education to issue bonds in the estimated amount of $5,500,000 for the purpose of refunding the Districts bonds issue dated May 15, 1988. The sale of the proposed issue is subject to determination by the Board that the savings generated is adequate to justify the issuance of the refunding bonds.\" BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS By: President By: , SecretaryRESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District continues to be alarmed at the violence and drug activity that threatens the safety and well-being community and in our schools\nand of our students in the WHEREAS, it is the belief of the Board of Directors that the presence of police officers in secondary school buildings would be of great value to the students\nand IT IS, THEREFORE, RESOLVED that the Board of Directors remains committed to the Police Resource Officer Program which was approved by the Board on December 19, 1991, as follows: \"...that the Police Resource Officer Program be piloted at one senior high school (J.A. Fair) and at one or more junior high schools (Henderson, Cloverdale, Pulaski Heights, and Mann) during the 1992-93 school year, ....and that the program be evaluated very carefully and see if it has a positive impact on our students... and assuming that half the costs can be paid by the City of Little Rock.\" ADOPTED this day of October, 1992. BOARD OF DIRECTORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT O. G. Jacovelli, President Pat Gee, SecretaryLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 RECEIVED November 12, 1992 NOV 1 6 IW2 Office of Desegregation Monitoring TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mark D. Milhollen, Controlle: THROUi lary E. Jones, Manager of Resources \u0026amp; School Support SUBJECT: interim Millage Adjustment Attached is a resolution approving the personal property and real estate millage rates for the year 1992. We recommend that the Board of Directors approve the resolution as submitted.RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPERTY MILLAGE RATE FOR THE YEAR 1992 WHEREAS, the Pulaski County Quorum Court will levy county, municipal, and school taxes for the year 1992 as required by Ark. Code Arm. 14-14-904\nand WHEREAS, Ark. Ann. 26-73-202 requires that the governing body of any taxing entity approve the applicable taxes prior to the adoption of the county levy\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County approves the established level of 43.9 mills for personal property and 43.9 mills for real property within the district for the year 1992. President Secretary AdoptedTO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: RECE3VEE5 NOV 1 ft LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS NOVEMBER 19,1992 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MARK MILHOLI GARY E. JON^ ONTROLLER (R Office of Desegregation Monitoring lANAGER OF RESOURCES \u0026amp; SCHOOL SUPPORT C.M. BERND, SUPERINTENDENT FINANCIAL REPORTS WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL REPORTS BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIPTS-OPERATING, DEBT SERVICE AND DESEGREGATION FUNDS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 APPROVED BUDGET YTD RECEIPTS REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES DELINQUENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK EXCESS TREASURERS FEE DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS TOTAL 39,088,120 4,250,186 21,694,578 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 66,559,408 5,333,750 1,157,371 58,215 134,097 6,683,434 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX TOTAL 73,419 11,000 84,419 0 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ORPHAN CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M ADULT EDUCATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION TOTAL 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 3,000 229,403 2,692,563 2,490,900 697,589 548,034 46,367,563 8,568,212 18,357 272,783 57,351 328,503 137,991 9,383,197 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED. GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL 40,000 262,000 600,000 902,000 21,795 1,179 22,974 TOTAL REVENUE 113,913,390 16,089,605EXPENDITURES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 INCOME 1992-93 TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES END BALANCE 1992-93 1992-93 10-31-92 PRIOR BOND ISSUES PLANT SERVICES SUBTOTAL 32,467.82 32,467.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,467.82 32,467.82 7,640,000 BOND ISSUE AEROSPACE MAGN PURCHASING CARVER CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 2,750.00 95,425.80 185.97 4,426.69 102,788.46 0.00 0.00 3,731.00 3,731.00 2,750.00 95,425.80 185.97 695.69 99,057.46 S.400.000 BOND ISSUE ENERGY GRANT SUBTOTAL 63,413.03 63,413.03 0.00 0.00 57,113.00 57.113.00 6,300.03 6,300.03 8,164,100 BOND ISSUE DUNBAR ASBESTOS WATERTOWER ENERGY GRANT MT CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 139,833.50 541.84 55,114.00 196,120.00 1,264,140.62 1,655,749.96 103,414.00 0.00 0.00 55,114.00 213,670.45 53,832.05 426,030.50 36,419.50 541.84 0.00 (17,550.45) 1,210,308.57 1,229,719.46 16,900,000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST MCCLELLAN ALT LEARNING CEN CLOVERDALE JR CLOVERDALE ELEM MABELVALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK GARLAND GIBBS WESTERN HILLS DODD GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HGTS ELE WILSON W(X)DRUFF MABELVALE ELEM FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK 9,209.59 16,725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 47,866.50 542,520.84 102.50 29,744.43 144,154.27 13,684.67 1,016.56 6,160.02 20,944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 20,441.21 975.52 2,247.19 4,200.00 33,166.71 2,942.49 85,020.81 8,766.18 56,419.93 67,727.73 59,056.84 0.69 5,042.20 (23,584.00) 40,860.38 123,266.92 56.94 1,739.42 2,247.19 23,584.00 25.00 75.00 552.00 9,209.59 16,725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 24,282.50 501,660.46 102.50 29,744.43 20,887.35 13,684.67 959.62 6,160.02 20,944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 18,701.79 975.52 0.00 4,200.00 33,166.71 2,942.49 85,020.81 32,325.18 56,344.93 67,175.73 59,056.84 0.69 5,042.20OPERATING/DESEG BUDGET FUND EQUITY-BEGINNING 2,321,865 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FOUR MONTH PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31.1992 MAGNET FOOD SERVICE SPECIAL REVENUE CONSTRUCTION ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL 2,321,865 2,355,488 2,355,488 150,322 150,322 22,156,036 22,156,036 REVENUE CURRENTTAXES DELINQUENT TAX 40% PULLBACK OTHER TOTAL LOCAL MFPA VOCATIONAL TRANSPORTATION OTHER SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN TOTAL STATE FEDERAL OTHER 39,088,120 4,250,186 21,694,578 1,526,524 66,559,408 27,042,713 1,341,887 2,692,563 4,948,213 8,926,606 1,500,000 46,451,982 40,000 862,000 5,333,750 1,157,371 192,313 6,683,434 8,568,212 272,783 328,503 213,699 9,383,197 21,795 1,179 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600,000 600,000 318,180 318,180 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,288,783 1,250,843 963,717 153,696 TOTAL REV \u0026amp; FUND EQUITY 116,235,255 18,411,470 0 0 9,644,271 3,606,331 1,114,039 304,018 22,756,036 22,474,216 EXPENDITURES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PUR SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 15,923,816 2,202,011 3,088,946 8,064,997 1,559,766 2,425,430 317,036 2,672,143 589,630 561,778 116,010 122,629 31,369 798,620 211,646 961,054 4,730,606 1,651,892 755,448 960,041 153,547 22,756,036 3,622,349 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 115,872,561 30,839,537 0 3,703,521 9,644,271 1,433,237 1,114,039 1,163,813 22,756,036 3,622,349 FUND EQUITY-ENDING 362,694 (12,428,067) 0 (3,703,521) 0 2,173,094 0 (859,794) 0 18,851,867i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 EXPENDITURES WAKERELD WATSON EAST SIDE FOOD SERVICE KING STEPHENS CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,390.96 6,721.04 1,324,021.19 3,400,000.00 0.00 6,177,454.31 INCOME 1992-93 0.00 TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES 1992-93 1992-93 3,186.12 639,403.72 1,467.44 0.00 812,880.13 END BALANCE 10-31-92 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,390.96 3,534.92 684,617.47 3,398,532.56 0.00 5,364,574.18 5,100,000BOND ISSUE BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CHICOT DODD FOREST HEIGHTS FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT GARLAND GILLUM HALL IRC ISH JEFFERSON KING FAIR MABELVALE ELEM MABELVALEJR MANN MCCLELLAN MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF METROPOLITAN OTTER CREEK PARKVIEW PULASKI HGTS ELE PULASKI HGTS JR PURCHASING ROMINE TERRY WATSON WILLIAMS SUBTOTAL 178,948.99 214,365.00 45,391.65 219,655.92 250,000.00 243,114.24 3,826,719.79 60,500.00 8,493.28 10,000.00 57,960.00 472,265.84 1,649,619.53 40,512.65 739,616.31 2,350,000.00 47,528.82 197,962.71 944,562.50 11,075.00 186,272.00 27,974.19 400,000.00 63,400.00 24,000.00 55,000.00 207,541.65 57,240.00 50,000.00 186,256.06 31,704.50 175,489.82 350,000.00 13,383,170.45 (400,000.00) 400,000.00 (23,584.00) 23,584.00 0.00 0.00 123,345.56 62,183.93 31,735.10 14,435.63 101,113.08 935,241.44 30,911.00 9,996.55 263,835.08 30,750.70 58,393.54 37,790.00 74,384.00 856.50 143,978.59 16,124.00 17,817.02 28.50 1,529.00 6,855.00 3,118.67 80,824.00 131,504.57 61,047.79 2,237,799.25 55,603.43 152,181.07 13,656.55 205,220.29 250,000.00 142,001.16 2,891,478.35 29,589.00 8,493.28 3.45 57,960.00 208,430.76 1,249,619.53 9,761.95 681,222.77 2,750,000.00 9,738.82 123,578.71 944,562.50 11,075.00 42,293.41 11,850.19 382,182.98 63,400.00 24,000.00 48,145.00 180,838.98 0.00 50,000.00 54,751.49 31,704.50 114,442.03 350,000.00 11,145,371.20 REVENUES SALE OF PROPERT PROCEEDS-FIRE L HENDERSON HENDERSON WATE ECM GRANT METRO GRANT INTEREST 145,201.50 101,932.75 4,100.00 95,082.51 394,674.74 45,000.00 8,647.80 76,147.50 65,525.00 207,654.79 145,201.50 101,932.75 36,352.20 4,100.00 18,935.01 65,525.00 602,329.53i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 EXPENDITURES SUBTOTAL BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 740,991.50 INCOME 1992-93 318,179.79 TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES 1992-93 0.00 1992-93 84,795.30 END BALANCE 10-31-92 974,375.99 GRAND TOTAL 22,156,035.53 318,179.79 0.00 3,622,349.18 18,851,866.14Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 18, 1993 The Honorable Jim Guy Tucker Governor of the State of Arkansas State Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Governor Tucker: 1 was pleased to have the opportunity to talk with you last week about the Pulaski County school transportation system and other desegregation matters. As promised, Im enclosing a chart showing the schedule of the States Settlement payments to the Little Rock School District (LRSD). This chart is based on the terms and payment schedule described on pages 22-27 of the 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement. The Settlement monies due the other two county districts are so much less than those to LRSD that 1 have not prepared similar charts for them\nhowever, if it would be helpful to you, 1 will be happy to have graphs drawn up. The chart for LRSD shows that, by June 30, 1993, the district will have spent between 66% and 68% of the Settlement funds to which it is entitled. (The difference in the total percentage spent at fiscal year end depends upon the extent to which the LRSD uses the available portion of the $20 million State loan for which it is eligible.) In other words, by the end of Year Two of the six year desegregation planone-third the targeted time periodthe LRSD will have used two-thirds of its Settlement money. Unfortunately, LRSD has not fulfilled anything even approaching two-thirds of its desegregation plan obligations. The district is making very little progress toward achieving its desegregation goals. Progress in the other two districts is also very slow. Moreover, all three districts are experiencing well-publicized financial difficulties. If the Settlement Agreements were to collapse because of a districts financial insolvency, or a districts failure to otherwise fulfill Agreement terms, the State would be left ultimately \"holding the bag.\"Page Two Februaiy 18, 1993 Obviously, it is in the best interests of us all for the Settlement Plans to work. Thats why ADEs role is so important. As you and 1 discussed. Im very concerned about how the State is keeping the commitments it made as a party to the 1989 Agreements. 1 have not seen evidence that ADE is doing all the Settlement requires of it, particularly that which is set forth in the Settlement Agreements Section 111, entitled \"States Role in the Desegregation Process.\" This section obligates the State and ADE to specific action in addition to routine monitoring and enforcement requirements. 1 am forwarding the 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to Deborah Walz, along with the other four volumes of the desegregation plans the Pulaski County districts are obligated to implement. Please let me know how 1 may be of further help. Very truly yours, Enc. cc: Deborah Walz Compensatory Education Funds Provided By Settlomonl Al Final Approval 4,475,000 January Payment June Payment Total Ally Fee Adv/Popay- Nolo* total Selllenienl Receipts Cumulative SelllemerrI Receipts Remaining ArrxrunI of Setllernenl Funds Available I o.art Hr aw 4,475,000 4,475,000 4,475,000 59,129,886 Schedule of Payments to LRSD State Settlement Funds Fiscal Year 89-90 Fiscal Year 90-91 Fiscal Year 91-92 Fiscal Year 92-93 Fiscal Year 93-94 Fiscal Year 94-95 Fiscal Year 95-96 Fiscal Year 96-97 Fiscal Year 97-98 1/29/93 Fiscal Year 98-99 3,475,000 4,609,250 3,609,250 4,747,528 3,747,528 4,889,954 3,889,954 5,036,652 4,036,652 4,057,460 3,057,460 2,985,131 1,985,131 1,844,811 844,811 1,266,770 266,770 152,387 152,387 8,084,250 8,084,250 12,559,250 54,654,086 8,356,778 2,000,000 10,356,778 22,916,028 46,570,636 6,000,000 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 8,637,482 31,553,510 36,213.858 4,500,01X1 8,926,606 40,480,116 27,576,376 1,500,000 8,094,112 48,574,228 18,649,770 6,042,591 54,616,819 10,555,658 3,829,942 58,446,761 4,513,067 2,111,581 (1,428,456) 683,125 59,129,886 683,125 419,157 (419,157) 0 59,129,886 0 152,387 (152,387) 0 59,129,886 0 Selllerrrent Plus Loan Draw Fiscal Year To Dale-2-1-93 Draw Down on Selllemenl To Date -2-1-93 Draw Down on Settlement Plus Loan Year End Total of Selllemenl Draw Down Year End Total of Settlement Draw Down Plus 12 Million Loan (Available Loan Amount Is 20 Million) 16,356,778 13,137,482 10,426,606 35,443,464 47,443,464 40,480,116 52,480,116 59.94% ot total settlement 59.96% o( selllemenl plus loan 68.46% \u0026lt;- End of June '93 66.32% \u0026lt;- End of June '93 Budget 14,356,778 15,703,006 17,013,029 Actual Expenditures Cumulative Expenditures 5,471,069 8,434,586 13,905,655 14,598,588 28,504,243 15,997,240 44,501,483 Additional Payments per pg 24 ol Financial Settlement not included in code 13 accounting 2,000,000 Cumulative 2,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 6,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,870,114 10,000,000 12,000,000 13,870,114 'Note: Fire setitlernent provided Itiat the attorney fee would be advanced from tire settlement monies and recaptured from the last years ot payment. Prepared by the OfTice of Desegregation MonitoringCF: l/Vr I JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR,  Also admitted to Practice in Georgia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Ajtorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 722116 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 April 2, 1993 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Judge Wright: RECEIVED APR 5 Office of DesegregaSon Mcnitoringj I have reason to believe that the Little Rock School District may be destroying certain financial records and other documents. I am, therefore, asking you appoint the ODM to determine whether document destruction has occurred with respect to financial records for the past three years. I am also requesting that you conunission an audit the district's finances for that same period of time to determine whether the finances of the district have been legitimately spent as required by law and by the Desegregation Plan. In ray work on a related matter, I have discovered that school district officials do not routinely reimburse the district for their personal long distance telephone calls. Dr. Bernd has apparently now recognized that after I requested his personal and cellular phone bills and has devised a \"quarterly\" repayment policy for the staff. the last several months. That policy was not enforced prior to my letters in It stands to reason that if district officials do not routinely repay telephone advances, they engage in similar practices in other areas. Another reason for the request is Dr. Bernd's statement earlier in Court that he did not know how many district employees the district had. If that knowledge escaped him, then it is reasonable to believe that payments were being made to some persons who were not district employees or for activities or invoices that were directors. not properly approved by the school district board of Moreover, the administration of the district does not have the power to circumvent the bidding policies of the district. I am prepared to share with the ODM information that I have to the effect that at least one district employee in the business office rather routinely allowed contracts between the school district and a family member or members. If this in fact is substantiated, then further inferences attach to the manner in which the business affairs of the district have been conducted.Judge Wright April 2, 1993 Page 2 plan My concern for raising these issues is that the settlement contemplations of double funding, including scholarship promises to the incentive schools and their children, stand to be diminished if not aborted by school district spending practices. Although the audit will cost some money, I believe that its yield will be well worth it. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Verj truly yours, John W. Walker JWW:Im cc: Mr. Chris Heller All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Brown Dr. C.M. BerndJOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED MAY 7 1993 Office cf Desegregation JZoniioiing JOHN W. WALKER R/\\LPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR, AUSTIN PORTER. JR.  Abtn ailtnitlrtl b\u0026gt; Pnilin* in it the Distrirt of ColumiMa. May 6, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Bobby Lester Pulaski County Special School District 924 East Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. James Smith North Little Rock School District 27th \u0026amp; Poplar North Little Rock, AR 72115 Gentlemen: Pursuant to Arkansas FOIA, this request secure copies of documents from January 1, is being made to 199 0 to date which represent bills for legal services rendered to your respective school districts related thereto. including itemized statements and all costs Please let me know when someone from my office can come by your respective offices to secure. Sincerely Sincerely, 75\u0026gt;nn W. Walker J JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann BrownLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JUNE 24,1993 RECEIVED JUN 2 5 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: THROUGH: MARK MILHOLLEN, CONTROLLER GARY E. JONES, MANAGER OF RESOURCES \u0026amp; SCHOOL SUPPORT C.M. BERND. SUPERINTENDENT SUBJECT: FINANCIAL REPORTS WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL REPORTS BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.INCOME-SOURCES LOCAL COUNTY STATE OTHER TOTAL INCOME BEGINNING BALANCE BUDGET TOTAL EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DESEG-SALARIES DESEG-EMP BENEFITS DESEG-PUR SER,SUPP,EOUIP PUR SER.SUPPLIES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY TOTAL EXPENDITURES NET ENDING BALANCE BUDGET TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FOR THE ELEVEN MONTH PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 ADOPTED BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET TRANSACTIONS ENCUMBRANCES BALANCE 66,559,408 84,419 46,367,563 902,000 113,913,390' 66,559,408 84,419 46,367,563 902,000 113,913,390 47,207,023 91,459 34,333,318 42,045 81,673,845 19,352,385 (7,040) 12,034,245 859,955 32,239,545 2,321,865 2,321,865 116,235,255 116,235,255 65,063,011 9,162,732 6,851,059 1,078,701 9,083,269 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 115,872,561 65,063,011 8,862,732 7,587,909 1,078,701 8,346,419 14,708,182 9,597,115 28,492 115,272,561 62,040,042 8,530,194 7,087,908 1,003,987 3,978,354 10,788,578 9,597,115 103,026,178 362,694 962,694 116,235,255 116,235,255 3,022,969 332,538 500,001 74,714 253,085 2,006,824 0 6,190,131 0 0 0 0 4,114,980 1,912,780 0 28,492 6,056,253'I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 ADOPTED 91/92 ACTUAL 05/31/92 % ADOPTED 92/93 ACTUAL 05/31/93 O.'o FUND EQUITY-BEGINNING 634,842 634,842 2,321,865 2,321.865 REVENUE LOCAL SOURCES COUNTY SOURCES STATE SOURCES OTHER SOURCES 64,590,356 84,419 49,864,380 956,078 44,845,817 73,419 36,777,846 23,820 69.43% 86.97% 73.76% 2.49% 66,559,408 84,419 46,367,563 902,000 47,207,023 91,459 '34,333,318 42,045 70.92% 108.34% 74.05% 4.66% TOTAL REVENUE 116,130,075 82,355,744 70.92% 116,235,255 83,995,710 72.26% EXPENDITURES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGRATION PUR SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,381,149 8,408,935 13,589,306 19,502,985 8,718,196 388,163 56,041,084 6,815,515 11,033,659 12,683,306 7,998,218 85.71% 81.05% 81.19% 65.03% 91.74% 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 62,040,042 8,530,194 12,070,249 10,788,578 9,597,115 95.35% 93.10% 70.95% 74.22% 100.00% 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 115,988,734 94,571,782 81.54% 115,872,561 103,026,178 88.91% FUND EQUITY-ENDING 141,341 (12,216,038) 362,694 (19,030,468)EXPENDITURES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 INCOME 1992-93 TRANSFERS 1992-93 EXPENDITURES 1992-93 END BALANCE 05-31-93 PRIOR BOND ISSUES PLANT SERVICES SUBTOTAL 32,467.82 32.467.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,467.82 32,467.82 7,640,000 BOND ISSUE AEROSPACE MAGN PURCHASING CARVER CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 2.750.00 95.425.80 185.97 4.426.69 102.788.46 0.00 0.00 3,731.00 3,731.00 2.750.00 95.425.80 185.97 695.69 99.057.46 5,400,000 BOND ISSUE ENERGY GRANT SUBTOTAL 13,745.03 13,745.03 0.00 0.00 10,016.00 10,016.00 3,729.03 3,729.03 8,164,100 BOND ISSUE DUNBAR ASBESTOS WATER TOWER KING ENERGY GRANT MT CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 139.833.50 541.84 52.358.30 103,414.00 11,306.00 1,210,000.00 138,342.70 1.264,140.62 1,595,216.96 0.00 (1,210,000.00) 0.00 220,091.25 53,947.55 388,758.80 36,419.50 541.84 41.052.30 1.210.000.00 (81,748.55) 193.07 1,206,458.16 16,900,000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST MCCLELLAN ALT LEARNING CEN CLOVERDALE JR CLOVERDALE ELEM MABELVALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK GARLAND GIBBS WESTERN HILLS DODD GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HGTS ELE WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE ELEM FULBRIGHT 9.209.59 16.725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 47,866.50 542,520.84 102.50 29,744.43 32,502.88 13.684.67 1,016.56 6,160.02 20,944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 20,441.21 975.52 2,247.19 4,200.00 33,166.71 2,942.49 85,020.81 8,766.18 56,419.93 67,727.73 59,056.84 0.69 (23,584.00) 23.584.00 0.00 34,339.10 21,523.71 309.73 11,934.70 2,247.19 428.21 1,706.95 75.00 552.00 101.69 9.209.59 16.725.08 12.463.96 10.279.42 54.236.08 24.282.50 508.181.74 102.50 29.744.43 10.979.17 13.684.67 706.83 6.160.02 20.944.74 10.467.20 11.684.73 8.506.51 975.52 0.00 4.200.00 33.166.71 2.514.28 85.020.81 30.643.23 56.344.93 67.175.73 58.955.15 0.69EXPENDITURES OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON EAST SIDE FOOD SERVICE KING STEPHENS CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 5,042.20 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,390.96 6,721.04 1,324,021.19 3,400,000.00 0.00 6,065,802.92 INCOME 1992-93 0.00 15.100,000 BOND ISSUE BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CHICOT DODD FOREST HEIGHTS FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT GARLAND GILLUM HALL IRC ISH JEFFERSON KING FAIR MABELVALE ELEM MABELVALE JR MANN MCCLELLAN MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF METROPOLITAN OTTER CREEK PARKVIEW PULASKI HGTS ELE PULASK] HGTS JR PURCHASING ROMINE TERRY WATSON WILLIAMS SUBTOTAL 139,679.88 214,365.00 45,391.65 219,655.92 250,000.00 243,114.24 3,636,783.65 60,500.00 8,493.28 10,000.00 57,960.00 449,977.88 1,649,619.53 40,512.65 739,616.31 2,350,000.00 47,528.82 197,962.71 944,562.50 11,075.00 99,231.00 27,974.19 400,000.00 63,400.00 24,000.00 55,000.00 207,541.65 57,240.00 50,000.00 177,508.29 31,704.50 126,029.47 350,000.00 12,986,428.12 0.00 TRANSFERS 1992-93 0.00 (1,040,000.00) 1,040,000.00 (23,584.00) 23,584.00 0.00 EXPENDITURES 1992-93 360.00 308.00 3,186.12 1,324,021.19 1,467.44 1,402,561.03 90,132.72 69,829.10 33,483.50 31,407.49 172,358.45 2,719,765.90 32,719.27 9,996.55 11,336.60 266,876.97 47,414.75 30,750.70 58,393.54 452,428.05 46,190.00 81,930.16 5,301.21 856.50 56,937.59 16,124.00 37,780.79 63,400.00 2,029.00 10,741.62 4,169.45 80,824.00 147,406.49 4,506.61 15,580.10 4,600,671.11 REVENUES SALE OF PROPERT PROCEEDS-FIRE L HENDERSON HENDERSON WATE ECM GRANT METRO GRANT 145,201.50 101,932.75 4,100.00 70,201.51 45,000.00 65,525.00 9,145.80 51.266.50 30,687.59 END BALANCE 05-31-93 4,682.20 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,082.96 3,534.92 0.00 3,398,532.56 0.00 4,663,241.89 49,547.16 144,535.90 11,908.15 188,248.43 250,000.00 70,755.79 917,017.75 27,780.73 8,493.28 3.45 46,623.40 183,100.91 609,619.53 9,761.95 681,222.77 2,937,571.95 1,338.82 116,032.55 939,261.29 10,218.50 42,293.41 11,850.19 362,219.21 0.00 21,971.00 44,258.38 179,788.20 0.00 50,000.00 30,101.80 27,197.89 110,449.37 350,000.00 8,385,757.01 145,201.50 101,932.75 35,854.20 4,100.00 18,935.01 34,837.41EXPENDITURES INTEREST SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31. 1993 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 394,674.74 716,110.50 INCOME 1992-93 545,656.64 656,181.64 TRANSFERS 1992-93 EXPENDITURES 1992-93 0.00 91.099.89 END BALANCE 05-31-93 940,331.38 1,281,192.25 21,512,559.81 656,181.64 0.00 6,436,837.83 15,671,903.62LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 June 24, 1993 TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools C-SUBJECT: 1993-94 Budget I am submitting for your review a summary of all requested budget changes since the submission of the April 26, 1993 Tentative Budget document. These requests have been categorized by the major expenditure classifications as required by our chart of accounts. The final budget we are asking you to adopt is the same as the tentative budget with the exception of the changes listed herein. _______Operating Budget_______ Salaries Fringes Serv,Supp,Equip Desegregation Budget May 27. 1993 Additions Director of Human Resources Assistant Principal - Central High Communications Assistant CA time) Minority Recruiter Instructional Materials Center EPA Department Police Resource Officer 50,000 36,000 9,290 31,073 37,964 61,500 5,000 4,000 710 4,115 4,671 8,057 * 77,432 * Addition to original amount of $203,000 Additional Requests Administrative Salary Proposal Media Clerks/Computer Lab Assistants Lease Purchase Refinancing Property Insurance Premium Adjustment King Staffing 157,175 10,907 26,010 340,691 Totals 383,002 37,460 (428,459) (200,000) 100,000 (628,459) 544,133 A final document will be printed incorporating Board approved changes and the format revisions suggested by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 991-94 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 3) 06-24-93 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 PROPOSED 1993-94 BUDGET REVISIONS REVISED 1993-94 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 31,899,357 20,601,593 3,214,974 118,998 317,646 120,412 317,978 141,376 91,322 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 39,088,120 21,694,576 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 41,027,982 21,420,949 4,277,692 145,690 303,000 245,162 484,050 350,000 102,874 225,000 41,027,982 21,420,949 4,502,692 145,690 303,000 245,162 484,050 350,000 102,874 TOTAL 56,823,656 64,998.180 66,559,406 68,357,399 225,000 68,582,399 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL___________ SEVERANCE TAX TOTAL 73,971 16,232 90,203 73,419 15,350 88,769 73,419 11,000 84,419 73,419 18,000 91,419 73,419 18,000 91,419 REVENUE -STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN_________ APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL_______________ HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD_________ ORPHAN CHILDREN_________ TRANSPORTATION__________ COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 22,037,764 10,356,778 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 8,820 2,885,960 609,943 1,007,481 624,119 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 27,142,713 8,094,112 3,000,000 0 1,341,887 1,210,000 240,873 3,000 2,700,000 575,435 2,883,425 768,715 540 27,142,713 8,094,112 3,000,000 ________0 1,341,887 1,210,000 240,873 3,540 2,700,000 575,435 2,883,425 768,715 TOTAL REVENUE- OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 45,472,609 28,585 95,588 613,166 737,339 103,123,807 48,670,684 9,385 129,428 394,675 533,488 114,291,121 46,367,563 40,000 262,000 600,000 902,000 .113,913,388 47,960,160 30,000 1,250,000 400,000 1,680,000 118,088,978 540 10,000 100,000 110,000 335,540 47,960,700 40,000 1,250,000 500,000 1,790,000 118,424,518LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-94 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 3) 06-24-93 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 PROPOSED 1993-94 BUDGET REVISIONS REVISED 1993-94 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER TOTAL REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL EXPENSES INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING TOTAL 2,886,618 227,900 468,964 974,090 4.557,572 12,571,785 12,571,785 120,253,164 56,996,869 7,312,664 14,598,558 17,053,677 6,646,769 0 102,608,537 4,369,442 \\2,57-\\,7a5 119,549,764 703,400 185,838 119,574 373,968 634,844 1,008,812 3,275,099 224,423 558,810 1,164,511 5,222,843 13,887,841 13,887\u0026gt;1 133,401,805 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 7,950,100 0 112,604,098 5,111,131 13,887,841 131,603,070 1,798,735 373,968 634,844 485,680 2,321,867 i2,807,547 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,186,464 6,279,250 14,278,796 14,278,796 134,471,434 65,063,011 8,862,732 17,012,939 14,236,764 9,597,115 500,000 115,272,561 6,764,930 14,278,796 136,316,287 (1,844,853) 485,680 2,321,867 0 962,694 962,694 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,186,464 6,279,250 14,707,160 14,707,160 139,075'388 67,397,356 8,934,265 18,207,812 14,638,463 8,870,123 1,000,000 119,048,019 6,279,250 14,707,160 140,034,429 (959,042) 0 962,694 0 3,652 3,653 335,540 383,002 37,460 544,133 (628,459) 336,136 336,136 (596) (596) 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,186,464 6,279,250 14,707,160 14,707,160 139,410,928 67,780,358 8,971,725 18,751,945 14,010,004 8,870,123 1,000,000 119,384,155 6,279,250 14,707,160 140,370,565 (959,638) 0 962,694 0 3,056 3,056Date: 06/23/93 Time: 21:27 Little Rock School District Line Item (Object) Summary Actual 1991/92 Budget 1992/93 Budget 1993/94 TW 0115 0117 0130 0135 CERTIFIED REGULAR CERTIFICATED CERTIFIED INSTRUCT. ASST. STIPENDS SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS-SHORT SUBST. CERTIFIED LONG TER CERTIFIED TOTAL $8,212.70 $1,229,076.61 $871,099.40 $326,189.12 $56,324,204.58 $0.00 $1,743,639.54 $900,000.00 $0.00 $56,335,335.62 t57,4S!,W.7S $0.00 $453,431.31 $926,321.00 $0.00 $60,863,732.04 0120 0121 0124 0140 0145 NON-CERTIFIEO REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED MAINTENANCE CLERICAL OVERTIME SUBST NON-CERTIFIED-SHORT SUBST. NON-CERTIFIED LONG NON-CERTIFIED TOTAL $15,076,554.61 $1,129,828.37 $91,812.91 $540,253.81 $28,557.67 $16,867,007.37 $16,818,713.84 $0.00 $0.00 $350,000.00 $0.00 $17,168,713.84 $15,209,953.76 $1,136,945.28 $0.00 $416,844.45 $0.00 $16,763,743.49 TiTnr 0220 0230 0240 0250 0290 BENEFITS SOCIAL SECURITY TAX TEACHER RETIREMENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREHE INSURANCE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BENEFITS TOTAL $?\n5 75,^5. $0.00 $171,904.40 $3,036,037.39 $153,797.29 $60,097.43 $8,992,742.29 $7775377507 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $160,000.00 $73,462.00 $9,962,190.24 $6,882.48 $148,194.77 $4,349,655.31 $195,000.00 $60,000.00 $10,268,023.46 0310 0311 0312 0313 0314 0316 0318 0319 0321 0322 0323 0324 0325 0326 0327 0328 0329 0331 0332 0333 0334 PURCHASED SERVICES PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION SERVICES INSTRUCTIONAL PROG IMPROV PUPIL SERVICES_____________ STAFF SERVICES DATA PROCESSING SERVICES BOARD OF ED SERVICES OTHER PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC UTILITY SER-WATER/SEUAGE/ CLEANING SERVICES REPAIRS-BUILDINGS REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEH OTHER PROPERTY SERVICES PUPIL TRANSPORTATION TRAVEL-PAYROLL_____________ TRAVEL OFFICE EXPENSES $327,016.05 $13,309.42 $1,052,785.32 $44,070.20 $40.00 $7,529.35 $57,237.67 $91,162.34 $563,340.02 $2,651,690.07 $173,066.98 $0.00 $519,413.12 $470,552.36 $50,770.81 $23,214.29 $126,364.09 $710,448.27 $2,555.64 $92,165.12 ($80.00) $586,390.00 $1,000.00 $691,900.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $366,862.00 $70,000.00 $28,000.00 $3,531,500.00 $5,500.00 $15,000.00 $501,558.00 $596,964.28 $42,000.00 $18,464.00 $275,500.00 $562,036.00 $21,120.00 $73,600.00 $0.00 $621,800.00 $21,015.00 $761,357.00 $53,440.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $752,500.00 $72,100.00 $826,700.00 $2,879,165.00 $209,950.00 $400,000.00 $200,300.00 $506,300.09 $135,700.00 $15,050.00 $128,650.00 $633,067.30 $24,160.00 $71,343.63 $0.00 Page 1Date: 06/23/93 Time: 21:27 Little Rock School District Line Item (Object) Summary BKAIBH 0542 0543 0545 0548 0550 0551 06177 0620 0630 0635 0640 0641 0642 0649 0660 0690 Page 3 EQUIPMENT (NOT INVENTORIE EQUIPMENT (REAL PROPERTY) EQUIPMENT LEASE PURCHASE EQUIPMENT VEHICLES SUPPLY CENTER VEHICLES LEASE PURCHASE CAPTIAL OUTLAY OTHER OBJECTS REDEMPTION OF PRINCIPAL INTEREST DUES \u0026amp; FEES DUES \u0026amp; FEES - NCA INSURANCE PROPERTY INSURANCE LIABILITY INSURANCE OTHER INSURANCE IMPROVEMENT TAX OTHER EXPENSES OTHER OBJECTS TOTAL TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL Actual 1991/92 $836.27 $91,527.78 $1,350,643.15 $0.00 $152,106.60 $906,669.49 $3,959,731.36 $3,^93,324.59 $4,904,977.12 $54,716.42 $12,950.00 $1,196,236.20 $50,000.00 $1,817.08 $51,804.85 $8,971.34 $3,738,667.07 $13,413,464.67 $112,604,098.14 Budget 1992/93 $0.00 $92,000.00 $1,489,020.00 $136,302.00 _________$0.00 $910,000.00 $3,120,046.84 Budget 1993/94 $0.00 $60,000.00 $926,742.00 $52,093.00 _________$0.00 $0.00 $1,738,382.50 $4,597,115.00 $5,000,000.00 $40,645.00 $26,000.00 $1,018,440.00 $0.00 $0.00 $54,775.00 $0.00 $4,690,713.00 $15,427,688.00 1^7753?^ $4,074,616.00 $4,785,507.40 $57,339.50 $17,000.00 $400,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $54,775.00 $15,000.00 $5,148,290.00 $14,552,527.90Date: 06/23/93 Time: 19:47 Little Rock School District Function Summary Function 1105 1110 1120 1125 1129 1130 1132 1135 1137 1140 1145 1146 1151 1152 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1190 1191 1193 1195 1196 1199 1210 1220 1230 1240 1290 1292 1321 1322 1331 1332 1333 1341 1351 1352 1353 1354 1360 1362 1371 1392 1393 1410 1420 1430 1440 1445 1490 1550 1560 1570 1580 1595 1910 2111 2113 2114 2120 2121 Description FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM KINDERGARTEN ELEMENTARY ELEMENTARY MAGNET SPECIALTY PROGRAM MIDDLEXJUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL JUNIOR HIGH JUNIOR HIGH MAGNET________ JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURE HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL STANDARDS BOYS ATHLETICS GIRLS ATHLETICS____________ FOOTBALL/HINOR SPORTS VOLLEYBALL BASKETBALL TRACK,TENNIS,GOLF \u0026amp; SUIMH BASEBALL OTHER REGULAR MULTI-ETHNIC PROGRAM TRAVELING TEACHERS________ ACCELERATED LEARNING ACCELERATED LEARNING SUBST ITUTES-1NSTRUCTI ON ITINERANT INSTRUCTION RESOURCE ROOM SPECIAL CLASS______________ HOMEBOUND AND HOSPITAL OTHER EXTENDED YEAR HAND. SERVI MARKETING/DIST ED-COOP MARKET ING/D1ST ED-EXPL BUSINESS ED COOP BUSINESS ED EXPL___________ BUSINESS ED-SKILL TR HEALTH COOP TRADE \u0026amp; IND-COOP TRADE \u0026amp; IND-EXPL TRADE \u0026amp; INO-SKILL TR YOUTH APPRENTICESHIP HOME ECONOMICS CONS/HMKG CAREER ORIENTATION________ COORD CAREER-COOP LOORD CAREER-EXPL ADULT BASIC EDUCATION ADULT GENERAL EDUCATION ADULT VOCATIONAL PROGRAM SPECIAL PROJECTS WORKPLACE LITERACY OTHER ADULT EDUCATION EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION READING MATHEMATICS ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS COMPENSATORY EDUCATION GIFTED AND TALENTED SERVICE AREA DIRECTION SOCIAL WORK SERVICES PUPIL ACCOUNTING SERVICES GUIDANCE SERVICES SERVICE AREA DIRECTION Actual 1991/92 $312,429.70 $3,107,993.07 $18,957,936.89 $24,950.47 $978,337.42 $8,134,324.61 ___________$0.00 $71,943.05 $429,684.81 $7,856,636.53 $42,226.16 $2,300.61 $42,098.02 $43,559.23 $47,638.98 $6,490.16 $42,794.32 $9,066.81 $8,946.68 $63,857.99 $690.88 $21,042.56 $2,283,175.79 $17,394.73 $1,393,301.78 $943,193.30 $2,065,293.61 $1,253,039.78 $255,077.13 $823,730.20 $14,151.72 $197,722.24 $2,869.04 $191,121.48 $853,847.88 $970,157.41  $58,755.33 $193,754.91  $619,807.20  $1,016,956.63 ' $41,764.48  $38,946.63 ' $670,989.72 ' $230,724.89 ' $201,795.03  $0.00  $437,414.74 ' $186,704.13  $18,949.50  $28,974.75  $25,545.75  $35,631.06  $930,948.93  $11,216.41  $288,660.42  $658,575.23  $967,023.83  $1,327,011.59  $11,321.52  $0.00  $145,479.23 \" $1,561,832.32 \" $8,639.40  Budget 1992/93 $1,479,804.31 $3,253,398.91 $21,904,944.99 $265,892.02 $0.00 $8,635,782.29 ___________$0.00 $212,863.97 $492,021.18 $8,264,041.10 $273,095.96 ___________$0.00 $44,620.00 $13,230.00 $49,680.00 $7,200.00 $45,540.00 $11,160.00 $10,800.00 $37,696.84 $0.00 $12,000.00 $2,275,181.26 $0.00 $1,096,370.00 $901,880.14 $2,189,284.37 $1,296,582.62 $240,565.63 $435,287.20 __________$0.00 $194,886.18 $0.00 $190,480.17 $575,813.91 $965,541.57 $50,996.02 $189,221.26 $537,358.99 $852,818.65 $46,025.56 ' $36,683.42  $664,130.37  $224,651.50  $203,203.43  $21,518.34  $404,251.48  $180,760.35  $39,221.06  $10,001.85 ' __________$0^' $0.00  $0.00  $280,068.49  $21,519.20  $320,000.00  $862,437.52 ' $646,481.75  $5,150.00 ' $0.00  $14,700.00  $2,475,037.42 ' $12,850.00  Budget 1993/94 $1,681,072.65 $3,328,323.45 $23,073,155.13 $173,979.01 $86,475.45 $8,790,806.29 $26,783.84 $440,972.56 $545,069.55 $8,780,756.57 $100,000.00 __________$0.00 $44,797.00 $4,798.20 $49,680.00 $7,416.00 $45,880.20 $11,354.40 $10,800.00 $18,697.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $1,332,756.42 $0.00 $1,111,585.20 $1,147,624,46 $2,268,606.18 $1,377,005.08 $324,980.11 $997,814.22 $5,705.28 $208,184.71 $0.00 $202,595.86 $652,853.50 $1,021,150.81 $31,974.81 $204,169.82 $558,050.96 $933,655.63 $119,623.23 $0.00 $734,449.69 $250,098.90 $215,630.04 $0.00 $427,317.98 $328,075.39 $2,280.00 $953.04 __________$0.00 __________$0.00 $245,468.62 $22,400.00 $12,000.00 $320,000.00 $1,102,804.02 $1,136,731.95 \u0026gt;5,150.65' $122,361.81 $123,025.50 $2,863,409.70 $10,850.00 Page 1Date: 06/23/93 Time: 19:47 Little Rock School District Function Summary Function 5100 6000 Description BONDED INDEBTEDNESS PROVISION FOR CONTINGENCI LITTLE RXK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual 1991/92 $7,950,100.01 $0.00 $112,604,098.14 Budget 1992/93 $9,597,115.00 $700,000.00 $115,272,560.34 Budget 1993/94 $8,870,123.40 $1,000,000.00 $119,384,154.77 Page 3Jw/y \u0026gt;^enc(4 RECBIVBD LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JUL 2 3 1998 Off ICE QI- (JSESREGAWH WQHITOWMS July 23, 1998 TO: Board Of Directors FROM: THROUGH: ^Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent Of Schools SUBJECT\nFinancial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. 1I I J :'SiW *W#COMBINED\nSTATEMENT OF REVENUES^EXPENDITURES AND.tHANGESlN FUND BALANCE^^g jjr APPROVED 1996/97 RECEIPTS 06/30/97 % COLLECTED DRAFT 7 1997/98 RECEIPTS 06/30/98 % COLLECTEC REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES DELINQUENT TAXES 40%. PULLBACK EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS ITOTAL-^^j^^^g^, REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M ADULT EDUCATION ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION SUMMER SCHOOL WORKER'S COMPENSATION 46,211,535 4,150,000 25,553,182 170,000 400,000 160,000 250,000 625,000 100,000 77,619717\n45,086,233 4,744,367 25,194,504 169,094 404,117 160,511 241,088 301,827 117,968 76\n4'19\n707j 97.56% 114.32% 98.60%. 99.47%. 101.03% 100.32% 96.44% 48.29% 117.97% .^?98.'45% 49,248,043 4,650,000 26,202,284 170,000 405,000 160,000 260,000 350,000 108,000 W-8lt553^7i 48,632,501 5,266,906 25,148,513 185,618 525,161 176,515 303,653 559,105 120,587 4^80,918\n560' 98.75% 113.27% 95.98% 109.19% 129.67% 110.32% 116.79% 159.74% 111.65% a^'99\n22% 68,649 18,000 ^S:^86.649i 41,530,927 683,125 3,000,000 1,000,000 2,200,000 245,000 2,856,453 3,326,654 857,560 0 637,781 342,998 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND S^JTOT ^56:680X98\n30,000 200,000 0 741,261 i^?tS^97B26l\n67,890 20,113 98.89% 111.74% 68,000 20,250 69.255 101.85% fi^j^88,^3y ji^1Oil''56/o Wg^88,250: jiS^^69i255^ SS^8?48% 43,350,510 683,125 3,000,000 1,067,268 1,500,429 233,992 2,966,526 3,548,125 968,176 67,795 637,781 428,505 104.38% 100.00% 100.00% 106.73% 68.20%. 95.51% 103.85% 106.66% 112.90% 100.00% 124.93% 43,257,881 0 2,000,000 1,250,000 1,800,000 233,992 3,059,584 3,895,429 934,186 137,814 0 349,330 43,662,233 2,000,000 1,914,484 1,779,632 233,992 3,238,875 3,475,326 934,186 149,413 100.93% 100.00% 153.16% 98.87% 100.00% 105.86% 89.22% 100.00% 108.42% ^58352\n230j ^66r9T8\n216? 382,146 ^5^770)286? 109.39% |goiao% 213,031 824,092 ^^^^JO37^123 106.52%. 111.17% 28,000 250,000 0 850,000 IW7Q0O5 3,240 391,473 11.57% 156.59% 1,284,189 ^^fe\n678\n9p2^ 151.08% ^^48:84% T0TAL\nREVEN0E-0RERATING^^^^|^35.358a25?|li^5:997,iD63i|^Ppg73S[OW:fe87\n79S|g^0137-003]|lE(iro^ REVENUE-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS  lirf 6,508,656 16,620,205 6,557,858 16,422,402 100.76%. 98.81%. 6,439,580 16,776,091 6,838,643 18,159,205 106.20% 108.24% JOTAt-\u0026gt;--^a^g^g|^23.'128,86ia M22\n:98Pg60\ng^99.364 W^3\n2Y5\n67i: lg24\n997,848. ^07:68% TOTAL REVENUE 58,486,986 | .^158,977,323 | -ffgl00.31%[ '162,903,464'f ..165,434,852 | ^\nT101.557! APPROVED 1996/97 EXPENDED 06/30/97 9997rAND.1998 % EXPENDED DRAFT 7 1997/98 EXPENDED 06/30/98 % EXPENDEL EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER OBJECTS DEBT SERVICE 74,864,664 21,353,655 18,654,143 3,432,024 2,540,360 6,722,833 7,104,457 76,032,027 21,027,425 19,007,021 3,250,464 2,346,558 6,274,158 6,981,748 101.56% 98.47% 101.89% 94.71% 92.37% 93.33% 98.27% 78,786,916 21,757,036 19,736,390 4,206,694 3,321,203 6,817,039 6,136,091 78,377,854 21,180,016 20,804,218 3,921,906 2,186,168 7,007,446 6,129,738 99.48' 97.35' 105.41? 93.23' 65.82' 102.79' 99.90? J-0TAt5EXE\u0026gt;ENSES:QI?EBATIN(3^O|^)M672a3^|^g^19\u0026gt;bs}a^m8?$t^40^6i\n369\n|^39:6d7^7U|^^99:^83 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS 7,167,441 16,620,205 6,507,301 16,386,065 90.79% 98.59% 7,148,922 16,812,428 6,628,468 18,123,058 92.72? 107.80? (^3\n787i646\nW22\n893^ ^fe3.'961^50: .1^4.75i\n526, i^l03:30\u0026gt; ^TOTAeEXPENSES^I^^gl^^^^ .1|I58:459?78^ W57^812?766': S^64:722'?749: ^64358.872^ S^I^'9.785 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING 27,204 658,785 256,656 0 942,645\n^g^\u0026amp;42,645'. 1,164,557 658,785 256,656 745,679 1,334,319 ^^\n079\n998, (1,819,255) 1,075,979 745,679 1,334,319 0 260,743 4Og\n260,743i 745,679 1,334,319 992,002 2,163,976 ^^Jl 55,977^ JPROJECT I $16,900,000 BOND ISSUE SOUTHWEST WAKEFIELD EAST SIDE STEPHENS FOOD SERVICE CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $15,100,000 BOND ISSUE BALE DODD FOREST HEIGHTS MABELVALE JR MCCLELLAN OAKHURST M.L. KING ROMINE HENDERSON CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL REVENUES SALE OF PROP/MISC PROCEEDS-FIRE LOSS HENDERSON HENDERSON WATER GETTY GRANT DUNBAR PROJECT CENTRAL GRANT METRO GRANT INTEREST SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,1998 BEG BALANCE 07-01-97 218,878.93 3,300.00 3,035.61 3,022,409.73 5,577.23 132.21 3,253,333.71 1,243.30 24,258.45 1,100.00 403,239.98 65,000.00 13,000.00 7,000.00 0.00 0.00 34,037.16 548,878.89 254,098.59 59,408.81 853.71 4,100.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 36,998.72 944,876.74 1)320,336.57 5.122.549.17 INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES 1997-98 1997-98 1997-98 1997-98 END BALANCE 06-30-98 0.00 0.00 100.00 25,000.00 215,560.81 240,660.81 240.660.81 (1,401.00) (3,035.61) 11,555.00 1,899.00 1,755.00 5,577.23 207,323.93 0.00 0.00 3,020,654.73 0.00 4,436.61 0.00 20,786.23 0.00 4,568.82 3,232,547.48 (1,243.30) (2,465.35) (28,286.64) 2,060.25 (85.00) 4,835.00 1,000.00 24,185.04 0.00 19,988.97 1,100.00 15,899.94 36,713.36 15,060.25 6,915.00 4,835.00 1,000.00 101,512.52 254,198.59 5,222.90 0.00 1,804.13 0.00 387,340.04 0.00 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 0.00 596.85 10,000.00 25,596.85 599.84 20,000.00 0.00 58,222.20 447,366.37 0.00 54,185.91 853.71 4,100.00 0.00 9,400.16 0.00 (10,596.85) 0.00 305,618.18 0.00 36,998.72 1,149,840.70 1,255,379.20 0.00 427.916.93 0.00 4,935.293.05Ann Marshall From: Sent: To: Subject: Skip Marshall [marshall@arsba.org] Friday, May 17, 2002 9\n29 AM asbrown@aristotle.net Fwd: Legal Clips \u0026gt;From: JUndenwood@nsba.org \u0026gt;To: \"School Finance\" \u0026lt;schoolfinance@lists.nsba.org\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Subject: Legal Clips \u0026gt;Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:52:19 -0400 \u0026gt;List-Unsubscribe: \u0026lt;mailto:leave-schoolfinance-2941704S@lists.nsba.org\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Reply-To: JUnderwood@nsba.org \u0026gt;Status: \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Below please find this week's Legal Clips. Please note that if you are not \u0026gt;receiving Legal Clips directly into your emailbox and would like to, just \u0026gt;send me an email with subscribe in the Subject line. Thanks and happy \u0026gt;reading. \u0026gt;Julie \u0026gt;Julie Underwood \u0026gt;General Counsel \u0026gt;National School Boards Association \u0026gt;(703) 838 -6710 \u0026gt;junderwood@nsba.org \u0026gt; LEGAL CLIPS \u0026gt;A service of the National School Boards Association's \u0026gt;Office of General Counsel \u0026gt;May 16, 2002 \u0026gt;TOP STORY: U.S. Supreme Court rules that Child Online Protection Act's use \u0026gt;of \"community standards\" to define Internet material that is harmful to \u0026gt;minors does not violate First Amendment free speech protections. But the \u0026gt;Court remanded the case and allowed the injunction to stand. \u0026gt;See Technology: Ashcroft v. ACLU \u0026gt;TECHNOLOGY \u0026gt;The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Child Online Protection Act's (COPA) \u0026gt;use of \"community standards\" to define material harmful to minors does not \u0026gt;renderthe Act unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to material \u0026gt;disseminated over the Internet. The Court concluded that COPA's reliance on \u0026gt;\"community standards\" to identify what material \"is harmful to minors\" does \u0026gt;not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment \u0026gt;purposes. The Court, however, expressed no view as to whether COPA violates \u0026gt;the First Amendment for reasons other than its use of \"community standards\" \u0026gt;and remanded the case on those issues, allowing the injunction on \u0026gt;enforcement to stand pending further proceedings. \u0026gt;Ashcroft V. ACLU No. 00-1293 (U.S. Sup. Ct. May 13, 2002) Link to full \u0026gt;opinion \u0026gt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;vol=000 \u0026gt;\u0026amp;invol=00-1293 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;vol=00 \u0026gt;0\u0026amp;invol=00-1293\u0026gt; \u0026gt;link to case summary: http://www.nsba.org/cosa/lawlibrary/whatsnew/ACLU.htm 1\u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://www.nsba.org/cosa/lawlibrary/whatsnew/ACLU.htm\u0026gt; \u0026gt;LIABILITY \u0026gt;Ty Hull, a student at Wellston High School in Lincoln County, Oklahoma, \u0026gt;suffered an intra-cerebral hemorrhage while participating in a football \u0026gt;scrimmage between Wellston and Bethel High School's varsity teams. As a \u0026gt;result of his injury, Ty was permanently disabled. Ty's mother filed a \u0026gt;negligence suit against the school district. The Oklahoma Court of Civil \u0026gt;Appeals ruled that under state law the school district was immune from \u0026gt;liability for Ty's injury because it occurred while he was participating in \u0026gt;an interscholastic event sponsored by the school district. The court \u0026gt;rejected Ms. Hull's attempts to get around the state's immunity law by \u0026gt;recasting her claim as either negligent or wanton hiring, retaining, \u0026gt;training and supervising of its football coaches. Further the court found \u0026gt;that even if Ms. Hull could prove that the school district was guilty of \u0026gt;negligent or willful and wanton hiring, retaining and supervising of the \u0026gt;coaches that conduct was not the proximate cause of Ty's injury. The court \u0026gt;pointed that the sole proximate cause of Ty's permanent disability was the \u0026gt;injury he received while participating in the scrimmage. \u0026gt;Hull V. Wellston Independent School District, 2001 WL 1836289 (Okla. App. \u0026gt;December 14, 2001) \u0026gt;STUDENT RIGHTS AND DISCIPLINE \u0026gt;A new invention called the \"smart locker\" would allow principals across the \u0026gt;country easy access to lockers and even monitor how often and when students \u0026gt;use them. Opened with \"swipe cards,\" rather than padlocks, these lockers can \u0026gt;be operated from a computer in the central office where they can be opened \u0026gt;individually or all at once. \u0026gt;The Christian Science Monitor by Patrick Jonsson link to full story\n\u0026gt;http\n//www.csmonitor.com/2002/0507/p02s02-ussc.html \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http\n//v7ww.csmonitor.com/2002/0507/p02s02-ussc.html\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Several students and their parents filed an action challenging the City of \u0026gt;Waterbury School District's (CT) dress code. The claims centered on the \u0026gt;students' and parents' liberty and privacy interests. The court rejected \u0026gt;both claims, concluding that the school district's interest in preventing \u0026gt;disruptions in school caused by disputes arising from taunts and envy over \u0026gt;jeans outweighed the students' right to wear the clothing of choice. Turning \u0026gt;to the parents' claim, the court rejected the contention that parental \u0026gt;autonomy is absolute. It stated that the parents' right is subject to \u0026gt;reasonable restrictions within the school context. The court concluded that \u0026gt;\"[a]bsolute exercise of parental autonomy within the public school program \u0026gt;would very likely cause total chaos as conflicting parental visions \u0026gt;collided.\" \u0026gt;Byars v. City of Waterbury, 2001 WL 1830017 (Conn. Super. 2001) \u0026gt;RELIGION \u0026gt;The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit in Louisiana challenging \u0026gt;federally funded sexual abstinence programs. The primary allegation is that \u0026gt;the state has used tax dollars to promote religion. The ACLU contends that \u0026gt;Louisiana has spent money on \"Christ-centered\" skits, religious youth \u0026gt;revivals, biblical instruction, and prayer vigils at abortion clinics. The \u0026gt;suit focuses on what the ACLU contends is a misuse of public funds. \u0026gt;Washington Post by Ceci Connolly \u0026gt;link to full story\n\u0026gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56003-2002May8?language=printer \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http\n//www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56003-2002May8?language=printer\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Education writer Richard Rothstein's editorial on the voucher case pending 2\u0026gt;in the Supreme Court questions whether the outcome will really have any \u0026gt;significance whatsoever. He states in part, \"Advocates and opponents of \u0026gt;vouchers await the ruling with great excitement or dread. But the decision \u0026gt;may be less important than they think. Whatever the ruling, constitutional \u0026gt;policy will change little because the government already supports religious \u0026gt;schools by providing them with busing, textbooks and remedial aid. But \u0026gt;the main reason the court's ruling will have little impact is that private \u0026gt;schools' attraction as a way to improve education is beginning to wane.\" \u0026gt;The New York Times by Richard Rothstein \u0026gt;link to full story: \u0026gt;http\n//www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/15/educ \u0026gt;ation/15LESS.html \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://wwzw.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/15/edu \u0026gt;cation/15LESS.html\u0026gt; \u0026gt;DISCRIMINATION \u0026gt;The NAACP is threatening to file complaints against 22 states that have \u0026gt;failed to respond to their challenge to address racial disparities in public \u0026gt;schools. Last November, the civil rights group asked states to target 14 \u0026gt;areas which needed improvement, including the over-representation of \u0026gt;minorities in special education programs, under-representation in gifted and \u0026gt;talented programs, and disparities in testing and graduation rates. The \u0026gt;NAACP plans to file racial discrimination complaints against states and \u0026gt;school districts or begin \"proactive ballot initiatives\" in elections. The \u0026gt;states targeted are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, \u0026gt;Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, \u0026gt;North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, \u0026gt;Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming. \u0026gt;USA Today by Tamara Henry link to full story\n\u0026gt;http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020516/4116534s.htm \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020516/4116534s.htm\u0026gt; \u0026gt;A Utah parents' group and the Navajo Nation are in agreement in their \u0026gt;opposition to the \"Red Devil\" mascot of Springville High School. The \u0026gt;parents' group objects to the mascot, believing it represents the devil and \u0026gt;evil as a symbol of the school. The Navajo Nation is opposed to the use of \u0026gt;the term, \"red devil\" which they find derogatory and offensive. \u0026gt;ABC News by Dean Schabner link to full story: \u0026gt;http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/red_devils020508.html \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/red_devils020508.html\u0026gt; \u0026gt;When James Ranieri, the boys' varsity basketball coach at James O'Neill High \u0026gt;School (New York), was ousted from his coaching position in favor of a \u0026gt;younger candidate, he filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment \u0026gt;Act (ADEA). The school district contended that he did not have a valid claim \u0026gt;because both individuals were protected by ADEA, both being over the age of \u0026gt;40. The federal district court found that the 10-year age difference was \u0026gt;sufficient to state a claim of age discrimination. However, the court \u0026gt;dismissed Mr. Ranieri's suit because he was unable to refute the legitimate, \u0026gt;non-discriminatory reason articulated by the district for not rehiring him. \u0026gt;Specifically, Mr. Ranieri could not show that the stated reason for \u0026gt;replacing him, i.e. the team's failing record, was a pretext for age \u0026gt;discrimination. \u0026gt;Ranieri v. Highland Falls Fort Montgomery School District, 2002 WL 745576 \u0026gt;(S.D.N.Y. April 18, 2002) \u0026gt;The Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, the \u0026gt;University of Michigan Law School admissions policy case. The court ruled, \u0026gt;based on Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, that the use of race in a \u0026gt;schoors admissions process for the purposes of achieving racial diversity \u0026gt;in its student body is constitutional. The court went on to find the law 3\u0026gt;schoors admissions policy was narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of \u0026gt;diversity across the student body. As a result it concluded that the policy \u0026gt;passed constitutional muster under the Equal Protection Clause. \u0026gt;Grutter v. Bollinger, 2002 FED App. 0170P (6th Cir. May 14. 2002) link to \u0026gt;full opinion: \u0026gt;http://caselaw. Ip.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;no=02a \u0026gt;0170p \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;no=02 \u0026gt;a0170p\u0026gt; \u0026gt;link to case summary: \u0026gt;http://www.nsba.org/cosa/lawlibrary/whatsnew/grutter2.htm \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://www.nsba.org/cosa/iawlibrary/whatsnew/grutter2.htm\u0026gt; \u0026gt;SCHOOL REFORM \u0026gt;Charter school owners are coming under fire from Arizona state officials. \u0026gt;The schools are privately run as non-profits businesses. They use public \u0026gt;state education money but have fewer regulations than traditional district \u0026gt;schools. Two years ago, lawmakers gave state boards the power to withhold \u0026gt;state money to bring errant charter schools into line. This year a number \u0026gt;of charter schools face fines, and some may face closure, because of late \u0026gt;audits, missed testing requirements and financial fraud. Officials are \u0026gt;considering discipline against 31 of 288 charter school owners. \u0026gt;The Arizona Republic by Pat Kossan \u0026gt;link to full story: \u0026gt;http://wvw.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0513charterlaw13.html \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://wv7w.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0513charterlaw13.html\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Nearly every student at Summit Academy, a charter school, in Akron, Ohio is \u0026gt;reported to have a special education problem, even though most of them \u0026gt;didn't carry that designation when they were enrolled in public schools. \u0026gt;Allegations that Summit Academy has intentionally misidentified students \u0026gt;with special education disabilities have drawn unscheduled audits from the \u0026gt;Ohio Department of Education at two schools. In question is whether millions \u0026gt;in tax dollars that flow into the eight Summit Academy charter schools in \u0026gt;Ohio have been properly obtained and used. \u0026gt;The Beacon Journal link to full story: \u0026gt;http://vAvw.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/3248196.htm \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/3248196.htm\u0026gt; \u0026gt;LEGAL SYSTEM \u0026gt;A professor in the Georgia state university system, filed a state-court suit \u0026gt;against the board of regents and university officials alleging that the \u0026gt;officials had violated state tort law and 42 U.S.C. 1983 when they placed \u0026gt;sexual harassment allegations in his personnel files. The defendants removed \u0026gt;the case to federal district court and then sought dismissal. Conceding that \u0026gt;a state statute had waived Georgia's sovereign immunity from state-law suits \u0026gt;in state court, the state claimed Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in \u0026gt;the federal court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state waives its \u0026gt;Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case from state court to \u0026gt;federal court. \u0026gt;Lapides v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia, No. 01-298 \u0026gt;(U.S. May 13, 2002) \u0026gt;Link to full opinion: \u0026gt; \u0026gt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;vol=000 \u0026gt;\u0026amp;invol=01-298 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US\u0026amp;navby=case8ivol=00 \u0026gt;0\u0026amp;invol=01-298\u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Copyright @ 2002 the National School Boards Association. All Rights Reserved 4\u0026gt;To edit member settings, view archives, or unsubscribe login at: \u0026gt;http://spirit.sparklist.com/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=schoolfinance 5FINANCIAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE REPORT PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR Committee Members: Loretta Hendrix, Edward Jacobs, Jane Markham, Vernon Markham, Rev. Charlie McAdoo, Danny Sullivan, Toni Sullivan, Gary Tucker, Ashvin Vibhakar (Chairman), and Harry Ware. Also present at all of the meetings were Mark Milhollen and Chip Jones of the Little Rock School District. The committee wishes to express its appreciation for the valuable assistance provided by Mark Milhollen and Chip Jones. They significantly aided in our understanding of the Little Rock School Districts finances, patiently answering numerous questions and prompt-ly providing projecltiioonnss rreeqauueesstteedd bbvy tthhee ccoommmmiitttteeee.. T...h..e.. ..c..o..m....m...i.t.t.e..e.. ..f.e..els that without their assistance, the task of the committee could not have been accomplished. After lengthy discussions and deliberations, the committee has developed the following list of concerns and recommendations. These concerns and recommendations are based on our understanding of the charge to the committee, which was to evaluate the financial matters and not the merit of the desegregation plan - except where financial matters are the overriding issues. CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE 1. The committee feels that the proposed plan cannot be implemented without additional resources and would require a significant increase in millage. Given the current state of public opinion regarding public schools in Little Rock and Pulaski County, we feel that a significant, voluntary increase in millage would be difficult to obtain. In addition to this general negative attitude, the plan itself incorporates ob-two items which aggravate this polarity: a. b. A perceived disparity between the basic educational programs provided by magnet and non-magnet schools, resulting in the publics perception of inferior nonmagnet education and excessive magnet cost, and. The \"informed\" publics negative perception of academic progress grants. 2. While the committee feels that a millage increase is needed, this option appears difficult or unlikely unless public perception is improved. TTie best source for this improvement would be increased parent and teacher involvement. For this reason, the committee recommends that the District and Metropolitan Supervisors Office immediately form two parent/teacher committees for the following purposes: a. A committee to evaluate the proposed programs, both prior to implementation and then during their operation. This committee would make recommendations to the district for implementation, scale down, or elimination of the programs. b. A commiftee to improve the public image and perception of the school district. In addition to helping with passage of necessary millage increases, this com-mittee could also assist in soliciting corporate grant sponsors. 3. The committee recommends that the District increase its efforts to seek and obtain outside sources for capital expenditures and special programs. While it may be desirable to establish a separate group of concerned business people, the committee noted in 2.b. would be a good place to start. -Page 1- 4. Certain programs created under the old desegregation plan and many proposed under the new desegregation plan appear to be expensive. It further appears that there may be existing schools where the operational costs are too high relative to the desegregation impact achieved. The committee feels that a comprehensive evaluation and review of all proposed and existing programs and schools is needed. In order to accomplish this, the committee recommends that a review board, as noted in 2.a., be established. This review board should be composed of school administrators, teachers, and parents. The purpose of the committee should be to make certain that the programs and schools being provided, best utilize the scarce dollars available. Since public acceptance of the proposed plan is so critical to the plans success, the involvement of parents in this review structure is considered essential. 5. New programs, once implemented, should include a system for monitoring the ongoing costs and benefits. If it is found that programs are not achieving the stated objectives, it is recommended that some mechanism be established whereby the funds can be diverted from ineffective programs, to those where they could be better utilized. 6. The costs of existing and proposed magnet schools, specifically the Aviation Magnet, need to be carefully studied further. The Aviation Magnet should be implemented only if outside resources, such as corporate donations, can be secured for constructing and equipping the school. The feasibility of obtaining grants or other funding sources to cover operational expenses of the school should be investigated by the District and Committee noted in 2.a. Otherwise, the potential cost of such a magnet school is unjustifiable, considering the scarcity of available resources. 7. The committee recommends that: i) the near-term need for Aviation and Zoo Magnet Schools be re-examined, ii) the District should prioritize its plans of action, and iii) the District consider serious cost-cutting where feasible (such as closing schools which are not cost effective). 8. The committee recommends that the decision-making process for significant financial issues should include consultation with District personnel and other individuals possessing relevant professional training and expertise. We specifically recommend against such decisions being made in isolation by educators/administrators who are not equipped with such expertise. Examples of such matters would include the settlement, as well as new programs which require a large commitment of resources. The committee also feels that the administrators/educators should maintain regular contact with the financial managers of the School District regarding all major cial decisions and their potential impact on the Districts finances. egi fir inan- The current proposed teacher salary plan could result in a large deficit in the near future, assuming that such plan is accepted by the teachers. Unless new revenues are forthcoming to support the proposed teachers salaries, the effect of that package could be to make financial resources unavailable for the proposed new programs. 9. The constant fighting between teachers and administrators has created a negative public image for both groups. Both teachers and the public need to be better informed about the Districts financial situation, in terms of both revenues and expenses. This can be accomplished via the noted committees and involvement of teachers and pa- rents in the financial decision-making process. This could help regain teacher trust, their demands, and make future re- add a measure of discipline and public oversight to venue increases less difficult to pass. -Page 2-. TUESDAY, JUNE 2, ,992 L. 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LRSD desegregatioifto cost taxpayers $26 million a year by 96- 97 VA too. . . ................................ multicultural education proBY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer The cost of the Little Rock School Districts dese^ega- tion plan will be $19.1 million next year and almost $26 million by 1996-97, according to budget projections filed Mon- ^y in federal court i * The documents, submitted  Discipline problems on rise, districts teachers say in survey 1B to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, spell out publicly for the first time the anticipated costs for about 30 de- j^gregation-related programs and the districts share of those costs. Wright has set a July 17 hearing on district budget matters. The judge had required the district to submit the projections because of her concern that it was quickly depleting itsrstate desegregation financing. The desegregation-related programs include the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters, the early childhood education program for 4-year-olds. double-figram and majority-to-minority interdistrict transfer students. The state pays part of desegregation costs because of a 1989 financial settlement nego- nanced elementary incentive The setUemTnt was schools, a teacher recruiter, the state. The ^tt ement was magnet schools.,, school secur- , approved by the 8th U.S. Cir ity officers, the\nexpansion of a \u0026gt; See SCHOOLS/. Page 5A Schools The states financial obliga- the settlement decreases each tion under .5^!untU 1996-97 when the year until laao-vi amount owed will be $683,12b. the state money for  Continued from Page One cuit Court of Appeals in 1990. The state is to pay the district $8.9 million next year as a result of the financial settlement, plus $2.5 million toward the education of the majority- to-minority transfer students. The state also is providing a $20 million loan, $1.5 million of which will be available next year. The maximum available is I $6 million every two years. The  loan does not have to be re- i paid if the average score of I black students reaches 90 percent of the average score of white students by 2000. The Little Rock districts share of the $19.1 million in desegregation costs next year could range from $5 million to $7 million, depending on the loan. As a result of using a $4.5 million loan, the districts share of the $16.9 million desegregation costs this school year was about $2 million. District officials acknowledged in 1989 that state financing would not cover the total cost of the desegregation programs. However, lu. majority-to-minority students is expected to increase to $4.5 million that same year. It is now $1.8 million. The total cost of the deseg- regation programs a Monday included projected in 1996-97 is projected S25.9 million. The most expensive of the desegregation programs is the double instructional financing per student at the seven incentive schools. The financing is double the amount spent on instruction per child at the non- and non-magnet .VlUllLiaj ----------- *  ,, . operating budgets for the next five years. The revenues range from $113 million next year to $127 million in 1996-97. Those revenues assume the passage of a 5-mill tax increase in Sep- tember 1993. Jim Ivey, the district mana- oer of support services, said Monday night that the budget assumption should not be taken as an announcement ot a millage election. The assump- tion was made to show that in 1993 to 1995, the district must find new revenues, either through budget cuts or tax increases. an 8-mill Voters approved tax increase in April 1990. incentive schools. Incentive schools are supposed to use the extra money to improve the achievement levels of black pupils and attract white pupils to the hard- to-desegregate buildings. The incentive schools cost will be $4.4 million next year. District officials noted in the documents Monday that the mandatory double financ- exceed the actual at the the ing will costs for the programs incentive schools next year. Besides the desegregation budgets, the documents filed 1 1 i t t10. ^e desegregation settlement was based on the old plan and not the new plan. The 'committee was not clear as to exactly how the settlement amount was derived. However, the committee strongly feels that the desegregation settlement is highly inadequate. It further appears that the new plan includes certain capital expenditures which were not previously considered in the settlement. 11. The committee feels that the formula by which the State of Arkansas determines the tax revenue allocated to each school district is unfair. i It particularly penalizes Iso the districts with the school districts with a heavy population density. It is al the heaviest population density that have the desegregation problems, which normally result in heavier transportation costs. The committee recommends that the Metropolitan Supervisors Office study this matter further and consider recommending or requiring a change in the State allocation formula. -Page 3-students' pennies add up kansas Democrat (gazelle TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1993 .'  to $10,000 Donations help LRSD pay part of substance abuse insurance installment BY DANNY SHAMEER Democral-Gazelte Education Writer When students in Little Rock were asked to chip in their pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters to help pay for their own substance abuse insurance, they came through with a whopping total. Little Rock School District students brought at least $10,000 in loose change to class in February, said Wendy Salaam, executive director of the city of Little Rocks Fighting Back Initiative*. Salaam said the money raised through the classroom campaign  Pennies for Pasta: Your Change for Change  helped the city pay a quarterly installment of $45,205 one week earlier than its Monday due date. That insure!\ncoverage will The classroom has been one of the bright spots of the financially struggling fund-raising effort called * Fight Back! Insure the Children.' continue for at least three more months, Salaam said. Though she wont know until 'riiiirsday exaclly how much the classroom campaign ha.s raised, the figure already calculated means the effort has been a big success, she said. The Pennies for Pasta theme refers to the offer of  a free 1 uncli at the Olive Garden restaurant in Little Rock for the class raising the most money. eamnamu t, c'^ssroom campaign has campaign been one of the bright spots of the financially struggling fund- raising effort called Fight Back! Insure the Children. The insurance plan began with great fanfare in 1991, when a group that included then-Lt. Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and former Arkansas first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton announced a campaign to raise money to cover every child enrolled in the Little Rock School District for sub- stance-abuse treatment and counseling. Tucker is now governor. Clinton, now the nations first lady, chairs a national task force on health-care reform. Donations from parents lagged from the start and reached a critical stage last fall, when city officials threatened to suspend coverage by the second semester because of a shortage of money. They decided to offset the donation shortage by using cit.v funds to pay for the opening six months of coverage for the 1992 93 school year, with coverage slightly trimmed to give fundraisers a better chance to make less-expensive quarterly payments for the remainder of the year. The cutbacks dropped the annual premium from $373,000 to $277,910. Shortly afterward, officials began the classroom campaign to supplement other fund- raising efforts. The classroom campaign ended Friday. But the fight for money to continue the program through the summer isnt over. Another $45,205 is due bv May 31.\u0026gt; WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15,1993 3 school districts divide $41,506 . The Pulaski County Board of Education voted to transfer $41,506.96 from the County Common School Fund to the three local school districts Tuesday. The distribution, based on enrollment:  Little Rock School District  $18,302.58.  North Little Rock School District  $7,117.10. , ..  Pulaski County Special School District $16,087.28. SATURDAY. JANUARY 8,1994  6 I Collectors office trying to learn - h: where $816,788 is supposed to gd 1 BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Pulaski County collectors office has $816,788.79 in tax money that it doesnt know what to do with. Officials havent handed the money out yet because they arent sure where the money is supposed to go. They discovered the problem after distributing $151,099,613.06 in taxes to municipal governments and school districts last month, then finding tax money left over in the bank. Jim Osburn, Pulaski County Collector, said he doesnt know why that happened. But he suspects the problem occurred during the transfer between two different computer systems. The collectors staff is trying to track the system to find where the error cropped up. The money will be sent, with interest, to the appropriate municipal government and school district accounts. Osburn said the money is not missing, and the receipts add up to the proper amount. A spread sheet showing the difference in what was recorded and what was actually collected shows the majority of the $816,788.79 would go to the three Pulaski County school districts. More than half that amount  $465,495.09  would appear due the Little Rock School District, according to the spread sheet. But Osburn cautioned that the disbursement figures may not be correct, and officials must still check the numbers to make sure. The collectors office was the target of a criminal investigation leading to three arrests for theft before Osburn took over in 1992. The investigation led to guilty pleas by former Collector Ed Maples and his chief deputies, Margaret Kay Wyse and Mitchell H. McCollum. A Pulaski County grand .jfiry report in 1993 found no problems with procedures in place since then. The money has been sitUng in the bank at least a monthT\nI---------------------------------------------------------------- IArkansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1994 State aid for LRSD tops projection by $339,332 \nDemocrat*Gazette Staff The Little Rock School District got some good news about its 1994-95 budget woes. When the state Department of Education released $25 million more in preliminary Minimum Foundation Program Aid for the states 312 school districts Monday, the Little R\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":"bcas_bcmss0837_1010","title":"Aerospace Technology Magnet School, court documents","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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1993"],"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","Aviation Education Programs (U.S.)","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Technology Magnet School, court documents"],"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/1010"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["449 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nArkansas Museum of Aviation History OUR DREAMS TAKE FLIGHT. Arkansas Museum of Aviation History OUR DREAMS TAKE FLIGHT. ITS A STORY ABOUT ARKANSAS FIRST. Her people. Her times and the events that made Arkansas what it is today. That's the story of Arkansas aviation. But it is a tale rarely told and seldom heard, yet one filled with vitality, excitement and power in its ability to inspire and educate. This is the need which will be fulfi lled by The Arkansas Museum of '--~!,\"f~C::~ Aviation Histo,y. For this ..... \"\"'~\"\"'_\n, is histo1y in the making. The project has progressed quietly for over almost a decade since the state newspapers heralded the arrival of the first exhibit planes in the early 1980's. But much was to be done in order to achieve the quality facility desired by the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society. And today the Arkansas Museum of Aviation Histo,y is ready to become a reality-a gift to all Arkansans and Arkansas vis itors. The Arkansas Museum of Aviation Histo1y w ill give Arkansas an attraction wonhy of national attention. Unique to this part of America, its exhibits w ill rank with many of those at the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum and the Experimental Aircraft Museum in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Even more impo!tant is the impact it will have on aviation-lovers of all ages. One sight of the aircraft and the senses will be gripped. And one immersion in the stories of the men and women who made aviation history in Arkansas and the spirits will soar. It has been shaped and will continue to be shaped by the aviation enthusiasts of Arkansas to become and remain a unique po1trayal of the history of the men and women of aviation. Its guiding lights have included such leaders as Charles Taylor, Nathan Gordon, Leighton Collins, Cass Hough and Ray Ellis. The story of aviation is the story of what went on at the human level-those who designed, built and flew the craft. At the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History, visitors will experience aviation from this unique perspective. As a result, not only Arkansas but also the times and events of the different eras can be taken in a context that will become a source of pride and inspiration for Arkansans young and old, for those to whom aviation is a second nature and for those who have only dreamed of flying. l J Inside, the museum follows the stream of time from the Wright Brothers though the shuttle age. Displays are Times of pride, power and prowess. arranged as a series of pods, grouped by time, with areas dedicated to a person associated with a paiticular aircraft, plus memorabilia and a1tifacts associated with that personality. Automobiles, antiques, uniforms, actual film footage, whatever is needed to best tell the story of the specific personality will be incorporated into the story. Eve,y aspect of aviation is to be included--design, engineering, testing, military tactics, bamsto1111ing, racing, THE LEGENDS. Here is just a sampling of the pennanent exhibits to be included in the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History: Field Kindley-Arkansas participation in world \\Var I will be represented by this ace and an authentic Sopwith Camel. Pierce McKennon- Visitors will join Arkansas' Ace of Aces in a P-51 strafing run. John Howell-Delta Air Line's first pilot brings commercial aviation to the ma~s in Arkansas. Louise TI1aden-The Arkansab aviatrix flew rings around Amelia Earhan and won the Bendix Trophy. Included in Lhis exhibit would be a Beech Staggerwing and the Travel Aire 4000 which she took to record heights. Earl T. Ricks \u0026amp; Wimpy WilsonArkansas sent two commanders to the U.S. Air National Guard as this exhibit explains the importance of the home force commercial flight and Lranspottation. The unique emphasis of the Arkansas Museum of Aviation I Iisto,y is instantly visible. The craft are there, of course, but the story as ponrayed in the audio/visual programs, a,tifacts and photographs shifts the emphasis back Lo the people who made aviation possible-back to the heros of Arkansas flight. Exhibits have been designed by Maritz Communications of Chicago, whose work has included the Experimental Aircraft Museum in Oshkosh and interpretive displays for the famous Spruce Goose built by I Toward Hughes. in events such as the devastating flood of 1927. James McDonnell-the story of the founder of McDonnell-Douglas Corporation will center around a Phantom jct. Robert Snowden and Albert Vollmecke-----TI1e creation of an aircraft from design through production will be told in thh saga of the Command-Aire manufactured in Little Rock during the 1930's. A special .section of the Museum will be set aside to honor the members of the Arkansas I !all of Fame A colorful portrait gallery wil l enable us to salute those who continue to make aviation history in Arkan .., ,,_,~. A theater is alM\u0026gt; plann\u0026lt;.:.'CI for the sho\\-ving of an orientation film to visitors and which can aho he w,\u0026lt;:d to prc.',(.'nt other noteworthy mimion film.\\. The interior will allo,, \u0026lt;.:hanging exhibit.:,, ~uch a~ tho~c avai lable for loan through the Lnitcd State Air Force: Mu.\\eum and the Smilhsonian. l3ecau!-iC of the time-line organization, tomorrow's cmft can find a space 10 be dramatically displayed. AN ENCOMPASSING FACILITY. The Museum will rest on land et aside by the Little Rock Airport Commis ion on the east side of the Little Rock Airport complex. The main building will house featured exhibits and will also include the Arkansa Aviation Hall of Fame, a restoration work-area, plus an outdoor di play site. The main exhibit will be visible through the glass front of the building. From inside, the glas wall will offer a clear view of the runways and taxiways of the adjacent airport. Designed by athaniel Curtis-Riddick-Heiple Architects, the main building upon it completion will be include more usable area than buildings of imilar size, due to its unique multi-level di play space. Upwards of 80,000 quare feet of display space will enable as many a 40 aircraft and personality displays to function at any one time. CAMPAIGN GOALS. The total amount needed to build the initial phase of the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History is 4.5 million. Many of the craft to be included in the museum now sit in hang r within taxi distance of the project site. All exhibit designs are complete and ready to begin acquisition and construction. m Parking A MESSAGE FROM THE CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN Dear fellow aviation enthusiast: The contributions of Arkansas people to American aviation should be a source of pride for us all. We have given our country great pilots, inventors, aviation _ ~ authors, aces and leaders of the largest - ~'== aeronautical enterprises. As a result, flying has progressed from an incredible fantasy to a factor of  - - every-day life. The Arkansas Museum of Aviation History finally provides a way to chronicle and display the legacy of those Arkansans who have achieved so much by their fascinating endeavors. As we accomplish our goals with your help, I believe you will see that the we are giving Arkansas more than just a museum. The Arkansas Museum of Aviation History will become a channel of constant esteem and respect, a place to enthusiastically share with visitors from out-of-state and a permanent presentation of the unique Arkansas spirit. Our vision is to become a positive force for aviation in Arkansas by preserving the best of its past. I encourage you to join with me and make our dreams take flight. Together, we can make aviation history happen today. Sincerely, Richard N. Holbert Campaign Chairman 111 - - - Arkansas Museum of Aviation History PO. BOX 3511 UTil.E RCX.K, ARKA. \"SAS 72203 (501\u0026gt; 3753245 MCASCHCL ,-, ,:-11f10AY, PA 8 . S . CL,a.RK R 08CRT V. LIGHT, PA. WILLIAM M. SUTTON, PA, GCOROE  . Pl KC. J R ., PA. ..J4MCS W . MOOR:C BYRON M , EISEMAN, .JR., P 4 .JOE: 0 . BELL, PA. M ICH AC L 0 . THOMPSON , p A .J0'\"'N C. ECHOLS, P 4 JAM CS A . BUTTR:Y, 119 A. FRCOCAICK S . URSERY, p A . H . T LARZCLCRC, PA. OSCAR: . 04VIS, .JR . JAM CS C . CLARK, JR .,\n, 4. THOMAS P LCGGETT, PA. .JOP\"IN OCWCY W4TSON, PA LEWIS M4T .... IS, PA. PAUL 9 . 1!1NHAM 111, PA. LARPYW. 9URK5. P.A. A , WYCKL1,:-,:- NISBET, .JFL, PA. JAMES COWARO MARRIS, PA. .J, P._.ILL, ._, MALCO\"\"' PA. .JAMCS M , St,..FSON. PA MCREOITH P CATLETT, PA .JAM 5 M. SAXTON, ,\u0026gt; A . .J, SMCPHERO RUSSEL~ Ill OONA LO H , BACON, P ,.l,. , WILLI A,.,. THOMAS 8AX.TCR. P ,.l,. WALT CR A. PAULSON II, PA HAND DELIVERED FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF\" INOIVIOUALS ANO PROF'ESSIONALASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT I.AW 2000 F'lRST COMMERCIAL BUILOING 400 WEST CAPITOL I.ITTI.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 722013493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 January 16, 1991 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Dear Judge Wright: !IARlltY . CO?LIN, PA. RICMARO 0. TAYLOR. PA JOSCP,_. 8 . MURST\", Jl=l . . PA CLIZABCTM J. ROBl!!IC N, P ,.i. CHJ:IISTOPMCR \"\"CLLCR PA LAURA r1CNSLEY SM I - .,., P,.. ROBCR: T S. SHAFE:R, ~ A WILLIAM M , GRl,,-,,-IN Ill, PA THOMAS N. R:OSC , PA. M ICH AELS. MOORE CIA.NC S. MAC KC\"' WALTCR: M . 1[9!.. Ill, P  t(CVIN A. CRASS WILLIAM A. WA00L_, ..,R. ~ ~ CLYOC  TAB\" TURN? CALVIN J. HALL SCOTTJ. l.ANCASTE~ J Ci:tR Y L. ,_.ALONE M . GAYLE CORLV POIIC\"'T 1!1 . l!IICACM , .JR S . RANOO LP'\"' LOON C Y .J . LC 9ROWN .JAMES C. 8At(R , .JI'!' H C'\"'A RLC:S GSCl-1WEN0 , J=! MARRY A. LIQH - SCOTT 1-1 TUCKER MARYL. WISC .... AN GUY ALTON WAOI[ PlltlCl. C 0Allt0NIC\"'TH0MAS ,:- MEEKS J. ,.uci....AEL PtCKc.-...s COUNSl:1,. WILLIAM J. S,.,.ITM WILLI A,_...._ , LORE00 JP.\n, ~ WIL.LIAM L. TE\n:H:tY WILLIAM L. PAfTON. ~ R PA TELCOP1ER t50H 376-2tJ.7 TCLECOPICR 15011 3?8 -8369 370-1506 The Little Rock School District has filed with the U. s. Department of Education a grant application for funds to establish an Aerospace Technology Magnet Program within the Little Rock School District. A copy of Volume I of the grant application is enclosed. Volume II of the grant application is the LRSD Desegregation Plan which you already have. An Aerospace Technology Magnet located in the Little Rock School District is a component of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan found at page 13 of the section on Interdistrict Magnet Schools and Programs. LRSD believes that the Aerospace Technology Magnet, although not required by the Settlement Plans, would compliment those plans and advance the voluntary desegregation efforts contemplated by those plans. We hope to present to the court within the next week a stipulation of the parties in support of the Aerospace Technology Magnet. I thought it best to provide you a copy of the grant application now, however, because the application will remain viable only if the Aerospace Technology Magnet becomes a court approved component of the LRSD Desegregation Plan before February 4, 1991. Yours very truly ~~ Christopher eller CJH/k cc: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Enc. Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, ~..R 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Sharon Streett Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72205 Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Arma Hart Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR72201 -- - . 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. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS STIPULATION AND CONSENT ORDER REGARDING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY MAGNET SCHOOL The undersigned parties stipulate and agree that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) desegregation plan should be amended to include an Aerospace Technology Magnet School as described in Exhibit \"A\" to this stipulation as modified below to address the concerns expressed by the Court and some of the parties. The parties further stipulate and agree that the Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet School can only be constructed and operated if the Little Rock School District receives approval of first-year funding of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant, for which Exhibit \"A\" is its application, in a total amount of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00) for 1991-92 and 1992-93: and if the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society contributes at least Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,500,000.00) as its share of the construction costs of the Aerospace Education Center which will house both the Aerospace Technology Magnet School and the Aerospace Museum. -- The purpose of this stipulation between the Joshua Intervenors and the Little Rock School District is to insure by specific outcome expectations that black youth will be at least as well served in educational outcomes, process, treatment, retention, promotion, rewards, awards and opportunities as white youth in the proposed Aerospace Magnet School. The underlying premise of Joshua is that students from higher socio-economic backgrounds, based upon past and present treatment by Little Rock School District, are being and will be well served by the district. The outcome expectations shall be measured . by objective, education related criteria. The results will be subject to further analysis by the Districtwide Biracial Committee and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Aerospace Technology Magnet School is being integrated into and engrafted upon the Settlement Desegregation Plans of the parties (\"the Settlement Plans\"). The parties stipulate that the Aerospace Technology Magnet School Plans shall be consistent with the objectives of the Settlement Plans. The school shall be planned, opened and hereafter operate on a fully and thoroughly integrated basis in all aspects of its operations and outreach. The district shall accomplish this racially inclusive educational environment by whatever means necessary within federal law and by appropriate state law as well so long as state law does not diminish the remedial and desegregation objectives of the Settlement Plan. The district commits that it will maintain this facility on a racially integrated basis into perpetuity. 2 The Aerospace Magnet School shall effectively be a joint venture between the school district and the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society in certain operational and financing respects. The school district, however, shall have full and final authority for all decisions and conduct of the school including but not limited to its staff, students, programs and activities. The local aerospace community consists of those aerospace technical business enterprises which are located around the Little Rock Regional Airport. it includes the Little Rock Airport Commission, a public enterprise, which operates the Little Rock Regional Airport. The Little Rock Airport Commission and the following private aerospace technical business enterprises hereby make the commitments contained in the statement of support attached to this page and the reasonable inferences which flow therefrom regarding the level and duration of said support. A. Companies 1. Central Flying Service 2. Falcon Jet Corporation 3. Arkansas Modification Center 4. Midcoast Aviation 5. Air Transport International 6. Little Rock Regional Airport B. General Commitment (see attachment to this page) The Co~rt shall be provided affidavits of support from representatives of the local aerospace community, not later than February 19, 1991. These affidavits of support will describe each 3 ---  - Statement in Support of the Aerospace Education CenLer As executives of Little Rock's aviation industries and the-Little Rock Airport C'.ornmission, we endorse and lend our c:ommitment to the planned Aerospace Education Center, combining an Aerospace Magnet lligh School with the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History at Adams Field. The Aerospace Magnet High School will provide the educutionul base in math and science that our companies are looking for in new employees, making it possible for these studcnt_s to pursue careers here in Central Arkansas in our companies as well as other high technology finus. Our companies are willing to provide adjunct faculty to both the high school and to the museum's educational outreach program, and will provide guest ins1rnc1ors, as needed, to enhun~:e curriculum offerings. In addition, we will sponsor and encourage our employees to participate in a mentor progrum, working with students who wish to specialize in specific areas of expertise. While we anticipate the school's graduates becoming a source of our pennanent employees, we also plan to consider, whenever possible, opponunities for purt-time and summer employment of students in aviation-related jobs. We wholeheanedly endorse Governor Clinton's initiative to tlevelop industry apprenticeship progrnms, and pledge our cooperation to affect such a program in our industry here in Little Rock where it mny apply. We feel that apprenticeship programs in aviation-related skills, developed through what will be the excellent facilities of the Aerospace Education Center, could eventually become a significant source of skilled workers for our companies. Little Rock's Aerospace Magnet High School wilt provide new opportunities for disadvantaged 1md minority students, many of whom would have few other opportunities to gain the requisite skills to enrer aerospace or other technology careers. We pledge co recruit disadvantaged and minority graduates from the Aerospace Magnet High School, in conjunction with our companies' respective uffinnative nction pluns. The aviation industries of Central Arkansas have enjoyed phenomenal growth over the pust several years, offering economic benefits for not only our employees, but for the entire community. for this positive trend to continue, we must work together with our schools to provide the skilled people needed for our industry. Therefore, we offer our unqualified endorsement of the Aerospul'e Education Center and pledge the support of our respective companies to ensure its success. fc. Taylor Brown Senior Vice President Falcon Jet Corporation Dennis D. Davis President Arkansas Modification Center O'.V~J1  - A/I~ ~~-~ ~ ~ary DAggers n Richard N. Holbc Senior Vice President and General Manager President Midcoast Aviation - Little Rock Central Flying Service James R. Rodgers M.a nager ~ - President ---- company's present commitments and future voluntary efforts in the following areas: (a) specific employment, hiring and promotion commitments for each of the employers and affect all future employment opportunities\n(b) summer training and employment opportunities for the black pupils who will attend the Aerospace Magnet Technology School\n(c) programs for black pupils year round mentoring and support at the school\n(d) preferential consideration upon graduation for training or apprenticeship programs and employment within these enterprises\n(e) creation of racially inclusive, nondiscriminatory work environments\nand (f) broad based racial and gender representation on appropriate advisory and governing boards of each of the business enterprises. In the event that it is necessary to modify these commitments, notice shall be provided to the parties and efforts will be made to continue the spirit of these commitments. EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES 1. Student Education Plans (SEP's) shall be developed for each pupil who elects to attend the Aerospace Technology Magnet School. The plans shall be developed and then implemented in such a way as to insure that all pupils therein shall be \"mainstreamed\" into regular classes. If additional, out of class work is required in order to promote remediation to pupils to meet classroom work, the district shall offer it as needed at district expense either after school or on Saturdays. A principal objective of the SEP's is to allow the progress of each pupil to be measured periodically. It will also assist in determining individual teacher performance 4 -- for evaluation purposes. 2. The school shall employ a sufficient number of teacher assistants to insure that the serious teaching and learning objectives of the Aerospace Magnet School shall be achieved. 3. It is expected that all pupils who enroll in this school shall be promoted each year and graduate from high school on time and with appropriate educational credentials for further study and/or entry into college type programs. The only possible exceptions to this expectation are those pupils who, by objective standards, considered after sufficient time has expired for the SEP's to work, demonstrate that they do not have either the capacity or interest for the required school work. 4. There shall be no \"tracking\" in the Aerospace Magnet School. Those teachers or other staff who either allow or engage in the practice shall be subject to formal discipline. Any discipline of teachers shall be in accordance with the Professional Negotiations Agreement (PNA). 5. The racial balance of the student body of the Aerospace Magnet School shall bear a reasonable relationship to the racial balance of the other high schools. It initially shall be sixty percent (60%) bl:\"ack and forty percent (40%) white. The racial balance goal of the faculty shall be in reverse ratio due to the acknowledged shortage of black staff members. The district is committed, however, through the Settlement Plans, to increasing black staff by aggressive recruitment and by financial support for teacher aides who commit to obtain college training while on the 5 --- job and a period of employment thereafter for the district. 6. The Aerospace Technology Magnet School shall be operated and supported by the district in those ways which do not diminish the status, faculty or student bodies of the other high schools. 7. All students at the Aerospace Technology Magnet School shall be privileged to participate in all school activities at all times provided their school work is first addressed to the level of their respective capacities and is otherwise acceptable. By agreement and stipulation of the parties, Exhibit \"A\" is modified as follows: PAGE AMENDMENTS Page 19 (Substitute first paragraph under caption \"HISTORY OF DESEGREGATION AND MAGNET SCHOOLS\") In 1986, the Federal District Court approved an interdistrict plan of desegregation between the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts. That . plan provided interdistrict remedies of magnet schools and majority to minority transfers. The percentage of black students in North Little Rock is approximately forty-six (46) and in Pulaski County is approximately thirty (30). Page 26 During the period of construction of the Aerospace Technology Magnet School, it will be sited at the Metropolitan Vocational School located near Interstate Highway Thirty (30) in Southwest 6 --- Little Rock. Architectural Plans are being developed and it is hoped that the school will be opened in the fall of 1992 or soon thereafter. ( As a footnote, the architects who are working on these plans have cornmi tted to make a biracial effort of their further work on this project.) Page 23 SIBLING PREFERENCE There is and shall be no sibling preference for Magnet School assignment. Thus item six (6) on Page 23 is deleted. Page 27 Program Objective II (substituted) The District plan to open the Aerospace Technology Magnet School at Metropolitan High School on September, 1991, provided this grant application is timely approved, with the further expectancy that in September, 1992 or sooner thereafter the new school will be opened. The racial balance of the school shall be a range of black students within fifty-five to sixty-five percent and a range of white students between thirty-five and forty-five percent. Those '\"figures are comparable to the other senior high school enrollments. Page 29 (Last sentence on the page) Central High School has been successful in attracting white students from the Pulaski County and North Little Rock School 7 Districts. -- - Page 32 (Supplement) Other standardized tests confirm the above disparities in test results between at least black and white students. The district is committed to fully addressing and remedying these disparities. To this end outcome objectives shall be formulated and implemented for students at all grade levels. In this way, students may be expected to have their remedial and other learning needs met prior to the 9th and 10th grade transition into the Aerospace program. If those are not met, however, the Aerospace Magnet programs will be designed and implemented in a way to accomplish that objective. Page 36 (substitute) The Aerospace Technology Program will require students to have a firm grasp of basic skills. Those skills will be effectively taught to all students so that they will meet the high school standards in the areas of Algebra, Physical Science and Earth Science. The District will provide special support to underachieving pupils in order that those students may be equally successful in their classwork as the more advanced pupils. Page 52 (New paragraph 2) 8 ---  The planning process was not successful in including black citizens to the extent that it included white citizens as set out in paragraph one, supra. Nor did it include the LRSD Biracial Committee in the process. These unintentional omissions will be corrected forthwith and will not be repeated. The Biracial Committee and Joshua shall be fully represented in the Magnet School Planning Committee described in the next paragraph and shall otherwise be utilized to insure that this school meets its goals and expectations. Paga 58 (a new last sentence on the page) This summer program, which will be at school district expense, shall not be used to defer, delay or withhold ongoing remediation and supplemental assistance to achievement. This is intended to supplement the opportunities students have for maximizing their abilities within the school. Paga 59 (supplementary language) A program of teacher developed incentives will be put into place to assist with the motivation of students at the Aerospace Magnet. Paga 60 (supplementary language to paragraph two) 9 ---  - outreach programs will be provided for all parents to inform them of the content of the aerospace program, opportunities for their students, and programmatic expectations for students' achievement. Special outreach efforts shall be made to parents of black and socio-economically deprived students to introduce these patrons to the program. Page 70 (new last paragraph) The foregoing staff is disproportionately white. The district is sensitive to this fact and shall work to insure that it, too, will be fully desegregated and integrated. Page 77 (supplemental language to paragraph two) The theme and focus shall permeate the entire program. Even courses such as physical education and physiology shall include concepts from math and science such as velocity, vectors, and kinesthetics. Page 91 (new first paragraph} Student Education Plans (SEP' s) will be developed for all students. These SEP' s will vary according to past student achievement. Appropriate intensive counseling will provide assistance and direction to students to insure that their 10 --- potentialities are developed to the fullest possible extent by virtue of their involvement in this program. Special efforts will be made to insure that black and socio-economically deprived students shall have no less opportunity for academic success than other students. Page 106 (last paragraph added) The District will work with the business community in general and specifically with the aerospace/aviation industry to insre summer jobs, part-time employment, mentorships, apprenticeships, and employment after graduation for those students who seek it. Page 108 (addition regarding adjunct teachers) Adjunct staff will include mentors, role models, and guest speakers for students. Seminars will also be held to allow students to interact with minority and female individuals who have careers in science, math, and fields related to the Aerospace Magnet program. Page 111 (addition to end of second paragraph) The figure $278 which is included in the discussion of Magnet program costs refers to the eventual cost of Magnet components only and is to be considered in addition to the per pupil cost which the 11 --- district expends, which is $2,165 on average at non-magnet, nonincentive schools. Page 116 (supplement to paragraph one) Success shall further be determined by analysis of statistics related to: number of program graduates employed in Arkansas aviation industry by race and gender number of program graduates entering post-secondary education especially fields related to math, science, and aerospace technology by race and gender decrease in dropout rate as compared to other high schools such that the number of black students in the graduating class will be equivalent to the percentage of black students enrolled in the program Page 119 (final paragraph) The evaluatOr(s) will work closely with the school staff and be both sensitive and responsive to inquiries raised by the Joshua Intervenors, the district and/or school biracial committee(s) and the Office of Desegregation Monitor(ing). Page 146 (new paragraph three) 12 -- There shall be a collaborative effort between the school district, Henderson State University and the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Arrangements will be sought with these colleges for college credit to be given for certain work completed at the Aerospace Magnet School and for the institutions to assist the magnet graduates with educational career planning. The undersigned parties stipulate and agree that a modification of the Little Rock School District desegregation plan to include the Aerospace Technology Magnet School described in Exhibit \"A\" as modified above, subject to the contingencies described above, would largely complement their settlement plans and advance the voluntary desegregation efforts contemplated by those plans, although the parties understand that this program might have a negative impact upon the further desegregation of Fuller Jr. High and Mills High School. It is therefore ordered that the Little Rock School District's desegregation plan is modified to include the Aerospace Technology Magnet School described in Exhibit \"A\", as modified by this Stipulation and Consent Order, subject to the following contingencies: 1. The Little Rock School District must receive the Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant, for which Exhibit \"A\" is its application, in a total amount of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00) for 1991-92 and 1992-93\nand 2. The Arkansas Aviation Historical Society must contribute 13 --- at least Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,500,000.00) as its share of the construction costs of the Aerospace Education Center which will house both the Aerospace Technology Magnet School and the Aerospace Museum. If either of these contingencies does not happen, the Little Rock School District will have no obligation to build the school or implement the Aerospace Technology program described in Exhibit \"A\". JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 BY:Qu.~ ~ WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 MIT L \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third :::cr::_~1 Richard Roachell FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ BY:~ Christophe? H~ JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 BY~tJ~ -{A__ SO ORDERED THIS ~ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1~91. n . ~ '/ )1/ '4 / // \u0026amp;h,. , /~, ii~ , ~ 1, r= SUSAN WEBBER T GHI' = / I , ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUCGE F R I DAY, ELDRE DGE \u0026amp; CL ARK HERSCHEL H . FRIDA Y, P. A . 9 . S . CLARK ROBERT V. LIGHT, P. A . WILLIAM H . SUTTON, P. A. GEORGE E . Fl'IKE , .JR . , P. A . .JAM ES W. MOO RC A PARTN ERSHIP OF INDIVI DUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS A T TORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL  YRON M . E ISEMAN, .JR ., P. A . .JOE 0 .  ELL , P. A . MICHAEL G . THOMPSON, Fl'. A . .JOHN C. ECHOLS, P. A . .JAMES A . BUTTRY, Fl'. A . FREDERICKS. URSERY, P. A . H T LARZELERE, Fl'.A . L I T T LE ROCK, AR KANSAS 7 220 1-3493 TLPHONE 501-376- 2011 OSCAR E . DAVIS , .JR . .JAMES C . CLARK, .JR., P. A . THOMAS Fl'. LEGGETT, l='. A . .JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P. A LEWIS MATHIS1 P.A . PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P. A . LARRY W. BURK5 1 P . A . February 19, 1991 A. WYCKLIFF NIS8ET, JR., Ft. A . .JAMES EOWARO HARRI S , P. A . .J PH IL L I FI' MALCOM, Fl' A . JAMES M . S I MFl'SON, Ft A . MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P. A . .JAMES M . SAXTON, P. A . .J. SHE PH ERO RUSSELL Ill OONALO H . BACON, P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P. A . WALTER A . PAULSON II, P. A . Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg . 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Affidavit of Dick Holbert Dear Counsel: BARRY E . COPL.IN, P. A . RIC HARO O. TAYl.OR, P. A .JOSEPM 9 . HURST, JR., PA. El.lZABETH .J . RO B BEN, PA. CHRISTOPHER MELL.ER, P. A l.AURA HENSL.EY SMITH, PA ROl!SERT S . SHAFER, P. A . Wll.l.lAM M . GRll'\"FIN Ill, P. A THOMAS N . ROSE, P. A . MICHAEL. S . MOORE DIANE S . MACKEY WALTER M . EBEL 111, P. A KEVIN A. CRASS Wll.LIAM A . WA00El.l., .JR., PA CLYDE \"TAB\" TURNER CALVIN .J . HALL SCOTT.J.LANCASTER .JERRY L. MALONE M . GAYLE CORLEY ROBERT B . BEACH, JR. S RANDOL.PH LOONEY .J. LE BROWN .JAM CS C. BAKER, JR. H . CHARL.ES GSCHWEND, .JR HARRY A . LIGHT SCOTT H . TUCKER JOHN Cl.AYTON RANDOLPH MARY L. WISE MAN GUY ALTON WADE PRICE. C. GARONER THOMAS F' MEEKS J M ICHA EL. PICKENS CCUNSl:t.. WILLIAM J. SM ITH WILLIAM A . El.ORE OGE , JR., Fl' A WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. Fl'.A, TELECOPIER (501\u0026gt; 37621'7 TEL.ECO PIER ( 501 ) 3788369 Willl lTt:illl'S ouu:cr NO. 370-1506 Please find enclosed a copy of an Affidavit filed today in this case by Dick Holbert. Very truly yo ~~ ristoph r CJH/k Enc. cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Office of Desegregation Monitoring FILED US. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR.I' FASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FEB 191991 LITI'LE RCX:K SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CXXJNl'Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSffiJA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL WFSTERN DIVISION LR'-C-82-866 AFFIDAVIT CARL R. 8Rl::NTS, CLERK By: ___ ~---- PIAINI'0i1. CLERK DEFENDANT'S INTERVENORS INI'ERVEOORS I, Richard N. Holbert, after being duly sworn, state under oath: I am the President of Central Flying Service, Inc. Central Flying Service, Inc. is an equal opportunity employer. Central FJ,.ying Service, Inc. does presently offer sunrrer training and arployrrent opportunity on a very limited basis. Central Flying Service, Inc.'s surrmer training and employment opportunities will be made available to black and white pupils who attend the Aerospace Technology Magnet School on an equitable basis. An unrestricted number of employees of the canpany will be available to provide mentoring and support programs on a periodic and voluntary basis for black and white pupils of the Aerospace Technology Magnet School perhaps through programs inaugurated by the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society. Because of the course of study to be offered at the Aerospace Technology Magnet School, and the familiarity with the school's students and teachers that the canpany expects to have, graduates of the Aerospace Technology magnet School should receive preferential consideration upon graduation for training or apprenticeship programs and errployment with the canpany if such programs or jobs are available at the ti.Ire. The ~rk envirornnent at the ccrnpany is and will remain non-discriminatory and the canpany has not and will not establish a racially exclusive ~rk envirornnent. The canpany does not have a governing board or advisory ooard. I, Richard N. Holbert, the undersigned herein, state that the foregoing Affidavit is true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge \u0026amp; belief. Dated this 19th day of February, 1991. ~fj~ Richard N. Holbert SUBSCRIBED AND smRN to before me a Notary Public in and for the Coun~y of Pulaski, State of Arkansas on this Jqtb day of February, 1991. My Ccmnission Expires: cmce JMJ 4 19Jj of OE.segregation Mo::i:orir.g UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTER~ DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL .. MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., 0 R D E R CARL\n.:?_\n:. ,.!::.~ ~-:\n. CLERK By: '/,\n\\-,1 :71:'.'-:k~ -~ ueP. CL I( PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS I INTERVENORS I INTERVENORS . Following telephone notice to counsel, a hearing is hereby scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Monday, January 25, 1993. One issue to be addressed at the hearing is the Little Rock School District's aerospace magnet school grant application. This Court's Order of May 1, 1992 rejected an earlier proposal to modify the settlement plan to eliminate language concerning the possible construction of a new junior high in the district. The Court, in that order, directed that the \"parties conduct a careful review of junior high capacity and its immediate and long term impact on programmatic needs and/or intradistrict and M-to-M needs.\" Because of its interrelatedness to the aerospace magnet application, the second issue to be addressed at the hearing is the results of the study conducted pursuant to that Order. The parties are directed to provide the Court and the Federal Monitor 1-:i th copies of the proposed grant application and the results o f the jun i or high school study, together with copies of ~$.-~~~?'~ \n.. other proposed exhibits for the hearing and any briefs they feel are necessary, on or before 12:00 noon on Friday, January 15, 1993. It is so ordered this ',x/b. day of December, 1992. United States Dist ict Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET iN ':OMPUANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR ?~a) ~CP ON t] / 3{\nI 012z: BY _ _._._: ____ r,\u0026gt;1 t l Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 V JAN 2 2 W~5 Olfic, of Desegei:i:'.icn Monitoring Donna Grady Creer Executive Director RESOLUTION Regarding Proposed Aerospace Magnet School (501) 758-0156 WHEREAS, the Magnet Review Committee, a body established by the 8th Circuit of Appeals at St. Louis to oversee the operation of the six interdistrict magnet schools and to make findings concerning the number, location, staffing, racial ratios and themes of magnet schools and to have the furtherance of effective desegregation as its primary objective\nand WHEREAS, the interdistrict magnet schools' host district, the Little Rock School District, has notified the Magnet Review Committee of a projected deficit budget amount of $5,500,000 for the next fiscal year\nand WHEREAS, this projected deficit budget amount will cause the Little Rock School District to be forced to make drastic cuts which may adversely impact existing programs designed to reduce racial academic disparity and promote desegregation\nand WHEREAS, the Magnet Review Committee believes that the total community (parents, students, business, industry, higher education, etc.) should have documented input in the selection and implementation of the theme for a proposed magnet school\nBE IT RESOLVED that the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote (5 FOR\n1 AGAINST - Little Rock School District cast the dissenting vote) opposes the implementation of an aerospace magnet school at this time. SUBMITTED this 22nd day of January, in the year 1993. ~ Bobby tom, Ed.D., Chairperson Magnet Review Committee gnet Revi F~LED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS 'JAN - 7 1993 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CARL K EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: WESTERN DIVISION --\n.. ...... ~u...,~~J.'.,0-- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL,, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL,, 0 R D E R PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS , INTERVENORS , INTERVENORS . A hearing was previously scheduled in this case for Monday, January 25, 1993. Pursuant to the telephone request of the Little Rock School District for additional time to prepare for the hearing, the hearing is hereby rescheduled for Monday, February 1, 1993. Counsel for the Joshua Intervenor has indicated that this change is satisfactory to him. Counsel should be present no later than 9:00 a.m. The Court's Order of December 30, 1992 remains in full force and is modified only to the extent that the documents to be provided to the Court and to the Monitor shall be delivered on or before noon on Friday, January 22, 1992. It is so ordered this t:,-1!-:- day of January, 1993. Q\n~~tJudge THIS DOCUll.11::~1T i::.~'.TERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN GOMPUANCE fir: l RUL::: Ea AND/OR 79(a) FRCP 8N 1- 1- 1:3 sv Ir rJAN 2 2 \\993 .... , , t2! Dcsege~~~on ,ori',ffl1gTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS v--' ,..J WESTERN DIVISION --- ,_, .... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OBSERVATIONS. QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS OF THE PCSSD REGARDING THE PROPOSED LRSD AEROSPACE MAGNET SCHOOL Preliminary Statement The PCSSD has sought to independently evaluate and analyze the continued wisdom and vitality of constructing and operating an aerospace magnet program in LRSD, including in particular the construction of a new high school. The PCSSD has identified at least four areas of major question and concern which it will discuss in this submission. The present areas of concern, inquiry and question of the PCSSD are: I. Whether or not the seemingly accelerating decline in the aerospace industry as a whole, and in particular regarding job opportunities for technicians, vitiates the vitality of this project. II. Whether or not the student transfer projections proposed by the grant document are too ambitious and are not likely to be attained. III. Whether or not LRSD needs additional high school space. IV. Whether or not the LRSD can reasonably fund the maintenance and operation of an aerospace high school, particularly beyond the grant period. The PCSSD will, to the extent feasible, address these issues seriatim. I. Whether or not the seemingly accelerating decline in the aerospace industry as a whole, and in particular regarding job opportunities for technicians, vitiates the vitality of this project. Spurred by local anecdotal and media reports of a \"decline\" in aerospace sales, employment and production, including facilities located in central Arkansas, the PCSSD sought to independently assess, as best it can, the current status of this industry. With research assistance from congressional offices, the PCSSD has obtained certain published information which fortifies its concern in this regard. Attached as Exhibit A is a publication of the Aerospace Industries' Association which contains both the 1992 Year End Review and Forecast as well as the \"Outlook for 1993 11  1 Portions of the summary indicate that during 1992: 1. Aerospace industry sales fell four percent\n2. Department of Defense (DoD) purchases of aerospace products and services fell seven percent\nlExhibit A appears to be a precursor to an about-to-be published book from this organization which, in its last publication, was entitled Aerospace, Fact \u0026amp; Figures 91-92. (Counsel for PCSSD possesses this volume and is informed that the 92-93 edition will be available \"in a couple of weeks\".) 2 3. Sales of military aircraft and parts fell nine percent\n4. Aerospace profits are at their lowest level since 1982\n5. New aerospace orders were down 23 percent\n6. The backlog of unfilled orders for all aerospace products and services should fall 11 percent\n7. Employment during 1992 fell an additional 10 percent\n8. Company forecasts indicate that the aerospace work force will shrink an additional four percent during 1993. The outlook for 1993 includes a projection for another year of industry sales declines of approximately six percent. An additional decline in aerospace employment of four percent is forecast with the employment of technicians and production workers forecast to fall more than five percent. 2 The Aerospace Technology Program (the draft grant application) states at page 11, paragaraph 5: \"The aerospace employment need for a skilled work force is well known in Arkansas.\" The PCSSD was unable to locate any documentation 2rn Aerospace Facts and Figures 91-92, supra, note 1, the Association reported that new orders declined for the first time since 1986 (page 6), that DoD aerospace sales will drop by 1995 to a level 25 percent below the 1990 level, that overall sales will decline seriously but not catastrophically during the next decade (page 7), that industry employment fell by 19,000 in 1990 marking the first reduction since 1983, (page 11), that aerospace industry company-funded research and development in 1991 was expected to drop by more than $117,000,000, (page 102). 3 for this bald statement anywhere in the draft grant application. The accuracy of this statement must at least be questioned given the employment declines described in Exhibit A. The PCSSD is concerned that in light of the Exhibit A projections, the establishment of this school, while it might very well produce an accomplished core of graduates, might yet be targeting an employment market that is shrinking and which cannot absorb those so educated. The only direct projection the PCSSD found in the draft grant application is an expression of intent at page 27 regarding the creation of more than 300 jobs at Arkansas Aerospace. While recognizing that central Arkansas would not likely be the only employment opportunity for such graduates, the statistical fact remains that the one time creation of 300 jobs will do little to satisfy the employment needs of more than 300 graduates per year. PCSSD believes that LRSD has not adequately documented the job market and job opportunities for the school graduates. II. Whether or not the student transfer projections proposed by the draft grant document are too ambitious and are not likely to be attained. As nearly as the PCSSD can determine, the draft grant application contemplates the interdistrict transfer of 325 junior high white students from outside of LRSD and ultimately some 270 white senior high students from without the LRSD. Given the present and projected racial composition of the NLRSD, it seems reasonable to conclude, absent significant 4 transfers from outside the three Pulaski County districts, that the PCSSD is projected to supply almost all of these transferring students. Several historical indicators give the PCSSD pause in endorsing these projections. First, the establishment of specialized programs at Dunbar Junior High and Central High School have proved relatively unattractive to prospective transferring PCSSD students. Conversely, PCSSD has been able to attract relatively and absolutely more black LRSD students to Robinson and Sylvan Hills junior high schools, even absent the presence of a specialty program. The same is true at Robinson High School and Sylvan Hills High School. Additionally, the PCSSD recently completed a survey of all students at Crystal Hill Elementary School, emphasizing in particular the outcomes at grades 5 and 6, and learned that the overwhelming majority of those students expressed both the desire and intent to transfer to a Crystal Hill junior high school if one could be built in the future. Accordingly, based upon the historical information to date, it appears that racial overrepresentation and isolation in the secondary schools in LRSD would m~st likely be ameliorated and reduced by the establishment of additional programs in PCSSD for transferring 5 black LRSD students than efforts to induce large scale transfers of white PCSSD secondary students to programs in LRSD. 3 Further, while program conflict is likely inevitable as additional specialty schools are considered, PCSSD would reiterate its concern, first expressed approximately two years ago in open court, that establishment of the Aerospace Magnet School would likely negatively impact its own efforts to recruit PCSSD white students to Fuller Junior High and Mills High School for the specialty programs presently operated and projected for those schools. III. Whether or not LRSD needs additional high school space. LRSD has consistently reported the need for additional junior high space over the past several years. However, the PCSSD recalls no assertion that it was in need of additional high school space for space's sake. The PCSSD found no analysis of the need for additional senior high space within the four corners of the draft grant application, nor did it 3This should not be interpreted to mean that PCSSD would not work resolutely and diligently to help in attracting students to an aerospace high school. However, PCSSD does not believe it would serve the overall goals and requirements of the desegregation plans to ignore history and projections in this regard. 6 find any analysis of the impact this school would have on the residual enrollments of other present LRSD high schools. Further, PCSSD recalls that for this school year, LRSD experienced an actual enrollment decline, a factor which should be evaluated before this school is finally authorized. IV. Whether or not the LRSD can reasonably fund the maintenance and operation of an aerospace high school, particularly beyond the grant period. At page 2 the draft grant application does identify a source of funds for a portion of the costs to construct the aerospace magnet high school. However, the PCSSD did not locate any source of funding to equip such a highly technical and specialized school nor a source of funds with which to operate the school into the future. It seems reasonable to require that LRSD identify fund sources for the continuous operation of this school into the future and such should be done before it is approved. This Court has recently addressed budget cuts in the LRSD budget and has reluctantly and temporarily approved most or all of them. Upon information and belief, the LRSD will submit additional new budget cuts to this Court during this year for the Court's consideration and approval. If in fact the LRSD does not need additional high school space, it seems anomalous to propose the construction of an expensive new high school when, at the same time, the LRSD has not identified a funding 7 source for the continuous operation of this school and has recently and will likely again ask this Court to approve additional budget cuts. Finally, this high school was not a part of the desegregation settlement plans both approved and then mandated by the Court of Appeals. As such, its establishment should remain squarely within the rubric of analysis laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, which case has previously been briefed to this Court. 4 See, PCSSD brief filed February 6, 1992. The PCSSD would submit that if indeed the concerns it has expressed in this submission are legitimate and if the answers to the various inquiries set forth herein militate against construction of this school, that this Court should not approve it, at least under present circumstances. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501} 371-0808 ~- 0 (,, I J'ru-,,.,~- _..,.._ _ M. Samu J nes III #76060 Atto~ eys fr Pulaski\nCounty Sp~_ed .. al School Dis1tr,i'.ct I / 4This assumes the school remains a requirement even though conditions specified by the previous stipulation were not realized or fulfilled. 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On January :\nl..:J. 1993, the foregoing was served by mailing a copy thereof, first class postage prepaid, to: 54041 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 Capitol Tower Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED JAN 2 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Little Rock School District (LRSD} hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached grant application for an Aerospace Technology Magnet Program. The attached grant application is the most recent document prepared by a grant writer engaged by the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society to work as a consultant to the Little Rock School District. LRSD has begun the process of preparing a revised and corrected grant application which will be hand delivered to the Court, the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring no later than Monday, January 25, 1993. Also attached are: ( l} A Resolution in Support of the Aerospace Technology Magnet Program which was adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors on November 24, 1992\n( 2) Proposed exhibits which summarize projected Little Rock School District revenues and budgets both with and without an Aerospace Technology Magnet Program\nand (3) Proposed exhibits which present budgets for an Aerospace Education Center using various assumptions regarding the number of majority to minority transfer students. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 B~~--- Christoph Bar No. 8108 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 22nd day of January, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 -2- l \\ Mr. Richard Roachell 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 BY0~z ~ ' Christopher Rel.Yer / -3- RECEIVED JAN 2 2 19'15 Office of Desegrngation Moilitoring R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors has considered the proposal to build a senior high aerospace magnet school and to offer aerospace technology courses in one or more junior high schools\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is very excited about the potential for unparalleled educational opportunities that such a school and museum partnership could provide the students of the Little Rock School District as well as surrounding school districts\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors commends the business community for its vision and progressive spirit\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is committed to issue second lien bonds in an amount not to exceed $10 million to construct a high school aerospace magnet school on a pre-selected site near the Little Rock Regional Airport adjacent to the proposed Aerospace Museum and to use existing debt service mills to retire the bonds\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is committed to use existing central office administrators and support staff to plan and implement the school subject to the following conditions: 1. that the District receives from the Magnet School Assistance Fund grant a minimum of $8 million covering a two-year term\n2. that seventy percent ( 70%) of the aerospace school's capacity will be initially reserved for Little Rock School District students while the remaining seats may be filled by majority to minority transfer students from outside the Little Rock School District, and that funds to defray the cost of operating the school will be obtained from public and/or private sources\nthat these funds for the school's operation are available for a period of five (5) years beginning with the date the school opens\nthat construction will begin when the five (5) year commitment of operating funds are identified\nand 3. that the District can demonstrate to the U.S. District Court that the school will complement its desegregation plan and receives approval from the Court to modify its plan to include the construction and implementation of the aerospace school. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Little Rock School District enthusiastically approves the Aerospace Technology School in concept subject to the conditions listed above. ADOPTED this 24th day of November, 1992. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 0. G. JACOVELLI, PRESIDENT PAT GEE, SECRETARY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAN 2 2 1995 1993-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY (WITH AEROSPACE SCHOOL REVENUE/EXPENSE) Office of Desegregation Monitoring 01-22-93 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 39,088,120 40,793,227 39,416,117 40,786,512 42,206,276 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,250,186 4,600,000 4,700,000 4,800,000 4,900,000 40% PULLBACK 21,694,578 21,633,744 22,396,645 23,166,307 23,918,335 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 140,000 141,400 142,814 144,242 145,685 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 368,650 372,337 376,060 379,820 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 227,250 229,183 231,818 234,136 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 461,000 484,050 508,253 533,665 560,348 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 300,000 309,000 318,270 327,818 337,653 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 100,857 100,000 100,000 100,000 92,007 TOTAL 66,559,408 68,657,321 68,183,619 70,466,422 72,774,260 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 27,042,713 27,503,386 28,394,849 30,102,462 30,862,449 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,500,000 APPORTIONMENT 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 VOCATIONAL 1,341,887 1,400,000 1,450,000 1,500,000 1,550,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 821,449 850,000 875,000 900,000 950,000 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 EARLY CHILDHOOD 229,403 229,403 229,403 229,403 229,403 TRANSPORTATION 2,692,563 3,300,000 3,615,840 3,805,107 4,017,516 INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 2,490,900 3,248,910 4,206,664 5,046,346 5,843,040 ADULT EDUCATION 697,589 697,589 697,589 697,589 697,589 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 548,034 565,000 575,000 585,000 595,000 TOTAL 46,367,563 45,965,319 46,163,855 46,772,768 45,505,041 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 TRANSFER FROM FED. GRANTS 262,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 600,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 TOTAL 902,000 700,000 595,000 490,000 385,000 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 113,913,390 115,407,059 115,026,893 117,813,609 118,748,720 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY (WITH AEROSPACE SCHOOL REVENUE/EXPENSE) 01-22-93 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 REVENUE-FEDERALGRANTS CHAPTER I 4,446,152 4,563,774 4,655,049 CHAPTER II 215,020 219,320 223,707 TITLEVI B 569,986 581,386 593,014 OTHER 1,770,603 1,806,015 1,842,135 TOTAL 7,001,761 7,170,495 7,313,905 REVENUE - MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,278,796 14,447,947 14,736,906 TOTAL REVENUE 135,193,947 137,025,501 137,077,704 EXPENSES- OPERATING SALARIES 65,063,011 68,365,037 69,169,638 BENEFITS 9,162,732 9,202,509 9,120,588 DESEGREGATION 17,013,029 19,148,407 22,515,161 PUA SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP 14,636,674 14,672,774 14,696,830 DEBT SERVICE 9,597,115 9,797,473 9,552,598 CONTINGENCY 500,000 600,000 700,000 TOTAL- OPERATING 115,972,561 121,786,200 125,754,815 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 7,001,761 7,170,495 7,313,905 EXPENSES - MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,278,796 14,447,947 14,736,906 EXPENSES - AEROSPACE 1,452,615 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,253,118 143,404,642 149,258,241 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES  (2,059,171) (6,379,141) (12,180,537)  - Budget reductions to comply with State law are not reflected. 1995-96 1996-97 4,748,150 4,843,113 228,181 232,745 604,874 616,971 1,878,978 1,916,557 7,460,183 7,609,386 15,031,644 15,332,277 140,305,436 141,690,383 70,892,807 73,443,940 9,166,861 9,213,366 23,246,037 23,732,324 14,725,036 14,755,937 9,120,671 8,901,668 800,000 900,000 127,951,412 130,947,235 7,460,183 7,609,386 15,031,644 15,332,277 2,949,249 4,401,864 153,392,488 158,290,762 (13,087,052) (16,600,379) ~ RE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAN c -J JY9.5 1993-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY (WITHOUT AEROSPACE SCHOOL) Office of Deseg,1 - 1on fllont  01-22-93 \"\u0026lt;-'\"'' , 1 onng 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 39,088,120 40,793,227 39,416,117 40,786,512 42,206,276 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,250,186 4,600,000 4,700,000 4,800,000 4,900,000 40% PULLBACK 21,694,578 21,633,744 22,396,645 23,166,307 23,918,335 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 140,000 141,400 142,814 144,242 145,685 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 368,650 372,337 376,060 379,820 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 227,250 229,183 231,818 234,136 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 461,000 484,050 508,253 533,665 560,348 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 300,000 309,000 318,270 327,818 337,653 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 100,857 100,000 100,000 100,000 92,007 TOTAL 66,559,408 68,657,321 68,183,619 70,466,422 72,TT4,260 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 27,042,713 27,503,386 28,394,849 30,102,462 30,862,449 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,500,000 APPORTIONMENT 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 VOCATIONAL 1,341,887 1,400,000 1,450,000 1,500,000 1,550,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 821,449 850,000 875,000 900,000 950,000 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 EARLY CHILDHOOD 229,403 229,403 229,403 229,403 229,403 TRANSPORTATION 2,692,563 3,300,000 3,615,840 3,805,107 4,017,516 INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 2,490,900 3,248,910 3,760,540 4,140,580 4,491,150 ADULT EDUCATION 697,589 697,589 697,589 697,589 697,589 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 548,034 565,000 575,000 585,000 595,000 TOTAL 46,367,563 45,965,319 45,717,731 45,867,002 44,153,151 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 TRANSFER FROM FED. GRANTS 262,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 600,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 TOTAL 902,000 700,000 595,000 490,000 385,000 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 113,913,390 115,407,059 114,580,769 116,907,843 117,396,830 LITTI.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY (WffilOUT AEROSPACE SCHOOL) 01-22-93 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 REVENUE-FEDERALGRANTS CHAPTER I 4,446,152 4,563,774 4,655,049 CHAPTER II 215,020 219,320 223,707 mLEVIB 569,986 581,386 593,014 OTHER 1,770,603 1,806,015 1,842,135 TOTAL 7,001,761 7,170,495 7,313,905 REVENUE - MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,278,796 14,447,947 14,736,906 TOTAL REVENUE 135,193,947 137,025,501 136,631,580 EXPENSES - OPERATING SALARIES 65,063,011 68,365,037 69,169,638 BENEFITS 9,162,732 9,202,509 9,120,588 DESEGREGATION 17,013,029 19,148,407 22,515,161 PUA SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP 14,636,674 14,672,774 14,696,830 DEBT SERVICE 9,597,115 9,090,123 8,845,248 CONTINGENCY 500,000 600,000 700,000 TOTAL - OPERATING 115,972,561 121,078,850 125,047,465 EXPENSES - FEDERAL GRANTS 7,001,761 7,170,495 7,313,905 EXPENSES - MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,278,796 14,447,947 14,736,906 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,253,118 142,697,292 147,098,276 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES * (2,059,171) (5,671,791) (10,466,696)  - Budget reductions to comply with State law are not reflected. 1995-96 1996-97 4,748,150 4,843,113 228,181 232,745 604,874 616,971 1,878,978 1,916,557 7,460,183 7,609,386 15,031,644 15,332,277 139,399,670 140,338,493 70,892,807 73,443,940 9,166,861 9,213,366 23,246,037 23,732,324 14,725,036 14,755,937 8,258,921 8,041,468 800,000 900,000 127,089,662 130,087,035 7,460,183 7,609,386 15,031,644 15,332,277 149,581,489 153,028,698 (10,181,819) (12,690,205) :lsl~T1:\n\\1o1,!!:ts:p\n.i:'@X:-cw.\n.:\n@J-:.:.gL\nFillfilji\u0026amp;ill]fill CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $53 232 1.0 $62,274 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $116 160 3.0 $135 891 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO) OTHER (60) Project Director 1.0 $39 460 1.0 $46163 Curriculum Specialists 5.0 $202 820 5.0 $237 271 Counselors 3.0 $95,622 3.0 $111,864 Media 1.0 $30,334 1.0 $35,486 Aerospace Tech Teachers 15.0 $443,475 15.0 $518,803 Foreiqn Lanquaqe Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186 043 Enqlish Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Math Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Science Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Social Studies Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186 043 Fine Arts Teachers 2.0 $53 010 2.0 $62 014 Vocal Music Teacher 1.0 $26 505 1.0 $31 007 Orchestra/Instrumental Teacher 1.0 $26 505 1.0 $31 007 Phvsical Education/Life Sports 3.0 $79 515 3.0 $93 021 Special Education Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 lanquaqe Arts Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Mathematics Remediation Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Substitutes $0 $0 Fringe Benefrts(20)  .......... , ,. $318,000 .,,,'.-:s-:s-:-:.  $412,000 TOTAL CERT SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 87.0 $2,836,393 87.0 $3,358,164 Reaistrar 1.0 $15943 1.0 $18651 Princioal's Secretarv 1.0 $14 803 1.0 $17 317 General Office Secretarv 1.0 $14 234 1.0 $16 652 Bookkeeoer 1.0 $12 040 1.0 $14 085 Attendance Secretarv 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14 085 Counselor Secretary 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14,085 Media Clerks 2.0 $21 946 2.0 . $25 674 Nurse 1.0 $22 607 1.0 $26 447 Buildinq Enqineer 1.0 $23 000 1.0 $26 907 Custodians 7.0 $83 300 7.0 $97 449 Camous Securitv Officers 2.0 $23 878 2.0 $27 934 Resource Officer 1.0 $18 591 1.0 $21 749 Project Director's Secretarv 1.0 $12 040 1.0 $14 085 Instructional Aides 10.0 $97 130 10.0 $113 628 Frinqe Benefits(20) ,.,.,,_.,.,.,.,,:-,-,,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., $72,000 ,,,.,.,-:,,,.--,-:-,,, . ,,..w.,, $90,100 TOTAL N/C SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 31 .0 $455,592 31.0 $538,848 TOTAL (10 20) N.''H' :. $3 291 985\n~ $3 897 012 Utilities Travel Maintenance Aqreements Other TOTAL (30) Princioal's Office Reaular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other flight lessons TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30 60) TOT AL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PAGE GRAND TOTAL $210 000 .,,, ... ,,,.,,,.,.,.'' $245 670 $0 ' $0 $0 ., $0 $48 700 ......, ..., .. ..... ,,. . -:.,:,....... $56 972 $258 700 .... , '. ' ,. $302 642 $0 :, $0 $1 00 850  -:-:-- ,,:.:,:-:-:-:::-:-:,:-:-:-. $117 980 $17 000 . .,ww.: $19 888 $0 $0 $117 850 $137 868 $0. $0 $0  $0 $0 $0 $0 ' $0 $0 :, $0 $50 000 $58 493 $50 000  $58 493 $426 550 $499 003 118.0 $3 718 535 118.0 $4 396 015 $5 000 :,rn,: .,.,.,.... ........ $5 849 $3 723 535 -.. ...  ',/' $4 401 864 RECEIVE JAN 2 2 199j Office of Desegregation Monitoring- :::,,,,hi?t:rnw::t'Ii.:tWWM+rrn::::::::,une11emoa,11f.,rr:i::.,.=:::::,:.= 1992-93 1996-97 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services $5,000 $5,849 Reading Science English Special Education i,::--\n.:,rmar.un1Jtims\\'w:\\i\" :\u0026gt;~~/t\"::--rw::sasdoo STUDENT ENROLLMENT 900.0 900.0 Total Costs $0 $4,401,864 fflPu1:m:eost::\\faf!tt:rn::nrnt::mmW mm:,,:='=ttJlYJ@NM:=:t:MJO, ,ftttM%1iM@1,\n.eg1: LESS: M TOM PERCENTAGE 0% 0.00 M TO M REIMBURSEMENT $0 NET OPERATING COST $3 723 535 SALARIES: SELECTED THE MIDPOINT FOR EACH SALARY RANGE. INCREMENTED SALARIES BY 4% PER YEAR FOR 4 YEARS. BENEFITS: 0.00 $0 $4 401 864 CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALARIES AND ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. PURCHASED SERVICES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. CAPITAL OUTLAY: ASSUMED THAT THESE COSTS WOULD BE PART OF GRANT AND/OR STARTUP COSTS. OTHER: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL. M TOM ASSUMPTIONS: CALCULATED AT 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% !lllllfd ~rntti?k@H CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $53,232 1.0 $62,274 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $116160 3.0 $135,891 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Proiect Director 1.0 $39 460 1.0 $46 163 Curriculum Specialists 5.0 $202 820 5.0 $237,271 Counselors 3.0 $95,622 3.0 $111,864 Media 1.0 $30,334 1.0 $35,486 Aerospace Tech Teachers 15.0 $443,475 15.0 $518,803 Foreian Lanauaae Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 Enalish Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Math Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279,064 Science Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Social Studies Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 Fine Arts Teachers 2.0 $53,010 2.0 $62,014 Vocal Music Teacher 1.0 $26 505 1.0 $31,007 Orchestra/Instrumental Teacher 1.0 $26,505 1.0 $31,007 Physical Education/Life Sports 3.0 $79 515 3.0 $93 021 Special Education Teachers 4.0 $106,020 4.0 $124,028 Lanauaae Arts Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Mathematics Remediation Teachers 4.0 $106,020 4.0 $124 028 Substitutes $0 $0 Frinae Benefits(20)  ' $318,000 ,  , .... ..... $412,000 TOTAL CERT SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 87.0 $2,836,393 87.0 $3,358,164 Reaistrar 1.0 $15 943 1.0 $18,651 Principal'sSecretary 1.0 $14,803 1.0 $17317 General Office Secretary 1.0 $14 234 1.0 $16 652 Bookkeeoer 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14,085 Attendance Secretary 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14 085 Counselor Secretary 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14,085 Media Clerks 2.0 $21,946 2.0 $25,674 Nurse 1.0 $22,607 1.0 $26,447 Building Engineer 1.0 $23 000 1.0 $26 907 Custodians 7.0 $83 300 7.0 $97 449 Campus Securitv Officers 2.0 $23 878 2.0 $27,934 Resource Officer 1.0 $18 591 1.0 $21 749 Proiect Director's Secretarv 1.0 $12 040 1.0 $14 085 Instructional Aides 10.0 $97,130 10.0 $113 628 Fringe Benefrts(20) .,.,.,,.,., .. , . ,.,,,.,,.,........ $72,000 :::::''',':'''',':''',':'''',: $90,100 TOTAL N/C SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 31.0 $455,592 31.0 $538,848 TOTAL (10 20) .......... ,   $3,291,985 :~ $3,897,012 UlilltO,s $210,000 $245,670 ~\n~~~nance Ai:ireements :' ... $ 48 ,Jg ..... ,  $ 56,J~ TOTAL (30) $258,700 '\u0026gt; . .  $302 642 ~~~~i~~1i1a~:~~:m ''' ,,, $100,8:~IIII, $117 9:~ Media .,,., $17,000 ,,,  .......  $19,888 Other $0 ..   $0 Eauipment Buildina Repair etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other fliaht lessons TOTAL (60) TOTAL/30 60) TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PAGE GRAND TOTAL - w w ---- w w .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., .,.,,,,,,,,:,:,:,:,. $50 000 $58 493 ................ ,:x,,,,,y $50 000 $58 493 $426 550 ..  $499 003 118.0 $3 718 535 118.0 $4,396,015 $5 000 :!::::::::-:-:-:.:::::-:::::: $5,849 $3 723 535 -:-:-:-:-:,:,:,\n,:,:-:,:.,::::::,-: $4,401,864 :r\"'s \u0026lt;t .. LinetmC.ftt\u0026gt; Le\u0026lt;:\n\u0026gt; 1992-93 1996-97 Stipends Other Obiects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Proqrams Plant Services $5,000 $5,849 Readinq Science Enqlish Special Education ]tef Pub.ii:OtiL . c::.:.x  L+\u0026lt; .,}.c.., 1992-93 1996-91 STUDENT ENROLLMENT 900.0 900.0 Total Costs $3,723,535 $4 401,864 :eei\n}~(ipij\n.ob.M=ikfi:fobitdi\\ki@kA ifaifoiiJ$4dl1l .~=a.a* LESS: M TOM PERCENTAGE 10% 0.10 0.10 M TO M REIMBURSEMENT $385 200 $450 630 NET OPERATING COST $3 338 335 $3,951 234 SALARIES: SELECTED THE MIDPOINT FOR EACH SALARY RANGE. INCREMENTED SALARIES BY 4% PER YEAR FOR 4 YEARS. BENEFITS: CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALARIES AND ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. PURCHASED SERVICES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. CAPITAL OUTLAY: ASSUMED THAT THESE COSTS WOULD BE PART OF GRANT AND/OR STARTUP COSTS. OTHER: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL. M TOM ASSUMPTIONS: CALCULATED AT 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% :ts~11=:~11=~dij~irM,1lm:11]\n~:\n:i\n:\n:~]\n~:\n:\n~::1::~\n:::::i:~\n:m~\n:\n:1~:: :\n'\n:::\n:\n:\n::\n::~\n:- ,,, CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $53,232 1.0 $62,274 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $116 160 3.0 $135,891 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) Proiect Director 1.0 $39 460 1.0 $46,163 Curriculum Specialists 5.0 $202 820 5.0 $237,271 Counselors 3.0 $95,622 3.0 $111,864 Media 1.0 $30,334 1.0 $35,486 Aerospace Tech Teachers 15.0 $443,475 15.0 $518,803 Foreian Lanauaae Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 Enalish Teachers 9.0 $238,545 9.0 $279 064 Math Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279,064 Science Teachers 9.0 $238,545 9.0 $279,064 Social Studies Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 Fine Arts Teachers 2.0 $53,010 2.0 $62,014 Vocal Music Teacher 1.0 $26,505 1.0 $31 007 Orchestra/Instrumental Teacher 1.0 $26 505 1.0 $31 007 Phvsical Education/life Sports 3.0 $79 515 3.0 $93,021 Special Education Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Lanauaae Arts Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Mathematics Remediation Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Substitutes $0 $0 Frinae Benefits(20) ,.,.,.,,,,,~'. $318,000 .,,.,,,,  ,,.,.,.,. , ,- - $412,000 TOTAL CERT SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 87.0 $2,836,393 87.0 $3,358,164 Reaistrar 1.0 $15 943 1.0 $18,651 Principal'sSecretarv 1.0 $14,803 1.0 $17317 General Office Secretary 1.0 $14 234 1.0 $16 652 Bookkeeoer 1.0 $12040 1.0 $14,085 AttendanceSecretarv 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14085 Counselor Secretarv 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14 085 Media Clerks 2.0 $21,946 2.0 $25 674 Nurse 1.0 $22 607 1.0 $26 447 Buildina Enaineer 1.0 $23 000 1.0 $26,907 Custodians 7.0 $83,300 7.0 $97 449 Campus Security Officers 2.0 $23,878 2.0 $27 934 Resource Officer 1.0 $18,591 1.0 $21 749 Proiect Director's Secretarv 1.0 $12 040 1.0 $14,085 Instructional Aides 10.0 $97 130 10.0 $113,628 Frinae Benefits/20) $72,000 . $90,100 TOTAL N/C SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 31 .0 $455,592 31.0 $538,848 TOTAL/10 20) ...... , $3,291,985 :~ :: $3,897,012 Utilities Travel Maintenance Aareements Other TOTAL /30) Principal's Office Reaular Classroom Media Other TOTAL /40) $48 700 '''.' '' '\": '\"' :\"' '\"'  $56 972 $258 700 . .  $302,642 $0 $0 $100,850 '  $117,980 $17,000 ,,,,,,:,:,,,:,:,,,:,:,,:-,-,,,.,.,.,.,,,. $19,888 TOTAL /30 60) ,.,., $426 550 $499,003 TOTAL/10-60) 118.0 $3,718,535 118.0 $4396,015 TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PAGE GRAND TOTAL $5,000 $5 849 $3,723,535  $4 401 864 . ......: : .. ....: ..... ...:\n.: ... . )WiUne]tem:costs\n::tJlJM.tt:.f/.(.::,::\"': SALARIES: Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading Science English Special Education t.:: :}:\\.LLTbtaUJne..lt~mis ...  STUDENT ENROLLMENT Total Costs f.m.reui1tc.b.$txL\\\u0026gt;}\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;t\u0026lt;/t LESS: M TOM PERCENTAGE 20% M TO M REIMBURSEMENT NET OPERATING COST 1992-93 1996-97 $5,000 $5,849 1992-93 1996-97 900.0 900.0 $3 723 535 $4 401 864 ~r,:tnf 2G:C/'.GUfU]:: 0.20 0.20 $770 400 $901 260 $2 953135 $3 500 604 SELECTED THE MIDPOINT FOR EACH SALARY RANGE. INCREMENTED SALARIES BY 4% PER YEAR FOR 4 YEARS. BENEFITS: CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALARIES AND ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. PURCHASED SERVICES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. CAPITAL OUTLAY: ASSUMED THAT THESE COSTS WOULD BE PART OF GRANT AND/OR STARTUP COSTS. OTHER: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL. M TO M ASSUMPTIONS: CALCULATED AT 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO} OTHER (60) Princioal 1.0 Asst. Prin. 3.0 Proiect Director 1.0 Curriculum Soecialists 5.0 Counselors 3.0 Media 1.0 Aerospace Tech Teachers 15.0 Foreign Lanauaae Teachers 6.0 EnQlish Teachers 9.0 Math Teachers 9.0 Science Teachers 9.0 Social Studies Teachers 6.0 Fine Arts Teachers 2.0 Vocal Music Teacher 1.0 Orchestra/Instrumental Teacher 1.0 Phvsical Education/life Soorts 3.0 Soecial Education Teachers 4.0 LanauaQe Arts Teachers 4.0 Mathematics Remediation Teachers 4.0 Substitutes TOTAL CERT SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 87.0 ReQistrar 1.0 Principal's Secretary 1.0 General Office Secretary 1.0 Bookkeeoer 1.0 Attendance Secretary 1.0 Counselor Secretary 1.0 Media Clerks 2.0 Nurse 1.0 Buildina Enaineer 1.0 Custodians 7.0 Camous Security Officers 2.0 Resource Officer 1.0 Proiect Director's Secretary 1.0 Instructional Aides 10.0 TOTAL N/C SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 31.0 TOTAL (10 20) ....... , Utilities Travel Maintenance Aareements Other TOTAL (30) Princioal's Office ReQular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) $53 232 1.0 $62,274 $116160 3.0 $135 891 $39 460 1.0 $46 163 $202 820 5.0 $237,271 $95,622 3.0 $111,864 $30,334 1.0 $35,486 $443,475 15.0 $518,803 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 $238,545 9.0 $279 064 $238 545 9.0 $279,064 $238,545 9.0 $279,064 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 $53 010 2.0 $62,014 $26 505 1.0 $31 007 $26 505 1.0 $31,007 $79 515 3.0 $93 021 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 $106,020 4.0 $124,028 $106020 4.0 $124028 $0 $0 $318,000 $412,000 $2,836,393 87.0 $3,358,164 $15,943 1.0 $18,651 $14,803 1.0 $17,317 $14234 1.0 $16652 $12040 1.0 $14085 $12,040 1.0 $14,085 $12,040 1.0 $14 085 $21,946 2.0 $25,674 $22,607 1.0 $26 447 $23 000 1.0 $26,907 $83,300 7.0 $97 449 $23,878 2.0 $27,934 $18,591 1.0 $21 749 $12 040 1.0 $14,085 $97,130 10.0 $113,628 $72,000. $90,100 $455,592 31.0 $538,848 $3 291,98s :~mt $3 897 012 $258 700 . :: ' $302 642 $0 $0 $100,850  :: $117,980 $17 000 $19,888 $0 _-  $0 $117 850 :  w $137 868 Eauipment $0 - $0 BuildinQ Repair, etc. ffiffim:  $0 $0 \u0026gt;-0-th_e_r~~-~------~3-  f-----7$0~- --- - -----~$0_, TOT AL (SO} $0 :=== .,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.-  $0 Dues and Fees -- $0  $0 1-:0:-:-t:---he_r_ __ f'=\"=li-ah:--:t-,-le_s_s_on_s_ ____- f?i_~.    -- $50,000  $58 493 TOTAL (60) $50,000 ' $58 493 TOTALC30 60) $426,550 . -  $499 003 TOTALC10-60) 118.0 $3,718 535 118.0 $4,396,015 TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PAGE $5,000 $5,849 GRAND TOTAL \"'1  $3 723 535 ' $4 401 864 -\u0026gt; ..., ,. ..m .. \u0026gt; \u0026lt;tM\u0026lt;t@ ... :.:.wt ..1 :w:mrcr:-..-cun,ntafu costs Jr\\:(\": :  ,:: r ,.'f:\"::\". r  1992-93 1996-97 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Proarams Plant Services $5,000 $5,849 Readina Science Enalish Soecial Education \u0026lt;. ................ ....Ttital .. LlneJtems ........, ... ...........................t ,. .................. ..... .. ,-.......... /$6.ID.OO ..............: .. .............. . .. ..  ... .. )$5..M9 .. STUDENT ENROLLMENT 900.0 Total Costs $3,723 535 Nt.P,\ni#II.Co.iUO\\ ... L .. :.J.:J/V.. J .::: .::. . / ... M.i-\\..Ut .. J$4.43.1. LESS: M TOM PERCENTAGE 30% 30% M TO M REIMBURSEMENT $1 155 600 NET OPERATING COST $2 567,935 1996-97 900.0 $4 401,864 :~'Ht 30% $1 351 890 $3,049,974 .... :: ..'. . . _::::u..1. .. ,.::..::: ..... :. \u0026gt;. . ::: ... '.'':.:., ' :\n.::: ::wssuMet10.N1r=.). ,.. .. ).-........: .. .. '.'''u -''''._,_: ... ,.._,. '' SALARIES: SELECTED THE MIDPOINT FOR EACH SALARY RANGE. INCREMENTED SALARIES BY 4% PER YEAR FOR 4 YEARS. BENEFITS: CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALARIES AND ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. PURCHASED SERVICES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW H.S. AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES: BASED ON CUSRRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW H.S. AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. CAPITAL OUTLAY: ASSUMED THAT THESE COSTS WOULD BE PART OF GRANT AND/OR STARTUP COSTS. OTHER: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW H.S. M TO M ASSUMPTIONS: CALCULATED AT 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% Little Rock School District January 22, 1993 Ms. Sylvia Wright Chief, Magnet Schools and Desegregation Branch U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Room 2059 Washington, DC 20202-6246 Dear Ms. Wright: RECEIVED JAN 2 2 1993 Office of Dasegregation Monitoring On behalf of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, I request your consideration of the enclosed Aerospace Grant Application. The Grant was developed by a writer employed through the funding of a consortium of Arkansas businessmen and has the strong support of the Aerospace Industry in Arkansas. This support has resulted in a close and cooperative relationship with a vitally important segment of the business community. They have pledged their determination to provide financial and in-kind support which will be vital in the continued operation of the school. With this backing from the business community, the Board of Education looks forward to the potential which this magnet program offers to our students and the community. After visiting an existing Aerospace Magnet School in Long Beach, California, I am excited about the opportunity to acquaint our students with the Aerospace curriculum. Through the use of computer simulations, they will learn the Aerospace curriculum, practice what they have learned, and use those concepts in situations that approach real life. The application of knowledge to real-world situations is something that has been sorely missing in public education. I believe that this void has contributed greatly to failure in school, lack of student motivation, and a high dropout rate among poor and minority children. One of the most important goals of this exciting project is to change these unacceptable conditions. Please give this grant your most careful consideration, because it portents a bright future for our school district and for public education in this country. Sincerely, C - \"'\"::::?:- t,K_AA._0~ C.M. Bernd Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501).324-2000 ' ,..,.\\,0'0 ~e~.,. \u0026lt;:\n)'\u0026lt;,cf:~\\ a,,,e,e o\\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .,c:\n-,t-~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS \\C\"1 ' 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 W. KNIGHT, ET AL. 0 RD ER FILED U.S. DISTRleTCOUFH\" -:Asri:c'-.1 l\"\\1c::rn1r.T AAKANSAS JAN 2 5 1993 CA~~BRE,SaRK By. '1/\"'a DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFEN.uANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has received a request from Mr. Richard N. Holbert, vice chairman of the Aerospace Education Center, to be present and present to the Court the Center's position on and involvement in the proposed establishment of an aerospace magnet school in conjunction with the Aerospace Education Center. attached.) (Letter Because the Court anticipates that such testimony might be informative, it is inclined to grant Mr. Holbert's request. The Court, however, desires th~ benefit of t~e pa~ties ' responses to the request. The parties, therefore, are directed to respond to the request no later than noon on Thursday, January 28, 1993. If necessary, the parties may file this response only by facsimile. ,. :{k. DATED this\n1-5~day of January, 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRCT JUDGE National Advisory Board Dr. Eddie Anderson Col Walter J. Boyne LL Gen. Benjamin 0. Davis Gen. Alfred G. Hansen Phillip S. Woodruff Honorary Chairmen Herschel H. Friday Mayor Sharon M. Priest Winthrop P. Rockefeller Jackson T. Stephens Little Rock School District Dr. Cloyde McKinley Bernd Superintendent Campaign Leadership William H. Bowen Chairman Richard N. Holbert Vic, Chairman Marion B. Burton President J. Dan Baker J. W. \"Buddy\" Benafield 0. Wayne Bennett William C. Bracas Henry A Broach Rep. Inna Hunter Brown F. Taylor Brown David M. Clark Fred K. Darragh, Jr. Dennis D. D.-is Lee Frazier Charles H. Harper Sen. Jerry Jewell E. Ray Kemp John Lewellen Donna K. Mel.arty Sandy S. McMath Frederick J. Menz Edward M. Penick. Sr. Ruth Remmel Edgar K. Riddick, Jr. James R Rodgers Lucien M. Taillac Charles M. Taylor Jim Guy Tucker State Advisory Board Dr. Gerald P. Carr Na than Gordon Robert A Gordon Col. Albert Hart Dr. William R Pogue Louis L Ramsay Major General James A Ryan M. M. \"Twig\" Satterlield, Jr. Col. Charles J. Wax Development Counsel 375-7:i,v .5 7 ~- 0 9 '\\ 0 uFortune favors the prepared mind. n UCATION(ENTER January 22, 1993 P 0. Box 7332  Unle Rock. Arlwisas 72217  501. 371. 0331 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: As you know, the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society was approached in 1989 by the late Eugene Reville to consider adding a magnet school to our plan for an Arkansas Museum of Aviation History, to be located at the Little Rock Regional Airport. Mr. Reville sowed many seeds as he sought to rebuild community support for education. Some other partnership school ideas were floated, but the suitable partners failed to develop. However, despite an initial skepticism, and even bewilderment, we became the fertile ground upon which his idea germinated. Later, as we put plans for our museum on hold to allow for the creation of this new institution, we became its greatest proponents, and often the keeper of the flame. As we have spoken with people throughout our community, state, and even the entire nation, we have become convinced that this project represents even more than an exceptional school for the Little Rock School District, our community, and Arkansas. The Aerospace Education Center, as we have come to call the synthesis of the Magnet School and Museum, represents the best opportunity our community has to solve three distinct, yet interrelated, problems: * * * Providing better educational opportunities for our students, especially black and disadvantaged students who have had few opportunities to enter technology fields in past\nProviding a source of skilled workers in technology disciplines, and thus allowing the expansion of our existing aerospace or other technology companies here in Arkansas, and helping to attract new ones to provide future jobs. We call the educational plans which will meet these first two needs \"Relevant Education\n\" and finally Restoring the faith and trust (and therefore, support) of the entire community of central Arkansas in our system of public education. Honorable Susan Webber Wright January 22, 1993 Page Two While the diverse group of concerned citizens who have given of their time, money, and prestige to make this dream a reality are not parties to the case before your -Court, we feel that their voices should be represented when the hearing is held on February 1, 1993, seeking your approval for the District to submit an application to the U. S. Department of Education for an $8 million Federal Magnet School Grant, which would fund the operations of Little Rock's aerospace magnet program for the first two years. Therefore, we ask for an opportunity to be present at the hearing, to briefly present to the Court our position on these issues, and to be available to clarify our involvement in this project which, we feel, is crucial to bringing about excellent and equitable educational opportunities for all of our children. Thank you for the opportunity to present you with this request. RNH/mj Respectfully yours, Richard N. Holbert Vice Chairman Aerospace Education Center FACSIMILE gVER SHEET DATE: /-~ 53 TDIE: '-f: IS em TO:\nc..h,vJ. ec,c.ke..\\\\ -3\"1S- bl8b S ,,.,  - 3, I, ~q lf.4 1- \u0026lt;\n.te..pka.\"' ~ne.: - 3-,s\n-10\n.7 1--a~ .. 1/o.u ist - 317b2.ir.2-- FAX NUMBER FROM: CLERK, UNITED STATES DISTRI U.S. POST OFFICE AND COUR 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 402 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 324-5351 \\ - ~1,'I_:. \\ \\- r \\ \\ _1-'--__ PAGE(S)\nILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTF~N n1~ro11'T ACl\u0026lt;ANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAN 2 6 1993 WESTERN DIVISION CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By:---.........,._.,_..._,,,,,.,.. PLA:ifflt\u0026gt;+f.!fERr v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1 1 ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO ORDER OF JANUARY 25, 1993 The Court directed the parties to respond to the request of Mr. Dick Holbert to give testimony in the hearing regarding the Aerospace Education Center by January 28, 1993. The Joshua Intervenors submit as their response the position that Mr. Holbert' s pa rticipation in the project has been substantial and that he is a pertinent witness in the hearing. Joshua, therefore, favors his participation. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 ~Ohh w. Walker, Bar #64046 ',/ REC VEO JAN 2 7 1993 Office of Desegregation Mon::0, ,ng CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of January, 1993. Larry Vault, Esq. Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 c:lrsd.mot Monitoring EDWARD L . WRIGHT ( 1903-1977) ROBERT S LINDSEY 11913-1991) RONALD A MAY ISAAC A SCOTT. JR. JAM ES M MOODY JOHN G . LILE GORDON S RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR JOHN R TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 BRUCE R LINDSEY LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L. GRIFFEN N M NORTON, JR. EDGAR J . TYLER CHARLES C . PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JIMMY W MITCHELL JAMES J GLOVER WRIGHT, LINDSEY 8: JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2200 WORTHEN BANK BUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX 1!501 J 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS GEORGE E. LUSK. JR EDWIN L LOWTHER. JR BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER January 27, 1993 Re: LRSD v. USDC No. The Honorable U.S. District U.S. District Little Rock, PCSSD 82-866 Susan Webber Wright Court Judge Courthouse Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: CHARLES L . SCHLUMBERGER SAMMY L. TAYLOR WALTER E. MAY ANNA HIRAI GIBSON GREGORY T JONES H KEITH MORRISON THOMAS C COURTWAY BETTINA E BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSPADDEN ROGER D ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY NATE COULTER JOHN D DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER MARK L PRYOR RAY F COX. JR HARRY S HURST JR TROY A PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS LEWALLEN JAMES M MOODY. JR KATHRYN A PRYOR J_ MARK DAVIS TAMMERA RANKIN HARRELSON KEVIN W. KENNEDY KAREN J GARNETT M TODD WOOD R. GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON JAN 2 8 \\993 omce of Desegregation tv101\\1VJ\u0026lt;1ng This letter addresses Mr. Holbert's request to be heard at the aerospace magnet hearing and the Court's order respecting same. The Pulaski County Special School District has no objection to an appearance by Mr. Holbert pursuant to whatever guidelines or restrictions, if any, the Court believes to be reasonable and appropriate. MSJ:drl cc: Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Stephen Jones 54161 Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Office of Desegregation Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS ~e:::rr Monitoring JACK, LYO \u0026amp; JONES, JP.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3472 (501)375-1122 TELECOPIER(501l 375-1027 January 26, 1993 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Aerospace Magnet Dear Judge Wright: Nashville Office #11 Music Circle Sou!h Nash\\11lle, Tennessee 37203 (615) 259-4664 Telecoper (615) 2594668 In response to your Order of January 25, the North Little Rock School District does not object to Mr. Richard N. Holbert making a presentation to the Court regarding the proposed Aerospace Education Center. While the District is opposing the construction of this school absent clear evidence of the LRSD's ability to afford it without compromising its desegregation obligations, we also think that community involvement in this process is important. Therefore, we would encourage the Court to grant Mr. Holbert's request. SWJ/tr cc: All Ms. Mr. Counsel Of Recora\"\" Ann Brown, ODM  James Smith, NLRSD Very truly yours, ~ti~~~ JAN 2 7 1993 Office of Desegregation Mor111oring ' ROACHELL and STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 Telefax: (501) 375-6186 January 26, 1992 Honorable Susa eber Wright VIA FAX #324-6096 District Judge HARD COPY TO FOLLOW Eastern D' trict of Arkansas 302 u .. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 pitol Avenue P Office Box 3316 72203 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al.\nUnited States District Court No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright: This letter will acknoweldge receipt of your facsimile transmission dated January 25, 1993. The Knight, et al. Intervenors have no objection to Mr. Holbert of the Aerospace Education Center being present and presenting the center's position on and involvment in the proposed establishment of an aerospace magnet school in conjuction with the Aerospace Education Center at the hearing currently set for February 1, 1993. By: RWR: jxb Sincerely yours, ROACHELL LAW FIRM Richard W. Roachell cc: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Samuel Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Holbert Attorney at Law 1501 Bond Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Larry D. Vaught Attorney at Law 201 South Broadway, Room #400 Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker, Esq. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Ann Brown/ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones Attorney at Law 425 West Capitol,.Ste 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 JAN-25-93 MON 17: 13 SUSt1N W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 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 W. KNIGHT, ET AL, 0 RD ER P. 02 JAN 2 5 1993 CA~~BRE!~sa~K Sy. '1/::'a / DEP, CLEAT\u0026lt; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The court has received a request from Mr. Richard N. Holbert, vice chairman of the Aerospace Education Center, to be present and present to the Court the Center's position on and involvement in the proposed establishment of an aerospace magnet school in conjunction with the Aerospace Education Center. (Letter attached,) Because the Court anticipates that such testimony might be informative, it is inclined to grant Mr. Holbert's request. The Court, however, desires the benefit of the parties' responses to the request. The parties, therefore, are directed to respond to the request no later than noon on Thursday, January 28, 1993, If necessary, the parties may file this response only by facsimile . . - -c\n.-{h. DATED this -\n...__\nday of January, 1993. UNITED STATES DISTR CT JUDGE JAN-25-93 MON J~:~- SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NL. :: \\3246576 P. 02 -~livnal A(hisory 8oard Vr. t dtlie Amlerwu Col. Walter J. Boyne LI. Gt:n. B~r:j:imiu O. navi~ Gen .. .\\Jn-..d r,. Han,en Ph,l\\\np 5 Weodnuf Honorary Choirmen Her.\u0026lt;chd H. Friday ~foyur 3harou M. Pri~sl V..,11rhm11 P. Rnckiilr Jac'.Gon T. Stephens IJttle Rock School Disttict Dr. Clorde MdGnley Berne! Sup.:riHt.:Jt.dr:N.I (\\nupr,i).!,l T .eader~hitl William H. lluwen Chcin.a Rich,,....J ~. lfollJerl ~'ka Chafrma\" ~f\n,ril'm R. RurtOJ\\ Pmidt11I J. Dan Baker J. W. \"Duddy\" Benalidd 0. \",V:.yne Benr,c=-tt Willi.1m C. Braca: llenr\nA. Broach Rep. !rm Hunter !Jrown I'. T:1ylor Bruwu David '.',1. Clark Fre\u0026lt;l K. [).\n,ragh, Jr. Denni: D, D:ivis lee Frazier Churbs H. l:fal'Der Sen. Jerry Jewell E. R.i K\u0026lt;tr,p John Lewt'llen D c)\\11'1 :t K. ~kLa.rty Suudy $. ,k,folh Frederick J. Menz Euwsinl M. Peuirk, Sr. R1.U1 Rsmtnel Ed\n:,ir K. Ri\u0026lt;hli,:k, Jr. James R Rodger:a J_.1u':i r':1l M. T\niilLic Ch\nirles M. Tilylor Jim Guy Tucker Stitc i\\dvisory Board Dr. Gerald P. C.irr Nath.a.n Gordon Rul:o r! :\\ .. Gonion Col. Albo1 Ha11 Dr. v.r,!\n::im R Pogue Liub L. Rau:s~y :vlljor General J.a.n,cs A l\u0026lt;yJn \\,!. \\f. '!'wig' Sorterudd.Jr. c,,1. Cl,.\nrl~d. W:i.x ~Fortune favors the prepared muid.  ~-- UCATION(ENTER January 22, 1993 Ho::orable Susan Webber Wright Uni-ed States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: As you know, the Arkansas Aviaticn Historical Society was app~oached in 1989 by chelate Eugene Keville to consider adding a ~agnet school to our plan for an Arkansas Museum of Aviation H:story, to be located at the Little Rock Regional Airport. Mr. Reville sowed many seeds as he sought to rebuild co~munity support for education. Some other partnership school ideas were floated, but the suitable partners failed to develop. However, despite an in~tial skepticism, and even bewilderment, we became the fertile ground upon which his idea germinated. Later, as we put plans for our museum on hold to allow for the creation o: ~his new institution, we became its greatest proponents, and of~en the keeper of the flame. As we have spoken with people throughout our community, state, and even the entire nation, we ~ave become convinced that th:s project represents even more than an exceptional school for the Little Rock Schoo_ District, our ccmmunity, and Arkansas. Tte Aerospace Education Center, as we have come to call the sy~thesis of the Magnet School and Museum, represents the best opportunity our community has to solve three distinct, yet ir.terrelated, problems: * Providing betcer educational 09portunities for our students, especially black a~j disadvantaged students who have had few opportunities to enter technology fields in past\nProviding a source of skilled workers in technology disciplines, and thus allowir.g the expansion of our existing aerospace or other technology companies here in Arkansas, and helping to attract new ones to provide future jobs. We call the educational plans which will meet these f:rst two needs \"Relevant Education\n\" and fi~ally Restoring the faith and trus~ (and therefore, support) of the entire cc~~unicy of central Arkansas in our system of pu~lic education. JAN-25-93 MON J~:~- SUSAN W WRIGHT Honorable s~san Webber Wright January 22, 1993 Page Two FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 While the diverse group of concerned citizens who have given of their time, ~oney, and prestige to make this dream a reality are not parties to t~e case before your Court, we feel that their voices should be represented when the hearing is held on February 1, 1993, seeking yo~r approval for the District to submit an application to the u. s. Department of Education for an $8 million Federal Magnet School Grant, which would fund the operations of Little Rock's aerospace magnet program for the first two years. Th~reft=e, we ask for an opportuni~y  to be present at the hearing, to briefly present to the Court our position on these issues, and to be available to clarify our involvement in this project wh~ci, we feel, is crucial to bringing about excellent and equitable educational opportunities for all of our children. Thank you for the opportunity to present you with this request. fu'JH / mj Respectfully yours, Richard N. Holbert Vice Chairman J1_erospace Education Center R CEIV D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAN 2 5 W~J J/.D -.:65 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of a revised and corrected volume titled Aerospace Technology Magnet Program together with a comparison document which shows the differences between the document filed today and the document filed Friday, January 22, 1993. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 / / _/ BY:~:::\n:::\n~~~~~~~~~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by HAND DELIVERY on this 25th day of January, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 -2- EDWARD L WRIGHT ( 1903-1977) ROBERT S LINDSEY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS ATTORNEY S AT LAW CHARLES L SCHLUMBERGER SAMMYE L TAYLOR WALTER E MAY (1 913-19911 RONALD A MAY IS.A.AC A SCOTT. JR JAMES M MOODY JOHN G LILE 2200 WORTHEN BANK BUILDING 2 0 0 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 ANNA HIRAI GIBSON GREGORY T JONES H KEITH MORRISON THOMAS C COURTWAY BETTINA E BROWNSTEIN GORDON S RATHER. JR. TERRY L MATHEWS DAVID M POWELL ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD. J R. PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS JR JOHN R TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 BRUCE R LINDSEY LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON. JR EDGAR J. TYLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T COLEMAN JIMMY W MITCHELL JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER, JR BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER Clerk of Court United States District Court Federal Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 Capitol Tower Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501l 371-0808 FAX (5011 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS GEORGE E LUSK. JR R JAN 2 o 1993 ALTER MCSPADDEN OGER D ROWE ANCY BELLHOUSE MAY NATE COULTER JOHN C DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIM BERLY WOOD TUCKER MARK L PRYOR RAY F COX JR HARRY S HURST. JR TROY A PRICE Office of Desegregation January 25, 1993 PATRICIA SIEVERS LEWALLEN . J.AMES M MOODY JR MonitOf~iilRvN A PRvoR J 'M1RK DAVIS Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway TAMMERA RANKIN HARRELSON KEVIN W KENNEDY KAREN J GARNETT M TODD WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. Richard Roache II Roachell Law Firm #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 210 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD No. 1, et al, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al and Katherine Knight, et al\nU.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866 Ladies and Gentlemen: Please find enclosed Exhibit A to the Observations, Questions and Concerns of the PCSSD Regarding the Proposed LRSD Aerospace Magnet School filed on January 22, 1993, which was advertantly left off by my office on that date. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. Sincerely, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Enclosure Aerospace Industries Association Contact: David H. Napier (202) 371-8563 1992 YEAR-END REVIEW AND FORECAST - AN ANALYSIS - SUMMARY In 1992, aerospace industry sales fell 4 percent to $134 billion, from last year's record of $139 billion, according to Aerospace Industries Association (AJA) estimates. Purchases of aerospace products and services by the Department of Defense fell $4 billion (or 7 percent) to $52 billion causing much of the decline. Sales of military aircraft and parts were down 9 percent (or $3.6 billion) to $35 billion. On a more positive note, the industry's sales to NASA and other federal agencies increased slightly-from $11.7 billion to $12 billion. Several areas of industry activity are projected to increase in current dollar terms only. Sales of civil aircraft and parts reached $37.9 billion-down after inflation. Sales of space-related products and services rose to $29 billion from $28. 7 billion, another decline in constant dollars. Both of these sectors experienced strong growth over the last decade or so. Their growth, at least for the near-term, has slowed. Aerospace industry net profits are expected to rise marginally-up $69 million to $2.6 billion in 1992. Nevertheless, profits in the last two years have been lower than at any time since 1982. Profits as a percentage of sales, assets, and equity improved for the aerospace industry as they did for all manufacturing industries combined. However, the industry's profitability as measured by these ratios indicates that aerospace companies continue to under perform the overall manufacturing averages. Aerospace industry investment in new plant and equipment should grow 10 percent to $4.8 billion by yearend 1992. In contrast, new plant and equipment expenditures are expected to fall 2.5 percent for durable goods manufacturers and 2.9 percent for all manufacturing industries combined. New aerospace orders were down 23 percent or $30 billion to $97 billion. The backlog of commercial jet transport aircraft fell $8 billion to $101 billion in the first nine months of 1992. A fall-off in orders from domestic customers accounted for $5 billion of the decline. For the year, the backlog of unfilled orders for all aerospace products and services is expected to fall $25 billion (or 11 percent) to $210 billion. The industry's net trade surplus is projected to grow slightly to $31 billion. Exports topped $44 billion. Both are up in current dollarterms only. Imports grew in real terms to exceed $13 billion. Employment fell by 117,000 in 1992 to 1,063,000-a 10 percent decline. None of the industry sectors added jobs in 1992. Employment had the largest percentage drop ( down 12 percent or 31 ,000) in the missiles and space sector. In terms of the actual number of jobs, civil aircraft-related employment declined the mostdown 38,000. An additional 26,000 workers lost jobs in 1992 in the military aircraft sector following a year in which 45,000 positions had been cut. Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1250 Eye Street. NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 371-8400 (continued next page) SUMMARY continued Outlook for 1993 AIA projects sales will decline further, to $126 billion, in 1993. Aircraft and parts sales are expected to account for 90 percent of 1993 's sales decline\nmilitary sales should fall $3 billion and civil sales, $3.6 billion. Although failing to keep pace with inflation, space-related sales should increase to $29 billion in 1993. The number of civil aircraft produced is expected to rise due to higher projected helicopter shipments, but the value of shipments will fall nearly $3 billion (9 percent from 1992 's record) to $27 billion. Production of commercial jet transports is projected to decline by 103 aircraft with sales declining 10 percent to $25 billion. Current company forecasts indicate the aerospace work force will shrink an additional 4 percent or 47,000 to 1,016,000 next year. As in 1992, employment in each industry sector, and in all occupational classifications, is expected to decline. GOVERNMENT PURCHASES AIA forecasts show that sales of aerospace products and services to the U.S. government fell significantly in 1992. Government purchases fell due to a 7 percent or $4 billion decline in sales to the Department of Defense (DoD). Accounting for the majority of DoD's decline in purchases to $51.8 billion, military aircraft sales fell 9 percent in 1992 or $3.6 billion to $34.9 billion. Missile sales also fell in 1992, but only by 1 percent to $10.8 billion after plummeting 23 percent in 1991. Aerospace sales to NASA and other civil agencies rose slightly (up 3 percent) in 1992 to a record $12 billion. Total sales of space-related products and services rose $0.3 billion to $29 billion. Although DoD space purchases (which include RDT\u0026amp;E expenditures) declined in magnitude, space-related products and services represented a larger share of DoD outlays. CIVIL AIRCRAFT SALES Civil aircraft worth $29.7 billion were shipped in 1992-up from $29 billion. Commercial jet transports accounted for $28 billion, or 94 percent of total shipments value. Transport sales rose $1 billion to $27 .8 billion despite 31 fewer deliveries than in 1991. The general aviation and civil helicopter sectors did not perform as well. General aviation billings fell nearly $0.2 billion (or 10 percent) to $1.8 billion. In 1991, general aviation production fell to a post-World War II low of 1,021 aircraft. In 1992, production dropped again-to 880-as the industry continues to be affected by poor economic conditions, high taxes, and the high cost of product liability insurance. Sales of U.S. -manufactured civil helicopters fell to $146 million, the lowest level since 1973. Production dropped by 234 to 337 in 1992. While the weak economy hurt shipments in all three civil aircraft sectors, it manifested itself most significantly in lower net new orders. SHIPMENTS, ORDERS, AND BACKLOG Industry shipments are expected to fall $8.2 billion (or 6 percent) to $121.5 billion in 1992. New orders for aerospace products and services also declined-down 23 percent or $29.5 billion to $96.7 billion. The backlog of work for manufacturers fell nearly $25 billion to $210 billion. Air carriers continued to struggle with financial losses this year and, consequently, they have delayed orders for new aircraft and cancelled some existing firm orders. Figures through the third quarter of 1992 show the backlog of unfilled transport orders fell $7.9 billion to $101 billion. The backlog of unfilled orders placed by U.S. customers fell 14 percent during this period. Transports on back order for eventual delivery to foreign customers also fell during 1992, but at a slower rate. The foreign component of the total commercial transport backlog rose in terms of number of aircraft (60 percent) and value (69 percent). Foreign orders worth $70 billion accounted for 922 (of the total 1,535) aircraft on order. 2 FOREIGN TRADE Exports continue to be a bright spot for the industry but growth slowed in 1992. Aerospace exports outpaced imports in 1992 by $31 billion\nyet total exports rose only $0.7 billion to $44.5 billiort The net surplus was also up just $0.7 billien. Imports grew in real terms, up $0.6 billion to $13.6 billion. Civil aerospace exports increased $0.5 billion to $36 billion, with complete aircraft exports rising 5 percent and accounting for more than $23 billion of the total. Aircraft and engine parts exports, however, fell 4 percent to $10.5 billion. Military aerospace exports rose slightly (2 percent) to $8.4 billion. Overseas shipments in the largest military export sector, aircraft and engine parts, fell $0.5 billion\nbut gains in complete aircraft, missiles, and engine exports pushed total military exports higher. In l 9'J2, imports of civil aircraft grew $0.3 billion to $3.8 billion-both commercial transport and general aviation imports topped $1.5 billion. Imports of aircraft engines (military and civil combined) grew to $2.6 billion from $2.4 billion. Parts imports increased from $7.1 billion to $7.2 billion. EMPLOYMENT Aerospace employment fell by 117,000 to 1,063,000 in 1992 after declining 90,000 the previous year. From 1989 when industry employment peaked, to year-end 1992, employment declined by 268,000 jobs, or 20 percent In l 9'J2, no sector of the industry was spared from employment cuts. 11le civil aircraft sector experienced the largest reduction, cutting its work force by 38,000 (or 11 percent) to 296,000\nthe previous year manufacturers added 13,000 workers. Employment in the military aircraft sector fell 26,000 to 299,000 in 1992 following a 45,000 cut in the work force in 1991. Missiles and space employment was down 31,000 to 220,000 in 1992\nemployment in \"other related\" products declined 22,000 to 248,000. Employment fell 11 percent for both production and \"other\" workers (administrative personnel). There were 344,000 (or 42,000 fewer) production workers by year-end 1992-the most sizable decline of any occupational category. Administrative employment fell 24,000 to 204,000. Since total aerospace employment peaked in 1989, employment of production workers has fallen 22 percent and administrative employment has declined 29 percent. The number of scientists and engineers employed in the industry fell by 16,000 in 1992\nbut employment has fallen least for these highly skilled workers on a percentage basis-8 percent in 1992 and 5 percent since 1989. (Employment of !icientists and engineers increased in 1990). Jobs for technicians (down 19 percent since 1989) declined by 5,000 to 55,000 in 1992. PROFITS Net profit for aerospa,ce companies grew $69 million to $2.6 billion or 2 percent of sales in 1992. However, net profit in both 1991 and 19'J2 were significantly reduced compared to prior years because of extraordinarily large non-operating expenses. The two primary causes are restructuring charges related to defense downsizing, and initial implementation of a Financial Accounting Standards Board requirement to account for costs of employee post-retirement benefits other than pensions. All U.S. corporations are potentially affected by FAS 106, which has manifested itself as a balance sheet adjustment by increasing liabilities and reducing equity\nit has affected income statements by lowering net profits. Aerospace industry profits as a percent of sales (2 percent) are low relative to the average for all U.S. manufacturing industries (4 percent). Return on assets for all manufacturing industries grew to 4.2 percent compared to 2.1 percent for aerospace. Return on equity for all U.S. manufacturing was also higher at 10.3 percent compared to 6.4 percent for aerospace. 3 PLANT AND EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURES Invesnnent in new plant and equipment by aerospace corporations is forecast to grow by $0.7 billion to $4.8 billion in 1992, according to the Bureau of the Census. This figure may be misleading, however, since it measures new invesunenh- but fails to include disinvesnnent such as plant closings and divestitures. The aerospace industry is continuing invesnnent, but it is-focused on efficient operations in a period of declining sales. For comparison, expenditures on new plant and equipment by durable goods manufacturers fell $1.9 billion to $76 billion in 1992 and all manufacturing industries combined expect to reduce new plant and equipment expenditures from $183 billion to $177.4 billion. OUTLOOK FOR 1993 AIA projects industry sales will decline in 1993 for the second year in a row. Sales will fall $7.5 billion or 6 percent to $126.5 billion. As in 1992, NASA and other civil government agencies are expected to be the industry's steadiest customers\ntheir purchases from aerospace companies will increase $0.4 billion to $12.4 billion. Sales to the DoD are expected to decline 10 percent or $5 billion to $46 billion in 1993. Missile sales (which include apportioned RDT\u0026amp;E) will fall $0.7 billion to $10.1 billion. The greater share (90 percent) of the overall sales decline will result from a fall-off in aircraft and parts sales-off 9 percent to $66 billion. Military aircraft and parts sales are projected to fall $3 billion to $32 billion while civil aircraft and parts sales will decline $4 billion to $34 billion next year. Commercial transport manufacturers expect to deliver 103 fewer aircraft in 1993. Transport shipments are projected at 455 aircraft worth $25 billion-a 10 percent decline in value from 1992. Helicopter manufacturers report plans to produce 501 U.S.-made helicopters (up 164 from 1992) worth $164 million. Aerospace companies currently project employment will fall 4 percent in 1993 to 1,016,000--\u0026lt;lown 47,000. Although no industry sector nor employment classification will grow, the civil aircraft sector will experience the fewest and the smallest share of job cuts (2 percent or 5,000 employees) to 291,000. \"Related\" employment (which also includes non-aerospace workers) is currently projected to fall 7 percent (or 18,000) to 230,000. The military aircraft sector is expected to lose an additional 14,000 jobs in 1993. Employment of technicians and production workers is forecast to fall more than 5 percent to 52,000 (down 3,000) and 325,000 (down 19,000), respectively. Employment of scientists and engineers should decline at a slower rate (3 percent), but still 6,000 positions will be cut. Employment of other workers (administrative personnel) will decline to 197,000 (down 3 percent) by year-end 1993. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FJilL2,-) EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS u.s.o1\n,rn,crcL~,l WESTERN DIVISION EASTERNO,SIBIC,A~~, .. ~a- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ' ' ' I ,-, -, vn,\\,..\n...., 1 .......... ..J DEFENDANTS JAN 2 6 199.s Office Of Do- ~.,e9ri:gation ,\\fa , ~ . POSITION STATEMENT OF THE NLRSD REGARDING n,t,.,ri,,9 =-c==.=a.===-=\"'-'=-====c.=...-=c......=~==~-==~=~= PROPOSED LRSD AEROSPACE MAGNET SCHOOL To avoid redundancy, the North Little Rock School District has reviewed the Observations, Questions and Concerns of the PCSSD Regarding the Proposed LRSD Aerospace Magnet School and wishes to state that it shares those same concerns. A special concern to the NLRSD is the question of whether the LRSD can reasonably fund the maintenance and operations of an aerospace magnet school, particularly beyond any grant that might be awarded. The NLRSD remains committed to the desegregation plans negotiated among the parties and adopted by the Court. The District firmly believes, as does the Court, that these plans are a blueprint for the achievement of unitary status by the NLRSD and the other districts. It is the long-established position of the NLRSD that it will take all steps necessary to comply with its obligations under the plans. By the same token, it will oppose any actions which would potentially undermine full compliance with those plans. In the present case, the Court approved desegregation plans do not call for an aerospace magnet school in the LRSD nor do they call for an additional high school magnet. Thus, while the plans do not prohibit such a magnet school, its creation does not further compliance with those plans. On the other hand, the fiscal integrity of the LRSD is essential to the implementation of its obligations under the desegregation plans. If the LRSD lacks adequate funding, then its ability to implement the numerous obligations it has assumed will be compromised. For instance, the LRSD has accepted a responsibility to \"double fund\" the incentive schools even after the cessation of payments from the State under the settlement. And this is only one of many commitments the LRSD has made which will require substantial resources to satisfy. With respect to the proposed aerospace magnet, it has been repeatedly observed that the LRSD lacks the funds necessary to build, operate and maintain such a school over time. If it were nonetheless to assume this responsibility in addition to those which it has under the desegregation plans, it would raise a serious question regarding the LRSD's capacity to honor its obligations under the plans, such as \"double funding\" of incentive schools. Frankly, for the LRSD to put itself in such a position would border on the reckless and might be viewed in hindsight as an intentional act undermining its desegregation 2 obligations. In light of the uncertainty regarding the LRSD's ability to fund an aerospace magnet school, the NLRSD must oppose the creation of such a school until it can be clearly and convincingly established that the LRSD has, first, the funds necessary to satisfy all its obligations under the desegregation plans and, second, the additional funds necessary to build, operate and maintain an aerospace magnet without undermining its desegregation obligations under the plans. January 25, 1993 Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 By: ~~u.~ st'epnw. Jones 8083 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that I have this 25th day of January, 1993, sent one copy of the foregoing, via United States mail, postage pre-paid, to the following: Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring JENNINGS Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esq. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 P:\\DOC\\SWJ\\NLRSD\\DESEGREG\\P-0001-2.229 M. Samuel Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; 2000 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL LAW FIRM First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas FILED -A U.S. DISTRICT COURT - STEr:\n~J DISTRICT A\"ll\u0026lt;.4NS.o\\~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ,,\\:Jn ~ .on\n\\otl ij JAN 2 9 1993 CARL)j . b~(\nU=RK Sy:fi~\u0026amp;./'~ DEP. Clf:AK I oeso\n(e()\"- Q\\\\ice 0 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 W. KNIGHT, ET AL. 0 RD ER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Even though the Little Rock School District Board of Directors voted not to seek approval of a federal grant for the establishment of an aerospace magnet school, the Court intends to hold the hearing scheduled for Monday, February 1, in order to address other issues of concern to the Court. The Court will discuss the LRSD's \"Special Study, Junior High Capacities and Projections, January, 1993\" which the district filed on January 22, 1993 in response to the Court's Orders of May 1, 1992, and December 30, 1992. The Court also expects the parties to be present to respond to questions about the LRSD's progress in changing its budgeting process according to commitments made in its 1992-93 Operating Budget, dated July 23, 1992, and the \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97,\" dated July 30, 1992. The Court woul\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_423","title":"Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 plan)","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 plan)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/423"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["82 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nProvisions of Plans or Orders the LRSD Has Failed to Fulfill Board Responsibilities The LRSD Board of Directors has committed to the following goals which it has failed to fulfill, according to the introductory section of the 1992 plan, page 1.  The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm- referenced and criterion referenced tests.  Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation.  The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. In addition, under the title \"Leadership\" on pages 2-3 of the 1992 plan, the board and superintendent have failed to assert leadership in the following areas.  Clearly delineating the districts desegregation mission to the staff and the community.  Utilizing the desegregation mission as a guide for the development of policies and setting expectations for the superintendent to implement the policies.  Adopting a budget which will provide the resources necessary for an effective, desegregated school system. Making budgetary decisions consistent with district desegregation policies in terms of buildings, staff, materials, and equipment.  The conduct of an annual self-evaluation of their commitment to a quality desegregated education. Incentive Schools  Failure to reserve kindergarten and four-year-old program seats for white students and engage in documented, sustained, and vigorous recruitment to attract those students, (plan page 140, May 1992 order, page 28).  Program specialists have not been hired at all incentive schools (May 1992 order, page 41).  A staffing needs assessment has not been administered and analyzed (May 1992 order, page 41).  Themes have not been incorporated into the core curriculum at each school (May 1992 order, page 42). Little significant progress has been made toward desegregation of the incentive schools, with the exception of Rockefeller (1992 plan, page 149). Lack of coordinated recruitment and failure to implement aU plan recruitment activities (i.e., individual brochures, marketing blitz) (1992 plan, pages 215-217).  The Parent Council has not begun to monitor or report on all activities related to the incentive school program (1992 plan, page 151). Equity Issues  Failure to show significant progress in the reduction of the achievement disparity between black and white students (1992 plan, page 1, 1989 Settlement Agreement, page 26).  Black students (particularly black males) continue to be disciplined at a rate disproportionate to their percentage of the student population (1992 plan, pages 28, 33-34).  Failure to effectively address the overrepresentation of black students (particularly black males) in special education (1992 plan, page 111). Recruitment  The district has not developed a Strategic Recruitment Plan pursuant to the ODM Incentive School Recommendations (page 4) and the LRSD Marketing Plan.  The Recruitment Tracking System, first requested during the March 1991 Construction Hearing, has not been implemented. Additional Items from the May 1992 Order  A plan has not been submitted describing the extended activities designed to address the needs of Washington Magnet School attendance zone students (May 1992 order, page 38).tiP- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Ofj LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM SITES The plaintiff. Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") or (\"District\"), for its Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites for the 1994-95 school year, states: 1. Pursuant to the court-approved desegregation plan, the LRSD agreed to implement four-year old programs in all schools in the LRSD by the 1993-94 school year. 2. The LRSD later proposed certain modifications to the 1989 settlement plans, which modifications were heard by this Court. 3. Among the modifications proposed was the request that the Court accept the District's long-range implementation plan which was filed with the Court on October 1, 1991. Although the Court did not accept the long-range implementation plan as submitted, the Court did release the LRSD from the requirement to place a four- year old program in every elementary school in the District. Ind-ifip4 . By Order dated May 1, 1992, this Court accepted the LRSD's proposal that four-year old programs be placed in locations which would best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance in the District. Further, the Court permitted the District to complete implementation of the program by the 1994-95 school year. 5. In accepting the LRSD's proposed modifications, the Court continued the requirement that the four-year old programs developed by the District had to accommodate the number of children which equalled or exceeded the number which would have been accommodated had all schools in the District had a four-year old program as originally planned. 6. The LRSD added additional four-year old programs as required during the 1993-94 school year. 7. Further, the LRSD has now completed its review and has determined the number of classes necessary to accommodate the number of children which would have been accommodated had programs been placed at all elementary schools in the District. The LRSD has also determined those locations it believes will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate listing of the sites selected by the LRSD to complete its obligations for four-year programs during the 1994-95 school year in accordance with the Order dated May 1, 1992. The sites reflected are incorporated herein by reference. lrd-*pp 29. The LRSD is now prepared to take those steps necessary to implement the hereindescribed expansion of the four-year old program for the 1994-95 school year. However, the LRSD would request expedited consideration so that it may begin the necessary preparatory arrangements. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Little Rock School District, moves this Court for an Order approving the locations, number of classes and other terms as outlined in the attached implementation proposal\nit requests that it be awarded its costs. expenses, attorney fees incurred herein and all other legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 Ind'tpp 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; 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 Jerry L. Malone Ind-tpp 4 EXHIBIT 1 LRSD'S 1994-95 FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM SITE SELECTIONS Pursuant to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, as amended by subsequent court orders, the LRSD must accommodate in four-year old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been accommodated if all schools in the District had a four-year old program At the time the commitment was made, the LRSD had 36 elementary schools. The number of children to be served was computed by using a maximum capacity of 20 students per class. This yielded 720 students as the total number to be served. In accordance with the May 1, 1992 Order of this Court and North Central accreditation standards, the number of students per class during the 1993-94 year was based on the standard of 18 students per classroom. By virtue of this standard, the LRSD had capacity to serve 576 students in its 32 four-year old classes. Accordingly, the LRSD must add eight (8) four-year old classes during the 1994-95 year to have the capacity to serve the additional 144 children necessary to achieve the 720 children capacity as originally computed. To select the eight (8) sites, the LRSD considered the following criteria: 1. Schools which are difficult to desegregate and are racially imbalanced. Irad-tpp 52 . Areas which have a very high concentration of low income families, Based on its review, the LRSD selected the following elementary school sites: 1. Badgett - One additional class can be added by using space that is available within the building. 2. Bale - One additional class can be added by using space that is available within the building through the reassignment of classroom space (classroom space currently being used for physical education on rainy days and for psychological testing). 3. Fair Park One additional class can be added by installing a trailer, which would free up a classroom within the building. 4. Geyer Springs One additional class can be added by offering only two (2) kindergarten classes. Although a third kindergarten class was added after the start of the 1993-94 school year, the majority of the students assigned to that class were from outside the schools' attendance zones. Accordingly, other assignments consistent with the desegregation plan should be available in the event non-attendance zone kindergarten students need to be accommodated during the 1994-95 school year. 5. Mabelvale - One additional class can be added by using a room being made available due to matriculating seventh grade students. 6. Watson - One additional class can be added by using space within the building obtained through the sharing of space by the Irad-app 6Chapter I teacher (there three (3) days a week) and the G/T teacher (there two and one-half (2/1/2) days a week). 7. Woodruff - One additional class can be added by using space available within the building. 8. Stephens - One additional class can be added by using space within the building. Ind-app 7RECSa ^7^ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Cffico of Dcsogr LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affirmed .............................................. 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School 38 Conclusion 50 1STATEMENT OF THE CASE I. THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT ISSUE. A. Previous LRSD Election Zones. The district court approved seven single-member zones for the election of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) Board of Directors on December 18, 1986. Appellant's App. p. 50. Before that time, LRSD board members were elected in at-large elections. Arkansas law requires, however, that school districts with student populations in excess of 24,000 elect board members from single- member zones. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607 (Michie 1991). Pursuant to previous orders of this Court and the district court. LRSD annexed territory of the Pulaski County Special School District which increased LRSD's student population above 24,000 and was required by state law to establish single-member zones. The LRSD zone plan approved by the district court had the following populations and racial compositions according to the 1980 census: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50% black\nZone 2 - 25,295 petal population\n68.90% black\nZone 3 - 25,210 total population\nZone 4 - 24,844 total population\n7.83% black\n2.96% black\nZone 5 - 25,016 total population\n18.30% black\nZone 6 - 25,107 total population\n17.30% black\nZone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10% black. 1The district court found that the zone plan \"comports with the one- man one-vote principle required by the Constitution  . , [and is] in compliance with the mandate of Amended  2 of the Voting Rights Act (codified as 42 U.S.C.  1973) and does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote.\" Appellant's App., p. 50-51. The district court's December 18, 1986, order approving the LRSD zone plan was not appealed. The Charles Plaintiffs, as members of the class represented by the Joshua Intervenors, were parties to the case when the zones were established. LRSD App., p. 1. In fact, Mr. Charles was substituted as a named plaintiff when he became president of the Little Rock Chapter of the NAACP. LRSD B. The PCBE Plan. App., p. 4. The Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\") plan for LRSD election zones was prepared by Metroplan, a non-profit corporation whose members are local governmental entities in the central Arkansas area. LRSD App., p. 41. Metroplan was asked to determine whether the previous LRSD election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man, one-vote\" principle according to 1990 census data and, if so, to prepare alternative proposals for rezoning LRSD in compliance with federal law. LRSD App., p. 42. Jim McKenzie, the Executive Director of Metroplan, was primarily responsible for preparing the proposals. LRSD App., pp. 76-77. Before preparation of alternative proposals for submission to PCBE, Mr. McKenzie contacted Jim Lynch, who became the Charles Plaintiffs' expert in this case, concerning criteria which should 2be considered in preparing election zones. Lynch provided McKenzie a written list of five criteria\n(1) adhere to the one-man, one- vote doctrine\n(2) avoid diluting minority political expression\n(3) districts ought to be compact and contiguous\n(4) district boundaries should be recognizable\nand, (5) use existing political boundaries. LRSD App., pp. 9, 76-77. McKenzie followed Lynch's criteria in developing four alternative proposals for rezoning the Little Rock School District. LRSD App., pp. 77-80. McKenzie was aware of the December 18, 1986, order stating that the previous LRSD election zones were in compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. LRSD App., p. 40. II. THE DESEGREGATION PLAN MODIFICATION ISSUE The parties to this case are in the process of implementing desegregation plans agreed upon in 1989 and approved by this Court in 1990.* The Interdistrict and LRSD Desegregation Plans call for eight racially isolated incentive schools but do not require that each incentive school must remain open in perpetuity. Instead, a purpose of those plans is to move LRSD black students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools: 'There are four desegregation plans, district and an Interdistrict Plan. one for each school 1991. The plans were modified in For a history of the development of the desegregation plans and the 1989 settlement agreement, see Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). 3\"As new interdistrict schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school . . II LRSD App. , p. 3 31. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4. The planned effort to move students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools is illustrated by the parties' agreement about Stephens school. Stephens is one of the eight incentive schools established under the 1989 plans. LRSD App., pp. 331, 3 34. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. The plans require the parties to quickly convert Stephens from an incentive school to an interdistrict school and to close \"[t]he old Stephens school building.\" LRSD App., pp. 332, 334. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 10\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. Washington Elementary School provides another example of the transition from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The 1989 desegregation plans list Washington among the eight incentive schools. (8 J.D.R. 1722\n10 J.D.R. 2288), but the parties later agreed that Washington would become an Interdistrict Magnet School.^ 2 The district court rejected the settlement plans on June 27, 1989 and, during the pendency of the appeals of that order, approved a substitute plan known as the Tri-District Plan (Docket #1328). The Tri-District Plan was implemented for the 1990-91 #1328) . school year, and Washington operated under that plan as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school. Following this Court's approval of the 1989 settlement plans, the parties agreed that Washington should continue to operate as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school rather that resume operation as racially isolated incentive school. - - as Docket #1434. a 4The plans and agreements of the parties to date will reduce the number of incentive schools from eight to six by moving incentive school students to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The assignment of Ish attendance zone students to King Interdistrict School is the first movement of students from a segregated to an integrated school which has been opposed by any party. LRSD committed to build a new King Interdistrict School \"in downtown Little Rock ... in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" LRSD App., P. 334 . LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. That area is populated primarily by students who are enrolled or are entitled to be enrolled in an incentive school. The specific site within that area was approved by the district court on March 17, 1992 (LRSD App., p. 227. Docket #1576) and no appeal was taken from that order. Each LRSD school. including each incentive school. has an attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 310-313. The zone established for each new elementary school required by the desegregation plans must be superimposed upon the existing zone plan and will necessarily ^Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors told the district court: \"I'm suggesting that integration by itself is just unacceptable to black people at this time. It has to be something that is much more substantive than merely being in the same environment with white students.\" LRSD App., p. 292. 5usurp some or all of the attendance zone of one or more of the existing elementary schools. LRSD hired Dr. Leonard Thalmueller to design an attendance zone for King Interdistrict School. LRSD App. , p. 301. Dr. Thalmueller is a former employee of LRSD who has been involved in the preparation of LRSD attendance zones for seventeen years (LRSD App., p. 301) and who prepared the attendance zones for the 1989 LRSD Desegregation Plan. (LRSD App., p. 283). In drawing the King attendance zone, Thalmueller engaged in an effort \"to minimize the impact of the attendance zone on other students in the district. try to keep the domino effect down to the smallest possible factor . . [and] to reduce busing to whatever extent we could\". LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller also tried to draw the King zones so that students whose assignments were changed as a result of the establishment of that zone would not have to endure a second change of assignment when zones were later established for the Stephens Interdistrict School. LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller prepared three plans. reviewed them with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and presented them to LRSD. LRSD App., pp. 303-304. In the plan adopted by the LRSD Board of Education, Dr. Thalmueller placed the entire Ish zone, consisting of six zone blocks, in the King attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 335-336. The only schools whose attendance zones were changedby the Thalmueller plan are Ish, Jefferson, Rightsell and Washington. LRSD App., pp. 335, 336. 6One hundred eighty-three students were enrolled at Ish for the 1992-93 school year. Ninety of those students were from outside the Ish attendance zone. LRSD App. , p. 308. There were 229 students in the Ish attendance zone. June 8, 1993 LRSD App., p. 307. Only 93 of those students attended Ish school. LRSD App., p. 307. The others attended schools throughout LRSD. Dr. Thalmueller and LRSD Associate Superintendent Marie Parker prepared a report on the impact of the King attendance zone (LRSD App., p. 321) which was presented to the LRSD board, shared with all counsel on March 12, 1993 (LRSD App., p. 325) and presented to the District Court on June 8, 1993. The report describes the following impact upon Ish: \"Ish will remain open unless fewer than one hundred students choose Ish, in which case all Ish students will be assigned to King, and Little Rock School District will work with the Ish community to determine an appropriate use for the Ish building.\" LRSD App., p. 321. Four community meetings, including one at Ish school, were held in March, April and May 1993 \"to gather information from prospective parents and patrons to be used in consideration of attendance zones and theme selection for Martin Luther King, Jr. school\". LRSD App., p. 337. Surveys were mailed to all families affected by the location of the proposed attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 320. The King attendance zone was approved by the LRSD Board of Directors on April 22, 1993. On May 5, 1993 LRSD moved for approval of the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 231. Docket #1820. Joshua opposed LRSD's motion. LRSD App., p. 235. Docket #1825. The North Little Rock 7School District, the Pulaski County Special School District and the Knight Intervenors did not oppose the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 305. The district court conducted hearings on June 8 and 9, 1993 and approved the King attendance zone as drawn by Dr. Thalmueller, but not LRSD's plan for determining whether Ish should be closed. LRSD App., pp. 285-291. The court preferred Thalmueller's plan to the ideas presented by Dr. James Jennings, another former LRSD employee, because Thalmueller's plan would impact fewer attendance zones and because his plan \"left room for doubt\" concerning the 4 future location of the Stephens site. The district court announced that it would order that Ish remain open if one hundred or more students chose to attend Ish from among the students within the Ish attendance zone whether or not presently enrolled at Ish (229 students (LRSD App., p. 307)) and all students attending Ish whether or not residing within the Ish attendance zone (90 students (LRSD App., p. 308)) LRSD App., pp. 286-287. Dr. Jennings was subpoenaed only a few days before the hearing and had not previously reviewed Thalmueller's plan. During his previous employment with LRSD, Jennings had prepared a plan to create attendance zones for King and Stephens together. p. 279. LRSD App., Jennings' testimony consisted of his recollection of the plan he had previously prepared on the assumption that King and Stephens zones would be established at the same time. and his reaction to Thalmueller' s plan which he had seen for the first time the day before. LRSD App., pp. 281-283. Jennings' proposals would impact the attendance zones of thirteen schools. 280. LRSD App. , p. Jennings worked with Thalmueller to prepare the attendance zones contained in the 1989 desegregation plan (LRSD App., p. 283) and considers Thalmueller competent to prepare attendance plans (LRSD App., 284). zone 8The court's bench ruling was followed closely by a written order (Docket #1848) which established the following process by which LRSD could attempt to \"meet its burden of recruiting students to populate the King Interdistrict School\" from among those attending Ish or residing in the Ish attendance zone and \"proving that fewer than 100\" of those students wished to attend Ish: \"Within ten days from June 9, 1993 the LRSD must submit to the Court its proposed survey of these students along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results This plan must include a time schedule with deadline dates for implementing each step of the survey process, including the date by which the district will determine whether Ish is to remain open or to close. II June 11, 1993 Order, Docket #1848. The court told Joshua twice from the bench (LRSD App., pp. 293-300) and again in its written order that Joshua would \"have 5 days to file their response and objections to LRSD's survey and plan\". June 11, 1993 Order, p.3 LRSD filed on June 21, 1993 its proposed survey of potential Ish students and its plan for implementing the survey results^. LRSD proposed \"to send the form letter, the King and Ish fact sheets, and the School Selection Form to the parents of all students described in the court's June 11, 1993 Order in accordance with the attached time line for implementing King/Ish Survey Process. I LRSD App. , p. 24 0. No one objected to the process LRSD's filing showed exactly how the survey process would be  It included a time line, a form letter to parents of potential Ish students, fact sheets on both King and Ish Schools which would be sent to potential Ish students and a school implemented. selection form. LRSD App., p. 240. 5 9proposed by LRSD. The district court approved the process on June 30, 1993. Docket No. 1873. LRSD engaged in an extensive effort to inform potential Ish students about King and Ish Schools and to maximize the response to its King/Ish survey. Two hundred sixty survey forms were mailed, 173 were returned and 82 students requested Ish School. LRSD App., p. 271-272. Based upon the results of the survey, LRSD moved on July 19, 1993 to close Ish School. LRSD App., p. 268. Docket No. 1908. Joshua opposed LRSD's status report about the survey process (LRSD App., p. 265) and LRSD's Motion to close Ish School (Docket No. 1918). On August 2, 1993, the district court granted LRSD's Motion to close Ish School. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C.  1973, IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. The Charles Plaintiffs contend that the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973. In order to establish a violation of Section 2, the Charles Plaintiff were required to establishthe LRSD conducted a series of community meetings, including two at Ish School. Fliers announcing the community meetings delivered door to door and distributed to local churches. were Ish patrons conducted a door to door campaign encouraging parents to return the survey forms. The LRSD student assignment office telephoned parents who were sent survey forms and encouraged them to complete and return the forms. LRSD App., pp. 271-272. 10following four elements: (1) that blacks are sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) that blacks are politically cohesive\n(3) that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat blacks' preferred candidate\nand, (4) that based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nThornburg v. Ginqles. 478 U.S. 25, 50- 51 (1986) . The district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish each of the above elements. The PCBE plan contains two majority black zones. Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs were reguired to prove that three majority black zones can be created. In addition, the majority black zones must have at least a 65% black majority to enable blacks to elect their preferred candidate. Smith V. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988). Each of the three majority black zones in the plan advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs has a majority black population of less than 65%. As a result, the district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that three majority black LRSD zones with a 65% black majority population can be created. The Charles Plaintiffs attempted to establish black political cohesiveness through statistical proof of the correlation coefficient comparing the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate. However, the 11correlation coefficient does not establish the percentage of black support for black candidates. The Charles Plaintiffs did not undertake the additional statistical analysis necessary to establish black political cohesiveness, and therefore, the district court held that they had failed to establish this element. The Charles Plaintiffs' attempt to establish white bloc voting was infected with the same statistical flaw. In addition. persistent proportional representation of blacks on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible tl for the Charles Plaintiff to establish white bloc voting. Nash V. Blunt, 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992). Evidence of elections between white and black candidates demonstrates that white voters do not usually vote as a block to defeat the blacks' preferred candidate. Accordingly, the district could found that LRSD did not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. Finally, the district court held that, based on a totality of the circumstances, the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice under the PCBE plan than they had under the previous zone plan which had been approved by the district court in 1986. The Charles Plaintiffs' expert testified that the opportunity of blacks is the same under the PCBE plan and under the previous court approved plan. The findings of the district court are not clearly erroneous and should be affirmed. 12A. ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ACT, 42 U.S.C. SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  1973, A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND Introduction. No plan for single-member election zones is immune from challenge under the Voting Rights Act. If a plan concentrates minorities into super-majority zones. the plan may be said to dilute minority voting strength through \"packing.\" If a plan does not create the maximum number of minority black zones, it may be said to dilute minority voting strength through dispersion of minority voters. Compare Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196 (E.D.Ark. 1989), and Jeffers v. Tucker. 839 F.Supp. 612 (E.D.Ark. 1993) . PCBE adopted a Metroplan proposal for LRSD election zones which has two majority black zones. The Charles Plaintiffs advocate racial gerrymandering of LRSD election zones to create a third majority black zone. In discussing the racial gerrymandering of election zones, the Supreme Court has stated: Racial classifications of lasting harm to our society. any sort pose the risk of They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. The Charles Plaintiffs argued before the district court that the PCBE plan violated the Voting Rights Act due to \"packing.\" this appeal, the Charles Plaintiffs raise for the first time argument based on the dispersion of black voters. In an PCBE adopted Metroplan proposal No. 4. 13Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. Racial gerrymandering even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions\nit threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer mattersa goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments embody. and to which the Nation continues to aspire. It is for these reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny. Shaw V. Reno, 509 U.S. 113 S.Ct. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 535 (1993). B. Discussion. 1. Liability Under Section 2 Generally. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was tl designed by Congress to banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century.\" South Carolina v. Katzenbach. 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966). As amended in 1982, Section 2 of the Act provides that no state may impose a standard, practice or procedure \"which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . II 42 U.S.C.  1973(a) (Supp. 1993). Section 2 further states: A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if. the circumstances, based on the totality of it is shown that political processes leading to nomination the or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to office political subdivision is which in one the State or circumstance may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to 14have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion population. in the 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993) (emphasis in original). In order to prevail on a Section 2 claim, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. Ill S.Ct. 2354, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991), The Supreme Court has stated that a minority group challenging single-member election zones under Section 2 must establish three \"necessary preconditions\": First, that [the minority group] is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member If it is not, as would be the district. case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. [citations omitted]. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multi-member If the electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests, [citations omitted]. Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable  in the absence of special circumstances, a minority candidate running such it as unopposed . . . usually to defeat the preferred [citations omitted]. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multi-member candidate. minority's district impedes its ability to elect representatives of its chosen representation. Ginqles. 478 U.S, at 50-51\nGrowe v, Emison. ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. , 122 L.Ed.2d 388, 404. Satisfaction of these three II preconditions\" is necessary. but not sufficient, to establish liability under Section 2. Growe. 507 U.S. at ___, 122 L.Ed.2d at 15404\nChisom. 501 U.S. ___, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364\nsee League of United Latin American Citizens v. Clements. 999 F.2d 831, 848 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, in order to establish a violation of Section 2, a minority group must demonstrate that (1) the group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) it is politically cohesive\n(3) the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate\nand. (4) based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" the group has less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the challenged electoral device. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nGingles. 478 U.S. at 50-51. 2. Sufficiently Large and Geographically Compact. The plan for LRSD election zones adopted by PCBE contains two majority-minority zones. LRSD App., p. 8. Thus, in the context of the present case, the first Gingles precondition requires that the Charles Plaintiffs establish that the black population of LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a \"majority\" in three LRSD election zones. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50. More than mere numerical superiority must be considered in determining whether the Charles Plaintiffs constitute a sufficient II majority\" in single-member zone to elect representatives of their choice. . As the court explained in Smith v. Clinton. 687 a F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988): A guideline of 65% frequently used. of total population is and is derived by 16supplementing simple majority with an additional 5% to offset the fact that minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the well-documented pattern of low voter registration, and 5% for low voter turnout among minorities. Smith. 687 F.Supp at 1363. See also Fletcher v. Golder. 959 F.2d 106, 110 (Sth Cir. 1992). Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the black population in LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to permit creation of three zones with at least 65% minority population. Otherwise, the PCBE plan for a LRSD election zones \"cannot be responsible for minority voters inability to elect its candidates.\" Singles. 478 U.S. at 50. Each of the purported \"majority\" black zones proposed by the Charles Plaintiffs falls below the 65% guideline. Under the Charles Plaintiffs' plan, 81% of the blacks who live within the boundaries of the LRSD would be packed into zones 1, 2 and 6 resulting in percentage black populations in those zones of 64.7%, 64.0% and 61.7%, respectively. The remaining black population is dispersed among the remaining four zones. Appellant's App., p. 55. 9 Therefore, the plan for LRSD election zones advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs demonstrates that the black population in LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute Charles Plaintiffs' Zone 1 has percentage population variance of negative 4.5%, and therefore, will in all probability be the first zone to fall out of compliance with the II requirement. LRSD App., p. 74. one-man. one-vote\" Metroplan proposal No. 4 adopted by PCBE took into account present demographics trends by placing more persons in zones with declining population and by placing fewer persons in zones with increasing population. within the limits prescribed by the law and with a lesser degree of This was done population variance than provided in the Charles plaintiffs' plan. LRSD App., pp. 78-80. 17a sufficient \"majority\" in three LRSD election zones. Appellant's App., p. 155. Furthermore, McKenzie testified that the Charles' Plaintiffs plan did not present compact zones. LRSD App., P. 61. Accordingly, the district court found, \"The plan proposed by the Charles plaintiffs does not conform to the standard proposed by their expert, Mr. Lynch, that the zones be compact and contiguous.\" Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 7. The district court's finding that the black population of LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in three LRSD election zones is not clearly erroneous. Political Cohesiveness. In an effort to establish black political cohesiveness, Lynch computed the correlation coefficient (the \"r\" statistic) and the r- square value for all 65 voting precincts in LRSD. Lynch compared the percentage of black voting age population within the precinct and the percentage of votes for the black candidate for ten elections involving a black candidate and a white candidate. summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles 3. A Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. Relying only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Lynch concluded that blacks were politically cohesive. Appellant's App., P. 160. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 does not support Lynch's conclusion. The correlation coefficients calculated by Lynch and summarized in Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no proof that 18blacks are politically cohesive. 10 The correlation coefficient is a measure of consistency. LRSD App., p. 134. See Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1987)\ns^. generally, Richard Engstrom \u0026amp; Micheal McDonald, \"Quantitive Evidence in Vote Dilution Litigation: Political Participation and Polarized Voting,\" 17 Urban Lawyer 369 (1985). A perfect positive correlation (i.e., a correlation coefficient of one) between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate results where, for example, the same percentage of blacks and the same percentage of white voters support the black candidate in each precinct.'* If 25% of the black voters and 20% of the white voters in each precinct support the black candidate. perfect positive correlation exists. The correlation coefficient provides no evidence of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Thus, Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 indicates only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Lynch conceded that the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no information about the 'it is nevertheless important to note that the only LRSD zone election analyzed by Lynch produced no significant correlation between black voting age population and support for the black candidate. Appellant's App., p. 157. \"Lynch's feeble understanding of the correlation coefficient was demonstrated when on cross-examination Lynch was unable to describe circumstances which would produce a perfect positive correlation. Lynch testified that he merely entered the data into a computer equipped with software to calculate the correlation coefficient. LRSD App., p. 165. 19 apercentage of black support for the black candidate. LRSD App., p. 158. Lynch admitted that nothing in his analysis excluded the possibility that only 25% of the black voters supported the black candidate in the elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., p. 161. Lynch acknowledged that, if only 25% of the blacks supported a black candidate, blacks could not be considered politically cohesive. LRSD App., p. 159. In order for the correlation coefficient or r-square value to demonstrate political cohesiveness. they must be used in conjunction with homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis. S^, e.q. . Whitfield v. Democratic Party of the State of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1383 (E.D.Ark. 1988)\nCitizens for a Better Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1987). Homogeneous precinct analysis is the examination of a precinct which is overwhelmingly populated by a discrete group to determine what percentage of voters in that group support a particular candidate. See Campos v. City of Baytown. 840 F.Supp. 1240, 1246 n.lO (5th Cir. 1988). For example, if a precinct is 100% black and the black candidate gets 90% of the votes in that precinct, then 90% of the black voters preferred the black candidate. If there is also a high correlation coefficient among all the precincts (meaning that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct), it may be appropriate to conclude that approximately 90% of black voters in each precinct supported the black candidate. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 371-72. 20Regression analysis involves the calculation of the regression coefficient, commonly reported as \"b\". It is the regression coefficient \"that illuminates the degree to which voting patterns are racially differentiated.\" Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, P- 375. Whereas the correlation coefficient measures how consistently the electoral support for the black candidate changes with the percentage of black voting age population, the regression coefficient estimates how closely the change in percentage of votes for the black candidate tracks the change in percentage black voting age population. For example, where voting is completely racially polarized, the percentage of votes for the black candidate would track perfectly the increase in black voting age population.^ See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 375. Therefore, homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis are necessary to establish racially polarized voting. Lynch testified that he did not conduct homogeneous precinct analysis. LRSD App., p. 164. With regard to regression analysis, Lynch testified, \"I'm not familiar with that term.\" LRSD App., p. 163 . As a result. Lynch's conclusion that LRSD elections are racially polarized IS without foundation. The correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 demonstrate *^The regression coefficient is to be distinguished from the square value calculated by Lynch. The r-square value is merely the square of the correlation coefficient. The regression coefficient (\"b\") represents the slope of the regression line. __ regression line is the line which minimizes the deviations among samples. The correlation coefficient is a measure of the samples' deviation fiom the regression line. With a perfect correlation, either positive or negative, the samples fall perfectly along the regression line. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. samples. The The See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. 21only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provides no indication of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Because the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks are politically cohesive, their Section 2 claim must fail.\"* 4. White Bloc Vote. a. Persistent Proportional Representation. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice White, noted in Gincles that \"persistent proportional representation is inconsistent with [the] allegation that the ability of black voters ... to elect representatives of their choice is not equal to that enjoyed by the white majority.\" Ginoles. 478 U.S. at 77. With regard to this statement by Justice Brennan, Justice O'Conner, joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Powell and Justice Renquist, wrote. \"I *The conclusion that blacks are politically cohesive can be drawn based on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 only if it is assumed that black voters preferred the black candidate. However, the Supreme Court has stated that minority support for the minority candidate \"never can be assumed, but must be proved in each case in order to establish that a redistricting plan dilutes minority voting strength in violation of  2.\" Shaw v. Reno. 509 U.S. at ___, 125 L.Ed.2d at 532 . V. There is one other notable limitation on the value of the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and percentage of votes for the black candidate does not preclude the possibility of an equally strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and any of the other factors which Lynch testified often determine the outcome of elections. For example, the correlation coefficient between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the democratic candidate may be as strong or stronger, in any given election, the correlation coefficients shown on as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., pp. 170-171. 22agree with Justice Brennan that consistent and sustained success by candidates preferred by minority voters IS presumptively inconsistent with the existence of a  2 violation.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 102 (O'Conner, J., concurring). After considering the above quoted language in Ginqles. the court in Nash v. Blunt. 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992), concluded, \"If defendants can prove prior persistent proportional representation, it would be virtually impossible for the plaintiffs to prove white voters usually vote together to defeat minority-preferred candidates.\" Recognizing that Ginqles provides that \"proof that some minority candidates have been elected does not foreclose a  2 claim,\" Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 75, the court in Nash reasoned that persistent proportional representation would constitute a defense* to a Section 2 claim only where. in addition to a history of proportional representation, there exists a substantial likelihood that proportional representation would continue in the future. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 14 98. For example, the plaintiffs in Na^ challenged the Missouri legislative redistricting plan as it applied to Jackson County, Missouri. The court noted that \"during the past decade, the proportion of black legislators for Jackson County has been in almost exactly equal proportion to the The court in Nash describes representation as an \"affirmative defense.\" persistent proportional This is a misnomer. A true affirmative defense relieves a defendant of liability even though the plaintiff has established each element of his claim. The classic example is the statute of limitations. However, persistent proportional representation, in effect, makes it \"virtually impossible\" to prove a necessary element of a Section 2 claim, legally significant white bloc voting. in effect, 1498. Nash, 797 F.Supp. at 23proportion of black citizens living in Jackson County. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The court found that the proportion of majority black districts created under the challenged plan was roughly equal to the proportion of black population and concluded: Thus, we conclude that there has been at least a ten-year history of proportional representation, as well as a near certain likelihood that there will be proportional representation for the next decade. Therefore, we find the defendants have successfully proved the elements of this affirmative defense. Nash. 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The facts of the present case are remarkably similar to the facts before the court in Nash. Blacks constitute 29.1% of the voting age population of LRSD. LRSD App., p. 6. There are seven members of the LRSD Board of Directors. Thus, proportional representation would be two of the seven board members or 28.6% of the board. Since 1983, the racial composition of the LRSD Board of Directors has been as follows: 1983 to March 1987 - two blacks. five whites\nMarch 1987 to June 1988  three blacks, four whites\nand, June 1988 to present - two blacks, five whites. Therefore, since 1983, the proportion of black members of the LRSD Board of Directors has been equal to or greater than the proportion of black members of the electorate. Moreover, under the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE, blacks are virtually certain to be proportionally represented in the future. The PCBE plan contains two black majority zones. PCBE Zones 1 and 2 have percentages of black population of 79.82% and 59.39%, respectively. LRSD App., p. 8. Although PCBE Zone 2 falls below the 65% guideline discussed in 24Smith V. Clinton, supra, Lynch testified that blacks would be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of 60%. LRSD App., p. 104. Lynch specifically referred to North Little Rock election zones with percentage black populations of 59.4% and 58.8% in which black candidates have been successful. LRSD App., P- 11. Therefore, blacks will continue to be proportionally represented on the LRSD Board of Directors under the PCBE plan. The consistent and sustained past, along with the certain future, of proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible\" for the Charles Plaintiffs to establish legally significant white bloc voting. Na^, 797 F.Supp. 1500. b. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. The Charles Plaintiffs substantially relied on the testimony of Lynch in an attempt to establish white bloc voting. Lynch calculated the correlation coefficient and the r-square value comparing the percentage of white voting age population to the percentage of votes for the white candidate for same ten elections analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. Appellant's App., P. 158. Based only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33, Lynch concluded that the white majority voted sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the candidate 25preferred by blacks. 16 LRSD App., p. 149. Again, the record does not support this conclusion. As with Lynch's reliance on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 to establish black political cohesiveness, the correlation coefficients and r-sguare values shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 demonstrate only that approximately the same percentage of whites preferred the white candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 provides no information concerning the actual percentage of white voters who preferred the white candidate. Lynch failed to conduct the concomitant homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis necessary to make Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 meaningful. c. Legally Significant White Bloc Voting. Black electoral success in LRSD and the City of Little Rock supports the district courts's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. To establish legally significant white bloc voting under Gingles. the minority group \"must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to enable itin the absence of special circumstances such as a minority candidate running unopposed usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Gingles, 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). Stated another way, \"a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of 'In his deposition taken the day before his trial testimony. Lynch stated that he had undertaken no study, and therefore could offer no opinion, on the issue of whether white bloc voting worked to usually defeat the candidate preferred by blacks. Lynch changed his testimony at trial.  LRSD App., pp. 148-151. 26minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 56 (emphasis supplied). It is the \"usual predictability of the majority success [that] distinguishes structural dilution from the mere loss of an occasional election.\" Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). See Whitcomb v. Chavis. 403 U.S. 124, 153. The Charles' Plaintiffs failed to establish the \"usual predictability\" of white candidate success necessary to establish white bloc voting. As discussed above, blacks have enjoyed proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors since 1983. Likewise, blacks have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. Appellant's App., p. 161-62. See Leadership Roundtable v. Citv of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 590 (E.D. Ark. 1980). In sum, white voters do not sufficiently vote as a bloc to \"usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Ginqles. 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). In 1966, Dr. T.E. Patterson was elected at-large against white opposition to become the first black member of the LRSD Board of Directors. In 1983, Bill Hamilton, a black. defeated a white opponent by winning 70% of the vote in an at-large election. LRSD App., p. 12. In 1986, Thomas Broughton, a black and current PCBE member, garnered 74% of the at-large vote in LRSD to defeat a white opponent. LRSD App., p. 20. In a 1989 Zone 2 election, Hamilton 27received 84% of the vote to defeat a white opponent.* LRSD App., p. 36. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 also reveal significant black electoral success in LRSD. Those exhibits examined ten races in the City of Little Rock which pitted a black against a white opponent. The black candidate won six of the ten races, including the only two LRSD elections shown on those exhibits. LRSD App., p. 152. Moreover, the two LRSD elections had the lowest correlation coefficients of the ten elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. In fact. Lynch testified that the correlation coefficient for the 1989 election of Hamilton was not statistically significant. LRSD App., p. 142. This was the only election analyzed by Lynch under the previous singlemember election zones. Evidence of exogenous elections in the City of Little Rock further demonstrates the considerable success of black candidates. Blacks won four of the eight races analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 which did not involve LRSD. Appellant's App., pp. 110-11, 157, 161. Similarly, the black candidate prevailed over white opposition in nine of the twenty-three contests for the City of Little Rock Board of Directors shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 35. Appellant's App., p. 161-162. As noted above, blacks In the only other LRSD election involving a black and a white since the implementation of election zones, Charles Young, a white, defeated Lawrence Hampton, a black. The race was to represent Zone 6 which at the time was 72.7% white. Even so, Young defeated Hampton by only 32 votes. Even so. This race was excluded from Charles Plaintiff's Exhibits 32 and 33. LRSD App., p. 35. 28have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. More importantly, the success of black candidates in LRSD and the City of Little Rock cannot be attributed solely to \"special circumstances.\" See Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 47. The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"All of the black electoral successes in the LRSD and Little Rock City Board elections were won under 'special circumstances' II Brief of Appellant's, p. 34. However, as the Charles Plaintiffs define \"special circumstances,\" it is equally true that all of the black electoral failures in LRSD and City of Little Rock elections were the result of \"special circumstances.\" For example, the Charles Plaintiffs describe the black majorities in LRSD Zones 1 and 2 as \"special circumstances.\" It follows then that the failure of a black candidates in a white majority zone would also be attributable to \"special circumstances. it is worth noting that another tl special circumstance\" referred to by the Charles Plaintiffs was support by the \"white power structure. II Lynch testified that black candidates Charles Bussey, H.D. Stewart and Jesse Mason were supported by the \"white power structure\" in races for City Board positions. Lynch testified that the only white candidate who was strongly supported by the \"white power structure\" was Gary Barket in the 1992 City by the II Board race. in 1992 City Barket lost the race and, in fact, received only 300 more votes (7299 to 6999) than Gloria Wilson, a black, whom Lynch described as antithetical to the \"white power structure.\" _ \u0026gt;(___________1_ . ...  . _ -- Thus, the \"white power structure\" described by Lynch has been able to elect its candidate only when that candidate is black. And, if the Court testimony regarding the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Bussey, Stewart and Mason were also the preferred candidates of African Americans. LRSD App. pp. 186-191. accepts Lynch's Exhibit 32, Bussey 29Lynch acknowledged that many factors other than race determine the outcome of elections. LRSD App., p. 129. These other factors \"would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group, might be able to attract greater white support in future elections. II Gingles. 478 U.S. at 100 (O'Connor, J. , concurring). The Charles Plaintiffs should be required to prove that its asserted reasons for any alleged failure by blacks to elect representatives of their choice cannot be characterized as a \"mere euphemism for political defeat at the polls,\" Whitcomb. 403 U.S. at 153\nsee Clements. 999 F.2d at 859. Indeed, one of these other factors explains the 1983 loss by Dr. Mitchell, black current member of the LRSD Board of a Directors, to a white opponent, Frank Mackey, in her first attempt to gain election to the board. Mitchell testified that name recognition had a \"great deal\" to do with her 1983 loss to Mackey. LRSD App., p. 210-211. Mackey's father, after whom Mackey was named, had been twice elected to Pulaski County Sheriff and twice elected County Judge for Pulaski County. LRSD App., p. 211. All of LRSD is within Pulaski County. However, in the same election in which Dr. Mitchell lost to Mackey, Hamilton, a black. was elected to the LRSD Board of Directors with 70% of the vote over a white opponent. LRSD Appendix, p. 12. Both Hamilton and Dr. Mitchell competed districtwide for at-large positions on the LRSD Board. Hence, many of the same voters, black and white alike, voted for Hamilton, but not for Dr. Mitchell. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that 30whites \"usually\" vote as a bloc to defeat the preferred candidate of blacks. 19 Similarly, Lynch testified that the election of Dr. Hamp Roy to the City of Little Rock Board of Directors over black opposition was due to large amount of money spent by Dr. Roy to win election. In Lynch's own words, \"Dr. Roy just spent an unbelievable amount of money to get that job.\" Lynch agreed that Dr. Roy's election was a \"special situation.\" LRSD Supp., p. 188. Thus, black electoral defeat in LRSD and the City of Little Rock has resulted from the same \"special circumstances\" which the Charles Plaintiffs argue account for black electoral success. The district court's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting should be affirmed. 5. Opportunity to Participate and to Elect. a. Less Opportunity: The Benchmark. As the final element of their Section 2 claim, the Charles Plaintiffs were reguired to establish that, based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity than other Hamilton testified that it takes only about 300 votes to win an election within the current LRSD election zones. Hamilton's testimony is borne out by LRSD Exhibits 4 and 5 which show the results for the 1987 and 1989 LRSD elections. In the 1987 Zone 6 election, Charles Young defeated Lawrence Hampton 250 votes to 218 votes. In the 1987 Zone 7 election, Oma Jacovelli defeated Doug Harden 293 votes to 257 votes. ' In the 1989 Zone 1 election, Katherine Mitchell defeated Kenyon K. Lowe, Sr. 322 votes to 59 votes. In the 1989 Zone election. Frederick Lee 230 votes to 49 votes. Bill Hamilton defeated There are at five zones in the PCBE plan with black population greater that 4,600. The minimum black population in a LRSD zone under the PCBE plan is 1,112. LRSD App., p. 8. Thus, a black candidate has at least the \"opportunity\" to be elected in every LRSD zone, even without receiving a single white vote. App. , 8 . 31 2members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. 42 U.S.C. 1973\nChisom. 501 U.S. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. The Charles Plaintiffs argue that the district court erroneously used the 1986 plan approved by the district court as the benchmark for determining whether blacks have \"less opportunity.\" The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"The comparison of minority's 'opportunity' a under a historic scheme and the challenged scheme compares the minority's opportunity to itself, not to 'other members of the electorate. t II Brief of Appellants, p.l9.^ This statement would be true but for the fact that the \"historic scheme\" in this case was specifically found by the district court to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Appellant's Appendix, p. 50-51. In finding that the previous plan complied with the Voting Rights Act, the district court implicitly found that blacks had the same opportunity as other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. As a result. it makes no difference whether one is comparing the PCBE plan to the \"opportunity\" of other members of the electorate or to the \"opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when adopted in 1986 because they are the same. Therefore, The Charles Plaintiff's also argue that the PCBE plan should not be granted deference because it is retrogressive. LILI__^1, retrogressiveness may constitute a violation of Section 5 of the Although Voting Rights Act, it does not constitute a violation of Section 2. Na^, 797 F.Supp. 1498. Thus, the plan adopted by the PCBE should be granted deference unless it is found to be in violation of Section 2. Voinovich v. Quilter. ___ U.S. , , 122 L.Ed.2d 500, 513 (1993). --- 32the \"opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when approved by the district court in 1986 is an appropriate benchmark to judge the PCBE plan. See Turner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp 553, 573 (E.D.Ark 1991), aff 'd U.S. 112 S.Ct. 2296, 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992) b. Less Opportunity to Participate in the Political Process. Using the previous plan as a benchmark, the Charles Plaintiffs were required to establish, based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" that the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones results in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the previous plan when approved by the district court. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993)\nChisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 3 64\nTurner. 784 F. Supp. at 573. In an effort to meet this burden. the Charles Plaintiffs presented socioeconomic data concerning the residual effects of past discrimination. As the court stated in Whitfield. \"Because there are no legal barriers remaining to the opportunity for blacks to participate in the ^Turner, is distinguished from Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 196, because Turner involves a Section 2 challenge to a zone plan which revised a court approved plan to conform to the 1990 census. See Doulin V. White. 535 F.Supp. 450 (E.D.Ark. 1982). 7 _ zone plan based on the 1990 census, the Arkansas legislature preference to plans that departed as little as possible from the remedy implemented in Doulin\" ...... It In revising the II gave as a starting point . . and \"obviously used the Doulin plan Thus, the court in Turner concluded Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 556, 558. \"'Less opportunity' by any fair interpretation means 'less opportunity' than such black voters had immediately before the imposition or application of the challenged standard practice or procedure\nnot 'less opportunity' than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence.\" 473 . Turner. 284 F.Supp. at 33political process, plaintiffs have naturally emphasized the 'socioeconomic' factors.\" Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1384.^ The socioeconomic data indicates that blacks are poorer, less educated. have fewer vehicles and have a higher percentage of households headed by single females than the general population. Even so, consideration of the socioeconomic factors provides no insight into the issue of whether the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones \"results\" in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the 1986 plan. Regardless of where the zone lines are drawn, blacks have the same socioeconomic status. It is not the line drawing by the PCBE which \"results\" in the blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process. but rather. it is their diminished socioeconomic status. Section 2 does not purport to provide a remedy on the latter basis. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 237, 238 (Eisele, J., dissenting and concurring). Therefore, the Charles plaintiffs have not proved that they have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by PCBE, and consequently, their Voting Rights Act claim must fail. See Chisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. ^^S^ Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 204 (\"There are no presently existing legal barriers to voting by black citizens in Arkansas, and therefore they have just as much opportunity to participate in the political process as anyone else.\")\nLeadership Roundtable v. Citv of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 584 (E.D.Ark. 1980) (\"Since 1965, there has been no legal impediment in Arkansas to voting by blacks.\"). See Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers 34c. Less Opportunity to Elect Representatives of Their Choice. In proceedings before the district court, the Charles Plaintiffs alleged vote dilution due to \"packing\" of blacks into zones with unnecessarily large black majorities. A comparison of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones and the previous plan, however, reveals that both when it was adopted in 1986^ using 1980 census data and when analyzed by Metroplan using 1990 census data. 24 the previous plan exhibited more \"packing\" than the PCBE plan. Consequently, if the Charles Plaintiffs concern is \"packing, they are better off under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they have ever been since LRSD Board members have been elected from single-member zones. Lynch testified that the opportunity of blacks to elect representatives of their choice is the same under the PCBE plan as it was under the 1986 plan. LRSD App., p. 148. Moreover, the Charles Plaintiffs' claim of packing is barred by the doctrine of law of the case. As noted above, the plan adopted by the County Board has less \"packing\" than the 1986 plan when approved by the district court, which was expressly found to comport with the Voting Rights Act. The law of the case doctrine provides that when a court decides an issue of law that decision continues to govern the same issues at subsequent stages of the ^^The plan adopted by Judge Woods in December of 1986 had two majority black zones with 81.50% and 68.90% black population, compared with 79.82% and 59.39% in the PCBE plan. ^Under the prior districting scheme, the two majority black districts had 84.35% and 74.97% black population according to the 1990 census. Under the plan adopted by the County Board, the Lwu majority black districts have 79.82% and 59.39% black population. two 35same case. Morris v. American National Can Corporation, 988 F.2d 50, 52 (8th Cir. 1993) . The doctrine was created to prevent relitigation of settled issues in a case and to protect the settled expectations of the parties, ensuring uniformity of decisions and promoting judicial efficiency. Id. Furthermore, \"[t]he law of the case doctrine applies to issues implicitly decided in earlier stages of the same case.\" Little Earth of United Tribes v. Dept. of Housing. 807 F.2d 1433, 1438 (8th Cir. 1986). The district court explicitly stated in its December 18, 1986 order that the previous LRSD election zones complied with the Voting Rights Act, and therefore, implicitly found that the percentage of black population in the zones did not dilute black voting strength through \"packing. Consequently, it is the law of H this case that the percentages of black population in the majority black zones in the plan adopted by the PCBE, which are lower than in the previous plan, cannot be said to violate the Voting Rights Act. d. The Senate Factors. In determining whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, a challenged electoral device results in a minority group having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice, the legislative history of Section 2 identifies a number of factors which \"may be relevant. 25 Senate Report, p. 28-29, reprinted in ^The Senate Report recognizes that the factors contained in the report may not be relevant in all Section 2 cases. 478 U.S. at 45. Gingles. Consideration of the Senate Factors in determining 36 H1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 206-07\nGinqles. 478 U.S, at 44-45 (1986). Although the district court made findings with respect each of these factors, the Charles Plaintiffs address only select factors in their Brief. LRSD assumes that the Charles Plaintiffs accept the district court's findings with regard to those factors not addressed. LRSD will respond to the Charles Plaintiffs' argument that LRSD used discriminatory electoral devices and that the policy underlying the PCBE plan is tenuous on the factors they discuss. There are presently no electoral devices being used in LRSD elections which enhance the opportunity to discriminate against blacks. In 1987 the State of Arkansas adopted a majority vote requirement which applies to LRSD elections. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-121 (Michie 1991). Since 1986 members of the LRSD Board of Directors have been elected from single-member zones, two of which have a majority black population. As a result, the majority vote requirement enhances the opportunity of black candidates to win election in these zones by preventing a candidate supported by the white minority from being elected by a plurality. With regard to the policy underlying the PCBE plan. PCBE instructed Metroplan to prepare alternative plans for LRSD election whether a violation of Section 2 exists has been criticized because the factors more logically support proof of \"intent, It Whitfield V. Democratic Party of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1382 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (8th Cir. 1990), and as a result, often takes attention away from the real issue. Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1386-87 (\"It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with the respect to the Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. The truth is that focusing on some of those factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws.\"). 37zones which preserve existing zones to the extent possible consistent with federal law. LRSD App., p. 41. The overriding policy underlying the PCBE's instructions was stability. LRSD Ms. Pat Gee testified extensively regarding the importance of stability of the LRSD Board of Directors. LRSD App., pp. 215-218. Stability has been recognized as a legitimate policy in redistricting. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 214. This is especially true where, as in the present case, the plan being App. , p. 4 6. revised was court approved and was specifically found to comply with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Thus, the policy underlying the PCBE plan for LRSD elections cannot be described as tenuous. II. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE CLOSING OF ISH SCHOOL AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF ISH STUDENTS TO THE NEW AND INTEGRATED KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL. This Court's review of district court decisions concerning disputed modifications to a settlement agreement is subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard. ADoeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991). This Court should also \"give a healthy measure to deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court\". Id. at 257. The last time proposed modifications to the desegregation plans were before this Court, this Court described \"the standard to be used by the District Court for reviewing proposed modifications to the plan (if any are submitted in the future) to which all the parties have not agreed. II Id. at 258. While \"disputed 38modifications are governed by a stricter standard than agreed-to modifications\", Id., the party requesting modification of a school desegregation plan need not prove \"a grievous wrong evoked by new and unforseen conditions\". Id., quoting United States v. Swift \u0026amp; Co. . 286 U.S. 106, 119 (1932). This Court adopted the Sixth Circuit standard for reviewing disputed modifications: To modify [a] consent decree [], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal. either ] because experience proven less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions has it have changed which warrant fine tuning of the decree. A modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Id. at 258, quoting Heath v. De Courcv. 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). The standard adopted by this Court is in harmony with the later decision of the United States Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) See Lorain NAACP v, Lorain Bd. of Educ., 979 F.2d 1141, 1149 (6th Cir. 1992) (treating the Rufo and Heath standards as harmonious and holding that school desegregation consent decrees ^Under Rufo, \"a party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. tt 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. 502 U.S. at should If the moving party meets that standard, the court \"consider the proposed modification suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.\" Id. \"Modification whether is It of a consent decree may warranted when changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially be more onerous . . [\n] when a decree proves to be unworkable because of unforseen obstacles. [\n] or when enforcement of the decree without modification would be detrimental to the public interest.\" Id. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886-87. 39\"are subject to the same standards as enunciated in Rufo and Heath.\") The district court found \"that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100) is changed circumstance which a constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein\". August 2, 1993 Order, p. 5 (Docket No. 1926) . This finding is supported by record evidence, including the results of a survey process which was approved by the district court without objection. LRSD App., p. 263-264. The primary goal of the plan is desegregation, and the district court properly found that that goal would be impeded by the continued operation of a racially isolated school whose attendance zone residents, for the most part, elected not to go there. The district court also found that \"[t]he closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict School, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties.\" August 2, 1993 Order, p. 5. The plan seeks to achieve its purpose. desegregation party by movement of students from racially isolated schools to desegregated schools. LRSD App., p. 331. The modification approved by the district court \"gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood.\" August 2, 1993 Order, P- The 4. replacement of an older, inefficient and racially isolated school 40 not favored by even a majority of the attendance zone residents with a new desegregated school in the same neighborhood furthers the purpose of the desegregation plans in a more efficient way and does not upset the basic agreement of the parties. The district court's findings are sufficient, under the standard established by this Court in Appeal of Little Rock School District and by the Supreme Court in Rufo, to warrant the modification approved by the district court. The approved modification, closing Ish, is \"suitably tailored to the changed circumstance\", insufficient interest in Ish and the election to attend King by potential Ish students. Rufo, 502 U.S. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 890. The modification does not \"create or perpetuate a constitutional violation\"^ or rewrite the settlement \"so that it conforms to the constitutional floor\". Rufo, 502 U.S. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 890-91. Therefore, because it stayed within the boundaries imposed by Appeal of Little Rock School District and Rufo, the district court did not abuse its discretion by accepting the plan proposed by LRSD: Within these constraints, the public interest and the \"[c]onsiderations based on the allocation of powers within our federal system,\" Dowell, 498 US, at 112 It L Ed 2d 715, the allocation of Dowell, 498 US, at 111 S Ct 630, require that the district court defer to local government administrators, who have the \"primary responsibility of elucidating, assessing and solving\" the problems of institutional reform, to resolve the intricacies of implementing a decree modification. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 US, at 299, 99 L Ed 2d 1083, 75 S Ct 2749. To the contrary, the movement of black students from an older, racially isolated school building to a new, integrated school building in the same general neighborhood is a part of the remedy for past constitutional violations. To the contrary. LRSD App., p. 331. 41Rufo, 502 U.S. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 891. Joshua first argues that something about the settlement plans or this Court's 1991 decision in Appeal of Little Rock School District deprives the district court of discretion to close an incentive school.^ Brief of Appellants, p. 49-50. Joshua argues that because Ish is an incentive school and incentive schools are a major component of the settlement agreement, that tl Ish must not be closed\". Brief of Appellants, p. 49. That conclusion does not flow from the premises. Further, none of the desegregation plans contains an explicit or implicit statement which supports Joshua's position that incentive schools must not be closed, and Joshua has provided this Court no reference to any plan in support of its position. The district court, on the other hand, properly considered and set out in its Order the relevant language of the settlement agreement which shows the relationship between the establishment of interdistrict schools and the desegregation of incentive schools: As new interdistrict schools are established, those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school. . . . August 2, 1993 Order, p. 3. ^Joshua does not discuss the law of modification of consent decrees or argue that the district court failed to follow the standards enunciated in Appeal of Little Rock School District and Rufo. 42Joshua seems to equate the commitment to double fund the incentive schools with a commitment to perpetuate them. This Court emphasized the importance of double funding because double funding was designed to soften the impact of racial isolation at the incentive schools (LRSD App., p. 331), not because this Court endorsed the perpetuation of racial isolation. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d at 1385. Without the commitment of double funding, this Court would have found the settlement plans unconstitutional er se because of racial isolation. Id. The District Court properly considered and quoted the plan language which explains the reason for double funding incentive schools: Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to insure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. ~ .... ... shall utilize the To meet that goal, the parties services of consultant who has demonstrable experience in developing and successfully such programs in a majority-black implementing educational setting. a August 2, 1993 Order, p. 4, quoting Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4. Joshua's argument that an incentive school must not be closed even when fewer than 100 students wish to enroll there and when the alternative is a new integrated school \"in the same ^Double funding of incentive schools is important because that funding compensates for racial isolation. That does not mean that racial isolation is a good thing which must be preserved at its present level. The purpose of the desegregation plan is to end racial isolation, not to perpetuate it in order that double funding will be continued. 43general neighborhood\" which II offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists, a 56-station computer lab. electronic-assisted instruction, and an automated media center,\" is not supported by the settlement desegregation plans or the law. August 2, 1993 Order, P- This Court has emphasized the 4. importance of double funding for the incentive schools (Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1385 (1990)\nAppeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991)), but it has never found in the plans a requirement that each incentive school building must remain open regardless of the circumstances. Joshua next argues without any legal citation that LRSD is improperly \"attempting to avoid its double funding obligations\". Brief of Appellants, p. 51. This argument, which is merely a restatement of its previous argument. seems to be based on the false premise that King is a racially identifiable school\nThus, the Ish students have been placed in the unfair position of attending a racially-identifiable school, but have been and will be deprived of attendant benefits they were promised. Brief of Appellants, p. 53. Joshua provides no record support for the statement that the Ish students will attend II racially- a identifiable school\", and cannot do so because it is not true. is in Joshua's argument that no incentive school should be closed direct conflict with the Desegregation which requires incentive school and the transfer Plan terms of the Interdistrict interdistrict school. of the closing of Stephens its students to a new LRSD App., p. 332. 1982, p. 10. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 44The district court found that \"the parents of Ish Incentive School students . . elect[ed] to send them to King, new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general a neighborhood.\" August 2, 1993 Order, p. 4 (emphasis supplied). Joshua's unsupported argument that the former Ish students are being deprived of incentive school \"benefits\" while being moved from one racially isolated setting to another is simply wrong. Joshua's next argument is that LRSD failed to recruit white students for Ish Incentive School. For this reason, Joshua argues. without citation of authority, the district court should not have \"reward[ed] the district for failing to meet its obligations by granting its motion to close Ish.\" Brief of Appellants, p. 54. The district court did express concern about LRSD's recruitment of white students to incentive schools, but it also had before it evidence of relative merits of King and Ish schools. LRSD Associate Superintendent Marie Parker testified that a primary purpose of the LRSD desegregation plan is to eliminate racially- identifiable schools (LRSD App., p. 316) and that King is better located than Ish to attract white students. LRSD App., p. 314. Ms. Parker believes that students at King will receive as good an education as they would have received at Ish, and testified that LRSD is committed to see that that happens. LRSD App., p. 317. Mr. Doug Eaton, LRSD's Director of Plant Services, testified that If Joshua's argument is that the Ish students should remain in a racially-identifiable school so that they can receive benefits promised to students who attend such schools, that argument ignores the basic purpose of the plan, which is to reduce racial isolation. 45Ish is in a good state of repair and has not been neglected. LRSD App., pp. 318, 319. Finally, Billy Bowles, PCSSD Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, testified that it is difficult to recruit white parents to incentive schools: There are perceptions about incentive schools, parents look at them as 85% to 90% black and Many and recruiting white parents, just to be perfectly honest with you. it's real difficult to those schools. It doesn't mean that we don't try to recruit them. But just like Little Rock whites, they've just chosen not to go. LRSD App., p. 278. The district court, although concerned about recruitment of whites to Ish, determined from this and other evidence that the future of Ish should be decided by giving \"the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood.\" August 2, 1993 Order. Joshua's final argument is that the district court should have conducted further hearings with respect to LRSD's survey of potential Ish students. It was not necessary for the district court to do so. A two-day hearing preceded the district court's decision to approve the King attendance zone and to require LRSD to file with the court and serve upon the parties the process by which it would determine whether fewer than 100 students from among the groups selected by the district court wished to attend Ish. LRSD filed and served a detailed survey process. Even though the district court warned Joshua twice from the bench (LRSD App., pp. ^^See. Note 5, supra. 46293-300.) and again in its written order that Joshua would \"have 5 days to file their response and objections to LRSD's survey and plan\" (June 11, 1993 Order, p. 3, Docket #1848), Joshua did not object to the survey process. Following the survey, LRSD filed a status report (LRSD App., p. 260) and a motion to close Ish School (LRSD App., p. 2 68). Joshua's only response was to file an \"opposition to status report\" on July 23, 1993 (LRSD App., p. 265) which was refiled on July 28, 1993 (Docket No. 1917) in response to the district court order requiring that responses to LRSD's motion to close Ish School be filed no later than July 28, 1993 (Docket No. 1916). Before the district court approved the closing of Ish School, Joshua raised only three issues with respect to the survey: (1) \"Although the Court may have approved the survey form and process, there was no effort made, on information and belief, to reach pre-school children which may or may not have included kindergarten children\"\n(2) \"The process was designed to fail\"\nand (3) LRSD and the district court should have assumed \"that an equal percentage of the students who did not return the forms would 1. e. , have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, 55.4%\" and therefore should have presumed that the actual number of students preferring Ish would be 145. Joshua Intervenor's Opposition to Status Report (LRSD App., 265) Docket No. 1915) also attached to Joshua's response to order (Docket No. 1917). Joshua now contends that it \"objected not only to the survey format, but also to the fairness of the manner in which it was carried out. and whether it was done correctly even under the survey guidelines proposed by LRSD.\" Brief of Appellants, p. 56- 57. Joshua also contends that it \"raised issues about the validity 47of the survey which came to light only after it was done.\" Brief of Appellants, p. 57. The district court fairly viewed Joshua's objections as untimely objections to the survey process. August 2, 1993 Order, p. 2. The court's bench ruling makes it clear that LRSD was required to survey then current LRSD students. not families who might potentially enroll their students in LRSD schools the following year. The court said, for example, that LRSD would be required to survey the group of students \"attending Ish who live inside the zone\" which was \"about 93 students\", and an additional 90 students \"who attend Ish who live outside the zone\". LRSD App., 287. These were the numbers of students actually attending LRSD for the 1992- 93 school year. LRSD App., pp. 308-309. The survey process filed by LRSD contains no plan to identify and to survey students other than those enrolled in the LRSD system for the 1992-1993 school year. Had Joshua considered this to be a flaw in the survey process, it could have filed a timely objection. This is not an issue of whether the survey \"was done correctly even under the survey guidelines proposed by LRSD\", or an issue \"which came to light only after [the survey] was done\". Brief of Appellants, p. 57. The next issue raised by Joshua after the survey was completed was that \"[t]he process was designed to fail\". This is. on its face. an objection to the process which could have been timely filed. 48Joshua's final objection to the survey, that LRSD should have been required to extrapolate the actual survey results and keep Ish open if the number derived from that extrapolation exceeded one hundred, is also an objection to the survey process which could have been timely filed. It was clear from the survey process filed by LRSD that LRSD would count only those students who affirmatively selected Ish School. In its form letter to parents of potential Ish students which was filed as a part of the survey process, LRSD said: If fewer than 100 students choose to attend Ish Incentive School, Ish will be closed and those students who reside in the present Ish attendance zone will be assigned to King Interdistrict School. LRSD App., p. 240. The district court gave Joshua an ample opportunity to object to the survey process and plenty of warning about the time frame for doing so. Even if the issues raised by Joshua had been timely filed. the court could have properly decided them without a hearing. The court could have concluded without a hearing that if fewer than one hundred of those students residing in the Ish attendance zone and those outside the zone attending Ish for the 1992-93 school year failed to declare an interest in attending Ish, that there was insufficient support for Ish to justify keeping it open, even assuming that a new class of kindergarten students would arrive and even assuming that those who failed to respond to the 49survey would choose Ish in the same proportion as those who did respond to the survey. Each finding made by the district court is supported by the record, and Joshua does not argue that the district court's findings ar unsubstantiated. The district court carefully applied the standard for modification of consent decrees set out by this court in Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (Sth Cir. 1991), and Joshua does not argue that the district court misapplied that standard or should have applied some other standard. In fact, Joshua makes no argument at all concerning the appropriate standard for modification of a consent decree. The district court's factual determinations are supported by the record and its legal conclusions are the result of careful application of the appropriate standard for modification of consent decrees. There was no abuse of discretion. CONCLUSION The district court's finding that the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish a violation of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, is not clearly erroneous. The district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying LRSD's desegregation plan. The district court's orders on these issues should be affirmed. /// /// The form letter to parents made it clear that failure to respond to the survey was, in effect, a vote against Ish School. The parents were notified that Ish would be closed if fewer than 100 students chose to attend Ish. LRSD App., p. 240. 50Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District By: Christopher He er State Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I caused a copy of the foregoing Brief for Appellant Little Rock School District to be served on the following people by hand delivery on April 19, 1994, addressed as follows: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 51Ms. 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 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher He 52 V rbcbivsd ^PR 2 2 1994 Oiiice oi Desegregation Monitofinfl U n DIG'irflCTCuU.\"T EASTERN D:GTniCTAr.\ni:\n:/s IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA^i\n^ 2 Q WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCCSMAC:\n, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Ey.' I\u0026gt;ISINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN Introduction This brief traces some of the history of the development of the present LRSD and Interdistrict desegregation plans in support of the argument that the parties intended, and now have in place. three interdistrict schools within the Little Rock School District. Some of the documents which were submitted by the parties to Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon do not appear on the docket. For the convenience of the Court and the parties. documents are referred to throughout this brief by their location in the Joint Designated Record which was used for the 1989 and 1990 appeals and subsequently by the district court. Those documents not contained in the Joint Designated Record are referenced by date and docket number.statement of the Case A. Desegregation Plans Aubrey McCutcheon filed his \"Interim Report and Recommendations of the Special Master\" on February 16, 1988. 4 J.D.R. 714. Special Master McCutcheon approved and recommended for immediate adoption certain \"Proposed Stipulations For Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan\" which had been agreed upon by the parties to this case. The Stipulations contained an interim plan as well as a planning process which was to result in a final plan to be submitted to the Special Master by September 30, 1988. The Little Rock School District submitted its proposed desegregation plan on October 3, 1988. 5 J.D.R. 1040. The October 3, 1988 Proposed LRSD Desegregation Plan contained the following language about Washington school: \"The new Washington will function as an interdistrict magnet school. A tri-district survey will be conducted in October 1988 to determine a theme. The Washington students who were temporarily reassigned for the 1988-89 school years will be assigned to the new Washington school. Washington's location is expected to be a major asset to its ability to attract white students. In particular, it is easily accessible to downtown office workers from both North Little Rock, Pulaski County and Southwest Little Rock. Also, Washington's proximity to 1-30 is expected to attract students who live outside of 2Pulaski County. The Little Rock School District is interested in opening the magnet and M-M programs to students who live outside of Pulaski County. 5 J.D.R. 1045-46. The October 1988 plan also recommended Stephens as an interdistrict magnet: \"The recommendations in this section are based on current demographics and geography which identify a need for new construction. It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary due west of and adjoining the Capitol Hill Complex. The new Stephens will house pre-kindergarten through sixth grades. The new Stephens will be similar to the new Washington in that it will have a capacity of six hundred students and serve as an interdistrict magnet. The magnet theme will be based on the results of the tri-district survey. In addition to being located on the 1-630 corridor, the new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel.\" 5 J.D.R. 1047-48 (emphasis supplied). The third interdistrict magnet school proposed in the October 1988 plan was King: \"The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area bounded by 1-630, Chester Street, Seventh Street and Center Street. In addition to being an interdistrict 3magnet, the big attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and child care facilities. This location is expected to serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock.\" 5 J.D.R. 1048. Working with the parties and the Special Master, LRSD prepared a long term desegregation plan. The plan was submitted in two parts on January 31, 1989. Volume I does not address student assignment issues. Volume II, which was modified slightly and resubmitted on March 23, 1989, describes \"student assignments\" and \"facilities\". An Interdistrict desegregation plan was submitted to the Special Master on February 15, 1989. The March 1989 LRSD plan lists Washington among the incentive schools (10 J.D.R. 2288) and provides the following description of Washington school (10 J.D.R. 2231-33): \"Washington school is closed for the 1988-89 school year. A new Washington school is being built at the same site with a projected capacity of 1,050 students. The students who were originally assigned to Washington for the 1988-89 school year have been reassigned to Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller and Rightsell. These students (166) will have a preference to return to the new Washington in the 1989-90 school year.\" The March 1989 LRSD plan contains the following language about Stephens and King schools: 4\"It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. The new Stephens will house prekindergarten through sixth grades and will have a capacity of 600 students. It serves as an Interdistrict school. The new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition to being an Interdistrict school, an attraction for this school will be its Early Childhood Program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. 10 J.D.R. 3232. According to the March 1989 plan, the non-magnet enrollment in LRSD for the 1988-89 school year was 8,327 black students and 3,835 non-black students for a total of 12,162 students. The projected enrollment for the 1989-90 school year was 8,500 black students and 3,850 non-black students for a total of 12,350 students. 10 J.D.R. 2229. The March 1989 plan listed 22 elementary schools with a total capacity of 9,501 seats and a projected enrollment of 8,187 students. 10 J.D.R. 2227-28. The eight incentive schools. 5Including 1050 seats at Washington, would have a total capacity of 3800 seats. 10 J.D.R. 2228. Romine was to be established as an interdistrict school for the 1989-90 school year with a capacity of 490 seats, up to 49% of which would be allocated to PCSSD and at least 51% of which would be allocated to LRSD. 10 J.D.R. 2229. The February 1989 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan lists Washington as an incentive school (8 J.D.R. 1722), proposes the conversion of Romine into an interdistrict school (8 J.D.R. 1731- 32), and requires LRSD to construct two new interdistrict schools. King and Stephens. Stephens is described as follows in the February 1989 Interdistrict Plan: \"LRSD will build new Stephens Elementary School a operating at grades pre-K through 6 to be located near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. This school will be ready by the 1990-91 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable. These parties propose that this elementary center be constructed, owned, and operated by the LRSD and draw its black student body largely from the students then attending the old Stephens school and its white student population, to the extent feasible, from both dependents of state government employees and PCSSD students. This school will have an early childhood program. The old Stephens school building will then be closed.\" 8 J.D.R. 1732. The February 1989 Interdistrict Plan contains the following language about King school: bU]y\\Dewt-n.Bri 6\"LRSD will construct a new King Elementary School as a downtown Interdistrict School by the 1992-93 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable. These parties propose that this facility be located in the general area bounded by Interdistrict 630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. These parties believe that this location would serve as a natural attractor for individuals who work within the governmental and business centers of Little Rock.\" 8 J.D.R. 1734. The 1989 LRSD and Interdistrict Plans were among the plans the Special Master recommended for rejection on May 10, 1989 (Docket #1182) . The district court accepted the Special Master's recommendation and rejected the 1989 desegregation plans on June 27, 1989 (Docket #1200). All three school districts and the Joshua Intervenors appealed from the June 27, 1989 order. Following the June 27, 1989 order of the district court. metropolitan supervisor Eugene Reville relocated to Little Rock and commenced the task of preparing new desegregation recommendations for the three districts. On January 2, 1990 Mr. Reville filed his proposal, the \"Tri-District Plan\", with the district court. Docket #1291. Under the Tri-District Plan, Washington became an interdistrict magnet school for basic skills/math/science which was described as follows: \"This school will open in 1990-91 for students who learn well in a highly-structured setting\nwho are motivated by btlqr\\OMe|*n.Bri 7academic, physical, and social competition\nand who are interested in math and science.\" 16 J.D.R. 4329. The Tri-District Plan contains the following language regarding assignments to Washington: \"Assignment to Washington will be open to students from the Pulaski County Special School District or the North Little Rock School District based on majority-to- minority provisions and on the provisions of Act 609 of 1989 (the \"School Choice\" law). Preference will be given to black students in the Little Rock School District who live in the attendance zone for Washington School and to white students in the Pulaski County Special School District. Next preference will be given to students who attend schools that are less than fifty-six percent black.\" 16 J.D.R. 4250. The Tri-District Plan does not require the construction of a new Stephens or King Interdistrict School. On March 5, 1990 (Docket #1328) the district court entered an order approving the Tri-District Plan as submitted on January 2, 1990 with only minor exceptions. Washington Elementary School was closed and rebuilt on the same site during the 1988-89 school year. The new Washington school opened for the 1989-90 school year as racially a identifiable elementary school with 519 students, ninety-eight percent of whom were black. During the pendency of the appeals of the district court's order rejecting the settlement plans and 8approving the Tri-District Plan, the Tri-District Plan was implemented for the 1990-91 school year. Washington operated during the 1990-91 school year as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school. Fifty-seven percent of Washington's 762 students were black. One hundred thirty-two white students from outside LRSD attended Washington Interdistrict Magnet School during the 1990-91 school year. The desegregation plans presented to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the joint appeal of the three school districts and the Joshua Intervenors required only three interdistrict schools within the Little Rock School District - King, Romine and Stephens. On December 12, 1990, the Court of Appeals approved those desegregation plans but recognized that a transition from the Tri- District Plan to the settlement plans would be necessary: 'It may be necessary, in order to make smooth a transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances. The parties should be able to agree as to whether any such adjustments 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.\" LRSD V. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). Since certain existing schools, including Washington, were assigned different purposes under the Tri-District Plan than under the settlement plans, it became necessary for the parties to immediately resolve kMhyXDnec-n.Bri 9those differences. The parties reached the following agreement concerning Washington School: \"Washington School was a racially identifiable black school during the 1989-90 school year. Washington opened for the 1990-91 school year as a racially balanced (57% black) magnet school. Washington should continue to operate as a magnet school. This agreement is recorded in a stipulation and consent order signed by all the parties and entered by the district court on February 13, 1991 (Docket #1434). On May 1, 1991, the parties jointly proposed certain revisions to their 1989 desegregation plans. Washington was removed from the list of incentive schools in the May 1, 1991 LRSD plan. 22 J.D.R. 5723, 5726, 5729. Although Washington is not listed as an interdistrict school in the May 1, 1991 interdistrict plan (see 22 J.D.R. 5864-70), the May 1991 LRSD plan describes the goals of the Washington Elementary School Basic Skills/Math - Science Magnet and explains how students will be assigned there: \"All students will be assigned to Washington Schools (sic) by the Student Assignment Office. The NLRSD and PCSSD will actively recruit students who are eligible for M-to-M transfers. The target racial balance at Washington will be 60 percent black and 40 percent white.\" 22 J.D.R. 5698. k\u0026gt;tlv\\DHet-n.Bri 10This court's final ruling on the May 1, 1991 desegregation plans was filed on May 1, 1992, approving \"the revised plans as attached to\" the May 1, 1992 order. Those are the plans under which the districts presently operate. The LRSD plan contains the following language concerning assignments to Washington Elementary School Basic Skills/Math - Science Magnet: \"All students will be assigned to Washington Schools (sic) by the Student Assignment Office. The NLRSD and PCSSD will actively recruit students who are eligible for M-to-M transfers. The target racial balance at Washington will be consistent with the Interdistrict Plan, seeking to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal to be 50 percent black/white.\" LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 144. The difference between the racial composition proposed by the parties in the May 1, 1991 plan (60% black and 40% white) and the racial balance contained in the plan as approved by the district court dated April 29, 1992 (between 60% and 40% of either race with the ideal goal to be 50% black/white) is significant. The racial balance prescribed for Washington by this Court is the racial balance for interdistrict schools found in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan and described in this Court's May 1, 1992 Order: \"Provisions of the interdistrict plan target the ideal racial balance for the various types of LRSD schools: Interdistrict schools at 50 percent black/white with variance of 60 to 40 percent of either race ... a H kBth|y\\DMe(*n.Bri 11May 1, 1992 Order (Docket #1587), pp. 27-28. This Court would not have assigned to Washington the racial balance requirements of interdistrict schools if Washington were not, in fact, operating as an interdistrict school. The decision that Washington should be governed by the racial balance requirements for interdistrict schools set forth in the Interdistrict Plan reflects this Court's recognition of Washington as an interdistrist school. The 1989 desegregation plans approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals require the operation of three Interdistrict schools within LRSD - Romine, King and Stephens. 8 10 J.D.R. 2229- 32\nJ.D.R. 1721, 1731-34. LRSD presently operates three interdistrict schools - Romine, King and Washington. The LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans should be amended to reflect the fact that LRSD presently operates the number of interdistrict schools contemplated by the plans agreed upon by the parties in 1989 and approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990. In its order with respect to the modifications proposed by the parties in the May 1991 plans, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said: \"It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable ... tl Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991). In accordance with the 1989 plans approved by the Court of 12Appeals in December 1990 and the order quoted above, LRSD presently operates three interdistrict schools. B. Demographics According to the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans as those plans were approved by the Court of Appeals in 1990, LRSD was to establish three interdistrict schools, two of which would be located in central Little Rock in the general area along 1-630 between University Avenue and 1-30. One school was to be established \"near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" 10 J.D.R. 3232. The other was supposed to be \"located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" 10 J.D.R. 3232. Since those plans were written, both King and Washington schools have been established as interdistrict schools within the area described in the plans. Also since those plans were written, 1990 census information has revealed a dramatic shift of population away from the area in which the interdistrict schools were to be located. This decline in population in the area targeted for the location of interdistrict schools is illustrated by undisputed evidence which was presented to the district court concerning the issue of revised election zones for the LRSD board. When the initial LRSD board member election zones were approved by Judge Woods on December 18, 1986 (Docket # 719), zones one and two had total populations of 25,399 and 25,295 respectively. Zones one and two cover most of central and east Little Rock, which is the 13primary area in which LRSD interdistrict schools were to be located. According to the 1990 census information, the population of zone one is 20,901, which is 4,498 people lower than the previous census. The 1990 population of zone two was 20,415, which is 4,880 people lower than the previous census. The 1990 census shows an eighteen percent decline of the number of people in zone one and a nineteen percent decline of the number of people in zone two. The movement of population away from east and central Little Rock is further shown in the testimony of Jim McKenzie about the election zone issue. Mr. McKenzie is the executive director of Metroplan, governmental planning and research organization composed of local government entities in the Central Arkansas area. Mr. McKenzie testified that his organization tracks demographic changes in Little Rock and that there was a material demographic change from the 1980 census to the 1990 census. April 13, 1993, Tr. 62-63. Although the population in eastern Little Rock a declined each year since 1980 (Tr. 67), most of the movement out of that area occurred between 1985 and 1990. Tr. 62-63. Mr. McKenzie testified that the \"center city\" will continue to lose population. Tr. 100-01. Mr. McKenzie prepared four proposals to adjust the LRSD election zones so that they would contain relatively equal populations. He testified that his proposal number four \"looks more to the future in terms of growth and shifts in population than the other proposals.\" See Memorandum Opinion and Order, June 21, taukorVDeaet-n.Bri 141993 (Docket #1853), p. 5. According to Mr. McKenzie's description of proposal number four, \"the areas of the City of Little Rock that are projected for growth have a negative variance from the mean while the areas that are projected to lose population have a positive variance. Id. In proposal number four, which was presented to the court in PCBE Exhibit 1, the only two zones which show a positive variance from the mean, indicating a projected loss of population, are zones one and two. See Tr. 101-02. The movement of population away from the area targeted for the establishment of interdistrict schools within LRSD is also shown in information provided to the parties by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. A document titled \"Incentive School Attendance Zones and Schools Attended\" shows a total population of the incentive school attendance zones (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens) of 1,946 for the 1993-94 school year. The incentive school attendance zones generally correspond with the area targeted for the location of interdistrict schools. In fact, the interdistrict schools were expected to draw their black student population from among \"those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an Incentive School\". 8 J.D.R. 1722. The present number of students in the incentive school zones (1,946) is dramatically lower than the capacity established for the incentive schools in the 1989 desegregation plans of 3800 students. 10 J.D.R. 2228. The parties projected in the 1989 LRSD Desegregation Plan that if 3600 LRSD black students attended kMlvMiMH-Pl.Bri 15incentive and interdistrict schools, the racial composition of the area schools would be 56% black. 10 J.D.R. 2231. According to the 1989 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, the incentive schools alone should be \"sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary academies) [now area schools] of 55% black and 45% white with a variance of 5%.\" 8 J.D.R. 1721. That means that in 1989 the parties expected that more than 3600 black students would attend the incentive schools from the incentive school zones, but today only 1,946 students reside in the incentive school zones. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring prepared and distributed to the parties in February 1994 a study of \"Enrollment In Downtown Elementary Schools\". That study defines downtown elementary schools as those located \"east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham.\" This is generally the area targeted for the location of LRSD interdistrict schools. This study shows that the incentive schools have a capacity of 2,305 students but that the October 1, 1993 enrollment was only 1,454 students. There are 1,429 available seats in downtown elementary schools. Those schools operate at only seventy-six percent of capacity. The February 1994 ODM study also shows that the two existing downtown interdistrict schools. King and Washington, are operating at 80% and 77% of capacity, respectively. There are 139 available seats at King and 218 available seats at Washington. King kitkor\\DBW(\u0026gt;n.Bri 16Interdistrict School has attracted 200 white students from outside the downtown area and Washington Interdistrict Magnet School has attracted 249 white students from outside the downtown area. Finally, both the Pulaski County Special School District, which was to be the primary source of white students for the interdistrict schools (8 J.D.R. 1721), and the Little Rock School District have experienced an unexpected overall decline in student population. The number of students attending PCSSD declined from 21,633 for the 1992-93 school year to 20,426 for the 1993-94 school year according to the October 1 enrollment count, a loss of 1,207 students. The number of students attending LRSD declined from 26,212 for the 1992-93 school year to 25,594 for the 1993-94 school year, a loss of 618 students. Both districts expect to lose more students for the 1994-95 school year. C. Plan Modification Process The PCSSD plan contains a desegregation plan amendment process (pp. 104-05) which this Court has found should be implied in the LRSD and NLRSD plans (Memorandum and Order, June 21, 1991, p. 17, Docket #1479). This Court has described the plan modification process as follows: \"Proposed amendments may arise in multiple ways. including by agreement or consultation with the other parties. Any proposal is first submitted to the PCSSD Office of Desegregation (Office) for initial review and analysis. The Office will make a recommendation to the kMtay\\Dnet*n.Bri 17superintendent who will in turn make the final recommendation to the Board. If the Board approves, the matter will be submitted to the Court, and formally submitted to the other parties to the litigation. If the Court approves, the plan shall be amended. Note that bv the Plans own terms, agreement of all parties is not required for amendment.\" 1^. (emphasis in original). LRSD has followed the desegregation plan amendment process with respect to its proposal to recognize Washington as an interdistrict school in place of Stephens. The proposal was first reviewed by the LRSD Desegregation Office as well as other administrators and the superintendent. Following that review. LRSD informally submitted the proposal to the other parties on November 12, 1993. LRSD proposed: \"That we seek to amend the desegregation plan to acknowledge the fact that both Washington and King have been established as interdistrict schools and that the establishment of two such schools within LRSD satisfies the Eighth Circuit's requirement that LRSD operate 'the agreed number of interdistrict schools'. PCSSD would be expected to 'engage in early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts' to recruit students to Washington, but would be relieved of the expectation that the white student population of Washington would come primarily from PCSSD. White LRSD students presently attending Washington would be allowed to remain and LRSD would lathy \\DBMg-Pl.Bri 18continue to recruit white students for Washington in the future.  Letter to Counsel, November 12, 1993. LRSD further proposed: \"That we delay the construction of a school at the present Stephens site so that LRSD may complete its demographic study to determine how best to meet the requirements of its student population and the desegregation plans. If LRSD determines to build a new school at the Stephens School Site, the new school will be an incentive school and the parties will s\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":"bcas_bcmss0837_709","title":"ServiceMaster Management Services","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":["1991/1998"],"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--Economic aspects","School facilities","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["ServiceMaster Management Services"],"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/709"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["81 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nServiceMaster Management Services, an Illinois company hired to supervise Little Rock School District's maintenance and custodial staff.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO ENJOIN THE LRSD FROM ENTERING INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT WITHOUT FOLLOWING BIDDING PROCEDURES, REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND WITHOUT PRIOR INVOLVEMENT OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS The Joshua Intsr/eoors respectfijlly move the court to enjoin the Little Rock School District from entering into a management service contract regarding managerial services for custodial and maintenance services. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the court that 1. The Little Rock School District has not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors\n2. The proposed management contract has potential adverse racial effect and impact 3. The proposed management contract has not been let for bids and is not a part of the program, research and evaluation instrument for the next five years\n4. The proposed management contract has potential adverse monetary effects upon ftnandai resources of the district and has the potential for adversely affecting the ability of the school district to meet its desegregation obligations\nand 1 5. length and was designed to provide special favor to someone, a John Doe, in toe school district The Joshua ir^ervenors request an opportunity to engage in discovery and to have this matter set for hearing shortly thereafter. The matter will be presented to the Little Rock School Board this evening, August 31, 1995, for action. Timo is therefore of the essence. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that this court reserve the right to review, and cancel, if necessary, any contract which is entered into between the Little Rock School District and any management service contractor, unless said contract is let tor bids after the discussion process has been followed which involves the Joshua intervenors. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501)374-3758 in W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 2:5ATg OP SERVICE I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy cf the foregoing pii forwarded to ail counsel of record, by il.S. Mail, post^ prepaid, on this August, 1995. was y of 3 I -\u0026gt;i iiefji Assemnlv 193 3 ACl 01 100'5 ft 1 1995 Ottice oi Desesf^ataxi Moniiorina \\V A 1 t 3 KI 1 ) b a 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19- 20 t 23 24 -w act to B'cqOIRE THE SOUCITIX OF BIOS I?-a* COMOITY TO BE SCKOOt DIBTB^CT HAScM.ESTlHATEO PUKCE.XSE PEtCE ? .CHASSD 3Y A r.ruS'S.\" 3- n iNACTED 3Y THf : assz-sly Q7 i.T : s  43 F aRK.i2\u0026lt;S/iS : ION 1. Definition. Board of Directors (A) \"Purchasing Off of any school dist icC or a la' 13i\" shall near. .'.a lly designated age of the school district with authority to contract or behalf of the school district. . (3) \"Commodities\" shall laean aake purcha.ses all supplies\", goods, MCerial, equip- , meet, machinery, facilities, personal property, and services, other than and pr^ssional se^ces school district. , purchased for or on behalf of the (0) Purchase Price\" shall nean Che full sale or bid price 0 --ponuBod-iy,  , without any allowance for trade-in. 'Purchase\" shall mean and include not only the outright purcnase of a conmodicy whe the but also the acquisition of commodities under rental-purchas or lease-purchase agreements or any other type of agreements rental payments on the purchase price thereot. by a. () 'Open Market Purchases\" shall mean ,os purchases or c\njdi ties /y purchasing SECTION 2. official in which competitiv All purclunses - bidding is not required qS commodities by any school district. 26 27 23-  :o' except those spccifiea lly exempted by Section 3, shall be made as folic' I I (A) In each instance In which Che estiaaeed pu- ^.-ba8e price shall erj^- cvo-chgus.ind-dollars ($2,000) thif commodity shall be procured : \u0026lt;rnHcitiirr- bids'. orowided c.bat the purc.bas 'J rus/ and rs u the by r.egcz a irtg a co.icracc. zejecz * Z-*-e T 1 rJ I 'T J pp I 6\n: (}  1 I !2 13 14 15 a. t Pv t.Jf.V  i I 16 .n\nj7 i Ivbx. cl-.nr ' n ch- into i r vs L r T vitho-dt solicit and unavoidable cxi be aoproyedj by ths att.nrhcd o the IT*.,-- i  l purcha.^e df jsuc.h t. (2) toi 1'. a 1? iii t, C: dcJiar# ($2,000). P CSC* xoeh \u0026gt;.1^ the pur n s-tt tc rbv hereinafter listed co-raaoditics  bid.s: r.ency. S C (A) Comnioditics i Provided, ' ths superintende r.stancss of r.o S'. h crser u rsscer. '.cy purchase s\n. c, unless a statenen: in writ chose order deocribinr. he et seniy ncce rodity without cosnrtifivc biddinf. s available onlv fro.-a the fedcial Rover : sh in\" t by 182 r 12 ^23 sc: pt\" r-S 24 :b*' 1.0$. (c).Siuciirc: state sgaoc\n. (D) Usetd. 071 S-Ssl' a4 1   II . isorvices,-the rates ' for wiiich or a\"federal regulatory agency ar.d :::acnineii.  subj co r h -Tlie Doa'rd'of Directors'of each school district shall pre ibe--che'\"nieclioc of soliciting bids by regulation and aay adept other 4' .riles.and rcgula \u0026gt;26' .1. ons governins the procurenent of corrxodities. SEC^XzSSy^AJyl olaf i?n%\norr 'che^pcevisi6hs\\_ofTthis'Act shall be a .if I .29 * :i^-sjceanor '.S' ' '' -1 - ' . .w * SECTION 6, 1 - 30 Uiercfiy'Trepcalcd . ' k. V*  3 J 32 33 3r a- 11 laws and parts of'laws in conflict with this Act art .a n   tirfS- : n * /s/ Oobbtj Tullis f -V-' 3 3jAPPR0VED VS rG.Or.V-AEaRNNO'iaR -2- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS . NO. LR-C-82^^0g|V'^^ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS SEP 8 1995 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSDS RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION TO ENJOIN THE LRSD FROM ENTERING INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT WITHOUT FOLLOWING BIDDING PROCEDURES. REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND WITHOUT PRIOR INVOLVEMENT OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS (\"LRSD\" The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District or \"District\") , for its Response to Joshua Intezrvenors Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from Entering Into a Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests for Information and Without Prior Involvement of the Joshua Intervenors, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states: The LRSD denies the allegations made by the Joshua Intervenors in their Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from Entering Into a Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests 1. for Inf ozmiation and Without Prior Involvement of the Joshua Intervenors. 2 . The LRSD does hereby assert that this Court hold the Joshua Intex-zenors to strict proof of each and evezry allegation made by them in their Motion to Enjoin the LRSD regarding the \u0026lt;lara\\pcud/en)oi n.res -1-proposed entry into a management service contract regarding custodial and maintenance services. 3 . As of this response, the LRSD has not yet entered into any contract with any entity to provide managerial services for custodial and maintenance services. However, the board of directors of the District, on Thursday, August 31, 1995, did vote to authorize the administration of the District to negotiate terms and conditions of such a contract and to enter into the contract upon the completion of those negotiations. 4 . The Joshua Intervenors have stated no basis to permit discovery and the request to review a contract negotiated and entered into in the day-to-day operation of the District is unprecedented and without support in the law of this case or other controlling authority. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District respectfully requests that this Court deny the Joshua Intervenors Motion to Enjoin the LRSD From Entering Into a Service Contract and award the District all of the legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone {Bar No. I. D. 85096) dianavpcssd/enjoin.res -2-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's Response to Joshua Intervenors Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from Entering Into a Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests for Information and Without Prior Involvement of the Joshua Intervenors has been served by U. S. '7^ Mail, postage prepaid, on September J_, 1995, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Jiana\\ocss\u0026lt;l/en)oin.ra -3-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 September 22, 1995 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Fred L. Smith, Manager, Support Services THROUGH: Henry P. Williams, Superintendent SUBJECT: Proposed Agreement with ServiceMaster the District and the proposed agreement between comments, please call Attached is . . ServiceMaster. Should you have any questions or me at 324-2009.management services agreement , 199 5 , by and Liule Rock school Dlsrrict. (me -School ) WITNESSETH: RECITALS\noperates various departments A. which provide services in support of the that the B. i. is -- vSTa ci Xrnvtament for sodenu, suff and public and that d,= materials, supplies and equipment used by^such^employees m . be well trained and managed to C. D. materials, supplies in the discharge of their responsibilities he of the oroper quality and quanuty\n School that ServiceMaster has extensive faculties and in providmg certam of the i------- materials and supplies needed by such departments\nThe School wishes to certain of its support departments and management services for the School. obtain the management services of ServiceMaster for ServiceMaster desires to provide such NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the terms and conditions set forth below the parties agree as follows: 1. INTRODUCTION TheSchool hereby retains ServiceMaster as e ,,eeXiv^^SSS^ces'2:X\\se^tlon2andtonulma,a^^^^^ .he school agrees to pay The School the for the efficient performance of such managemem the consideration therefor C provided in section 6\nand ServiceMaster accepts as piuviutu ______ rnakp available such employment and responsibilities and equipment, all as set forth herein. bv ServiceMaster. The prograin of 1 -2 Information Provided hvU^der h^^^v^^lnped based on management services which ServiceMas r independent on-site survey and investigation iufor^dou provided by me \u0026amp;hoo and u^^^^ ,nd mmrviews ^b _____ImaaAXactfar 30 inSDCCtlOn 0l DUUUlUg, ^,4 has been developed based on bv ServiceMaster, an inspection DY OCl V IVCivxttJvw*., r administrators, principals and suff of schoo . 2. SERVICES . ServiceMaster agrees to train, manage and direct die Schoorlemp^S^seSarunents of School hlch are idendried tn secuon Agreement Page 1and direction together with 3.2 below (the .-Service Such \u0026lt;mlmn^^ X  and deUiont .of d. Physi^-- the i^ the administrative services related thereto (the \"Management ServiceMaster in the context of ServiceMasters duties of Servce Employees Agreemen. b, descriptions and duties------ , as are set forth in the Exhibits attached hereto and reference. (b) The Management Services shall be provided to those departments for which an Exhibit number appears in the following table\nDepartment Support Services Function Exhibit Custodial Plant Operations and Maintenance Grounds Grounds Equipment A A A B ServiceMaster agrees that it will perform ^1 the etnploymeX^u Service Employees by the school as directed by die Seto bT \"L\" Rnlafed Administrative Services. ^ch relate to the employment records and furnishing to the School the data from regular payroll for the Servicw Employees should the School so desire gxnense provide and maintain all 2.3 10.111101 Material^. Service-Master will, at   ' daUy work and project Management Service related traimng equipment,^ manuals used to train the schedules, indices, standard opetano^ PX- ,tooronetty of ServiceMaster. schedules, indices . such materials sh^ _at^^_t^- at its sole expense, ruQuired for the lawful renderins\nofj^^Mmgeto Service Employees. -------- 2.4 Permits and Licenses: Compliance with Laiv all licenses and permits which are i _ procure Services and are applicable to ServiceMaster agrees to comply with aU statutes the conduct of its services and sales hereunder . , ordinances and regulations which 2.5 Costs operating costs (a) ServiceMaster shall pay all direct The term \"direct To Be .Ahso^^^d bv ServiceMaster. htcuned ,^.n wi^ the athibuuble m the costs as used in the preceding sentence jjgt mciuuc uiuac of e Manageniem Semces^^^^^ foUowirig\nd m below, me lenu contributions (i.e., worker s y. -1-: . -3, benefits -d employment-ml^^^^^ (U) aU taxes compensation, unemployment,\nXr\\ocIu^^^^^^ connec^on wi e provision and fees currently unposed by fede^, suk^or loca^au _ of the Management Services, and (in) tra g costs which are to (b) The followmg costs are not direct p zn wages and. all related, payroll be paid by ServiceMaster as provided m costs or contributions (includm mxLof^tviceEmployeclothing cu^ndy operating costs does not include those provision \u0026lt; items listed in paragraph (b) below costs: (i) salaries, taxes in connection with the provision taxes or ocivius. uniforms or other special ciuuuub all to (.btomnance expenses for equipment owned by *e School provided to Agreement Page 2which is made available to ServiceMaster as provided in Section 5\n(iv) repair and maintenance Section 10\n(v) materials and supplies nf fhp snace orovided to ServiceMaster pursuant to  ... P -  (vi) payroll and employment forms and documents (such as time pursuant to Section 4,2(d)\nand, cards, time sheets, application forms, evaluation forms, etc). 3. PERSONNEL . , ServiceMaster Personnel, (a) ServiceMaster agrees 3.1 to furnish no less than five (5) coordinatmg managemem blSb^ shall be a coordinating manager, who shall be ServiceMaster s wi.h the performance of ServiceMaarers powers daues proper performance One of such persons and duties under ^^bUraddition to me management personnel. ServiceMaster will famish all necess^ (b) In addition to p,jects personnel as required for the supervisory, training and efficient performance of the Management Services. emnlovees of fc) All of the personnel described in paragraphs (a) and (b) will be employees or federal, sure or local sumte in connection wi eir employment. (d) If any ServiceMaster management, supervisory, personnel are not acceptable to training, technical or special projects 'ieJuperintendent of e Schoofor his or her designee, such of such personnel. Upon the receipt by reXSerTsucharrZ(5ervT^^^^^^ will provide w.thin Employees on dre dam of dais to be employees of the School as opposed to 3.2 .School Personnel, (a) All persons who were Agreement shall continue ServiceMaster and all persons employed by School as shall be employees of the School. All such persons a reasonable time a Service Employees after e date of this are subject to discipline, job Agreement shall be employees o uxc ovixuvu polices procedures, stamtes action and discharge by the School pursuant to applicable practices, polices, p and oer laws. (b) ServiceMaster shall not be regarded as a party to or agreements to which the School was or becomes a party any collective bargaining agreement ServiceMaster will, upon request by me school, SsX^eXMas:\nagrees established policies and procedures. cprvice Emnlovees and the School (d) The School shall pay all wages and salanes of the Service Employees anu shall pi all payroll and other taxes, fees, and other =^g!Vc^'^nlovees r.^. or'fmml Stamms relating to the employment of Ifa^loyees injured levied or required by, federal, state or local statutes relating to shaU pay all workers compensation insurance. Any claims . The SchoolWhile working under die dhection and supeivision of ServiceMaster shaU be handled by to . School. (e) The School agrees to furnish to ServiceMaster, upon request, certificates of u^rance evidence of the proper employee insurance coverage lo, the Seri ice Employees and Ser^IcXter agreesm furnish to School certiflcams of insurance as as to furnish to insurance coverage for evidence of proper employee insurance coverage for the employees of ServiceMaster, including, but not limited to. workers compensation insurance. 4. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 4.1 7rUe olthis Section. This Section 4 aUocates the respoi^ibilities of the parties for  and supplies which are requued in t---------- . the furnishing of the materials performance of the Management feXX colinon sePfonh in parugrHph (a) toeof is not connection with the sub-section to dus Section 4 is noc apptable satisfied, the sub-section shall be considered as deleted from to ^..^le only if the Management Services 4.2 Custodial, (a) This Secuon .- ph schools custodial department. to be provided hereunder include services wi reexpendable supplies referred   Ld:srn^d:dtc*\" SeXTSSaSe To to Ssmdi^ Depawhent is toiuded materials tjiis paragraph (b) are owned as of the appi.....w CprviceMaster oursuant to tjus paragrapn to\nand upon .nnination of to Agreement any inventory of and supplies shall be delivered to School. unused materials and supplies snail oe ucuvc... - . _ ?,^^^l^L.^\"TXMaster a Certficate of Tax Exemption upon e taxes, the School shall furnish to ServiceMaster a commencement of the Management Services. School agrees to provide, at its own expense (d) , the expendable supplies, as such may be defmed by agreement 0 sIZmss eiand Uhil, required drcounecdouwidithe ope ot SKViceMasBi ____ ,0) of the Schools Custodial department. towels, deodorants, washroom soap. Such expendable supplies include (but are nlastic container liners, and paint. toilet tissue, paper towels, aeoaorauu, waoxa....- \u0026gt; section 4 ' ' \" ' 4 T, Plant Operations and Maintenance., (a) This ion 4.3 shall be applicable only if the Management Services to be provided hereunder include services with respect to Schools plant operations and maintenance. its own expense, all plant operations and maintenance \" (b) The School shall provide, at its own expense, ai up...---------- supplies, materials, repair parts, oily if the Management Services 4.4 Ground, (a) This section 4.4 shall department. to be provided hereunder mclude services supplies, materials, repair (b) The School shall provide, at its own expense, an grounu^ pp (b) parts, and purchased services. owned by ServiceMaster 5. equipment ServiceMaster AU equipment now ServiceMas^ 5.1 Equipment Provided by Serviceiviaster. \\j\ncervices (including computer and used in connection with the tende^ o e am ServiceMaster shall be hardware and software) shall remam to property of ServiceMaster. Agreement Page 4responsible for the repair, maintenance and replacement of such equipment, at no additional cost to the School. This section 5.2 shall be \u0026gt; \"7 Pniiinment Provided bv the School. Custodial. ( ) applicable'oiif if the Management Services to be providS hereunder include services 5.2 Equipment (b)hoolS\"rSkXta^^^^^ use by ServiceMaster the =quipm owr^by die school and used in the custodial the shall remain the property of e ^erv.^ maintenance of the equipment. cKrndial denartment shall be provided and ^^u^^SVs^'SeMSS ^Threost of such additional or replacement equipment has been mamumed by ServiceMaster, rue e hv \u0026lt;berviceMaster oursuant to this h(bns XTby teshool S'ditional amounts to (e paid m ServiceMaster rdJ^Xio7Xs%reem^^^^^^^^ Equipment purchased hereunder shall e ^0 c^rviceMaster the unamortized book value exceed five years. School is not obligated to pay  not S Sc^S'XTaSte^a^yTay\" by ServiceMaster the equipment owned by purchased by ServiceMaster pursuant rather than to ServiceMaster. . 5 t rniiiriiir? - Bv P' Ooeranota secticnk^S sgS^SSS^ and Maintenance, (a) This the Schools plant operations and maintenance. services with respect to the School s piam operjuvw operations and -rh Qz'hnn! aarees to oemut ServiceMaster to utuize me prcsciu piau*- k- (b) The School agrees to p^t equipment in an operanve, maintenance service equipment. The School a rees mai mainuin such equipment in an operative, of additional or replacement maintenance service equipment. Thiq section 5 4 shall be operable, workable and safe School shall maintain such equipment, at its expose in^^Zquipntent condition. The School shall be respoi^ible, at i^ (including replacement parts). ServiceMaster P paid in fiiU, date of this Agreement, grounds equipment, *p P described in Exhibit B. The equipment so ServiceMaster at the termination of -T-n____i qmniinK to be paid to servicciviaaiti \u0026lt;. of its purchase this Agreement being The only additional amounts to be paid to----- the unamortized book value of said equipment. . - - its useful life, not to exceed tive years. Equipment purchased hereunder stall be amortaed by ru^Xolr value of any equipment School Is not Obligated to pay to J\" equipment not desiied by School School does not desire  ServiceMaster has not paid the complete shall be transferred to berviceiviasLci. Agreement Page 5amount owed on the additional equipment at the time the Agreement is terminated, the School may make any payments pursuant to this sub-section directly to the entity owed, rather than to ServiceMaster. 6. COMPENSATION 6.1 Schools Agreement to Pav Contract Amount. In consideration of the performance by Service.Master of the Management Services and in consideration of the transfer of the materials and supplies by Service.Master to the School in connection with the performance of the Manaaement Services, the School agrees to pay to ServiceMaster, at the times set forth in section 6.3, the Contract Amount as set forth in section 6.2. 6 Contract Amount. Subject to adjustment as provided in subsequent sections of this Section 6 the Contract ^Amount shall be S98.659.00 per mon. If the Management Services commence on a dav other than the first day of a month, or if the Management Services terminate dav other than the last day of a month, the Contract .Amount for the first or the last month on 3. dav other than the last nay or a muiiui. me vuuudvi Amuuuu tvi wx  shall be prorated on the basis of the number of days within such first or last month on which Management Services were provided. It is agreed that of the SI. 183.908 to be paid annually^ to ServiceMaster pursuant to this Agreement, ServiceMaster will meur not less than an average for materials, supplies and equipment to be used in its of S329,347 expense per year for matenals, supplies ana equipment lu uc uocu m performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and title to such material, supplies and equipment will be solely in the name of School. On or before each annual anniversary date of this Aareement, ServiceMaster shall provide invoices. contracts or other written documenution satisfactory to School evidencing that at least an average of 3329,3^1 has been expensed by ServiceMaster toward the purchase of materials, supplies and equipment. 6.3 'payments of the Contract .Mnount. (a) Commencing on October 15, 1995, and on the fifteenth of each month thereafter, the School shall pay to ServiceMaster the Contract Amount. . . , (b) If any payment of the Contract Amount is not paid in full withm fineen days or the due date, the unpaid portion shall bear interest at e highest rate allowed by the laws of the State of Arkansas. Further, School shall pay all costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Service.Master (not to exceed 10% of the amount awarded) in collecting amounts due to ServiceMaster from the School. 6.4 Adjustment of the Contract .Amount: Base Wage Increase. On each anniversary of the commencement of services hereunder, the Contract Amount (excluding custodial and pounds capital equipment, computerization and vehicles) shall be increased by die percenta.ge mcrease that the base, waae rate of the Service EmnloveeTot School have mcreased for the previous _ twelve (12) month period not to exceed 2.5%in any given year. Base wage rate is Qefmed as the rate otcompensauon paid to service employees wmch shall include the annual raise approved or authorized for the Service Employees of School. This amount does not mclude any annual step increase or increment given for an additional year of service with the School. 6.5 Adjustment of the Contract Amount: Change in Services. The Contract A^unt has been established on the basis of the area, job descriptions and specific dunes descnbedm e Exhibits. If the total amount of area or the job descriptions or the dunes to be pertormea by ServiceMaster or the Service Employees is enlarged, reduced or altered m any shall be an increase or decrease, as the case may be, in the Contract Amount. Such adjustment Agreement Page 6 shall be effective with the first payment to be made immediately following such increase, reduction or alteration. In connection therewith, ServiceMaster and School shall negotiate in good faith and mutually agree upon any enlargement, reduction or alteration of the contract, amount. 6.6 ServiceMaster Guarantee. ServiceMaster guarantees that the Schools costs to perform services for the custodial, maintenance and grounds departments as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, including ServiceMaster annual fees, during each year of this agreement, shall not exceed the amount reflected in the applicable portions of the School s 1995-96 fiscal year budget for such period as reflected in Exhibit C. Should any payment to ServiceMaster for services provided cause School to exceed the budget as adjusted for fiscal year 1995-96, ServiceMaster agrees that the School shall not be obligated to make any payment(s) to ServiceMaster which would cause the School to exceed the amount reflected in the applicable Rather, the schools liability to portions of the Schools 1995-96 fiscal year budget. ServiceMaster for any remaining amounts owed pursuant to Section 6 would terminate, except to the extent hereinafter provided. As such, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster the total annual amount reflected in paragraph 6.2. However, should the School realize sufficient savinss in the applicable portions of the Schools budget such that the amounts for the 1995-96 school year is less an or equal to the applicable portions of the adjusted budget for the 1995-96 fiscal year, including the amount owed to ServiceMaster, the School shall pay ServiceMaster any remaining amounts owed under paragraph 6.2. It being the intent of the parties that the School shall not incur costs and expenses, including the amounts paid to ServiceMaster, in the applicable portions of the School s budget relating to maintenance and plant operations which would cause the School to exceed the amount budgeted for that area during the 1995-96 fiscal year. For instance, the Schools 1995-96 budget for custodians, mainrenancs and related matters is $10,779,986.00. The ServiceMaster projection for 1995-96 for these same arsas, including the annual amount in paragraph 6.2, total $10,621,136.00. If those projections are achieved, ServiceMaster would receive the compensation as provided by  ? this Agreement, assuming all other terms and conditions are met. Should the projections not be achieved, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster, to the extent the payment(s) would cause the School to exceed the $10,779,986.00 budgeted amount for the 1995-96 fiscal year as pro-rated for the nine (9) months of the shortened initial year. In subsequent years, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster, to the extent the payments would cause the School to exceed the baseline amount as adjusted pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. To get the pro-rated baseline and actual amounts for the 1995-96 fiscal year, ServiceMaster and the School shall negotiate and mutually agree in writing within forty (40) calendar days after the October 2, 1995 commencement date. Management fees and amounts to be expended by ServiceMaster on equipment and supplies during the initial year will also need to be pro-rated, as necessary. Likewise, if the operational costs, exclusive of the amounts owed to ServiceMaster, exceed $9,596,086.00 ($10,779,986.00 minus $1,183,908.00), ServiceMaster must refund to the School, dollar for dollar, all such amounts already paid to Service Master which would cause the School to exceed the 1995-96 budgeted amount ($10,779,986.00). However, in no event would ServiceMaster be obligated to refund more than the management fee for the particular year (i.e., $854,561, which will be subject to proration during the initial year.) For example. Agreement Page 7 should the operational costs, exclusive of the amounts owed to ServiceMaster reach SIO.300,000 during the school year and the School has already paid ServiceMaster S640.917 (571,213 x 9), the total in this category so far would be 510,940,917. This exceeds the budgeted amount by 5160,931.00. As such, ServiceMaster would be required to refund 5160,931.00 to the School and not receive any payments remaining (571,213 x 3 = 5213,639), to honor its guarantee to the School. This same guarantee would apply for each year of this agreement, using the schools 1995-96 budgeted amount as the baseline. However, following the 1995-96 fiscal year, the wage and benefit portion of the baseline will increase each year by the base wage rate as defined in paragraph 6.4 plus any annual step increase or increment given for an additional year of service with the School. Likewise, the remaining portion including supplies, purchased services and utilities will increase each year by 1.5%.The amounts not paid from year-to-year, for which the School is not liable, may be determined by the School and ServiceMaster and recorded in a log. Thereafter, should the operational costs for the applicable portions of the Schools budget, including the amounts paid to ServiceMaster for the year in consideration, achieve sufficient savings (after all required services, supplies, equipment and other school needs for the year in question have been met), the School may pay Service.Master a portion of the amounts reflected in the log, but only to the extent such payment(s) (after determining the acnial expenditures for the year in question, including payments to ServiceMaster for the year in question) would not cause the School to exceed the applicable portions of the.baseline. Should such savings never be achieved during the term of this Agreement, the School would have no liability whatsoever to ServiceMaster for the amounts reflected in the log. Should ServiceMaster deem it necessary to request that certain expenditures be removed\nood faith, and mutually or adjusted to arrive at the actual expenditures for a particular year of this Agreement, upon request by ServiceMaster, ServiceMaster and School shall negotiate in g' agree upon any such adjustments. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, including the possibility that ServiceMaster may either receive less than full payment of the amounts reflected in paragraph 6.2 during one or more years of this Agreement or that ServiceMaster may have to refund monies to the School should sufficient savings not be achieved, ServiceMasters obligation to perform management services shall not be reduced, abated or otherwise relieved as such constimtes a portion of the guarantee made by ServiceMaster to the School. No party shall have any liability to the other hereunder by reason of any delay or failure to perform any obligation or covenant including ServiceMaster guarantee if the delay or failure to perform is occasioned by force majeure, meaning any act of God, storm, fire, casualty, work stoppage, strike, lockout, civil disturbance, riot, war, national emergency, act of government, ' act of public enemy, or other cause of similar or dissimilar nature beyond its control. 7.1 7. INDEMNIFICATION . . 7.1 Tn.surance and Indemnification of the School. ServiceMaster agrees to indemnify and hold the School and its School board members, officers and employees harmless from any liabUity imposed against the School by reason of the negligent acts or omissions of ServiceMaster or its employees. ServiceMaster shall, at its sole expense, obtain and keep m force during the term of this Agreement, a policy of comprehensive public liability insurance Agreement Page 8 insuring ServiceMaster and School against any liability arising out of the negligent acts or omissions of ServiceMaster or its agents, representatives or employees. Such insurance shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 for injury to or death of one person in any one accident or occurrence and in an amount of not less than $20,000,000.00 for injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident or occurrence. Such insurance shall further insure ServiceMaster and the School against liability for property damage of at least $20,000,000.00. The limits of said insurance shall not, however, limit the liability of ServiceMaster hereunder. If ServiceMaster shall fail to procure and maintain said insurance School may, but shall not be required to, procure and maintain the same, but at the expense of ServiceMaster. Indemnification of ServiceMaster. 7.2 The School shall indemnify and hold ServiceMaster and its parmers, directors, officers and employees harmless from any liability imposed against ServiceMaster by reason of the negligent acts or omissions of the School or its employees to the extent that the School is covered by insurance and to the extent that such is permitted by applicable law. Such insurance shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 for injury to or death of one person in any one accident or occurrence and in an amount of not less than $3,000,000 for injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident or occurrence. Further, the school does not, by so agreeing, intend to waive any immunity or other defense to which it may be entitled. Therefore, to the extent such an agreement would jeopardize or otherwise interfere with the Schools immunity and other defenses, such indemnity provision becomes null and void. 7.3 Indemnification Regarding Asbestos. The School acknowledges its obligation to identify the presence, if any, of asbestos material on the Schools premises and its responsibility to appoint the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) \"Designated Person.\" ServiceMaster agrees to provide assistance to the School in the form of: (i) support service employee education and training material when ServiceMaster is responsible to train, manage and direct said employees\n(ii) guidance in the form of Standard Operating Procedures for small- scale, short-duration operation and maintenance activities as defined by AHERA\nand (iii) other support as determined by ServiceMaster to aid the School in its AHERA-related activities. School agrees that under no circumstance shall a ServiceMaster employee be or act in the capacity of the \"Designated Person.\" School also acknowledges that ServiceMaster has no obligation hereunder to identify or take corrective action by removing or containing asbestos fibers for other than small-scale, short-duration operations and maintenance activities as defined by AHERA, nor does ServiceMaster have any duty to mitigate the hazards from exposure to asbestos fibers. The School agrees to indemnify and hold ServiceMaster harmless from any liability imposed against ServiceMaster, including costs and reasonable attorneys fees (not to exceed 10% of the amount awarded), by reason of the presence of asbestos material on the Schools premises or for any actions done or failed to be done by ServiceMaster while acting on Schools behalf related to AHERA. (This indemnity agreement is subject to the conditions, restrictions and limitations in paragraph 7.2.) 8. AGREEMENTS CONCERNING EMPLOYEES OF A PARTY 8.1 Agreements. At no time during the term of this Agreement and for a period of one year thereafter will either of the parties call upon any employee of the other party or persons who were employees of the other within the then previous twelve months, to employ, hire or Agreement Page 9 otherwise interfere with the contracmal relationships of such employees, without the prior written approval of the other party\nnor will either party directly or indirectly, for itself or on behalf of or in connection with, any other person, firm, parmership, corporation, association or School, solicit, hire, employ or take away any such employee from the other party. The parties agree that this provision is for the protection of their respective legitimate business interests and is not intended to restrict the employment rights of individuals. 8.2 Remedies for Breach. If either party breaches the above covenant, the offended party shall have e right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an injunction to restrain the offending party from employing such employee and for an order to enforce the terms of this section so breached, and the offending party shall be liable to the offended party for all reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses incurred by it to enforce the covenant. 9. TERM 9.1 Terms. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of five years commencing on October 2, 1995. 10. SPACE AND OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS PROVIDED BY THE SCHOOL 10.1 Space and Utilities. The School shall provide ServiceMaster with reasonable offices, storage space and facilities on the Schools premises from which ServiceMaster will conduct the Management Services. Such offices and storage space shall be under the operational control of ServiceMaster. The provision of such space shall include all utilities (including water, sewer, electricity and local telephone service). Such space, local facilities and utilities shall be provided without cost to ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster will insure its interest in any property owned by it located on or about the office and storage space provided to ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster shall vacate the office and storage space upon termination of this Agreement. 11. MONTHLY JOINT REVIEW 11-1 Joint Review Committee. The parties shall form a Joint Review Committee consisting of at least two persons from the School and two persons from ServiceMaster. The Joint Review Committee will meet on a monthly basis for the purpose of reviewing ServiceMasters performance with respect to the Management Services and generally to review the results of operations under this Agreement in comparison with the expectations of e parties. 12. TERMINATION FOR NON-PERFORMANCE 12.1 Notice of Non-Performance\nGrace Period: Termination. If one party (the \"Offended Party\") considers the other party (the \"Offending Party\") to have not performed one or more of its obligations hereunder, the Offended Party shall give the Offending Party a written notice which shall specify the nature of the alleged non-performance. The Offending Party shall then have sixty days from the receipt of such notice to remedy the alleged non-performance. If, at the end of such sixty-day period, the Offended Party considers the alleged non performance not to have been cured, the Offended Party may thereupon terminate this Agreement by giving the Offending Party a written notice of termination and, at the expiration of the thirtieth day following the delivery of such notice, the Offended Party shall be relieved from the further performance of its obligations hereunder. The parties understand and agree that the foregoing Agreement Page 1030-day period is to allow for an orderly transition from the Management Services as provided hereunder to an alternative service mechanism. 12.2 Termination by ServiceMaster Based on the Schools Failure to Pav the Net Amount Due. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12.1 and 6.3(b), ServiceMaster may terminate this Agreement upon ten days prior written notice if the School fails or refuses to pay ServiceMaster in accordance with e provisions of Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3(a) or 6.6. 12.3 Relationship to Section 8.2. This Section 12 shall not affect the covenants and remedies for breach thereof which are set forth in Section 8. 13. NOTICES 13.1 Form of Notice and Delivery. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by certified or registered mail, wi proper postage prepaid If to ServiceMaster, to\nServiceMaster Management Services L.P. ServiceMaster Education Management Services One ServiceMaster Way Downers Grove, IL 60515 Atm: President If to the School, to\nLittle Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Attn: Superintendent In the event the date of actual receipt of any notice is not recorded, notices shall be deemed to have been received on the third day after post. 14. GENERAL PROVISIONS 14.1 Appropriation of Funds. In the event sufficient funds shall not be appropriated or made available for the funding of operations of e School and School has no funds legally available for the payments due hereunder from other sources, School and ServiceMaster shall review the services provided hereunder and the Contract Amount, in keeping with the then proportionate amount of appropriated funds for the services hereunder, and determine the level of services which can be performed and the method of delivery of such services to School within the level of appropriated funds. In the event ServiceMaster is not able to modify its program to meet the funds appropriated, either party may terminate this Agreement upon giving to the other thirty days prior written notice. 14.2 Severability. If a court holds any part, term or provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if this Agreement did not contain the particular part, term or provision. Agreement Page 1114.3 Headings. The headings which appear in this Agreement have been inserted for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. They are not intended to, and shall not be deemed to. define, limit or extend the scope or intent of any provision hereof. 14.4 Entire A.greement. This Agreement (including Exhibits A, B, C and D as well as the Schools Business Case dated August 24, 1995, all of which are incorporated herein by reference as if included word-for-word) has been negotiated and prepared by and for the parties equally and shall not be construed as having been drafted by one party. When fully executed, it shall supersede any and all prior and existing. Agreements between the parties, either oral or in writing. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto wi respect to the subject matter hereof. 14.5 Amendments. Other than for amendments as provided in Section 6.4, any amendment or modification of this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by the parties. 14.6 Management Service (\"Exhibit D\\ A proposal detailing ServiceMaster Management Services has been submined. The said proposal becomes a part of this agreement and is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 14.7 Assignments. This Agreement is not assignable by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. 14.8 Choice of Law and Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Arkansas. The parties agree to submit to e jurisdiction of the courts within the State of Arkansas. 14.9 Attorneys Fees. Except as oerwise specifically provided herein, in any action brought in law or in equity based on this Agreement, each party shall be responsible for its own costs and attorneys fees. 14.10 Non-Waiver. No waiver of any default will be construed to be or constitute a waiver of any subsequent defaults. 14.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be a separate document but all of which constitute one and e same instrument. 14.12 Pending Litigation. Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. Service Master does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out of or in any way relating, directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the Schools liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. Agreement Page 12IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year above written. VICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES oited Partnership iceMaster Management Services, Inc., General Parmer ration Management Services,-Genefal Piutun ATTEST tn L. ,an, President Assistant ^Secretary J FLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTEST By: Agreement Page 13 j I -  N -zV.: ' ?*' I -'k-a \u0026gt; I 2539-120 1199-140 FUND 12-2542-120 2542-120 i-'- J 2542-12) 2541-120 2648-120 . i 210+240 ABOVE EUNCPONS i| 400,500,600 OBJECTS 2641.2,4,5 8 FUND 12 SALARIES VO TECH SUBS MAGNET CUST SUBTOTAL MAINT SER AREA ASB SUBTOTAL TOTAL Sal BENEFITS TOTAL LABOR SUPPLIES CUST MAINT MAGNET total SERVICE MAS^ER 38,500.00 2,070.570.00 2,109.070.00 1,330.243.00 59.426.00 1,383.669.00 3.498,739.00 524,611.00 4.023.550.00 109.259.00 480.575.00 15,000.00 604,634.00 300 OBJECf'S 254),2,4,5 EXCEPT 321-323 PORCH SER 603,159.00  y ACTUAL 92/93 ACTUAL 93.'94 actual 94795 BUDGET 95/96 FUND 12 2542-322 2642-321 2542-323 UTILITIES MAG.NET ELECT GAS WATER TOTAL 2.734,075.00 695.425.00 189.150.00 3.618.650.00 SER MASTER 1 J83,90? ')' A granc total 10.034,101.00 88.836,24 234,152.52 335,694.82 2.478.062.48 3,136.895.86 1.167.691.67 240.065.11 70,950.0-' 1.478.706.79 4,615,602.65 772,168.72 5,387,771-37 73,894.57 214,602.38 360,957.42 2.596,523.16 3,245,977.53 1,098.482.35 205.943.88 46.375.69 1,351,401.92 4.597,379.45 686.91272 5,284,292.17 79,809.80 212,697.87 351,306.97 2,536,386,27 3,ie{),200.9l 1,095,302.11 200,742.96 54,635.05 1,350,630.14 4,530,881.06 672,824.34 5.203.705.39 85,149.00 200.000.00 ' 372.934.00 2,661,168.75 3,219.261.75 1.109,338.00 175,750.00 55,115.43 i ,S40.203.43 4,559.455.18 720,591.26 '5,280,046.44 \u0026lt; ( f. ~  . \u0026gt;I ' 230,287.22 5,008.90 235,296,12 222.016.52 0.05 222,016.52 364.98223 17,460.10 382.442.33 198,541.00 15.000. CO 213,641.00 r, r 693,329-20 981,615.29 991,931.86 1,035,999.00 507,373.00 5,232,084.12 ^*,209.77 1 3.82 3.46 J 10-71 9.78C 337.40 598,876.00 2,766,666.00 642,959.98 227,539.97 4.286,030.95 529,201.00 2,443,097.45 482,255.81 230,574.64 3.685,128.90 576,335.00 2.791.665.00 698,200.00 184,100.00 4,250.300.00 10.723,954.93 10.263,208.48 ia\n779.986.44^ ) f OCT 2 6 1995 Office Of Desegregaccn moe: John w. Walker, pa. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Ltitle Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. October 24, 1995 Mr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: I would like to depose the following persons beginning at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon: Dr. Mr. Mr, Ms. Henry Williams Fred Smith Charlie Neal Linda Pondexter Ms. Judy Magness Mr. John Riggs Dr. Katherine Mitchell Each of the depositions should be relatively brief and will be focused upon the Servicemaster contract in anticipation of the Saturday hearing. If you do not agree, please let me know so that I may ask for an order from the Court requiring it. Ve: truly yours, ohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Dr. Mr. Ms. Henry Williams Jerry Malone Ann BrownFSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 5 1 1995 JAMt^ W. il^cCOfiMACK, CLERK DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER On October 28, 1995, the Court conducted a hearing on a motion by the Joshua Intervenors to prevent Little Rock School District from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster. The evidence was not completed, and the hearing on this issue is now scheduled to continue on Friday, December 8, 1995, at 9:00 a.ra. IT IS SO ORDERED this I day of October, 1995. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT3 United States District Judge PHIS DOCUMEMT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 53 AND/OR 79(al FRCP ON _ 25 5 2 I I i  i 1RECSs\" S NOV 1995 Oice oi DeseyiC'aauon MOiiitCi OlJ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS NOV 2 1995 OEP CURK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. V'- Intervenors, KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * LR-C\n82-866 Tr, MWWKZI W\u0026lt; ORDER With the Courts ruling from the bench during a heai ing on October 28, 1995, ServiceMaster Companys motion for leave to intervene (docket entry # 2547) is hereby granted. DATED this 1st day of November 1995. 'JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCEWITHRULE58 AND/OR79(a) FRCP ON BY 4 2 551 1.430/ 1 995 17:18 FROM JOHN W.URLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 02 1 X IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT-. CCf^, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 1. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIAZNTXFF VS, NO. LR\u0026lt;-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTER KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS Ths Plaintiff, SETTLEMENT Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") or (\"District\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\"), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, respectfully settle, resolve and compromise any and all issues and disputes between the\"!, pursuant to 11 14.12 of the Little Rock School District Management Services Agreement with ServiceMaster Management Services, L.P., (hereinafter referred to as the \"Agreement\"), on the following terms, conditions and understanding\n1. The District, on the recommendation of the District's superintendent, Dr. Henry Williams, authorized Dr. Williams to negotiate and enter into a contract regarding its custodial and janitorial services with an entity known as \"ServiceMaster Management Services, L.P.\", Delaware limited partnership a (hereinafter referred to as \"ServiceMaster\"). \u0026lt;MceMirruLur -1-2. .F ft It .JOHN .U...U.R.L K E.R __ p.0 3 The terms of the authorization of the Little Rock School Board Minutoe recited in the determined at dated September 1, a meeting of the hoard of director. ' excerpt 1995, as held on Thur.day, Augu.t 31, of the Dietrict 1995. evidence at the hearing referred hereinbelow as Court's Exhibit No. The excerpt was admitted to in Paragraph Nos. 31. 3 . On August 31, 1995, Joehua filed States District Division, Case No. Court, Eastern District LR-C-82-866, entering into a contract to into 9 and 9 a motion in the United Of Arkansas, Western seeking to enjoin the District from provide janitorial and management services to the District. custodial The XtRSS Prow Satering into Joshua's Motion to Enjoin Bidding Procedures \u0026lt; A Service Contract Without Reguests For Following lavolveaient e The Joshua and Without Prior the w motion\" or w Intervenors will be refsrrecl to heroin as pending litigation\". motion are adopted herein by reference The allegations off the for-word. as if set out herein On September 7, 1995, word- Joshua's motion, reference as if The allegations of the District filed its response to set out herein word-for-word. that response are adopted by 4. On or about September 20, brief in support off its contained in the brief herein word-for-word. 1995. Joshua filed a memorandum 5. motion. The allegations and are adopted by reference The primary issues ^rief, among others, *MOBWTTUI,ur arguments aa if set out raised by Joshua in its motion and were that the proposed management services' 2- f I11/.30Z1995 17! 20 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.O. TO 3710100 P. 04 contract had the potential to negatively impact the District's ability to carry out its desegregation obligations and that the District would be in violation of the laws of the State of Arkansas should it enter into the contract In the manner and under the terms proposed. 6 . The LRSO gave ServiceMaster, its agents and representatives notice of the Motion to Enjoin (referred to in the Agreement as the \"pending litigation) prior to the data on which the Agreement was subsequently executed. ServiceMaster and the District acknowledged the pending litigation and the District's right to terminate or modify the Agreement through either settlement of the litigation, order of the Court, or otherwise. The Agreement was executed on September 20, 1995. 7, On October 28, 1995, this Court the Honorable Susan Webber Wright presiding, conducted a hearing on Joshua's motion. The hearing was recessed until December 8, 1995. 8. At the hearing on October 28, 1995, this Court allowed ServiceMaster to intervene in the proceeding. ServiceMaster was represented by attorneys, John Everett of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and Joseph Mowery of Little Rock, Arkansas. 9. At the hearing, Joshua began presenting evidence and testimony toward the two issues referred to hereinabove. Prior to \u0026gt; .recessing the hearing. this Court noted the presence of the superintendent and members of the board of directors of the . District in Court and the advocacy of the lawyers for the District \u0026lt;iHtfci0imsxrr -3- )11Z30Z1995 17!20 EBQM.JQHN .U.WALKER P.fl. TO 3710100. P. 05 in defending adherence to the Agreement. The Court further remarked that ita primary interest, notwithstanding the presence of other isauea of importance, concerned the potential for the Agreement to have an adverse impact on the District's ability to meet its desegregation obligations (l.e., its ability to fund and appropriate money for desegregation programs) and whether the laws of the State of Arkansas had been complied with in reaching the Agreement and the terms of the Agreement, This Court remarked that should the Agreement be found in violation of Arkansas state law, and the Court indicated that it probably was, the Court would then have to determine whether to require the District to go back through the selection process. However, this Court went on to note that if the contract does violate Arkansas state law, it is either void or voidable. Specifically, the concerns raised relate to Code  6-31-301, aS. US', which provides that all school districts in the  State of Arkansas are required to purchase commodities as defined therein through soliciting bids where the purchase price shall equal or exceed $5,000, Commodities are defined as all supplies, goods, materials, equipment, machinery, facilities, personal  property and services, other than personal and professional services, purchased for or on behalf of the school district, excluding school buses. A violation of these requirements constitute a Class ^C criminal misdemeanor offense. 10. Paragraph 14.12 of the Agreement providest AMMSMantALR' -4- A11^30/1995 17:21 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 Bach of the parties agree that as pending ILtiaation. of the date of the execution of this Agreement, a motion to enjoin school from entering into this Agreement-with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled \"Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al.\", No. LR-C- 82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereinafter have arising out of or in anyway relating directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this School is under no obligation or duty to Agreement. appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, -T ?.l~ otherwise) of that litigation. order of the Court or 11. In recognition of the serious coneems raised in the pending litigation through Joshua's motion\nthe evidence and testimony presented at the hearing on October 38, 1995\nthe P . 06 concerns expressed by this Court prior to recessing the October 28 hearing\nand, the independent review and assessment of the facts, circumstances and applicable law by the District, its agents. representatives, and counsel, the board of directors of the District, on Tuesday, October 31, 1995, met in a special meeting and passed a motion directing its counsel to negotiate a settlement ' of. the pending litigation with the appropriate parties,  accordance with 5 14.12 of the Agreement. in NOW, THESSF0R2, the Joshua Intervenors and the Little Rock School District have decided and agreed to resolve their differences and to request the Court to enter an order on the pending Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from entering into the agreement  on terms which are 9d mutually satisfactory to all parties to the *Mii I' nfii-j nxLiT s- Udi J Mtn AbnidJ 26/ T0 33111/30/1995 17:22 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 07 pending litigation such to prevent any negative impact on the District's desegregation obligations and to avoid any state law violations, to-witi a. The Joshua Intervenors do hereby agree to the entry of an order by the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, on their Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service agreement which terminates the District's liability under the Agreement to ServiceMaster as well as terminating the District's liability on all matters which were brought or could have been brought in that pending litigation\n'o. The District acknowledges that it had no intent to enter into and would not enter into a contract with ServiceMaster had it known that the terms thereof would violate the terms and conditions of the Court-approved desegregation settlement plans, laws of the State of Arkansas, or both. Joshua contends that the Court- approved desegregation plan requires timely involvement of Joshua, the office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Court in matters which may substantially affect the operations of the Little Rock School District as it relates to the District's ability to fund, implement and ca'Ty out its desegregation programs and activities. To the extent that such is required by the Court-approved desegregation plan, the District reaffirms its commitment to do SO\nand, c. The Joshua Intervenors have raised questions relating to the possibility that the District has failed to follow prescribed processes and procedures, possibly violated the laws of the State of Arkansas by virtue of the Agreement, and possibly placed the District in the position of negatively impacting its ability to carry out Its desegregation obligations. This Court has likewise Agreement raised concerns regarding the legality o the Agreement pursuant to the laws of the state oS Arkansas. Because of these questions and concerns as well as the Distriet's own independent investigation and assessment of the facts, circumstances and applicable law, both Joshua and the District agree that thia Court should enter an Order pursuant to f 14.12 of the Agreement declaring the Agreement to be null and void and terminating the District's liability thereunder in accordance with the release agreed to by ServiceMaster therein. Because fcl|ll.lHl*HTl.llJ.IT -6-11^30X1995 17:23 FROM JOHN W.UfiLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P . 08 On the basia o the foregoing agreement, acknowledgements and recitals* the Joshua Intervenors and the Little Rock School District do hereby respectfully request that this Court enter an Order terminating any and all of the District's liability under, . pursuant to, or otherwise relating to the Agreement with ServiceMaster and. affirming the validity of the release of liability by ServiceMaster, all as contained in t 14.12 of the Agreement, Both Joshua and the District agree and acknowledge that any proposed settlement of this litigation is intended to comply '.with the provisions of 1 14.12 of the Agreement which gives the LRSD the right to terminate or modify its liability thereunder through order of this Court, settlement or otherwise. Therefore, any such settlement is expressly conditioned upon the entry of an order by the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, recognizing the District's right to terminate or modify its liability under the Agreement by order of this Court, settlement or otherwise\nterminating the Agreement with ServiceMaster and the pending litigation\nand, terminating the District's liability under the Agreement by declaring the Contract to ba void or otherwise unenforceable in accordance with 1 14.12 of the Agreement. Should the Court decline to do so, be unable to do _ so, or for whatever reason such cam not be accomplished, it is the ** agreement of the parties hereto that this proposed settlement will .become null and void to the same extent as though it had never existed, to the extent that such is necessary to prevent contractual, equitable or other liability being imposed upon the fi'riiihitimj.ur -7- AM11/30/1995 17:24 FROM JOHN W.UflLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P . 09 1 District by ServiceMaster or any other party or person by virtue of this settlement or any actions of the District, Its agents, representatives, counsel, er assigns. Further, should the Court decline to so terminate the District's liability, be unable to do so, or for whatever reason such can not be accomplished, Joshua would retain its right to proceed with evidence and testimony in support of the motion as though Chis settlement never existed. Neither party (LRSD, Joshua or ServiceMaster) would be permitted to utilize this settlement or any of its recitals as - admissions, concessions or other evidence in the proceedings on Joshua's motion, should the hearing resume. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P,A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3753 ATTORNEYS FOR JOSHUA INTERVENORS By: John w. Walker Bar I. D. No. . FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK. Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, ikrkansas 72201-3493 (SOD 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF . LITTLE ROCK 3CSOGL DISTRICT By: Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 MMcnwruur -8-I * ' 11^30/1995 17:25 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 10 ! CERTIFICATE QF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foreooing Sectlement of Pending Litigation has been eerved by U, 3. Mail. Dostage prepaid, except as otherwise indicated, on November 1995, upon the followings Mr. John C. Everett EVERETT, MARS \u0026amp; STILLS Attorneys at Law 3822 N. Parkview Drive Post Office Box 1646 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703-1S4S Mr. Joseph s. Mowery GIROIR i GREGORY Attorneys et Law 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr, Samuel M, Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 worthan Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol a Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 73301 Mr. Richard W, Roache11 ROACHSLL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered as per Order by the Court) Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation . Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone teMKatManuuT -9- MM waij pn AJdQiaj wdBSsza se, ta oaa12/07/1995 10:25 FROM JOHN U.UPLKER P.P. TO 3710100 EASTS  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COD^jgg by EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION i3y\n, e-=. -T P. 02 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFS V. LR-C-32-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS I-. I SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership MOTION FOR COKTINUANCE INTERVENOR The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request a continuance of the hearing scheduled for December 8, 1995. respectfully show the Court as follows\n1. For cause, they On November 29, 1995, intervenor Servicemaster Management Services filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer to the Joshua Intervenors motion to enjoin the Little Rock School District from entering into a contract with Servicemaster. This motion, amended answer and memorandum brief was not received by undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors until December 4, 1995. Therefore, additional time is needed in order for undersigned counsel to prepare a response to said motion, answer and memorandum brief. 2. In preparation tor the hearing on Friday, December 8, t  1995, undersigned counsel did not anticipate any additional12/07/1995 10:26 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 03 pleadings being filed by either plaintiff, defendant or the other intervenors in this 'case. Intervenor Servicemaster^s filing can be construed as surprise given the pending hearing scheduled for Friday of this week. Further preparation by Joshua is now necessary 3, in view of this filing. In addition, on December 4, 1994, the Joshua Intervenors approved the proposed settlement agreement between the Dxstrict and Joshua which was prepared by the school district. That document effectively resolves the controversy between Joshua and the LRSD. 4. In view of the settlement agreement, which Joshua awaits school district counsel to file with the Court, the case should be dismissed except to the extent that the Court wishes to afford Servicemaster a hearing. Joshua, however, has not filed any action against Servicemaster. 5. A continuance would afford the parties, time to prepare their respective positions more fully in the event that the Court finds for example, that Servicemaster is entitled to proceed in this matter. 6. The LRSD and Servicemaster are not prejudiced by this request for delay. WHERJ^ORJS, the Joshua Intervenors pray that this matter be continued pending the filing of further submissions by the LRSD and, if necessary, if the Court declines, to approve the submission, after full further oppoirtunity for preparation by the Joshua Intervenors.12/07x1993 10:27 FROM JOHN U.URLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 04 Respectfully subiaitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501)Z374-3758 72206 By\nCBRTiyiCATB OF SERyiCB I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoi via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this /- December, 1995. has been sent J\u0026gt; W. Walker day of 12/07/1995 10!24 FROM JOHN W.URLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P. 01 \u0026lt; REASONS G K E E T I N G Q John W. Walker, PX I7B Broadway Littlt tod, M 72206 (501)374.0 fajc (501)3744187 fax transmittal to: fax: fronu date: re: pages: 1-6 ( / / //V , inciuding cover sheet J NOTES: 3-.. i: A riia  f' ei*a.LA,Zi^ RECE DEC 1 J 1995 . ,AS Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION r-. }5y5 I l\n' ...-ex. Cl j.K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER Now on this day of s.. 1995, this matter comes on to be heard upon the motion of the Intervenor, ServiceMaster Management Services, for leave to file an amended answer in this case. After consideration of such motion, the Court doth find that such motion should be, and hereby is, granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 4' Hon. Susan Webber Wnght, United States District Court Judge mis DOCLVE^ .ED ONDCCKET SHEET IN COMPLIA ON 2. .3 r.r BY VOR 79(a) FRCP Ad 2 5 8C ' 1 6^ cm/ EO I DEC 1 ,31995 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION i i 1595 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Py:V .y. ClL^' JC ClE.-.X CEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTERVENOR ORDER The issue before the Court concerns a contract that the vs. I 0 b Superintendent of the Little Rock School District, Dr. Henry Williams, entered into with Servicemaster Management Services, L.P. on September 20, 1995.' The contract (Ex. 359) provides that ServiceMaster will provide management services to the district for a period of five years for $98,659 per month. subject to adjustment. The district sought the advice of counsel before entering into the contract, which was drafted by ServiceMaster, and several contract modifications were made pursuant to the advice of district counsel. On August 31, 1995, the district board of directors held a hearing at which it authorized Dr. Williams to negotiate and enter into the contract on behalf of the district. Board member Pat Gee testified at a hearing before this Court that she asked the board to review the final contract before Dr. Williams signed it. However, the board did not review the final document before Dr. Williams signed it. I 2 5 86 IThe minutes for the August 31, 1995 meeting of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors reflect that the board was aware that the Joshua Intervenors had filed a motion with this Court for a preliminary injunction asking the Court to enjoin LRSD from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster. Joshua alleged the following grounds for issuance of the injunction: (1) that the district had not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors\n(2) that the proposed contract has potential adverse racial effect and impact\n(3) that the contract has not been let for bids in accordance with Arkansas law\n(4) that the expenditures required of the district under the contract would inhibit the district in meeting its desegregation obligations\nand (5) on Joshua's belief that the contract was not negotiated at arms' length. Aware of the pending motion for a preliminary injunction, LRSD and ServiceMaster included the following clause 14.12) in their contract: Pending litigation. Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement, a motion to enjoin school from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled \"Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al.\". No. LR-C- 82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereinafter have arising out of or in anyway relating directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. liability hereunder will Further, the be subject to the School's outcome -2-(through either settlement, otherwise) of that litigation. order of the Court or The Court set the matter for a hearing on Saturday, October 28, 1995. ServiceMaster filed a motion to intervene, which the Court granted. During the hearing the Court noted from the bench that Joshua had a difficult burden of proof with respect to establishing that the contract would interfere with the district's ability to carry out its desegregation obligations, as the district maintained that it would spend no more money on the contract than it already spends on maintenance and custodial services. The Court further noted, without deciding, that Joshua might be more likely to succeed on its argument that state law had not been followed because the district had not followed the bidding procedures established by Ark. Code Ann.  6-21-301 et seq.^ The Court recessed the hearing before the Joshua Intervenors had completed their proof. However, Joshua did establish that bidding procedures were not used and that neither the superintendent nor anyone else from the LRSD administration consulted with Joshua prior to entering into the contract. The hearing was continued until December 8, 1995. On October 31, 1995, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors discussed the ServiceMaster contract in absence of their attorneys. The board passed a motion with respect to settlement of 2 ServiceMaster contends that the contract is one for professional services, exempt from the bidding requirements set forth in the statute. -3-the ServiceMaster issue. The minutes for the October 31 meeting (Ex. 378) read as follows: III. ACTION ITEMS ServiceMaster Contract: Ms. Pondexter called for a motion on the ServiceMaster contract. Dr. Daugherty stated that he would prefer to question District attorneys about the contract prior to making a motion, but attorneys for the District were not present. Dr. Daugherty made a motion that the Board ask the attorneys to settle the contract with the appropriate parties. r \" \" ' __\n____1 __ He stated that his motion was based on the pending litigation and the fact that Judge Wright had stated a belief that the contact [sic] violation of Arkansas law. is a possible Ms. Gee seconded the motion. Ms. Magness, opposition to Mr. the Riggs, and Dr. motion. Mitchell spoke in They suggested a more appropriate action would be to allow the District's attorneys to work within the court system to settle the litigation and to then abide by any rulings made by Judge Wright. Ms. Pondexter spoke in favor of the motion and indicated that the District's attorneys were being instructed by the Board to seek a reasonable settlement to save the cost of litigation. instructed to The attorneys are not being motion. \"give away the company store\" by this She stated that an Attorney General's opinion found the contract to be a violation of State law. The attorneys' responsibility is to return to the Board if they are unable to reach a settlement, in which case the litigation would continue. She then called for the vote. The motion passed 4-3 with Ms. Pondexter, Ms. Gee, Ms. Strickland and Dr. Daugherty voting \"yes. II Magness, Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Riggs voting and Ms. \"no.\" At the continuation of the hearing on December 8 counsel for Joshua tendered into evidence a document entitled \"Settlement\" (Ex. 3 73) , which Joshua maintains constitutes a settlement offer by LRSD that was accepted by Joshua (Ex. 374) with respect to the -4-ServiceMaster contract. ServiceMaster was not a party to this H settlement\" even though it would have a considerable impact upon ServiceMaster's contract with the LRSD. This \"settlement\" was delivered by fax to counsel for Joshua by counsel for the LRSD on or about December 1. Counsel for Joshua, Mr. John Walker, claims that this constitutes an offer by LRSD to settle the matter with Joshua by having the court issue an order enjoining the LRSD from entering into the ServiceMaster agreement and terminating the district's liability pursuant to Paragraph 14.12 of the contract. Little Rock contends that this document was not intended as an offer to settle, in that it is stamped \"Draft\" (illegible on the court's copy) and is not signed by any party or the attorney for any party. LRSD has also implied, by questioning of witnesses. that Mr. Jerry Malone, the LRSD attorney who apparently drafted and sent this \"settlement\" document, did not have authority from the board to settle with Joshua. Linda Pondexter, President of the LRSD Board of Directors, testified on December 8 that it was her understanding that on October 31, the Board was authorizing its attorneys to settle with the Joshua Intervenors, not with ServiceMaster. Pat Gee, another board member, testified on December 8 that the motion regarding settlement was intended to get the district out of its contract obligations without liability. This Court declines to rule on whether this \"settlement It constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into -5-it with Joshua. The Court finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, public policy prohibits this type of settlement. This \"settlement\" purports to create a situation in which this Court, by agreement of Joshua and LRSD, would by court order declare the agreement to be non-binding on the part of LRSD and would relieve LRSD of any liability. Indeed, Paragraph 14.12 of the ServiceMaster contract provides an If escape clause\" for LRSD should this Court terminate or modify the ServiceMaster agreement. It provides that LRSD shall have no obligation to appeal decisions affecting the contract. Therefore, it implies that LRSD will in good faith abide by the terms of the contract and will not contract with Joshua or anyone else to procure a court order allowing it to escape liability. It would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. This Court finds that ServiceMaster and LRSD did not intend that this clause would permit Little Rock to escape liability without a ruling by this Court on the merits. Therefore, the Court holds that this purported settlement cannot be enforced against ServiceMaster. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of December 1995. \"^jnitedstatesdistrictTjudg JUDGE -6- rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN WJTl COMPLIANCE WJ' ON 12/1(1 ULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP aC- ' DEC 1 a 1995 Office of Desegregaiion Motmofing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U3 L 'if-G .\\ i ' 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. LR-C-82-866 -xf-iS Dy: ClL.' CURK I T X E . 1/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL ORDER Joshua's motion for continuance of the hearing scheduled for December 8, 1995, was denied in open Court during hearings conducted on December 8, 1995, and should be removed as a pending motion. The clerk is directed to make the proper entry to remove this motion [#2579] from the motions' list. IT IS SO ORDERED this // day of December, 1995. SUSAN vj: 'EBBER WRIGHT United States District Judge mis D\nCf...\\\nPL\nA.NCE VViTi- ON iN DOCKET SHEET IN T.O/CR 79(a) FRCP BY 2 5 8 5IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS DEC 2 2 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. V. LR-C-a3-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL. JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By\nPLAINTIFFS-- DEP CLERK RECEn^ DEFENDANTS DEC 2 7 1995 INTERVENORS Office of Oesegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ANETTOR COMPLETION-OF HEARING The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") respectfully move for reconsideration of this Court's Order of December Ilf 1995, addressing the issues arising in the course of consideration of the Joshua motion to enjoin the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster Management Services, L. P. (\"ServiceMaster\"). Joshua Intervenors further request that the Court schedule an additional hearing to complete consideration of the Joshua's motion. This motion is based upon the accompanying brief, the record in this case and the following allegations\n1. As the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, reveals (at 2), the Joshua Intervenors alleged multiple grounds in support of their motion. Joshua Intervenors have not completed their presentation in support of their motion. and the Court has not ruled on the substantive grounds which it sets forth. See December 11, 1995, Order at 3, 6. 2. The safeguarding of the system's resources in order to / 1permit the LRSD to satisfy the reguirements of federal law is an important element of the current phase of this case. 3. The current desegregation plan of the LRSD emphasizes voluntary choice of schools. The LRSD's relevant \"business case\" of August 24, 1995, cites a relationship between the maintenance of schools and enrollment (at 2 \"Problem Definition\"\nat 7-8 \"Impact Analysis\"). The business case indicates that the contract would be \"paid for\" by: Position reductions over time through attrition 21 PTE custodians 14 PTE building substitutes Consideration of the implications of these reductions is not complete. 4. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying brief, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that the Court's reliance on grounds of \"public policy\" in the December 11, 1995, Order,(at 6) was in error. 5. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying brief, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that the Court's * * interpretation of the contract (Order at 6) was in error. 6. Based upon our research, there are substantial grounds to doubt that the Order of December 11, 1995, is an appealable Order. 7. The amount of in-court time needed to complete consideration of the motion can be minimized by the taking and use of depositions. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors motions this Court to reconsider its December 11, 1995, Order and to allow the Joshua 2Intervenors to proceed with their presentation to support their motion and for all other relief deemed proper and necessary by the Court. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little (501)/ Rock, AR 74-3758 72206 By\n_____ W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that copy of the sent to all counsel of record via U.S. foregoing was postage prepaid on this day of em, . mail with 95. J, .n W. Walker a 3FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS nF n 2 21935 EASTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. By.-. - PLAINTIFFS.. . CLERK V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. RECEJVEr DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. DEC 2 7 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL. Office of Doseoregation Monnenng INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF  MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND COMPLETION OF HEARING The Plaintiffs, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), entered into a contract with ServiceMaster Management Services, L.P. (\"ServiceMaster) on September 20, 1995.' The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion to enjoin the contract on the grounds that the contract was in contradiction of the intent of the desegregation plan and it violated state laws of the bidding process. The contract was drafted by ServiceMaster and modifications were made by counsel for the LRSD. Despite the modifications. ServiceMaster signed the contract with the LRSD. A hearing on Joshua's Motion to Enjoin was held on December 10, 1995. ServiceMaster filed a motion to intervene, which was granted. At issue in the hearing was and is paragraph 14.12 of the LRSD  The LRSD board of directors authorized Superintendent Dr. Henry Williams to negotiate and enter a contract on behalf of the The LRSD board did not have an opportunity to review the district. final document before Dr. Williams signed it. / 1Management Services Agreement with ServiceMaster (at 12) which is entitled \"Pending Litigation.\" The Pending Litigation provision reads as follows: Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School [LRSD] from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Western Arkansas, Division, styled Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.. No. LR-C-82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge al., causes of School from any and all actions, action, damages, claims demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out or directly or of or in any way relating, indirectly from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or School is under no modify this Agreement, obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. Representatives of the LRSD and ServiceMaster signed the contract on September 20, 1995. Thus, a binding contract was created between the parties. It is the position of the Joshua Intervenors that a settlement was reached between the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. Pursuant to paragraph 14.12 of the contract between the LRSD and ServiceMaster, such a settlement would terminate the contract with ServiceMaster without liability to the LRSD. In its December 11, / 1995, Order the Court refused to rule on whether this \"Settlement\" constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into 2it with Joshua. The Court went on to say that it \"finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, public policy prohibits this type of settlement. Indeed, Paragraph 14,12 of the ServiceMaster contract provides an 'escape clause' for LRSD should this Court terminate or modify the ServiceMaster agreement. It would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party.\" The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held to the contrary. The Eighth Circuit has held that while a termination clause may indicate willingness to engage in cold-hearted economic a competition, it simply does not violate any recognized Arkansas public policy. Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988). Union National Bank and Federal National Mortgage Association (\"FNMA\") entered into contract which contained a unilateral termination clause. The clause read as follows: We may [FNMA] terminate the provisions of this Contract covering the servicing under this Contract of any or all mortgages that we This may be done by following entirely own. the procedure outlined below. 1. Termination without cause. We [FNMA] may terminate by giving the Lender 30 days notice of the termination, and by paying the Lender a termination fee. This termination fee will be specified in our Guides as we may modify them from time to time. Union. 860 F.2d at 849. FNMA sought to terminate the contract and Union argued that to a / 3allow FNMA the right to terminate the agreement without cause was unenforceable as contrary to public policy. The Eighth Circuit analogized this situation to an \"at will\" or \"without cause\" termination right in employment contracts. The right to terminate \"at will\" or \"without cause\" is not against public policy unless the reason alleged for the discharge is so repugnant to the general good as to deserve the label 'against public policy'.\" Union. 860 F.2d at 853 (citing Lucas v. Brown \u0026amp; Root, Inc.. 736 F.2d 1202 (8th Cir. 1984)). Similarly, the contract between LRSD and ServiceMaster contained a pending litigation clause which is the equivalent of a termination clause. The clause requires Servicemaster to release and forever discharge the LRSD from \"any and all actions and damages that may arise from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify the contract.\" It has been held by the Eighth Circuit that this clause does not violate any Arkansas public policy. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is not alone in this holding. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the power to refuse to enforce contracts on the grounds of public policy is therefore limited to occasions where the contract would violate \"some explicit public policy\" that is \"well-defined and dominant, and [which] is to be ascertained 'by reference to the / laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests'.\" St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Duke University. 849 F.2d 133 (4 th Cir. 1988) (citing United 4Paperworkers International Union v. Misco Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 108 S.Ct. 373, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987) citations omitted). The Court went on to state that the usual and most important function of courts of justice is rather to maintain and enforce contracts, than to enable parties thereto escape from their obligations on the pretext of public policy, unless it clearly appears that they contravene public right or the general welfare. St. Paul. 849 F.2d at 135 (citing Smithy Braedon Co. V. Hadid, 825 F.2d 787, 790 (4th Cir. 1987)). Finally, the Court concluded that it was the court's duty to enforce the contract as written unless enforcement was forbidden by an existent state policy. St. Paul. 849 F.2d at 136. In the case at bar, it is the Court's duty to enforce the contract between the LRSD and ServiceMaster as written since it does not violate any established Arkansas public policy. ServiceMaster entered into the contract with the LRSD with full knowledge of the meaning of paragraph 14.12. As a result. ServiceMaster cannot argue unconscionability. The Eighth Circuit in Union stated that the district court also ruled that, despite a substantial inequality in the bargaining power of the parties, the Contract was not unconscionable. Union. 860 F.2d at 853 (footnote 12) . There does not seem to have been any inequality in the bargaining power between the LRSD and ServiceMaster. Therefore, there are no grounds for an argument of unconscionability. Additionally, ServiceMaster voluntarily agreed to release and discharge the LRSD from \"any and all actions, causes of actions, damages, claims or demands which may arise from orders issued by / 5R the United States District Court which may terminate or modify the agreement. ( Contract, Paragraph 14.12.). The Arkansas Court of Appeals has held that subject to public policy considerations, a party may voluntarily agree to hold another harmless against loss by whatever cause it might be sustained. Weaver-Bailey Con'trs v. Fiske Carter Const.. 9 Ark.App. 192, 657 S.W.2d 209 (1983) . As previously stated. there is no Arkansas public policy which prohibits the inclusion of a unilateral termination clause in a contract between two parties even if the parties are of unequal bargaining power. Therefore, ServiceMaster voluntarily waived its ight to hold the LRSD liable for breach of contract and damages r resulting therefrom. The Court may not rewrite the contract to provide relief to ServiceMaster. Arkansas law states in the absence of violation of some clearly established public policy, the courts will not remake a contract between the parties to devise a basis of relief where none exists under the contract. M.B.M. Co. V. Counce. 268 Ark. 269, 569 S.W.2d 681 (1980). Pursuant to Arkansas law, the Court may not rewrite or modify the contract to grant relief to ServiceMaster when ServiceMaster entered into the contract with full knowledge of the impact of the Pending Litigation clause. In conclusion, ServiceMaster did not assert that the Pending Litigation clause violated public policy nor inclusion of the clause was unconscionable. did it assert that The clause is valid / and does not violate any established Arkansas public policy. Therefore, if is found that a settlement was reached between the 6LRSD and Joshua Intervenors, the pending litigation clause should be effectuated to render the contract between the LRSD and ServiceMaster discharged without liability to LRSD. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S^ Little I Ri (501) By:__ Jo] \u0026lt;7 iroadway bk, AR 7220 W .\" Walkfer CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE a copy of the I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that foregoing was sei] to all counsel of record via U.S. mail postage paid on this day of December, 19^. o n'W. Walker I 7 RECEIV filed JAN 19 1996 **) atassB Ofiice ot Desefltegavon MonAofii'S 'JAN 1 7 1995 JAMES W. JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT \u0026lt;Q^T EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ^\u0026lt;^CORMACK, ClRK OEP CURK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to afford them any opportunity to respond to the submission filed herein on behalf of Servicemaster Management Services dated January 8, 1996. The response raises and addresses several cases which were not raised and discussed in our brief and motion for reconsideration. There is no prejudice to the Little Rock School District or Servicemaster by allowing such a submission. We also note that the LRSD has taken no position regarding wither the position of Servicemaster or Joshua. We further request five days beyond the date of an order granting permission to submit a reply in which to file our response.\u0026gt;1.1 \u0026gt;* ,I Undersigned counsel is authorized to say that counsel for LRSD and Servicemaster have no objection to this request. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501^374-3758 72206 Ji Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE th I do hereby state that a copy of the forego^g was delivered via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this l^h day of January, 1996. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN I 3 1996 JAMES/W. By\nES/M(jC^ORMACK, CLERK ''1 ' DEP CCLLEERRKK PLAINTIFF RECEIVE' DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS JAN 1 9 1996 INTERVENORS Office of Desefiregation f'^\u0026amp;nito.-ifqiNTERVENORS ORDER Upon motion of the Joshua Intervenors, and there being no objections. the time for filing a reply to the Servicemaster submission dated January 8, 1996, is hereby extended to and vs. including January 26, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January 1996. RED ON DOC:\u0026lt;ET SHEET IN I .1 R^/jT JUDGE Odis DOCUMEfiT Ef.'T COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP _gY -L 2 6 0 4 LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 431 P02 JfiN 19 96 12:52 91^ Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 18, 1996 Mr. John Walker, Attornev 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: Once again I find it necessary to respond to one of your letters which tells a half truth supports what you wan. e Board. Ann Brown, andLtheXheL taow wnat actually occurred. You have an uncanny way of distorting the truth. or think, and not Yes, you were present at the meeting, and yes, you wanted to raise questions and issues that st\",'! \"iied by Le Cour,. I rcfuald L actaX!X ' on Md no'pL.T.' belief that your presence at die meen'ngwas to gaUierinforLL P meeting that was designed to answer questions and address litigators. Your concerns and questions as a litigator currently being litigated and studied by the Court. concerns ServiceMaster contract should be addressed --  questions as a litigator regarding the in Court, not in a meeting of emplovees. In response to your contention that I condition with regard to the misrepresented the Board or the Districts fiscal J  amount of money the District has to spend on new custodial equipment and supplies, as well as salary increases, is absolutely not true. What I said, and made very clear, was that if we, equipment for custodial as a District, had to replace all of the wtherrnei ietoh thie^uch as the ServiceMastesr upgegoepstleed atrhea td iof iwngf tthhaatt wwee would indeed have to have increased salaries for custodians \\xra\u0026lt;/ oe T^ ... \u0026gt;*w**w. revenue tVhUrioVuUgXhU \u0026lt;a* UmlUilIldaSgCe increase. By the IT c?aLn oLnliy mTake recommendations in this regard.  milla=g e incr ease ccaammppaaiiggnn. Also. I would like to know when aU of the District custodians became provide me with all records which indicate that your clients. Please custodians to represent their interest As far as I know, that ^oup attomw that ft.., *__ 1_____ Of you were contacted and retained by the attorney that represents the teacher group. IS represented by the Sincerely, \u0026lt;J Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 431 P03 JAN 19 96 12:53 January 18, 1995 Page 2 cc: Chris Heller Ann Brown Linda Pondexter LRSD Board Members f.JOHN W. WALKER. PA 3 Uiija Vxi? ^'x:3 I* JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JAN 1 9 1996 Office cf ^eseg.-egaacn Modiicnng January 17,1996 [DELIVERED BY FAX \u0026amp; U.S. MAIL] Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: I represent a number of custodians. Today, I requested an opportunity to address the group meeting were you were present and to be allowed to ask some questions regarding comments made by you or Service Master representatives. I also reduced my request to writing in a letter to Mr. Fred Smith. You both declined my request. I now wish to state that you made representations to the group to the effect that the district was financially unable to provide custodian equipment and supplies and, therefore, that an outside group was required to do so. You specifically held the school board responsible for the financial condition of the district stating that a mileage was needed in order to provide wage increases for the employees and other needs of the district. I believe you misrepresented the district's financial condition as well as the necessity for Service Masters management services, supplies and equipment. Would you kindly, therefore, make available a tape of the meeting to the school board members so that they may independently appraise your comments as well as those of the Service Master representative. Would you also explain why I could not raise issues on behalf of my clients. Please recall that cleanliness issues are an integral part of the desegregation plan.Page Two January 17,1996 Please let me hear from you by return fax to this letter and my hand-written letter to Mr. Fred Smith. Very truly yours, [Original Signed By Uni John W. Walker signed Counsel] wCc Ld- JWW-.lp cc: Mr. Fred Smith Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Linda Pondexter LRSD Board Members [DICTATED BUT NOT READ]JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 .MN 2 2 1996 Office of Desegregaiicn Monnoring K. January 19, 1996 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: This letter is a seriatim response to your letter to of January 18, 1996. You indicated that you declined to allow me to speak to the custodians or raise questions regarding the Servicemaster (1) matter. So that it will not be regarded as a \"half truth\", please acknowledge that I neither said or did anything during that meeting other than to raise my hand. Would you also please acknowledge that we did not exchange any words at that meeting and that your beliefs which were written in your letter were not publicized at the meeting. (2) You indicated that the Board's fiscal condition did not allow for the purchase of 1.2 million dollars in equipment, supplies and services. Please acknowledge that you indicated that the District could not afford to meet its custodial needs within its existing budget and that the only way of meeting the custodial needs of the District was by outsourcing. Now, for my position for purposes of discussion, neither you nor Mr. Fred Smith have been in a position to state what the District's actual for financial position is. Moreover, there are means available within the ADE to allow school districts loan funds for equipment purchases and meet other exigencies. What you have done with Servicemaster is simply to accept a loan which, I submit, you will repay many times over with interest and for services rendered. I might further add that if the buildings were in such bad condition, then Mr. Doug Eaton necessarily had some responsibility for that circumstance. The District practice has been to transfer, demote or terminate unsatisfactorily performing administrators. Mr. Eaton has been rewarded, rather than \"punished\", by having had his budget and staff substantially increased while his responsibilities for custodians have been diminished. This is giving him time to use his skills in educational policy making, an area for which he is not trained, certified or experienced.(3) You did indicate that the only way that the custodians could receive pay raises is by a millage increase. As a party representative in the desegregation case, I would like to know how you can make this statement in view of the transfers that you have made of people into higher level positions. The examples that I would like for you to address are those of Ms. Griffin, your personal secretary and Ms. Keathley, Dr. Mayo's personal secretary, though titled otherwise, each of whom received pay raises over a two year period of between 10 and 15 thousand dollars or more. Their raises alone I submit, if directed toward approximately 300 custodians, would have allowed each custodian a raise of $100.00. With the other raises of similarly situated people, it is easy to see that this group of employees could have been easily afforded, within the present budget, a 3 or 4 percent raise without a millage increase. I am sure you could sense the low morale of the custodians and their great sense of distrust which they had of you and Servicemaster. Surely you must know that low morale of this group of employees will necessarily result in lower levels of work performance and will accordingly reflect upon the desegregation plan. Please reflect on this. (4) You indicate that I contend that I represent all district custodians. did, let me hasten to correct that. If I suggested that, which I don't think I I do not. I do represent a number of them with respect to issues which are presently pending. I am withholding legal action against the District because of my December commitment to you which extends through the end of January. I had hoped that there would have been some substantive manifestation of reciprocity during this interval. It appears that I was wrong, but today is January 19, 1996\nwe still still have 12 days to go. Pardon the pun, please.) I still have hope (being from Hope - Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Linda Pondexter LRSD Board MembersALED COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAW 2 6 tqo-s EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DISTRICT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By.-------------------- DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL.  IAN 3 0 1996 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Office of Desegregation SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership -__ Momoring INTERVENOR JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REPLY BRIEF The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion and a Brief in Support of Reconsideration and Completion of Hearing regarding settlement between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and Joshua Intervenors. ServiceMaster has intervened in the matter as a party of interest since its contract with LRSD is involved. A hearing was held in December of 1995 and the Court issued a subsequent Order on December 11, 1995 in which it refused to rule on the merits of whether a settlement between LRSD and Joshua Intervenors existed. Instead the Court ruled that a provision in the contract between ServiceMaster and LRSD was against public policy and could not be enforced. Joshua Intervenors then filed its Motion for Reconsideration. ServiceMaster responded that the provision was not a terminationclause and the Court should examine the intent of the parties as to the provision in question. The provision in question, Section 14.12 entitled Pending Litigation, reads as follows: Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School from entering this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District No. 1, et. al.. No. LR-C-82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out of or in any way relating, directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. (emphasis added) School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. The Court stated this provision allowed one party to unilaterally escape its obligation without a similar provision to the other and was against public policy. The Court did not address the merits of whether there was a settlement between LRSD and Joshua Intervenors. Joshua Intervenors have requested that the Court reconsider its ruling on the grounds that the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that clauses in contracts that allow termination without cause are not against any established Arkansas public policy. ServiceMaster responded that Joshua Intervenors analogized thei 5S^ case improperly. Review of Joshua Intervenors' Brief in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration will show that Joshua cited the case for the law and not for the facts. The law was simply that a party may unilaterally terminate a contract and it does not go against any established Arkansas public policy. Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847, 853 (Sth Cir. 1988) . The termination without clause did provide for a termination fee to be paid to Union. Union, 860 F.2d at 849. Next, ServiceMaster argued the intent of the parties was to be bound to the contract. The dominant rule IS that the interpretation of a contract is controlled by the intention of the parties, and it is the duty of the courts to ascertain and give effect to the meaning and intent of the parties as expressed in the language used. Les-Bil V. General Waterworks, 256 Ark. 905, 511 S.W.2d 166 (1974). The express language used in the provision made \"the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation\" namely the motion in the school case concerning the ServiceMaster contract. When ServiceMaster entered into this Agreement it was fully aware of pending litigation. With full knowledge, ServiceMaster expressly agreed to be bound until a settlement or Court order terminated the contract. It is clear that ServiceMaster intended to be loound until a settlement or Court order terminated the contract. The Arkansas Court of Appeals has held that parol evidence isnot admissible to show subjective intent of the parties. Thi rule does not allow a party to prove by oral testimony that clear and unambiguous words were subjectively intended to have a meaning not fairly attributable to them. Martin v. Martin, 6 Ark.J^p. 18, 637 S.W.2d 612 (1982) . ServiceMaster cited a case which held that\" [i]t is a well- established principle of law that. in the interpretation or construction of the contract. the construction the parties  themselves have placed on the contract is entitled to great weight. and will generally be adopted by the courts in giving effect to its provisions. This is especially true in cases of ambiguity in the written contract.\" Worthen Bank \u0026amp; Trust Co. v. Adair, 15 Ark.App. 144, 151, 690 S.W.2d 727, 731 (En Banc 1985) . There is no ambiguity in the provision. The intent of the parties is clearly expressed in the provision. Section 14.12. The construction is that settlement or an order from the Court will terminate the contract. The objective manifestation of intent, not subjective manifestation, is what the court examines. The Court ruled that the provision. Section 14.12, was against public policy and refused to rule on the merits of the case. Joshua Intervenors motion that, in light of case law stating a provision which allows termination, even by only one party, is not against any established Arkansas public policy, the Court reconsider its ruling. In addition, Joshua Intervenors request that the Court determine whether LRSD and Joshua Intervenors entered into settlement which serves as grounds for termination of the contract between LRSD and ServiceMaster. In addition. since ServiceMaster was not a party to the litigation when the contract was entered, it is unreasonable to interpret the last sentence of 14.12 to include ServiceMaster as a party involved in any settlement. For the foregoing reasons, the reasons advanced by Servicemaster in oposition to reconsideration should be rejected. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 By:^ in W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was delivered to all counsel of record via U.S. mail on this January, 1996. day of in W. Walker LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Februar)' 22, 1996 TO: Board of Directors FROM\nFred L.^ Smith. Manager of Support Services III. Ily j^^iik^rfis. THROUGH: Henn/ i. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: ServiceMaster Questions The following information is being provided in response to concerns raised by Ms. Gee (list anached) and Ms. Pondexter\n Section 6.6 of the ServiceMaster contract is attached.  Item #2 of Ms. Gees list - ServiceMaster will receive no more than the contract amount. Any additional savings below the SI0.8 million budget amount will remain with the District.  Item #3 of Ms. Gees list - It was agreed that within 40 days no adjustment to the 1995-96 budget would be made since we would only be charged a pro-rated amount for the first year of the contract.  Item #4 of Ms. Gees list - Four (4) payments have been made to ServiceMaster for the months of October, 1995, through January, 1996.  Item #5 of Ms. Gees list - The 571,213 per month is the amount to satisfy the guarantee since ServiceMaster is required to provide actual documentation to support the supplies and equipment cost.  Item #6 of Ms. Gees list - Based on actual expenditures for the past several years, the 1995- 96 budget amount provides a realistic baseline.  Item i7 of Ms. Gees list - Attached is a schedule that shows the $10.8 million. With respect to the energy savings, the effect of the energy savings programs has already been included in the 1995-96 budget. It is true that a mild winter would have a positive impact on guarantee compliance. The converse is also true. A harsh winter would have a negative impact on guarantee compliance. Item #8 of Ms. Gees list - It is probably not possible to list all potential points of concern. However, we do have a detailed budget and Exhibit A is a part of the contract.  Item #9 of Ms. Gees list - The OEM system would oniy enhance, not conflict with, the Distncts system. cc\nDoug Eaton Jerry Compton FLS:caLittle Rock School District 1995-9S Budget Analysis Function Function Descriotion 2539 Other Facilities Acq \u0026amp;Co 2542 Upkeep of Buildings 2541 Service Area Direction 2544 Upkeep of Equipment 2545 Vehicle Maintenance 2548 Asbestos Program Magnet Schools Substitutes Amount $240,213 8,924,431 201,085 12,800 53,200 61,338 1.076,870 200,000 Total $10.779,937LRSD ADMIN. EULDING I Fax:1-bO1-324-2032 Mar 14 96 11:32 P. 02/02 If IriTLE Rock School Distioci' SPECr\\L board meeting March l-l, 1996 For more information. Suellen Vann. 324-2020 Ihe Board of Directors of the Liuie Rock School District (LRSD) will hold a spec?! Board meeting tonight at 5:00 p.m. in conjunction with the monthly agenda meeting. The special meeting wail include 'eports on trie old Forest Heights building. ServiceMaster, custodian turnover, substitute office business case, approval of the 1996- 97 proposed budget, student hearings, and a personi.el issue. Both meetings will be held in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. SilO Wc'il Markliam Sirc*\n! Liltle Kock, Vrkan!,i4\u0026gt;i 73301  {,=501)334^-3\u0026amp;0n LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 14, 1996 CONriDENTIAL TO: Board of Directors FROM: Hej Imams, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: ServiceMaster Contract As requested by the Board at the February meeting, ServiceMaster will be responding to concerns raised by custodians at tonights meeting of the Board. District staff responsible for administering the ServiceMaster contract has expressed some concern to me about the administration of this contract. I have attached a copy of a memo from Mr. Eaton and Mr. Smith that details those concerns. I agree that if the ServiceMaster contract is to fail, it should be ServiceMasters fault and not the Districts. This way, we will have the full force of the contract in our favor. cc: Fred Smith Doug Eaton Charlie NealTO\nFROM: throug\nSUB J\nDATE: I am LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 SOUTH BRYANT STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS (501) 570-4020 72204 CONFinCNTlAL r. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools iaton, Director, Plant Services \u0026gt;Fred Smith, Manager of Support Services ServiceMaster Contract February 23, 1996 writing to state the position, as one of the Districts contract administrators, that the vocal objections presented by the Board of Directors with regard to the ServiceMaster contract is placing the administration in a most precarious situation with regard to the legal enforcement of this contract. While it is a matter of record that the Board did not vote unanimously for this contract, it is also a matter of record that the Board did approve the entering of this contract, and in doing approved its clauses and stipulations. so. While the Board most certainly reserves the right of insuring that the administration enforces the contract that they have approved, that right must be exercised in a manner which will allow us to do it within the legal parameters of contract administration. Objections to the contract, raised by Little Rock School District employees are, of course, a are, concern to those of us who are trying to administer this Board directed contract. without full investigation being provided to the Board, with regard to concerns raised by employees, the Board must adequately hear all sides of the issue before However, providing further guidance. It is difficult for us to understand what direction that they would like us to proceed. If this contract is to succeed, it must succeed with a cooperative effort between the Little Rock School District and ServiceMaster Corporation. If this contract is to fail, it must fail because of the efforts of ServiceMaster and not the Little Rock School District and if we are put in a precarious situation of not having the support to administer this contract. equally at fault in the failure. then we could be heldPage Two CONFIBCN^'*^ Continued The Board's subtle messages are being interpreted by some of our principals as non support for this contract\nand that if they hold out long enough, it will go away. administer the Boards desires for this contract, For those of us trying to it is putting us in a precarious situation of having to administer a contract and to be as responsive to the school districts needs Sometimes there is a dichotomy in that situation. as possible. Unless full one hundred percent support for trying this contract exists, it is not going to be successful. I would like the opportunity to meet with you and discuss how we can proceed in administering this contract. DCE/apl/smc cc: Charlie Neal, Director, ProcurementGtroir \u0026amp; Gregory PROFESSIONAL ASSOOATiON ATTORNEYS AT UAW SUITC 1800 in CENTER STREET little rock. ARKAN\u0026amp;AS 73201 TVLCPHONC (5On 373-3000 RUfiSCLUViLUe OmCK! Ttuccewc* \u0026lt;\u0026amp;O|} (SOU 373.3A7S ti iowc3T*e- STRcrr KU^SCLLVlLLe. ARKANSAS 72801 rCLCFKONb \u0026lt;9011 887.7080 TELCCOAICR \u0026lt;8011 7 r078 March 15,1996 Mr. Jerry Malone Mr. Jim Clark Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: School Board Action Regarding Custodians Schedules Thursday, March 14,1996 Gentlemen: As you may know, last night the Little Rock School Board passed a resolution that plant services employees should return to their old schedules. The motion Jor this action came following comments from several custodians regarding their new work schedules under the School Districts agreement with ServiceMaster. A discussion by the Board focused on a sentence in section 3.2(a) of the Agreement between ServiceMaster and e School which states: ServiceMaster will, upon request by the School, make recommendations in connection with wage and wage related matters, but ServiceMaster shall not make any decisions with respect to wages, hours or other working conditions for Service Employees. In taking this action, the Board has misinterpreted the contract provision with regard to the management of the service employees. When the word hours is used in the reference which is bolded above, it relates to the total hours of the service employees and in no way means the shift or assignments which ServiceMaster gives to the service employees in its duty to manage them. As it states in section 2.1(a): ServiceMaster agrees to train, manage and direct the Schools employees in the support service departments of School which are identified in Section 3.2 below (the Service Employees). conij KHIJ AVaiHH 9e/8T/cn a  :ftMr. Jerry Malone Mr. Jim Clark March 15, 1996 Page 2 As has been reported, School District officials who negotiated the Agreement wdth ServiceMaster are well aware of the fact that the ServiceMaster Guarantee (as provided for in Section 6.6 of the Agreement) was agreed to only in conjunction with the Schools agreement to allow ServiceMaster to control scheduling so as to provide for more efficient operations. The Board in taking this action has caused the School District to be in breach of its obligations under the Agreement. If the scheduling issue is of such importance to the Board and it is interested in amending the Agreement to the mutual satisfaction of the parties, then my client is certainly willing to discuss possible solutions. Otherwise, this letter shall serve as notice of the existing breach pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Agreement Consistent with said Section 12.1, if the breach of the Agreement is not cured to ServiceMasters satisfaction within 60 days, ServiceMaster fully intends to provide notice of termination at said time which would result in it being relieved of its duties under the Agreement 30 days thereafter. Please be advised that if ServiceMaster is forced to follow this course of action, it will also pursue all other remedies available to it under law. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you want to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Joseph S. Mowe JSMjm cc: Mark Himel, ServiceMaster Management Services John Talley, Esq., ServiceMaster Management Services rno ij KHiH nvi Ava:aj O 9S Cl ge.'ST.co IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL \u0026lt;996 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership a' FILED U S OI3T\".iCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKA.NSAS MAR 1 1 1996 JAMES By\n\"-'.to .54W. McQQRMACK, ClIRK OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS vs. AM.? 1 Q 'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court are a number of motions (listed in the order filed) which the Court now addresses: (1) motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481]\n(2) motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for partial unitary status [doc.#2483]\n(3) motion of the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of Joshua [doc.#2506]\n(4) motion of PCSSD to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]\n(5) motion of Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]\n(6) motion of PCSSD for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]\n(7) motion of LRSD for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD, and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") [doc.#2573]\n(8) motion of Joshua for reconsideration of 2 6 4 the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing (doc.#2594]\nand (9) motion of PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction. dated October 25, 1995 (doc.#2612]. I. The Court first addresses PCSSD's. motion to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan (doc.#2481] and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status (doc.#2483]. The PCSSD states that it has substantially complied with plan provisions regarding library media services, staff development and counseling services, while the LRSD states that it has substantially complied with LRSD plan provisions regarding Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (\"HIPPY\"), Rockefeller Early Childhood Program, Parkview Science Magnet Program, and Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (\"JTPA\"). Both the PCSSD and the LRSD argue that the Court should withdraw supervision from these areas of the respective plans. The PCS\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":"bcas_bcmss0837_406","title":"Early childhood","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":["1990/2001"],"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","Educational planning","Childhood development","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Early childhood"],"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/406"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["94 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nFree Program For Four-Near Olds Applications Accepted April 29-May 10 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT First Class Schools For World Class Kids \\ /? A A Program Of Fun And Learning For Four-Year Olds  Certified early childhood education teachers  Ratio of two adults to every 20 students (1 teacher, 1 aide)  Structured learning environment  Developmentally appropriate curriculum and activities  Before- and after-school childcare available Tuition-Free Tuition-free program for children who will be four years old on or before October 1, 1991, is available at the following schools during the 1991-92 school year: X / ' I ^''A7 -1  Badgett  Franklin  Garland  Ish  Mitchell  Rightsell  Rockefeller  Romine  Stephens  Washington  Woodruff Applications will be accepted at these schools April 29-May 10. /\\ Selections will be by lottery whenever the number of applicants for the Program for Four-Year Olds exceeds the available seats. Enrollment preference is given to children who live within the school's attendance zone or have brothers/sisters enrolled at the requested school. Students selected for enrollment will be notified by May 23. Those who cannot be placed will be put on a waiting list. I I School Hours. The regular school hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except for regular school holidays. Childcare. Childcare for a fee is available from 2:30-5:30 p.m. For additional information. For more information about the Program for Four-Year Olds, call the Student Assignment Office at (501) 324-2272. \\ s \u0026gt; 3 K - ' /I -I / /! PUT YOUR 4-YEAR OLD ON THE RIGHT TRACK FOR SOCIAL, EMOTIONAL, PHYSICAL, AND COGNITIVE GROWTH. Enroll now for the Little Rock School Districts Special Program for Four-Year Olds. Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office (501) 324-2272 i I -f- X f SOH   G n ?r \u0026amp;: I \\  \"1 I  --1 '1  V \\ lx kJ 3  tZ5 X '\\ ' .ZX/ I t I t r I r Free Program For Four-Near Olds I\" \\ \\' A I I \\ - #* \\ I x. '' I - \\ .71 \\ \\ Applications Accepted April 29-May 10  r- 2 m o 3 3 2 \" i \u0026gt; -O o \" -T y n \u0026gt; Q D H (re  \u0026gt; g Os 73 R- m  o' X I LErCESB LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT First Class Schools For World Class KidsLittle Rock School District March 20, 1990 TO: FROM: Downtown Early Childhood Committee James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation^^ Monitoring and Program Development SUBJECT: March 7 Minutes Members Present: Fatimah Akbar James Jennings Chip Jones Rachel Myers It was noted that Glenda Bean (Arkansas Early Childhood Commission) and Jack Turner (Domtown Partnership) could not attend the meeting. Both have had experience in developing a downtown early childhood program. The committee identified five planning areas for the downtown early childhood project: (1) Site Identification (2) Publicity (3) Licensing Requirements (4) Staffing (5) Support Services In regard to site identification, the next meeting will be used to discuss the site identification process. A prospective site should have at least three classrooms (20 students in each class) and outdoor space for play. Hie conmittee also agreed that the center should only enroll four-year old students. Other age groups can be considered after the center is in operation. Teacher representatives will be added to the committee. Also, respresen- tatives from the other districts in Pulaski County will be added to the committee. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-33612. 3. 4. DOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER COMMITTEE Site Selection Report Staffing and Program Report Publicity Needs Assessment AGENDA 4/17/90 1. 5. Additional Committee MembersDOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER COMMITTEE April 17, 1990 MINUTES Those attending were Jack Turner, Thelma Jasper, Cecil Talliaferro, Dorisen Hill, Michele French, Rachel Meyers, Fatimah Akbar. Mrs. Meyers opened the meeting. The minutes were read by Michele French and they were approved by the committee. a report on the task of the commission, were heard on the following: Mrs. Meyers gave Questions and discussion 1. 2 . 3. Including 3 year olds and 4 year olds Funding for 3 months beyond the regular school year Care during vacation days, summer and after school The site acquisition committee had several possibilities. searched and reported on A description was given on each, and Jack Turner was given the task of setting up an appointment to visit the Bushman Court Building at 6th \u0026amp; Pulaski and also the Cashion Company at 501 Sherman. of the exact date and time. All committee members will be notified The staff and A question was program committee presented two staffing plans. asked concerning North Central Association accreditation if the center is disassociated with the schools. Carver Magnet School was suggested as a possibility for associating the center with a school since there is no existing 4 year old program. suggested go to an affiliate Discussion on giving children a preference to Meyers was asked or to associating school was presented. check on requirements for the center and to North cost modified version of Plan 1 was recommended. Mrs. Central Association out both plans. A A vice principal was recommended instead of a full-time administrator. The curriculum completed by the Early Childhood Task Force recommended and would be programs in the District. consistent with other 4 year was old A question was asked about a theme in the center. Mrs. Meyer's committee was asked to check on possible schools the center could be attached to. Mr. Jennings asked that consideration be given to Thelma Jasper's program. A needs assessment established as follows: was asked for and a subcommittee was Glenda Beane Dorisene Hill Cecil Talliaferro Co-Chairman Co-ChairmanDOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER COMMITTEE May 3, 1990 MINUTES Those is attendance were Jim Moses, Michele French, Glenda Beane, T^my Jack Turner, Thelma Jasper, , Dorothea Davis, parent from the North Little Rock School District. and a Site selection sub-committee asked Mr. Moses to present facts about the Cashion Building and Bushman Courtyard Building. Moses reported the following: Mr. A. 6th Street. The Bushman Courtyard Building is located at 1300 West 1. 2 . 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. 11. 12 . 5500 sq. ft. of usable space $3,100 per month to lease Smaller spaces Sharp corners 3 major hallways Kitchen Parking spaces Intra structure work needed 35 years old Some remodeling has been done Previously a doctors' building Possible playground by using some parking area B. The Cashion Building is located at Sth and Sherman. 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. 11. 4,800 sq. ft. of usable space Larger spaces Large kitchen Parking spaces Full lot adjacent to building for playground For lease - $5,000 per month (including taxes \u0026amp; insurance) Will spend $15,000 for improvements 10 years old Excellent condition Circle driveway Parking Recommendation to have Jack Turner and the committee pursue the Cashion location. after the meeting. make an offer, frame to be used. Other committee members were excited to visit Mr. Turner proposed that the sub-committee Consideration for money, improvements and timeNew members were assigned to the sub-committees as follows\nDorothea Davis - Staffing Jack Turner - Publicity Glenda Beane NLR Parent - Site Selection The next meeting will be on May 10 at 1:30 p.m.ROCKEFELLER COOPERATIVE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION MAGNET PARENT-TEACHER PLANNING COMMITTEE ON STAFF DEVELOPMENT AND CURRICULUM PRELIMINARY RECDMMENDATIDNS March 20, 199D TRAINING AND STAFFING Thosa who care For young children must be well prepared and sensitively selected For their work. They must have Formal training in both child development and appropriate pedagogy, For quality training For all personnel who provide care and education For vary young children is a critical component in the success oF early education programs. Ongoing inservice education must be an integral part oF their training and growth as early childhood educators. ThereFore: Early childhood education curriculum and daily activities will be based upon young childrens interests and styles oF learning, emphasize developmentally appropriate learning, and appeal to childrens sense oF curiosity and eagerness in order to help them experience the joy oF learning. Thora will bo a Full spectrum oF activities to stimulate children at various levels oF development. A comprehensive curriculum and training approach is to ba collaboratively developed among the throe districts by those presently responsible For training and supervising HIPPY paraproFessionals, CARE employees Cor other beFore- and aFter- school day care programs), and teachers and aides who work These individuals in any aspect oF early childhood education. will utilize the expertise or professionals From local insti- tutions oF higher education in deaigning the training curri culum. A coordinated training approach among HIPPY, extended daycare, and early childhood education personnel will promote understanding, cooporatlon, and continuity among the programs. To promote understanding oF the total.school program, early childhood staFF should be given an overview oF the elementary curriculum and the elementary staFF should ba given an over- view oF the early childhood program. Thon appropriate in- aervica training should bo provided separately For early childhood staFF and elementary staFF. This approach to training should enhance cohesiveness oF staFF while allowing spaciFic targeting oF teaching levels and oFFicient utilization oF training time. # # # Z2 # Early childhood students should not attend school at least one week CpreFerably two weeks) beFore elementary school students return in the Fall oF each year to allow certiFied and non-certiFied staFF to attend the inservice training and prepare For the coming year. tha First # Early childhood teachers should meet during two weeks oF summer vacation with Dorothea Davis, Michelle r. a representative For Arkansas Baptist College and UALR (Tish Henslee, iF possible), and Marian Shead (HIPPY), This French, to continue work on the early childhood curriculum. could be coordinated with Systematic Training For EFFective Teaching with a halF-day oF curriculum reFining and a day oF S.T.E.T. halF- # The training outlined in the two previous paragraphs will provide one month oF training recommended For RockeFeller School StaFF. . , x IN-SERVICE TRAINING SHDULD INCLUDE\n* Human Relations workshops For entire school and perhaps some just For early childhood staFF to occur in August * Training For staFF about working with computers Viewing and discussion oF the videotape made to illustrate the NAEYC booklet on Developmentally Appropriate Practices For Young Children  Workshop presented by Dr. Anna Heatherly about what early childhood classes should provide to encourage language development and literacy \u0026gt;!= Training For staFF , in building conFlict resolution strategies in early childhood classrooms and playgrounds ! An inspirational speech by Dr. Bettye Caldwell in preparation For the school year 1990-91 * Training For instructional aides at RockeFeller to be required For continued employment and including: 1 . 2. Early Childhood Methods Child Development OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS + CertiFied early childhood staFF should not be required to Many extra hours aFter 3:DO P.M. work longer hours each day. are necessary to plan and prepare For optimal experiences daily For early childhood students and these hours are give IF teachers are n voluntarily by early childhood teachers. required to spend extra hours working with children, this voluntary preparation time will be reduced and program quality will suFFer. + Additional salary compensation should be provided For instructional aides who work longer hours at RockeFellor in tha early childhood classroom than instructional aides It is our at other Little Rock School District schools. understanding that tha promise oF extra pay worked has not been honored. For extra hours3 + Comprehensive developmental screening should be provided * 1. . A__II.. M4 1 rlrn * C3 for early childhood students. Arkansas Children's Hospital might be a resource for this need. + Regular observational assessment of all children should be provided + Foreign language instruction (ppench or Spanish] should begin in early childhood classrooms. ly childhood students should be paid + Field trips for early childhood students snouxc co paxu Little Rock School District Cat least one per for by the class per nine weeks]. + Several specially equipped vans with removable restraining Seats for -inf ants , - twov - and tbree-yeac. old.-studeots-pcovided to allow this age group of children transportation for field trips. to have state mandated + All children should not be required to stayuntil 5:00 P.M. as In f.hR Incentive School Plan. This should be Stated in the Incentive School Plan. voluntary. + More time should be allotted during the summer for teachers to work in their classrooms. AFTER SCHOOL CARE S HIPPY 0 To apply developmentally appropriate practicesfor young four-year-old students should be provided consistent and nurturing by the same staff, with the sama children, experiences group This does not occur of children throughout each day. enrolled in the CARE program after 2:30 daily, enrolled in our classes when they are Ten parents of four-year-old children at Rockefeller have their children picked up by a private bus and taken to a private after school program day care artar scnoox progi an- simply because of this inconsistency of care in this school. Consistency can be provided by having staggered schedules for instructional aides throughout the early childhood program. must receive careful @ Those employed in extended day programs training, supervision and support. As indicated in the section on Training and Staffing of the Early Childhood Plan for desegregation, daycare personnel must bo included in the early childhood education training program which is designed and implemented by the districts and are to members of the school faculty. to be be supervised and supported as @ There must be uniformity of quality among extended daycare programs regardless of the school at which they may be based. @ Activities provided during extended day hours should be sufficiently varied, appealing, and age-appropriate to sustain the interest of the children, 0 The Little Rock School District will consider mandating or strongly encouraging participation in HIPPY for all four- year-old students at the incentive schools.RECOMMENDATIONS should not bs required to + Early childhood children be remain in school until 5:00 p.m. It has worked well for those children not needing extended child care to bo picked up 2*30\n1 r-Hn not endoPBC voung children Qw C.C3. Child care experts do not endorse young attending preschool for long hours if child care is not necessary. Thev feel that the children should be with their Families. parents They feel that the =. A parent on this committee stated that many , including herself, would not enroll their children children were required to remain at Rockefeller if the for an extended day. + An assistant co-teacher is needed for the infant/toddler classroom because of the number of children in that area.OFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 E. MARKHAM, SUITE 510 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Hand Delivered Date\nMay 2, 1990 To: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent From: t^^Ann S. Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Subject: Progress Report on Desegregation Plan, Early Childhood Education Section As we discussed in our meeting last Friday, April 27, 1990, members of the Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education reported on April 26 that they have a number of concerns about the development and implementation of the early childhood education portion of the Desegregation Plan. They are aware that the Desegregation Plan requires the bi racial participation of parents, teachers, and representatives of UALR and the local black colleges, along with district administrators, throughout the planning and implementation of all programs which involve early childhood education and Rockefeller School. The concerns which these parents express relate to both communication and participation. To illustrate, the parents state that as members of the planning committees at Rockefeller, they have received no acknowledgment nor any sort of response regarding reports which they submitted to the District in late March. These reports contain suggestions on curriculum, training, and staffing. Without administrative response to their reports, the parents are uncertain how to proceed next in the development and implementation process. The parents al so say that they have not been consulted about the re-evaluation of Rockefeller's early childhood education policies as required in #6 on page 15 of the early childhood section of the Plan. There have also been complaints that the teacher interview committee at Rockefeller was decidedly racially imbalanced and that there was no representation from UALR or the black colleges. Previously, there have been other difficulties regarding the Little Rock School District's compliance with the early childhood education section of the Plan. In early March, you and I discussed the necessity of involving parents and representatives from the local university and colleges in interviewing the candidates for principal of Rockefeller. A March 5 memo, sent at the direction of Mr. Reville in order to insure compliance with the plan, plainly described and mandated what the composition of the Rockefeller principal interview committee was to be. Yet the procedure outlined in that communication was not followed. Apparently, corrective measures were not implemented until sometime after a March 22 memo which reiterated the necessity for following the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and the directives of the March 5 communication.May 2, 1990 Page 2 In order to assess compliance with the early childhood education section of the Desegregation Plan, and to prevent confusion or misunderstanding on the part of parents, teachers, administrators, or this office, a progress report seems in order. Therefore, by Monday, May 14, please provide the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor with information which clearly defines how the Little Rock School District is complying with the Desegregation Plan's provision that \"...the process of developing, modifying, or augmenting any early childhood education programs must be done in conjunction with biracial planning and oversight groups approved by the Metropolitan Supervisor and comprised of parents, teachers, representatives of area universities and colleges, and the districts' supervisors responsible for early education.\" This report must: --Contain an update on the progress made regarding all provisions of the early childhood section, including curriculum, staffing, training, the Downtown Early Childhood Education Center, interdistrict collaboration, etc. --Indicate how suggestions from parents, teachers, and representives from local institutions of higher education are being incorporated into program planning and implementation. --Include the names and race of the parents who have been added to the District's Early Childhood Education Task Force, the date they were added to this group, and the primary tasks this group is presently focusing upon. --Include a timeline which indicates key tasks and expected or actual start and completion dates, and the individuals or groups primarily responsible for each task. If there are problem areas or tasks which have not been undertaken, please briefly indicate what the difficulties have been and how and when you expect them to be overcome. I believe that a progress report at this time will help resolve questions, alleviate uncertainties, and uncover problems which must be resolved before they become major hindrances to the timely implementation of the Desegregation Plan. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you.OFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 E. MARKHAM, SUITE 510 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Date: May 2, 1990 To: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent From: 4^Ann S. Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Subject: Progress Report on Desegregation Plan, Early Childhood Education Section As we discussed in our meeting last Friday, April 27, 1990, members of the Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education reported on April 26 that they have a number of concerns about the development and implementation of the early childhood education portion of the Desegregation Plan. They are aware that the Desegregation Plan requires the biracial participation of parents, teachers, and representatives of UALR and the local black colleges, along with district administrators, throughout the planning and implementation of all programs which involve early childhood education and Rockefeller School. The concerns which these parents express relate to both communication and participation. To illustrate, the parents state that as members of the planning committees at Rockefeller, they have received no acknowledgment nor any sort of response regarding reports which they submitted to the District in late March. These reports contain suggestions on curriculum. training, and staffing. Without administrative response to their reports, the parents are uncertain how to proceed next in the development and implementation process. The parents al so say that they have not been consulted about the re-evaluation of Rockefeller's early childhood education policies as required in #6 on page 15 of the early childhood section of the Plan. There have also been complaints that the teacher interview committee at Rockefeller was decidedly racially imbalanced and that there was no representation from UALR or the black colleges. Previously, there have been other difficulties regarding the Little Rock School District's compliance with the early childhood education section of the Plan. In early March, you and I discussed the necessity of involving parents and representatives from the local university and colleges in interviewing the candidates for principal of Rockefeller. A March 5 memo, sent at the direction of Mr. Reville in order to insure compliance with the plan, plainly described and mandated what the composition of the Rockefeller principal interview committee was to be. Yet the procedure outlined in that communication was not followed. Apparently, corrective measures were not implemented until sometime after a March 22 memo which reiterated the necessity for following the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and the directives of the March 5 communication.May 2, 1990 Page 2 In order to assess compliance with the early childhood education section of the Desegregation Plan, and to prevent confusion or misunderstanding on the part of parents, teachers, administrators, or this office, a progress report seems in order. Therefore, by Monday, May 14, please provide the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor with information which clearly defines how the Little Rock School District is complying with the Desegregation Plan's provision that \"...the process of developing, modifying, or augmenting any early childhood education programs must be done in conjunction with biracial planning and oversight groups approved by the Metropolitan Supervisor and comprised of parents, teachers, representatives of area universities and colleges, and the districts' supervisors responsible for early education.\" This report must: Contain an update on the progress made regarding all provisions of the early childhood section, including curriculum, staffing, training, the Downtown Early Childhood Education Center, interdistrict collaboration, etc. --Indicate how suggestions from parents, teachers, and representives from local institutions of higher education are being incorporated into program planning and implementation. --Include the names and race of the parents who have been added to the District's Early Childhood Education Task Force, the date they were added to this group, and the primary tasks this group is presently focusing upon. --Include a timeline which indicates key tasks and expected or actual start and completion dates, and the individuals or groups primarily responsible for each task. If there are problem areas or tasks which have not been undertaken, please briefly indicate what the difficulties have been and how and when you expect them to be overcome. I believe that a progress report at this time will help resolve questions, alleviate uncertainties, and uncover problems which must be resolved before they become major hindrances to the timely implementation of the Desegregation Plan. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you.Little Rock School District May 11, 1990 V TO: FROM: Ann Brown, Prentice Dupins, and Arma Hart - Associate Metropolitan Supervi sors Chip Jones, Manager of Support Services __ James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation 03 Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH:lj^br. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools (?)^Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Downtown Early Childhood Center Site Selection The planning committee for the downtown early childhood center (the Center) has located a site that will be a showcase of the four-year old program in the Little Rock School District. The selected site is currently owned by Cashion and Company. The district has negotiated a price of $4,500 per month for the location contingent upon approval by the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Current cost estimates for the total program are as follows: Rent Utilities 3 teachers 3 aides 1 custodian 1 coordinator 1 secretary Benefits Food Service Material \u0026amp; Supplies Postage Furniture \u0026amp; Equipment Renovations Contingency $54,000 10,000 75,000 30,000 9,000 20,000 12,000 21,900 15,000 3,000 500 20,000 (Start-up) 20,000 (Start-up) 30,000 $320,400 The committee recommends that funding for the Center be similar to the Magnet Schools. Each participating district will be responsible for the costs of the Center based on seat allocation. It is further recommended that the partici-pating districts be allowed to use the Settlement proceeds to pay for the Center. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 Downtown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page two In order for the District to open the Center for the 1990-91 school year, it must commit withing five working days (by May 18) to a lease agreement. The current occupant needs time to locate new space, remodel and move by August 6, 1990 to allow the district time to open the Center by the beginning of school. The building is well-suited for an early childhood program. Most of its wal1s are movable so that renovation requirements are minor\na separate lot will provide an outdoor play area\noff-street parking is generous\nand access to downtown and to the freeways is strategic. The total square footage of the building itself (not including play areas and parking) is 5,500 or $9.82 per foot, which is very competitive for downtown office space. The committee also considered: --Bushman Court Reporting Building (6th and Pulaski, $3,169 per month. 6,500 sq. feet). This was the committee's second choice\nhowever, in order to use the building for an early childhood program would require extensive and expensive remodeling, this expense would be prudent. The committee did not feel that --Olympia Publishing Building (900 West Fourth, $2,000 per month, 3,400 sq. feet). The committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center and that it would be difficult to occupy in time for the 1990-91 school year. --SE Corner (3rd and Ringo, $3,000 per month, 3,600 sq. feet). committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center. Again the Seat Allocation According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, II the districts will work together to establish a pre-kindergarten program in the downtown Little Rock business area. II As a result, seats will be allocated for downtown employees from each of the three districts in Pulaski County -- Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School Di strict. The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have three four-year old classes during the 1990-91 school year. Each class will have a maximum of 20 students. The seat allocation formula for the interdistrict magnet schools will be used to allocate the 60 four-year old seats among the three districts. LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 45.6% 15.7% 38.7% 27 seats 10 seats 23 seats ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page three Assignment Process All assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. As stated in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center is specifically aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. in Pulaski County, Arkansas. However, the parent must reside in one of the three districts Act 609, Act 624, or legal transfers cannot be used for admission to the Downtown Early Childhood Center. Special publicity efforts will be used to inform downtown employees about the early childhood program. Special meetings will be held prior to the appli- cation period to inform downtown employees about the downtown early childhood program. city efforts. The three districts will work together to promote and support publi- As stated earlier, the downtown early childhood program is aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. The downtown area is defined as the Central Business District of Little Rock. The boundaries of this area are Interstate 30 on the east side, 15th Street on the south side, the State Capitol Mall on the west side, and Markham Street on the north side, parent's worksite must be located in this area in order for the parent to be classified as a downtown employee. The The Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office will be responsible for processing all applications. In order to be eligible for admission, the child must be four years old on or before October 1, 1990. Parents must present a birth certificate and proof of address during the application process. A lottery will be conducted if demand exceeds the supply of seats for a parti- cular district. Students who are not selected will be placed on a waiting list for the remainder of the school year, each year. A new waiting list will be developed Hours of Operation The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have the same opening and closing time as a regular elementary school. In addition to the normal hours of operation, parents will have the option to participate in the before and after school care program. Office. The costs will be determined by the Little Rock School District CARE CARE services also will be provided during holidays. Transportation The three districts will not provide transportation. ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page four Curriculum The goals and objectives of the educational program will be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and styles of learning which will guide daily acti- vities. The program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of young children. the joy of learning. It will appeal to young children an help them experience The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritages of children. to learn about themselves and other cultures. Young children need the opportunity An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in which the children are active learners. They will be given freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrum of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. Children will be offered choices and will select many of their own activities in learning areas: keeping, and music. children to explore and manipulate. blocks, science, math, games, puzzles, books, art, house- There will be many concrete materials in each area for Teachers are expected to facilitate the development of self-control in children by using positive guidance techniques. havior are a part of the classroom management program. Modeling and encouraging expected be- Children will have many opportunities to develop social skills such as cooperating, helping, and talking with other children, the staff, and resource persons. Children will be provided many experiences which lead to literacy: listening, drawing, and copying. and fine motor development. Such activities facilitate language talking. Listening to stories, telling about pictures. poetry, fingerplays, field trips, dictating stories, and participating in dramatic play all provide a foundation for beginning literacy. Formal reading and writing instruction is reserved for a more developmentally appropriate time. Implementation Plan Since the Center is required by the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District plans to implement the recommendations of the committee as described herein. Please advise us before May 18, 1990 if the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor is not in agreement with this decision so that other plans might be developed. The North Little Rock and the Pulaski County Special School Districts have been provided a copy of this memorandum. cc: Billy Bowles, PCSSD Bobby Acklin, NLRSD OLittle Rock School District r .f- - J*  May 11, 1990\nA TO: FROM: Ann Brown, Prentice Dupins, and Arma Hart - Associate Metropolitan Supervi sors Chip Jones, Manager of Support Services James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation \"753 Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH:iJ^Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools (?^Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools J SUBJECT: Downtown Early Childhood Center Site Selection The planning committee for the downtown early childhood center (the Center) has located a site that will be a showcase of the four-year old program in the Little Rock School District. The selected site is currently owned by Cashion and Company. The district has negotiated a price of $4,500 per month for the location contingent upon approval by the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Current cost estimates for the total program are as follows: Rent Utilities 3 teachers 3 aides 1 custodian 1 coordinator 1 secretary Benefits Food Service Material \u0026amp; Supplies Postage Furniture \u0026amp; Equipment Renovations Conti ngency $54,000 10,000 75,000 30,000 9,000 20,000 12,000 21,900 15,000 3,000 500 20,000 (Start-up) 20,000 (Start-up) 30,000 $320,400 The committee recommends that funding for the Center be similar to the Magnet Schools. Each participating district will be responsible for the costs of the Center based on seat allocation. It is further recommended that the parti ci- pating districts be allowed to use the Settlement proceeds to pay for the Center. O 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Downtown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page two In order for the District to open the Center for the 1990-91 school year, it must commit withing five working days (by May 18) to a lease agreement. The current occupant needs time to locate new space, remodel and move by August 6, 1990 to allow the district time to open the Center by the beginning of school. The building is well-suited for an early childhood program. Most of its walls are movable so that renovation requirements are minor\na separate lot will provide an outdoor play area\noff-street parking is generous\nand access to downtown and to the freeways is strategic. The total square footage of the building itself (not including play areas and parking) is 5,500 or $9.82 per foot, which is very competitive for downtown office space. The committee also considered: --Bushman Court Reporting Building (6th and Pulaski, $3,169 per month. 6,500 sq. feet). This was the committee's second choice\nhowever, in order to use the building for an early childhood program would require extensive and expensive remodeling, this expense would be prudent. The committee did not feel that --Olympia Publishing Building (900 West Fourth, $2,000 per month, 3,400 sq. feet). The committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center and that it would be difficult to occupy in time for the 1990-91 school year. --SE Corner (3rd and Ringo, $3,000 per month, 3,600 sq. feet). committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center. Again the Seat Allocation According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, \"the districts will work together to establish a pre-kindergarten program in the downtown Little Rock business area. II As a result, seats will be allocated for downtown employees from each of the three districts in Pulaski County -- Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School Di strict. The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have three four-year old classes during the 1990-91 school year. Each class will have a maximum of 20 students. The seat allocation formula for the interdistrict magnet schools will be used to allocate the 60 four-year old seats among the three districts. LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 45.6% 15.7% 38.7% 27 seats 10 seats 23 seats ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page three Assignment Process All assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. As stated in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center is specifically aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. in Pulaski County, Arkansas. However, the parent must reside in one of the three districts Act 609, Act 624, or legal transfers cannot be used for admission to the Downtown Early Childhood Center. Special publicity efforts will be used to inform downtown employees about the early childhood program. Special meetings will be held prior to the appli- cation period to inform downtown employees about the downtown early childhood program. city efforts. The three districts will work together to promote and support publi- As stated earlier, the downtown early childhood program is aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. fined as the Central Business District of Little Rock. The downtown area is deThe boundaries of this area are Interstate 30 on the east side, 15th Street on the south side, the State Capitol Mall on the west side, and Markham Street on the north side, parent's worksite must be located in this area in order for the parent to be classified as a downtown employee. The The Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office will be responsible for processing all applications. In order to be eligible for admission, the child must be four years old on or before October 1, 1990. Parents must present a birth certificate and proof of address during the application process. A lottery will be conducted if demand exceeds the supply of seats for a parti- cular district. Students who are not selected will be placed on a waiting list for the remainder of the school year, each year. A new waiting list will be developed Hours of Operation The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have the same opening and closing time as a regular elementary school. In addition to the normal hours of operation, parents will have the option to participate in the before and after school care program. Office. The costs will be determined by the Little Rock School District CARE CARE services also will be provided during holidays. Transportation The three districts will not provide transportation. ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page four Curriculum The goals and objectives of the educational program will be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and styles of learning which will guide daily acti- viti es. The program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of young children, the joy of learning. It will appeal to young children an help them experience The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritages of children. to learn about themselves and other cultures. Young children need the opportunity An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in which the children are active learners. They will be given freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrum of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. Children will be offered choices and will select many of their own activities in learning areas: keeping, and music. children to explore and manipulate. blocks, science, math, games, puzzles, books, art, house- There will be many concrete materials in each area for Teachers are expected to facilitate the development of self-control in children by using positive guidance techniques. havior are a part of the classroom management program. Modeling and encouraging expected beChildren will have many opportunities to develop social skills such as cooperating, helping, and talking with other children, the staff, and resource persons. Children will be provided many experiences which lead to literacy: listening, drawing, and copying. and fine motor development. Such activities facilitate language talking. Listening to stories, telling about pictures. poetry, fingerplays, field trips, dictating stories, and participating in dramatic play all provide a foundation for beginning literacy. Formal reading and writing instruction is reserved for a more developmentally appropriate time. Implementation Plan Since the Center is required by the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District plans to implement the recommendations of the committee as described herein. Please advise us before May 18, 1990 if the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor is not in agreement with this decision so that other plans might be developed. The North Little Rock and the Pulaski County Special School Districts have been provided a copy of this memorandum. cc: Billy Bowles, PCSSD Bobby Acklin, NLRSD OPROGRESS REPORT ON DESEGREGATION PLAN, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SECTION May 14,1990 B JB A_C J[ A L._..RAjR I IC. IEAT-I-OjN The District will continue to have biracial participation throughout the planning and implementation of all programs, which involve Early Childhood Education and Rockefeller School. Rockefeller School. On March 21,1990 - The Planning Committee met at a) b) c) d) e) Represented were: The Metropolitan Supervisors' Office The Little Rock School District The Rockefeller Staff Parents The Local Colleges After a general meeting the group broke up into subcommittees in order to plan, organize and schedule their next meeting date. Rockefeller School. On March 28, 1990 - A general meeting was held at The following committees met : 1. 2. .3. 4. Public Relations, Recruitment, and Parent and Community Involvement Elementary Curriculum Early Childhood Education Policies and Procedures Staff Development and Curriculum Represented were: a) b) c) d) Little Rock School District Rockefeller Staff Parents Local Colleges CQMMUJSJLCAri.QH-..AND_JPAB.LKIEAIIGH A letter was sent to the Chairperson of the various committees from Mrs. Mangan on March 29, 1990, informing them their reports have been forwarded to the Central Office. These reports will be addressed beginning the third week of May by a District Committee comprised of the following: a) b) c) Rockefeller Parents, Teachers, and Administrators Little School District Administration College representatives The purpose of the District Committee is to review all recommendations and concerns and to make final recommendations to the Metropolitan Supervisors' Office. Page 1These recommendation: concerned. will then be made available to all parties EAP,LL_CHILtDHQQD...ED.UCAT LON _EQL LC.IES. The parent committee met on March 28,1990 and submitted a list of ten preliminary recommendations. These will be examined at the meeting scheduled for the third week of May and the above stated procedure will be followed. This committee will reconvene in order to develop specific recommendations regarding the following: 1. Infant Enrollment Age 2. Sick Days for Extended Illness The plan specifically state that these items \"must be evaluated by the parent committee on early childhood education.\" Childhood section, page 15, item 6) (Early T.EAC.HR.-.IN.TEm.EK_GQWMLTJrE The Teacher Interview Committee at Rockefeller School has been enlarged by representation from U.A.L. R. and Shorter College. The composition of the Interview Committee is as follows: 1. Ann Mangan Principal 2. Rachel Meyers Asst. Supt. B F 3. Rose Ivory Supervisor 4. Dorothy Daniels Parent 5. Evelyn Jackson Retired Teacher B F 6. Jaime Foster 7. Romona Clark U. A. L. R. Shorter W F B F B F W F B F These changes should adequately address any earlier concerns of imbalances. SIAEEIHG All of the applicants have been interviewed with the exception of two which are scheduled for an interview next week. The Director of Human Resources will begin staffing the school Thursday, May 10, 1990. TRABUMS A tentative outline of training is complete and will be addressed by the District Committee during the third week of May. DQWHTQHH...EARLY-.CHILDH.Q.QD...EDU.CAT.LQK..,CENTER Page - 2STATUS REPORT May 8, 1990 The Downtown Early Childhood Center Committee has met five time since its March 1 inception. According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center will be: 1. Of the same high quality as other early childhood education programs in the district. 2. Aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. 3. Racially integrated. The center is scheduled to open in 1990-91. In order to meet this deadline, the committee has agreed to place primary interest on selecting a site as soon as possible. A property search in the downtown area was conducted by committee member Jack Turner. Mr. Turner is employed by the Downtown Partnership, were reviewed during the April 17 meeting. Five sites On April 27, several of the committee members toured two of the facilities. and Pulaski Streets. The Bushman Reporting building is located at Sixth Fifth and Sherman Streets, for both buildings. The Cashion Company Building is located at Jim Moses is the real estate agent The building were evaluated on the basis of the following areas: Access ibility Condition Renovation Work Expansion Landscaping Attractiveness Playground Space Costs The committee agreed to pursue a lease arrangement on the Cashion Building. The site selection committee (Jack Turner, Chip Jones, and Amy Flynn) will make a recommendation to the committee at the May 10 meeting. Three subcommittees have been established. As already stated. the site selection committee is preparing a lease proposal, staffing and program subcommittee has recommended a staff of three teachers, one administrator, one secretary, and The paraprofessional support. The center will have three four-year- old classes (20 students each) during the first year of operation. The Little Rock School District four-year-old curriculum will be used at the downtown center. Subcommittee members are Rachel Myers-Jones (LRSD), Michelle French (PCSSD), Thelma Jasper (Educational Cooperative), and Doretha Davis Page - 3(Philander Smith College). The staffing and program subcommittee will develop plans for year-round service, extended day care, and holiday service. The publicity subcommittee is developing a needs assessment survey for downtown employees. Subcommittee members are Glenda Bean (Arkansas Early Childhood Commission), Fatimah Akbar (LR parent), and Monecia West (NLR parent). The publicity subcommittee also will develop plans for recruitment in the downtown area. INTERDISTRI.C.T...C.QLLAB.QRAT.,IQN. A comprehensive curriculum and training approach is to be collaboratively developed among the three districts by those presently responsible for training and supervising HIPPY paraprofessionals, CARE employees (or other before- and afterschool daycare programs), and teachers and aides who work in any aspect of early childhood education. The Little Rock School District Early Childhood Task Force will develop a training model for early childhood teachers and aides. The training model will focus on the delivery of the specific skills and objectives listed in the early childhood curriculum report. The training model will be completed prior to the end of the 1989-90 school year. In regard to training for CARE and HIPPY employees, Jo Evelyn Elston will be responsible for developing a tri-district committee to address this task. The Little Rock School District HIPPY program currently uses a training model that has been refined over the past five years. LRSD will explore the possibility of developing collaborative HIPPY training with PCSSD and NLRSD. two weeks. The tri-district committee will meet within the next INC0RP.QRATJNG_5JGGESTlQN.S_JKLQ_fR.Q.GRAM...-RLAN.N.IRa_AND IMPLEMENTATION The Little Rock School District is soliciting and collecting suggestions from a wide range of groups including patrons. employees and local colleges. These are collected by various committees such as the Parental Involvement and Public Relations Committee. The committees forward the reports to the Principal who sends them in turn to the Little Rock School District where they are analyzed and distilled by the District Committee comprised of various enabling groups. The results of the committee's decisions will be disseminated as timely and widely as possible through the following means: 1. District Cable T. V. 2. Press Releases Page 43. District Focus 4. P.T.A. 5. Personal Communications EARkyCmJL.DHQQI?._.EDD.QAIl^^ The following parents have been added to the Early Childhood Education Task Force as of March 22, 1990: Garland Georgia Rucker 5113 W. 29th St. Little Rock, AR 664-2856 (Home) Black Garland was unable to furnish a white parent. Franklin: Denise Northcutt 4320 Irwin Road Little Rock AR 455-3110 (Work) 821-3310 (Home) White 72210 Darlene Jones 9601 Nathan Hale Little Rock, AR 666-4665 (Home) 686-9103 (Work) Black 72209 In accordance to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Early Childhood Education Task Force is focusing on the continuation of high school kindergartens. UMEL INE.-_KEX-IASKS 1. Conduct an investigation of the continuation of high school kindergarten. Initiation - 12/89 Completion - 6/30/90 Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force 2. Re-evaluate early childhood policies now in existence and their impact on desegregation and educational goals. Initiation 3/21/90 Completion - 6/30/90 Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force, and selected Rockefeller Committee Members 3. Review and revise the comprehensive curriculum training and information document proposed by the Tri-District Early Childhood Task Force. Initiation 10/3/89 Completion - 8/27/90 (ongoing) Page - 5Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force, Pat Price, Selected Rockefeller Committee Persons 4. 5. Staff Development - Identify the Early Childhood components that are needed in the incentive Schools. Initiation - 3/29/90 Completion - 6/15/90 Persons Responsible - Pat Price, Marvin Zimmerman, Input Task Force, Rockefeller Committee, Incentive School Curriculum Committee Identify and secure reports and other relevant concerns. Initiation - 3/29/90 Completion - On-going Persons Responsible - Pat Price, James Jennings, Estelle Matthis Page - 6TO: FROM: Little Rock School District May 14, 1990 Ann S. Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Estelle Matthis, A.ssociate Superintendent for Educational Programs and Staff Development THROUGH: Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Progress Report on Early Giildhood Education Section of Tri-District Desegregation Plan -   W  A * Tne progress report on the early childhood education section of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan is attached for your review. The report contains all the information requested in your May 2 memo. Your May 2 memo begins with a reference to our meeting on April 27. How- ever, your memo does not give much detail about our discussion on 4/27. It is very important to review our discussion in order to establish the proper context for responding to other concerns listed in your May 2 memo. As you know, you stated that you met with a committee on April 26 about the Rockefeller program. You stated that the committee liad a number of concerns about the development and implementation of the Rockefeller early childhood program. You also stated that the committee was the Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education. The District was unaware of a meeting scheduled for April 26 with the Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education. In our meeting on April 27, you vzere unable to respond to our questions about the role of this committee and the relationship of this committee with the parent/ staff committee for Rockefeller. Rockefellers parent/staff committee was already in existence on April 26. At the time of your meeting on April 26, you were fully aware of the existence of the parent/staff committee for Rockefeller because you were instrumental in developing this committee. As you probably recall, we met with you on March 9 and discussed the letter you wrote and distributed to all Rockefeller parents without our knowledge or approval (see attacl'iment). You also addressed the parent/staff planning committees at the March 21 orientation meeting. - 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Memo to Ann Brown Early Childhood Progress Report page two Your May 2 memo specifically refers to the concerns of the Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education. Tne District is still interested in knowing about the role of this committee, in regard to Rockefeller, and the relationship between this committee and the parent/staff planning committees at Rockefeller. The District has met with the parent/staff planning committees on several occasions, and we are in the process of responding to their recommendations. It is somewliat confusing to now hear that another committee has some concerns. There are at least four early childhood committees presently in operation: LRSD Early Childhood Task Force, Metropolitan Supervisor's Parent Committee on Early Childhood Education, Downtown Early Childhood Committee, and the Rockefeller parent/staff planning committees. Communications have varied regarding the role that each of these committees should play in developing a comprehensive early childhood program. A meeting with the committee chairpersons, the Metropolitan Supervisor's office, and LRSD will help clarify the various roles and responsibilities. Once clarity is established, all committees should be able to complete the tasks iden- tified in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan. The ultimate goal is to develop and implement a quality early childhood education program that addresses the needs of all students whether they attend Rockefeller School or any other early childhood site in the district. The merging of strategies, philosophies, etc., and the cooperation of all parties will ensure the accomplishment of this goal. In regard to another matter, your May 2 memo also refers to \"other difficulties regarding the Little Rock School District's compliance with the early childhood education section of the Plan. It of your May 2 memo, you specifically state the following: In the third paragraph A March 5 memo, sent at the direction of Mr. Reville in order to insure compliance with the plan, plainly described and mandated what the composition of the Rockefeller principal interview committee was to be. Yet the procedure outlined in that communi- cation was not followed. Apparently, corrective measures were not implemented until sometime after a March 22 memo wliich reiterated the necessity for following the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and the directives of the March 5 conmunication. In your May 2 memo, you failed to mention why the \"procedure outlined in your March 5 memo was not followed. It Please be reminded that the following individuals met on March 7 to discuss your March 5 memo: Eugene Reville Arma Hart Ann Brown Prentice Dupins Dr. Ruth Steele Dr. Herb Cleek Estelle Matthis James Jennings Chip JonesMemo to Ann Brown Early Childhood Progress Report page three Ihe District reviewed your March 5 memo and outlined the procedure we wanted to use to interview for all incentive school principal positions, including Rockefeller. We specifically stated that the teacher committee members would be selected by the LRCTA, and the parent committee members would be selected by the Joshua Intervenors. We also noted that the first round of interviews would be used to develop a pool. The second round of interviews would be used to deal with possible assignments to particular schools. Mr. Reville approved our procedure. In our minds, llr. Reville's March 7 approval of our proposal for selecting interview team members superceded your March 5 memo. We regret that a memo was not written to confirm the decisions made in the March 7 meeting. In regard to the teacher interview committee at Rockefeller, please note in the progress report that the committee includes representatives from UALR and Shorter College. This information was shared with you during our April 27 meeting. Please refer to page two of the April 27 minutes prepared by your office. The minutes clearly indicate that the District \"rectified\" this problem. In regard to the principal interview committee at Rockefeller, the local universities were involved in the process after your March 22 memo. However, you must remember that the District pro- ceeded after the March 7 meeting with our understanding of Mr. Reville's approval. cc: Prentice Dupins Arma HartMarch 7, 1990 Dear Parent: Rockefeller School is growing! And we want you to be part of the exciting changes in store for the Rockefeller community of students, staff, and parents. The new Desegregation Plan enables Rockefeller to become a cooperative early childhood education demonstration magnet school next year. That means our school will become a model of creative and exciting ways to provide the very best care and education for children from infancy through grade six. Educators and college students from all over the county and the state will be able to visit Rockefeller to learn about early childhood education at its very best. And your child will be a student at this wonderful school! As a parent, your ideas about how our school will grow into an early childhood magnet are very important. Parents, teachers and other school staff, college It representatives, and administrators will all work together to make suggestions and decisions about what our \"new\" school will become, based on the framework of the Desegregation Plan. Attached is a A number of planning areas will be addressed through parent-staff committees, each of which will concentrate on certain aspects of the school. Attccf.cd i: c list of these committees and a brief description concentration. of each one's area of Will you become our planning partner and join us as a committee member? Please say \"yes!\" by filling out the enclosed Committee Volunteer Form and returning it to your child's teacher by this Friday, March 9, 1990. Then join your fellow parents, school staff, and the Metropolitan Supervisor, Mr. Eugene Reville, for one hour at Rockefeller on Thursday evening, March 15, at 5:00 p.m. for an orientation and the first meeting of each committee. Thank you very much. Sincerely, The Staff of Rockefeller School P.S. Remember these two important dates: Friday, March 9, 1990: return Volunteer Form to your child's teacher Thursday, March 15, 1990: orientation and committee meetings at RockefellerROCKEFELLER PLANNING COmiTTEES VOLUNTEER FORM Name Address ZIP Phone (day) (eveni ng) Please join us in planning for the Rockefeller Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet School. Below is a list of committees and the If you can think of types of topics that will probably be considered by each one. other planning areas you believe should be adclressed, please write your idea in the space marked \"Other suggestions.\" Then indicate your preferences for the conmittee you would like to join by placing a 1\" by your first choice, a 2 by your second choice and a \"3\" by your third choice. (You may serve on more than one committee but be careful not to over-commit your time!) Staffing: selection process\nstaff distribution\ncontract lengths\nresponsibilities\ncompensation\ncareer ladders\ninterfacing with colleges. Early childhood curriculum: emphasis on developmentally appropriate curriculum for infants through kindergarten\nhow to link early childhood and elementary curriculum\nspecial programs and events. Elementary curriculum: emphasis on grades one through six\nhow to build elementary curriculum upon that of early childhood\nspecial programs and events. ___Staff development: training programs and topics\ntrainers and trainees\nstaff development calendar. ___Scheduling and calendar: organization of the school day. week, and year. Policies and procedures: includes those of the early childhood program: infant enrollment ages\nvacation days, private pay and lunch rates for infants and toddlers\nschoolwide policies and procedures for staff, students and parents. Alternative education: al ternative classrooms and incentive and discipline programs. teaching methods\nPublic relations and recruitment: information dissemination\nschool racial balance. community outreach\ncommunication and strategies for student recruitment\nenhancing Parent and comunity involvement: types of involvement\nhow to promote. support, and sustain involvement\ntraining for parents. Student support systems: college scholarships\nmentoring\nservice learning (students as volunteers\n) peer and cross-age interaction. Other suggestions for committee topics: Please return this form to your child's teacher by Friday, March 9. Thank you!PROGRESS REPORT ON DESEGREGATION PLAN, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SECTION May 14,1990 EIBALIAIuJEAEXIlEmi^ The District will continue to have biracial participation throughout the planning and implementation of all programs, which involve Early Childhood Education and Rockefeller School. Rockefeller School. On March 21,1990 - The Planning Committee met at Represented were\na) b) c) d) e) The Metropolitan Supervisors' Office The Little Rock School District The Rockefeller Staff Parents The Local Colleges After a general meeting the group broke up into, subcommittees in order to plan, organize and schedule their next meeting date. Rockefeller School. On March 28, 1990 - A general meeting was held at The following committees met : 1. 2. 3. 4. Public Relations, Recruitment, and Parent and Community Involvement Elementary Curriculum Early Childhood Education Policies and Procedures Staff Development and Curriculum Represented were\na) b) c) d) Little Rock School District Rockefeller Staff Parents Local College A letter was sent to the Chairperson of the various committees from Mrs. Mangan on March 29, 1990, informing them their reports have been forwarded to the Central Office. These reports will be addressed beginning the third week of May by a District Committee comprised of the following: a) b) c) Rockefeller Parents, Teachers, and Administrators Little School District Administration College representatives e The purpose of the District Committee is to review all recommendations and concern\nand to make final recommendations to the Metropolitan Supervisors' Office. Page - 1These recommendations will then be made available to all parties concerned. The parent committee met on March 28,1990 and submitted a list of ten preliminary recommendations. These will be examined at the meeting scheduled for the third week of May and the above stated procedure will be followed. This committee will reconvene in order to develop specific recommendations regarding the following: 1. Infant Enrollment Age 2. Sick Days for Extended Illness The plan specifically states that these items \"must be evaluated by the parent committee on early childhood education. Childhood section, page 15, item 6) (Early The Teacher Interview Committee at Rockefeller School has been enlarged by representation from U.A.L.R. and Shorter College. The composition of the 'Interview Committee is as follows: F 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Ann Mangan Principal W Rachel Meyers Asst. Supt. B F Rose Ivory Supervisor Dorothy Daniels Parent Evelyn Jackson Retired Teacher B F Jaime Foster Romona Clark 0. A. L. R. Shorter B F B F W F B F These changes should adequately address any earlier concerns of imbalances. SIAELINfi All of the applicants have been interviewed with the exception of two which are scheduled for an interview next week. The Director of Human Resources will begin staffing the school Thursday, May 10, 1990. TRAIHIHG A tentative outline of training is complete and will be addressed by the District Committee during the third week of May. Page - 2STATUS REPORT May 8, 1990 The Downtown Early Childhood Center Committee has met five times since its March 1 inception. According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center will be: 1. Of the same high quality as other early childhood education programs in the district. 2. Aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. 3. Racially integrated. The center is scheduled to open in 1990-91. In order to meet this deadline, the committee has agreed to place primary interest on selecting a site as soon as possible. A property search in the downtown area was conducted by committee member Jack Turner. Mr. Turner is employed by the Downtown Partnership, were reviewed during the April 17 meeting. Five sites On April 27, several of the committee members toured two of the facilities. and Pulaski Streets. The Bushman Reporting building is located at Sixth Fifth and Sherman Streets, for both buildings. The Cashion Company Building is located at Jim Moses is the real estate agent The buildings were evaluated on the basis of the following areas: Acce ibility Condition Renovation Work Expansion Landscaping Attractiveness Playground Space Costs The committee agreed to pursue a lease arrangement on the Cashion Building. The site selection committee (Jack Turner, Chip Jones, and Amy Flynn) will make a recommendation to the committee at the May 10 meeting. Three subcommittees have been established. As. already stated. the site selection committee is preparing a lease proposal, staffing and program subcommittee has recommended a staff of three teachers, one administrator, one secretary, and The paraprofessional support. The center will have three four-year- old classes (20 students each) during the first year of operation. The Little Rock School District four-year-old curriculum will be used at the downtown center. Subcommittee members are Rachel Myers-Jones (LRSD), Michelle French (PCSSD), Thelma Jasper (Educational Cooperative), and Doretha Davis Page 3(Philander Smith College). The staffing and program subcommittee will develop plans for year-round service, extended day care, and holiday service. The publicity subcommittee is developing a needs assessment survey for downtown employees. Subcommittee members are Glenda Bean (Arkansas Early Childhood Commission), Fatimah Akbar (LR parent), and Monecia West (NLR parent). The publicity subcommittee also will develop plans for recruitment in the downtown area. A comprehensive curriculum and training approach is to be collaboratively developed among the three districts by those presently responsible for training and supervising HIPPY paraprofessionals, CARE employees (or other before- and afterschool daycare programs), and teachers and aides who work in any aspect of early childhood education. The Little Rock School District Early Childhood Task Force will develop a training model for early childhood teachers and aides. The training model will focus on the delivery of the specific skills and objectives listed in the early childhood curriculum report. The training model will be completed prior to the end of the 1989-90 school year. In regard to training for CARE and HIPPY employees, Jo Evelyn Elston will be responsible for developing a tri-district committee to address this task. The Little Rock School District HIPPY program currently uses a training model that has been refined over the past five years. LRSD will explore the possibility of developing collaborative HIPPY training with PCSSD and NLRSD. two weeks. The tri-district committee will meet within the next IHPiEMENTATKIH. The Little Rock School District is soliciting and collecting suggestions from a wide range of groups including patrons, employees and local colleges. These are collected by various committees such as the Parental Involvement and Public Relations Committee. The committees forward the reports to the Principal who sends them in turn to the Little Rock School District where they are analyzed and distilled by the District Committee comprised of various enabling groups. The results of the committee's decisions will be disseminated as timely and widely as possible through the following means: 1. District Cable T. V. 2. Press Releases Page - 43. District Focus 4. P.T.A. 5. Personal Communications The following parents have been added to the Early Childhood Education Task Force as of March 22, 1990\nGarland Georgia Rucker 5113 W. 29th St. Little Rock, AR 664-2856 (Home) Black Garland was unable to furnish a white parent. Franklin\nDenise Northcutt 4320 Irwin Road Little Rock AR 455-3110 (Work) 821-3310 (Home) White 72210 Darlene Jones 9601 Nathan Hale Little Rock, AR 666-4665 (Home) 686-9103 (Work) Black 72209 In accordance to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Early Childhood Education Task Force is focusing on the continuation of high school kindergartens. 1. Conduct an investigation of the continuation of high school kindergarten. Initiation - 12/89 Completion - 6/30/90 Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force 2. Re-evaluate early childhood policies now in existence and their impact on desegregation and educational goals. Initiation 3/21/9 0 Completion - 6/30/90 Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force, and selected Rockefeller Committee Members 3. Review and revise the comprehensive curriculum training and information document proposed by the Tri-District Early Childhood Task Force. Initiation 10/3/89 Completion - 8/27/90 (ongoing) Page - 54. 5. Persons Responsible - Rachel Myers-Jones, LRSD Task Force, Pat Price, Selected Rockefeller Committee Persons Staff Development - Identify the Early Childhood components that are needed in the incentive Schools. Initiation 3/29/9 0 Completion - 6/15/90 Persons Responsible - Pat Price, Marvin Zimmerman, Input Task Force, Rockefeller Committee, Incentive School Curriculum Committee Identify and secure reports and other relevant concerns. Initiation 3/29/90 Completion - On-going Persons Responsible - Pat Price, James Jennings, Estelle Matthis Page 6 t Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p.a. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501)375-1122 TELECOPIER (501) 375-1027 Nashville Office 1201 Sixteenth Avenue South P.O. Box 121114 Nashville, Tennessee 37212 (615) 329-4664 Telecopier: (615) 320-0115 May 15, 1990 Christopher J. Heller, Esquire FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 VA\"^ SAS'S RE\nDowntown Early Childhood'Center Dear Chris: Upon review of the Memorandum of May 11, 1990, from Chip Jones and James Jennings to the Associate Metropolitan \" Supervisors regarding the Downtown Early Childhood Center, I must infeorm you that the position of the North Little Rock School District is that the cost distribution provisions of that Memorandum violate the March, 1989, Pulaski County Case Settlement Agreement (as revised September I Desegregation 28, 1989). 1989, The May 11, Memorandum states at page 1, \"Each _ district will be responsible for the costs of the Center based on seat allocation.\" Thus, it anticipates that the Districts will have to provide funds for their respective students attending this Center. participating at page Thus, . _ ----- As you are aware Sectxon^II. D. of the Settlement Agreement at page 4 provides, \"The districts' obligation to contribute funds to Magnet Schools shall be limited to their paying their portions of the costs six existing Magnet Schools pursuant to the Court's Order of February 27, 1987.\" By agreement, the only funds to be provided to a host district for students attending new magnet schools is limited to the MtoM transfer payments The May 11 Memorandum suggests an obligation in addition to this which is in violation of the Settlement districts of the SIX from the State. Agreement. We note that the Memorandum also provides, _________ recommended that the participating districts be allowed to the Settlement proceeds to pay for the Center.\" \"It is further use _ _ As you are aware, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement all Settlement proceeds received by the NLRSD are restricted to providing compensatory education. See, Section VIII., B., C. and D. Thus, North Little Rock Settlement proceeds would not be available for this purpose even if we so desired. B. C.* - a Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p.a. Chistopher J. Heller May 15, 1990 Page 2 Also, you should be aware that the NLRSD is surprised by the proposed budget. Daycare centers in the Little Rock area, such the First United Method Church Child Development are able to provide an early childhood program for children ranging in ages from infants through four years of age for half of this cost. as Center, If we were expected to pay for such a program, we anticipate that we would be involved in the budget preparation and determination of program content. In any event, I hope that you will remind your clients about the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Hopefully, thro 13 simply an oversight and further proceedings regarding the Settlement Agreement will not be needed. this is Hopefully cc\nVery truly yours, Stephen W. Jones All counsel of record Office of Metropolitan Supervisor James Smith PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1500 Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 May 16, 1990 Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Prentice Dupins Ms. Arma Hart Associate Metropolitan Supervisors Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown, Ms. Hart and Mr. Dupins: The LRSD's memo to you dated May 11, 1990 regarding a proposed downtown early childhood center has been brought to my attention. This is the first time the PCSSD's Office of Desegregation has been notified of this proposal. The Court approved plan provides that the districts will work together to establish a pre-kindergarten program in the downtown Little Rock business area. II I certainly assumed that my office. which has direct line responsibility for desegregation, would have been at least notified of this decision prior to its submission to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Our district representative on the committee, Michelle French, is not aware of any discussions on funding formula or seating allocations during committee meetings she attended. While I have not had time to fully analyze the May 11, 1990 memo or to discuss it at all with the superintendent, the following objections have already occurred to me: 1. The proposed method for funding is directly contrary to the Court's Order of December 11, 1989 which accepted the alternative funding mechanism of M to M transfer monies as opposed to the funding method which has prevailed for the six existing magnet schools. funding \"similar to the magnet schools. The PCSSD is not agreeable to II 2. while the LRSD generously suggests that the PCSSD settlement funds be used to pay for this center, the fact remains that after several requests these funds have not been released to our District. May 16, 1990 Page 2 The proposed commitment It May 18, 1990 is simply unreasonable. of five working days ending 4. While you indicate that the seats will be populated pursuant to ratio that means. \"desegregation requirements\" I do not know what 3 . 5 . The late Metropolitan Supervisor, Mr. Eugene Reville, with Dr. Don Stewart, Mr. Bobby Lester and myself, in a meeting on January 16, 1990 responded to some questions and concerns that dealt specifically with funding interdistrict magnet and specialty schools. Note his response to questions number one and sixteen in the attached information. 6 . I have simply not had time to assess such important issues as access and whether or not the proposed starting time is reasonable for our patrons. Neither can I determine the racial composition that would be anticipated from PCSSD students. Because of all of the foregoing considerations, the PCSSD must, at this point in time, register its strong objections to the proposal as presently outlined. Sincerely, Bi y J. 'B Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation ch Attachments c Mr. Chip Jones Mr. James Jennings Dr. Herb Cleek Dr. Ruth Steele Mr. Bobby Lester PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 500 DixO': ' Liitie d 3 January 18, 1990 Mr. Eugene Reville Metropolitan Supervisor Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Reville: At our January 16 meeting you requested that notes be taken recording your responses to the questions and/or concerns regarding our District's desegregation plan. Enclosed is a copy of the questions and your responses, review this for verification. Please We are also enclosing our suggested changes in the wording of the tri-district desegregation plan. Sincerely, Bobby G. Lester Superintendent of Schools ps Enclosures  1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT QUESTIONS/CONCERNS AND MR. REVILLE'S RESPONSES REGARDING TRI-DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN January 18, 1990 Who will schools? RESPONSE: pay for new Little Rock School District magnet LRSD will pay for any new magnet schools located within their district. either Will the PCSSD have any financial responsibility for the construction, operation or maintenance of the new LRSD magnet schools beyond the M to M payments its students schools generate? RESPONSE: If the No, it will not. answer is PCSSD's responsibility? students, seat other arrangements? RESPONSE: yes,\" what will be the magnitude of the Will it be based on the number of allocations, Not applicable cost of the schools, or some extent that the money does not presently exist -in the PCSSD budget, where will it come from? Other than federal magnet school grants, new revenue  * If so, what do you propose? To the from? do you plan sources for our District? RESPONSE: Judge Woods cannot order a millage increase the school districts are unsuccessful in unless -- ----- their attempt to pass a increase. I suggest you seek and pass a millage increase. to millage how do you the PCSSD finance its obligations under your proposed plan? Do you believe the PCSSD should engage in - \" If so, what additional cuts do you If the PCSSD is unable to pass a new millage. propose Do you further budget cuts? propose? RESPONSE: First, its obiigat ions a we need to do everything we can to pass increase. If we run into financial millage increase. If we run problems after the millage fails. to the courts. then we\nan go (Page 17, LRSD Student Assignment) Transportation. The statement about the 8 a.m. school opening would_ create numerous problems transporting PCSSD's students. (--- ---- time be more flexible? 8:a.m., a .m. Can this RESPONSE: (8 : 20-8:30 m., etc.) This will be discussed with the LRSD. 17 . We have serious concerns that plans may be under way by the LRSD to establish a medical arts magnet (page 16, Interdistrict Schools and Programs) which would be duplicate of the program approved for Oak Grove High, you share these concerns or do you believe duplication is satisfactory? If you share how do you propose to resolve them? arts concerns, RESPONSE: This 8 . 9. 10 . 11. 12. and a Do that such IS not conf lict. laboratory interested believed to This area is in experience be a planned for the medical courses for credit. any of our problem or to those field, a provide students rather than The elimination of one-race classes by 1990-91 is not possible to accomplish, especially on the high school level This is something that will have blacks into advanced classes and one-race in some advanced courses. to be tied to phased in. employ to relaxed? RESPONSE: What getting accomplish specific this strategies goal and do can you propose we the timetable be Explain why this is not being done. Who will pay attending incentive schools? feasible and what is the scholarships for PCSSD and NLRSD students As this money is not present in the budget, where do you propose it be secured? RESPONSE: Has the The LRSD will pay for the scholarships. business community pledged a particular amount of level of support for the public money or schools? Have you obtained some firm commitment regarding a dollar figure they would raise or guarantee? RESPONSE: Some businesses have pledged their expertise and some money to Dunbar. There has been some support for the aerospace magnet, an especially large amount from a foundation. businesses to give more than their support--they pay their taxes. We cannot expect (Page 1,\" Extracurricular Activities) Is the director of activities appointed by the principal in each school, a new position or a new assignment for existing staff? Extracurricular Activities) RESPONSE: It could be a new assignment for existing staff. (Page 3, mean all Does this Standardized Eligibility Requirement) which have membership requirements? organizations RESPONSE: We should strongly consider this proposal. 213 . (Page 10 item 4, qualifications Early Childhood required for principals Education) make it The almost 14 . impossible to find applicants. Can the \"must be changed to II should\"? RESPONSE: Yes, it can be changed to \"should.\" (Page 10 item 5 Early Childhood Education) position or added responsibility for existing staff? Is this a new RESPONSE\nThis staff. responsibility can be added to existing 15. (Page 11 item 3 Early Childhood Education) PCSSD's program to be 60 percent black? Does this allow 16 . RESPONSE: No it does not. (Page 16, Early Childhood Education) Who will the downtown E.C.E. Center? What are the pay sites for under consideration? Where are they located? What do they cost? RESPONSE: The LRSD will pay for the downtown E.C.E. Center.- There was no response to the other parts of the- question. 17 . (Page 17 item 1 Early Childhood Education) Does this make 19. extended day mandatory for every school? RESPONSE: Are No, it is not mandatory that every school have the extended day program. recommendations\" going to be mandatory is accepted by the court? RESPONSE: if this plan In most cases they will be mandatory. If the court approves those things that have been \"strongly and we are not able to comply, will we be held recommended in contempt of court? RESPONSE: The court gets angry when the districts are not serious about what they are doing or have proposed to do. ignore the court order, comply. You get into trouble when you will not be able to If you see that you come to me and explain why. Then there is no real problem. Clarification is needed (Pages 31 and 35, Incentive School) on who will administer the trust fund--two groups are 18 . listed. RESPONSE: One group will manage the trust fund and the other group will oversee the program. 3RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 1991 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached \"Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan II as required by this Court's order of August 22, 1991. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ) BYT Christopher Hei^SrJCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following counsel of record by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of September 1991. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 BYl . -- Christopher Hell -2- FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM LONG-TERM PLAN Little Rock School District This report will outline the long-range plans for expanding the early childhood education program in the Little Rock School District. In particular, this report will address the demographic, instructional, and structural needs for expanding the current four-year-old program. The report will begin with a review of background information related to the expansion of the four-year-old program in the Little Rock School District. selecting program sites will be provided. Next, the objectives for The objectives will be followed by an analysis of demographic data related to the four- year-old population in the Little Rock School District, attention will be given to identifying the number of Special disadvantaged students to be served by the four-year-old program. A review of the instructional goals of the four-year-old program will be included. Finally, long-term recommendations for establishing new four-year-old classes will be presented. Background The Little Rock School District four-year-old program was started during the 1988-89 school year as a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Although Rockefeller Elementary School served four-year-old students prior to this time, the emphasis on using this program as a tool to desegregate schools started in the 1988-89 school year. Three schools participated in the four-year-old program during the 1988-89 school year: Ish, Rockefeller, and Stephens. In the following year (1989-90), four-year-old classes were added to Franklin and Washington. Four-year-old classes were added to Badgett and Garland in the 1990-91 school year and Mitchell, Rightsell, Romine, and Woodruff at the beginning of the current school year - 1991-92. As a result, eleven of the 36 elementary schools in the Little Rock School District have one or more four- year-old classes: Badgett - Franklin - Garland - Ish - Mitchell - Rightsell - Rockefeller 20 seats 60 seats 20 seats 20 seats 20 seats 20 seats 60 seatspage two Romine - Stephens - Washington - Woodruff - 20 seats 20 seats 40 seats 20 seats Total 320 seats Volume I of the long-term desegregation plan was drafted and submitted to the federal district court during the first semester of the 1988-89 school year. At that time, the Little Rock School district proposed to have a four-year-old program in all elementary schools by the 1993-94 school year. This goal included the provision that the \"scope of this program may be altered, affected and/or enhanced by the proposed assignment and construction proposals made in this plan. II The District still believes that early childhood education is a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Furthermore, we believe that effective early childhood programs will reduce, if not eliminate, the need for major remediation programs in the upper grades. For these reasons, the enhancement and expansion of the four-year-old program will continue to be a priority for the Little Rock School District. Objectives for Selecting Sites It has already been stated that the expansion of the four- year-old program in the Little Rock School District is related to two major objectives: (1) to meet the growing needs of disadvantaged students\nand (2) to improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. These objectives carry with them certain limitations in regard to the location of future four-year-old sites. The settlement plan emphasizes the ongoing collaboration between the Little Rock School District and other federally funded early childhood programs to meet the needs of inner city Little The District has worked closely with the Rock students. Head Start program operated by the Community Organization for Poverty Elimination (COPE). Since Head Start can only serve families below the poverty level. Head Start centers are typically found in areas that are easily accessible to this population. As a result, future four-year-old sites should be located in or near areas that will facilitate collaborative efforts between the District and Head Start.page three Another factor that should be considered in identifying future four-year-old sites is the number of disadvantaged students in a given area. Priority should be given to areas that have a very high concentration of low income students. The first objective cannot be accomplished without an estimate of the number of disadvantaged four-year-old students in the Little Rock School District. According to the settlement plan, 80% of the disadvantaged students in the city of Little Rock will be served by the citywide early childhood education program. The figures listed below represent the District's estimate of the number of four-year-old students who have been eligible for the free and reduced lunch program during the past four years: 1987 1988 1989 1990 981 1077 1237 1071 Using the long-range goal of sezrving 80% of the disadvantaged students, these figures will require the citywide program to have the capacity to be able to serve 785 to 990 disadvantaged four- year-old students. The remainder of this report will use the average of these four years, 1092 four-year-old students, for planning purposes. As a result, for planning purposes only, the long-range goal is to serve 874 disadvantaged students. The four Head Start centers currently serve 361 students. All of these students are below the poverty level. In addition. the Model Cities Program, operated by the City of Little Rock, can serve a total of 60 four-year-old children. The Model Cities Program has two centers: the East End Community Complex (near Carver Magnet School) and the South Little Rock Recreation Center (across the street from Washington Magnet School). There are no income eligibility requirements for the Model Cities Program. The second objective of the long-range plan for expanding the four-year-old program is to improve the racial balance in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The elementary school attendance zones were originally designed to establish a racial balance at each school of 55 5, variance of 5%. black and 45% white with a Demographic changes over the past two years have resulted in some attendance zones having a lower number of white students than anticipated. The District has been successful in using the four-year-old program, along with other voluntary desegregation measures, to attract white students to schools that fall in this category. For instance, the Romine area is experiencing a steady increase in its black population. The four-year-old program at Romine School, however, is 50% white.page four The use of the four-year-old program as a means to improve the racial balance at certain schools also implies that these classes cannot be placed in attendance zones that continue to remain racially balanced. A list of the attendance zones that are not in danger of becoming racially imbalanced is provided below. This restriction does not preclude the placement of four- year-old classes in satellite zones that have heavy concentrations of disadvantaged students. Attendance zones less than 55% black: Brady, Dodd, Fair Park, Forest Park, Fulbright, Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights, Terry, and Western Hills. In order to use the four-year-old program as means of improving the racial balance at a school it will be necessary to make provisions for both black and white students. This requirement must be addressed in calculating the number of additional four-year-old seats needed to meet the long-range goal. Demographics The purpose of this section is to review demographic data related to four-year-old children in the city of Little Rock, should be noted that the Little Rock School District has worked very closely with COPE to develop and maintain early childhood It opportunities for four-year-old students. As a result, some of the demographic information collected by COPE will be presented in this section. At present, COPE operates four Head Start centers within the boundaries of the Little Rock School District. Start center is at the old King/Oakhurst School, still owned by the Little Rock School District. The largest Head This site is The second largest center is in Hollingsworth Court (east Little Rock). addition, two buildings that were formerly Educare centers are In currently used at Head Start sites. The center on 65th Street will probably be vacated at the end of this school year, site in the southwest Little Rock area has already been Another identified for the 1992-93 school year. The center on Asher Avenue, directly across the street from Wilson School, opened at the beginning of this school year, classrooms that are not in use. This center has four Community Needs Assessment. was conducted by COPE in 1990. 523 families throughout Little Rock. A community needs assessment Interviews were conducted with pre-school children at the time of the interview, is a brief review of some of the findings: All of the families had The followingpage five A. More services are needed in the King School/Highland Court area, the John Barrow/Asher Avenue area, and in southwest Little Rock. B. All of the centers in the above areas have waiting lists. C. Children were identified in each area who are above the Head Start income guidelines, cannot be served by Head Start. Barrow/SWLR - 16 As a result, these children King/Highland - 25, D. Number of children in families inteirviewed\n0-2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years Total H.S. Eligible 275 233 377 72 957 508 E. 53 of the families interviewed are at the bottom of the economic ladder - less than $6,280. F. 77% (401) of the families interviewed are headed by single mothers. G. 65% of the families interviewed indicated a need for Head Start in the future. H. A substantial number of parents indicated that they would be willing to participate in the following parent programs: literacy, drug abuse prevention, self-improvement, parenting, self-sufficiency, parent support group (child abuse), parent support group (drug abuse), and adult education classes. LRSD Data. It is interesting to note that the demographic information compiled by the LRSD Student Assignment Office identifies two of the three target areas cited by COPE as areas of need. Attachment One shows the number of four-year-old students over the past four years who have enrolled in kindergarten. each geographic area. The schools are listed as a means of describing Areas A, B, H, J, L, and M have experienced increases over the past two years. The largest increase (50% growth) occurred in Area. H - the area around Parkview, Wilson, and Bale Schools. This area is referred to by COPE as the John Barrow area, growth in areas L (22% growth), A (21% growth), and B (14% The growth) is more likely to be the result of parents who decided toV page six choose public education, as opposed to a net increase in births. The fluctuations in these areas over the four-year period tend to confirm this assumption. The increase in Area M (7% growth) from 1989 to 1990 tends to confirm the finding by COPE in regard to the need for more early childhood services in southwest Little Rock. In addition to this finding, however. Area M is the only area that experienced a steady increase in the number of four-year-old children during the period of 1987-1990: 1987-1988 1988-1989 4 % growth 21% growth The findings for Areas H and M should be coupled with the trend in Area J - the area around Western Hills, Meadowcliff, and Dodd Schools. This area is contiguous to, and in some cases overlaps, what is generally considered to be the Barrow area and southwest Little Rock. Again, a steady increase in the number of four-year-old children is evident during the period of 1987-1990: 1987-1988 1988-1989 11% growth 14% growth The data supplied by both parties document the need for four-year-old services in the John Barrow Road area and southwest Little Rock. Although these areas continue to show growth. future services in the central Little Rock area should not be disregarded. Little Rock. COPE is interested in having a center in central Currently, Head Start students from central Little Rock must go to the King/Oakhurst site. Transportation from central Little Rock to King/Oakhurst is a serious problem for some of these parents. Attachment One indicates heavy concentrations of four-year-old students in Areas D and I, the areas which serve the Incentive Schools, even though both areas have experienced declines since 1988. Instructional Goals The whole thrust of the early childhood program has been to remedy the academic differences that our students are bringing into the school system. In the past, we have experienced low performance, retention, and dropouts. Significant amounts of time and money have been expended on remediation, special education, and on providing the basic level of preparation needed to succeed in school. Many of the problems of skills disparity that are chronic in the higher grades are lessened when all youngsters enter kindergarten with appropriate pre-school experiences. Thepage seven citywide early childhood programs are geared to providing the skills and experience that have often been lacking in lower income youngsters. This is tremendously important, not only to the parents, but to the self-image and self-confidence of the child. The number of students who will flourish, learn, and perform at grade level while building on a foundation of pride, achievement, and self-esteem is simply incalculable. The instructional goals of this program are to address the needs of at-risk students, at the earliest possible age, in a manner that ensures success in learning and diminishes the current disparity in performance between not only black and white children but economically advantaged and disadvantaged children. Philosophv/Ob~i ectives. The early years of life are critical for helping children realize their full developmental potential. Arranging experiences to enhance development is a task for the home, the school, and the community. The goals and objectives of the educational program will be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and styles of learning which will guide daily activities. The program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of young children. It will appeal to young children and help them experience the joy of learning. The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and it will be sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritage of children. Young children need the opportunity to learn about themselves and other cultures. An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in which the children are active learners. They will be given freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about, and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrum of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. The Early Childhood Task Force has endeavored to structure a curriculum for four-year-old children that is multicultural and tailored to the individual needs and interests of the learners. In every instance, teachers of young children must be curriculum developers who are able to observe and talk with children to determine high interest areas. The specific skills taught in LRSD four-year-old classes can be found in the District's early childhood education handbook.page eight Parent Involvement. The active involvement of the family is critical to children's success in school. helps sustain the effects of school programs. It reinforces and Parents will be actively involved in the implementation of the program through: - Orientation Meeting and Make/Take Workshops - Parents will become acquainted with the program at Open House. Parents also will be provided a variety of activities and strategies to enhance achievement by their children. - Parent Participation - Parents will be invited to volunteer in the classroom, accompany the class on field trips, and observe the child in the classroom. - Advisory Committee - Parents will serve on the Early Childhood Advisory Committee. - Training Sessions - Principals and teachers will encourage parents to participate in training sessions so they can have a better understanding of the characteristics of children and how they grow. - Discussion Groups - Parent discussion groups with teachers and outside agency representatives will be scheduled as a means to improve parent effectiveness. - Parent Survey - Parents will help us evaluate the program in the school by completing a survey. A summary will be made from the responses to identify needs and provide better services for the children. Staff Development. The Little Rock School District is committed to providing continuous professional growth opportunities for all staff members. Major components of these opportunities are the districtwide training courses and minicourses which have been designed and scheduled to address staff development needs as reflected in the local schools' Annual School Improvement Plans. Also, in order to be in compliance with State Department Standards, LRSD certified staff members are required to complete a minimum of five (5) days or 27 1/2 hours of staff development training each year. Staff development activities for the four- year-old program will include but not be limited to the following areas: - Licensing Requirements - Classroom Managementpage nine - Child Development and Behavior - Learning Styles Parent Conferences - Developing Centers and Units - Transitional Activities - Prejudice Reduction - Behavior Management and Self-Esteem Instructional aides will receive child development associate training or early childhood education technical assistance depending upon individual needs. Program Evaluation. A longitudinal study of all students involved in the citywide early childhood program will be conducted. The information gained from this study will allow LRSD, and the other agencies, to make valid assessments of student achievement and program effectiveness. Recommendations The difference between the estimate for the long-range goal (874 disadvantaged children) and the number of children currently served by Head Start (361 children) is 513. The extent to which the Head Start program will expand over the next 3-5 years cannot be detennined at this time. long-range expansion planning. Head Start is currently involved in It will be necessary for the Little Rock School District to continue to work closely with COPE to determine the exact number of seats that can be provided by each agency to meet the long-range goal. The long-range goal will probably be modified as better information is acquired about the number of disadvantaged four-year-old students in Little Rock. In addition to determining the number of seats that must be provided by each agency, the Little Rock School District will have to provide enough seats at each new site to meet the desegregation requirements. The following recommendations are tentative pending the collection of additional details on demographics and expansion possibilities, and the finalization of agreements with COPE, citywide early childhood planning committee will be formed to A continue the process of studying these factors. The committeepage ten will consist of representatives from the Little Rock School District, COPE, Model Cities, the Housing Authority, related agencies. and other quarter. The committee will meet at least once each The nature of long-range planning to meet the growing needs of disadvantaged children is such that ongoing collaboration and planning is crucial. 1992-93 A. B. Open a class at Bale School - 20 seats Open 3 classes at the Asher Avenue Head Start Center C. D. (directly across from Wilson School) Open a class at Watson School - 20 seats Open a class at Geyer Springs - 20 seats 60 seats 1993-94 A. B. Open two classes at the new King School - 40 seats Convert Ish School to an early childhood center if the attendance zones for the new interdistrict schools will allow for accommodation of Ish students at nearby schools and place LRSD in a position to petition the court to authorize conversion of Ish to an early childhood center. The proximity of the new King School, Mitchell School, and Rightsell School, and the low enrollment at Ish are factors that will be considered in developing a proposal to submit to the court. C. Open at least one class at the new SWLR Head Start Center - 20 seats 1994-95 A. Open two classes at the new Stephens School - 40 seatsFOUR-YEAR-OLD DEMOGRAPHICS AREA DESCRIPTION 1987 1988 1989 1990 A Fulbright Terry 99 83 89 108 B Brady Fair Park Jefferson McDermott 130 125 138 157 C Pul. Hgts. Woodruff 83 105 119 95 D Rightsell Mitchell Rockefeller Ish 324 377 314 283 E Carver Mann 93 81 96 90 F Badgett 13 14 28 25 G Romine 131 161 135 116 H Parkview Wilson Bale 107 106 74 111 I Franklin Stephens Garland 324 318 313 285 J Western Hills Meadowcliff Dodd 73 81 92 93 K Geyer Springs Wakefield 73 81 100 96 L Otter Creek 24 28 23 28 M Cloverdale Mabelvale Watson Chicot 159 166 201 216 N Baseline 133 135 141 116For suspension of the rules at regular Board meeting on April 23, 1992. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEiyPO April 23, 1992 APR 2 2 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring TO: Board of Directors FROM: istelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs THROUGH: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) Program Continuing Grant Application The Arkansas Department of Education recently aimounced the availability of Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) monies for second-year funding of developmentally appropriate early childhood education programs which identify and assist educationally-deprived children ages three (3) to five (5), as specified in the Arkansas Better Chance Program, Act 212 of 1991. The request for the Continuing Grant Application was released April 16, 1992, and the deadline for submission is May 8, 1992. The amount requested for second-year funding may not exceed the total amount of last years grant award, plus a five percent increase. 1991-92 Grant Allocation Center-based Four-Year-Old Program HIPPY Program Total Allocation Five percent increase $100,000.00 47.050.00 $147,050.00 + 7,352.50 Continuing Grant Request 1992-93 $154,402.50 It is recommended that you authorize the administration to submit an application for second-year funding in the amount of $154,402.50.ARKANSAS BETTER CHANCE ( STATEMENT OF ASSURANCES 1. The applicant has the necessary legal authority to apply for and to receive the proposed contract. (Attach a copy of the substantiating document.) 2. The applicant agrees to plan and implement a program in compliance with Act 212 of 1991, the Arkansas Better Chance Program, and to follow all applicable state and federal statutes and regulations. 3. If applicable, the applicant agrees to secure a license for a child care center under The Child Care Licensing Act, Ark Code Ann. 20-78-201 through 221 (1987 and Supp. 1989). 4. The applicant agrees to keep such records and provide such information to the Arkansas Department of Education and to the Arkansas Department of Human Services as reasonably may be required for fiscal auditing and program evaluation. 5. The applicant agrees to use funds provided under Act 212 of 1991 to supplement and not to supplant existing funds for early childhood programs. 6. The applicant agrees to participate upon request in an external annual evaluation of the project as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. 7. The applicant agrees to coordinate its efforts with other early childhood programs and service providers to provide a comprehensive, quality early childhood program. 8. The applicant agrees to prohibit discrimination and intimidation on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin in student selection and employment practices. 9. The activities and service.s under this proposed program will be admim'stered by or under the supervision of the applicant. 10. For operation of HIPPY Programs, a letter of authorization from HIPPY USA will be provided. 11. The filing of this application was authorized at the following official meeting: District Board of Education meeting Policy Board meeting--------------- Head of Administration________ President of Board ____________ Date Date Date Date Date Signature of Authorized Official TitleFOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM LONG-TERM PLAN Little Rock School District Ofiico (.\n? iiacj jUH 4 o{ Desegregation Moniw-3 This report will outline the long-range plans for expanding the early childhood education program in the Little Rock School District. In particular, this report will address the demographic, instructional, and structural needs for expanding the current four-year-old program. The report will begin with a review of background information related to the expansion of the four-year-old program in the Little Rock School District. selecting program sites will be provided. Next, the objectives for The objectives will be followed by an analysis of demographic data related to the four- year-old population in the Little Rock School District. A review of the instructional goals of the four-year-old program will be included. Finally, long-term recoiranendations for establishing new four-year-old classes will be presented. Background The Little Rock School District four-year-old program was started during the 1988-89 school year as a means of meeting the needs of disadvantaged students and improving the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. Although Rockefeller Elementary School served four-year-old students prior to this time, the emphasis on using this program as a tool to desegregate schools started in the 1988-89 school year. Three schools participated in the four-year-old program during the 1988-89 school year: Ish, Rockefeller, and Stephens. In the following year (1989-90), four-year-old classes were added to Franklin and Washington. Four-year-old classes were added to Badgett and Garland in the 1990-91 school year and Mitchell, Rightsell, Romine, and Woodruff at the beginning of the current school year - 1991-92. According to the May 1 court order, the District must \"accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned\" (page 16). in the Little Rock School District. There are 36 elementary schools This moans that the District must provide 648 four-year-old seats in order to comply with the desegregation plan. a four-year-old program in 1992-93. Figure One shows the schools which will have These schools will account for 378 of the 648 four-year-old seats needed by 1994-95.1992-93 Badgett Bale Cloverdale Franklin Garland Geyer Spgs. Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Washington Watson Wilson Woodruff 2 FIGURE ONE Ineligible 1993-94. 1994-95 Brady Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Moadowcliff Otter Creek Pul. Heights Terry Western Hills Baseline Chicot* King** Booker Carver Gibbs Williams * Under consideration - will need additional space (NOTE: Wakefield is eligible for a four-year-old program, but no space is available for an additional class.) ** If approved by the Court to open in 1994-953 Objectives for Selecting Sites It has already been stated that the expansion of the four- year-old program in the Little Rock School District is related to two major objectives: (1) to meet the growing needs of disadvantaged students\nand (2) to improve the racial balance at schools that are difficult to desegregate. These objectives are consistent with the terms of the May 1 court order to \"place four-year-old programs in locations which will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance\" (page 16). These objectives carry with them, however, certain limitations in regard to the location of future four-year-old sites. A factor that should be considered in identifying future four-year-old sites is the number of disadvantaged students in a given area. Priority should be given to areas that have a very high concentration of low income students. The second objective of the long-range plan for expanding the four-year-old program is to improve the racial balance in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The elementary school attendance zones were originally designed to establish a racial balance at each school of 55% black and 45% white with a variance of 5%. Demographic changes over the past two years have resulted in some attendance zones having a lower number of white students than anticipated. The District has been successful in using the fo\\ir-year-old program, along with other voluntary desegregation measures, to attract white students to schools that fall in this category. For instance, the Romine area is experiencing a steady increase in its black population. The four-year-old program at Romine School, however, is 50% white. The use of the four-year-old program as a means to improve the racial balance at certain schools also implies that these classes cannot be placed in attendance zones that continue to remain racially balanced. This restriction does not preclude the placement of four-year-old classes in satellite zones that have heavy concentrations of disadvantaged students. The attendance zones that are ineligible for a program because of racial balance Brady, Dodd, Fair Park, Forest Park, Fulbright, Jefferson, Mabelvale, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights, Terry, and Western Hills. balances that are less than 55% black. These attendance zones have racial are: In light of the information provided in Figure One, the District will need to open a total of 270 four-year-old seats by the 1994-95 school year in order to comply with the desegregation plan. This goal can be met by using area centers, opening programs at schools that are eligible, and/or adding one or more classes to schools with existing four-year-old programs.4 Demographics Attachment One shows the number of four-year-old students The over the past four years who have enrolled in kindergarten, schools are listed as a means of describing each geographic area. Areas A, B, H, J, L, and M experienced increases between 1989 and 1990. The largest increase (50% growth) occurred in Area H - the area around Parkview, Wilson, and Bale Schools. This area will be referred to as the John Barrow Road area. The growth in areas L (22% growth), A (7% growth), and B (14% growth) is more likely to be the result of parents who decided to choose public education, as opposed to a net increase in births. The fluctuations in these areas over the four-year period tend to confirm this assumption. The increase in Area M (7% growth) from 1989 to 1990 tends to suggest the need for more early childhood services in southwest Little Rock. In addition to this finding, however, Area M is the only area that experienced a steady increase of more than 1% growth in the number of four-year-old children during the period of 1987-1990: 1987-1988 1988-1989 1989-1990 4% growth 21% growth 7% growth The findings for Areas H and M should be coupled with the trend in Area J - the area around Western Hills, Meadowcliff, and Dodd Schools. This area is contiguous to, and in some cases overlaps, what is generally considered to be the Barrow Road area and southwest Little Rock. Again, a steady increase in the number of four-year-old children is evident during the period of 1987-1990\n1987-1988 1988-1989 1989-1990 11% growth 14% growth 1% growth These data document the need for four-year-old services in the John Barrow Road area and southwest Little Rock. Although these areas continue to show growth, future services in the central Little Rock area should not be disregarded. Attachment One indicates heavy concentrations of four-year-old students in Areas D and I, the areas which serve the Incentive Schools, though both areas have experienced declines since 1988. even Instructional Goals The whole thrust of the early childhood program has been to remedy the academic differences that our students are bringing In the past, we have experienced low into the school system. Significant amounts of performance, retention, and dropouts. time and money have been expended on remediation, special 5 education, and on providing the basic level of preparation needed to succeed in school. Many of the problems of skills disparity that are chronic in The the higher grades are lessened when all youngsters enter kindergarten with appropriate pre-school experiences. District's four-year-old program is designed to provide the skills and experience that have often been lacking in lower income youngsters. This is tremendously important, not only to the parents, but to the self-image and self-confidence of the The number of students who will flourish, learn, and child. perform at grade level while building on a foundation of pride, achievement, and self-esteem is simply incalculable. The instructional goals of this program are to address the needs of at-risk students, at the earliest possible age, in a manner that ensures success in learning and diminishes the current disparity in performance between not only black and white children but economically advantaged and disadvantaged children. The early years of life are critical Philosophv/Qbjectives, for helping children realize their full developmental potentxal. Arranging experiences to enhance develojxnent is a task for the home, the school, and the community. The goals and objectives of the educational program will be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and The styles of learning which will guide daily activities. program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of It will appeal to young children and help them young children. experience the joy of learning. The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and it will be sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritage of children. Young children need the opportunity to learn about themselves and other cultures. An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in They will be given which the children are active learners. freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about, and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrxim of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. The Early Childhood Task Force has endeavored to structure a curriculum for four-year-old children that is multicultural and tailored to the individual needs and interests of the learners. In every instance In every instance, teachers of young children must be curriculum developers who are able to observe and talk with children to determine high interest areas. The specific skills taught in LRSD four-year-old classes can be found in the District's early childhood education handbook.6 Parent Involvement, The active involvement of the family is critical to children's success in school. It reinforces and Parents will be helps sustain the effects of school programs. actively involved in the implementation of the program through: - Orientation Meeting and Make/Take Workshops - Parents will become acquainted with the program at Open House. Parents also will be provided a variety of activities and strategies to enhance achievement by their children. - Parent Participation - Parents will be invited to volunteer in the classroom, accompany the class on field trips, and observe the child in the classroom. - Advisory Coirenittee - Parents will serve on the Early Childhood Advisory Committee. - Training Sessions - Principals and teachers will encourage parents to participate in training sessions so they can have a better understanding of the characteristics of children and how they grow. Discussion Groups - Parent discussion groups with teachers and outside agency representatives will be scheduled as a means to improve parent effectiveness. Parent Survey - Parents will help us evaluate the program in the school by completing a survey. A summary will be made from the responses to identify needs and provide better services for the children. Staff Development. The Little Rock School District is conmitted to providing continuous professional growth opportunities for all staff members. Major components of these opportunities are the districtwide training courses and minicourses which have been designed and scheduled to address staff developxnent needs as reflected in the local schools' Annual School Improvement Plans. Also, in order to be in compliance with State Department Standards, LRSD certified staff members are required to complete a minimum of five (5) days or 27 1/2 hours of staff development Staff development activities for the four- training each year. year-old program will include but not be limited to the following areas : - Licensing Requirements Classroom Management - Child Development and Behavior7 - Learning Styles Parent Conferences - Developing Centers and Units Transitional Activities - Prejudice Reduction - Behavior Management and Self-Esteem Instructional aides will receive child development associate training or early childhood education technical assistance depending upon individual needs. Program Evaluation. A longitudinal study of all students involved in the four-year-old program will be conducted. The information gained from this study will allow the District to make valid assessments of student achievement and program effectiveness. Long-Range Proposal - Structural Heeda As stated earlier, the District will need to open a total of 270 four-year-old seats by the 1994-95 school year in order to comply with the desegregation plan. This amount is equivalent to 15 four-year-old classes with a maximum capacity of 18 students in each class. It was also noted that future four-year-old programs should be located in the John Barrow Road area, southwest Little Rock, and/or the area around the incentive schools. In regard to future four-year-old sites, the Little Rock School District proposes the following: A. Chicot. In the 1993-94 school year, open a class at Baseline and The class at Chicot is contingent on the District's ability to free a classroom (e.g. eliminate a kindergarten cla\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":"bcas_bcmss0837_366","title":"Desegregation: ''Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1988-10-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation: ''Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/366"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["78 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 8 PROPOSED DESEGREGATION PLAN 9 10 October 3, 1988 1 2 I.1. 2. 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSED DESEGREGATION PLAN October 3, 1988 Student Assignment Plan Early Childhood Education Staff Development School Operations Program of Accelerated Learning Multi-Ethnic Curriculum Special Programs Content Area Programs 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 9. Summer Learning Program 11 10. Specialty Programs 2 11. Vocational Education 12. Federal Programs H n n LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LONG-TERM STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN 1989/90-1993/94 I. 1 Introduction 3 I In February 1988, the Court approved the 1988-89 Little tn Rock School District student assignment plan. The 1988-89 student assignment plan establishes the framework Hi 5 for 4 6 i accomplishing two major objectives. The first objective is 7 H to provide a period of stabilization during the development of a long-term student assignment plan covering the period 8 *1 of 1989/90 through 1993/94. The second objective is to 9 bl tar develop and implement strategies that will desegregate schools that have been classified as racially identifiable. It is very important that the long-term plan ensures stability while also maintaining and strengthening desegregation 10 11 2 w in the Little Rock schools. In order to accomplish this task, the plan must employ both intradistrict and inter  district desegregation strategies. The Little Rock School h  II District must succeed in reversing the trend of white flight. The District has experienced constant growth in its black enrollment. This factor merely intensifies the need to curtail white flight and recruit more white students . There is also a need to minimize, to the extent possible, the growth in the District's black enrollment by strengthening the majority to minority recruitment process. The successful recruitment of white students requires the assurance of additional building capacity, the availability    . 3 I  of attractive programs, and the careful location of these programs. At present, there are very few vacancies in schools that are west of University Avenue. The schools in the downtown area have more vacancies but these schools have not proven to be attractive to white parents. Certain facets of the major enhancem.ent programs established in 1988-89 need to be revised. In other cases, new facilities I ,1 I I I i'l 2 3 4 5 6 should be constructed in areas that\"^^ will serve the black t 7 community and yet provide easy access to intradistrict and interdistrict white parents. Until the needs of both west 8 9 and downtown Little Rock have been satisfied, the 10 District's recruitment efforts will remain at a standstill  and white flight will probably continue. 11  The next two sections describe the steps that will be taken 2 between 1988-89 and 1990-91 to achieve the District's long  term student assignment goals. II. Facilities  A. 1988-89 Washington School is closed for the 1988-89 school year.  A new Washington School is being built at the same site  with a projected capacity of 600 students. The students  who were originally assigned to Washington for the 1988-89 school year have been reassigned to Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller and Rightsell. These students  (166) will return to the new Washington in the 1989-90 school year. n B D E I The Little Rock School District is committed to con-tinuing efforts to recruit white students to the maj or K enhancements schools. However, the District feels that it is counterproductive to recruit white students to schools that will close in the next 1-2 years. It is more productive to focus recruitment efforts on major enhancement schools that are expected to remain open during the next five years. Likewise, major enhancement 2 3 4 5 6 7 I schools that are expected to be rebuilt and relocated in the next two 8 years will be added to the District's 9 recruitment campaign. 10 B. 1989-90 Plans have already been made to add new wing to Franklin School. This wing will allow Franklin to house 11 12 a some of the students who were affected by the closing of [ King. It is by no means certain, however, that all or even most of the King students will be reassigned to Franklin in 1989-90. Franklin's new capacity is expected to be approximately 550. The new Washington will function as an interdistrict magnet school. A tri-district survey will be conducted I in October 1988 to determine a theme. The Washington students who were temporarily reassigned for the 1988-89 I school years will be assigned to the new Washington school. I I 5 . 99 II I: II Washington's location is expected to be a major asset to its ability to attract white students. In particular, D II it is easily accessible to down town office workers from both North Little Rock, Pulaski County and southwest Little Rock. Also, Washington's proximity to 1-30 is 2 3 4 II] expected to attract students who live outside of Pulaski 5 County. The Little Rock School District is interested II 6 in opening the magnet and M-M programs to students who II live outside of Pulaski County. 7 It is proposed that both Mitchell and Rockefeller become 8 II intradistrict magnets. These schools will be restricted to students in the Little Rock School District. 9 10 While II some consideration has been given to having a I 11 II Montessori/Computer theme at Rockefeller, the Selection of a theme will be based on the results of the trii I2 II district magnet survey. Some consideration has been given to replicating Carver's math/science theme at I I II Mitchell. Ish School will close as a regular school at the end of the 1988-89 school Ill year. The Little Rock School District proposes to use Ish School as an early n childhood center that will incorporate the early childhood curriculum presently used in the District's n four-year-old program. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals views early childhood education as an important I i H component of a comprehensive desegregation plan. It is I I I believed that early intervention will, over time.Hi  H obviate the need for compensatory and remedial programs M H in the higher grades. N LRSD proposes that Gibbs Magnet be reorganized as a K-3 2 I school and Rightsell Elementary (approximately four blocks from Gibbs) serve as the 4-6 international stu- I dies magnet. Also, Dunbar Junior High School t4 5 I 11 (approximately two blocks from Rightsell and adjoining 6 the Gibbs campus) will have a school within a school for 7 B international studies. The use of Gibbs/Rightsell as feeders for Dunbar will provide continuity for the 8 9 H international studies theme. 10 I I The uses described above for Washington, Mitchell, Rockefeller, Ish and Rightsell may change if those 11 schools are needed to house enhanced schools. 12 I C. 1990-91 K A The recommendations in this section are based on current R demographics and geography which identify a need for new construction. It is proposed that the District relocate II Stephens Elementary due west of and adj oining the Capitol Hill Complex. The new Stephens will house pren kindergarten through sixth grades. The new Stephens will be similar to the new Washington in that it will n have a capacity of 600 students and serve as an inter- H district magnet. The magnet theme will be based on the results of the tri-district survey. In addition to I being located on the 1-630 corridor, the new Stephens . n 11 will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, n state department employees and University Medical personnel. Center The site for the I! new Stephens Elementary is approxi-mately one-half mile from Woodruff. Woodruff has a 3 4 I  capacity of 245 students and is situated in a neigh-borhood that has 5 no real potential for white growth. n Woodruff is presently 75% black. Probably the best use 6 of this facility is to use it as the Instructional 7 B Resource Center (IRC). There is no need to continue to 8 B use Woodruff as a school after the opening of the new Stephens School. 9 10 II The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a 11 new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The I2 facility would be located in the general area bounded by 1-630, Chester Street, 7th Street and Center Street. In II fio II r n III. addition to being an interdistrict magnet. I attraction for this school will the big be its early childhood program and childcare facilities. expected to serve as This location is a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and Little Rock. business centers of I Assignment Plan The Little Rock School District proposes to use attendance I I zones for all of the non-magnet, non-enhancement schools. The zones will provide a feeder pattern for elementary stu- II II dents going to Junior high school and junior high school students II going to senior high school. As a result, elemen- tary students will automatically know their junior and 2 I senior high school assignments. 3 I ! The use of attendance zones will allow most neighborhoods 4 II to be able to attend a particular school as a group. The 5 use of attendance zones I the District. is expected to ensure stability in The use of attendance zones will also help I 6 7 II to minimize busing and allow the District to develop bus 8 routes that are cost effective and efficient. II The use of attendance zones will also allow the District to restore its working relationship with the real estate and II business communities. Under the present plan, potential II homeowners have no attend school. way of knowing where their children will Because the school assignment is conII sidered a major factor in deciding whether and where to purchase a home, it is very important to the future growth of the community for the Little Rock School District to be able to answer school assignment questions with more certainty. 9 10 11 I2 n Attachment One is zones. a maw which shows proposed attendance The enhanced schools may be selected by black and If white students who live outside the attendance zones drawn for enhanced schools. Students living within the attendance zones for enhanced schools may choose to be assigned to a racially balanced school. Attachment One A / IrL IB Bl shows the student composition of LRSD elementary schools if IB LRSD students were Attachment A. assigned according to the zones shown on n There shall be eight schools designated as incentive schools. They are: II Carver (original building) Franklin 5 II 6 Garland  7 II n Ish 8 Mitchell II Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens 9 10 Each school shall have II a geographic attendance combined the eight attendance zones shall zone. When 11 encompass the II entire geographic territory of the Little Rock School District. Three thousand students shall be Assigned to 12 II these schools. The remaining schools of the dis^ Ct shall each have attendance zones. II zones shall When combined these^ attendance II the district. encompass the entire geographic /territory / / of Assignments shall be made to the eight sc 'Ols before any n other assignments are made to the remainin. schools. These n assignments shall be determined by February?a the event that the number of persons electing r 1989. In accepting R assignments to schools exceeds ca ty, the district shal assign students to these schools on the basis of the I missio: of the school and the likely benefits to be 8- B II received by the students assigned thereto. Students who IJ V are assigned to these schools shall commit to remain in II them through the sixth grade or until they leave the school 2 district. E Students assigned to the remaining schools in the district may either attend the school in their atten- 3 4 II dance zone or an incentive school. 5 A. Proposed Feeder Plan 6 fl The purpose of a feeder plan is to limit the number of 11 fl fl 7 elementary, junior high and senior high school assign-ments in a particular geographic area. An ideal feeder plan divides the district into large senior high zones and the schools on the lower organizational levels all feed into the senior high school. 8 9 10 11 11 The segregated housing pattern in Little Rock makes it impossible to have a perfect feeder system for all orga- 11 nizational levels. n II n As a result, satellite zones will be used in the proposed feeder plan. It should be noted that the building percentages listed in the feeder plan are subject to further refinement. are alreadj^ evident In the feeder proposal. (Attachments three and four n describe the proposed feeder plan. Rightsell, Rockefeller, Mitchell and Washington have II been omitted from attachment four since they are pro-posed magnets. Ish has been omitted since it has been El designated as an early childhood education center.  Some problem areas I ft 12 ii J a II B. Assignment Procedures iH The Little Rock School District proposes to^ph^se-inj the new assignment plan beginning with the 1989-90 school II year. This approach will allow the District to maintain stability by conducting a gradual transition to a new II assignment plan. The phase-in approach will /permit grandfathering of all students in the Little Rock OOl II District as of June 2^1989. The new assignment plan will apply to all/matriculating students and students II new to the Distric or the 1989- 0 school year. II Every effort will be made to grant sibling preference to any students who are still separated as a result of the I II present assignment plan. The new assignment plan will automatically keep siblings together since assignments II will be based on geographic location. Consideration II will be given to allowing the children of school-based employees to attend school at their worksites. Such II assignments are subject to the desegregation require-ments. II II II H H The new assignment plan will exclude kindergarten students from the mandatory assignment process. Kindergarten students will be allowed to attend the nearest school without regard to desegregation requirements. Neighborhood kindergarten assignments will be made with the full understanding of where these students will attend school in first grade. The new t I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11. , I IVI \u0026lt;1 I 9 assignment plan will apply to all students who move from kindergarten to first grade in 1990-91 and thereafter. 2 II New students to the District will not have to come to 3 the Student Assignment Office to obtain an assignment. Each school will be authorized to enroll students who 4 IM live within the attendance zone of that school. The student IMI Assignment Office will: monitor new assignments\nprocess all data entry work for elementary 5 6 7 schools\nprocess M-M transfers and magnet assignments\n8 reassign students because of overcrowdedness or desegregation requirements\nconsider appeals\nconduct recruit- I c 9 10 01^ ment efforts\ntransfers. and process majority-to-lesser-majority Majority-to-lesser-majority transfers will 11 12 allow a transfer out of an attendance zone if transpor-tation is provided by the parent. C. Expected Outcomes and Implementation Timeline The Little Rock School District has not succeeded in meeting the Court's desegregation guidelines in all of its schools. The lack of success in the Little Rock School District can be attributed to several factors (i.e., white flight, fragmented neighborhoods, long bus rides, a steady increase in the black population, etc.). RW Of course, some might attribute the District's woes to HH the manner in which students are presently assigned to school. The present assignment plan is costly and extremely difficult to administer. Also, public support I has faded as a result of the severe fragmentation caused by mandatorily assigning students and allowing multiple school assignments in any given geographic area. 2 3 However, some of the District's intradistrict assignment problems existed before the implementation of the pre4 sent assignment plan. 5 Many urban school districts throughout the United States are seeking ways to combat white flight. Likewise, 6 I 7 these same districts are experiencing a growth in black or minority students. 8 Both of these trends are evident 9 in the Little Rock School District. Another complaint 10 that normally accompanies urban school desegregation efforts is the length of the bus rides. Meaningful 11 i desegregation in cities with segregated neighborhoods 12 will almost always result in bus rides that are unacceptable. It is safe to conclude that the desegregation problems fl in Pulaski County have been in existence for a number of fl years and cannot be resolved with mere intradistrict remedies. Any intradistrict remedy in one district must fl have the capability of enhancing intradistrict remedies in the remaining districts. The three districts cannot resolve the desegregation crisis in Pulaski County s fl without cooperation and collaboration. In addition to cooperation and collaboration, the success or failure of school desegregation in Pulaski County depends on the effectiveness of the interdistrict assignment program. It-  n The demographics of the Pulaski County Special School District and the Little Rock School District are such that each district must rely on the other to meet the 2 n goal of desegregating all schools. Any long-range 3 desegregation plan in the Little Rock School District M will have to include an effective interdistrict assignment program in order to be successful. 5 6 n The challenge before the Little Rock School District is to simplify the intradistrict assignment process and II intensify the interdistrict assignment process. In 7 8 II order to meet this challenge, the district must first have a firm commitment to quality desegregated educa- 9 10 II tion. Second, the District must focus on the potential 11 for successful second-generation desegregation programs 12 II in Pulaski County as opposed to allowing first- II generation desegregation problems to resurface. Third, the Pulaski County community must be made aware of the II various interdistrict options. Special Needs II The Little Rock School District currently has five II (5) schools schools. designated as major enhancement These schools have black percentages 1. ri above seventy-six percent (76%). 2. Rightsell School is also above seventy-six percent (76%) black. \\V a  3 . The 1988-89 nonblack enrollment in the Little Rock M School District is basically the same as the nonblack enrollment at the end of the 1987-88 2 4 . school year. The nonblack enrollment in the Little Rock School District needs to increase signifi- cantly in order to avoid having a predominantly black school district. The 1988-89 black enrollment in the Little Rock School District has approximately 700 more students than the black enrollment at the end of the 1987-88 3 4 5 6 7 8 I I 9 school year. The black enrollment in the Little 10 Rock School District needs to decrease. 5. The Little Rock School District needs more building 11 capacity at all organizational levels. The 12 district currently uses 98% of elementary capacity\n93% of junior high capacity\nand 101% of senior capacity. The District cannot expect to increase Il its nonblack enrollment during the 1989-90 schoolyear without additional building capacities at all organizational levels. The Little Rock School District needs to continue efforts to attract students to a core of schools [fl that traditionally have been difficult to desegregate. HI The Pulaski County Special School District must meet the court-ordered desegregation requirement for all of its schools in the southeast sector. I 6 . 7. A8 . The sector of the Pulaski County Special School District that is north of the river needs more black students and fewer white students. 9 . 2 In order to ensure stability and growth, the Little Rock School District needs an assignment plan that h J will remain the same for the next five years. 10. *5 The Little Rock School District must begin prepara- 6  tions to seek unitary status. Expected Outcomes 7  A. To meet the desegregation guidelines in the major ( 8  enhancement schools. 9 B. To use the majority-to-minority transfer program to decrease the District's black enrollment and increase the District's white enrollment. 10 11 12 I C. To implement a new student assignment plan in the 1989-90 school year. D. To expand the interdistrict magnet program. I Implementation Timeline See attachment. n  r. Area of Collaboration 1989-90\nV c 3 - ' ?roi ?es3cr.s 1  I e A. To meet the desegregation guidelines in the major enhancement schools.\nr,_____________________________ im/Area Office of Desenreg i uun CB, VS3 I I st: AC I s I I 3 c, TIiiTS COMPLETION DATE COSTS I I i I I I I EVALUATiC.'l To fully implement all components of LRSD 88-89 major enhancement program 1. Secure funds from court for major enhancement programs ! 2. Complete fad 1 i ty Ongoing Nov, 1, 1988 See 88-89 Desegregation plan LRSD Attorneys Court order to fund programs I renovations identified in 1988-89 desegregation plan. 3. Monitor implementation of major enhancement programs Implement a major recruitment effort for major enhancement schools I 1. Hire full-time parent recrui ters 2. Develop recruitment plan See 1988-89 Desegregation Plan for LRSD Ongoing June 1989 November 1. 1988 November 1, 1988 Ongoing December 1. 1988 See 88-89 Desegregation plan See 88-89 Desegregation Plan I Plant Services Dept. - Assoc. Supt. - Oeseg. - Evaluation and Testing - RSD Biracial Advisory Commi ttee - Consultant/Monitor - Assoc. Suot. - Oeseg. Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. Completion of contract requirements for each renovation project Quarterly monitoring reports submitted to Board of Directors and Special Master Completion of hiring process Plan submitted Superintendent's Cabinet for review and approval Implementation monitored by periodic status reports to cabinet ( I I o CD 00 O) cn co 1lMPLMN7AT:ori TiKELJr\n*Area of Collaboration '..= 1 Plan sen Respor.siDie 1: ______________ 1989-90 (Year) A. To meet the desegregation quidlines in the major enhancement schools cont'd Division _____________________________ Program/Area flffjrp nf np\u0026lt;\npqrpga r mn OBJECTIVES I 1 STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY I EVALUATION *3. Target parents north of the river for M/M transfers to LRSD major enhancement schools 4. Launch an intensive public relations campaign January 1989 January 1989 May 1989 Onqo i ng - HRC Exec. Director - MET - Three districts - Assoc. Supt. - Deseq. - Spec. Asst, to Supt. Response to open houses, brochures, individual tours, etc. Public advertisement in targeted area. Completion of deadline established in recruitment plan 1 1 o (O 00 CJ\u0026gt; cn W a I IMPLxMEtCATOK TIKELrf.'E Plan 1989-90 sen ResponsToTe 1: OBJECTIVES Implement a major recruitment effort for M/H transfers* (Year) B. STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES *Area of Collaboration To use the majority-to-minority transfer program to decrease the District's black enrollment and increase the District's white enrollment. *1. Use parent organizations in receiving schools to recruit *2. Use current M/M parents to recruit *3. Seek assistance from business and community (i.e. Chambers of Commerce, L.R., N. Pulaski, Jax) to establish a monetary incentive plan for students who participate in M/M transfer program 4. Use parent recruiters and student assignment officer to coordinate LRSD H/M recruitment efforts. BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY January 1989 January 1989 October 1988 December 1, 1988 I Hay 1989 Hay 1989 Ongoing Ongoing ro o (O Division Program/AreaU^^'ce Of Uesegregatlon - HRC Exec. Director - MET - Three districts - HRC Exec. Director - MET - Three districts - Three communications officers - Office of Deseqrei tion (3 districts Assoc. Supt.- Deseg. 00 at la- O1 I EVALUATION Periodic recruitment report given by HET to MRC Periodic recruitment given by MET to HRC reports Agreement signed by all parties involved Periodic I recruitment reports to Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. GJ to I IMPLEMEKTATiCN TiHEL 1 --r.Li'i Plan 1989-90 (Year) *Area of Collaboration Division _____________________________ Program/Area offire nf Dpsppreoation -sen Respor.sioie  1:______________ B To use thp mainritv -to-minnritv transfer nrnararn tn flprrpaSP------------- -- ------ --------- the Dnistriic,t's, bkliaicrki eonnrronliilmmpenntt aanndd iinnccrreeaassee tthhee DDiissttrriicctt ss white enrollment cont d OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY I. EVALUATION To discuss the possibility of other school districts participating in the M/M transfer program (i.e. Conway, Sheridan, Bryant, Lonoke)* To examine programs and curriculum that will, promote M/M transfers* *1. Meet w/SDE to discuss full funding for these students *2. Meet w/appropriate school superintendents to discuss feasibility of proposal NOTE: Based on results October 1988 October - Nov. 1988 Ongoing Ongoing - Pupil Personnel -PCSSD - Office of Deseg, - Three districts - Pupil Personnel -PCSSD - Office of Deseg. - Three districts Status report to respective superintendents Status report to respective superintendents of above strategies a survey will be conducted in targeted districts *3. Secure a court order allowing participation of other district. January 1, 1989 March K 1989 Attorneys for three districts Order issued by Court 1. Restore PCSSD's elementary string program to attract NLRSD and LRSD students August 1989-90 (advertise restoration: January 1989) I Ongoing - Office of Deseg. - Instruction Div. - Three District - Survey results - Funding - Normal program evaluation procedures I to o (O 00 o\u0026gt; O1 co J WIBi r: 3 1 Plan 1989-90 sen Respor.sioie 1\n______________ (Year) B. To use OBJECTIVES 1 IMP'-l'ttCAT:Ofi TIHu:r:E the H/H transfer program to decrease enrollment and increase the District's STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES *2. Modify M/M transfer policy to reflect a flexible school-to-school\" priority 3. Develop cooperative policy for graduation requirements of M/M twelfth grades the District's black white enrollment cont'd beginning DATE October 1988 November 1988 COMPLETION DATE Nov. 1988 March 1989 COSTS *Area of Collaboration Division ____ Program/Area RESPONSIBILITY - MRC - Office of Deseg. - Three districts - SDE Instruction Division Three districts I. Utt ice of Ueseijriiijd Lion EVALUATION Final stipulation agreed to by all parties Board approval of graduation requirements 1 NS o (O 00 O) UI GJ to IMPLEMsKTATiCN TIHELJ.E *Area of Collaboration a 1 --real Plan = i:-scn Respor.sibie Teal: 1988-89 (Year) C. To implement a new student assignment plan in the 1989-90 school year. Division _______ Program/Area Office of Desegreqation OBJECTIVES I STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION To get input from community and staff on proposed student assignment plan 1. Conduct public hearings as ordered by the Special Master 2. Review proposed student assignment plan with principals, teacher representative, PTA Council, Biracia! Advisory Committee, and Central Office Administrators 3, Open telephone hotline for suggestions from community To be determined by Court To be determined by Court To be determined by Court To be determined by Court To be determined by Court To be determined by Court - Superintendent - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. - Spec. Asst, to Supt. - Record suggestions and sub- mi t to Court - Record suggestions and submit to Court - Record suggestions and submit to Court To identify and develop data processing requirements for implementation of the new student assignment plan 1. Verify student database 2. Develop computer program to identify attendance zone for each student End of 1st nine weeks (11-4-88) - End of 2nd nine weeks (1-20-89) - November 18 - February 3 October 1, 1988 - December 1, 1938 ru o to - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. - Director of Date Processing - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. 00 Oi UI - School printout returned to Office of Desegregation - Printout from test run u w re II Plan 1988-89 rscn Respor.sioie  1: ____________ OBJECTIVES I II I 11 Obtain Court approval for new student assignment plan Provide information on new student assignment plan to staff and community B B  B rv3l *Area of Collaboration (Yesr) STRA7 C. s/ ACTIVITIES C i V i s i c n _ ___________________________ Prccram/Arei Office of Desegrenacion To implement a new student assignment olan in the 1989-90 school year cont'd__ ____________ 3. Develop data entry procedures for new assignment plan 1. Written approval of 1989-90 student assignment plan 1. Inservice employee groups on new assignment plan. 2. Inservice school-related organizations on new assignment plan-PTA Counci 1, Teacher Representatives, Biracal Advisory Committee, Business Task Force 3. Develop newsletter for new assignment plan BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS REoPGNSIILIT'f October 1, 1988 November 15,1988 December 1 December 1 December 1 I EVALUATION December 15, 1988 December 1, 1988 December 16 December 16 December 16 NJ o to - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. - Director of Data Processing LRSD Attorneys - Procedures ready for distribution to appropriate staff members - Written order from Court - Assoc. Superintendents - Announce and conduct meetinus - Assoc. Superintendents - Announce and conduct meet- Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. - Spec. Asst, to Supt. 00 O) O1 ings - Printed newsletter ready foi-distribution GJ -r.uil Plan 1988-89 son Responsible 1: _______________ OBJECTIVES I IMP'-SMi 7a\n:cn T\ni-iL\nt: (Year) C. To implement a new student assignment plan in the 1989-90 school year cont'd. STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS *Area of Collaboration Division _____________________________ Program/Area flffirp nf Dpsporpua t inn RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION 4. Conduct press conference on new assignment plan December 1 December 16 - Superintendent ' Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. Newspaper, TV and radio coverage - Spec. Asst, to Supt. 5. Conduct publicmeetings In each high school (and Mann Jr, High) January 3 January 27 - Superintendent - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. - Spec, Asst, to Supt, Announce and conduct meetings 6. Distribute newsletters for new assignment plan throughout coran-unity 7. Hail newsletters to all parents 8. Special presentations conmunity organizations, realtors, churches, etc. January 3 January 23 January 3 January 27 January 27 January 31 - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. , Assoc. Supt, - Deseg. - Spec. Asst, to Supt. - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. - Student Assignment - Officer - Parent Recruiters - Newsletters on display throughout community - Each parent receives a newsletter - Summary report given to Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. I I o co 00 O) tn co IMPi.Ef-l: 7A7:CH TIKE'.rriH\nual Plan 1988-89 (Year) sen Responsible 1: _______________ OBJECTIVES I 1 C. To implement a new student assignment plan in the 1989-90 schnol ypar rnnt's STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY Division _____________________________ Program/Area Offirp nf ripsegrpin r inn EVALUATION To conduct assignment process for 1989-90 school year 1. Special inservice for building secretaries and registrars 2. Identification of grandfathered students 3. Send assignment letter to all matriculating students 4. Allow transfer to school in attendance zone 5. Pre-registration of kindergarten and new students January 23 February 1, 1988 February 1, 1988 March 1, 1988 April 3. 1988 January 27 February 28, 1988 February 28, 1988 March 23, 1988 April 28, 1988 ro o (O - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. - BuiIding principals - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. - Building principals - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. - Building principals - Assoc. Supt. - Deseg. - Building principals 00 O) O1 - Announce and conduct meetings - Survey forms returned to building principals - Assignment letters received by parents/students - Transfer requests processed - Announce and complete registration process. Registration form given to each parent w hO II. 1 Plan 1989-90 sen Responsioie 1: ____________ __ (Year) 0. IKPLEM(!A7\nCK TiKELlNE To expand the interdistrict magnet program objectives To determine program interest in magnet schools and night high school* To expand interdistrict magnet schools* To discuss the possibility of other school districts participating in the Magnet program. (e.g. Conway, Sheridan, Bryant, Lonoke)* STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS *Area of Collaboration RESPONSIBILITY Division --------- --------------------- Procram/Area Office ofDesegregatioi EVALUATION *1. Conduct tri-district parent survey. Hold public meetings. (3 districts) *1 Establish elementary magnet in PCSSD and interdistrict school at Washington October 1988 November 1988 - MRC - Survey results 1989-90 Ongoing - Pulaski County Coop. - Three Districts - MRC - PCSSD - Results of public meetings - Student/parent interest and participation - May 1989 registration - Funding (Federal and State) *1. Meet w/SDE to discuss full funding for these students October 1988 Ongoing o (D - Pupil Personnel -PCSSD - Office of Deseq. Three districts 00 O) tn - Status report to respective superintendents co I IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Area of Collaboration 31 I Annual Plan Person Responsible Goa 1: ______________ OBJECTIVES 1989-90 (year) D. To expand the interdisArict \"agofil STftAfe61K7 ACTIVITIES *2. Meet w/appropriate school superintendents to discuss feasibility of proposal NOTE: Based on results of above strategies, a survey will be conducted in targeted districts *3. Secure a court order allowing participation of other districts beginning program cont'( COMPLETION DATE DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY D i V i s i on ______ _______ Prooram/AreaUttice ot uesegregatioi EVALUATION Oct.-Nov. 1988 Ongoing o to CO - Pupil Personnel PCSSD - Office of Deseg Three districts O) UI Status report to respective superintendents W K3 I LRSD School Checklist Senior High Schools [5] Grodes 10-12 Cer.tfo! E.Hrrf Hqv.kS J Fair Sem Su^'Ort Holl Blit Barnhouse \u0026lt; McClellan 1500 Pork 72202 376 4751 5201 Dovid O Dodd, 72210 722'4'6609 6700 'H '. 72205 - 661-9000 Rudolph Hov.ard  9417 Geyer Springs, 72209  565-0314 Park-ne.-/ F.ne Arts Magnet - Junious Bobbs - 2501 Borrow, 72204 - 225-6440 Vocational-Technicol Center [1] Grades 10-12 Metropolitan - Dr. Doyle Dillahunty - 7701 Scott Hamilton, 72209 - 565-3465 ^.Cap. i E : I T I I 2 3 I T 4 5 Efl n Junior High Schools [8] Grades 7-9 Cloverdale - Dexter Booth - 6300 Hinkson Rd., 72209 - 565-8426 Dunbar - Marian Lacey - 1100 Wnght Ave.. 72206  375-5574 Forest Heights  James Wise - 5901 Evergreen, 72205 - 663-3391 Henderson  Brady Gradberry  401 Barro Rd,. 72205 . 225-3358 I I I 6 7 I T T 8 M Mabelvale - Clell Watts  10811 Mabelvate W,, \"\"ro3?x~r877^b7vole, 7~2~103~-' 455-2413 ~_________________________________ Mann Magnet - Dr. Victor Anderson  1000 E. Roosevelt Rd.. 72206 - 372-3123 9 10 I Pulaski Heights - Dr. Jim Haley - 401 N. Pine, 72205 - 66*^-7073 Southwest - Gail McLaughlin - 3301 S. Bryont, 72204  565-4416 Elementary Schools [37] Grades K-6 Badgett - Mary Golston - 6900 Pecan Read, 72206  490-1582 Bale - Levanna Wilson - 6501 W. 32nd, 72204 - 565-6621 Baseline - Anna Tatum - 3623 Baseline Rd., 72209 - 565-5589 I Booker Arts Magnet - William Finn - 2016 Berber, 72206 - 376-3319 fl __ Brody  Helen Thomas - 7915 W. Markham, 72205 - 225-1815 Carver Chicot - Otis Preslar  11100 Chicot Rd., I PO Box 405, Mabelvale, 72103 - 568-2554 Cloverdale - JacquoLne Dedman  6500 Hinkson Rd., 72209  565-0986 Dodd - Robert Nelson - 6423 Stagecoqch Rd., 72204 - 455-3110 ,____ Pair Park - Catherine Gill - 616 N. Harrison, 72205 - 666-0359 [ Forest Park  Virginia Ashley * 1600 N, Tyler, 72207  666-5415 Franklin - .Connie Aston - 1701 S. Horrison, 72204 - 666-03-8 __ Fulbright - Moe Huffman - 300 Pleasant Valley Dr,, 72212 - 224-2350 Garlond  Dr. Cheryl A. Simmons - 3615 W. 25th 72204 666-9436 ___ Geyer Springs - Eleanor Cox - 5240 Mobelvole Pike, 72209 - 565-0184 I_____ Gibbs Magnet - Donno Devis - 1115 W. 16th, 72202 - 372-0251 L~ish - Michael OliTeT^ 3001 S. Pulaskr?2206  376-3629 278 417 X 420 ! 0,12 149 r 83 i 232 4- 11 261 ,133 I 64^! 12 i 394 : 66. 244 ,121___^65 I nz __ Jetferson - Morgoref Gremillion - 2600 N. McKinley, 72207  663-9472 King  Bobbie Goodwin Mabelvale - Dorothy Faulkner 9401 Mobelvole Cut-oH - 4800 W. 26th, 72204 - 663-6397 207. Mabelvale, 721'03 \" 455-2227 ___ McDermott - Lynn Moore - 1200 Reservoir Rd , 72207 - 225-6568 Meadowcliff  Jerry Wonm - 25 Sheroton Dr.. 72209 - 565-0324 Mitchell - Donita Hudspeth - 2410 Battery. 72206  375-6931 Otter Creek - Pat Price - 16000 Ottei Creek P'wy. 72209 - 455-3320 Elementary Schools - (continued on back) I 563 285 JI 420 424 351 461 607 t 67 - . 1 377 I 5^7, 440 I 8 j 448 I 98~ j 261 T ' 546 I 5Z. 248 : 17Q 413 ' 59 2j 1 /tt I ill I 151 i 3/7 I 5^7. 313 S12. 12.5 j\nS37 513 j 25 553388 '' 95'' i iTi\" S27, j 320 i 298 : 5 '235 i 117 i /flV X 220 ! . 303 ' 98 321 I 490 ' X  7 111 218 t' 9X6 S'vi 541 j- 35'0 I 3 'i'l I 531 j i27 465 i 1\u0026lt;7 i\n275 i 3 ' 383 ' I ^}7o yft, 3fy _ 5_17- .3J. LRSD School Checklist Elementary Schools [37] Grodos K-6 (continued} Pulaski Heights - Eddie McCoy - 3 19 N. Pine, 72205  663-9469 2 Rightseif- Koy los\u0026gt;  911 W. 19th, 72206  374-7448 Rockefeller - Anne Mangon - 700 E. 17th, 72206  374-1 226 Romine  Lionel Word  3400 Romine Rd., 72204  225-8833 Stephens - Stan Strauss  3700 W. 18th, 72204  663-8374 Terry - Nancy Volsen - 10800 Mara Lynn Dr., 7221 1 - 225-1215 Wokefield  Lloyd 8lock - 75 Westminster, 72209  568-3874 Washington - Lonnie Sue Dean - 115 W. 27th, 72206 - 375-8275 Watson - Dr. Diana Gloze - 7000 Valley Dr., 72209 - 565-1577 Western Hills - Margie Puckett - 4901 Western Hills, 72204 - 562-2247 Willioms Magnet - Dr. Ed Jockson - 7301 Evergreen, 72207 - 666-0346 Wilson - Reine Price - 4015 Stannus Rd., 72204 - 565-0924 Woodruff - Koren Buchanan - 3010 W. 7th, 72205 - 663-4149 ', 280 : 25Q : ' 320 L-291 490\nI .afi0-_U50_l 537  ! MZ ! \u0026amp;00 J7a\u0026lt; 134O 147 . . 1 3 7 ---------------1 -      - 2. ' - 9 ___--------------------------------- !? ^il 3* 543 Totals *260 spaces left open for white students. T 472 I 28a. , lg5 I 328 _JL UH iQTV'ior'\\'si7. T 409 W7 245 III* I /IV ng * 375__5^^ 13^3 72^? I -I i I I I ! I I I I T i I + i T I T t + 1 i + I + I I + I 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 I T I 4- I X I i- I + I + I I TEisEEsaBBa I ATTACHMENT I Wil Gari and Ish Mi tfhelI Ro\u0026lt; kefeller Sieptieiis UdStlinQtdII Ki nil Will Illi (it t t I dill III 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Closed CI used Close - 'Reopen as Tarly Childhood Intradistrict Magnet Intradi strict Magnet New Bill Idinij o (O New bull ding New But IdllKj Close - Reopen as IRC 00 o\u0026gt; tn ro Aiiii IJI iii| ATTACHMENT THREE Senior High junior Hioh 2 Central (54%) Henderson (61%) Pulaski Heights (65%) Southwest (69%) 3 4 Han (52%) Forest Heights (62%) Southwest (69%) 5 Fair (52%) Dunbar (58%) Mabelvale (64%) 6 iMcCl el 1 an (53%) Cloverdale (69%) Dunbar (58%) 7 8 9 10 II 11 12 II II II II 11 If M I. F:UR I M 2 Junior Hiah Elensntarv 3 Cloverdale Chicot Cloverdale Watson 4 5 Dunbar Baseli ne Dodd Geyer Sonings Wakefield 6 7 II 8 Forest Heights If Brady Frankl in McDermott 9 10 II Henderson Fulbright Gari and Stephens Terry 11 12 II Mabel vale II Mabel vale Otter Creek n Pulaski Heights II Badgett Fair Park Forest Park Jefferson Pulaski Heights Woodruff II Southwest El Bale Meadowci i ff Romi ne Western Hills Wi1 son Ii ri I EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION M When they enter school, children who are economically disadII bl vantaged and who are members of a minority racial or ethnic group are less likely to perform as well as their middle-class peers. The economically disadvantaged and minority children have not developed the skills, habits, and attitudes to the extent 3 4 5 I II 6 expected in the primary school years. The lack of developmental and If educational experiences is often evidenced by low scores on 7 II II tests of intellectual and scholastic ability, which can result in unnecessary placement in special education, retention in grade, low scholastic achievement, and, eventually, dropping out of high school. 8 9 10 11 II Many children are successful at persisting against the odds to become successful learners and accomplished adults. Many are 12 II able to prevail with the guidance and support of caring parents, teachers, counselors, and other \"significant\" adults who expect n them to succeed and hold them to high standards. For many children from economically impoverished homes, racial and ethnic II minorities, and immigrant families, the public schools can serve II as the key to ensuring a quality education and to futures as adults. securing their If Poor children who attend good preschool child development programs become better prepared for kindergarten and the primary H grades. In addition, preschool programs hold the potential for M greater academic achievement, less at-risk behavior in the teen m Page years, and enhanced educational opportunity for all children regardless of economic background. The National Governor's 3 Association has identified preschool education as the key invest- 4 fl ment in education for state governments. The Committee for 5 Economic Development (1985, 1987) has issued two reports with the 6 message that a national investment in preschool education is necessary for the nation's economically disadvantaged children. 7 The greatest hope for change in the lives of children in need 8 is through the investment at the beginning of the formal educa-tion process. Since the pioneering studies of Benjamin Bloom on 9 10 the need for education for 3- and 4-year olds, additional studies 11 have continued to document the academic and social success of 12 those who have been involved in early education programs. The 1986 findings of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation verify that successful early childhood programs affect children's I later success in school. This research links student achievement in high school and beyond with the home and school as powerful I influences on the intellectual development of young children. Other national reports also continue to stress the importance of early childhood education. A recent study, II The Forgotten Half: Non-College Youth in America,\" a 1987 report by the Commission on Youth and America's Future, targets young children M in its recommendations. The report identifies a need for funds to serve an increasing percentage of the now unserved 3- to 5-year olds. 1- In Page Today, enrollment in pre-primary programs (i.e., public and private programs, prior to entry in grade one) is at an all-time high and expected to increase during the 1990's. According to Department of Education estimates, nearly 6.5 million children are enrolled in pre-primary programs today, with an estimated 4 million enrolled in public schools programs. Although there have been significant enrollment increases, a large number of children still need access to preschool programs. particularly those children from low-income families. The Children's Defense Fund (1987) reports that Head Start currently serves only 16 percent of the 2.5 million children who need early childhood education services. This lack of affordable 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 programming leaves over 2 million of the nation's most disadvantaged children unserved. In Pulaski County (Arkansas), the Head start and City of Little Rock Early Childhood Programs serve a -____ __________ small percentage of the eligible disadvantaged, and at the present time7~no^ publlc'^school funds are being used to implement early childhood programs. Current national and local social, demographic, and economic trends tell us that today's lack of accessible early childhood programs will become even more severe, especially for the poor, and the need for programs will continue to rise for all socioecoHM nomic levels. i I II Page II The decline of the traditional family unit and the growing number of families living in single-parent households contribute 3 to the increasing need for preschool programs. Few families in 4 I inner city urban areas, whether the father is present or not, have a mother who stays home to care for the young children, single-parent families with young children, the problem of poverty often compounds the problem of finding child care. Additionally, poverty continues to be an enduring problem among young children: For Twenty-five percent of all 4- and 5-year-olds today are poor (Children's Defense Fund, 1987). One in six of all 4- and 5-year-olds today lives in a family where neither parent has a job (Children's Defense Fund, 1987). Poor children are only half as likely to be enrolled in preschool programs as children from affluent families (Children's Defense Fund, 1987). Because a significant number of the children in the city of Little Rock are minority and/or economically disadvantaged, the Little Rock School District proposes the expansion/development  extensive early childhood programs to meet the needs of at-risk of students. These programs will have three components: 1. HIPPY The Home Instructional Program for Pre-school Youngsters (HIPPY) 4- and 5-year-olds) will 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 129 Page focus initially on children in families who  live in the shadow of the current racially 3 identifiable schools in the Little Rock School 4 District. This home-based program, which 5 complements the school-based program operative 6  in the schools, recognizes the mother as the 7 first significant teacher of the child.  2 . FOUR-YEAR-OLD MAJOR ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM - The High/Scope 8  preschool curriculum model will be implemented 9 in three of the racially identifiable schools 10  in the Little Rock School District. Effective 11 the 1988-89 School year, this model will be 12     H fl sfj 0 Page an integral part of the rrajor enhancements for improving pre academic achievement of minority and economically 3 0 disadvantaged children and ^or attracting white 4 li 3. students to the schools. II CITY-WIDE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM - Beginning the spring semester of the 1988-89 school year, the Little Rock School District will work cooperatively with other federally funded early childhood programs to collaboratively implement an education program to better meet the needs of inner city Little 9 10 1] Rock students. 11 12 5 6 1 8 n 11 The Pulaski County and Little Rock School District will continue to cooperatively coordinate the implementation and expansion of the Home fl Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY). However, the Pulaski fl fl County Special School District has no plans to develop any additional early childhood components, and the North Little Rock School District will not pursue the development and implementation of an early childhood program. n fl By the school year 1993-94, 80 percent of the 4- and 5-year old minority and economically disadvantaged youngsters in the Little Rock School District will be participating in an early childhood program fl By the school year 1993-94, 95 percent of the minority and economically dis- advantaged youngsters will be able to meet performance expectations necessary for school success. V-a EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION I I 3 4  HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS (HIPPY) 1 5 6 7 I. Program/Area Overview A. Sutmary of Background Information During the fall of 1986, the Little Rock School District implemented the Home Instruction Program to serve educationally-disadvantaged children in the comnunity where high-risk children were identified. 9 10 11 Developed at Hebrew University in Jerusalum, Israel, by Dr. Avima 12 8 Lombard, this international program identified parents (primarily mothers) as the first teacher of their child. The specifically-designed curriculum of the home-based program trains aides (mothers) from the target community to instruct mothers of four- and five-year-old children in teach- ing their children at home. This program has proven to be a successful model in Israel, with evaluation results showing that participants were less likely to repeat grades, less likely to be identified as needing special education, less likely to drop out of school, and were over-all successful school pupils. Educationally-disadvantaged and lower socio-economic children often enter the formal education setting without the prerequisite skills A.and experiences needed for academic success. Although usually highly motivated, these youngsters must be provided additional learning time and structured experi^ces to enable them to deve- lop their potential. 3 Research and pre-kindergarten program prac- tices have demonstrated that early education experiences 4 can fl increase the opportunity for success self-concept of participants. and also incr ase the 5 6 B. Special Needs (Individual District) 7 Although enrollment has increased in early childhood programs, the needs of many children of low-income and minority families are not being met. 8 9 10 II. Areas of Collaboration The home based program and the four-year-old school based program will collaborate in the areas of parental involvement and 11 12 teacher training. The Little Rock School and Pulaski County School Districts will collaborate and coordinate the implementation of the HIPPY Program. on-going III. Evaluation and Monitoring (Process and Responsibility) Evaluation using the Early Prevention of School Failure model will be conducted on the HIPPY participants as they enter kindergarten session (Pre and Post test). A standardize achievement test will be given to each child at the end of the third grade level. These tests will provide data indicating the success of the HIPPY Program as an early childhood intervention strategy.Annual Plan 1989-90 Person Responsible Goa I: ____________ (Tear) Mirun Slipnrwi SOr OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Hcane Instruction OlvBslo Curriculum___ pf5g?5r'*\"* -EttzSChflOl TBunqsters To promote the HIPPY program Tn select JTPA trainees (HIPPY aides) Initial training of aides and staff by Hebrew University. Percentage of consultant travel To enroll families Into program To recruit families and Instructional aide trainees Aides (24) r\u0026lt; ermine service area of - jordinators To assign families to be served by aides To organize Instructional Material To familiarize Aides of the HIPPY Implementation in LRSD To coagxise and mail Public Service Announcement for local Radio sta tions and Channel 14 and 16 Flyers Interview and select twenty six (26) aides Host and arrange logistics with (Ann Kamps) state for the Hebrew University for initial training Conduct Home Interview and enroll families Into program Compose and mail correspondence to connunlty churches to recrulte families and Instructional aide trainees Identify families to be served by each coordinator Identify families to be served by each aide Print curriculiaa ma-erial Conduct three (3) day workshop Utitain Material to program Order Material from Israel BEGINNING DATE COMPiniON DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILin EVALUATION July 29. 1989 July 29. 1989 $150.00 Martan Shead Malted letters appear on show August 1. 1989 Aug. 14. 1989 $400.00 Stafr By applicants response advertisementi August 15- 20. 1989 August 22- Sept. 2. 1989 August 31. 1989 Sept. 7. 1989 4 Sept. 9. 1989 Sept. 1989 Sept. 1989 Aug. 20. 1989 Sept. 2. 1989 Oct. 3. 1989 Oct. 3. 1989 Oct. 3. 1989 $1,800.00 690.00 (materials an I mail out) 400.00 65.280 -0- -0- Sept. 30. 198 1 6,000.00 Sept. 15. 5,000 o Harlan Shead Supervisor and Coordinators Marian -Shead and Annette Roper Staff Supervisor and Coordinators Coordlnators Secretary of HIPPY Supervisor and Coordinators Supervisor CD 00 o\u0026gt; Pay the bU! Certification of Aides Printing coanpleted Agenda/Recelve Material Receive Materials (71 co 1 1989-90 2 IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Annual Plan (Tear) Person Responsible Marian \"inead. bupevisor Division Currlculua Goal: Prograa/Area Pre-srhnnI Home Insfriirtlon Program--Y--o--ungsters OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLniON DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION Io orientate enrolled famil-to the HIPPY program I., .dentify Meeting sites for group meeting To schedule implementation ol HIPPY curriculum Implementation (continue) To provide parents with information that will assist them with their children Ie evjiujte aide trainees I oi nt (11 th week) Io determine program success Began second-part of program's implementation Conduct Orientation meeting Secure Meeting sites for grbup meeting Mail out Schedule aides weekly home visits and group Schedule area group Meeting . print flyers Schedule weekly service for aides Schedule Aides First teaching with (own chi Id) Schedule Workshop for Parents and (Iides mail out and print materials To evaluate each aide trainee Conduct survey of Parents - print mateirl Implementation second part of HIPPY curriculum print mateiral print flyers mass mai1 out Sept. 27 and Sept. 29, 1989 Oct. 28, 1989 Oct. 31, 1989 and Nov. 4, 19B9 October, 1989 October, 1989 October, 1989 November, 1989 Dec. 19, 1989 Jan. 23, 1990 as February, 1990 Sept. 29. 198\u0026lt; $250.00 Nov. 1. 1989 Nov. 4. 1989 Nov. 1. 1989 Nov. 1, 1989 Oct. 1, 1989 Nov. 4, 1989 Dec. 23, 1989 Jan 30, 1990 May 26, 1990 (Materials) -0- (mSMis) -0- -0- 250.00 -0- -0- -0- 300.00 -0- -0- 350.00 -0- 5,000 o (O Supervisor and Coordinators Coordinators Supervisor and Coordinators Coordinators Coordlnators and Supervisor Supervisor and Coordlantor Supervisor/. Or. Beverly White Coordina^rs Supervisor and Coordinators Supervisor and Coordinators 00 O) Eaailies enrolled in program Confirmation of site Received materials Recelved materials Completion of survey participation of parents materials completed cn CO Annuli Plin  138?-' Person Responsible 19-90 Goi I\nOBJECTIVES E Id Li on of Aides (Year) Marian Shead, Superyisor STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE BEGINNING DATE COMPtniON DATE 2. 1 Division riirrinilf__ Home instruction Program Zo?Fr?Vc\u0026amp;fe^ COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION K provide parents with information to be successful Hl th their chiIdren In build the Aides Children self esteem Graduation of HIPPY Children and Aides reception To evaluate Aides Staff in Place Complete Staff Evaluate Aides Obtain a site and Speaker and schedule a Lecture for parents Activity Staff will organize and plan graduation of participants Schedule final evaluation of trainees in the program March 20. 1990 March. 1990 April. 1990 June. 1990 June. 1990 To begin inplementatio i July 1. 1989 of HIPPY Program Placement of Secretary and full tine Aides July 1. 1989 Nirch n. 199\u0026lt; 200.00 Mirch, 1990 April. 1990 June 26. 1990 June. 1990 June 30, 1990 June 30. 1990 IO 800.00 (speaker) 800.00 (speaker) 1.200.00 -0- 70,559.00 36.750.00 o to 'Coordinators Supervisor completed consultant fee paid Staff Staff CoordInators Or. Beverly Uhite Supervisor 00 o\u0026gt; ai consultant fee paid conpletton of program Staff began implementation of program To assist In implementation of program. co Ivs IV. Budget Summary $197,854 service to 450 families H 212,854 service to 500 families 237,854 service to 550 families 3 Ml 257,854 service to 600 families 4 277,854 service to 750 families 5 6 7 ri 8 9 10 o 11 12 a KE If Bl 1 I .Ii Chapter II Proposed Budget n El Salaries (24) JTPA Aides $65,280.00 3 4 HI dl Salaries (2) LRSD HIPPY Aides Instructional Mateiral Secretary Salary (Fringe Benefits Inc.) TOTAL BUDGET 20,147.00 6,000.00 16,603.00 $108,030.00 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 n 3 S3 ' 3 H SI administration - CATEGORY Supervisor/Coordinators $ 70,559.00 3 I31 S3 Instructional Material Postage Supplies 5,000.00 426.00 3,000.00 4 5 13 Printing Equipment Maintenance Advertising Telephone 3,467.00 1,000.00 300.00 1,372.00 Business Travel 500.00 6 7 8 9 10 13 Car Allowance 1,200.00 11 n Transportation CAfdes) total budget 3,000.00 $89,824.00 12 13 IES iii ii LONG-TERM DESEGREGATION PLAN FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM I. PROGRAM/AREA OVERVIEW A. Summary of Background Information 3 Four-Year-Old Program 4 H The four-year-old school-based program was imple- 5 mented during the fall of 1988. The High/Scope 6  Program forms the core of the four-year-old 7 fl program. A fundamental premise of the High/Scope curriculum is that children are active learners who 8 learn best from activities they plan and carry out themselves. Children learn by the scientific 9 10 method of observation and inference, at a level of sophistication corresponding to their development. Precepts of High/Scope have been validated in a 20-year longitudinal research project, as reported in the High/Scope monograph. Changing Lives: The 11 I 12 fl Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youth Through Age 19. The High/Scope curriculum comple-  ments the home-based curriculum of the Home B B. Instruction program. special Needs B Educationally-disadvantaged and lower socio- economic children often enter the formal education setting without the prerequisite skills and experiences needed for academic success. AlthoughH usually highly motivated, these youngsters must be provided additional learning time and structured experiences to enable them to develop their poten- tial. Research and pre-kindergarten program prac- 3 tices have demonstrated that early education 4 experiences can increase the opportunity for suc5 cess and also increase the self-concept of par- 6 ticipants. 7 II. AREAS OF COLLABORATION [ The Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District will collaborate on parental 10 III. involvement, inservice and training for teachers and aides. Each district is committed to ensuring that all staff members are prepared to fulfill the District's expectations for a quality Early Childhood Education Program. EXPECTED OUTCOMES 11 12 8 9 The High/Scope \"key experiences\" provide a useful framework that guides teachers in conducting the classroom program. These key experiences help the teacher encourage and extend children's self-chosen activities by providing developmentally appropriate learning experiences to develop each child's ability to: 1. make choices and decisions about what to do and how to do it, using his or her own time and energy effectively.9 2. identify, pursue, and complete self-chosen goals and tasks with originality and responsibility. 3 . work with other children and adults in group planning, cooperative efforts, and with shared la leadership. 4 . express thoughts, ideas, and feelings\nto speak about, dramatize, and graphically represent 5. experiences in order to communicate them to others, comprehend others' spoken, written, dramatic, and 6 . 7 . graphic representations. apply his or her reasoning abilities to a wide range of situations using a variety of materials, expand knowledge of objects, skill in the arts, and comfort with physical movement. 8. expand creativity, initiative, spirit of inquiry. and openness to knowledge and other people's viewpoints. IV. EVALUATION A. Information from inservice evaluations will be sum-marized. B. Test data will be analyzed to determine if Ijp''- C. measureable growth in student achievement has occurred. The IRC staff will assist with analysis of sum-mative evaluation data. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  V. STRATEGIES During the 1988-89 school year, the Four-Year-Old Program was implemented in three of the five Major Enhancement Schools. During the 1989-90 school year, 3 the program will be implemented in the other Major Enhancement Schools. All schools in the District will 1 t 4 5 implement the Four-Year-Old Program by the 1993-94 6 school year. The scope of this program may be altered. affected and/or enhanced by the proposed assignment and 7 Ifl construction proposals made in this plan. 8 9 10 11 12 V. STRATEGIES Annuli Plin 1989-90 (Tear) MB B B I ri'iu IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Person Responsible Dr. Marv Mosley Goll: To Implement the Four-Year-Old Program in the Major Enhancement Schools OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS 1. Identify new Four-Year- Old Program participants in the Major Enhancement Schools 1. Present implementation plans to elementary principals April, 1989 June, 1989 b. Conduct media publicity April, 1989 June, 1989 S600 2. Recruit teachers and aides Survey list of interested teachers and aides May, 1989 August, 1989 3. Obtain curriculum materials, supplies, and furniture a. Complete and send orders to High/ Scope June, 1989 August, 1989 b. Complete and send orders to vendors June, 1989 August, 1989 4. Train teachers and aides in the implementation of High/Scope a. Conduct orientation and workshop (5 days) August, 1989 August, 198* b. Conduct monthly inservice September, 1989 On-going 5. Begin program implementation I. Contact parents for Parent/Teacher Conference (preschool ) August, 1989 August, 1989 SI,000 $20,000 Stipends- $2,000 $200 -0- o iD 00 RESPONSIBILITY IRC Staff IRC Staff Principals Division Curriculum and Special Programs Progrui/Arei Four-Tear-Old Progran IRC Staff Human Resources Office Principals IRC Staff Principals IRC Staff High/Scope consultant IRC Staff High/Scope consultant IRC Staff Classroom teachers O) UI EVALUATION Forms returned From parents Participants Identified A list of qualified applicai Materials available Materials available Agenda Agenda Number of parents attending Parent/Teacher Conference w I V. STRATEGIES - page 2 IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Annual Plan Person Responsible Goal: To Iwpleiwent _______________ _ (Year) the Four-Year^ld Program in the Major Enhancement Schools Division ___ Program/Area OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION b. Inc'lude four-year-old children 1n Master Schedule-students receive services of counselors. music teachers, school nurses, librarians, physical education teachers, and art teachers July, 1989 June, 1990 Principals Master Schedules c. Ensure High/Scope key experiences occurring in the classroom August, 1989 June, 1990 -0- Classroom teachers IRC Staff Curriculum checklist 6. Evaluate effectiveness of the Four-Year-Old Program a. Administer appropriate EPSF tests to four-year-olds May, 1990 June, 1990 -0- Classroom teachers Test results b. Analyze test data and prepare report for LRSD Board of Directors June, 1990 July, 1990 N3 -0- o (O IRC Staff Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Special Programs 00 O) tn Evaluation Report  Page IB VI. BUDGET SUMMARY 1989-90 1990-5*1 3 Media Publicity S 600 4 Orientation and Workshop (5 days) 2,000 5 Monthly Meetings 200 6 High/Scope Materials 1,000 7 Furniture 10,000 8 Materials and Supplies 10,000 9 EPSF Test Materials (four-year-olds) -0- 10 Salaries 11 12 B B 4I. CITY-WIDE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM Program/Area Overview Ill A. Summary of Background Information For over twenty years, federally funded Headstart and 11 compensatory education programs under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and later under Chapter I of the Education and Consolidation Act have demonstrated considerable n success in narrowing the gap in reading and mathematics achieve-ment between white and black elementary children. But despite fl 11 I 11 these early gains, the school dropout problem and the equally difficult problem of undereducation persist, particularly among society's most disadvantaged young people. Programs and policies designed to meet the needs of disadvantaged children must be implemented at a very early age and must be tailored to meet the needs of the whole child within the context of school, family, and community. 111 It is less costly to society and to individuals to pre- SI vent early failure through efforts directed toward parents and children alike, with emphasis on the first five years in the tsi lives of the children. The plan proposed for the city-wide early education program will have a threefold purpose: (1) Parenting 111 L. Bl education for both mothers and fathers, family health care, and nutritional guidance\n(2) Quality child-care arrangements for poor working parents that stress social development and school readiness\nand (3) A quality preschool program for disadvantaged fl b! 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Page three- to five-year olds, with emphasis focused on the four- five-year-old children. and 3 B. Special Needs (Individual District) 4 Early childhood programs do exist throughout the city of Little Rock, and historically, some attempts have been made to cooperatively develop and implement programs for economically disadvantaged youngsters. 5 6 However, this collaboration and 7 cooperation have not been comprehensive, consistent. 8 nor sustained. The magnitude of the problem requires a systematic approach to programming for the early childhood educational needs of the young children in Little Rock. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (1986) identified standards to ensure program quality in preschool programs. The major characteristics for a quality program include: (1) staffing patterns, (2) teacher qualifica9 10 11 12 tions, (3) comprehensive services. (4) curriculum, and (5) parent participation. These factors will be addressed in the develop- ment of the city-wide plan. Staffing Patterns. Low staff-child ratios and small group sizes are key components of quality preschool programs. The recommended standard is a staff/child ratio of 1:10 in a group no larger than twenty (20) children as an acceptable staffing pattern.Page Teacher Qualifications. It is recommended that teachers have college level specialized preparation in early childhood education, as well as supervised experience with young children before they are placed in charge of a group. 3 4 5 Paraprofessionals should have sufficient edu6 cation and/or training in early childhood education and should be provided with ongoing inservice training. Comprehensive Services. 7 8 Comprehensive services should be targeted to all children who are economically disad9 10 vantaged or academically at risk. Comprehensive ser-vices include medical, social, and health services\nrequired parent participation\nand a program that addresses all areas (social, emotional, physical and cognitive) of a child's development. 11 12 Cur^riculum. A curriculum based on principles of child development is crucial in determining program guality. Researchers indicate that open-structure curriculum models that involve teacher - and child-initiated activities as well as teacher-structured individualized learning activities to achieve a balance of cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development goals. Parent Involvement. Parent involvement - in parent advisory boards, parent-teacher conferences, family services, and the inclusion of parents as volunteers and I I Page I employees - is an important component of an effective early childhood program. 3 I The program must accommodate working parents if parent 4 I involvement and overall program implementation are to be effec- 5 tive. 6 I In summary, the city-wide program, whether school or 7 community based, will: I provide a comfortable, safe, and stable environ- 8 ment\n9 ensure consistent and nurturing care and education\n10 I give the children the opportunity to be physically 11 II. active\n12 expand the opportunities for children to explore and meaningfully interact with the world around them\nprovide opportunities for the children to interact with, learn from, and be appreciated by other children\nprovide stimulation and support necessary for the children to develop cognitively, socially, emotionally, and physically in their own time and in appropriate ways. Expected Outcomes (Long-Range Goals) A. By September 30, 1990, the initial phase for a Page comprehensive city-wide early childhood program will be imple- mented in Little Rock. 3 I B. By October 1, 1993, the number of educationally 4 I disadvantaged students enrolled in early childhood education 5 programs in the city of Little Rock will be 80 percent of the 6 eligible population. 7 C. By September 30, 1993, the Little Rock School 8 District and other agencies in the city of Little Rock will have 9 implemented a comprehensive and consistent program for minority 10 and economically disadvantaged children in the city of Little Rock. 11 D. By September 30, 1994\npre-screening data at the 12 beginning of the school year will indicate a 75 percent reduction in the number of children identified as moderate to high risk. nco in (D 00 O) o CM Annual Plan 1988-89 1989-90 IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE (Tear) Person Responsible Dr. Bever ly White . . ...... Goa I: To cooperatively develop a plan for the implementation of a city-wide comprehensive early childhood program Curriculum and Special Division Programs_________ Program/Area tariy Lhiidnooa TWimm------------------- 1 for minority and economically disadvantaged preschool children. OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION . lo determine the level of interest for a collaborative approach to preschool eduation in the city of Little Rock 1.1 To send a letter and the planning proposal March 1, 1989 March 30, 1989 None to programs identified in the city as being targeted for economically disadvantaged children (i.e. Headstart, city of Little Rock), to the Arkansas Department of Education and to local colleges (Philander and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock inviting participation in the comprehensive development and requesting confirmation of city-wid( early childhood program 1.2 To convene a meeting with prospective participants to provide an explanation and the rationale for the concept 1.3 To develop a comprehensive list of all who should be involved in the planning/ development process April, 198^ April 15, 1969 April 15, 1989 April 30, 1989 None None issociate Superintendent For Curriculum and special Programs Responses of Invited participants Associate Superintendent Agenda and minutes of the for Curriculum and Special Programs Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Special Programs meeting Finalized List of Collaborators Annual Plan 1988-89 1989-90 co in (D 00 O) o CM IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Person Responsible Dr. Beverly Uhfte Goa I: I\" * i. i.. J-----.1- - -. (Tear) Olvtsion Curriculum and Special Programs Io cooperatively develop a ^n for the Iwpleiiientation of a city-wide comprehensive early childhood program for minority and economically disadvantaged preschool children. Program/Area Early ChiIdhooT _______________Education OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION 2. Io develop a plan for planning a city-wide early cnildhood program 3. Io initiate the planning for the implementation of a citywide early childhood program 1.4 To receive a letter of support from each agency desiring to participate 2.1 To establish planning procedures and identify key comnittees and chairpersons needed for the planning process 2.2 To identify appropriate additional representatives from each participating agency for each committee 2.3 To delineate the goal: to be addressed and the tasks to be accomplished by each committee, including appropriate timelines to be met. 3.1 To conduct periodic meetings to review progress of each connittee. May. 1989 May 30. 1989 None Key Representatives from each agency File record of letters June 15. 1989 July IS. 1989 None Key Representatives from each agency Structured plan for planning on file July 15. 1989 July 30. 1989 None Key Representatives froe each agency Record of connittee members September 1, 1989 September 30. 1989 None Key Representatives froe each agency . Record of coamittee members a September. 1989 December, 1990 1i lone Assoc. Supt. for Curr. and Special Programs Minutes of meetingcn in (D 00 O) o CM Annual Plan 1988-89 1989-89 IMPLEMENTATION TINELINE . Curriculum and Special Division Programs__________ Program/Area Fariv Childhood ___________ Education________ (Ter) I Person Responsible ...................... .......... GGooaa II :: To cooperatively develop a plan for the implementation of a city-wide comprehensive early childhood program IkRpuprly Uhitp for minority and economically disadvantaged preschool children. OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION 3.2 To identify resources needed by identified by each committee, including monetary 3.3 To review the first draft of the comprehensive plan and to make recommendations for refinement 3.4 To submit the final draft for approval to all participant Boards of Directors (where appiicable) September 1, 1989 September 30, 1989 -0- Assoc. Supt. for Curriculum and Special Programs Identification of Coaaittee January, 1990 February, 1990 February, 1990 March. 1990 -0- -0- Assoc. Supt. for Curriculum and Special Programs Assoc. Supt. for Curriculum and Special Programs Submission of first draft Draft submitted to Board 4   LONG-TERM DESEGREGATION PLAN STAFF DEVELOPMENT  I. PROGRAM/AREA OVERVIEW  Certified staff members (administrators and teachers) shall 4 I a be trained to teach and counsel black and educationally-disadvantaged students. 5 The Little Rock School District  will hire a five-member staff develoment team for this pur-pose. 6 This team will work with the certified and non7  certified staff, the Board of Directors and school patrons. II. AREAS OF COLLABORATION 8 9  Each District shall ensure that each of its staff members 10 understands and is prepared to meet the District's desegre- 11 gation expectations. Although the North Little Rock School 12 District has a separate plan, all three Districts share some common areas of need. Collaboration among the three Districts in support of each District's desegregation plan will be ongoing. 4 t I (5^ / / V. STRATEGIES Annual Plan 1989-90 (Tear) IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Division Curriculum and Special Programs Person Responsibie Dr. Mary H. Mosley Goal: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. Prograoi/Area Staff Development. OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION To provide staff development inservice to improve race relations and equity. la. Continue to articulate vision/mlsslon of LRSD to coMMunlty. b. Schedule and Implement workshops and activities related to Improving race relations for the following groups. -Board of Directors -District Administrators -Certified Staff -District Support Staff c. Plan and Implement an evening symposium for the comiunity on \"Connunlty Involvement In a Desegregated School Setting.\" d. Monitor implementation of above strategies. Fall. 1988 Ongoing Superintendent Public Participation and Dissemination of Materials 1988-89 School tear Fall. 1988 Fall. 1988 Ongoing Fall. 1988 Ongo i ng o to Desegregation Assistance Center (DAC) and Central Office Staff Roster of Participants DAC Consultant Or. White and Angela Sewall 00 O) cn Roster of Participants Meetings HeldV. STRATEGIES Annual Plan 1989-90 (Tear) IMPLEMEKTATION TIMELINE Oivllion Curriculum and Special Programs Person Responsioie Dr. Mary H. Mosley Goal: To orovide Hevpinnmcnr fn imnrr: \"- rscc relation^ and equity. Proqraa/Arei Staff Development iixff deuelnrawnr OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY E7ALUATI0N P. Provide Inservice on Cooperative Learning strategeis in a heterogeneous classroom. 3. Provide Inservice on additional strategies to improve instruction in desegregated school setting. 4. Provide inservice on \"Effective Implementation of the Little Rock School District OisciplIne Management System.\" 2a. Inservice teachers and administration on cooperative learning based on Slavin and Johnson and Johnson. b. Monitor teachers' use of cooperative learning strategeis. 3. Provide Inservice opportunities on: a. Effective Schools Model b. Teaching/LearnIng Styles c. Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA d. Classroom Management 4a. Continue to Involve counselors, principals, assistant principals, and teachers in discipline management in a desegregated school setting. ni Fall, 1988 1988-89 School Year Fall. 1988 Ongo i ng Ongo i ng Ongoing IO o Supervisors/Teachers of Hath, English and Reading Principal Teachers of Mini- Courses, Principals, Central Office Staff Jo Evelyn Elston to 00 O\u0026gt; tn Training Model Classroom Observation and Documentation Roster of Partipants Roster of Partipants V. STRATEGIES Annual Plan IMPLEHENTATION TIMELINE 19.89-90 (Tear) Person Responsible Qr. Mary H, Mosley Goa I\nTo provide staff development to Improve race relations and equity. OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE 4. (Continued) 5. Provide PAL teachers with strategies for planning and delivering more than one type of Instructional grouping. 6. Provide inservice to assist principal and faculties with strategies for promoting student achievement and growth. COSTS 4b. MonItor.use of discipline management system. 5a. Continue to Investigate and research sources of strategies, models, and activities of successful small and large group Instructional practices within heterogeneous classes. b. Conduct workshop to address the following. (1) grouping theory and strategies (2) demonstration of strategies for varied Instruction 6a. Continue to provide inservice for principals on methods for developing their school Improvement plan. Provide special assistance for teachers as requested. Fall, 1988 Fall, 1988 Fall, 1988 Fall, 1988 Ongoing Ongoing Fall, 1988 Ongoing o (O   B B    RESPONSIBILITY Division Curriculum and Special Programs Program/Area Staff Development Principals, Counselors, and School Teams Or. White Supervisor of Math and English Division of Schools, Evaluation and Testing, and IRC SpecialIsts 00 O\u0026gt; or EVALUATION Documentation Identification of Sources Written Evaluation by Participants Comprehensive and Accurate Product f V. STRATEGIES IMPLEMEilTATION TIMELINE Annual Plan 1989-90 (Tear) Curriculum and Special Programs Person Responsible Dr. Marv H. Mosley Goa 1: To provide staff development to Improve race relations and equity. Division __________________________ Prooram/Area Staff Development OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BESIMNIN6 DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY ElALUATION 6. (Continued) I. Form TrI-Olstrlct Committee for Collaborative procedures. 6b. Continue to assist principals In revising school Improvement plans through the analysis of disaggregated data. c. Continue to provide special school-based program and content area Inservice meetings scheduled on a regular basis with specific sessions on content methodology and inter-personal relations for program implementation in a desegregated setting. 7a. EstablIsh Tri- District Committee. b. Meet three times per year(mlnimum). c. Plan any activities appropriate for collaboration, e.g. coninunity meetings, etc. EH Fall, 1988 Fall, 1988 Fall. 1988 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing ro o to Division of Schools, Evaluation and Testing Division of Schools, Curriculum and Special Program Staff Or. Hary Mosley, LRSD Jim Herring, PCSSO Dr. John Moore, NLR 00 O\u0026gt; tn Completed Plans Ongoing Analysis V. STRATEGIES Annual Plan 1989-90 (Tear) IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Division Curriculum and Spec i a 1 Programs Person Responsible Or, Marv H. Mosley . Goa 1: To provide staff development to Improve race relations thU eOtJiLYi ProqriM/Area Staff Development OBJECTIVES strategies/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION 8. Provide Staff Development Component for effective staff development in desegregated school setting. 8a. Establish Staff Development Component. Fall. 1988 Ongoing o (O Board of Directors/ Superintendent 00 tn J V. STRATEGIES Annual Plan 1989-90 IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE (Tear) Person Responsible Ur. Mary H. Mosley *  To provide staff development Io improve race relations and equity. Division Program/Area Curriculum and /rag**** Staff Development Goal: OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION 1. To provide staff development Inservice to Improve race relations and eguity. la. Continue to articulate vision/misslon of LRSD to coiNunlty. b. Schedule and implement workshops and activities related to improving race relations for the following groups. -Board of Directors -District Administrators -Certified Staff -District Support Staff c. Plan and implement an evening symposium for the coamunity on Coamunity Involvement in a Desegregated School Setting,\" d. Monitor implementation of above strategies. Fan. 1988 Ongoing Superintendent Public Participation and Dissemination of Materials I I 1988-89 School Tear Fall, 1988 4 Fall, 1988 Ongoing Fall, 1988 Ongoing N3 O to 00 Desegregation Assistance Center (OAC) and Central Office Staff Roster of Participants OAC Consultant Or. Uhite and Angela Sewall OS O1 Roster of Participants Meetings Held V. STRATEGIES IMPLEMNTATION TINELINE Curriculum and Annual Plan 1989-90 Person Responsioie Dr. Nary H. Nosley (Tear) 3\n.:.:_.1 Special Programs Program/Area Sta/f Developing Olvision Goal: To provide staff rlAMpInnmeni fn iauirOMa. race relations and e\u0026lt;iuity. OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE CORPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION 2. Provide inservice on Cooperative Learning strategeis in a heterogeneous classroom. 3. Provide inservice on additional strategies to improve instruction in desegregated school setting. 4. Provide inservice on Effective Implementation of the Little Rock School District Discipline Management System.\" I 2a. Inservice teachers and administration on cooperative learning based on Slavin and Johnson and Johnson. b. Monitor teachers' use of cooperative learning strategeis. 3. Provide inservice opportunities on\na. Effective Schools Model b. Teaching/Learning Styles c. Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement (TESA^ d. Classroom Management 4a. Continue to involve counselors, principals, assistant principals, and teachers in discipline management in a desegregated school setting. I I i I Fall. 1988 1988-89 School Year 4 Fall, 1988 I Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing o (O I 00 Supervisors/Teachers of Hath. English and Reading Principal Teachers of Mini- Courses. Principals. Central Office Staff Jo Evelyn Elston Oi Ol I Training Model Classroom Observation and Documentation Roster of Partipants Roster of Partipants V. STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 1989-90___________ _____ (Tear) Person Responsible Dr, Mary H, Mosley Goa 1: To provide staff development to improve race relations and equity. Annual Plan Division Curriculum and Special Proprams Proqraa/Arta Staff Developiwent OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION 4. (Continued) 5. Provide PAL teachers with strategies for planning and delivering more than one type of instructional grouping. 6. Provide inservice to assist principal and faculties with strategies for promoting student achievement and growth. I 4b. Monitor use of disciplIne management system. Sa. Continue to investigate and research sources of strategies, models, and activities of successful small and large group instructional practices within heterogeneous classes. b. Conduct workshop to address the following. (1) grouping theory and strategies (2) demonstration of strategies for varied instruction 6a. Continue to provide inservice for principals on methods for developing their school improvement plan. Provide special assistance for teachers as requested. Fall. 1988 Fan, 1988 Fall, 1988 a Fall. 1988 Ongoing Ongoing Fall, 1988 Ongoing o co 03 I Principals. Counselors, and School Teams Dr. Uhite Supervisor of Math and English Division of Schools, Evaluation and Testing, and IRC Specialists O) cn Documentation Identification of Sources Written Evaluation by Participants Comprehensive and Accurate Product I V. STRATEGIES IMR.EMENTATIOH TIMELINE Annual Plan 1989-90___________ (Year) Person Responsible Dr. Marv H. Mosley 6o41: To provide staff developihgnt to Improve race relations and gQuyty. 1989-90 Curriculum and Division Specia_l_ _P_ rogra_m__s____ Program/Area Staff Development OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION 6. (Continued) 7. Form Tri-District Committee for Collaborative procedures. I 6b. Continue to assist principals In revising school Improvement plans through the analysis of disaggregated data. c. Continue to provide special school-based program and content area inservice meetings scheduled on a regular basis with specific sessions on content methodology and Inter-personal relations for program Implementation in a desegregated setting. 7a. Establish Tri- District Committee. b. Meet three times per year(mlnlmum). c. Plan any activities appropriate for col 1aboration, e.g. community meetings, etc. I iI I Fall. 1988 Fall. 1988 4 Fall, 1988 I Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing II ro o (O Division of.Schools, Evaluation and Testing Division of Schools, Curriculum and Special Program Staff Dr. Mary Mosley, LRSD Jim Herring, PCSSD Or. John Moore, NLR 00 Oi cn Completed Plans Ongoing Analysis V. STRATEGIES IMPLEMEJITATION TIMELINE Annual Plan 1989-90 Person Responsible Dr. Marv H. Moslev Goal:  - (Teir) Division Curriculum and Special Programs To provide staff developient to Improve race relations and equity. Proqra/Area Staff Development OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION 8. Provide Staff Development Component for effective staff development in desegregated school setting. I I 8a. Establish Staff Developaient Component. Fan. 1988 a Ongoing K5 o (O I 00 Board of Directors/ Superintendent O) cn fl fl SCHOOL OPERATIONS B The Division of Schools exists to ensure a quality, equity based, excellent education for all students. The Division of fl Schools will be responsible for monitoring and implementing the following aspects of LRSD's desegregation plan: fl Organizational structure 5 I fl Discipline 6 Guidance/counseling 7 31 Internal Integration 8 Extracurricular activities fl 9 Evaluation/testing 10 fl Staffing Planning/implementation 11 fl The Division has established the following goals: 12 A. To ensure an organizational structure which provides fl equal opportunity and access for parents, students and all staff. B. H To provide a climate in each school which is based on the belief and expectation that all children can learn and to provide fl resources necessary to support and effect that belief. C. To develop and implement policies which influence school climate and improve discipline and student attendance while also meeting individual student needs and learning styles. D. To provide guidance and counseling services which address Students' needs\nare supportive of strategies and interventions to enhance student success and expectations\nand provide communication to families of students. I Al il E. To provide guidance and counseling which makes students 1 aware of their options\nand assist students to acquire habits and VI attitudes necessary for success in school and in later life. F. To monitor student class ratios, instructional and 11 teaching practices to ensure equal opportunities for all stuSI dents . G. To provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to 5 6 u all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities. 7 31 H. To assess the results of school practices, paying special 11 attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. To review and assess testing practices, formats and 10 fl results in order to better address the needs of all students 11 while providing special intervention for disadvantaged students. 12 J. To give local districts sufficient authority to improve d I. 8 9 d schools and to advocate for students, and to hold them account- able for results and opportunities for all students. d K. To review staffing patterns and staff assignments in all schools and district divisions for equity. d L. To establish recruitment programs for representation of minorities in all positions in the district. M. To ensure school wide planning for programmatic and indi- vidual student academic achievement to address disparities, individual needs and student success. I N. To provide staff development on an ongoing basis to staff and information to parents in regard to topics relevant to increasing student access to opportunities and success therein. 119 li 0. To collaborate with the contiguous districts in regard to li aspects of the plan which will facilitate and enhance desegrega-tive efforts. li LRSD will establish programs to accomplish the goals set forth above. II Intern program for preparation of future teachers, par5 ii ticularly minority teachers. 6 SI Collaborative desegregative districts, NLRSD, LRSD, PCSSD. effort among the three (3) 7 Decrease dropouts and discipline related withdrawals. 8 n Increase in number of students (with particular focus on minority students): 9 10 In - graduating 11 n - entering work force 12 - entering post secondary education n - receiving financial aid n I'll I . 2. 3. a ft ft B B B B B B  B B B  B B  JB IMPLEHEKTATION TIMELINE -'nual Plan 1989-1994 (Year) Seal: son Responsible SuperintendentyAssociate Superintendent !. OBJECTIVES To review organizational structure in schools and central office to ensure sufficient support for students and staff success and for implementation of the desegregation plan To provide inservice to raise staff awareness/ expectations of equity concerns for students To provide programs which raiseparental awareness of district structure, policy and proarams and ways to access them I I I To ensure an an orq.5nizational structure which orovides eauitv of opportunity and of access Division Program/Area Schools________________ Individual Schools STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION Appoint school based biracial committees to monitor implementation and data Appoint a district wide biracial committee to monitor distict wide desegregation efforts and data Establish a reporting system Inservice cycles for existing and new staff regarding:  effective schools  teacher expectations * working with parents  at risk youth  learning styles Mini-seminars at PTA meetings and in the community June, 1989 June, 1989 August, 1989 June 30, '89 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing IO o (O Principals Associate Superintenden : Associate Superintendent Schools Associate Superintendent Desegregation Assistant Superintendent. Appropriate Associate Superintendents and Staff of District State Department of Education District Staff PIA Counci I (local and area) 00 Oi tn I Survey of staff and patrons Report on the bi-racial commIttees Roster of teachers participating staff Data based improvements in targeted student schools Calendar showing programs held Rosters of attendees I'i Plan 1989-1994 (lear) sen Responsible Superintendent/Assnelate Superintendent 1: Jb_ (continued)__________________ _ _________________________ OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES IKPLEKiKTAilON TlHELirE BEG I nil ING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS To monitor school standards to ensure high quality education for all students Review of data Present Ongoing School Monitoring visits H o to -g|-  21 Division Schools Program/Area Individual Schools 00 RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION Assistant Superintendents Calendars of visits Principals Assistant Superintendent Testing/Evaluation s Monitoring reports O) cn I '.t'l Plan 1989-94 (Year) scr. Respor.sibie Associate Superintendents 1 IL OBJECTIVES I 2. IKPLMK7ATI0N TIHELIt.'E Division itilflali To provide a climate in each school which is based on the belief and Program/Area Schools expectation that all children can learn and to provide resources necessary to support and effect that belief Provide education to staff and patrons regarding school culture and positive school climate Monitor school climate and resource allocation STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEG I NII I NG DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION PTA Board and general meetings to have educational components August 1989 Ongoing Video Tapes Staff Time re: climate and expectations Use of fhannel 19 to carry brief messages to Purchased programs ASCD etc. District personnel as designated by the Associate Superintendent s Agendas of meetings Measurable improvements on individual school climates staff re: expecta-tions, working with at risk and disadvantaged students\nand creating positive climate Monitor facility, staff morale, student achievement, status of media center books and materials August 1989 Ongoing Approximate! $10,000 per year ) Assistant Superintendent Principals Media Supervisor s Reports of Supervisors, Assistant Superintendents Enhance equipment, supplies and materials in buiidings June, 1989 Ongo i ng H Provide staff development and intervention plans as needed  tl o (O 00 Identified district staff o\u0026gt; tn Staff Development Rosiers Dual Ity of Educat ion Survey Results i 3 4. Li i Plan 19B9-94 (Tear) scr. Responsible Associate Superintendent I1:\nII. (continued) OBJECTIVES To work with schools to help them design programs which meet the specific needs of their students Establish a program to familiarize parents with school expectations and to build a partnership with them IKPLEHStCATiON TIMELIKE STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS Division Program/Area Schools SrhnnIs RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION Provide resource assistance to school staffs Provide planning time and formats to school staffs Develop school profiles which show complete data pictures. Set goals for improvement Share schools objectives discipline policy, standards for testing, placing and promoting students Involve parents as full partners in planning at school for student growth and success June 1989 *1 It M li Ongoing II M II To be determined -0- -0- -0- -0- o (O 00 Division of Schools and Curriculum Division of Schools School Principals and staffs Principals, Staff Principals, Staff, PIA Board, patrons cn cn I Completion of Program Designs School profiles and monitored building plans Development of and sharing of school based object Ives. discipline policies etc. Statistical improvement in student behavior and achievement II. I 2. 3. i rlin 1989-94 scr. ResporsiDie I: III. OBJECTIVES I__________________ (Year) Associate Superintendents IKPLEnENTATiOK TiK: i\nTo develoD and i mo I emeu t Dolities iihicli_entians\ne_5hQQJLcJ.inate Division Schools and improve student discipline and attendance while also meeting individual student needs and learning styles Provide inservice training to district personnel on discipline in a desegregated setting Provide inservice to district personnel on behavioral styles and learning styles of students of divergent backgrounds Provide a comnittee to review attendance and discipline policies and datum on an ongoing basis to ensure equity of policy and policy administration STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGirillING CATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY Program/Area Individual Schools _________________ EunJ-l_ Services___ EVALUATION Conduct inservice training on discipline management in all local schools Provide follow up training for new staff on a regular basis Provide training for school based improvement teams (to involve staff and parents) who will train staff at the school site with annual maintenance Committee and subcommittees to include principals, staff, patrons, students (on the secondary levels) and at least one (I) Board member to review to review data and recommend modifications to meet student needs and district needs August 1989 August 1989 Spring 1990 Ongoing 1989-90 School Year Fall, 1989 Ongoing Spring 1990 Ongo i ng Ongo i ng \"Watch dog\" commi ttee Ni Approximately Director of Pupil $10,000 -0- $8,000 - $10,000 $2,000 Minimal Student Handbooks $15,000 annual Iy o (O Services Building Principals Assistant Superintenden Consultant Building Principals Director of Pupil Services Associate Siiperintendenl Consultant(s) Tri-District Cooperative Identified staff s Associate Superintendents Principals Teachers Director of Pupil Services Patrons 00 O) O1 4. 5. Plan 1989-94 (Year) 1: r. F.espornoie Assnciatp Siioprintpnrtpnt.s til. J con Li nor fl 1 OSJECTIVES Appoint joint committee with PCSSD and NLRSD Put in place alternatives to suspension across the district with at least one such intervention to be placed at each school Establish a school based student discipline and attendance incentive system at each school STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES Review attendance and disciplinary policies and consequences Develop school based discipline plans to be reviewed at district level and to include suspension alternatives Effectiveness of these alternatives to be regularly assessed Review research and develop rewards program such as recognition, tangible incentives and awards will be individual to the school Implement programs IKPUEKEKTATiOK VZKELJ.E BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY Division Program/Area Schools Individual School's Pupil Services~ EVALUATION 1989-90 School Year Fall 1989 Spring 1990 Fall 1990 Ongo i ng Ongoing Fall 1990 Ongoing ro -0- Approximately $600,000 (1st year) Cost wi11 increase over time Cost of research materials Approx $50 per school for periodicals (professional o (O Appointed Staff 3 Districts (see col labration component) Assistant Superintendent Principals School Based Staffs s Principals/Staff Review and revision of tri-district attendance and di sc 1 plinary Existancp of plan in each policies alternative building Statistical data to support validity of Assistant Superintendents plan and improvement VIPS Patrons Principals School staffs 00 O) cn in discipline and behavior I --li Plan 1989-94 (Year) scr. Responsible Associate Superintendents I: III, (continued) OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES IMPLcHiNTATiON TIHELirE BEG I nil I NG DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS   Division Program/Area Schools Individual Schools Pupil Services RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION Provide counseling intervention for students with chronic disciplinary and/or attendance problems Activate discipline/ attendance intervention teams at schools. Mandate the pupil services team to do monitoring and involve the counselor with students who have d i sc i pIi ne/a t tendance problems. Involve parents in the team process regarding their children throu ' meet i ngs/conferences Fall 1990 Fall 1989 I Ongoing Ongo i ng To be determined -0- o (O Principals Guidance Department Director of Guidance Pupil Services Building Staffs School Health Services Principal PTA Officer PTA Counci 1 Counselors School Intervention Teams School Health Services 00 OS tn Records of counseling intervention Records of parent/team involvement Statistical decrease in student attendance/ disciplinary referrals II IKPLiKiKTATiOK 7:kEl\ni: 1 rlen scr. Eesporsioie 1989-94 1: IV. Division forSchnols (Year) ni Division Projrara/Arja _________To provide guidance/counselinq services which address individual student_______________________ needs\nare supportive of strategies and interventions to enhance student success and expectations\n____________________________and provide comnunication to families of students.__________ OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPOKSIBILITY EVALUATION in/brm students eFall opportunities available to them and encourage them to take advantage of these opportunities 2. Make parents partners In education of their children by making information accessible to them and keeping them informed Publish a document annually which lists financial aide, vocational and higher education opportunities for all students Encourage students to take advantage of opportunities open to them Hold a community educational meeting each year during the spring to inform parents of curriculum and student opportunities (to include co- curricular opportunties) Provide written information to parents regarding curriculum and student skills Sumner 1990 Spring 1990 Spring 1990 Ongoing Ongoing ongoing $4-5,000 per year -0- Approximately $18-20,000 per year o (O 00 Counselors Director of Pupil Services Vocational Director Principals Counselors Director of Guidance Associate Superintendents Divisions of Curriculum and Schools Building Principals O) UI Publication of document Statistical increase in number of students, particularly minority students, receiving financial aid and proceeding into post secondary education Rosters of meetings4. 5. r 1 n 1989-94 (Year) scr. Resporsibie Associate Superintendents 1\nIV. (continued)___________________________ OBJECTIVES To make students aware of educational and post educational opportunties Create comiunity linkages to assist students in need of special services Create academic intervention strategies on a school basis IKPLM5t7A7iON 7\nK Ci vi s ion Schools Program/Area Individual Schools ___________________Guidance_________ STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION Skills and employment fair to be held annually in conjunction with business community Through Ford Collaborative, New Futures Initiation, city, courts, public and private service providers, provide school linkages with guidance staff for student special needs interventions Each school to put into its annual plan a designated set of interventions to help increase student academic success ex: Peer Tutoring Volunteer Tutors Spring 1990 1989-90 School Year Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Rental of space to hold this if necessary Vocational Teachers Counselors Volunteers in Schools PTA Employment Fair Student Attendance -0- Materials/ Support Supplies o (O 00 Counselors. Executive Director New Futures, LRSD Casey Coordinator Associate/Assistant Superintendents Director of Pupi1 Services Principals, Staffs of Buildings Assistance from Divisions of Schools and Curriculum O\u0026gt; tn Established community I inkages Annual plan and annual evaluation report comparisionsI\nI. 2. i rlin 1989-94 (Vear) r. F.ssporsiDie Associate Superintendents 1 OBJECTIVES Provide mini-courses for students in study halls, testing skills, and precareer skills in a sequenced program beginning in grade 4 and through high school Rais awareness of student or future career options  ri  M  1KPLIr.rca\nok t : l\ni: Division Schools _______To provide guidance/counselinq which assists students to acquire habits and attitudes necessary for progress in school and in later life. Progreir./Area Individual Scliools STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEG Hill IKS DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RtSPOKSIBILITY EVALUATION Mini courses to be developed in sequence beginning with grade 4 Provide teacher staff development in the use of curriculum of these areas Use of resource volunteers in classes and assemblies beginning in elementary schools to address career options 1990-91 School Year M 1989-90 (Phase in) Ongoing H Ongoing hO $1-2,000 per year printing costs $4-5,000 per year staff development costs and stipends -0- o to 00 Classroom teachers, VIPS, Guidance Counselors Curriculum Staff Teacher Developers of the niinicourses Teachers - grades 4 on O\u0026gt; Ol Development of minicourses Student participation in these (comparative numbers) Rosters of Volunteersi Flan 1989-94 (Year) r. F.esporsioie Associate Superintendents 1: VI. OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES I. Achieve equity in class structures by grade and by subject area 2. Achieve equity in student instructional practices Achieve equity in teaching methods IKPLKrr\n7A7 OK t:kl\ni\n Monitor student class ratios, instructional and teaching practices to ensure equity for all students. Review class ratios by subject, by class, by teacher on a semester basis Address disparities with intervention activities Review grade distributions by subject, by class, by teacher on a semester basis Address disparities with intervention activities Provide inservice assistance to principals and teachers in reference to variant learning styles and effective methods Pi 'vision Schools Program/Area Individual ScliuiTls' BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPOKSIBLITT EVALUATION Immediately Immediately 1989-90 School Year Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing -0- -0- $5-6,000 per year for trainers o (O Principals Assistant Superintendent Associate Superintendent (Schools) Monitoring of ratios and student outcomes Principals Assistant Superintendent\nAssociate Superintendent (Schools) Staff Development, Personnel, Principals Assistant Superintendent\nAssociate Superintendent 00 O) Ui s Monitoring of master schedules Attandance at Inservice Classroom VisitationsI a .1 IKPLKiK7A7\n0K 7\nKL\nt\nE rUn 1989-94 (Vesr) r. F.isporsiPie Associate Superintendents \u0026gt;s1: VII. ____Provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students 10 Pc11 cipate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities 91V i s ion Program/Area School s_______________ Individual Schools Director of Athletics 1. 2. OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEGirtUING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION Inform al) students and patrons of co-curricular/  Use of media and press ?xtracurricular activities  Send printed informa- available for students and of participation requirements tion to parents  Hake clear public address system announcements to students * Use community agencies such as churches to assist with recruitment Ongo i ng -0- Communications Departmen Principals Staff PIA Board Athletic Director Log of announcements, media usage, other community student contacts Staff recruitment of students to participate Individual staff contacts wi th students encourage involvement M -0- Individual Staff Members Staff shall specifically recruit from among students who do not typically participate in particular activities Comparative review of data regarding numbers of applicants and participants by race o \u0026lt;o 00 O)I I.\"AVION 7 -in 1989-04 (Yr) 5sporsiDie Associate Supei^iteiideiits VII. (continued) c  s 1 c n rocrcr,/ Ar 4. 05ject:ves STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES I 3 iG. liTi I NG CATE COMPLETION DATE f.espons:e:l:ty mm IlC'l I s____ :a Indi V idiia I 'lirectni- ji EVAL'JATiON Ik I Mhl 'i K Increase student participation, particularly minority student participation in co-curricular activities  Profile student involvement in each club or activity  Disaggregate participation data  Develop school based recruAtment plans Ongoing -0- Principal Staff Assisl.inl Siiperintenilent - Year I v ina I , s i s il part IC I pal imi dat.i anil I nmparal I vK proi 11 es Removal of all barriers for students who wish to participate in extracurricular activities Provide a district transportation program for student transportation Provide a program for student access to equipment/uniforms etc. needed for participation at minimal cost Fall 1989 Fall. 1989 Ongoing Ongoing hJ $9 per bus run plus $1.50 per mi Ie To be determined Dependent on program inVO Ived o (D 00 Support Services Assistant Superintendents (secondary) Associate Superintendent Desegregation II Oi UI I 5 1: ?ln r. Risporsioie VIII. 1969-94 (Year) Associate Super!ntendents OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES IKPLKK7ATiOK 7:KL Assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students BEG I rm ING CATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY Ci V i s ion Procram/Area EVALUATION 1. Develop school profiles which provide overview of chool success or its impact on students so that changes and/or interventions can take place as needed Profile school by: * grade distribution * attendance * disciplinary outcomes  test scores  student involvement in school related activities  course enrollments/ special program enrolIments Data to be disaggregated by race Provide for development of and implementation of intervention strategies to address disparate situations with specific steps for improvement Immediately Ongoing -0- Assistant Superintendent Principals School Staffs Use of data based school profiles Yearly comparative studies Production of improvement plans to addrss di spari ties Outcomes evaluation l\\3 o (O 00 O) or I I. 2.\n.il Pln 1: r. P.esporsiDie IX. 1989-94___________ (Year) Associate Superintendent OBJECTIVES order to better address the Visits to schools by testing/evaluation monitoring team to assess validity and reliability of testing procedures and strategies employed to prepare students for test taking Disaggregation of test results by grade, by race for review and assessment for intervention purposes ir.PLr.l.'?A7\n0K 7:kl:i STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES nrnr Div i s ion Schools Procram/Area Individual SchoiTT? Review and assess testing practices, formats and results in____________________ '________ needs of all students while providing special interventions for disadvantaged students Meetings with principals, teachers Informal classroom visits by monitors Compilation of comparative data by school Evaluation of data with recomnendations for changes/i mprovements School analysis of test results by grade, teachers, race and subject area Development of comparative data to assess disparity areas. If any Preparation fo intervention plans to address specific student needs lestinq/Evaluation BEGINNING DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY EVALUATION Spring, 1989 Spr ing, 1989 Ongoing Ongoing o -0- -0- (O 00 Testing/Evaluation Department Monitoring visits and reports Assislant Superintendent Principals/Slaff Division of Curriculum and Schools and Desegregation Principals Principals Assistnat Superintendent\nTesting/Evalualtion H Principals/Staff O) Ul Data assessment Documented intervenlions as needed Report of outcomes I 1: 1. 2. 3. rlin 1989-94 (Veer) r. Responsible Associate Superintendent X. OBJECTIVES DeveIop/enhance sitebased management at schools Provide support to revitalize school environments to make It conducive to student learning and to order Respond to principal requests for assistance in a timely manner ri  1  i jKPL(\nr\n\"A7\n9K 7:e t.- Li VSion Schools To give local schools sufficient authority to improve and to advocate lor students, and to hold them accountable tor results Procreir./Area Individual Schools STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES BEG INN I NG DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS KESPOKSIBILITY EVALUATION Staff Development for principals Revision of district procedures tc provide central effice technical support rather than strict control Enhance principal accountability for program at the building Plan of district school rennovation to meet programmatic and student population needs Set up format for technical assistance with assigned personnel to work with individual schools 1989-90 H M II Immediate I Ongoing H II Ongoing N) Staff Development (consultant) approx. $700 per principal $35,000 Significant - involves rennovation, custodial and maintenance o (O Associate/Assistant Superintendents Conduct of staff development II II Support Services Division of Schools Curriculum Division 00 O) Ol Principal feedback Assistant Superintendent evaluations of school climate and programs and principal management of these Completion of tasks Completion of task Principal evaIuaIlun of plan Ii: 1. 2. -ii r'n 1989-94 (Veer) r.  I: Fssporsipie Associate Superintendent XI. OSJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES hi Division Schools Review staffing patterns and staff assignements on all schools and district divison for equity SEGINNiKG CATE CONPLETION DATE COSTS KlSPOKS:S!LITY Procreir,/krei Personnel DepartmeiiT EVALUATION Update review of recruiting needs by age, race, sex and seniority in positions in the District to ascertain projected needs Review of position assignments related to racial equity such that all races are represented in every postion and job description in the district Review of all current staffing with identification of staff by sex, race and subject area who wi11 be retiring to project needs Projection of student population on 2 year basis to validate expected needs Development and assessment of school and divisional staffing patterns Recruitment of support and non-teaching staff to reflect equitable racial representation in al I positions Currently in effect Spring 1989 Current Summer 1989 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongong I Director of Personnel Office of PupiI Accounting Director of Personnel Building Principals Division Heads Oivision/Department Heads Director of Personnel Completion of tasks Completion of tasks Enhance racial balance in all positions ro o (O 00 O) tn Iin Sir. Fespor.sto.e li: XII. 1989-94 ____________ ('.'ter) Associate juperTTi tendeii t I 03^ t:ves STKAT 5/ ACTIVliitS ir.PL I : s i: n hen I s Establish recruitment programs lor representat im or minorities in all positions in the ilistrii t =eg:i\ni.:i.'S CATE COUPLET!OK DATE COSTS KS?Ot\ns\nLITY ro: rar./Ai ia ih'i'seiiiii* i l'^'\n.ll i i.mh SVALUATiON Create pool of currently certified teacher appIicants and of students pursuing certi f ication Share applicant pools with PCSSO/NLRSO (see collaborative) Fall 1989 Ongoing Personnel Directors 3 Districts Completion ot task Share with NLRSD/PCSSD recruitment processes at local, state and regional schools with particular concentration on schools with populations of minority students Spring 1989 Ongoing Shared among districts (travel etc.) Io be determined Directors of Personnel 3 Districts Practicing Teachers (3 districts) on a voluntary basis Preparation ot iinl implcmentation of Shari IK) plan Approximately $4-5.000 per year Establish \"in school\" recruitment procedures for junior and senior high school students who evidence an interest in the teaching professioi Spring 1990 Ongoing Principals Personnel Office Teacher sponsor of FIA Collaborative effort with local universities Implementation ot procudures Provide internship programs at district schools for aspiring teachers and aspiring administrators Fall. 1990 Ongoing Stipend for mentoring teachers/ .idministrator  i o (O GO O) UI IIN?Lr.l.AT\n3K TIK i: Lil rien \u0026gt;969-94 (year) i's:- F.espor.sioie Associate Superintendents  I: lUi Ensure school-wide planning for orogranmatic excellence and individual student achievement vision Schools Procrair./Area Indi vidua I SchooIs OSJiCTlViS STRAT-GiES/ ACTIVITIES 5lG I NII I NG DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS RiSPOKS:S!LITY EVALUATION Provide school based planning based on analysis of all available data\na specific format for addressing school racial, gender, SES disparities Formulate guidelines for school improvement plans which wi11 lead to specific achievement increases and interventions to assist students Via disaggregation of data relative to  student performance  discipline  attendance * participation in school activities  placement in classes Train staff to deal with data and implementation of strategies Evaluation of outcomes of interventions via milestone reports and final yearly reports Reassessment of and modification of objectives and strategies Creation of final plan and strategies Fall 1989 Spring 1990 1989-90 1989-90 1989-90 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing N3 -0- -0- o to 00 Divisions of Schools Testing/Evaluation Department Committee of Principals School Staff/Principals School Improvement learns Division of Schools Testing/Evaluation Department Principals/School Staff School Improvement Teams Assistant Superintendents Principals/Staff Principals/School Staff O) UI Formulation of guidelines, plans and interventions Disaggregated Outcome Based Data Outcomes evaluations conducted on a comparative basis I ?an scr. F.espor.siDie I: XIII. 1999-94 __________(Year) 'Die Associate Superintendents (continued)________________________ OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES Annual assessment of outcomes of yearly plan I KL iKiKTAT TON T ? KEL: \n| BEGir.TIIKG CATE COfiPLETION DATE COSTS RESPONSIBILITY vision Schools Procram/Area Individual Schools EVALUATION 1989-90 Ongoing Assistant Superintendents Principals Staffs School Improvement Teams Assessment process and remediation plans for areas in need of improvement ru o (O 00 o\u0026gt; Ui Iren 1989-94 (Veer) -i'scr. f.jsporsioie Associate Superintendents JOX----------------------- OSJiCTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES IKlErcICATiOK 7:k c \nv? s i on Provide staff development on an ongoing basis to staff and information to parents relative to student success ?rocriir./Area Schools Individual Schools SEGItlNINS CATE C9KPLETI0K DATE COSTS KiSPOKSIBILlTY EVALUATION To update skills of all district staff on a regular basis and to keep all staff abreast of developments in their field of endeavor Provide selections of staff development opportunties for individual staff and entire faculties to include but not limit to 1989 Ongoing $50-60,000 per year TESA PEI Classroom Management School Management Send selected staff to professional development sessions in order to increase the number of available trainers and in return for a commitment to assist with collegial staff development Provide dist''ict wide progran cf staff development 1989 1989 Ongoing $6-8,000 per year Ongoing with maintenance K3 o (O 00 Associate Superintendent Curriculum Assistant Superintendents Director-Staff Development State Department of Education Provision of staff development Evidence of enhance classroom instruction with improved student performances II II o\u0026gt; tn 1\n: I: ritn r. r.isporsioie KV, 1989-94 (Vetr) Associate Superintendent OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES/ ACTIVITIES IK?'.l'.i\n\"A7\naK TIKiirce Collaborate with contiguous districts regarding aspects of the plan which will raciiitate ano enhance desegreqalleiforis--------------- SEGIt.TilNS DATE COMPLETION DATE COSTS KESPOKSIBILITY L.'. v: s ion Schools Procriir./Arca   Individual Schools EVALUATION To create a collaboration whereby all students in all schools in the 3 districts (LR, NLR and PCSSD) will benefit from a mutual set of beliefs and expectations for success for all students and equity for all students and staff Contained in the following \"collaborative plan\" See attached plan See attached plan M See attached plan o to 00 Superintendents and Staff of 3 districts o\u0026gt; tn Successful implementation of collaborative plan Positive, measurable outcomes for students, staff and the 3 districts in areas addressed II LONG-TERM DESEGREGATION PLAN I PROGRAM FOR ACCELERATED LEARNING I. OVERVIEW I The Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) provides learning experiences to remediate a student's deficiency while minimizing the removal of the student from the regu- I lar classroom setting. PAL is available for all grade levels, K-12. The program provides maintenance and rein- 6 7 forcement for the student in need of this kind of support while enabling the student to experience success within the 8 9 regular classroom setting. In addition to PAL, additional 10 specialty programs, summer school, and after-school 11 programs provide needed remediation for students. 12 Technology assisted instruction is used to provide reme- I diation and intervention learning/teaching strategies for targeted students. Computers, video discs. VCR's, and appropriate software support the instructional needs of each student, and instruction, utilizing technology, porates cooperative learning strategies. incor- I In the PAL computer component, the goal is for targeted students to attend the computer lab for at least 70 instructional minutes per week. Normally, this yields 35+ I minutes a week in both math and reading. I I I h I I PAL specialists in mathematics and reading work closely with the computer component to monitor student data. I They investigate student difficulties pinpointed by the compute r I and assist the student as needed. The eventual goal is to add computerized management component to provide (1) a I annual pre and post criterion referenced tests for most grades including grading and reporting, (2) computerized 6 scoring of unit tests for mastery and (3) the automation of record keeping (trifolds) to provide the teacher with more time 7 to work with students and better data with which to 8 I approach that task. 9 10 A non-certified instructional aide (lab attendant) super- vises the students as they participate in the indivi- 11 dualized state-of-the-art instructional program 12 I administered by the computer. The move toward equity is being augmented with a support system for students who formerly matriculated at the lower I or basic level in all grades (1-12). The Little Rock School District's support system is the Program for I Accelerated Learning (PAL) for students in grades 1-12. PAL is to be fast-paced, high-interest, high- a I expectations, individualized program that will have spe- I time frames by which students will meet performance criteria. PAL is a transition program that assists stuI dents in learning the requisite skills necessary for I I zinstruction in reading and mathematics at the elementary level and with emphasis on the core areas of English, reading, science, social studies, and math at the secondary level. PAL is cooperatively planned and developed by the staff for students. The staff offers a stimulating, multi-cultural. and inter-disciplinary approach to learning, with language (oral and written) base for emphasis in each a 6 7 central core area. Staff members use a variety of instruc- 8 tional strategies and utilize both in-district and com- 9 munity resources for motivating students. 10 Parents\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":"ia_iassu_alternativeplanf00anon","title":"An alternative plan for the desegregation of the University System of Georgia","collection_id":"ia_iassu","collection_title":"Archives of Savannah State University","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1977"],"dcterms_description":["This document is submitted as a realistic alternative proposal for the expeditious desegregation of the system of public higher education with the state of Georgia. It is a critique of the \"Plan for the further desegregation of the University System of Georgia."],"dc_format":["application/pdf","text/plain"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Segregation in higher education--Georgia"],"dcterms_title":["An alternative plan for the desegregation of the University System of Georgia"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Asa H. Gordon Library (Savannah, Ga.)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://www.archive.org/details/alternativeplanf00anon"],"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":"Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive \r\n\r\nin  2012  with  funding  from \r\n\r\nLYRASIS  Members  and  Sloan  Foundation \r\n\r\n\r\nhttp://www.archive.org/details/alternativeplanfOOanon \r\n\r\n\r\nAN  ALTERNATIVE  PLAN  FOR  THE  DESEGREGATION \r\n\r\nOF \r\nTHE  UNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  CF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nAN  ALTERNATIVE  PLAN  FOR  THE  DESEGREGATION \r\n\r\nOF \r\n\r\nTHE  UNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nINTRODUCTION \r\n\r\nThis  document  was  drafted  for  the  specific  purpose  of  serving \r\nas  a  critique  of  the  Flan  for  the  Further  Deregrropation  of  the  University \r\nSystem  of  Georgia,  submitted  by  the  Eoard  of  Regents  of  the  University \r\nSystem  of  Georgia  to  the  Department  of  Health,  Education,  and \r\nWelfare  (HEW)  on  September  1,  1977;  and  for  the  further  purpose  of \r\nserving  as  an  Alternative  Plan  to  that  submitted  by  the  Board  of \r\nRegents,  It  is  for  that  reason  that  this  document,  as  well  as \r\nsupportive  materials,  will  parallel,  in  abbreviated  form,  the \r\nGeorgia  Regents'  Plan. \r\n\r\nThe  present  Alternative  Plan  had  its  origin  in  a  Workshop  on \r\nProblems  and  Solutions  to  Problems  of  Poor  People  and  Minorities  in \r\nHigher  Education  in  Georgia,  held  on  July  23i  1977.  and  composed  of \r\nconcerned  educators,  students,  and  other  citizens  of  the  state  of \r\nGeorgia  interested  in  the  problems  of  higher  education.   From  that \r\ninitial  workshop,  participating  individuals  and  groups  became \r\ninvolved  in  a  series  of  meetings  with  the  Eoard  of  Regents.  On \r\nJuly  27,  1977,  we  met  with  the  full  Eoard  in  their  deliberations \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n-2- \r\n\r\n\r\nover  their  response  to  the  Guidelines,  dated  July  2,  1977»  emanating \r\nfrom  the  Director  of  the  Office  for  Civil  Rights  (OCR)  of  the \r\nDepartment  of  Health,  Education,  and  Welfare.  On  August  10,  17,  and \r\n19»  He  participants  in  the  July  workshop  also  met  with  the  drafting \r\ncommittee  of  the  Board  of  Regents  and  took  part  in  discussions  with \r\nthem  regarding  the  historically-developed  and  continuing  problems \r\nof  racism  and  discrimination  which  pervade  the  policies,  operating \r\npractices,  personnel  attitudes,  and  overall  structure  of  the  system \r\nof  higher  education  in  the  state  of  Georgia  (documentation  supportive \r\nof  these  discussions  included  as  appendices). \r\n\r\nAfter  much  frustrating  discussion,  none  of  the  ideas,  proposals, \r\nor  general  recommendations  that  we  advanced  during  the  course  of \r\nthese  hearings  were  included  or  even  addressed  in  the  Georgia \r\nRegents'  Plan.   We  have  thus  decided  to  submit  to  HEW  an  Alternative \r\nPlan  of  our  own.   In  general,  we  have  found  that  the  Georgia  Regents' \r\nPlan  (hereafter  abbreviated  G.R.P.)  is  nothing  more  than  a  recapitulation \r\nof  a  previous  plan,  dated  June  1,  197^ i  submitted  to  HEW  with \r\nsubsequent  semi-annual  \"progress\"  reports  numbered  I  through  VI \r\nfiled  as  addenda  to  that  initial  plan.  In  addition,  the  G.R.P. \r\nproceeds  from  a  number  of  generally  false  assumptions.  Among  these \r\nis  the  false  claim  that  the  University  System  of  Georgia  is  not  at \r\npresent  a  dual  system.  The  G.R.P.  continually  speaks  of  a  \"formerly \r\ndual  system.\"  It  further  assumes  and  asserts  that  \"the  University \r\nSystem  is  neither  now  nor  has  been  in  recent  years  operated  in  a \r\n\r\n\r\n¦ \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n-3- \r\n\r\n\r\nmanner  discriminatory  toward  any  minority  group\"  (p.  2  of  G.R.P.  ). \r\n\r\nIn  general,  the  G.R.P.  holds  the  erroneous  position  that  discrimination \r\n\r\nwithin  the  Georgia  system  of  put-lie  higher  education  has  already  been \r\n\r\nremoved  and  that  \"good  faith  has  \"been,  and  is  \"being  practiced,  in \r\n\r\nall  aspects  of  the  operations  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia\" \r\n\r\n(p.  2.  of  G.R.P. ).  We  propose  to  show  in  this  document  that  the \r\n\r\npolicies,  programs,  and  attitudes  which  are  seen  in  the  day-to-day \r\n\r\npractices  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  serve  to  perpetuate \r\n\r\nracism,  discrimination,  and  the  structural  maintenance  of  a  dual \r\n\r\nsystem  of  higher  education.  Me   will  attempt  to  use  some  of  the  graphs, \r\n\r\ncharts,  and  other  forms  of  summary  data  contained  in  the  G.R.P. \r\n\r\nWe  will  also  be  including  summary  data  of  our  own  where  such \r\n\r\ninformation  is  conveniently  omitted  from  the  G.R.P. \r\n\r\nOur  General  Position  on  iJCriteria  Sr-'ei  ryinr  the  Inrrcdients \r\nof  Acceptable  Plans  to  Dec? .cremate  Ut cite  Svstoms  of \r\nHigher  r/.iucation\" \r\n\r\nIt  would  perhaps  be  helpful  at  this  point  for  us  to  lay  out \r\n\r\nour  general  position  regarding  the  \"Criteria  Specifying  the  Ingredients \r\n\r\nof  Acceptable  Plans  to  Desegregate  State  Systems  of  Higher  Education\" \r\n\r\n(hereafter  referred  to  as  HEW  Guidelines).  Our  general  position  is \r\n\r\none  of  \"critical  support\"  for  the  broad  intention  of  the  HEW  Guidelines \r\n\r\nto  aid  in  the  desegregation  of  the  public  institutions  of  higher \r\n\r\neducation  within  the  states  which  are  affected  by  the  Adams  litigation, \r\n\r\nIt  is  in  this  connection,  as  part  of  this  continuing  process,  that \r\n\r\nthis  document  is  submitted  as  a  realistic  alternative  proposal  for \r\n\r\nthe  expeditious  desegregation  of  the  system  of  public  higher  education \r\n\r\nwithin  the  state  of  Georgia. \r\n\r\n\r\n\\ \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n\r\n4- \r\n\r\n\r\nWe  further  agree  with  the  overall  characterization  of  the  problem \r\nthat  is  \"being  addressed.   The  problem  is  one  of  the  right  to  higher \r\neducation  being  systematically  denied  to  Black  and  other  minority \r\npeople.  This  denial  often  takes  the  form  of  subtle  crypto-racist \r\npolicies.   The  Office  of  Civil  Rights  of  HEW  has  the  primary \r\nresponsibility  for  handling  this  and  related  matters.  It  must \r\ntherefore  be  regarded  by  the  federal  government  as  a  problem  of \r\nthe  denial  of  the  right  to  higher  educational  access,  a  civil  rights \r\nproblem. \r\n\r\nWe  also  concur  with  the  viewpoint  contained  within  the  Guidelines \r\nthat  the  University  System  of  Georgia  should  be  regarded  holistically . \r\nThat  is,  it  should  be  looked  at  as  the  institutionalized  mechanism \r\nthrough  which  higher  educational  services  are  delivered  to  all  of \r\nthe  citizens  of  the  state  of  Georgia.  Accordingly,  this  should  be \r\ndone  on  an  equalitarian  basis,  although  it  is  not. \r\n\r\nWe  strongly  support  the  propositions  within  the  Guidelines \r\nwhich  bear  upon  the  unique  role  and  continuing  contribution  of \r\npredominantly  Elack  institutions,  despite  the  brutal  history  of \r\ninstitutionalized  racism  from  which  they  have  been  suffering.  These \r\ninstitutions  have  been  victimized  by  all  manner  of  segregationist \r\npolicies  and  have  been  unequal  partners  with  much  more  favored \r\nwhite  institutions  within  a  presently-enduring  dual  system  of \r\nhigher  education.  Therefore,  the  emphasis  within  the  Guidelines \r\nplaced  upon  the  dismantling  of  the  system  of  dual  education,  which \r\n\r\n\r\n-5- \r\n\r\n\r\nhas  characterized  and  continues  to  characterize  the  University \r\nSystem  of  Georgia,  is  also  greeted  as  a  progressive  gesture. \r\n\r\nHowever,  we  believe  that  the  Guidelines  only  scratch  the \r\nsurface  of  a  much  more  pervasive  and  far-reaching  problem  that \r\ncannot  be  rectified  unless  there  are  profound  changes  in  the \r\nstructure  and  philosophy  of  public  higher  education.  Therefore, \r\nwe  call  for  a  commitment  on  the  part  of  HEV/  to  aid  in  the  implementation \r\nof  the  necessary  policy  changes  as  well  as  the  structural  and \r\npersonnel  changes  that  are  indispensable  in  seriously  addressing \r\nthe  continuing  problem  of  the  denial  of  higher  educational  access \r\nto  Black  and  minority  citizens. \r\n\r\nIf  HEW  is  to  continue  the  course  of  merely  responding  to \r\ncivil  actions  of  citizens  against  it,  the  problem  will  never  be  solved. \r\nIt  is  one  of  the  duties  of  the  federal  government  to  protect  and \r\ninsure  the  rights  of  its  citizens.  This  principle  is  central  and \r\nfundamental  to  the  operation  of  the  system  of  government  that \r\nexists  within  the  United  States  at  this  moment  in  history.   By  only \r\nresponding  to  civil  actions  brought  by  citizens  against  it  in  the \r\ncourts,  HEW  is  demonstrating  its  reluctance  to  make  creative  and \r\nforthright  policy  within  an  area  in  which  it  exercises  primary \r\njurisdiction.   It  is  a  plain  and  simple  case  of  the  principal \r\npolicy-making  agency  at  the  federal  level  failing  to  address  a \r\nprofound  problem  involving  the  civil  rights  of  a  large  segment  of \r\nits  citizenry.   Direct  initiative  in  developing  creative  policies \r\nwould  involve  the  uprooting  of  backward  local  interests  which  seek \r\n\r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\n-6- \r\n\r\n\r\nto  deny  equal  educational  access.  This  would  mean  the  forceful \r\n\r\nimplementation  of  meaningful  fiscal  policies  like  the  allocation \r\n\r\nof  specific  funds  earmarked  for  special  programs  which  have  as  their \r\n\r\n\"basic  tactical  objective  the  breaking  down  of  the  barriers  which  act \r\n\r\nto  keep  Black  and  other  minority  citizens  out  of  lily-white  institutions \r\n\r\nof  higher  education. \r\n\r\nIn  addition,  one  of  the  essential  elements  in  a  serious  fiscal \r\npolicy  would  involve  the  forthright  discontinuation  of  federal \r\nfunds  to  state  systems  of  higher  education  where  policies  and \r\npractices  which  result  in  the  perpetuation  of  a  dual  system  that \r\ncontinues  to  operate  at  the  expense  of  Black  and  other  minority \r\ncitizens  can  be  shown  to  exist.   Failure  to  withhold  federal  funds \r\nhas  the  objective  consequence  of  further  entrenching  local  racist \r\ninterests.  Title  '/I  of  the  Civil  Rights  Act  of  1964  is  the  law  of \r\nthe  land.  HEW,  by  continuing  to  allocate  federal  tax  dollars  to \r\nthese  systems  of  higher  education,  is  actually  breaking  the  law. \r\nIn  this  regard  an  unfortunate  illegal  precedent  has  been  set — a \r\nprecedent  which  farther  demonstrates  HEV/'s  lack  of  serious  commitment \r\nin  this  area.   No  funds  have  ever  been  withheld — something  that  the \r\nlaw  requires--in  the  face  of  obvious  and  continuing  lack  of  compliance \r\nwith  Title  VI ,  Understanding  this  as  the  tacit  support  for  them  that \r\nit  is,  the  racists  that  control  the  various  state  systems  of  higher \r\neducation  are,  therefore,  encouraged  to  continue  their  discriminatory \r\n\r\n\r\n-7- \r\n\r\n\r\npolicies.  This  process  of  continuous  illegal  and  unlawful  appropriation \r\nat  the  federal  level  must  cease  as  a  natter  of  responsible  policy. \r\n\r\nAnother  weakness  within  the  Guidelines  which  we  can  not  support \r\nand  remain  principled  has  to  do  with  the  \"...  timetables  for \r\nsequential  implementation  of  the  actions  necessary  to  achieve  these \r\ngoals  as  soon  as  possible  but  no  later  than  within  five  years  (by \r\nthe  close  of  the  academic  year  1931-82),  unless  compelling  justification \r\nfor  a  longer  period  for  compliance  is  provided  to  and  accepted  by \r\nthe  Department\"  (section  G,  p.  20  of  HEW  Guidelines).  The  inclusion \r\nwithin  the  Guidelines  of  such  loopholes  further  encourages  and  gives \r\ncomfort  to  those  forces  operative  in  policy-making  positions \r\nwithin  the  system  who  would  seek  to  maintain  the  historic  discrimination \r\nthat  has  been  the  most  definable  characteristic  of  the  higher \r\neducational  systems  in  the  Adams  states  in  general,  and  in  the  state \r\nof  Georgia  in  particular.  This  statement,  in  effect,  is  nothing \r\nmore  than  the  \"all  deliberate  speed\"  clause  contained  within  the \r\n195*+  Brown  vs.  Board  of  Education  Supreme  Court  decision  of  a \r\nquarter  of  a  century  ago — a  clause  which  has  been  repeatedly  used \r\nto  justify  inordinate  delays  in  the  desegregation  process. \r\n\r\nMoreover,  we  cannot  agree  with  the  emphasis  within  the  Guidelines \r\nupon  the  desegregation  of  the  four-year  institutions,  leaving  the \r\n\"big  universities  with  unspecified  and  nebulous  directive  criteria. \r\nIt  is  at  the  University  of  Georgia,  Georgia  State  University,  the \r\nMedical  College  of  Georgia,  and  the  Georgia  Institute  of  Technology \r\nwhere  the  historic  discrimination  has  been  and  continues  to  be  most \r\n\r\n\r\n-8- \r\n\r\n\r\ndramatic.   It  Is  at  these  schools  where  white  privileges  have  been \r\nmaintained  the  longest  and  on  the  most  pervasive  and  grotesque  scale. \r\nThese  institutions  receive  the  lion's  share  of  \"both  federal  and \r\nstate  appropriations.  Me   have  already  stated  that  we  agree  with  the \r\nHEW  Guidelines'  general  intent  to  do  away  with  segregation  within \r\nthe  University  System  of  Georgia.   But  there  are  those  who,  while \r\npretending  to  be  for  the  process  of  desegregation,  would  propose \r\nand  participate  in  a  form  of  sham  desegregation  in  an  attempt  to \r\nmaintain  a  segregated  system  based  on  more  subtle  policies.  That \r\nis  why  we  have  to  be  very  careful.  It  is  critical  that  the  intent  of \r\nthe  Guidelines  and  affirmative  action  generally  be  kept  in  mind  and \r\napplied  where  the  problem  exists. \r\n\r\nThe  traditionally  Black  colleges  have  never  been  guilty  of \r\nracial  discrimination.  They  have  never  denied  entry  to  anyone  based \r\non  race.  They  are  the  victims  of  racial  inequity  and  injustice. \r\nIn  cases  where  affirmative  action  is  applied  dogmatically  and \r\nrigidly  to  traditionally  Black  institutions  where  the  problem  of \r\nthe  systematic  denial  of  Black  access  to  higher  education  has  not \r\nand  does  not  exist,  these  institutions  become  once  again  victimized. \r\nUntil  such  time  as  the  big  white  universities  and  four-year  institutions, \r\nalong  with  the  overwhelmingly  white  junior  colleges,  are  brought  in \r\nline  with  affirmative  action,  the  intent  of  the  law  under  Title  VI \r\nis  being  circumvented.  If  affirmative  action  is  applied  primarily \r\nto  Black  institutions  as  if  they  were  the  problem,  while  lily-white \r\n\r\n\r\n¦9- \r\n\r\n\r\ninstitutions  escape  with  all  manner  of  excuses,  Black  institutions \r\nwill  become  victims  of  the  racism  of  a  sham  affirmative  action \r\nprogram.  Genuine  affirmative  action  will  be  meaningless  unless \r\nand  until  it  is  applied  directly,  forthxightly,  and  primarily \r\nto  the  lily-white  institutions  within  the  University  System  of \r\nGeorgia. \r\n\r\nIt  is  with  these  qualifications  that  we  \"critically  support\" \r\nthe  HEW  Guidelines  and  call  for  an  increased  commitment  on  the  part \r\nof  the  federal  government  to  the  enforcement  of  Title  VI  of  the \r\nCivil  Rights  Act  of  1964,  which  is  the  law  of  the  land. \r\n\r\nThe  Princi^l^-s  Upon  Which  This  Alternative  Plan  Is  Based \r\n\r\nThe  history  of  the  southern  part  of  the  United  States,  and  of \r\nthe  state  of  Georgia  in  particular,  has  shown  that  Black  people  and \r\nother  minorities  have  experienced  massive  overt  discrimination. \r\nAmerican  society  as  a  whole  is  racist,  \"but  this  has  been  more \r\nobvious  in  the  southern  United  States  than  within  other  regions. \r\nWithin  all  of  the  institutions  at  all  levels,  racism  exists — the \r\nmildest  and  yet  most  obvious  form  of  which  is  racial  discrimination \r\nto  maintain  white  privilege. \r\n\r\nWe  believe  that  this  discrimination  in  education  results  in \r\nthe  denial  of  one  of  the  basic  human  rights — that  is,  the  right  to \r\neducation,  including  higher  education.  Black  people  have  been \r\nsystematically  locked  out  of  the  public  and  private  educational \r\ninstitutions  at  all  levels.  The  system  of  primary  and  secondary \r\neducation  in  Georgia  has  been  by  and  large  opened  up,  although \r\n\r\n\r\n-10- \r\n\r\n\r\nmany  problems  remain  to  be  solved.  But  the  University  System  of \r\nGeorgia  remains  rigidly  segregated. \r\n\r\nWe  therefore  believe  that  open  admissions  to  all  of  the  public \r\ninstitutions  of  higher  education  is  essential  to  their  desegregation. \r\nBy  open  admissions  we  mean  that  anyone  vrho  possesses  a  high-school \r\ndiploma  or  G.E.D.  certificate  should  be  admitted  to  any  and  all \r\nof  the  institutions  within  the  University  System  of  Georgia.  Without \r\nopen  admissions  the  lily-white  institutions  can  at  best  engage  in  the \r\nshallow  charade  of  tokenism.  And  the  human  right  to  higher  education \r\nfor  those  who  desire  it  will  continue  to  be  denied. \r\n\r\nIn  order  to  accommodate  and  serve  the  people  of  Georgia, \r\nmoreover,  the  institutions  of  the  University  System  ofGcorgia  must \r\nhave  as  their  primary  emphasis  instruction — with  less  emphasis \r\nplaced  upon  research,  even  at  the  university  level.  We  categorically \r\nreject  the  type  of  elitism  which  asks,  \"Are  students  ready  to  enter \r\nGeorgia's  system  of  higher  education?\"  A  more  meaningful  way  of \r\ngetting  at  the  essence  of  the  problem  is  by  posing  the  question  in \r\nthis  way j   \"Are  all  of  the  institutions  within  the  state  system  of \r\nhigher  education  ready  to  teach  the  citizens  of  Georgia?\" \r\n\r\nBecause  the  problems  of  racism  and  discrimination  that  we \r\npresently  face  are  so  deeply  ingrained  within  the  historically-developed \r\nstructure,  policies,  and  attitudes  of  the  University  System  of \r\nGeorgia,  sweeping  changes  within  the  structure,  policies,  and \r\npersonnel  of  the  Unive- .  ity  System  are  imperative  in  order  for \r\nthese  problems  to  begin  to  be  addressed.  We  are,  therefore, \r\nadvocating  such  changes. \r\n\r\n\r\n-11- \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  following  sections  of  this  document  vrill  be  in  direct \r\nresponse  to  the  HEW  Guidelines  and  the  four  subdivisions  thereof \r\nunder  the  general  heading  Elements  of  a  Plan.  The  first  of  those \r\nsubdivisions  is  designated  \"Disestablishment  of  the  Structure  of \r\nthe  Dual  System\";  the  second,  \"Desegregation  of  Student  Enrollment\"; \r\nthe  third,  \"Desegregation  of  Faculty,  Administrative  Staffs,  Non- \r\nAcademic  Personnel  and  Governing  Boards\"  ;  and  the  fourth,  \"Submission \r\nof  Plans  and  Monitoring.\"  Ue  will  be  proceeding  by  analyzing  the \r\nadequacy  of  the  G.R.P.  in  relation  tc  the  subdivision  of  the  Guidelines \r\nto  which  it  is  responding,  and  then  by  putting  forth  our  own \r\nspecific  recommended  plan  and/or  program  to  address  the  problems \r\nraised  in  a  given  subdivision.   Again,  we  plan  to  proceed  on  a \r\nsubdivision-by -subdivision  basis. \r\n\r\nI.  DISESTABLISHMENT  CF  THE  STRUCTURE  OF  THE  DUAL  SYSTEM \r\n\r\nBefore  we  look  at  the  adequacy  of  the  G.R.P.  with  regard  to \r\nthis  subdivision  of  the  Guidelines,  a  brief  review  of  the  history \r\nof  higher  educational  policy  and  the  origin  of  the  dual  system  of \r\npublic  higher  education  in  Georgia  will  be  offered  to  aid  us  in \r\nunderstanding  that  what  we  have  to  deal  with  is  the  result  of  a \r\nlogically  unfolding  process  which  is  continuing  today  in  the  same \r\ndirection  as  in  the  past  and  with  increasing  momentum.  It  is  not \r\nsimply  a  mistake  of  the  past  that  can  be  rectified  by  merely \r\napologizing  for  something  which  our  forebears  were  responsible \r\nfor.  The  failure  on  the  part  of  the  Georgia  Regents  to  see  the \r\n\r\n\r\n•12- \r\n\r\n\r\nproblera  in  this  way  rei)resents  a  most  fundamental  inadequacy \r\nthat  is  revealed  within  the  G.P..P.  and  further  points  up  the \r\nincapacity  of  the  staff  of  the  Board  of  Regents  to  deal  with  the \r\nproblem. \r\n\r\nBrief  History  of  Higher  Education  Policy  in  Georgia \r\nDuring  the  turn  of  this-  century  three  schools  were  established \r\nin  Georgia  for  the  purpose  of  \"Negro  education.\"  These  schools \r\nlater  developed  into  the  predominantly  Eiack  colleges  that  exist \r\nin  Albany,  Fort  Valley,  and  Savannah  today. \r\n\r\nThe  Black  colleges  were  created  at  a  time  when  rural  agricultural \r\ninterests  which  were  directly  exploiting  large  ?jaounts  of  Black \r\nshare-cropping  labor  existed  in  the  South.  These  interests  were \r\nengaged  in  the  production  of  many  agricultural  staples,  of  which \r\ncotton  was  the  most  significant.  These  interests  maintained \r\nalmost  complete  political  hegemony  within  the  state.  The  Black \r\ncolleges,  therefore,  have  their  direct  origin  and  raison  d'etre \r\nwithin  a  set  of  political  policies  designed  to  maintain  a  system \r\nof  rigid  segregation  which  allowed  for  the  continued  exploitation \r\nof  Black  agricultural  labor  and  the  maintenance  of  privileges  and \r\nrights  for  all  strata  of  white  society.  The  Black  colleges,  as \r\nwell  as  most  of  the  other  higher  educational  institutions,  were \r\ndesigned  to  serve  these  agrarian  interests.  The  educational \r\ninstitutions  in  general  were  consequently  located  in  many  instances \r\nin  areas  which  became  back-water  regions  of  the  state  as  industrialization \r\nand  urbanization  were  accelerated  during  the  post-war  period. \r\n\r\n\r\n-13- \r\n\r\n\r\nAs  a  result  of  this  post-World  War  II  rapid  industrialization \r\nwhich  occurred  in  the  South  in  general,  and  in  Georgia  in  particular, \r\na  new  set  of  economic  relations  and  imperatives  began  to  emerge. \r\nA  new  alignment  and  a  re-evaluation  of  educational  priorities \r\nwere  therefore  in  order.   Large  multi-national  corporations  supported \r\nby  huge  quantities  of  federal  government  support  began  to  locate \r\nin  certain  regional  urban  centers.  The  rapid  urbanization  of  the \r\n1950' s  and  19603s,  as  large  numbers  of  Black  agricultural  laborers \r\nmigrated  to  the  larger  cities  of  the  state  and  became  urban  v.rage \r\nworkers,  was  a  part  of  the  same  process.  Accordingly,  the  Metropolitan \r\nAtlanta  region  became  the  most  dramatic  example  of  this  post-war \r\nurbanization  phenomenon  which  continues  unabated  at  this  moment. \r\nThe  development  of  the  urban  centers  of  Savannah,  Columbus,  Augusta, \r\nMacon,  and  Albany  are  part  of  the  same  process  to  a  lesser  degree. \r\n\r\nThe  conflict  that  developed  between  the  rural  and  urban  South \r\ncan  be  more  accurately  described  as  a  conflict  between  the  new \r\nindustrial,  financial  and  commercial  interests  which  controlled \r\nthe  large  urban  centers,  and  the  backward  rural  interests  which \r\nsought  to  continue  the  unmechanized  production  of  agricultural \r\nstaples,  using  a  dwindling  supply  of  Black  labor.  The  latter  were \r\nseeking  to  maintain  the  same  rigid  system  of  segregation  and \r\nconsequently  proved  most  resistanx  to  the  civil  rights  demands \r\nof  Black  people — demands  which  v.ere  supported  to  a  limited  extent \r\nby  the  federal  government  and  the  large  corporate  entities  which \r\nwere  becoming  increasingly  active  in  the  economy  of  the  South. \r\n\r\n\r\n.14- \r\n\r\n\r\nIt  is  this  conflict  and  its  manifold  variations  and  consequences \r\nwhich  is  responsible  for  most  of  the  educational  policy  decisions \r\nof  the  present  period  at  the  federal  and  state  levels. \r\n\r\nIt  is  beyond  the  scope  of  this  presentation  to  go  into  a \r\n\r\ndetailed  analysis  of  the  educational  policy  decisions  of  the  last \r\n\r\nand  the  present  decades.  A  brief  look  at  the  broad  countours  of \r\n\r\na  few  of  the  most  far-reaching  ones  are  in  order,  however.  This  is \r\n\r\nnecessary  so  that  the  basis  of  our  specific  recommendations  regarding \r\n\r\npresent  policy  changes  can  be  more  fully  understood. \r\n\r\nPresent  Folicv  of  Creating  Hew  Institutions  and  Expanding \r\nSstablishrq  Ones \r\n\r\nThis  section  will  focus  upon  the  perpetuation  of  racism  in \r\nthe  establishment  of  new  programs  and  institutions.   V/e  must  remember, \r\nhowever,  that  by  no  means  is  this  the  only  manifestation  of  racism \r\nwithin  the  institutions  of  higher  education  in  the  state  of  Georgia. \r\n\r\nWhen  we  consider  critically  the  manner  in  which  new  institutions \r\nhave  been  created  and  older  ones  have  been  expanded  by  the  Eoard  of \r\nRegents,  an  unmistakably  racist  pattern  emerges.  This  pattern \r\nrepresents  the  success  of  those  interests  on  the  Eoard  and  within \r\nother  branches  of  state  government  who  seek  to  maintain  archaic \r\nsegregation  in  the  face  of  federal  desegregation  policy  and  the \r\ndemand  by  Black  people  for  equal  access  to  higher  education. \r\n\r\nIn  the  middle  cf  the  decade  of  the  1960's  a  deliberate  effort \r\nto  locate  and  expand  white-controlled  institutions  of  higher  education \r\n\r\n\r\n•15- \r\n\r\n\r\nin  every  large  urban  area  of  the  state  revealed  itself  as  a  central \r\ningredient  in  Regents'  policy.  The  convenient  euphemism  for  this \r\npolicy  is  \"dispersion.\"  As  stated  in  the  G.R.P.,  the  Board  of  Regents \r\nhas  committed  itself  to  \"  .  .  .  provide  college  programs  as  convenient \r\ngeographically  for  all  students  as  resources  and  good  educational \r\njudgement  will  allow\"  (p.  7,  Part  I,  G.R.P.).  The  Regents  go  on \r\nto  outline  what  they  call  their  \"specific  objectives\":   to  \"  .  .  .  place \r\nthe  first  two  years  of  college  within  commuting  range  of  the  largest \r\npossible  number  of  students,\"  and  to  \"  .  .  .  disperse  the  four-year \r\ninstitutions  with  respect  to  both  geography  and  population  in  order \r\nto  serve  as  many  students  as  possible  with  a  full  range  of  four-year \r\nprograms\"  (p.  7,  Part  I,  G.R.P. ). \r\n\r\nAn  example  of  this  racist  \"dispersion\"  and  how  it  was  often  done \r\nin  the  face  of  existent  and  established  Black  institutions  within  the \r\nsame  immediate  vicinity  can  be  seen  in  Savannah.  Armstrong  Junior \r\nCollege,  authorized  by  the  Board  of  Regents  in  1964,  graduated  its \r\nfirst  junior  class  in  1965*  As  a  senior  college  it  graduated  its \r\nfirst  class  in  19\u00267.  By  1972  it  was  offering  graduate  degrees  and \r\nhad  a  student  enrollment  larger  than  that  of  Savannah  State  College, \r\nwhich  had  existed  in  the  same  region  under  state  governmental  control \r\nsince  I892. \r\n\r\nThe  generalised  policy  of  white  control  (euphemistically  referred \r\nto  as  \"dispersion\")  of  all  new  institutions  of  higher  education \r\ncan  be  seen  in  the  establishment  of  junior  colleges  in  Savannah, \r\n\r\n\r\n-16- \r\n\r\n\r\nAugusta,  Americus,  and  Columbus- -all  of  which  immediately  became \r\nfour-year  institutions,  often  with  graduate  schools.   The  phenomenal \r\nexpansion  of  white-controlled  Georgia  State  University,  Georgia \r\nTech,  and  the  University  of  Georgia  fits  into  this  racist  pattern, \r\nwhich  is  continuing  today. \r\n\r\nAtlanta  Junior  College  appears  to  be  the  exception  to  this  rule, \r\nsince  it  is  predominantly  Black.  But  this  college  was  authorized  in \r\n1965,  at  a  time  when  the  municipality  of  Atlanta  still  had  a  predominantly \r\nwhite  population.   The  fact  that  it  was  not  opened  until  a  deca.de \r\nlater,  in  197^ 1  is  itself  indicative  of  the  Regents'  reluctance  to \r\nestablish  a  junior  college  in  a  region  which  was  rapidly  becoming \r\nBlack.   Even  at  the  time  of  its  opening,  all  indications  are  that \r\nthe  Board  of  Regents  and  its  staff  were  expecting  AJC  to  be  evenly \r\nsplit  between  Black  and  white  students.  Of  course,  as  it  turned  out, \r\nthe  college  was  and  remains  overwhelmingly  Black, \r\n\r\nMacon  Junior  College  was  authorized  by  the  Regents  in  19^5  and \r\nwas  the  first  of  the  junior  colleges  authorized  that  year  (the  same \r\nyear  in  which  Atlanta  Junior  College  was  authorized)  to  be  opened. \r\nIt  was  opened  in  I968,   Following  the  established  pattern,  it  would \r\nbe  safe  to  assume — although  a  decision  has  not  yet  been  made  in  this \r\nregard — that  Macon  Junior  College  will  likewise  become  a  four-year \r\nschool,  including  offerings  at  the  graduate  level,  very  soon.  The \r\nfact  that  Fort  Valley  State  College,  a  Black  school,  already  serves \r\nthe  region  will  make  no  difference.  \" \r\n\r\n\r\n•17- \r\n\r\n\r\nIn  a  similar  fashion,  white-controlled  Albany  Junior  College \r\nmight  quite  possibly  be  converted  to  a  four-year  institution  in  the \r\nsame  region  in  which  Albany  State  College,  a  Black  school,  exists. \r\nIn  any  event,  the  junior  college  in  Amcricus,  Georgia  Southwestern, \r\nhas  recently  been  transformed  into  a  four-year  institution.  It  is \r\nlocated  in  the  same  general  region  in  which  Albany  State  has  operated \r\nfor  more  than  three  quarters  of  a  century. \r\n\r\nKennesaw  Junior  College  was  authorized  by  the  Board  in  19\u00263 \r\nand  was  located,  as  was  Clayton  Junior  College,  in  a  rapidly  developing \r\nsuburban  white  region  near  Atlanta.  The  recent  decision  by  the  Eoard \r\nin  April  of  19?6  to  elevate  Kennesaw  to  the  status  of  a  four-year \r\ninstitution  is  likewise  a  part  of  this  same  racist  pattern.   Figure \r\nI-A-l  from  the  G.R.P.  (reproduced  below)  shows  the  present  stage \r\nof  this  \"dispersion\"  policy. \r\n\r\nA  close  look  at  this  Figure  reveals  that  the  effect  of  the \r\nRegents'  policy  has  been  to  maintain  and  enhance  white-controlled \r\ninstitutions  at  the  expense  of  Black  schools.  The  Figure  shows \r\nnewly-established  Armstrong  State  College  virtually  adjacent  to \r\ntraditionally  Black  Savannah  State.   It  shows  the  newly-established \r\nAlbany  Junior  College  and  Georgia  Southwestern  College  (Americus) \r\nin  very  close  proximity  to  Albany  State.   It  shows  no  other  junior \r\nor  senior  college  near  the  newly-established  Augusta  and  Columbus \r\ncolleges.  It  also  shows  that  all  of  the  university-level  institutions \r\nare  located  in  northern  Georgia,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the \r\nMedical  College  at  Augusta. \r\n\r\n\r\nA.    WUi\\U \r\n\r\n\r\nHe  Uraiveirsa'Jy  Sysflpsira \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n®f    ^©(DIT(^0(l3 \r\n\r\n\r\n¦  * \r\n\r\n\r\nit  ¦ \r\n\r\n\r\n'¦'^¦VC    ,^t\u003cy*    '.V  ¦^U^u'p'.il' \r\n\r\n\r\n¦i.  - \r\n\r\n\r\nE3   Dulton \r\n\r\n\r\nA  L'nivcrsitics--Gradua:c \r\n,'     O  Senior  Colleges \r\nJVv:v     G  Junior  Colleges \r\n\r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n«. \r\n\r\n\r\n©  Dahlanega \r\n\r\n\r\n/£\u003e^^^'W-  *,'/\u003e     ^  Four  Year  Technical \r\n\r\n\r\nt; \r\n\r\n\r\n% \r\n\r\n\r\nRome \r\n\r\n\r\n¦'/\"  -V-   -.'.v-  '- \r\n\r\n\r\n'\"'-i-V' \r\n\r\n\r\nvv. \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nMarietta \r\nAtlanta \r\n\r\nA \r\n\r\n[j    Morrow \r\n\r\n\r\nA    Athene \r\n\r\n\r\nP  ;-      '^-••f-H..  Curmllton \r\n\r\n•  :;„•=   -Vr\\        Darmsville      3 \r\n\r\n\r\n% \r\n\r\n\r\n%      '' \r\n\r\n\r\n¦  -\"jw^  Columhm \r\n\r\n^  ¦*.  •*.'\u003ci\\-'~L.J \r\n\r\nIf     ^  *^ \r\n\r\n^    '.-\"  '-?@ \r\n\r\n•4'-..  ^ \r\n\r\nli'\u0026i  \u003c  '^ \r\n\r\n*.    ^'-:   '  !?.'  1    hi \r\n\r\ni  ¦«»»  •  ¦•'i.       .  '.    *  * \r\n\r\n:  i      ^r-  '  \u003c  '¦  s \r\n\r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\nFf^r/  Valley \r\n\r\n($  Americus \r\n\r\n\r\n©  M i lied gcv, lie \r\nMac  on \r\n\r\nC3    Cochran \r\n\r\n\r\n'  '^^^^'kui\"'»\u003e/'  ¦'¦¦  --  ¦     ^Vo-'-J \r\nAugusta  xrs    'V^f:;;0\"\"  '¦  ''*¦  V-\"\"--\"  ^\u003e -V'-\"\"--''- \r\n\r\n*-'         V,«.  .^,.  --v  Vl^  .,:.v.    \\  . -¦•  .?-.¦•    : \r\n\r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\n\r\nTijton \r\n\r\n\r\nO   Douglas \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nW aye r oss \r\n\r\n\r\nv-*^V  V.v,. ,:•:¦'.-  1 \r\n\r\nStatethoro    C\\  *K* '\"'*?*\"  .•'»».WC-      '\"' \r\n\r\nSavannah    O        V\\'~'i \r\n\r\n*^  a.  '^  v-  - !  ¦?--. :\"'.'\u003e  \"* \r\n\r\n\r\nT-\u003e  A.  'fi  \\.  ;•¦¦\u003c  -, \r\n\r\n\r\nBrunswick    Q    '   /j^'r ,'  /^'vW^ \r\n\r\n\r\nBair.bridge \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\n\r\n•\\y-.-.  ¦¦¦¦*. \r\n\r\n\r\n«  .  V  »  •••  '  :/¦»..  ,,     -      •\".-¦.•  •'¦•¦'•,»         ;-»•?.¦  i  -.  •--,'.  v    V  •.  •  .  .  •¦ \r\n\r\n•J   ..      '  v^!,iV^A\u003e:  v^\u003e- •¦•¦:-••*.- o      ^:-v;    -.;«\"r-.v-;\u003e      ¦/¦k-::;\u003e-     -;'.V^.^\u003e  :    \"  -     v^' \r\n\r\n\r\n-18- \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n-19- \r\n\r\n\r\nTable  I-A-l  of  the  G.R.P.  (reproduced  below)  snows  the  institutional \r\nunits  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  and  the  levels  at  which \r\nthey  operate.  Note  that  there  are  no  traditionally  Black  university- \r\nlevel  institutions,  which  itself  is  the  result  of  an  historical \r\npattern  of  discrimination.  At  the  level  of  the  senior  colleges \r\nthere  are  three  of  the  twelve  units  which  night  be  classified  as \r\npredominantly  Black,   It  is  interesting  to  note  that  of  the  nine \r\nremaining  predominantly  white  senior  colleges,  four  were  recently \r\nfounded  and/or  upgraded  to  their  present  status.  At  the  junior \r\ncollege  level  only  Atlanta  Junior  College  fits  the  definition  of \r\npredominantly  Black.  This  is  of  critical  importance  since  the \r\noverwhelming  majority  of  these  sixteen  units  were  established  during \r\nthe  last  fifteen  years  in  a  state  where  almost  a  third  of  the \r\npopulation  is  Black. \r\n\r\nFaced  with  this  reality — a  reality  created  by  its  own  racist \r\npolicies — the  only  specifics  that  the  G.R.P.  for  the  \"further \r\ndesegregation  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia\"  offers  are \r\nthese:   first,  the  Board  of  Regents  will  \"...  complete  the \r\nimplementation  of  the  basic  recommendations  of  the  joint  Armstrong \r\nState  College-Savannah  State  College  Academic  Frogram  Review  Committee.\" \r\nIn  addition,  they  propose  to  \"  .  .  .  continue  the  detailed  implementation \r\nof  the  Plan  for  the  Further  Desegregation  of  Fort  Valley  State  College \r\nas  ordered  by  the  United  States  District  Court,  Middle  District  of \r\nGeorgia.\"  And  finally,  they  propose  to  \"  .  .  .  establish  a  Joint \r\n\r\n\r\n-20- \r\n\r\n\r\nTAELE  I  -  A  -  1 \r\n\r\n\r\nGRADUATE  INSTITUTIONS \r\n\r\nGeorgia  Institute  of  Technology \r\nGeorgia  State  University \r\nMedical  College  of  Georgia \r\nUniversity  of  Georgia \r\n\r\n\r\nAtlanta \r\nAtlanta \r\nAugusta \r\nAthens \r\n\r\n\r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\n\r\nAlbany  State  College  [*] \r\nArmstrong  State  College \r\nAugusta  College- \r\nColumbus  College \r\nFort  Valley  State  College  [*] \r\nGeorgia  College \r\nGeorgia  Southern  College \r\nGeorgia  Southwe stern  College \r\nNorth  Georgia  College \r\nSavannah  State  College  [_*3 \r\nYaldosta  State  College \r\nWest  Georgia  College \r\n\r\n\r\nAlbany \r\n\r\nSavannah \r\n\r\nAugusta \r\n\r\nColumbus \r\n\r\nFort  Valley \r\n\r\nMilledgeville \r\n\r\nStatesboro \r\n\r\nAmericus \r\n\r\nDahlonega \r\n\r\nSavannah \r\n\r\nValdosta \r\n\r\nCarrollton \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  COLLEGES \r\n\r\n\r\nAbraham  Baldwin  Agricultural  College \r\n\r\nAlbany  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAtlanta  Junior  College  [_*J \r\n\r\nBainbridge  Junior  College \r\n\r\nErunsvrick  Junior  College \r\n\r\nClayton  Junior  College \r\n\r\nDalton  Junior  College \r\n\r\nEmanuel  County  Junior  College \r\n\r\nFloyd  Junior  College \r\n\r\nGainesville  Junior  College \r\n\r\nGordon  Junior  College \r\n\r\nKennesaw  Junior  College \r\n\r\nMacon  Junior  College \r\n\r\nMiddle  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nSouth  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nWaycross  Junior  College \r\n\r\n\r\nTifton \r\n\r\nAlbany \r\n\r\nAtlanta \r\n\r\nEainbridge \r\n\r\nBrunswick \r\n\r\nMorrow \r\n\r\nDalton \r\n\r\nSwainsboro \r\n\r\nRome \r\n\r\nGainesville \r\n\r\nBarnesville \r\n\r\nMarietta \r\n\r\nMacon \r\n\r\nCochran \r\n\r\nDouglas \r\n\r\nVi  ay  cross \r\n\r\n\r\nL*  Predominantly  Black  Institutions] \r\n\r\n\r\n-21- \r\n\r\n\r\nStudy  Committee  composed  of  members  of  the  faculty  and  staff  of \r\nAlbany  State  College  and  Albany  Junior  College  to  develop  a  detailed \r\nplan  for  the  enhanced  articulation  of  the  academic  programs  of \r\nthose  two  dissimilar  institutions  for  review  by  the  Chancellor \r\nand  the  Board  of  Regents  ...\"  (p.  5t  Section  I,  G.R. P.). \r\n\r\nAll  of  these  so-called  \"specific\"  proposals  are  designed  to \r\nbreak  down  segregation  at  the  three  predominantly  Black  colleges, \r\nwhich  have  never  been  in  fact  segregated.   Where  are  the  \"specific\" \r\nproposals  to  desegregate  the  overwhelmingly  white  schools?  In  fact, \r\nthese  \"specific\"  proposals  seek  to  weaken  the  role  of  the  traditionally \r\nBlack  institutions  and  offer  no  plan  for  the  desegregation  of  the \r\npredominantly  white  large  universities.  In  this  section,  therefore, \r\nthe  G.R.P.  is  grossly  inadequate  and  cannot  be  regarded  as  having \r\nfulfilled  the  requirements  of  the  HEU  Guidelines. \r\n\r\nDiscrimination  in  the  Allocation  of  I'erources \r\n\r\nIn  part  1  of  the  G.R.?.  are  included  several  tables  of  summary \r\ndata  which  purport  to  show  that  there  is  no  racial  discrimination \r\npracticed  in  the  allocation  of  resources  within  the  University \r\nSystem  of  Georgia.  The  data  takes  the  form  of  an  analysis \r\ncomparing  the  allocation  of  resources  between  traditionally  Black \r\nfour-year  institutions  and  predominantly  white  institutions  within \r\nthe  same  category  with  respect  to  fiscal  resources,  plant  development, \r\nand  the  development  and  funding  of  new  programs. \r\n\r\nConsistent  with  our  analysis  of  the  historical  origin  of \r\ndiscrimination  within  the  University  System  of  Georgia  ana  with  our \r\n\r\n\r\n•22- \r\n\r\n\r\nholistic  view  of  the  component  institutions  within  the  University \r\nSystem,  we  see  that  in  order  to  get  at  the  essence  of  the  problem \r\nof  inequity  in  the  allocation  of  resources,  it  is  necessary  to \r\nmake  a  comparison  not  only  between  the  predominantly  Slack  four-year \r\ninstitutions  and  the  same  general  category  of  white  institution, \r\nbut  also  between  the  Black  schools  and  the  big  white  universities. \r\nSuch  a  comparison  would  yield  much. \r\n\r\nThe  very  fact  that  there  are  no  predominantly  Black  universities \r\ncomparable  to  the  University  of  Georgia,  Georgia  Tech,  the  Medical \r\nCollege  of  Georgia,  or  Georgia  State  University  is  the  result  of \r\nthe  kind  of  discrimination  historically  practiced  in  higher  educational \r\npolicy  within  the  state.   Specifically,  it  is  the  manifest  result \r\nof  the  policy  of  allocating  funds  for  the  purpose  of  \"encouraging\" \r\nElack  students  to  get  out  of  the  state  in  order  to  acquire  training \r\nin  courses  of  study  which  were  not  offered  at  the  Black  schools — but \r\nwhich  were  offered  at  the  white  ones.  This  policy,  until  very \r\nrecently,  was  regarded  as  sufficient  legal  satisfaction  of  the \r\nstate's  obligation  to  provide  higher  education  to  its  Black  citizens. \r\nUnder  the  Jim  Crow  state  system  in  Georgia  (and  in  other  states \r\nwhich  operated  according  to  this  type  of  policy)  resource  allocations \r\nto  meet  the  needs  of  Black  citizens  were  effectively  circumvented. \r\nThis  directly  resulted  in  what  we  have  today.   In  state  after  state, \r\nwe  witness  the  stark  reality  of  the  existence  of  huge,  well-developed, \r\nheavily-subsidized  white  university  complexes,  on  the  one  hand,  and \r\n\r\n\r\n-23- \r\n\r\n\r\nunderdeveloped ,  under-subsidized,  stunted  predominantly  Black \r\ninstitutions  within  the  sane  state — the  \"little  colored  schools\"  — \r\non  the  other. \r\n\r\nThis  sort  of  historical  consideration  is  essential  in  order \r\nto  get  at  the  problem  of  its  contemporary  manifestation.  This  is \r\nespecially  important  when  we  consider  that  in  1973  the  universities \r\naccounted  for  42.8  percent  of  the  total  enrollment  of  the  overall \r\nstudent  population  of  the  public  colleges  in  the  state.  Blacks \r\nconstituted  only  8.2  percent  of  that.   It  is  more  especially  important \r\nwhen  we  consider  the  Board  of  Regents *  projected  relative  enrollment \r\nfigures  for  the  year  1981.   They  project  that  in  that  year  the \r\nuniversities  will  still  account  for  41,7  percent  of  the  total \r\n\r\n\r\nenrollment: \r\n\r\n\r\nPercentage  of  Student  Enrollment* \r\n\r\n\r\nTyne  of  Institution \r\n\r\nFall \r\n1930 \r\n\r\nFall \r\n1973 \r\n\r\nFall \r\n1981 \r\n\r\nUniversity \r\n\r\n38o6 \r\n\r\n42.8 \r\n\r\n41.7 \r\n\r\nSenior  College \r\n\r\n33.6 \r\n\r\n36.1 \r\n\r\n33.1 \r\n\r\nJunior  College- \r\n\r\n3.8 \r\n\r\n21.1 \r\n\r\n23.2 \r\n\r\n*from  G.R.P.,  Section  I,  p.  11 \r\nIt  is  the  problem  of  fiscal  discrimination  that  is  at  the \r\nbase  of  the  entire  process  which  was  called  into  question  by  the \r\nAdams  litigation.  That  is  why  the  comparison  must  be  made  in  this \r\nway.   If  it  can  be  shown  that  federal  monies  are  used  within  the \r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia  in  the  major  institutions  where  Blacks \r\n\r\n\r\n-zh- \r\n\r\n\r\nare  only  tokens  and  are  systematically  kept  out,  that  is  ground \r\nenough  to  legally  withhold  such  funds.  y \r\n\r\nIn  addition,  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  this  pattern  of \r\ndiscrimination  not  only  reveals  itself  in  grossly  disproportionate \r\nresource  allocations  for  the  overwhelmingly  white  universities, \r\n\"but  also  has  the  consequence  of  maintaining  the  situation  wherein \r\nhigher  degrees  in  graduate  and  professional  schools  in  the  state \r\nare  awarded  almost  exclusively  to  white  students,  while  Blacks  are \r\nrepresented  at  best  at  the  token  level. \r\n\r\nThe  HEU  Guidelines,  however,  request  comparative  resource \r\nallocational  data  for  the  four-year  senior  colleges,  both  Black  and \r\nwhite.  Yet  even  when  this  comparison  is  made,  as  in  Table  I-B-5 \r\n(reproduced  below),  a  pattern  of  gross  discrimination  emerges.  Of \r\nthe  nine  (9)  predominantly  white  senior  colleges  that  are  operated  by \r\nthe  University  System  at  the  present  time,  four  (k)  were  recently \r\nestablished  and/cr  upgraded  to  the  status  they  now  occupy.   These  are \r\nArmstrong  State,  Augusta  College,  Columbus  College,  and  Georgia \r\nSouthwestern.  This  means  that  the  University  System  of  Georgia \r\nhas  within  the  last  twenty  years  almost  doubled  the  number  of  its \r\npredominantly  white  senior  colleges  while  no  new  Black  senior  colleges \r\nhave  been  added.  This  also  represents  a  substantial  increase  in \r\nresource  allocation  which  is  continuing  today.  Vith  the  possible \r\nexception  of  Georgia  Southwestern,  these  new  four-year  institutions \r\nare  primarily  urban  commuter  schools  which  are  developing  rapidly. \r\n\r\n\r\n-?«;-  ' \r\n\r\n\r\n•25 \r\n\r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nvr\u003e \r\n\r\ncr\u003e \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\non \r\n\r\nvo \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n«ji/inn^joPONai'T*l —  *r  *o*  o \r\nw  g\\0' —  ncv —  a  io  o  o  \u003e-  i.i  in \r\n\r\nr-   N  r-  K  rl  MM   Q   CO   rs   o   \\0  l-T   tl \r\n\r\n\r\nffl  tl/l \r\n\r\n• —  a  u\"\u003e \r\n\r\nvo  co  o\u003e \r\n\r\n0  a.  vo \r\n\r\n.—  o«  eg \r\n\r\ni/iui  a \r\n\r\n•        ¦       m \r\n\r\n*      »       a \r\n\r\nr^  t  \u003cr \r\n\r\nohm \r\n\r\nCO   CM \r\n\r\non \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nl/l  rsinvO' —  rNr»Ttr\\r-cOi.nOt?  40*  vo  r-».  r^  • —  r-s. \r\n\r\ni/i  I7i  r-  O  «)  r^  ' —  in  rriui  rx  ui  —  cm  ui  en  en  vo  O  c*n \r\n\r\nCM  O  CO  VO  ¦ —  O'-GiulUD^OTro  r^   C7l  O  *T  *J-  vO \r\n\r\nifufnnr/ronivjMMrMNMCM  vo-cr»r  vo  «r  cm \r\n\r\nro  cm \r\n\r\n\r\nr-. \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nu-i \r\n\r\nvo \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr~- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nU-    ro \r\n\r\n\r\non  *j-  • —  i —  nr\\ivni/ic0if)0',ico'*i \r\neg  «j-  co  t*»  o  co  . —  co  co  . —  *vr  uo  *r  rrn \r\n\r\ninisoorscooocjnt.rg. —  o \r\n\r\n^^rOCOfOCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCgCMCM \r\n\r\n\r\nIS(OOM(nulO\u003c^M05^-MNl/l \r\n\r\nOKincnMMO\u003eOiiionnai — \r\nvr  cn^niooco^MH' —  cmoo \r\n\r\n^rCOTCOCMrMCvJCMCMCMCMCNJCMCM \r\n\r\n\r\n• —  in  ^r \r\n\r\nNinco \r\n\r\nO  vo  «r \r\n\r\nco  on  co \r\n\r\nr--  o  r— \r\n\r\n«r  kn \r\n\r\n*     *     * \r\n\r\n•       m       » \r\n\r\nvo  vn  ro \r\n\r\nco  vo  cm \r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\n«v\u003e \r\n\r\n**» \r\n\r\nr—    —    VO \r\n\r\nr»-  rj-  CM \r\n\r\nco  ro  co \r\n\r\nrn  o  IT) \r\n\r\nOl  vO  CTi \r\n\r\nco  ro  cm \r\n\r\nN           ••          *\u003e \r\n\r\nm       •       • \r\n\r\nLO   «T  CO \r\n\r\nVO   «T  CM \r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nLO \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nn^f\u003eTNroM--cnncoifl'-  co  locm^j- \r\n\r\n. —  nv(\\jnconf\\ic:i.\"i(vicn^-co  cm  .—  ro \r\n\r\nm/1  i^  (\\nr  n  rs  \u003ci  , —  og  cj\u003e  \u003c—  cno\"  covdlO \r\n\r\nrOrOCOroCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM. —  # —  1/1   \u003cT  O \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  ro  ro \r\n\r\nr—  T   CO \r\n\r\nvo  .—  , — \r\n\r\nro  ro  cm \r\nro  cm \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\ncr. \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nr-~ \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no- \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n« — \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n\r\nUO \r\n\r\n\u003e-  err  — , \r\nCO  o  pf \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr-^ \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nex \r\n\r\n\r\n•—I \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\na. \r\nx \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nvo \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nvo \r\ncn \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nvo \r\n\r\n\r\nr*cn\u003cfOi/H3'sONi/i\u003cj  ^gvorv. \r\nco  ¦ —  o  cm  r^  *-r  o  'M  ^  • —  ^  co  cn  # — \r\n\r\nr»»  r».  . —  «ro\"Moa)cnNoiaco \r\n\r\nCMCMrOCMJNJCMCMCM.--.—  . —   CM, —  w— \r\n\r\n\r\nO  vo  co  • —  ct)i/iKi/\u003enaiocoj3'7i \r\nCM, —  cncONinnix  o, —  of  con \r\nOJCO\u003cocncOC2CriCOr-.r^.r~~cr\u003e\"j-vO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  «j-  on \r\n\r\nCO    CO   «— \r\n\r\nvo  o  r^ \r\n\r\nvo  r-»  r~ \r\nO  \u003cy\\  r-» \r\n\r\nVNCO \r\n\r\nvo  vo  CM \r\n\r\nCM   CM   r— \r\n\r\nro  cm \r\n\r\nCM  CM  CM \r\n\r\n\r\nf-~   LO  VO \r\n\r\nvo  W  CO \r\n\r\nCM   VD  CO \r\n\r\n• —  ro  o \r\n\r\nO  vo  ¦ — \r\n\r\ni/iniv \r\n\r\nm        »       » \r\n\r\na      »      m \r\n\r\nr-.  lo  cm \r\n\r\n•—  CM  . — \r\n\r\nro  cm \r\n\r\n2:^8 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^- \r\n\r\nVO \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr-. \r\n\r\nVO \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nrgr^o^-rxOvTr-.rvr^m'MOO \r\n»—  On, —  r—vOi —  CO  CO  r-.  r-~  f  ^  c\u003e  »J-  vo \r\n\r\n\r\nI-i-rscyir.fi\u003crrNiO'TCCcnoci \r\nvO  CO  . —  CDOOOnr-~COCOroioOr~» \r\ncOrNcni/i^cOi^'^iOiorN  co  lo  lo \r\n\r\n\r\n*t  cy,  m \r\ncj  cn  r^ \r\nr^.  ro  on \r\n\r\n\r\nTO- \r\ncr\u003e  ro  CO \r\nro  r—  i — \r\n\r\nVO  VO  , — \r\n\r\n\r\nfv  lOl/l \r\n\r\nMUTN \r\n\r\ncm  eg  r^ \r\n\r\nr-.  \u003cr\u003e  f— \r\ncm  •— \r\n\r\n\r\nvo  vo  vo \r\n\r\nCO   CM   CO \r\nCM  CO   LO \r\n\r\n\r\nl/l \r\n\r\nIrt \r\n\r\n\u003cL\u003e \r\n\r\nfti \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\na» \r\n\r\nft) \r\n\r\nai \r\n\r\n^~ \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\n^— \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nv_\u003e \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n*¦¦• \r\n\r\n-T— \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\noj \r\n\r\nO) \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-*: \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n«J \r\n\r\n•-\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n¦r- \r\n\r\n^— \r\n\r\n.r: \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\ne \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\nc \r\n\r\n¦(•«¦ \r\n\r\nE \r\no \r\n\r\na \r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nft) \r\n\r\nft! \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nC7\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ni. \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n«c \r\n\r\n«£ \r\n\r\n•  » \r\n\r\nw\u003e \r\n\r\nLT\u003e \r\n\r\nvn \r\n\r\nl\u003c» \r\n\r\nft) \r\n\r\nftl \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nftl \r\n\r\non \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n*\u003e \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n0)               — . \r\n\r\nfti \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nfti \r\n\r\ntc \r\n\r\n—                3 \r\n\r\nf-— \r\n\r\nF— \r\n\r\nftl \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nftl \r\n\r\n^—               *¦¦ ^ \r\n\r\np~« \r\n\r\n^»- \r\n\r\n¦a \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nno \r\n\r\n— \u003c¦   O \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n=\u003e \r\n\r\nCQ   \u003c_J                    ft) \r\n\r\n*-«o \r\n\r\nVJ \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nc_\u003e \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\n^-^                           C7\u003e \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n-^^« \r\n\r\nVO \r\n\r\nVO \r\n\r\n«-          —    \u003cV \r\n\r\n— '    l_  ^— % \r\n\r\n:c \r\n\r\nt. \r\n\r\ni- \r\n\r\nco  o       cn  ^- \r\n\r\nO    1C \r\n\r\n— - \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n»-\u003e \r\n\r\n1- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nV- \r\n\r\non  -•—  ^—** —  •— \r\n\r\nrt  -— -  o  ¦•-  • — \r\n\r\n•?— \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nft) \r\n\r\n•  -— \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nftl \r\n\r\noca         o \r\n\r\n—  3    cn  c \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nQ- \r\n\r\n•  • \r\n\r\n*—    (U  —  tv  \u003c_) \r\n\r\n— '    C     CV    Cl \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n, —  vo          on \r\n\r\naj        i —  vo   cn \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\nVO \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nLA\u003e \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n4_\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO          a    o    c \r\n\r\nCn   CJ  i —             O \r\n\r\n¦ — \r\n\r\n- — . \r\n\r\n*~J \r\n\r\n'^1 \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\nvn \r\n\r\n^~- \r\n\r\n(_)    J^      C_*\u003e'—      V- \r\n\r\nCI    Cn  O     t)  ' — \r\n\r\n*— \r\n\r\n¦ 1 \r\n\r\njC \r\n\r\n^— ^ \r\n\r\nJ^ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n' — - \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n- — ^ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n1— \r\n\r\nu  Oi —   ai \r\n\r\n• —    eg  vj  *-»  i — \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nlv \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n;\u003c \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n(_) \r\n\r\n4-^ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nvn \r\n\r\nV-J \r\n\r\nr) \r\n\r\neg    re  •—    o  *-\u003e \r\n\r\n.—  —       -^-   o \r\n\r\nv_J \r\n\r\n' — - \r\n\r\n* — * \r\n\r\n\"3 \r\n\r\nd. \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n«^- \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\nv_ \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n»'    . , V_\u003e      L^ \r\n\r\no  i —   C  jr.  t_j \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\n•11 \r\n\r\n. — \r\n\r\nx: \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\n, — \r\n\r\nro   CO     O            C \r\n\r\n\u003c_\u003e   o  v-  :t \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\nCJl \r\n\r\nC) \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nV. \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\n:i \r\n\r\nv_ \r\n\r\n*J \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\n*-\u003e           (_\u003e    O     1 \r\n\r\nvj   o        ai \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n\"_n \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nftl \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\n41 \r\n\r\nL/-1 \r\n\r\nvo    \u003e,        *j  x- \r\n\r\n\u003cC          SZ    \u003ei  «-\u003e \r\n\r\n\"J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n, — \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\u003e, \r\n\r\n*_\u003e \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n+~* \r\n\r\n\u003ea \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\u003c—     CJ     ro     »  \u003e \r\n\r\n—   \u003cc  »-\u003e  , —   rj \r\n\r\n*--' \r\n\r\n^— \r\n\r\n^~ \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\nC3 \r\n\r\n1 — \r\n\r\n. — \r\n\r\nv. \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\ni— \r\n\r\n\u003e,  t~\u003e    «J    *J      3 \r\n\r\n0\u003e —     13    ?\u003e   \u003c_¦ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n^~ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\n*^ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\n*j \r\n\r\nrO \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\n\"J    C    ni  l/l    o \r\n\r\nV-    C\"  o    c  vo \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nV.J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\niC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nfti \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\nf —      ro    ¦*-»             VO \r\n\r\nO     V-    VO     TO \r\n\r\nCn  I_J \r\n\r\n\u003c_) \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCD\"  *T \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n(O \r\n\r\no--j \r\n\r\ncr\u003e \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n—    c  vo  jr: \r\n\r\nCi    O            d     ro \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nui \r\n\r\nc: \r\n\r\n— -- \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n^-^ \r\n\r\n•V) \r\n\r\n\u003cT3    -^-               O     O \r\n\r\nCJ    ft)    (O  —   «-\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr} \r\n\r\nri \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\n--— \r\n\r\n*— \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\n¦^ \r\n\r\ni — \r\n\r\nL_ \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\n5»      E      \u003e,    C    — \r\n\r\nCO  —     {--    Ln \r\n\r\nv_ \r\n\r\n•*- \r\n\r\njj \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nt . \r\n\r\n• — \r\n\r\ni— \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\ni — \r\n\r\ni — \r\n\r\nftl \r\n\r\nOc:c:cnx:          cr\u003e  o   o \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nr-. \r\n\r\nvn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦CJ \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^3 \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n«i \r\n\r\n*J  \"O    \u003co    UJ    V. \r\n\r\n*-\u003e*-•  v.  r.*  *a \r\n\r\nwn \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n*c» \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nU— \r\n\r\nLg \r\n\r\n«-^ \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nU. \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003cc \r\n\r\nt— \r\n\r\nV-    O  JD    \u003e    o \r\n\r\nU    Lfl    o    o  \u003c— \r\n\r\nti \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n»  — \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n11 \r\n\r\nftl \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nO    V-  • —    \"3    O \r\n\r\nO     C»    fti     V.     -3 \r\n\r\ni_ \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nC3 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nV. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu.  a.  \u003cC  vo  o \r\n\r\n:£  U  o  cv.  ^» \r\n\r\n«4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nv_) \r\n\r\n«I \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO. \r\n\r\nft) \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nfti \r\n\r\nft) \r\n\r\nF— \r\n\r\n^- \r\n\r\n»— \r\n\r\n^^ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO  «_\u003e \r\n\r\nV- \r\n\r\nV- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n*^— \r\n\r\n-^— \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCi \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-m: \r\n\r\nftl \r\n\r\nVJ \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n-»— \r\n\r\n^— \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCO   3 \r\n\r\n\u003en   \u003el \r\n\r\nr~— \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\n*-\u003e \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n-»— \r\n\r\n-, — \r\n\r\nF \r\n\r\nF \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nTC \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n'XI \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\nk. \r\n\r\nCk \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n30   3 \r\n\r\n\r\n¦26- \r\n\r\n\r\nAt  the  same  time,  on  the  other  hand,  v;e  have  Black  four-year  institutions-- \r\nalthough  located  in  two  instances  in  well-developed  urban  areas — \r\nremaining  residential,  stagnant,  and  snail,   When  compared  to  the \r\nwhite  four-year  institutions,  using  student  enrollment  as  a  criterion, \r\nthe  traditionally  Black  colleges  are  among  the  smallest.   Cut  of \r\nthe  twelve  senior  colleges  within  the  University  System  of  Georgia, \r\nthe  Black  colleges  rank  eighth,  tenth,  and  eleventh.   Recognition  of \r\nthese  features,  of  course,  is  critical  to  valid  interpretation  of \r\nthe  materials  contained  in  all  of  the  tables  in  section  B  of  part  1 \r\nof  the  G.R.P,   (See  Analysis  of  Table  I-A-l  below.) \r\n\r\nIn  general,  the  manner  in  which  the  G.K.P,  made  the  comparisons \r\nfrom  and  tdthin  the  data  presented  in  section  E  ignores  the  historically- \r\nderived  distinctive  features  of  the  Elack  and  white  public  institutions \r\nof  the  state  and  has  the  effect  of  hiding  the  type  of  fiscal  discrimination \r\nthat  characterizes  their  present  operation.   Not  only  is  the  commuter \r\nas  opposed  to  the  residential  character  of  the  institutions  in  question \r\nof  great  significance,  but  the  fact  that  a  larger  proportion  of \r\nentering  freshmen  at  the  traditionally  Black  institutions  are  enrolled \r\nin  mandatory  non-credit  Special  Studies  programs  bears  on  this  issue \r\nin  many  ways.  The  amount  and  kind  of  instructional  support  expenditures \r\nis  of  importance  in  this  regard.   Another  vital  consideration  is  the \r\nrelative  income  of  the  student  bodies  served. \r\n\r\nIn  addition,  it  is  difficult  to  determine  from  the  manner  in  which \r\nthe  figures  contained  in  Table  I-B-6  of  the  G.R.P.  (condensed  below)      -» \r\nwere  presented  and  analysed  in  section  B  of  the  G.I;. P.  whether \r\nor  not  the  real  expenditure  per  full-time  student  in  predominantly \r\n\r\n[_Text  continues  on  page  ^j.j \r\n\r\n\r\n-27- \r\n\r\n\r\nakalysis  of  tabu-:  i  -  a  -  i \r\n\r\n\r\nRANK  ORDER  OF  SENIOR  COLLEGES  USI1IG  STUDENT  ENROLLMENT  AS  CRITERION \r\n\r\n1.  Georgia  Southern  College  (Vl) \r\n\r\n2.  West  Georgia  College  (w) \r\n\r\n3.  Columbus  College  ('..') \r\nk,  Augusta  College  ('..') \r\n\r\n5.  Georgia  College  (W) \r\n\r\n6.  Armstrong  State  College  (U) \r\n\r\n7.  Valdosta  State  College  ('.,') \r\n\r\n8.  Savannah  State  College  (b) \r\n\r\n9.  Georgia  South'.:estern  College  (U) \r\n\r\n10.  Albany  State  College  (B) \r\n\r\n11.  Fort  Valley  State  College  (3) \r\n\r\n12.  North  Georgia  College  ('./) \r\n\r\nCHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER  OF  ESTABLISHMENT  AND/OR  UPGRADING  OF  SENIOR  COLLEGES \r\n\r\n1.  North  Geoigia  College  (lS?9) \r\n\r\n2.  Georgia  College  (1689) \r\n\r\n3.  Savannah  State  College  (1890)  * \r\n\r\n4.  Fort  Valley  State  College  (1895)  * \r\n\r\n5.  Georgia  Southern  College  (1906) \r\n\r\n6.  Valdosta  State  College  (1906) \r\n\r\n7.  Vfest  Georgia  College  (1933) \r\n\r\n8.  Albany  State  College  (upgraded  19'0)  * \r\n\r\n9.  Colunbus  College  (1958) \r\n\r\n10.  Augusta  College  (upgraded  I963) \r\n\r\n11.  Georgia  Southwestern  College  (upgraded  1964) \r\n\r\n12.  Armstrong  State  College  (upgraded  I965) \r\n\r\n*  Predominantly  Black  Institutions \r\n\r\n\r\n-28- \r\n\r\n\r\nA  CONDENSATION  OF \r\n\r\nTABLE  I-E-6 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  CF  GEORGIA \r\nSENIOR  COLL^G^  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n^¦i \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n-29- \r\n\r\n\r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n\"DlTATrHLNTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nsponsored \r\n\r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n$   63,480,202 \r\n\r\n14, 374,508 \r\n\r\n$    77,854,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n704,90  3 \r\n3;?, 567 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   1.024.47Q \r\n\r\n\r\n4,545,422 \r\n\r\n5.573.606 \r\n\r\n.119.028 \r\n\r\n\r\n68,730,527 \r\n2JL  267,  771 \r\n\r\n88.998.298 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n\r\n21,915,000 \r\n55,939,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  1,024,470 \r\n\r\n\r\n5   10,119,028 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   33,058,498 \r\n55,939.800 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$        77,854,800 \r\n\r\n\r\nS      1,024,470 \r\n\r\n\r\nS        10,119:028 \r\n\r\n\r\n88,998,298 \r\n\r\n\r\n-30- \r\n\r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\n-fs \r\n\r\n\r\nE.f.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTTTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n86/. 04 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUCKETED \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n9  42.59 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\ni?77- \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNi \r\n\r\n\r\nfa \r\n\r\n\r\n43.49 \r\n\r\n50.01 \r\n\r\n43.43 \r\n\r\n26.88 \r\n\r\n26.48 \r\n\r\n25.42 \r\n\r\n1,675.67 \r\n\r\n1,775.30 \r\n\r\n1,772.96 \r\n\r\n59.48 \r\n\r\n52.63 \r\n\r\n43.32 \r\n\r\n36.95 \r\n\r\n41.00 \r\n\r\n46.43 \r\n\r\n307.65 \r\n\r\n331.72 \r\n\r\n343. 34 \r\n\r\n66.68 \r\n\r\n72.  31 \r\n\r\n70.58 \r\n\r\n2.216.80 \r\n\r\n2.249.45 \r\n\r\n2.351.49 \r\n\r\n5.08 \r\n\r\n6.24 \r\n\r\n6.85 \r\n\r\n6.57 \r\n\r\n7.05 \r\n\r\n6.65 \r\n\r\n.50 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n.25 \r\n\r\n6.49 \r\n\r\n6.99 \r\n\r\n7.86 \r\n\r\n.09 \r\n\r\n2.05 \r\n\r\n2.20 \r\n\r\n15.53 \r\n\r\n18.40 \r\n\r\n16.58 \r\n\r\n1.85 \r\n\r\n1.92 \r\n42.65' \r\n\r\n1.67 \r\n\r\n36.  \".I \r\n\r\n42.06 \r\n\r\n87.79 \r\n\r\n88.25 \r\n\r\n87.49 \r\n\r\n24.03 \r\n\r\n20.50 \r\n\r\n17.50 \r\n\r\n114.48 \r\n\r\n131.09 \r\n\r\n137.66 \r\n\r\n30.05 \r\n\r\n36. eo \r\n\r\n32.94 \r\n\r\n256.35 \r\n\r\n276.64 \r\n\r\n275.  5'J \r\n\r\n9  39.36 \r\n\r\n\r\n73.13 \r\n\r\n51.37 \r\n\r\n126.96 \r\n\r\n457.07 \r\n\r\n49.0  3 \r\n\r\n75.05 \r\n\r\n52.71 \r\n\r\n143.59 \r\n\r\n482.47 \r\n\r\n41.47 \r\n\r\n75.50 \r\n\r\n49.10 \r\n\r\n142.64 \r\n\r\n490.58 \r\n\r\n38.34 \r\n\r\n758.36 \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n795. 2? \r\n,406.62 \r\n\r\n796,16 \r\n\r\n4,134.66 \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,404.66 \r\n\r\n4.134.66 \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n406.62 \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n404 .66 \r\n\r\n82.83 \r\n\r\n60.  59 \r\n293.58 \r\n\r\n60.08 \r\n\r\n346.94 \r\n\r\n357.19 \r\n\r\n4,564.4  3 \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n780.79 \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n821.93 \r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR. ,    RSCH.    \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.    ADM.    OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE    ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR    FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME    FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE    ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL   6   TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL    \u0026    TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  J  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.    ADM.    OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE    ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR    FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME    FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE    ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL    \u0026   TECH- REGULAR \r\nCI.ERICAL    6    TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  C    TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  6  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR   AND    OTHER \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV..  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.    ADM.    OFFICERS \r\nSTUDENT    PERSONNEL   OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE    ASSITANTS \r\nCLERICAL    \u0026    TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL    £.    TECH-STUDENTS \r\nF.I.C.A.,    GR.    INS.    t    RETIREMENT \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,085,006 \r\n\r\n375,737 \r\n\r\n30,833,438 \r\n\r\n533,831 \r\n\r\n301,445 \r\n\r\n1,897,907 \r\n252,733 \r\n\r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  1,24  3,760 \r\n360.727 \r\n33,124,421 \r\n479.927 \r\n327,849 \r\n2,079,891 \r\n289, 352 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,375,543 \r\n381,412 \r\n35,990,242 \r\n434,360 \r\n379,533 \r\n2,375,796 \r\n287,485 \r\n\r\n\r\nS  35,280,097 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n37 \r\n\r\n,905,930 \r\n\r\n$41 \r\n\r\n,224,371 \r\n\r\n$          112,703 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n137,614 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n157,523 \r\n\r\n97,380 \r\n\r\n102,808 \r\n\r\n115,250 \r\n\r\n9,201 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n4,500 \r\n\r\n53,605 \r\n\r\n60,730 \r\n\r\n73,751 \r\n\r\n873 \r\n\r\n12,159 \r\n\r\n16,627 \r\n\r\n111,931 \r\n\r\n139,225 \r\n\r\n135,699 \r\n\r\n7,608 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,161 \r\n460,697 \r\n\r\n7,787 \r\n\r\n$         393.801 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n511,142 \r\n\r\n$     1,161,776 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,170,294 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n,269,753 \r\n\r\n198.745 \r\n\r\n207, 312 \r\n\r\n230,768 \r\n\r\n699,841 \r\n\r\n817,795 \r\n\r\n950,929 \r\n\r\n115, 27S \r\n\r\n143,059 \r\n\r\n135,206 \r\n\r\n$    2,175.(41 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n343,460 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n556,556 \r\n\r\n$  5,307,60.-1   S  5,813,775    5  6,428,023 \r\n\r\n\r\nS  1,626,986  $  1,670,565  $  1,814*512 \r\n\r\n725,205  752,590  780,961 \r\n\r\n1.599,806  1,800,597  1,989,586 \r\n\r\n3,059.332  3,207,305  3,642,184 \r\n\r\n171,555  150,859  142,661 \r\n\r\n4,075,835  4,663,513  4,956,971 \r\n\r\n$  11.259,719  $  12,253,429  $  13, 326,875 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n5  54,415,866 \r\n206,681 \r\n\r\n$  54,622. 547 \r\n\r\n$         873,984 \r\n\r\n$    4,292,543 \r\n\r\n$  59,789,074 \r\n\r\n\r\n$58,777,291  $64,046,967 \r\n\r\n21,537 \r\n\r\n(553,011)  (589,302) \r\n\r\n$  58,224, 250  $  63,480,202 \r\n\r\n$  848,609  $  704,903 \r\n\r\nS     3,723,940  $     4,545.422 \r\n\r\n$62,796,829  $68,730,527 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  £ \r\n\r\n\r\n.7 \r\n\r\n\r\n-31- \r\n\r\n\r\n/ \r\n\r\n\r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nG E NERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611   TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\n~~ ACTljAL \r\nFY   1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  485,923 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY   1977 \r\n\r\n\r\n5  686,483 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY    1978 \r\n\r\n\r\n712,066 \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  t  MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS  S.   MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,  WATER,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\n618  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  £  PRINTING \r\n\r\n619  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE    S    BONDING \r\n623  TUITION    \u0026    SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n627  OTHER   OPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n630  PER   DIEM    AND    FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$    143,681 \r\n\r\n2,430,547 \r\n\r\n589,429 \r\n\r\n743,600 \r\n\r\n3,096,147 \r\n\r\n278,320 \r\n\r\n725,887 \r\n\r\n101,891 \r\n\r\n396,641 \r\n\r\n1,049,975 \r\n\r\n347,572 \r\n\r\n5  9,903,698 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  157,001 \r\n2,673,069 \r\n579,956 \r\n801,337 \r\n3,355.460 \r\n286,540 \r\n791,281 \r\n145,120 \r\n352,798 \r\n371,927 \r\n249,050 \r\n\r\n$      9,763,539 \r\n\r\n\r\n5  139,430 \r\n\r\n2,575,762 \r\n750,167 \r\n909,114 \r\n3,772.300 \r\n301.527 \r\n802,442 \r\n133,297 \r\n380,965 \r\n496,702 \r\n191,163 \r\n\r\n$     10,452.869 \r\n\r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613      MOTOR   VEHICLE    EQUIPMENT \r\n626      EQUIPMENT \r\n626      BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$  99,934 \r\n\r\n1,110,427 \r\n\r\n1,537,548 \r\n\r\n$     2,747,909 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  64,781 \r\n\r\n873,161 \r\n\r\n1,648,398 \r\n\r\n$       2,586,340 \r\n\r\n\r\n53,140 \r\n824,256 \r\n\r\n1,681,365 \r\n\r\n2,558.761 \r\n\r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000      UNASSIGNED   BALANCE \r\n\r\n000      PERSONAL    SE.T/ICES    LAPSE    ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$13,137,530 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  360,268 \r\n\r\n$     5.158,153 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  18,655,951 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n78,047 \r\n553,011 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n631,058 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n,667,420 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n282,296 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n307,263 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n19 \r\n\r\n256,979 \r\n\r\n$  62,600      . \r\n\r\n588,302      i \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n650,902 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n14 \r\n\r\n374,598 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n319,567 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n5, \r\n\r\n573,606 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n20, \r\n\r\n267,771 \r\n\r\n-32- \r\n\r\n\r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nstudent  fees \r\nmatriculation \r\nnon-r££id£nt  tuition \r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL    STUDENT    FEES \r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL    APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS    fc    GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT   COST    RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES    \u0026    SERVICES    OF    EDUCATIONAL    DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER   SOURCES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n18,099,481 \r\n\r\n1,965,753 \r\n\r\n338,503 \r\n\r\n20,403,737 \r\n\r\n60,547 \r\n2,128 \r\n\r\n26,141 \r\n399,275 \r\n239,793 \r\n\r\n251cll§ \r\n\r\n21. 389. M 7 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   19,884,015 \r\n2,069,987 \r\n\r\n315,950 \r\n\r\nS   22.269,952 \r\n\r\n60,527 \r\n\r\n10,250 \r\n158,621 \r\n\r\n168,800 \r\n109. 8  SO \r\n\r\nS   22.778.000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   19,045,853 \r\n1,787,801 \r\n\r\n318,367 \r\n\r\n$   21,152,021 \r\n\r\n60,527 \r\n\r\n4,150 \r\n382,066 \r\n162,886 \r\n\r\n153.350 \r\n\r\nS   21.915.000 \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  (.    SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n733,695 \r\n284,024 \r\n216,533 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,234,252 \r\n\r\n\r\n67  3,200 \r\n314,504 \r\n143,201 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,130,905 \r\n\r\n\r\n524,411) \r\n338.771 \r\n161,291 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,024,470 \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS    i.    CONTRACTS    -    GOVERNMENTAL \r\nFEDERAL \r\nSTATE    t    LOCAL \r\nGRANTS    (.   CONTRACTS    -    NON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n7,595,614 \r\n1,077,651 \r\n\r\n777,431 \r\n\r\n9,450,696 \r\n\r\n\r\n8,142,364 \r\n349,981 \r\n538.858 \r\n\r\n9,031,203 \r\n\r\n\r\n8.027,539 \r\n1,082,672 \r\n1,008,817 \r\n\r\n\r\n10,119,028 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n\r\n$   32,073,995 \r\n46,371.030 \r\n\r\n\r\n§   32,940,108 \r\n49,113,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   33,058,498 \r\n55,939,800 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$   78,445,025 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   82,053,808 \r\n\r\n\r\n88,998,298 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n-33- \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n\r\nALBANY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n\"DTPArTMEMAL \r\nSERVICES     ' \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED\" \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n7* \r\n\r\n\r\n'TOTAL \r\n\r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n4,066,627 \r\n\r\n~66,773 \r\n\r\n4,853,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n90,558 \r\n3,486 \r\n\r\n\r\n94,04  4 \r\n\r\n\r\n894,198 \r\n1,105.802 \r\n\r\n2.000,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5, \r\n1, \r\n\r\n,051,383 \r\n\r\n,896,061 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n6, \r\n\r\n947,444 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n\r\n1,142,000 \r\n3,711,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n94,044 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,000,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,236,044 \r\n3,711,400 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n4,853,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n94,044 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,000,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,947,444 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nARMSTRONG  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\n\r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDtPARTMtKTAT \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL   SERVICES \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n4,026,298 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n40,000 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n46,710 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,113,008 \r\n\r\nOPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\nn in. fin? \r\n\r\n44.500. \r\n\r\n91.206 \r\n\r\n\u003cJf.fi.  inn \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n4,856,900 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n84, 500 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n137,916 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n5,079, 316 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL    REVENUE \r\nSTATE    APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,480,000 \r\n3, 376,900 \r\n\r\n4,856,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n84,500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n137,916 \r\n\r\nS \r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,702,416 \r\n3,376,900 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n84,500 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n137,916 \r\n\r\n5,079, 316 \r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n-35- \r\n\r\n\r\nAUGUSTA  COLLEGE \r\nBUOGET  SUMMARY \r\nFISCAL   YEAR   1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTJEPARTMrNTAC \r\n\r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nsponsor  nr \r\n\r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAT\" \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL   SERVICES \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n4,561,655 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n45,200 \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\n21,975 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4.628,830 \r\n\r\nOPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\n1.106,545 \r\n\r\n24,800 \r\n\r\n266,000 \r\n\r\n1, 397, 345 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n5.668,200 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n287.975 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6,026,175 \r\n\r\nIhTTERNAL    REVENUE \r\nSTATE   APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n2,00  5,000 \r\n3,663,200 \r\n\r\n5.668.200 \r\n\r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n287,975 \r\n\r\n\r\n287,975 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,362,975 \r\n\r\n3,663,200 \r\n\r\n6.026,175 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n-36- \r\n\r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n\r\nCOLUMBUS  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUOGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL   TEAR   1978 \r\n\r\n\r\n^  -  Ji \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n\"DEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n\"SPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAT- \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n6,491,400 \r\n1,579,700 \r\n\r\nfl, 071. 100 \r\n\r\n\r\n122,688 \r\n60,012 \r\n\r\n\r\n182,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n246,645 \r\n196,693 \r\n\r\n\r\n443, 330 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,860,933 \r\n\r\n1,836,405 \r\n\r\n(l,f.«\u003e7,  33H \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL    REVENUE \r\nSTATE   APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n\r\n2,729,000 \r\n5, 342,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n182,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n443,338 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,355,238 \r\n\r\n5,342,100 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n8,071,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n182,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n443,338 \r\n\r\n\r\n8.697,338 \r\n\r\n\r\n»« \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n¦37- \r\n\r\n\r\nFORT  VALLEY  STATE   COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUM-MARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL   YEAR   1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n\"iTrcATMTsTAT \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nTpTJnTUrTB  \" \r\n\r\noperations \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nOPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n4,436,730 \r\n\r\n1,062,670 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n19,480 \r\n10,779 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n984,553 \r\n1,015,447 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n5,440,763 \r\n\r\n2,088,996 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n5,499,400 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n30,259 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n2,000,000 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n7,529,659 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\nINTERNAL    REVENUE \r\nSTATE    APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,124,000 \r\n4,375,400 \r\n\r\n5,499,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n30,259 \r\n\r\n\r\n30.259 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,000,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,000,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,154,259 \r\n4,375,400 \r\n\r\n7,529,659 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n-38- \r\n\r\n\r\n•• \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1973 \r\n\r\n\r\ngenfral — \r\n\r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTjETAft7M£,\\TAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\n\r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n4.613,473 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n16,054 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n92,723 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,722,250 \r\n\r\nOPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\n1.090.427 \r\n\r\n25.646 \r\n\r\n152.268 \r\n\r\n1.268.541 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n5,703,900 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n41,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n244,991 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5.990,791 \r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n\r\n1,940,000 \r\n3,763,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n41,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n244,991 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.226,891 \r\n\r\n3,763,900 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n5,703,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n41,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n244,991 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    5,990,791 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nPERSONAL   SERVICES \r\nOPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\nINTERNAL    REVENUE \r\nSTATE   APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n\r\n-39- \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n9,383,740 \r\n\r\n1,937,960 \r\n\r\n11,321,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.010,000 \r\n8,311,700 \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n338,570 \r\n70,118 \r\n\r\n\r\n408,688 \r\n\r\n\r\n403,688 \r\n\r\n\r\nS?C\\S0k£D \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n586,284 \r\n682, COO \r\n\r\n\r\n1,268,284 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,263,284 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\n$   10,308,594 \r\n\r\n2,690,078 \r\n\r\n$   12.998,672 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,686,972 \r\n8,311,700 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n11,321,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n408,688 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,268,294 \r\n\r\n\r\n12,998,672 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n-40- \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHWESTERN  COLLEGE. \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\n\r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n/\\\u003c? \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n3,823,654 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11,893 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n152,291 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,987,838 \r\n\r\nOPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\n929,146 \r\n\r\n16. 306 \r\n\r\n239,560 \r\n\r\n1,187,012 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n4,752,800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n30, 199 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n391,851 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,174,850 \r\n\r\nINTERNAL    REVENUE \r\nSTATE   APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,060,000 \r\n3,692,800 \r\n\r\n4,752,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n30,199 \r\n\r\n\r\n30, 109 \r\n\r\n\r\n391,851 \r\n\r\n\r\n391,851 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,482,050 \r\n3,692,800 \r\n\r\n5, 174,850 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n-41- \r\n\r\n\r\nREVCfiUE \r\n\r\n\r\nNORTH  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET   SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR   1973 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTJlTaTomTnTaT \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPOriSORtO \r\n\r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n\"TUtaT \r\nBUDGE! \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,750.067 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n14,480 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n119,841 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n2,884. 388 \r\n\r\nOPERATING   EXPENSES \r\n\r\n684,533 \r\n\r\n9,500 \r\n\r\n254,900 \r\n\r\n?43.?33 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n3  jj  34^600 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n23^990 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n374,741 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n?,  833,321. \r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n815,000 \r\n2,619,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,434,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n23.980 \r\n\r\n\r\n2  3,930 \r\n\r\n\r\n374,741 \r\n\r\n\r\n374,741 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,213,721 \r\n2,619,600 \r\n\r\n,3,833,321 \r\n\r\n\r\n\\-#Mk\u0026y\u0026i*\u0026mt*\u0026*» \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENQITBRES \r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n-42- \r\n\r\n\r\ny \r\n\r\n\r\nSAVANNAH  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\n\r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n4.329,113 \r\n1,034,282 \r\n\r\n5,363,400 \r\n\r\n\r\nTJTPARTMtNTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n15,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n15,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n778,952 \r\n\r\n770,780 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,549,732 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\n5,108,070 \r\n1,820,002 \r\n\r\n6,923,132 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL   REVENUE \r\nSTATE   APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n\r\n1,400.000 \r\n3,963,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n15,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,549,732 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,964,732 \r\n\r\n3,963,400 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n5,363,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n15,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,549,732 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,928,132 \r\n\r\n\r\n±'i\u0026tetim*\u0026Gi£*i \r\n\r\n\r\nA^j'Vu'tfiiifei'^i-tfwC^ \r\n\r\n\r\n-*3- \r\n\r\n\r\nVALDOSTA  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\nFISCAL  YEAR   1973 \r\n\r\n\r\n\"    y \r\n\r\n\r\n- \r\n¦ \r\n\r\nSERVICES \r\nEXPENSES \r\n\r\nTURES \r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\n\r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\n\r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nPERSONAL  J \r\nOPERATING \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPEND \r\n\r\n5          6,539.763 \r\n\r\n1,471.237 \r\n\r\n$           8,011.000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n\\ \r\n\r\n5,780 \r\n37,220 \r\n\r\n43.000 \r\n\r\n$                246,900 \r\n313,100 \r\n\r\n$                560,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6,792,443 \r\n1,821.557 \r\n\r\n8,614.000 \r\n\r\nREYENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL   REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n5  2,670,000 \r\n\r\n5, 341,000 \r\n\r\n$  8,011.000 \r\n\r\n\r\n4  3 , 000 \r\n\r\n\r\n43,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n560,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n560,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  3,273,000 \r\n\r\n5,341,000 \r\n\r\n$  8, 614,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nWEST  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUV.MARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPC^OKtD- \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n'TAf A  i \r\n\r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n8,457.677 \r\nl.e6Q.723 \r\n\r\n\u003e£££L \r\n\r\n\r\n374,350 \r\n\r\n\r\n.200. \r\n\r\n\r\n8,832,027 \r\n?  .  1 4  fi .  c,  7  1 \r\n\r\nii  .i7fl.f,nn. \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\nINTERNAL    REVENUE \r\nSTATE   APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n2,540,000 \r\n7,778,400 \r\n\r\n10,318,403 \r\n\r\n\r\n860,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n860,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,400,200 \r\n7,778,400 \r\n\r\n11,178,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nBlack  institutions,  when  compared  to  the  similar  expenditure  for \r\nstudents  in  predominantly  white  senior  colleges,  is  reflective  of \r\nthe  actual  situation.  For  instance,  docs  the  pay  for  a  security \r\nguard  come  out  of  funds  allocated  for  the  personal  services  part \r\nof  the  budget,  and  how  is  this  expenditure  related  to  the  amount \r\nspent  for  instructional  purposes?  It  is  well  known  that  Black \r\nschools,  as  a  general  rule,  have  a  larger  security  force,  and \r\nbecause  of  this  and  other  unique  features  which  result  quite  often \r\nin  differences  in  the  nature  of  many  of  the  expenditures,  the \r\nsummary  statistics  which  show  the  expenditure  per  full-time  student \r\nin  Table  I-E-5  (reproduced  above)  and  elsewhere  in  section  B  of \r\nthe  G.R.P.  may  well  be  biased. \r\n\r\nWhat  is  clear  from  the  figures  provided  by  the  Board  of  Regents , \r\nhowever,  is  that  the  overall  budget  for  the  Black  schools,  taken \r\nas  a  whole,  compared  to  the  overall  budget  for  the  white  institutions, \r\ntaken  as  a  whole,  is  very  small. \r\n\r\nCur  Specific  Recommendations \r\n\r\nThe  following  recommendations  are  designed  to  stop  and  reverse \r\nthat  continuing  set  of  policies  which  is  nothing  more  than  a  legalised \r\nracist  scheme  with  the  objective  of  perpetuating  old,  overtly  segregationist \r\npolicies  in  newer,  more  subtle  forms.  Such  policies  continue  to  deny \r\nequal  access  tc  higher  education  to  the  Black  citizens  of  Georgia. \r\nV/e  realize  full  well  that  these  recommendations  raise  all  manner  of \r\nphilosophical  and  practical  questions.   But  the  eradication  of \r\nsuch  a  pervasive  evil  as  institutional  racism  necessarily  involves \r\n\r\n\r\n-46- \r\n\r\n\r\na  profound  reconsideration  of  the  philosophical  base  upon  which  its \r\nassumptions  of  human  inequality  rest.  It  is  in  this  spirit  that  we \r\noffer  these  specific  recommendations: \r\n\r\n1.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  general  policy  of \r\n\"open  admissions.\"   All  Georgia  citizens  who  have  earned \r\na  high-school  diploma  and/or  a  G.S.D,  certificate  shall \r\n\"be  eligible  for  admission  to  any  and  all  institutions  of \r\nhigher  learning  in  the  state  system.  Admission  to  one  of \r\nthe  institutions  within  the  state  system  means  admission \r\nto  all  of  them.   Admission  standards  shall  be  uniform  and \r\nuniformly  applied  with  no  elitist  criteria  at  any  level. \r\n\r\n2.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  development  cf  a  four- \r\nyear  institution  with  graduate  and  professional  degree- \r\ngranting  capacity  in  Facon,  Georgia.   This  institution \r\nshall  be  made  up  of  the  present  administration,  faculty \r\nand  staff  of  what  is  now  Fort  Valley  State  College.   It \r\nshall  maintain  all  of  its  present  courses  of  instruction \r\nand  present  degree-granting  capacity  in  all  areas  with \r\nthe  exception  of  those  in  the  division  of  agriculture. \r\n\r\nThis  institution  shall  have  priority  funding  and  immediately \r\nbegin  to  expand  its  programmatic  offerings,  upon  opening, \r\nconsistent  with  the  needs  of  the  general  service  area. \r\nIt  shall  be  called  Macon  State  College  and  shall  be  the \r\nonly  state  institution  of  higher  learning  offering  bacca- \r\nlaureate, graduate  and  professional  training  in  the  Macon \r\nmetropolitan  area.   (Kef.  HZ'.,'  Guidelines,  p.  17,  section  I, \r\nsubsections  A,  E,  D,  and  H) \r\n\r\n3.  That  Fort  Valley  State  College  shall  continue  to  offer \r\ninstruction,  grant  degrees,  and  conduct  research  in  the \r\nareas  of  agriculture,  forestry,  and  animal  science.  The \r\npresent  facility  in  the  division  of  agriculture  shall \r\nbecome  the  core  of  an  expanded  program  of  offerings  in \r\nagriculture  and  related  areas  of  instruction.   In  addition, \r\nthe  school  of  military  science  now  located  at  the  Athens \r\ncampus  cf  the  University  of  Georgia  shall  be  transferred \r\nto  the  Fort  Valley  facility.   This  institution  shall  have \r\npriority  funding  and  shall  be  called  the  Fort  Valley \r\nAgricultural  and  Mechanical  State  University.   (Ref.  HEW \r\nGuidelines,  pp.  17-21,  section  I,  subsections  A,  B,  D \r\n\r\nand  H) \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n-47- \r\n\r\n\r\n4.  That  the  Board  of  Regents  reverse  its  decision  to  elevate \r\nKennesav  Junior  College  to  the  level  of  a  four-year  senior \r\ncollege,   (Ref.  HEW  Guidelines,  p.  19,  section  I,  subsection \r\nE). \r\n\r\n5.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  development  of  a  single \r\nuniversity-level  institution  in  the  Savannah  metropolitan \r\narea  which  shall  \"be  called  Savannah  State  University. \r\n\r\nThe  present  administration,  faculty  and  staff  of  Savannah \r\nState  College  shall  make  up  the  core  personnel  cf  this \r\ninstitution.   It  shall  be  the  only  baccalaureate,  graduate \r\nand  professional  degree-granting  institution  within  the \r\nservice  area  and  shall  have  priority  in  the  establishment \r\nof  new  program  offerings  and  funding.   In  addition,  all \r\nresearch,  teaching  and  other  educational  entities  operated \r\nnow  in  the  general  service  area,  by  the  university  System \r\nof  Georgia  shall  come  under  its  immediate  administrative \r\njurisdiction.   This  includes  the  Skidaway  Institute  of \r\nOceanography  and  all  other  such  facilities.   (ftef.  HEW \r\nGuidelines,  pp.  17-21,  section  I,  subsections  A,  B,  D, \r\nand  H) \r\n\r\n6.  That  the  state  continue  to  commit  itself  to  the  development \r\nand  expansion  of  a  single  university-level  institution  in \r\n\r\nthe  Albany  area  which  shall  be  called  Albany  State  University. \r\nIt  shall  be  the  only  baccalaureate,  graduaxe  and  professional \r\ndegree-granting  institution  within  the  service  area  and \r\nshall  have  priority  in  the  establishment  of  new  program \r\nofferings  and  funding.   (Kef.  HEW  Guidelines,  pp.  17-21, \r\nsection  I,  subsections  A,  B,  D,  and  H) \r\n\r\n7.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  transformation  cf  its \r\npresent  junior  college  system  into  a  system  of  community \r\ncolleges  controlled  by  locally  elected,  boards.   The  Board \r\nof  Regents  of  the  state  shall  exercise  control  over  these \r\ninstitutional  entities  in  budgetary  matters  involving \r\nfederal  and  state  funds  and  in  areas  where  transfer  credits \r\nare  concerned.  These  institutions,  as  well  as'  all  of  the \r\nother  public  institutions  of  higher  education  in  the  state, \r\nshall  be  opened  to  all  citizens  who  hold  a  high-school \r\ndiploma  or  a  G.E.D,  certificate.   (Ref.  HEW  Guidelines, \r\n\r\np.  20,  section  I,  subsection  F) \r\n\r\n8.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  development  and  expansion \r\nof  what  is  now  the  predominantly  Black  Atlanta  Junior \r\nCollege.   AJC  shall  become  a  community  college  under  the \r\nimmediate  and  direct  jurisdiction  of  a  locally  elected \r\nboard  from  the  municipality  of  Atlanta.   It  shall  be  the \r\nonly  two-year  degree-granting  institution  within  the  city. \r\n\r\n\r\n-48-  ' \r\n\r\n\r\nAll  two-year  degrees  granted,  \"by  the  University  System \r\nof  Georgia  in  Atlanta  shall  cone  from  Atlanta  Community \r\nCollege.   To  this  end  the  School  of  General  Studies  of \r\nGeorgia  State  University  shall  be  transferred  to  the  AJC \r\ncampus.   (lief.  HEW  Guidelines,  pp.  l?-19i  section  I,  sub- \r\nsections A,  B,  and  C) \r\n\r\n9.   That  the  state  commit  itself  to  preserving  and  enhancing \r\nthrough  priority  funding  those  programs  and  courses  of \r\nstudy  presently  in  operation  at  predominantly  Black  state \r\ninstitutions  which  have  as  their  focus  an  understanding \r\nof  the  Black  experience.   This  ethnic  curricular  orientation \r\nshall  serve  as  a  model  for  curricular  offerings  tliroughout \r\nthe  University  System  to  ensure  that  the  ethnic  diversity \r\nof  the  state  is  both  reflected  and  respected  in  the  program- \r\nmatic offerings  in  the  state  system  of  higher  education. \r\n(Ref.  HIT..'  Guidelines,  p.  19 1  section  I,  subsection  D) \r\n\r\nThese  specific  recommendations  come  from  our  understanding  of \r\n\r\nthe  history  and  the  present  operation  of  the  University  System  of \r\n\r\nGeorgia.   They  were  refined  in  our  discussions  with  the  drafting \r\n\r\ncommittee  of  the  Board  of  Regents.   The  full  texts  of  our  formal \r\n\r\npresentations  to  the  committee  on  this  section  of  the  HEW  Guidelines \r\n\r\n(section  i)  are  contained  in  appendices  I,  II,  and  III  of  this  document. \r\n\r\nII.   DESEGREGATION  OF  STUDENT  EKROLIKENT \r\n\r\nThis  section  is  concerned  with  the  implementation  of  those \r\nspecific  provisions  set  forth  within  the  KEW  Guidelines  pertaining \r\nto  the  desegregation  of  student  enrollment  in  the  Adams  states  in \r\ngeneral  and  in  the  state  of  Georgia  in  particular,   '.r'e  will  proceed, \r\nas  we  did  in  the  previous  section,  by  evaluating  the  Georgia  Regents' \r\nPlan  and  then  by  offering  our  own  specific  recommendations.   Of \r\ncourse,  these  will  come  from  our  own  perspective  as  concerned  citizens \r\nof  the  state. \r\n\r\n\r\n-49- \r\n\r\n\r\nWe  regard  the  chain  of  events  of  which  the  \\VZi\\   Guidelines  are \r\npart  as  a  necessary  process  that  will  lead  us  to  increased  quality \r\nand  availability  of  higher  education  in  the  state  of  Georgia.   Gur \r\n\"basic  arguments  on  the  question  of  the  relationship  betwen  quality \r\neducation  and  open  admissions  are  contained  in  appendices  V  and  VI \r\nof  this  document.   It  is  our  basic  contention  that  standardized \r\ntests  and  the  policies  that  call  for  their  use  are  the  critical \r\nmechanisms  that  maintain  the  elitist  and  racially  exclusionary \r\npractices  of  the  colleges  within  the  University  System  of  Georgia. \r\nThese  policies  and  the  practices  that  result  from  them  serve  to \r\nexclude  Black  and  poor  people  from  certain  of  these  colleges  in \r\nthree  major  ways:   (l)  \"by  denying  them  admission  to  these  colleges, \r\n\r\n(2)  \"by  trapping  them  into  punitive  non-credit  remedial  programs,  and \r\n\r\n(3)  \"by  denying  them  graduation.   All  of  these  discriminatory  policie: \r\nand  practices  are  carried  out  through  the  use  of  standardized \r\ntesting. \r\n\r\nThe  H3»  Guidelines  state:   \"An  acceptable  plan  shall  commit \r\nthe  state  to  the  goal  of  assuring  that  the  system  as  a  whole  and \r\neach  institution  within  the  system  rrovicV  an  e^rual  educational \r\nopportunity,  are  open  and  accessible  to  all  students,  and  operate \r\nwithout  regard  to  race  and  on  a  desegregated  basis\"  (KEVJ  Guidelines, \r\nsection  II,  p.  22,  emphasis  added). \r\n\r\nTo  this  the  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  System  of \r\nGeorgia  responds  in  the  following  manner:   \"Institutions  of  the \r\n\r\n\r\nUniversity  System  are  open  and  accessible  to  all  students  with \r\nadmissions  predicated  totally  on  academic  criteria.  The  institutions \r\noperate  without  regard  to  race\"  (G.R.F. ,  Section  II,  p.  2),   Seldom \r\ndo  racists  or  racist  policymakers  willingly  admit  to  their  racism \r\nor  the  racist  nature  of  the  policies  which  they  tear  the  responsibility \r\nof  making.  The  only  valid  manner  in  which  a  determination  can  be \r\nmade  as  to  the  racist  nature  of  a  given  policy  or  set  of  policies \r\nis  by  assessing  the  objective  consequences  of  their  implementation. \r\nTherefore,  the  real  question  presents  itself  to  us  as  this:   To  what \r\nextent  do  these  \"academic  criteria\"  result  in  the  exclusion  of \r\nBlack  and  other  minority  people  from  the  institutions  of  higher \r\neducation  in  Georgia?  Put  another  way,  to  what  extent  are  the \r\n\"academic  criteria\"  themselves  racist? \r\n\r\nThe  approaches  to  the  problem  of  desegregating  student  enrollment \r\nin  the  G.R.P.  are  based  upon  the  faulty  assumption  that  admissions \r\nto,  retention  within,  and  graduation  from  the  institutions  of  the \r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia  rest  solely  upon  \"academic  criteria\" \r\nwhich  are  \"race  independent\"  (G.R.P.  language,  Section  II,  p.  l). \r\nSo  long  as  the  racist  and  elitist  policies  and  practices  remain \r\ncamouflaged  in  such  concepts,  the  problem  will  continue  to  exist. \r\nTheir  failure  to  understand  the  fundamental  nature  of  the  problem \r\nwith  which  we  are  dealing  raises  serious  questions  about  the  capacity \r\nof  the  Board  of  Regents  and  their  staff  to  meaningfully  address  it. \r\nCertainly  the  G.R.P.  is  woefully  inadequate  in  this  regard. \r\n\r\n\r\n¦51- \r\n\r\n\r\nFurtherrnore ,  it  goes  without  saying  that  any  plan  to  seriously \r\ndesegregate  the  student  body  of  a  university  system  with  such  a \r\nvivid  and  dramatic  history  of  continuing  segregationist  and  elitist \r\neducational  policies  as  that  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia \r\nmust  be  more  than  a  mere  plan.   An  undertaking  of  this  magnitude \r\nand  complexity  not  only  requires  a  basic  understanding  of  the \r\npervasive  nature  of  the  problem,  but  of  necessity  it  also  requires \r\na  conscious  commitment  by  the  state  to  divest  itself  fully  of  all \r\nvestiges  of  segregation  and  its  latter-day,  more  subtle  counterpart, \r\nelitism.   This  is  a  task  that  goes  to  the  root  of  many  philosophical \r\nquestions  that  we  face  in  education  today.   As  we  begin  our  analysis \r\nof  some  of  these  questions  and  their  bearing  upon  the  question  of \r\nthe  desegregation  of  student  enrollment,  our  most  essential  concern \r\nis  the  citizen's  democratic  right  to  seek  and  gain  public  higher \r\neducation. \r\n\r\nThe  Problem  of  Undergraduate  Studjent,  I'lnrollnent  Pro jectior.s \r\nTable  II-A-2  of  the  G.R.P.  (reproduced  below)  shows,  in  rough \r\napproximation,  the  ratio  of  Black  to  white  high-school  graduates \r\nwithin  the  state.   This  information  provides  the  basis  for  the  goal \r\nof  at  least  3^  £la.ck  enrollment  in  the  University  System.   This \r\nis  a  goal  we  accept,  with  the  stipulation  that  it  is  not  regarded \r\nas  an  upper  limit.  V,re  see  this  figure  as  a  minimum  numerical  goal. \r\nHowever,  Table  II-A-3  of  the  G.R.P.  (reproduced  below),  after  projecting \r\na  total  student  enrollment  of  1^2,000  for  the  University  System \r\nby  1982,  projects  a  Elack  enrollment  of  only  29 i500  \"by  that  same \r\n\r\n\r\n-52- \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  II-A-2 \r\n\r\n\r\n1976  Georgia  Hifch  School  Graduates \r\n\r\n\r\nBlack \r\nWhite \r\nTotal \r\n\r\n\r\nHSG* \r\n18,456 \r\n41,292 \r\n59,748 \r\n\r\n\r\n% \r\n\r\n\r\n31 \r\n69 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n\r\nBased  on \r\n\r\n\r\n177   of  184* \r\n\r\n\r\nSchool  Systems \r\n\r\n\r\nHSG  _%_ \r\n\r\nBlack  18,500         30  Based  on  the  assumption \r\n\r\nWhite  42,559         70  that  white  graduates \r\n\r\nTotal  61,059**       100         comprise  the  preponder- \r\n\r\nance of  the  totals  from \r\npublic  and  private  systems \r\nwhere  racial  information \r\nis  currently  unavailable. \r\n\r\n\r\n*Source:   OCR  Individual  School  Campus  Report:   Form  OS/CR  102 \r\n^'Includes  all  others:   HSG  includes  \"also  remaining  students  from \r\nsystems  where  racial  information  unavailable. \r\n\r\n\r\n*There  are  183  systems  however  4  systems  do  not  have  a  graduating  senior  class. \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\no \r\n\r\n»— \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nL.' \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nS3 \r\nU\u003e     i- \r\n\r\n--     C \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n0 \r\nl-J \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCT-      l_ \r\n•-•     t \r\n\r\n~*    •-» \r\n\r\n-  o \r\n\r\n« \r\nfa. \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\n—  o \r\n\r\n\r\nSi \r\n\r\n\r\n•1    t \r\n\r\n\r\n—  O \r\n\r\n\r\n— •    b \r\n\r\n\r\n« \r\nfa. \r\n\r\n\r\n—  o \r\n\r\n\r\n\"'       O     T     ¦•?    ~ \r\n\r\n\"J     O     *T     O    O \r\n\r\no  m*  _•  ^:  - \r\n\r\n\r\ne  —  o\u003e  ft \r\n\r\n^     «T  f  vl \r\n\r\nin    C'  O  O \r\n\r\nft    iO  ft  c \r\n\r\n«-«  in \r\n\r\n\r\n©     O    \u003c-\u003c    m  o \r\n\r\n\"   «n  o  ¦»  e \r\n\r\n\r\ng     O    •»    c»  ,n \r\n\r\n°    o   o  o  ,.-\u003e \r\n\r\n•\"¦•  ft  ^. \r\n\r\n\r\nS  O  \u003c*\u003e  c»  «•\u003e \r\n\r\n^ »E \r\n\r\n\"t  »    O  J   - \r\n\r\n.•T  *    *  *    * \r\n\r\n**  ft    o  ft    O \r\n\r\n\r\nr*  o  in  in  o    r-   »t        3    „-i  ,-.  I  r. \r\n\r\nC*  »n  CO  CO  P~     oft  o       3*     C*  O I  r\"^  r^     «V \r\n\r\n\"  \"  -  - J  •  .. \r\n\r\n*\"\u003e  nC  ft  (\"ft  t£    ft  —     ft    in  *£\u003e)  c*  f^    ^ \r\n\r\n\r\ne*iv.yinoftftinr~»nc\u003e \r\nCO  w*\u003e  .n  r-  uft  —  —  wOio \r\n»ncOftcovcftOC\u003er.r-\\r\"* \r\n\r\n»     *     *  »     .     .     »  . \r\n\r\nn  r%  «»         ft  ^   r«  „         ^ \r\n\r\n\r\ninOOfaftOCDftO^      0O\"-i \r\n\r\nvft— •ftO'-itn—.r.    o   oi  w \r\ni^r*f\u003e^vff\\(s^  w   -^   x \r\n\r\n\r\no   %rt \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nI*    m   o \r\n\r\n*n    CD \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\nrr \r\n\r\nO    \u003c-* \r\n\r\nO    r\u003c \r\n\r\no    O \r\n\r\n\"4 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\na*  a   t£ \r\n\r\nr\u003e*    q \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nc-. \r\n\r\nO   r» \r\n\r\nc    ~ \r\n\r\nm  r* \r\n\r\n¦—1 \r\n\r\n*-i \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003c-•  o  y^ \r\n\r\nO    r* \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nO    Q \r\n\r\n£  O  r*  *n  0 \r\n•*  \\D  n\u003e  cn  ^ \r\n^*  in  o  w  J\" \r\n\r\n\r\nE?    O    O    \\£\u003e \r\n\r\n£    ^     ^    V \r\n\r\n¦^  *\u003e•  o  o \r\n\r\n\r\nOD \r\n\r\n\r\nr«    ,* \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c*i    CD    O    O    O    J)    — \u003c    O  r*     00»£ \r\n\r\nntncu^^cD^trtO    c^r*r^ \r\n\r\n\r\nO    tf\\    *T    \\S*    r+    *~\\    f^     o \r\n\r\nr*    r^    T    r-    —    j^    fn    wT \r\n\r\n\r\nif    O    T3 \r\n\r\n\r\nin  »n   m   ^ \r\n\r\n\r\n,-4  ^^•-'OOOccinmoOL^ \r\n\r\nr^  \u003cNr^riv5rs*r*\u003e^fN^HfNu-»i1n \r\n\r\n\r\nrr   r+    «r \r\n\r\nin    \u003c\u003e   n \r\n—•  r*    r* \r\n\r\n\r\nO    *T    *f\u003e    r+    in \r\n\r\n\r\n0*     IN \r\n\r\n\r\no  ~-« \r\n\r\n\r\n*^    r-i     ^h    O \r\n\r\n\r\no  o  a \r\n2  o  o \r\n\r\n\r\nO  \\X)  *N    C \r\n\r\nP»    P»    n    ij  ih  O    *J \r\n\r\nCT\u003e    CD    O    r~  fn  in    o \r\n\r\n\u003cn   »n   r*   ^i  \"tv \r\n\r\n\r\no  o  _   ©  ^ \r\n\r\nS  \"  P  °  v \r\n\r\n^  *N    \\Q    r*    o \r\n\r\n\r\ng   O    r-    vn  ^ \r\n°  r-    M   p*   -. \r\n\r\n\r\nO    -•    o.   „ \r\n\r\nO    —    O    ^, \r\n\r\n\r\nft   ff   ft  ^, \r\n\r\n\r\n¦\"  O    m   a    — \r\n1-1  O    \u003eT    O    ri \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c^  -*    10    ft \r\n\r\n\r\n5  o   a   -v  ri \r\n\r\n\r\n0  O  n  ^  „ \r\n\r\nJ\"  O  ft  as  n \r\n\r\n01  ft    \u003c^   ft   ^ \r\n\r\n\r\nJ^1  O  iTI  CD  u\"i \r\n°  CO  r-i  .-i  r-. \r\n•*  M   \u003e0   ft*  o \r\n\r\n\r\ni0 \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no  o  r- \r\n\r\n1»      TT     — . \r\n\r\n^h    \\D     w    ^     O \r\n\r\n\r\nO    O    iT\u003e    O \r\n\r\n\r\nO     C*^    O    CO     J \r\n\r\n\"'     m5    C     C     C \r\n\r\n•^  O    o  c \r\n\r\n\r\nCD  O  n  o  o  P» \r\nr*  r-  c~\u003e  C  o  in \r\nr*    ri    r-    c^    O    O \r\n\r\n\r\no  o  c?  o  -- \r\nO  ^*  T  in  r \r\n*n    r:    cc    ^r   r~ \r\n\r\n\r\nr^^-itnr^mvijrN    — «  c#  in  i/ \r\n\r\n\r\nc  o  *r  o  o  r*  in \r\nen  r»  r^  o  -7  c-  r- \r\n\u003c— i  r*    \u003cn   ^j   r^    c*\\   r^- \r\n\r\n\r\nO   r*    r\u003c   in   c \r\n\r\n\r\nr*    m    rs*   «h \r\n\r\n\r\nOOtT'OOrNC^o^, \r\n\r\nOOOOXOfCD^ \r\nC\u003e-3*n'*^r'r-inf™' \r\n\r\n\r\n*n  O  ^r \r\n^  c  r* \r\nin   \u003cj.  r- \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cN    Ti    (-^  ^, \r\n\r\n\r\n^OOOOOOin,^ \r\nvro,\"^*n».^pfc-vr~r-. \r\n\r\n\r\nM  o  »r \r\n\r\n\r\n»  «fl  N  (O  O \r\n\u003cw  r*  r«  a\u003e  ~* \r\n0*n*n*-4r^    ^   ^   «j \r\n\r\n\r\nc^    *-i \r\n\r\nT   cc \r\n\r\n\r\n©OOOOOOOr^     \u003cNOO \r\n\r\nO^XCCO^'-inr*     'VOw; \r\n— «'\"'\u003eovcr\u003c*nr«*7fB    oo*t \r\n\r\n\r\n*n-Oi-^OcDO'-*c*''s*— *o\u003e^\" \r\n\r\nOOONN'NfliOv!    ^    o    fl \r\n\r\n*     *     *  «...  .J \r\n\r\nr^*-\u003ev  n  in  h   h  ^ \r\n\r\n\r\nC\u003e*rr.o3r^3inoo'^ \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n'•    o   ^i    w^»    -»    .n    ^   m    »n    cJ    £     i\u003e  ft   — \r\n\r\nW  •¦!     ^*     ^^  *\u003c     »\"l    \"*     ^      *^     ^*     — ¦ \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nO         r» \r\n\r\n\r\n—  t^   \u0026 \r\n\r\nr*    ~    \u0026 \r\n¦—»    ^    i— i \r\n\r\n\r\nvcr»nr^inco*n«TO \r\n\r\nv**    \u003c^;     P*     w^    ^\u003e    ^\u003e    ^\"t    r-!     r^ \r\n\r\n\r\nC^    «T     O \r\n\r\n^     \"T     C \r\n\r\ncr*  o   J\"\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n— .  — .    ^-.    — ,    w~i      r«  _ \r\n\r\n\r\n^•^\"f^D*Nini-\u003e*nvoo \r\n\r\ninr-ic*\u003e«0^£'NXr^^^w^O \r\n\r\nn  CD    o   »^   \"*\u003e  «         ^^n»»^o \r\n\r\n\r\nO    ^   f^    o \r\n\r\n*^    C     V     k\"1 \r\n\r\n»n   r\u003c   ^    ^ \r\n\r\n\r\nO0O*no*^r^o^ \r\n\r\n\r\nO  O  ^  in  o  r-  o \r\nC  ^  i/i  r^  O  O  C \r\nr*   t0     -»     O   **\u003e   V   O \r\n\r\n\r\n(Nr^r^  ,-.    ^    ^  ^^^u-^n,-,^ \r\n\r\n\r\n'¦*  O  r*  «-t \r\n\r\n•  %  •  ¦ \r\n\r\n*  *«  P4  ^ \r\n\r\n\r\nCi    O \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr. \r\n\r\n^- \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCD   *r \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nv \r\n\r\nCO     *7 \r\n\r\n»n \r\n\r\n(T \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\n*n \r\n\r\nr*    r»i \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\n(\"N \r\n\r\n^4 \r\n\r\n^J \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nrx    o \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n*n \r\n\r\nf-\\ \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nMl \r\n\r\n*n    o \r\n\r\n*n \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n*r \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n-^  — -\"      — «     —\u003c     U~'        \u003c\"¦\u003c      »-t     ^™ \r\n\r\n\r\nCCCD^^O    —    --iNOOfN^^iin \r\n\r\n**»0^^ininrNcc\u003c--io*nr*    r4    or- \r\n\r\n\r\n•^  kn,-'*'OinooooiPinin \r\n\r\n^  0'~^r^f^'*,ifcnr^v.^^lln \r\n\r\n*..  .*.  ... \r\n\r\n\r\nu-\u003e     O    O    V \r\n\r\n^.    O   m   -r \r\n^    O    ^   v    *n \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc-       o \r\n\r\n0i  »n \r\n\r\n\r\nC*  c+  1-1 1 \r\n\r\n\r\n•^  —»         *^         -^ \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\ncr. \r\n\r\n\r\n«rr^oinr-*mr-^Ha\u003einin»n \r\n*-iifir^oOTii)r-\u003erNin'-»r«' \r\n\r\n\r\nn  n  as  iri \r\ncn  c^  -h  r^ \r\nin    O    O    T \r\n\r\n\r\n'\"•'**'•-\u003c  .M*-*^^vr4^^^^ \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  n   -t   o   r-  p* \r\nrn   r*    v    — »    '\"*»   »-i \r\n\r\n\r\n\"*\u003ecfcooo    ot^r-iDin \r\n\r\nSfNc^inT    ^r-inr*,. \r\n\r\n-«    -h    h    (N     p^^-r^^r^ \r\n\r\n\r\nOOOtAOOOOOOO    rvjincoc \r\n\r\n*ninc--*c*'r»o«Nrsiu-'o    —   —   o  -^  c \r\n\r\no*\"or,*r^Tx^r'TOi.i    c^cr*\"T,-^in \r\n\r\n-\"*  ...  ....... \r\n\r\n\u003cNr«c\u003c  ^z-,^,  ^^^     —    r*^^, \r\n\r\n\r\nrN  i— i \r\n\r\n\r\n^y   C'   .t   r- \r\n\r\n\r\ntnr-incDOtnor- \r\n\r\n\r\nin   — •   o   \u003c— »   r\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nH^cr«n,Nr\u003cr\u003c^ \r\n\r\n\r\nO     fN \r\n\r\nJ      O     w \r\n\r\n\r\nri^.  ^^^t^^^yrM^^ \r\n\r\n\r\ncoooinminrjoinoo \r\nin    in    ^    r\u003c    — i    CD    r*    c-    r^    —  r- \r\n\r\n\r\nc-  co  o  O \r\n*r  m  cc  o \r\n^r   r\u003e*   rn   ^-. \r\n\r\n\r\nmoo \r\n\r\nin  o \r\n\r\nc* \r\n\r\n'•\"'   O   in  in  o  «n \r\n\r\n^n \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nc- \r\n\r\n^*  o  c \r\n\r\n5  in \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\nZi    ^-i    c    f  \u003c    O  f*- \r\n\r\n— , \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no   \u003c-»   r* \r\n\r\nO    rsi \r\n\r\n\" \r\n\r\nW     *r     r-v    O    »r  r-\u003e \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nkTl \r\n\r\nr\u003c \r\n\r\n.'  -*    r-    — .  ^\u003c    ri     ^,  ^,    „,    ^,  , \r\n\r\n\r\ncd        (flfj^HnoT-\u003cftoir^ifio\"i/i \r\nft  ft«  n~i  ^.^^^ft^ \r\n\r\n\r\nrr    r^    c* \r\nft    CO    o \r\n\r\n—  4       — • \r\n\r\n\r\nf1  \"  ^  ftO  crOvDto \r\n»h  3  ft  a  c  — •  *^  u^.  cc \r\n~*    ~    -*   ~*  r*     ^rfNi-i \r\n\r\n\r\nin  OOOtnor-inoooo^     OO^O \r\n\r\nV  OOOOOftr~ouftOO(—      Klomo \r\n\r\nun  ^ftOvfiftftOT'^^'-iTl-OOftv \r\n\r\ni-\u003e  f\u003e.ft-\u003c  .-.\u003c-!_  -\u003c-\u003crtnft__, \r\n\r\n\r\nf^ftp*^OftCDO«TO'^^VO^-\u003cCC \r\nft   ^    - '^*\u003e'^r,-OX'P^Ov»rooo'\"4 \r\n\r\n*»  »»  ...... \r\n\r\nft«-»  r^^\u003c  «    —    ^    —,    r*    ^-. \r\n\r\n\r\nco-*\u003c~*C,r~_#r.oj\"*ft    C0Ci-\"i \r\n\r\nW-«ft-\u003c  _    _»    _    ^-    „     .-,    r,    ,— \r\n\r\n\r\nO  ft  ft \r\n\r\nO  «H  ^H \r\n\r\n\r\noft \r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n\r\nuft \r\n\r\n\r\non \r\n¦n \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\neft \r\n\r\n\r\n¦o \r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\ncs \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\no      w\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  CO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nin  r\u003e         \u003cn       rx \r\n\r\nr~  tO  .in \r\n\r\n»  O  \u003c¦* \r\n\r\n\r\n—  3 \r\n\r\n0  - \r\n\r\nc  —i \r\n\r\nX  - \r\n\r\no  * \r\n\r\nb  C \r\n\r\n\r\n0     \u003cB \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nt    -- \r\n\r\n3   r \r\n\r\nw     o \r\n\r\n—    »i \r\n\r\n\r\n--« \r\n\u003e.  ty \r\n\r\n-  o \r\n\r\nr     b \r\n\r\nw   c \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\n\u003e    \u003ew \r\n\r\n—  o \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nV.    U \r\n\r\n\r\nC-     3 \r\n\r\n»•    o \r\n\r\nC    uft \r\n\r\n\r\n0   \"0 \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c^* \r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nII \r\nc  — \r\n\r\nC  '- \r\n\r\nt    o \r\n—  o \r\n\r\no    n \r\n(J  ~ \r\n\r\nb    ¦\u003e  . \r\n^    -J- \r\n\r\n\u003c/l     c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e¦    w \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nCT \r\n\r\nb \r\n\r\n«•  -« \r\nc  o \r\nt  o \r\n\r\n\r\nb     b \r\n\r\nc-  rr \r\n\r\n\r\no   .-   -¦   -. \r\n\r\n\r\n61  cr \r\n\r\n—  0 \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr   . \r\n\r\nfl  3 \r\n\r\n—  -T \r\n\r\n\r\n\u0026     0 \r\n1.1    11 \r\n\r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nK    — \r\n\r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n\r\n5    «    3    3   *•    .. \r\n\r\n\r\n3    8 \r\n\r\n\u003c    O \r\n\r\n\r\n5»  sr  x  r \r\n\r\nC    0  -  :• \r\n\r\n•-    b  ;  - \r\n\r\nC    U  Z  V, \r\n\r\n\r\n«     b \r\n\u003e    3 \r\n\r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nb \r\n\r\n0\u003e  b \r\n\r\nb  r» \r\n\r\n—  b \r\n\r\n\r\nb \r\n\r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nObC—   —r-bi. \r\n\r\n\r\n—    O     0    —     E, \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nb \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\n-     3 \r\n\r\n\r\ncr \r\nli \r\n\r\n-•  b \r\n\r\n—  cr \r\n\r\no  b    -j \r\n\r\no  ~  — \r\n\r\n\r\n3     -. \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e    c    r    . \r\n\r\n\r\nc     l- \r\n3      0  ' \r\n\r\n\r\nU    c \r\n3    -3 \r\n\r\n\r\n1     0 \r\nt    — \r\n\r\n\r\nC    \"3 \r\n\r\n\r\nu  a  u  u.  ^  c \r\n\r\n\r\nb  Cft \r\n\r\nC-  b  t \r\n\r\n— .  —  o \r\n\r\nc  —  u \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\nS   I   m   * \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n*7 \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\n3- \r\nC \r\n1 \r\n\r\n—  r       £ \r\n\r\n—  .;(») \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\ni \r\n\r\n£. \r\nU \r\n\r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\na; \r\n\r\n\r\nyear,  a  figure  far  short  of  the  42,600  Black  students  who  would  \"be \r\nenrolled  if  enrollnent  were,  by  the  Regents1  own  calculations, \r\nfully  proportional.   Clearly,  then,  the  G.H.P.  is  not  in  compliance \r\nwith  the  HEW  Guidelines,  for  it  does  not  satisfy  the  proportionality \r\nstipulation  in  section  II,  subsection  A,  of  those  guidelines. \r\nIndeed,  the  projected  Black  enrollment  figure  represents  a  mere \r\n20.^  of  the  total  student  enrollment  in  the  University  System \r\nin  1982. \r\n\r\nSince  the  projected  figure  is  not  in  compliance,  the  projected \r\n\"benchmark  figures  need  to  be  revised  upward.  Moreover,  Table  II-A-4 \r\n(reproduced  below)  shows  that  this  summary  statistical  display, \r\nwhich  is  limited  to  information  for  four-year  institutions,  includes \r\nnot  only  regularly- enrolled  students  but  also  students  in  Special \r\nStudies  programs.   It  is  our  belief  that  Special  Studies  students \r\nshould  not  be  counted  in  any  such  projected  enrollment  calculations \r\nsince  such  students  are  not  enrolled  in  the  core  curriculum  and \r\ncannot  be  regarded  as  proceeding  toward  a  degree.   In  reality,  they \r\nare  in  a  pre-college  program  and  should  be  counted  within  any \r\nstatistical  projections  as  such.  Of  course,  a  determination  of \r\ntheir  objective  status  is  based  upon  the  manner  in  which  the  Special \r\nStudies  program  operative  within  the  University  System  of  Georgia \r\nis  presently  structured—a  structure  which  results  in  practices \r\nwith  which  we  do  not  agree  and  with  which  we  will,  later  in  this \r\npresentation,  take  issue.   (Appendices  II,  V,  VI  and  others  bear \r\nupon  this.) \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  II-A-4 \r\n\r\n\r\n(Four  Quarters  197,6-77) \r\n\r\n\r\nBEGINNING  freshen  by  race  at \r\nPREDOMINANTLY  WHITE/PREDOMINANTLY  BLACK  INSTITUTIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nBlack \r\n\r\n\r\nWhite \r\n\r\n\r\nPredominantly  White  -  4  Year: \r\n\r\nTotal  •)   Regular  \u0026  Special  Studies \r\n%  of  Total \r\n\r\nPredoninantly  Black  -  4  year:  - \r\nTotal  i?  Regular  L   Special  Studies \r\n%  of  Total \r\n\r\nPredominantly  White  -  2  Year: \r\n\r\nTotal  //  Regular  \u0026  Special  Studies \r\n%  of  Total \r\n\r\nPredoninantly  Black  -  2  year: \r\n\r\nTotal  //  Regular  \u0026  Special  Studies \r\n%  of  Total \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTALS \r\n7. \r\n\r\n\r\n1539 \r\n\r\n10364 \r\n\r\n6.4 \r\n\r\n42.9 \r\n\r\n1586 \r\n\r\n23 \r\n\r\n6.6 \r\n\r\n0.1 \r\n\r\n1330 \r\n\r\n8512 \r\n\r\n5.5 \r\n\r\n35.3 \r\n\r\n760 \r\n\r\n26 \r\n\r\n3.1 \r\n\r\n0.1 \r\n\r\n5215 \r\n\r\n1S925 \r\n\r\n21.6 \r\n\r\n78.4 \r\n\r\n-55- \r\n\r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n\r\nt    fo-    iicy \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n•56- \r\n\r\n\r\nTherefore,  the  Regents  are  further  from  compliance  vdth  the \r\nHEW  Guidelines  than  they  themselves  admit.  Yet  the  G.R.P. ,  rather \r\nthan  face  this  problem  forthrightly,  merely  offers  a  series  of  v:eak \r\nexcuses  for  the  Regents'  adjustment  of  the  projected  Elack  enrollment \r\nstatistic  dov.mra.rd.   In  their  plan  the  Regents  say:  \"Direct  correspond- \r\nence \"between  high  school  graduates  and  first  year  students  cannot \r\nbe  established  due  to  the  attendance  patterns  for  older  students, \r\npart-time  students,  etc.\"  (G.R.P. ,  Section  II,  p.  Ik),     That  is \r\ntrue,  but  this  realisation  surely  requires  revising  the  projected \r\nenrollment  for  Black  students  upward,  because  there  are,  proportionally \r\nspeaking,  more  Black  high-school  graduates  present  in  the  potential \r\nstudent  population  who  are  not  in  college.   Instead,  however,  the \r\nRegents  revise  the  figure  downward.   In  other  words,  again  proportionally \r\nspeaking,  there  is  a  larger  pool  of  potential  students  among  the \r\nBlack  population  precisely  because  of  the  historic  pattern  of \r\ndiscrimination  that  has  denied  entry  to  Blacks  for  so  long. \r\n\r\nGoing  further  with  this  insidious  line  of  reasoning,  the \r\nG.R.P.  states:   \"However,  based  on  the  assumption  that  delayed \r\nor  protracted  enrollment  characteristics  [^\"attendance  patterns\" \r\nwhich  are  rootod  in  racist  discrimination]  are  stable  with  time, \r\nthe  figures  of  Tables  II-A-2  and  II-A-4  indicate  that  on  the  average \r\napproximately  M*  percent  of  white  Georgia  high  school  graduates \r\nand  28  percent  of  black  Georgia  high  school  graduates  enroll  in \r\nUniversity  System  institutions\"  (G.R.P.,  Section  II,  p.  1^,  parenthesis \r\nadded).  The  only  point  we  are  making  here  is  that  it  is  unreasonable \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n-57- \r\n\r\n\r\nand  historically  illogical  to  use  the  fact  that  fewer  Blacks  who \r\ngraduate  from  high  school  go  to  college  as  a  justification  for \r\nnodifying  projected  Black  enrollment  statistics  downward.  This \r\nis  once  again  an  instance  of  the  G.R.P.  perpetuating  a  problem \r\nwhich  it  is  supposedly  attempting  to  solve. \r\n\r\nThere  is  another  consideration  that  needs  to  be  mentioned  here. \r\nIt  pertains  to  the  manner  in  which  certain  tables  in  the  G.R.P, \r\nare  set  up.  It  also  relates  directly  to  the  type  of  information \r\nthat  the  HEW  Guidelines  seek.   Specifically,  if  we  look  at  Table  II-3 \r\nin  the  G.R.P.  (reproduced  below),  we  find  that  white  students  at \r\npredominantly  Black  schools  are  counted  as  part  of  the  minority \r\nenrollment  within  those  institutions  and  in  the  University  System \r\nof  Georgia  as  a  whole.  Consistent  with  previous  arguments  we  have \r\nadvanced,  we  do  not  regard  whites  as  a  minority  within  this  society. \r\nWhites  have  not  been  denied  equal  access  to  educational  opportunity \r\nbecause  of  their  race.  Therefore,  to  address  the  problem  of  discrim- \r\nination against  minority  people  in  the  state  of  Georgia,  Black \r\npeople,  by  acting  as  if  the  Black  institutions  have  denied  entry  to \r\nwhites  is  to  turn  the  question  around  so  that  equal  educational \r\nopportunity  can  be  denied  to  Blacks  on  more  subtle  grounds.   In  no \r\ninstitution  in  Georgia  should  whites  be  regarded  as  a  minority. \r\nThe  problem  that  we  are  dealing  with  is  a  problem  that  abides  within \r\nour  society  in  general.  Any  superficial,  isolated  institution-by- \r\ninstitution  treatment  must  be  exposed  for  the  racist  perversion  of \r\nthe  problem  that  it  is. \r\n\r\n\r\nv^ \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  It- 3 \r\nUN I VE RS I TT~3To  ± M  L T    GEORGIA \r\n\r\n'MINORITY  ENROLLMENT,  FALL  1972-FALL  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n'eorgia  Institute  of  Technology \r\n\r\nSouthern  Technical  Institute \r\neorgia  State  University \r\n'edical  College  of  Georgia \r\nniversity  of  Georgia \r\nUniversity  Total \r\n\r\nilbany  State  College \r\n\r\n.rmstrong  State  College \r\n\r\n.jgusta  College \r\n\r\nblumbus  College \r\n\r\nort  Valley  State  College \r\n\r\ntporgia  College \r\n\r\nporgia  Southern  College \r\n\r\n(eorgia  Sou thv/es tern  College \r\n\r\nIrth  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nilvannah  State  College \r\n\r\n\\ildosta  State  College \r\n\r\nVfst  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nSenior  College  Total \r\n\r\nJlraham  Baldwin  Agric.  College \r\nAbany  Junior  College \r\nAilanta  Junior  College \r\nBinbridge  Junior  College \r\nBunswick  Junior  College \r\nDayton  Junior  College \r\nD,lton  Junior  College \r\nSanuel  County  Junior  College \r\n\"oyd  Junior  College \r\nBjinesville  Junior  College \r\nj'rdon  Junior  College \r\nWinesaw  Junior  College \r\nl.con  Junior  College \r\nijldle  Georgia  College \r\nIwth  Georgia  College \r\nN'cross  Junior  College \r\nJunior  College  Total \r\n\r\n\r\nSystem  Totals \r\nPercent  Change \r\n\r\n\r\n1972 \r\nBlack \r\n(White) \r\n\r\n155 \r\n31 \r\n\r\n1,785 \r\n136 \r\n896 \r\n\r\n3,003 \r\n\r\n(44) \r\n\r\n153 \r\n-  337 \r\n302 \r\n(11) \r\n210 \r\n270 \r\n181 \r\n34 \r\n\r\n(103) \r\n433 \r\n\r\n375 \r\n2,453 \r\n\r\n89 \r\n166 \r\n\r\n\r\n166 \r\n72 \r\n49 \r\n\r\n105 \r\n47 \r\n55 \r\n88 \r\n\r\n134 \r\n90 \r\n\r\n175 \r\n\r\n1,236 \r\n6,692 \r\n\r\n\r\n1973 \r\nBlack \r\n(White) \r\n\r\n168 \r\n67 \r\n\r\n2,052 \r\n143 \r\n5  36 \r\n\r\n2,966 \r\n\r\n(63) \r\n292 \r\n278 \r\n564 \r\n(44) \r\n350 \r\n192 \r\n241 \r\n39 \r\n(275) \r\n391 \r\n363 \r\n3,097 \r\n\r\n124 \r\n211 \r\n\r\n41 \r\n\r\n189 \r\n\r\n115 \r\n\r\n44 \r\n\r\n34 \r\n\r\n111 \r\n\r\n48 \r\n\r\n92 \r\n\r\n134 \r\n\r\n144 \r\n\r\n61 \r\n\r\n200 \r\n\r\n1,548 \r\n\r\n7,611 \r\n13.7 \r\n\r\n\r\n1974 \r\nBlack \r\n(White) \r\n\r\n249 \r\n66 \r\n\r\n2,234 \r\n220 \r\n634 \r\n\r\n3,4  53 \r\n\r\n(70) \r\n\r\n479 \r\n369 \r\n763 \r\n\r\n.  (117) \r\n474 \r\n351 \r\n383 \r\n43 \r\n(292) \r\n550 \r\n421 \r\n\r\n4,312 \r\n\r\n148 \r\n\r\n208 \r\n\r\n(63) \r\n\r\n75 \r\n\r\n237 \r\n\r\n92 \r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\n70 \r\n\r\n117 \r\n\r\n59 \r\n\r\n90 \r\n\r\n56 \r\n\r\n183 \r\n\r\n124 \r\n\r\n233 \r\n\r\n1,815 \r\n\r\n9,580 \r\n25.9 \r\n\r\n\r\n1975 \r\nBlack \r\n(White) \r\n\r\n351 \r\n\r\n94 \r\n\r\n2,920 \r\n\r\n237 \r\n\r\n732 \r\n4,334 \r\n\r\n\r\n5  1  \"\u003e\"\u003e \r\n\r\n~\u003e  /  X  £,  dm \r\n\r\n\r\n261 \r\n\r\n406 \r\n\r\n.(84) \r\n\r\n99 \r\n274 \r\n117 \r\n\r\n92 \r\n\r\n70 \r\n196 \r\n\r\n91 \r\n105 \r\n\r\n59 \r\n337 \r\n194 \r\n284 \r\n\r\n2,669 \r\n\r\n12,125 \r\n26.6 \r\n\r\n\r\n1976 \r\nBlack \r\n(Whit-) \r\n\r\n407 \r\n\r\n110 \r\n\r\n3,003 \r\n\r\n198 \r\n\r\n753 \r\n\r\n4,471 \r\n\r\n\r\n251 \r\n475 \r\n(67) \r\n\r\n88 \r\n251 \r\n\r\n96 \r\n\r\n71 \r\n114 \r\n197 \r\n\r\n66 \r\n152 \r\n\r\n50 \r\n352 \r\n199 \r\n297 \r\n\r\n45 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,771 \r\n\r\n12,480 \r\n2.9 \r\n\r\n\r\nErollnent  figure  represent  black  enrollment  in  predominantly  white  institution  and \r\nwite  enrollment  in  predominantly  black  institute \r\n\r\n\r\n.en: \r\n\r\n\r\n-59- \r\n\r\n\r\nDiscrimination  in  Admissions \r\n\r\nThere  are  several  significant  discriminatory  consequences \r\nwhich  have  resulted  from  the  current  admissions  policies  set  by  the \r\nBoard  of  Regents.  In  this  section  we  would  like  to  focus  our  attention \r\nupon  a  few  of  them.  First,  let  us  outline  the  basic  policy  regarding \r\nadmissions  which  governs  the  University  System  of  Georgia  and  which \r\nis  of  concern  to  us. \r\n\r\nPresently,  SAT  scores  can  be  used  to  deny  admission  to  a  student \r\nseeking  to  enter  the  University  System  of  Georgia.  These  scores, \r\nalong  with  high-school  grade  point  averages,  are  being  used  as  the \r\nprimary  criteria  in  making  decisions  about  the  admission  of  students \r\nto  particular  institutions  within  the  University  System.  Each \r\neducational  institution  in  the  University  System  is  allowed  to  make \r\nits  own  decision  about  a  student  applicant  based  upon  several  criteria, \r\nwith  the  SAT  score  invariably  the  key  ingredient  in  the  determination. \r\nMoreover,  the  SAT  is  the  sole  determinant  of  the  status  of  an  admitted \r\nstudent.  In  all  the  units  in  the  University  System,  there  are  two \r\ntypes  of  admissions  based  upon  the  SAT  Score.   Full  admission  to \r\nthe  core  curriculum  is  granted  to  those  students  who  score  65O  or \r\nmore  on  the  SAT  and  cannot  be  granted  by  any  institution  in  the \r\nUniversity  System  to  students  whose  scores  fall  below  that  figure \r\nunless  they  pass  additional  standardised  tests  correlated  with  the \r\nSAT.  Full  admission  must  be  denied  to  those  who  score  below  65O, \r\n\r\n\r\n•60- \r\n\r\n\r\nand  individual  institutions  may  revise  that  figure  upward.  Those \r\napplicants  denied  full  admission  are  admitted  as  Special  Studies \r\n(remedial  education)  students.  They  are  compelled  to  take  Special \r\nStudies,  non-credit  courses.  They  have  no  choice  in  the  matter. \r\nIn  this  way  a  new  category  of  segregated  students  is  created  within \r\nthe  institution  itself.  Cf  course,  it  goes  without  saying  that \r\nSpecial  Studies  students  are  disproportionately  Elack.  As  a  result \r\nof  these  admissions  policies,  many  Black  students  are  completely \r\ndenied  admission  to  predominantly  white  institutions.  Black \r\ninstitutions,  on  the  other  hand,  are  turned  into  primarily  remedial \r\ninstitutions — thereby  reinforcing  the  dual  system  of  education. \r\nMoreover,  within  each  of  the  institutions  in  the  University  System \r\na  group  of  second-class  students,  disproportionately  Black,  is  set \r\napart.   (This  issue  is  discussed  at  greater  length  in  appendix  II. ) \r\n\r\nTable  II-E-1  (reproduced  below)  shows  us,  among  other  things, \r\nthat  SAT  scores  are  being  used  to  deny  Blacks  full  admission  to \r\nUniversity  System  institutions.  It  also  demonstrates  the  culturally- \r\nbiased  nature  of  the  test  itself,  since  the  vast  majority  of  the \r\nBlack  student  population  admitted  as  freshmen  score  below  65O, \r\nAlthough  this  table  is  included  within  the  G.R.P.  for  the  purpose \r\nof  showing  the  lack  cf  preparation  cf  the  average  Black  student, \r\nwe  contend  that  it  more  clearly  shows  the  extent  to  which  discrimination \r\nexists  within  the  University  System  of  Georgia.  The  table  demonstrates \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLTS  It-E-1 \r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY   SYSTEM  CF  GEORGIA \r\nThe  Effects  of  CEE3-SAT  Composite  Cutoff  Scores \r\n\r\n1975-76     ' \r\n\r\nPERCENT  LOSS  IN  APPLYING  COMPOSITE  C-E3-SAT  CUTOFF \r\nENTERING \r\n\r\nINSTITUTION             FRESKVEN  SCO   550   600   650  700  750  3C0  /  350  9C0 \r\n\r\n_______  .,_  _ \r\n\r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia     30,412    5.0  11.3  13.5  26.4  35.1  44.4  53. V  62.1  69.5 \r\n\r\nGeorgia  Institute  of  Technology    1,359     .1    .3    .3    .4  .8  1.3  1.9  3.8  7.2 \r\n\r\nSouthern  Technical  Institute        331         1.0   3.4   7.6  15.0  25.2  27.0  50.7  64.3 \r\n\r\nGeorgia  State  University         1,709    1.3   4.8  10.0  15.7  22.4  30.3  39.8  £0.4  60.1 \r\n\r\nMedical  College  of   Georgia         105             1.0   1.9  7.6  17.1  37.1  55.2  67.6 \r\n\r\nUniversity  of  Georgia           3,023     .2    .3    .6   1.2  3.2  7.2  13.3  23.4  34.7 \r\n\r\nAlbany  State  College             706   26.3  50.1  68.3  80.2  88.5  93.9  95.3  98.6  99.3 \r\n\r\nArmstrong  State  College         _  880    1.9   5.7  10.9  19.3  28.9  41.7  £0.7  61.0  63.9 \r\n\r\nAugusta  College               1,064    2.1   6.3  13.0  19.6  27.1  37.7  47.6  59.2  CS.3 \r\n\r\nColumbus  College               1,470    4.3  10.1   16.5  24.6  36.7  49.9  59.5  £3.9  76.4 \r\n\r\nFort  Valley  State  College          484   28.3  51.7  71.3  81.0  83.2  93.0  95.2  95.7  95.1 \r\n\r\nGeorgia  College                  478    4.0   8.6  15.3  22.0  32.6  44.6  53.3  64.2  74.7 \r\n\r\nGeorgia  Southern  College         1.195     .3   1.7   3.9   7.7  15.4  25.8  33.4  52.7  64. S \r\n\r\nGeorgia  Southwestern  College        466    7.1  15.7  24.7  35.0  45.7  56.9  66.7  75.3  SO. 9 \r\n\r\nNorth  Georgia  College             380    1.6   4.7   8.9  16.1  22.9  28.9  41.3  52.4  65.3 \r\n\r\nSavannah  State  College            633   21.7  40.6  61.8  75.4  83.3  69.6  94.1  96.2  93.0 \r\n\r\n\r\n30.412 \r\n\r\n1,359 \r\n\r\n331 \r\n\r\n1,709 \r\n\r\n105 \r\n\r\n3,023 \r\n\r\n706 \r\n\r\n880 \r\n\r\n1,064 \r\n\r\n1,470 \r\n\r\n484 \r\n\r\n478 \r\n\r\n1.195 \r\n\r\n466 \r\n\r\n380 \r\n\r\n633 \r\n\r\n1,105 \r\n\r\n1,021 \r\n\r\n1,217 \r\n\r\n1,110 \r\n\r\n1,060 \r\n\r\n293 \r\n\r\n678 \r\n\r\n1,921 \r\n\r\n862 \r\n\r\n152 \r\n\r\n534 \r\n\r\n854 \r\n\r\n507 \r\n\r\n1,484 \r\n\r\n1,157 \r\n\r\n967 \r\n\r\n601 \r\n\r\nValdosta  State  College  '  12.9  21.5  30.1  42.5  53.5  65.5  74.3 \r\n\r\nWest  Georgia  College  1,021  3.5  10.0  17.4  23.3  35.4  47.8  61.3  71.7  79.9 \r\n\r\nAbraham  Baldwin  Agric.  College  1,217  6.7  13.5  23.3  34.5  46.4  58.2  63.2  77.5  83.7 \r\n\r\nAlbany  Junior  College  1,110  9.0  18.6  27.5  26.8  47.2  56.6  64.1  72.8  79.3 \r\n\r\nAtlanta  Junior  College  1.060  18.7  42.7  61.3-73.0  84.1  69.6  93.6  95.2  97.7 \r\n\r\nBainbridge  Junior  College  293  6.4  13.8  24.8  34.2  46.3  58.4  65.8  74.8  83.9 \r\n\r\nBrunswick  Junior  College  678  9.4  20.1  32.2  44.4  55.5  63.0  71.1  78.3  84.5 \r\n\r\nClayton  Junior  College  1,921  2.1  6.5  13.2  23.5  35.7  47.8  59.9  71.1  77.4 \r\n\r\nOalton  Junior  College  862  3.5  9.3  18.0  29.4  41.4  53.0  64.0  73.5  60.9 \r\n\r\nEmanuel  County  Junior  College  152  6.6  17.8  27.0  44.1  52.0  53.2  69.1  73.9  64.9 \r\n\r\nFloyd  Junior  College  534  3.9  11.0  20.8  33.5  43.8  55.6  64.6  74.5  62.0 \r\n\r\nGainesville  Junior  College  854  6.0  13.6  23.1  34.3  45.7  59.6  70.3  79.7  35.5 \r\n\r\nGordon  Junior  College  507  4.3  10.8  18.7  28.6  40.4  50.5  60.0  69.0  75.0 \r\n\r\nKer.nesaw  Junior  College  1,484  1.1  4.2  9.6  13.4  28.2  41.8  53.2  63.7  74.2 \r\n\r\nPaeon  Junior  College  1,157  3.2  8.9  17.0  29.3  39.8  50.3  60.9  71.0  79.0 \r\n\r\nMiddle  Georgia  College  967  4.3  11.3  19.5  29.0  40.4  52.2  63.2  72.7  et.O \r\n\r\nSouth  Georgia  College  601  7.3  19.3  30.8  45.6  53.7  69.1  76.9  83.5  39.0 \r\n\r\n\r\n9 \r\n\r\n\r\n•62- \r\n\r\n\r\nthat  if  a  cut-off  score  of  6^0  on  the  SAT  were  used  to  deny  admission \r\nto  students  at  the  predominantly  Black  colleges,  the  overwhelming \r\nmajority  of  their  student  \"bodies  would  be  eliminated.  This  includes \r\nAtlanta  Junior  College  as  well  as  the  three  traditionally  Black  senior \r\ncolleges.  In  addition,  this  table  shows  us  that  the  major  burden  of \r\nremediation  falls  disproportionately  upon  the  shoulders  of  the \r\npredominantly  Black  schools.   Indeed,  they  exist  for  the  purpose  of \r\nremediation,  while  the  white  institutions  escape  to  pursue  their \r\nelitist  goals  and  remain  untarnished  and  untouched  by  this  responsibility, \r\nwith  their  obtuse,  esoteric,  and  crypto-racist  standards  of  '•quality\" \r\neducation  rigidly  in  place.   In  this  process  the  dual  system  remains \r\na  stark  reality,  access  to  higher  education  continues  to  be  denied, \r\nand  latter-day  Jim  Crow  is  still  alive  and  well  in  the  University \r\nSystem  of  Georgia. \r\n\r\nTurning  our  attention  to  a  further  consequence  of  this  set  of \r\nadmissions  policies,  we  see  that  Black  students  in  predominantly \r\nwhite  institutions  are  \"admitted\"  but  at  the  same  time  denied \r\nadmission.   Special  Studies  students  are  set  apart  from  the  remainder \r\nof  the  student  body  in  individual  institutions  in  such  a  way  that \r\nthey  are  not  regarded  as  having  been  really  admitted  to  the  institutions. \r\nStatistics  on  this  matter  are  not,  of  course,  included  in  the \r\nG.R.P.,  but  we  have  compiled  a  table  on  the  racial  composition  of \r\nSpecial  Studies  programs  in  the  University  System  (reproduced \r\nbelow)  which  shows  the  disproportionate  number  of  Blacks  in  such \r\nprograms.  If  they  are  determined  to  be  deficient  in  all  of  the \r\n\r\n\r\ny \r\n\r\n\r\n.  #H \r\n\r\n\r\nrH   CM  C^WTN. \r\n\r\n•  •  •  • \r\n\r\n\r\n\\o  on  \u003eohc-(m  cn/4  r\u003e-  .h  *AmA \r\nco  n\\oo\u003eaw\u003ea»ao^hnn \r\n\r\nOn  CM  CNnO  ON  -H/   CM  sO  rH   \u003cJ\\  r-4  ^t  -$ \r\n\r\n\r\nvocmco  c^-^t \r\n\r\nvr\\^J-   CM  CMnO \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nOn  On \r\nC^vOn \r\n\r\n\r\nNO \r\n\r\n\r\no-      c°\\ \r\n\r\nC-  On         CO \r\nf\u003e-  vAC^VrH \r\n\r\n\r\nOn -3\"  -3/  rH  CnJ  u^.-j-  on  On]  _4  ^r  On  CO \r\nCMNOnC^O  O  O \\  C^i  rH  rH  cN  ^  o \r\nVN,  C^  C*~\\  CN.  U\"N,  r\u003e  rH   rH   rH    U\"N.  CM    C\\i   C°t \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  ON  CM  NO \r\n\r\nCM  OnnO  O-  On \r\nC--  C-  u^CO  rH \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no  o       cv \r\n\r\nOn     •  O  On \r\n\r\n•  O   VT\\     • \r\n\r\nvOnH      •  \u003e^\\ \r\n\r\n\r\nCN-  O- \r\n\r\n\r\ncM  no  cm  cu  o\\  rH  no  o-  -\u003c  \u003e  Ox  u*\\ \r\n\r\n\r\nD-ONNONCvJriCVOCHJtNN \r\nCMrHC^rHC^CMrHCMCMCMCMrHCM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH          J\" \r\n\r\n-j-  O          vo \r\n\r\nON  NO    3 \r\n\r\nCM  C^iH  -4\" \r\n\r\nVOCO  «H \r\n\r\nOnCO  On  _-}-         00   rH \r\n\r\nON  CN  CM  ON  rH    CNJQ\\£N-rH    CN \r\nH\u003eAH4  C\\H4    CM  rH  rH \r\n\r\n\r\nR \r\n\r\n\r\nf-l    CNCM  CO \r\n\r\nCNnO  O-C0 \r\n\r\n\r\nr^vvo  -3;  O-  O- \r\n\r\nUNvO   ONH;    CM \r\n\r\n\r\nr^H^\\NO \r\nrH    C^U-N..^-    O- \r\n\r\n\r\nNO \r\n\r\nOn! \r\n\r\n\r\n© \r\np„ \r\n\r\n\r\nft, \r\n\r\nQ) \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\ni-i \r\n-P \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\n«H \r\nW \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  00 \r\n\r\nCM      .NO  vA \r\n\r\n•  ^}*      •      • \r\n.^   rH  O-  CN. \r\n\r\n\r\nCn-\\AOn-3-C0         ^O  V~\\        COCM \r\n\r\nO-  CM   CM   rH   rH    C\"NvO    C^-  CM   rN  rH  CO  CO \r\n\r\n•       •••••  rH       •  r-\\       •   V\\      •       • \r\n\r\n»r\\nw  o\\o\\\u003en   »oo     •  va    .rno \r\nonhh  hoo  rH  no  #h  on  co  w\\c-j  r-n \r\n\r\n\r\n00  NO    U-N.O \r\n\r\n4  cvtvo  r\\*A \r\n.  cnvtvo  r-f \r\n\r\nON  CM  ON  rH  CM \r\n\r\n\r\nNOOO  C^\\ \r\n\r\nSO  On  u^ \r\n•  rH   IN \r\nCA \r\n\r\n\r\ncn  cno- \r\n\r\nC*N  rH  NO \r\n\r\nrHvrN,r\u003e.ONOOC^CM \r\n•.CnH       -      --4    f\u003e-  VTN, \r\nH  rH   uS \r\n\r\n\r\nCM^J-  3-   rH \r\n\r\n\r\ntrN^t \r\n\r\n\r\nnO \r\nCM  O   On  r-i \r\n\r\nCO        ~  r~\u003e.    U~\\  CO \r\n\"SCSI   nMD    *A \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nr-i \r\nVN.nO \r\nC\u003e-     -CO \r\n\r\n4  HCU \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n0} \r\n\r\n% \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\nNO  CN  CM  00 \r\nOnCO  O   CN \r\n\r\n.H-  CM  NO   CM \r\n\r\nono'nh \r\n\r\nCM  CM \r\n\r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nb4 \r\n\r\n0) \r\nrH \r\nr~i \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n§1 \r\n\r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nC \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCOnO  r-CN-O  0-4  OnCn-nO  CN  rH  m0 \r\nCM  Cn-  J-  O-  O-  rH  r-i  O  ^N  UN  ON  rH  vO \r\nCM  CM  NO   CM  CO   ^H4  C0n3   On  O   CN \r\n\r\nCM  CN  CN  UN  r-7  CNvO  WH    NH   nvA \r\n\r\n\r\n© \r\n-p \r\n\r\n\r\n© \r\n•p \r\n\r\no5 \r\n\r\n-P \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n(0 \r\n\r\n©  -p \r\n\r\nbO   CJ   -p \r\n\r\na)  h  en \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nbO \r\nc \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nu \r\n\r\n-p \r\n\r\nUOrH     M \r\nD     O     O \r\n\r\n\u003cOk \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n0)  J-l \r\n\r\n0)  jn \r\n\r\nrH  -P \r\n\r\nrH  3 \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nO  CO \r\n\r\nhi  hb \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n0)  o \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nc  to \r\n\r\nM  0\u003e \r\n\r\n0)  rH \r\n\r\n+\u003e  rH \r\n\r\nw  o \r\n\r\nCD  O \r\n\r\njz  ti \r\n\r\no  M \r\n\r\nco  o \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\na  u \r\n\r\nM  p \r\n\r\nO  M \r\n\r\n(1)  o \r\n\r\no  ^; \r\n\r\n\r\n•p \r\n\r\nto \r\nc \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no  c \r\n\r\nrt  o \r\n\r\n•+-\u003e  0) \r\n\r\nco  h \r\n\r\nXL  C \r\n\r\n«3  H \r\n\r\nc;  o \r\n\r\n\u003e  73 \r\n\r\nrtf  O \r\n\r\nCO  CO \r\n\r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nbo \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na)  o \r\n\r\n\r\n-p \r\nrj \r\n-p \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n+¦\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n-a \r\n.-•¦\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nU \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n•p \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nC3 \r\nb£ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nc \r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\ncn-o  ^j- \r\n\r\n0--4  eg \r\n\u003eAO  nO \r\n\r\nCM  CM  rH \r\n\r\n\r\nCO   CN- \r\n\r\nrNNO \r\n\r\nvr\\rH \r\n\r\n\r\nPm \r\nO \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nr-5 \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\nbD                © \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n©    ©          bO  © \r\n\r\nrH    bD         ©    bO \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nrH     ©     ©   rH     © \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nO   rH     bDiH    rH \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\nO   rH     ©     O   rH \r\n\r\nO    rH    O     O \r\n\r\n\u003eH \r\n\r\n»   O    r-i            CJ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\niW           O      » \r\n\r\nbD  JH  O    M      • \r\n\r\n\u003c     O             ^      rl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n^H        •             »~3 \r\n\r\nc   c   h   m \r\n\r\ntH   3  \"-i    bJ^ \r\n\r\n?   »-5           'O     o \r\n\r\n'O             CtJ    «H    «H \r\n\r\nrH     \u003e-\u003e  V     M     S \r\n\r\nrj    C     C   rQ     W \r\n\r\npq    ri    d    C    C \r\n\r\nrJHd       P \r\n\r\n•   rH    -P     d     M \r\n\r\n«\u003c    \u003c    \u003c    P4   \u003cX\u003e \r\n\r\nr-i \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n«M \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-p \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ni-i \r\n\r\nVJ.  b \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nfp \r\n\r\n*A  On     •     •  rH      •  On     •     •     •     • \r\n\r\n.       .   U~\u003e  CM     .  rH       •  O-  ON  -3;  ^t; \r\nvOM2  4\"    CM  00  -31   CM  ^    CM  *A  CM \r\n\r\n\r\nNO \r\n\r\ncm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nrH    W \r\n\r\nd   © \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\n•H  -H \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nO  tJ \r\n\r\n-p \r\n\r\n0)    3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nPi  -P \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nco  to \r\n\r\nCM  CO   CM  H  OnvOnO  C^-  0s-  CM \r\no-  r-t  oo  iH  cm  no  j-  h  r^  r\\  oj \r\n\r\nNOC'Ni-i^-^r-lC^CVlCNjCMON \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nvM \r\ncm \r\n\r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\n^\"*N \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nPh \r\n\r\n1*3 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nttO \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nM \r\nO \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ntx, \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n?H \r\n\r\nEh \r\n\r\nM \r\nCO \r\n\r\n2 \r\n§ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n4     S \r\n\r\n\r\nPh \r\nCD \r\n\r\ns: \r\n-p \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\n¦8 \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\n•H \r\n-P \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ncm \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\no \r\nrt \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nW. \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nr~i \r\n\r\n(0    © \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n©  rH \r\n\r\nJ* \r\n\r\n•h \r\n\r\n•H  rH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\n\"SB \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCX.-P   c \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO   W \r\n\r\n\\\u0026 \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n•g \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrt} \r\n\r\nE-\u003e \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n«M \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\npq \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n-p \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n% \r\n\r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nrH  ^  rH \r\ncJ    O    O \r\n\r\nrt   M \r\n\r\n\r\nrH    C \r\n\r\n\r\nH  «  W \r\n\r\n\r\n•8 \r\n\r\n\r\nrH  rH \r\nO    C \r\n\r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\ncmco  cm  cmmd  on  o  c^-  c^-  cm  r-i \r\n\r\nCO   On  On  CM  v£\u003e   CMO  On  rH  -3\"  rH \r\nVM  O    rH   ON  MD    VT\u003e_H-C0    U\"N  CM  rH \r\n\r\n-3-  n^4^4-3'  cm  cm^*  r\u003e- \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\r\n(V   WN40\\NOO    CM  CM \r\nCMCOON-3-vOCMrHC\"-rHCM \r\n\r\n\r\nVM.H- \r\n\r\n\r\ncm \r\n\r\n\r\n4--J  HO\\ \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  -c£   H^4vO   ^O   (N-WN,,-! \r\n\r\n\r\nCNi       .  XT\\ \r\n\r\n.  on  cm    •  cm    .^nr\\r\\ \r\n\r\nCM^}-    CMrH-j-rHrHrHrHCMrH \r\n\r\n\r\n¦3-  c\u003c-       cm       cm  on  o-  \u003em \r\n\r\nVO    r-\\    r-{    ONNO    W^O    VTNONONJ- \r\n\r\ncanh  h-o  h  vnnn  n \r\n\r\n\r\nC^  ON  r-H  CQ  M3  CMrH  NO  *M  CM  rH \r\nO  QNONUV-NO  rH  O  QwOd; \r\nrH   \\T\\  rM  u-N  u^  CM   CM  UNMD    CM  CM \r\n\r\n\r\nCMrH \r\n\r\n\r\nrH  rH   rH   CM  CM  rH   rH \r\n\r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n*M \r\n\r\n\r\nvn, \r\n\r\nrH \r\nON \r\n\r\n\r\nOn \r\nVM \r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\nrH \r\n\r\n\r\nNO \r\nC^- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nof \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nu* \r\n\r\nJ* \r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n¦P \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\n\u003cH \r\n\r\nVM \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\nC-- \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO \r\n•H \r\n•P \r\n\r\n•P \r\n\r\n*-• \r\n¦P \r\nW \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\n•p \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n© \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\np \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n© \r\n\r\ntD   ©    ^ \r\n\r\n©    isO-a \r\n\r\nrH      C\u003e \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nO    rH \r\nO     O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nM        • \r\n•-3      U \r\n\r\n*-i    rH \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO  c \r\n\r\n-P  o \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e  -p \r\n\r\nCti  rH \r\n\r\nrH  »Tj     t^ \r\n\r\nU  Q    W \r\n\r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n©    O \r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\nrH  • \r\n\r\nrH  ^ \r\n\r\nO  -3 \r\n\r\no \r\n© \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nS  \u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e  C \r\n\r\nO   -^t \r\nrH     cd \r\n\r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\n©  © \r\nt\u003c0rH \r\n©  r-i \r\nrH  O \r\nr-i  O \r\nO \r\n\r\n°   M \r\n\r\n\r\n© \r\n© \r\n\r\n\r\nrH    \u003e-3 \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nrt \r\nW \r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\nc \r\nc \r\n\r\no    © \r\n\r\no  « \r\n\r\n\r\n©    O \r\n\r\ntoo \r\n© \r\n\r\nrH    -H \r\n\r\n?      t? \r\nO \r\n\r\n.    0J \r\n\r\n•-3 \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\nb0  CD \r\n©  b0 \r\nrH  © \r\nr~\\  rH \r\nO  rH \r\nO  O \r\nO \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nt?. \r\n\r\n\r\n© \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n©     CO \r\n\r\n\r\n•p \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\no \r\n\u003e» \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\n\r\nM  O \r\n\r\n\r\n3C  CO  3B \r\n\r\n\r\n-65- \r\n\r\n\r\nthree  areas  of  remediation  (Reading,  Math,  and  English),  they  are \r\nliterally  forced  to  take  all  three  of  these  non-credit  Special \r\nStudies  courses.   No  attempt  is  made  to  have  them  take  regular \r\ncore  curriculum  work  for  which  they  can  get  credit,  nor  to  provide \r\nthem  with  special  supportive  services  to  ensure  their  success  in \r\nsuch  work.   Instead,  they  have  three  quarters  to  complete  their \r\nSpecial  Studies  requirements  or  they  are  dismissed  from  school \r\nentirely.   The  determination  as  to  whether  or  not  they  will  successfully \r\nexit  Special  Studies  is,  again,  made  by  culturally-biased  and  otherwise \r\ndeficient  standardized  tests.  The  judgment  of  the  Special  Studies \r\nteacher  has  little  weight  in  this  situation.  Consequently,  the \r\nteacher  ends  up  not  teaching  skills  at  all,  but,  instead,  teaching \r\nstudents  to  pass  the  standardized  tes1;  and  the  teacher  is  judged \r\nby  his  or  her  success  in  doing  this.  Of  course,  this  militates \r\nagainst  academic  freedom  and  innovation  and  creativity  in  the \r\nclassroom,  resulting  in  the  maintenance  of  archaic  educational \r\npractices  and  standards.  This  continuing  rigidity  in  the  face  of \r\na  new  educational  situation  that  requires  new  imperatives  borders \r\non  religious  dogma. \r\n\r\nA  continuation  of  this  discussion  of  the  manner  in  which \r\nremediation  is  carried  out  and  the  consequences  of  the  set  of \r\npractices  that  flow  from  the  policies  governing  it  is  necessary \r\nin  order  to  get  a  fuller  understanding  of  the  inadequacies  of  the \r\nG.R.P,  in  the  area  of  retention  of  the  Black  student  after  \"admission\" \r\nhas  taken  place. \r\n\r\n\r\n-66- \r\n\r\n\r\nDiscrimination  in  Retention \r\n\r\nAfter  stating  that  M  .  .  .  the  question  of  special  compensatory \r\nactivities  speaks  directly  to  the  heart  of  the  problem  of  increasing \r\nminority  student  enrollment\"  (C.R.P.,  unpaginated  section  entitled \r\n\"Student  Retention1' ) ,  the  Board  of  Regents  puts  forth  its  Special \r\nStudies  program  as  that  specific  form  of  \"compensatory  activity.\" \r\nWhile  we  can  agree,  in  principle,  that  some  form  of  \"compensatory \r\nactivity\"  is  needed,  we  disagree  that  the  punitive,  unrewarding, \r\ndiscriminatory,  rigid,  and  stigmatizing  Special  Studies  program \r\nhas  the  capacity  to  carry  Black  students  effectively  toward  graduation, \r\nThere  is  no  statistical  evidence  included  within  the  G.R.P.  regarding \r\nthe  effectiveness  of  Special  Studies  as  an  agent  of  the  retention  of \r\nBlack  students.  Ve  have  obtained  some  of  these  statistics  omitted \r\nfrom  the  G.R.P,  and  included  them  in  this  document.  But  before  we \r\nadvance  our  analysis  of  this  data,  we  need  to  say  a  word  about  the \r\nretention  of  Black  students  within  the  University  System  of  Georgia \r\nas  a  whole. \r\n\r\nThe  G.R.P.  does  provide  us  with  some  limited  information  bearing \r\non  the  general  question  of  the  comparative  rate  of  retention  for \r\nBlack  and  white  students.  This  information  is  limited  to  retention \r\nof  Blacks  within  the  four-year  institutions  in  the  system.   It  should \r\nbe  kept  in  mind  that  the  three  traditionally  Black  colleges  are \r\nincluded  in  this  category.   The  officially  announced  Elack  vs. \r\nwhite  attrition  rate  is  on  the  order  of  three  (3)  to  one  (l). \r\n\r\n\r\n-67- \r\n\r\n\r\nThat  is  to  say,  for  every  one  white  who  fails  to  complete  the  four- \r\nyear  institutions  of  higher  education,  three  Blacks  fail  (G.R.P. , \r\nSection  II-E,  p.  3^0  •  Although  comparable  statistics  are  not  reported \r\nfor  the  big  universities  or  the  junior  colleges,  the  attrition  rate \r\nat  the  university-level  institutions  could  reasonably  be  assumed \r\nto  be  much  higher.  Of  course,  a  proportionality  statistic  would \r\nhave  to  be  used  here.   Further  discussion  of  the  question  must  proceed \r\nwith  this  monstrous  rate  of  Black  student  attrition  in  mind. \r\n\r\nTurning  to  the  question  of  the  Special  Studies  program  as \r\nan  effective  instrument  of  Black  student  retention,  we  must  make \r\nuse  of  information  not  provided  in  the  G.R.P.   We  have  obtained \r\na  table  from  the  Special  Studies  report  of  the  University  System \r\ncontaining  data  for  the  Spring  Quarter  19?6  (reproduced  below) \r\nwhich  will  give  us  an  idea  of  the  drop-out  rate  for  Black  students \r\nin  Special  Studies  during  just  one  quarter.   From  this  table,  we  see \r\nthat  11$  of  the  Blacks  enrolled  in  the  program  dropped  out  as \r\ncompared  to  ^  of  the  \"others.\"  Certainly,  this  and  other  information \r\nwarrants'  an  examination  of  Special  Studies  as  the  instrument  of \r\nretention  the  G.R.P.  assumes  it  is.  To  the  contrary,  it  is  our \r\nposition  that  because  of  the  policies  that  govern  it  and  the  practices \r\nthat  characterize  it,  Special  Studies,  supposedly  designed  to  help \r\nBlack  students,  has  become  an  instrument  by  which  Black  students \r\nare  held  back. \r\n\r\nThis  leads  us  into  a  much  more  general  area  of  discussion. \r\nIt  is  illogical  and  unreasonable  to  think  that  the  retention  of  Black \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\n-—    -#-«.--    -4-    *\u003e.OUO*'II \r\n\r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nc\u003e \r\n\r\n—r \r\n\r\n*»» \r\n\r\nyr. \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n—*• \r\n\r\nVu \r\n\r\ncu\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO. \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n- \u003e \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n, \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n3\" \r\n\r\n— * \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\ni^\u003e \r\n\r\n/) \r\n\r\nC3 \r\n\r\n\u003c¦_ \r\n\r\nu\u003e \r\n\r\n/\u003e \r\n\r\n(V \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\n*^ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^^. \r\n\r\nc^ \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\nUD \r\n\r\nJ* \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n-»- \r\n\r\n-5 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n-\u003e- \r\n\r\n0/ \r\n\r\n-*¦ \r\n\r\n— ». \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n£\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\"1 \r\n\r\n\"J \r\n\r\nc\u003e  c\u003e  ~n  m \r\n\r\nO  a.  —  13 \r\n- J  — •  O  U» \r\nO.    3  •\u003c    3 \r\n\r\no    n\u003e    o.  c \r\n\r\n3    O  Oj \r\n\r\n\u003c  C-.  — \r\n\r\nC-  —  iZ \r\n\r\nC     — ¦  3    \u003c~\u003e \r\n\r\n3     — »  —  •  r» \r\n\r\n—  rt  O  *\u003c \r\n\r\nO  -\\   • \r\n3   c^ \r\n\r\n3  C- \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c3 \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\n:\u003e  3\u003e \r\n\r\nT\u003e \r\n\r\n;rj \r\n\r\n«r^ \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\nC3 \r\n\r\nCD  C3 \r\n\r\n~n \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n!J\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\ny* \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\n?t  o \r\n\r\nl^»  (D \r\n\r\n•— \u003c \r\n\r\nCX \r\n\r\n— » \r\n\r\n-» \r\n\r\nCw \r\n\r\nr*  — * \r\n\r\nUD \r\n\r\nrS \r\n\r\nCx \r\n\r\nCV \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCv \r\n\r\nQ»     O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\"I \r\n\r\n— * \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nro    a\u003e \r\n\r\nO    O \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n— \u003c \r\n\r\no- \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n— *- \r\n\r\n— -   CX \r\n\r\n5» \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n—^ \r\n\r\n*; \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•         O \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n—j \r\n\r\ntO \r\n\r\nra \r\n\r\nCT \r\n\r\n— •• \r\n\r\na.  o \r\n\r\nC     O \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n(-? \r\n\r\n\u003c-c \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nrv    a/ \r\n\r\nC3 \r\n\r\nr-» \r\n\r\nO- \r\n\r\nt£ \r\n\r\nr-» \r\n\r\n-5 \r\n\r\nr-f \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCa \r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n-•   3 \r\n\r\nr*   3 \r\n\r\n\u003c-» \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c-» \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n3     3 \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n3\" \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCOO \r\n\r\nrs \r\n\r\n«,\" \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no  to \r\n\r\n3\"vO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n5: \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n^•v; \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n'  ' \r\n\r\nJ  -' \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no    —• \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCT \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n»\u003c \r\n\r\nCW      -*- \r\n\r\nO     •— \r\n\r\n«-» \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n_». \r\n\r\n„«. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na^ \r\n\r\nr-r \r\n\r\nCV \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc    cv \r\n\r\n0' \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nCu \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n— \u003c  tv \r\n\r\n3    Q» \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nC- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no. \r\n\r\nc_ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCj \r\n\r\n3\" \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n!-»¦ \r\n\r\nr-f \r\n\r\n— -« \r\n\r\n«/\u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nOO \r\n\r\nft\u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nC- \r\n\r\n7T \r\n\r\n^/^ \r\n\r\nc-  c \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n3~ \r\n\r\n3-  r\u003e \r\n\r\n_\u003c \r\n\r\nU2 \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no  tr» \r\n\r\n—4 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr.   3 \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n7 \r\n\r\nCD     O \r\n\r\nn\u003e \r\n\r\na» \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO    r* \r\n\r\n— «  rt \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n_.. \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nC^ \r\n\r\n3     — *- \r\n\r\n— »- \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n«-» \r\n\r\nt_D \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\n\"5     — • \r\n\r\n^c \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n— \u003e  D* \r\n\r\nra   n \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n_\u003e. \r\n\r\n-v \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n-\"•  o \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nc^ \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\n— ». \r\n\r\n\\s\u003e \r\n\r\n3     — ¦ \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n— *¦ \r\n\r\n— »  r* \r\n\r\nr\u003e  3\" \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no  -j \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\na* \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nft) \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\ncw \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n3\" \r\n\r\n— ¦ •  — •  U/ \r\n\r\n\r\nI     VD \r\n\r\n\r\n— *  — •        u\u003e  co        ro  ro \r\n\r\nK)  tn  ts\u003e  vj  m  ui  ^  — \u003c  vjro \r\n\r\n\r\n*»4  cn \r\n\r\n\r\nro  ^* \r\n\r\nroyi   i    roi    Mtnucnu)  vo \r\n\r\n\r\nrocni     i    o  ro -\u003c -\u003c  (7\u003e  nj  a   i \r\n\r\n\r\nI     X*  — »    I \r\n\r\n\r\ni    ro  co   • \r\n\r\n\r\nccM \r\n\r\n\r\n— \u003c \r\n\r\nx: \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\n— *- \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n7T \r\n\r\nZT \r\n\r\n— * \r\n\r\nQ. \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCK \r\n\r\n\u003c-? \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c- \r\n\r\nCW \r\n\r\n\u003c-» \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n.3 \r\n\r\n3\" \r\n\r\n_» \r\n\r\n*\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n(/\u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n— \u003e  — »  ro  ro \r\n\r\ni    -\"Ou-1  i    N3w  i    w-*o  i     iroco \r\n\r\n\r\nro  — *  — * \r\n\r\n\r\nro       u\u003e  — •  — » \r\n\r\ncou^oioroi     icncnroi \r\n\r\n\r\n4^  — •   i     t    cr»  — *  i     loooroi \r\n\r\n\r\nI       I     CD    I     — • \r\n\r\n\r\n—.«—.!        I \r\n\r\n\r\n— •  ro  -—•  ro        — »  cn \r\n\r\ni    Nvjro^roNiurooiov- 'Co— 'cocn \r\n\r\n\r\n— \u003c•  — \u003c  r^i  \u003clo        -Ckco        co  co  — •  *•—• \r\n\r\n«    cooiouiojoniui  — 'Lni^ro  i    cn  — • \r\n\r\n\r\n— -  -t»       co  — »  ro  — 'J* \r\n\r\n^j  — \u003ecni    rororocnto— »— *vo \r\n\r\n\r\n•     i    ro \r\n\r\n\r\ncno\\i     i    cn  u)  -•-»¦\u0026  vj  a^  i \r\n\r\n\r\n— •    »     CO  CO    t \r\n\r\n\r\n03f \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nrt \r\n\r\n3 \r\nrt\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n\r\nrt  ?o \r\n\r\n3-  rt \r\n\r\nO-JD \r\n\r\n3    C \r\n\r\non \r\n\r\na»    -». \r\n\r\nO^-o \r\n\r\naJ   rt \r\n\r\n•a    rt \r\n\r\n3    O \r\n\r\n— •  a. \r\n\r\n-^\u003e.  «^- \r\n\r\ni/\u003e \r\n\r\n3  a» \r\n\r\nU3    — \u003c \r\n\r\n-H \r\n\r\n\u003eo  c^\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nC    rt \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nCw     C \r\n\r\n— \u003c \r\n\r\n3    CX \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\nrt   rt \r\n\r\n•— « \r\n\r\ns  Repo \r\nr  1976 \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr\u003e \r\n\r\ncol \r\n\r\n\r\nrororo        — »ro        —^  — •rs\u003e— *       ro  — *  — *        Xk  -j  — •  — •  — .  — « \r\n\r\ntrocorocn^k— •— \u003ecovocr\u003ecnxfcrooco        cocDCDicnocoro— «tororo \r\n\r\n\r\ni    NiOoocojkiflvoro*\u003eviCDroi    —w        cncr«i     i    CD  cn  — •  \u003e\u003ej  co  — *  co   i \r\n\r\n\r\nt        t       Xfc   C3    X* \r\n\r\n\r\ni     i    ro  co  i \r\n\r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n— \u003e \r\n\r\nm  -o \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\n3  rt \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3    3 \r\n\r\n?^- \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n—  n \r\n\r\n—»  3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n3    rt \r\n\r\nrt   o» \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\n3  O \r\n\r\n3\" \r\n\r\n«-*•  rt \r\n\r\n-89- \r\n\r\n\r\n•69- \r\n\r\n\r\nstudents  within  higher  educational  institutions  which  have  historically \r\ndenied  them  entry  can  be  achieved  without  the  alteration  of  those \r\ninstitutions  themselves  taking  place.  To  simply  include  a  large \r\nBlack  population  of  students  within  racist  institutions  and  expect \r\nthem  to  do  well  in  an  academically  and  otherwise  hostile  environment \r\nis,  at  best,  foolish.  The  problem  of  cultural  alienation  is  one  that \r\nspeaks  to  every  aspect  of  college  life.  When  Black  students  enter \r\na  previously  all-white  undergraduate  institution,  they  invariably \r\nenter  a  cultural  arena  which  is  the  antithesis  of  most  of  what  they \r\nhave  encountered  before.  The  G.R.F.  did  not  and  could  not  even  allude \r\nto  this  problem  since  the  Regents  see  the  problem  of  the  desegregation \r\nof  the  University  System  of  Georgia  as  merely  a  problem  of  the \r\nartificial  introduction  of  Black  students — in  a  token  manner — into \r\npreviously  white  institutions.  The  fact  that  these  students  have  to \r\nattempt  survival  within  a  culturally  hostile  situation  is  of  no \r\nconsequence.  Black  students  have  a  right  to  their  own  culture  and \r\nthe  free  expression  of  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  pedagogically \r\nimperative  that  this  cultural  expression  be  encouraged  from  all  sectors \r\nof  the  student  body.  Basic  to  the  learning  process  is  the  requirement \r\nthat  people  be  allowed  and  encouraged  to  move  from  the  familiar  to \r\nthe  unfamiliar;  but  too  often  Black  students  are  asked  to  move  from \r\nthe  unfamiliar  to  the  more  unfamiliar — a  pedagogical  impossibility. \r\nIn  the  process  much  of  what  they  know  is  not  considered  or  is  degraded. \r\nThis  leads  to  further  hostility  and  alienation.  Unfortunately ,  this \r\n\r\n\r\n--(—.-*¦-«*  *.-, \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n70- \r\n\r\n\r\nis  characteristic  of  our  society  as  a  whole,  and  many  of  the  problems \r\nof  our  society  can  be  seen  in  the  cultural  alienation  of  minorities \r\nwithin  it.   In  institutions  of  higher  education,  this  results  in  a \r\ndifficult  situation  in  which  learning  cannot  take  place  because  of \r\na  lack  of  mutual  respect,  and  the  quality  of  education,  in  general, \r\nsuffers . \r\n\r\nInstitutionalized  vehicles  for  mutual  interchange  outside  of \r\nthe  classroom  exist  and  are  encouraged  and  supported  for  middle-class \r\nwhite  American  students,  but  for  lower-class  Blacks  such  vehicles \r\nare  too  often  non-existent  or  discouraged  and  unsupported.  A \r\nconsideration  of  this  and  related  matters  is  essential  to  a  realistic \r\nand  serious  treatment  of  the  question  of  Black  student  retention, \r\nespecially  on  the  predominantly  white  college  and  university  campuses. \r\n\r\nDiscrimination  in  Graduation  Requirements \r\n\r\nAgain,  the  G.R.P.  is  woefully  inadequate  as  a  serious  response \r\nto  the  stipulation  within  the  HEW  Guidelines  addressing  Black \r\nproportionality  in  graduation  from  institutions  within  the  University \r\nSystem  of  Georgia  (see  HEW  Guidelines,  section  II,  subsections  E,  F \r\nand  G).  Instead  of  committing  itself  to  a  program  to  achieve \r\nproportionality,  the  G.R.P.  resorts  to  banal  excuses.  It  begins \r\nby  stating  that  the  high  attrition  rate  for  Black  students  within \r\nthe  University  System  is  \"  .  .  .  influenced  to  an  unknown  extent \r\nby  the  time  lag  effect  related  to  the  rapid  recent  increase  in \r\nminority  enrollment;  however,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  actual \r\n\r\n\r\n-71- \r\n\r\n\r\ndisparity  [between  the  rate  of  attrition  for  whites  and  Blacks^ \r\nis  less  than  that  indicated  above\"  (G.R.P. ,  Section  II -E,  p.  35, \r\nparenthesis  added).  The  statistical  confusion  on  this  matter  could \r\neasily  have  been  resolved  if  actual  attrition  rate  statistics  for \r\nBlacks  and  whites  were  included  within  the  plan.   Instead,  this \r\ninformation  has  to  be  inferred  from  Black  vs.  white  graduation \r\nstatistics. \r\n\r\nAs  a  further  explanation  for  the  disproportionality,  the \r\nplan  cites  Table  II-E-1  (reproduced  above)  and  the  SAT  scores  it \r\ncontains  to  indicate  the  \"magnitude  of  the  problem.\"  It  then \r\ncommits  itself  to  its  Special  Studies  program,  which  is  itself \r\npart  of  the  problem,  and  to  its  culturally-biased  core  curriculum. \r\nIn  fact,  the  core  curriculum  is  put  forth  as  the  only  generalized \r\nmeans  of  providing  mobility  toward  graduation.   The  core  curriculum \r\nis  then  described,  and  the  plan  commits  itself  to  the  previously- \r\nmentioned  enrollment  projections. \r\n\r\nSeveral  flaws  are  evident  in  this  line  of  argument.   In  the \r\nfirst  place,  the  core  curriculum  is  not  the  only  generalized  means \r\nof  mobility  toward  graduation.   In  the  second  place,  a  commitment  to \r\nenrollment  projections  is  not  a  commitment  to  decreasing  dis- \r\nproportionality in  graduation  ratios. \r\n\r\nA  passing  score  on  the  Regents'  Test  happens  to  be  one  of  the \r\ngeneralized  criteria  of  mobility  toward  a  degree  which  has  been \r\n\r\n\r\n-72- \r\n\r\n\r\nleft  unmentioned  in  the  G.R.P.   A  student  can  successfully  complete \r\nthe  core  curriculum  with  a  4.0  grade  point  average,  but  fail  the \r\nRegents'  Test  and  not  be  allowed  to  graduate.  According  to  statistics \r\nfor  the  winter  quarter  testing  in  the  academic  year  197^-75  (which \r\nwe  could  not  obtain  directly  despite  repeated  inquiries),  students \r\nin  predominantly  white  institutions  were  successful  on  the  Regents' \r\nTest  at  more  than  one  and  one  half  times  the  rate  of  those  from  the \r\ntraditionally  Black  institutions.   In  addition,  it  has  been  reported \r\nthat  white  students  at  one  of  the  universities,  at  a  selected \r\npredominantly  white  senior  college,  and  at  a  junior  college  passed \r\nthe  test  at  a  rate  one  and  a  half  times  greater  than  the  success \r\nrate  of  Blacks  who  attended  those  same  institutions.   (This  information \r\nis  contained  in  a  letter  dated  February  11,  1977 »  regarding  a  related \r\nmatter,  from  William  H.  Thomas,  Director  of  the  Region  IV  Office  for \r\nCivil  Rights  of  HEW,  to  George  L.  Simpson,  Chancellor  of  the  University \r\nSystem  of  Georgia). \r\n\r\nIt  would  seem  that  not  only  should  the  Regents'  Test  be  mentioned \r\nas  a  requirement  for  graduation  within  the  G.R.P. ,  but  relevant \r\nstatistical  data  regarding  the  extent  to  which  it  contributes  to \r\ncontinued  dis proportionality  in  the  percentage  of  degrees  granted  to \r\nBlack  and  white  recipients  should  be  provided  therein. \r\n\r\nAnother  of  the  gross  inadequacies  of  the  G.R.P.  pertaining  to \r\ngraduation  concerns  itself  with  the  plan's  commitment  to  enrollment \r\nprojections  as  a  fulfillment  for  section  II,  subsections  E,  F,  G \r\nand  H  of  the  HEW  Guidelines.  The  federal  government  is  very  specific \r\n\r\n\r\n¦73- \r\n\r\n\r\nhere j  In  fact,  this  is  one  of  the  strongest  points  within  the  HEW \r\nGuidelines.  Under  no  circumstances  can  a  generalized  commitment  to \r\nincreased  Elack  enrollment  be  regarded  as  a  commitment  to  increased. \r\nBlack  graduation.  This  is  especially  true  given  the  effectiveness \r\nof  the  mechanisms  of  institutional  racism  operative  within  the \r\nunits  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia,  among  which  standardized \r\ntesting  is  the  most  insidious. \r\n\r\nOur  Specific  Recommendations \r\n\r\n¦  i  ¦ — t  — !¦   1  -in   --  ¦  i  -  -   i  ii  i     i \r\n\r\nThe  following  interrelated  set  of  recommendations  are  advanced \r\nin  the  interest  of  equal  access  to  higher  education  and  in  the  hope \r\nthat  the  University  System  of  Georgia  will  become  more  prepared  to \r\nserve  the  needs  of  all  of  its  people  instead  of  the  limited  narrow \r\ninterests  which  it  presently  serves.  These  recommendations  are  the \r\nresult  of  careful  collective  thought  and  deliberation  and  are  put \r\nforth  with  the  desire  that  the  public  institutions  of  higher  education \r\nwithin  the  state  will  develop  the  capacity  to  offer  genuinely  functional \r\neducation  of  a  higher  quality  to  all  who  seek  it. \r\n\r\nRegarding  student  enrollment  projections,  we  recommend  the \r\nfollowing: \r\n\r\n1.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  a  Black  student  enrollment \r\nof  42,600  within  the  University  System  of  Georgia  as  a \r\nminimum  numerical  goal  by  the  year  1982. \r\n\r\n2.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  proportionate  Black  student \r\nenrollment  (\"}0/o)   as  a  minimum  numerical  goal  within  the  large, \r\npredominantly  white  universities  by  1982. \r\n\r\n3.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  proportionate  Black  student \r\nenrollment  (jCfi)   in  graduate  and  professional  degree  programs \r\nas  a  minimum  numerical  goal  by  1932. \r\n\r\n\r\n-7*w \r\n\r\n\r\nIn  order  to  effectively  achieve  these  enrollment  projections, \r\nwe  advance  the  following  recommendations  regarding  admissions i \r\n\r\n1.  That  the  state  commit  Itself  to  a  policy  of  \"uniform \r\n\r\nopen  admissions.\"  Any  citizen  who  possesses  a  high-school \r\ndiploma  or  a  G.E.D,  certificate  car.  quality  for  admission \r\nto  any  and  all  units  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia, \r\nwith  access  to  degree-credit  courses.   Admission  to  one \r\nof  the  component  institutions  shall  be  regarded  as  admission \r\nto  all. \r\n\r\n2.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  a  policy  of  full  admission \r\nto  the  core  curriculum  for  all  students  accepted  on  a \r\nfirst-come,  first-served  basis,  with  an  adjusted  formula \r\nthat  would  give  preferential  treatment  to  low-income \r\napplicants. \r\n\r\n3.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  a  policy  of  easy  intra- \r\nsystem  transfer.   At  all  state-run  institutions  transfer \r\n\r\nor  transient  students  need  only  furnish  an  official  transcript \r\nof  their  previous  college-level  work  showing  that  they  are \r\nin  good  standing  with  the  unit  issuing  the  transcript \r\nto  be  regarded  as  fully  admitted  to  the  unit  in  which \r\nthey  wish  to  study. \r\n\r\nJ+,   That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  abolition  of  standardised \r\ntests  as  criteria  fcr  admission  to  any  and  all  of  its \r\ncomponent  institutions  or  schools,  departments,  divisions, \r\nand  other  institutional  sub-units  thereof — including \r\ngraduate  and  professional  degree-granting  units. \r\n\r\n5.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  a  continuous  recruitment \r\ncampaign  within  the  framework  of  these  new  policies  and \r\nfocusing  upon  Black  potential  students.  This  campaign \r\nwill  take  the  form  of  offering  financial  incentives  and \r\ngenerally  publishing  the  new  policy  changes. \r\n\r\n6.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  all  of  the  above  policy \r\nchanges  regarding  admissions  as  well  as  necessary  changes \r\n\r\nin  personnel  so  that  these  new  policies  and  more  progressive \r\npractices  that  will  flow  from  them  can  be  expeditiously \r\ncarried  out  by  the  fall  quarter  of  1978. \r\n\r\n\r\nIn  order  to  follow  up  on  the  new  admissions  policies  advanced. \r\nabove,  we  recommend  the  following  with  regard  to  retention i \r\n\r\n1.  That  the  state  cormit  itself  to  an  extensive  program  of \r\nindividualized  evaluative  counseling  for  the  purpose  of \r\nascertaining  academic  weaknesses  that  a  student  night \r\nhave  prior  to  registration.   Students  feeling  they  need \r\nspecial  supportive  assistance  nay  be  made  aware  of  its \r\navailability  and  advised  to  participate  on  a  voluntary \r\nbasis. \r\n\r\n2.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  development  of  special \r\ncenters  for  math,  reading,  and  English,  and  of  other  basic \r\nsupportive  parallel  services  reinforcing  the  courses  of \r\nstudy  offered  as  part  of  the  core  curriculum. \r\n\r\n3.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  further  development \r\nof  voluntary  continuing  education  programs  as  part  of  its \r\ncommitment  to  remediation. \r\n\r\nk.     That  the  state  cormit  itself  to  the  development  of  degree- \r\ncredit  courses  in  reading  and  introductory  mathematics \r\nthat  are  part  of  the  core  curriculum  in  the  same  way  that \r\nfreshman  composition  courses  are  presently.  A  student \r\nshall  not  receive  a  punitive  grade  for  these  courses \r\nand  shall  be  allowed  to  enroll  in  them  repeatedly  until \r\nhe  or  she  has  developed  sufficient  sld.ll  to  exit  the \r\ncourse  with  full  credit,  based  upon  the  judgment  of  the \r\ninstructor  concerned. \r\n\r\n5.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  abolition  of  any  and \r\nall  forms  of  standardized  testing  in  the  determination  of \r\npolicy  in  any  way  affecting  students0  progress  toward \r\nany  of  the  degrees  granted  by  the  University  System  of \r\nGeorgia.   This  includes  the  abolition,  without  replacement, \r\nof  the  Regents'  Test,  senior  exit  examinations,  and  other \r\nsuch  measures. \r\n\r\n6.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  development  of  courses \r\nrelevant  to  the  Black  experience  and  perspective  that  are \r\nincluded  within  the  core  curriculum  and  are  regarded,  as \r\nequivalent  to  other  courses  in  the  areas  of  humanities \r\nand  social  science.   The  teaching  of  the  perspective  of \r\nBlack  and  other  poor  peoples  shall  be  encouraged  and \r\nincluded  within  the  presentation  of  other  relevant  subject \r\nareas. \r\n\r\n\r\n76- \r\n\r\n\r\n7.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  support  and  encourage \r\nthe  development  of  Black  student  unions  for  the  purpose  of \r\nenriching  the  extra-classroom  social,  cultural,  and  political \r\nlife  of  the  predominantly  white  institutions  in  particular, \r\n\r\nas  well  as  of  the  predominantly  Black  ones.   These  organizations \r\nshall  \"be  funded  through  student  activity  fees  controlled  \"by \r\nBlack  students. \r\n\r\n8.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  necessary  changes  in \r\npersonnel  and  orientation,  along  with  other  such  changes, \r\nin  order  to  implement  the  above  recommendations  and  to \r\nachieve  the  goals  implied  therein  by  1980. \r\n\r\nIn  order  to  be  in  compliance  with  the  HEW  Guidelines,  section \r\n\r\nII,  subsections  E,  F,  and  G,  and  consistent  with  the  above  recommendations, \r\n\r\nwe  further  recommend  the  following  with  respect  to  graduation: \r\n\r\n1.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  proportionality  (30^ \r\nBlack)  in  the  degrees  granted  by  the  University  System \r\nof  Georgia  yearly  at  all  levels  by  the  year  1982. \r\n\r\n2.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  acceptance  of  the  collective \r\njudgment  of  the  faculty  it  employs  as  the  sole  criterion \r\nfor  graduation  from  units  within  the  University  System. \r\n\r\n3.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  necessary  changes \r\n\r\nin  personnel  and  operating  practices  in  order  to  implement \r\nthe  recommendations  and  to  achieve  the  goals  explicitly \r\nstated  above  by  1980. \r\n\r\n\r\nIII.   DESEGREGATION  CF  FACULTY,  ADMINISTRATIVE  STAFFS,  NON -ACADEMIC \r\nPERSONNEL,  AND  GOVERNING  BOARDS \r\n\r\nThis  section  will  focus  on  the  response  made  by  the  Board \r\n\r\nof  Regents  to  the  third  section  of  the  HEW  Guidelines,  which \r\n\r\nrequires  that  \"|_ajn  acceptable  plan  shall  commit  the  state  system \r\n\r\nto  the  goal  of  increasing  the  number  and  proportion  of  black \r\n\r\nemployees,  academic  and  non-academic,  throughout  the  system  and  of \r\n\r\n\r\n•77- \r\n\r\n\r\nincreasing  representation  of  black  citizens  among  appointive \r\npositions  on  the  governing  boards  of  the  state  system  arid  of \r\nindividual  institutions\"  (HEW  Guidelines,  section  III,  p.  27). \r\nIn  the  matter  of  faculty  and  administrative  positions  in  particular, \r\nthe  Board  of  Regents  bears  responsibility  for  the  present  dis- \r\ntribution of  personnel  in  the  University  System  of  Georgia  because \r\nof  its  direct  charge  from  the  Georgia  state  legislature  \"to  elect \r\nor  appoint  professors,  educators,  stewards,  or  any  other  officers \r\nnecessary  for  all  of  the  schools  in  the  University  System  .  .  ,  \" \r\n(Acts  193l)'   The  evasive  nature  of  the  Georgia  Regents'  Plan \r\nin  regard  to  the  racial  distribution  of  personnel  in  these  positions \r\nreveals  their  singular  disregard  for  their  legal  responsibility \r\nto  comply  with  Title  VI  of  the  19\u0026+  Civil  Rights  Act  in  the \r\nstaffing  of  the  schools  in  the  University  System,  Cur  critique \r\nof  the  G.R.P. ,  therefore,  will  necessarily  call  attention  to \r\nomissions  from  that  plan  which  bring  this  disregard  to  light,  and \r\nwill  suggest  measures  through  which  the  University  System  may  be \r\nbrought  into  compliance  with  federal  law  in  this  regard. \r\n\r\nAffirmative  Action  in  University  Svr-tcm  Facultv  Selection \r\nEssentially,  all  that  section  III  of  the  G.R.P.  says  is \r\nthat  the  Regents  promise  to  comply  with  the  law  of  the  land  in \r\nregard  to  affirmative  action.   Void  of  data,  the  section  is  heavy \r\non  platitudes.   Specifically,  the  section  indicates  that  in  October \r\n1975  the  Board  passed  an  \"Affirmative  Action  Commitment\"  which \r\n\r\n\r\n-78- \r\n\r\n\r\nis  reprinted  \"in  its  entirety\"  and  takes  up  most  of  section  III \r\n\r\nof  the  G.R.P.  (G.R.P.,  Section  III,  p.  l).   Beyond  this  general \r\n\r\nshow  of  compliance  with  the  law,  the  G.R.P.  indicates  only  one \r\n\r\nspecific  state-wide  measure  taken  to  comply  with  affirmative \r\n\r\naction  criteria:   the  establishment,  in  February  of  1975i  of  a \r\n\r\nClearinghouse  for  applicants  for  administrative  and  faculty \r\n\r\npositions  to  which  schools  in  the  University  System  are  supposed \r\n\r\nto  refer  when  they  are  \"unable  to  identify  and  attract  suitable \r\n\r\nminorities  and  women  applicants\"  (G.P.P. ,  Section  III,  p.  2). \r\n\r\nThis  proviso,  however,  is  accompanied  by  a  stipulation  of  great \r\n\r\nimportance:  \"It  should  be  pointed  out,  however,  that  any  determination \r\n\r\nof  a  candidate's  qualifications  remains  with  the  academic  departments\" \r\n\r\n(G.R.P.,  Section  III,  p.  2).  The  degree  to  which  this  program  has \r\n\r\nresulted  in  successful  recruitment  and  hiring  of  Elack  faculty \r\n\r\nand  administrative  personnel  is  net  indicated  in  the  G.R.P. \r\n\r\nThe  Effects  of  Affirmative  Action  in  University  Svsten \r\nFaculty. Selection \r\n\r\nWith  some  reluctance,  the  staff  of  the  Board  of  Regents \r\n\r\nsupplied  us  with  a  table  detailing  the  racial  breakdown  of  full-time \r\n\r\nfaculty  members  in  the  component  institutions  of  the  University \r\n\r\nSystem  as  of  October  1,  197\u0026  (reproduced  below),  a  document  which \r\n\r\nwas  not  included  in  the  G.R.P.  submitted  to  KEW.  An  examination \r\n\r\nof  this  table  reveals  why  the  third  part  of  the  G.R.P.  is  heavy \r\n\r\non  rhetoric  rather  than  data. \r\n\r\n\r\nt- \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\n¦•1 \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\no* \r\n\r\nCP \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n?• \r\n\r\n(C \r\n\r\nl»* \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nif- \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n£?'  f \r\n\r\n~n \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\ntr \r\n\r\n-• \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\nt- \r\n\r\n-. \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n*¦\u003c \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nr\u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n-^ \r\n\r\n*— \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n,— \r\n\r\nfej \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•-» \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\nO' \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nc     o     S \r\n\r\n*• \r\n\r\nc. \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n?»•» \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nC- \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n*\u003c \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n¦-\u003c \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n¦j \r\n\r\n?-- \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nc- \r\n\r\nlj \r\n\r\n^¦» \r\n\r\n^     ^     -^ \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n*— \r\n\r\n*-• \r\n\r\n\" \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n*n \r\n\r\n3- \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc- \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nu* \r\n\r\nCT \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nIT \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n90    *.    00 \r\n\r\nb \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n19 \r\n\r\n*. \r\n\r\nr. \r\n\r\n3\" \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\nk \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nt\u003e \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nIt \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n'1 \r\n\r\n!¦* \r\n\r\nv\u003c \r\n\r\nOp \r\n\r\n** \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nIA \r\n\r\nl; \r\n\r\n?—     ^—     r— \r\n\r\n*z \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\n-\u003c \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n•^ \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n-* \r\n\r\n•* \r\n\r\nIB \r\n\r\np \r\n\r\nc„ \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nl_. \r\n\r\n*— » \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nft— \r\n\r\n?— ¦ \r\n\r\ne- \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nti \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ntJ      U       V \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n0. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n»-» \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc? \r\n\r\nt» \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\n\u003c_ \r\n\r\n•— ¦ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ni_ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCi. \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nzr \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n*— \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\n*-» \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nft— \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nt_ \r\n\r\nF \r\n\r\npa \r\n\r\nL« \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\ntD \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c/\u003e  t/»  o \r\n\r\no    c    b \r\n\r\np— \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n¦f- \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n•— • \r\n\r\n\u003c/\u003e \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\n\u003c_ \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•— \r\n\r\nI— \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nf— \r\n\r\n»--¦¦ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nAl \r\n\r\n»-• \r\n\r\ntr. \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nS1 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\npMi \r\n\r\n^C \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n•1 \r\n\r\n^\u003e \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n35 \r\n\r\nft—\" \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nC= \r\n\r\n*n \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n•— \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\u003e — \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nc* \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n?--* \r\n\r\nk- \r\n\r\n^* \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\n30 \r\n\r\nC      C      f \r\n\r\n*\u003c \r\n\r\nis* \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nIt \r\n\r\n•— \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nft* \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n»— - \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•-» \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\n\u003c_ \r\n\r\n»—• \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO. \r\n\r\nf» \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n\r\n»- \r\n\r\nr*    r»    »-- » \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n»w \r\n\r\nl» \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nV— \r\n\r\nr. \r\n\r\nr« \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nOO \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\ne. \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\n•\u003c— \r\n\r\n¦t \r\n\r\nc- \r\n\r\n«-• \r\n\r\n*i \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nt\" \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ncr; \r\n\r\n#  » \r\n\r\n*— \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\nrr   3-    w \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n•^ \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nit \r\n\r\nr-% \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\n~ \r\n\r\n«¦* \r\n\r\nl» \r\n\r\n-I \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n/-\u003e \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nr\u003e \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\n¦-\u003e: \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n?  -¦- \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n¦i \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\ni% \r\n\r\np \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n(X \r\n\r\nC    ft   OS \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\n¦» \r\n\r\nta \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nC« \r\n\r\nJ \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦\"1 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nft— ft \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n•-» \r\n\r\nc  i \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n(-) \r\n\r\noiii \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nCr] \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nf» \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nIt \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nr5 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nP \r\n\r\nH* \r\n\r\nP \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\n?  -' \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\nc~ \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1— \r\n\r\n?c \r\n\r\nu-     3 \r\n\r\n.-» \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\n-• \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\ni-» \r\n\r\n»— \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nft— \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nfj \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n»— \r\n\r\n»— \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•— ' \r\n\r\n^-« \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\n*— \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\n5  P \r\n\r\nf% \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n*^ \r\n\r\n»-H \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n«t \r\n\r\n?¦— \r\n\r\ni\u003e \r\n\r\n*— \r\n\r\n90 \r\n\r\nft— \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\nOc \r\n\r\n* — \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n*— \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n»\"\"*j \r\n\r\n?— • \r\n\r\n»» \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nr\u003e \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\n»— \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\n*— \r\n\r\n90 \r\n\r\ne\u003e \r\n\r\n0* \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\nft-— \r\n\r\nCK \r\n\r\n-» \r\n\r\nl» \r\n\r\nh* \r\n\r\n3n \r\n\r\n9 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nK— \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\ncr- \r\n\r\n^*- \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n»» \r\n\r\npo \r\n\r\n3     \u003e— \r\n\r\n« — - \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n»-• \r\n\r\nV* \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n^^ \r\n\r\n•-^ \r\n\r\n\"^ \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nC. \r\n\r\n|» \r\n\r\nIt \r\n\r\n*1 \r\n\r\nIt \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\nft— \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\noxa \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\n0\u003c- \r\n\r\nf» \r\n\r\nt-» \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n¦ \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n\"J \r\n\r\n•* \r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\non \r\n\r\n»— \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n*— \r\n\r\n.» \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nh    OQ \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nJ \r\n\r\n-* \r\n\r\n^~ \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n*-- \r\n\r\nJ \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\np» \r\n\r\n»— \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\n™ \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n»—    • \r\n\r\nOB \r\n\r\n»o \r\n\r\n*-»¦ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\"-\u003c \r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\nft— ' \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n•-• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nI-* \r\n\r\nf \r\n\r\n5F \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\nM \r\n• \r\n\r\nB\u003e \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nll \r\n\r\n\r\n©?.•^?¦•©•-•?-OO^-i-iOOOt-Jt-* \r\n\r\n\r\no         oooooooooooooooo \r\n\r\n-  -   \u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  H*         »»  »-•   KJ \r\n\r\n•«4  0~Ji\u003e'K»0\u003e-,*^OU)K»U\u003ec\u003e\u003eOOl-'Vy \r\n\r\n\r\nOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO \r\n\r\n\r\n0*~O^^J^UJ*-»Vi*»— »    Oft   t\"- \r\n\r\n\r\n?-•     OOwOOOOOOOOO \r\n\r\n\r\nu\u003c  •-  —    !    o  5 \r\n\r\nK»   »-\u003e    CO    *-    —  3\"    ?- \r\n\r\nr»    r» \r\n\r\n\r\nCrf \r\n«6 \r\n\r\n\r\na» \r\n\r\n\r\n0-J~jOc^O»-\u003e-,O^JO»-\u003eOOi-jO \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\n-61- \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nor \r\no \r\nn \r\n\r\n\r\no         oooooooooooooooo \r\n\r\n\r\nc\u003e  h^  ts*         ?-•  ?-•  ^^  uj \r\n\r\nu\u003e         oo'Ov\u003e*(y\u003e»J0Bt-'cjO9'\u003cooo^cD \r\n\r\n\r\nOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO \r\n\r\n\r\n•*  OOt-00»-0000000000 \r\n\r\n\r\nt\u003e»  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO \r\n\r\n\r\nO  k»O»-«w*k\u003eOO0s\u003eikiu\u003e0\u003e»-\u003eOu\u003c0 \r\n\r\n\r\n«-•         ooooo*-\u003e-oooooo\u003e—  oo \r\n\r\n\r\nao \r\n\r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n\r\n~J«-  \u003e-«tO^JtO  (y«UK^ \r\n\r\n\r\no\u003e—  ?—   OOOOUiOOO\u003e— \r\n\r\n\r\nv^5CCt-'OCB\u003e-\\^,'Ot\u003eJ*'^J \r\n\r\n\r\nOOvjOOO»-*»-«000»- \r\n\r\n\r\n0\u003e.«\u003eOCD^O*-»00*-OC»'^ \r\n\r\n\r\n*-  ot—'oooot-'atooov\"* \r\n\r\n\r\nto  0ta\u003et^ti-«O0t-\u003eOfK*00 \r\n\r\n\r\n•»\u003c  OOVJ»OOOOtJOOOO \r\n\r\n\r\no  a^at'MUHfrOHto \r\n\r\n\r\n*-  oo\u003e-oooo\u003e«^-ooo \r\n\r\n\r\n*—  o  o  o  u\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nlO    '-^    K)    ^     O \r\n\r\n?—  cr   i~  Co  »^i \r\n\r\n\r\nro   O   O  O   »-• \r\n\r\n\r\n»o    \u003co    to    O    \u003e0 \r\n\r\n\r\no  o  o  o  o \r\n\r\n\r\n» \r\nn \r\n\r\n\r\n3\"    ^ \r\n\u003ct    n \r\n\r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n\r\n•^t \r\n\r\n?-           »-» \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n^  ? \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nfsj     V^J    K^ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nD*    \u003e- \r\n\r\nv-' \r\n\r\nC*    «-  »s» \r\n\r\n\u003e^» \r\n\r\n•    r» \r\n\r\n»J  U»  o  o  o  *- \r\n\r\n\r\nv«*  »—   •—  t— ' \r\n\r\n\r\n0\u003e  Ou  o\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nt-  ?-  o  o  o  o \r\n\r\n\r\no*    l-*   o»    *^    -*J \r\n\r\n\r\nts»  O   O  O  t-  f \r\n\r\n\r\no         *-  o \r\n\r\n\r\no  o  o  o \r\n\r\n\r\n?—•    •— •     Kl    l*J \r\n\r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n\r\nVrf*1*-^\"—    OCttuHi^HO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n\r\no   ce  Cf   *- \r\n\r\n\r\nO  t^ \r\n\r\n\r\nto  ooo»—  ooooooo*—  oattoo \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c_\u003e  vwKiOOOOOtoOtst^-O \r\n\r\n\r\no        ~ \r\n\r\n\r\n»-•   M  W  ?•»   tJ  \u003e—    \"- \r\n\r\noto)^*-u\u003eat\u003eu\u003eoooo*o^4ya\u003e^ \r\n\r\n\r\nOt  Kl    H \r\n\r\n\\\u003e0  U     -J \r\n\r\n\r\nt-ft    »-•  to    *— •    Ui \r\n\r\n\r\n«o  too   —  v»^toO   —   OOOOO0»wO \r\n\r\n\r\n«o  ft-\"*-t-ftt-\u003ei«.»OOOtot«jtoO \r\n\r\n\r\nQ»    O    O    to   *• \r\n\r\n\r\nO  ^J  s»» \r\n\r\nvj    o    O    O    •C \r\n\r\n\r\n«.»»  »v\u003c00\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nS5 \r\n\r\n1   • \r\n\r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n\r\n°5 \r\n\r\ny  — \r\n\r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n\r\n°5 \r\n\r\n~r  •— \r\na    r» \r\n\r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n\r\nIs \r\n\r\n\r\n2$ \r\n\r\n\r\n5  lc \r\n\r\nrr  ;  a \r\n\r\n(/\u003e  w \r\n\r\nv.  ,rj \r\nO \r\n\r\n,50 \r\n\r\n\r\n-      !c \r\n\r\n\r\n30     \\-J\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nL0 \r\n\r\n\r\nO  to  o»  «o  o \r\n\r\n\r\n4ft—  to    tj   v«    y  »-»  WNiSlftt^    i^yi\u003e»ft-«J \r\n\r\ntot^^^tOkrfBOtoOOC*  V/*  i^*-to\u003e-«O\u003c-»»',-^0»^J \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCBO \r\n\r\n\r\n•^  ?oOt-«tu«o»t-t\u003e-OOOt-'0-o\u003co»0 \r\n\r\n\r\nt    \u003c^   Oh   w    OOwft\u003ebOV*      ^O \r\n\r\n\r\nr»  -*  \u003e-j  *»* \r\nC*»    ^o  t«*  t»* \r\n\r\n\r\n•«•  s.»  O  wo    \u003e¦ \r\n\r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nIT \r\n\r\n\r\n•80- \r\n\r\n\r\nBy  the  Regents*  own  figures,  the  white  university-level \r\ninstitutions  in  the  University  System  employ  only  44  Elack  faculty \r\nmembers,  tenured  and  non-tenured.  Most  of  these  faculty  members \r\nare  non-tenured  instructors  and  assistant  professors.  White \r\nfaculty  at  these  same  institutions,  again  according  to  the  Regents' \r\nown  figures,  number  J%2kk\\ \r\n\r\nOn  the  senior-college  level,  again  using  the  Regents'  figures, \r\nBlack  faculty  number  only  245,  as  opposed  to  1,506  white  faculty \r\nmembers.  The  pattern  repeats  itself  again  at  the  junior-college \r\nlevel,  where  6?  Blacks  contrast  with  612  whites.   Moreover,  not  one \r\nof  the  Blacks  at  the  junior-college  level  enjoys  tenure. \r\n\r\nThe  implications  of  these  figures  are  even  more  astounding \r\nwhen  the  pattern  of  racial  distribution  of  the  faculty  at  predominantly \r\nwhite  junior  and  senior  colleges  is  contrasted  with  the  pattern  at \r\nthe  Black  schools.  Of  104  tenured  Black  senior-college  professors, \r\nonly  two  are  employed  at  predominantly  white  institutions.   Of \r\nthe  6?  Black  professors  and  instructors  in  the  University  System's \r\njunior  colleges,  almost  half  are  concentrated  at  predominantly  Black \r\nAtlanta  Junior  College.   The  Black  colleges,  en  the  other  hand,  employ \r\nwhite  faculty  in  abundance.  Albany  State's  faculty  includes  nine  whites, \r\nall  with  tenure.  Fort  Valley's  faculty  includes  23  whites,  six  with \r\ntenure.   Savannah  State  has  42,  twenty  of  vhom  are  tenured.   In  fact, \r\nof  all  the  colleges  in  the  University  System,  only  those  colleges \r\n\r\n\r\n¦81- \r\n\r\n\r\nwhich  are  overwhelmingly  Black  (with  the  possible  exception  of \r\nGordon  Junior  College,  if  the  statistics  cited  by  the  Regents \r\nare  accurate  in  that  case)  have  faculties  which  are  racially \r\nbalanced.   Apparently  affirmative  action,  as  the  Board  of  Regents \r\nconstrues  it,  is  a  program  for  Black  schools  only. \r\n\r\nOnce  again,  the  Regents'  program  solves  a  problem  where  it \r\ndoes  not  exist  and  ignores  the  problem  where  it  docs  exist.  This \r\nis  in  keeping  with  the  racist  character  of  the  college-staffing \r\nprocedures  employed  throughout  the  history  of  higher  education  in \r\nGeorgia.  At  both  the  \"missionary11  schools  for  freedraen  and  their \r\npublic  counterparts,  white  administrators  and  teachers  were  common \r\nand,  in  fact,  were  often  given  preference  over  Blacks  in  faculty \r\nand  staff  selection.   But  in  the  segregated  white  schools,  Blacks \r\ncould  not  teach.  This  process  continues  today,  as  Black  schools \r\ncomply  with  affirmative  action  programs  while  white  schools,  with \r\napparent  impunity,  ignore  them. \r\n\r\nAs  in  the  case  of  student  enrollment,  faculty  selection  is \r\ndiscriminatory  because  of  arbitrary  practices  and  policies  camouflaged \r\nunder  the  banner  of  \"quality.\"  As  the  \"Affirmative  Action  Commitment\" \r\nwhich  constitutes  most  of  the  third  part  of  the  G.R.P.  states, \r\n\"The  affirmative  action  programs  in  the  University  System  shall \r\nbe  consistent  with  the  Regents'  standards  of  quality  and  excellence \r\n...\"  (G.R.P. ,  Section  III,  p.  k) ,  \"...  nor  shall  any  applicant \r\nbe  selected  for  employment  on  the  basis  of  race,  color,  religion, \r\nsex  or  national  origin  in  preference  to  a  better  qualified  candidate\" \r\n(G.R.P.,  Section  III,  p.  15). \r\n\r\n\r\n•82- \r\n\r\n\r\nEven  seemingly  objective  criteria  of  \"quality\"  in  faculty \r\nselection,  however,  may  and  do  serve  to  discriminate  against \r\nBlack  applicants.  As  mentioned  earlier  in  this  document,  Blacks \r\nwere,  until  recent  times,  legally  barred  altogether  from  the  programs \r\nof  the  university-level  institutions  in  Georgia  (and  elsewhere  in \r\nthe  southern  states)  and  made  to  seek  graduate  education  elsewhere. \r\nHence,  a  Black  applicant  for  a  faculty  position  may  well  hold \r\ndegrees  from  institutions  not  deemed  prestigious  \"by  white  selections \r\ncommittees  and  white  college  administrators.  Moreover,  because \r\nof  the  pervasive  racism  and  economic  discrimination  in  American \r\nsociety  as  a  whole,  Black  faculty  members  often  seek  teaching \r\npositions  while  completing  their  graduate  studies,  while  white \r\napplicants  are  more  likely  to  have  terminal  academic  degrees  in \r\nhand.  Finally,  Black  applicants  holding  degrees  in  fields  related \r\nto  the  Afro-American  experience  may  be  deemed  less  suitable \r\ncandidates  for  positions  in  white-oriented  disciplines  than  are \r\nwhite  candidates  with  graduate  work  in  fields  of  study  more  similar \r\nto  those  pursued  by  faculty  members  already  employed.   In  fact, \r\nin  the  University  System  a  candidate  holding  a  doctorate  in \r\nChaucerian  studies  is  more  likely  to  obtain  a  position  teaching \r\nfreshman  composition  courses  than  is  a  candidate  with  a  doctorate \r\nin  Afro-American  literature,  even  though  neither  candidate's \r\ngraduate  transcript  indicates  work  specifically  oriented  toward \r\nthe  actual  courses  he  or  she  will  be  required  to  teach. \r\n\r\n\r\n-83- \r\n\r\n\r\nMoreover,  candidates  for  academic  positions  are  not  hired \r\non  \"objective\"  criteria  alone.   Subjective  measures  invariably \r\nenter  in  when  candidates  are  assessed  as  to  their  ability  to  work \r\nharmoniously  with  others  in  the  institution.  When  the  other  faculty \r\nand  administrators  are  white,  their  subjective  preference,  consciously \r\nor  unconsciously,  is  far  more  likely  to  favor  the  addition  of  white \r\ncolleagues  to  the  staff.  As  a  result,  Black  applicants  for  faculty \r\npositions  in  the  University  System  may  well  be  excluded  from  even \r\nthe  process  of  \"final  review\"  necessary  for  inclusion  in  the  system's \r\nApplicant  Clearing  House. \r\n\r\nAffirmative  action  commitments  to  the  contrary,  then,  the \r\nBoard  of  Regents  in  actual  practice  invariably  rubber-stamps  the \r\nresults  of  this  combination  of  discriminatory  \"objective\"  and \r\nsubjective  judgments  and  ratifies  faculty  appointments  which  result \r\nin  the  gross  under-representation  of  Black  faculty  members  displayed \r\nin  the  Regents'  statistical  breakdown  of  faculty  composition \r\n(reproduced  above). \r\n\r\nMoreover,  efforts  to  overcome  tokenism  must  take  into  account \r\nthe  preferences  of  potential  Black  candidates  for  faculty  positions. \r\nFew  Black  candidates,  however  impeccable  their  \"quality\"  might  be \r\ndeemed,  are  eager  to  teach  in  institutions  from  which  Black  people \r\nare  systematically  excluded.  The  effective  recruitment  of  Black \r\nfaculty,  therefore,  necessarily  hinges  on  a  wider  breakdown  of \r\nsegregationist  policies  within  the  University  System,  particularly \r\n\r\n\r\n¦84- \r\n\r\n\r\nat  the  level  of  the  large  universities,  where  the  problem  is  the \r\nmost  glaring,  as  we  have  suggested  above  in  the  first  and  second \r\nsections  of  this  document. \r\n\r\nFinally,  those  Black  faculty  members  presently  employed  in \r\nthe  University  System  of  Georgia  are  barred  from  being  fully  utilized \r\nthroughout  the  system  because  of  inadequacies  in  Georgia  law.   At \r\npresent,  Georgia  law  bars  full-time  employees  of  the  state  from \r\nreceiving  additional  compensation  from  state  agencies  other  than \r\ntheir  immediate  employer.  This  effectively  prevents  Black  faculty \r\nfrom  serving  as  consultants  or  part-time  instructors  in  institutions \r\nother  than  those  employing  them. \r\n\r\nAt  predominantly  white  colleges  and  universities  in  the \r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia,  therefore,  the  affirmative  action \r\ncommitment  of  which  the  G.R.P.  boasts  is  a  sham  and  a  cover  for \r\nthe  continuation  of  racist  policies  and  practices  dating  back \r\nto  the  era  of  legal  segregation.  Nothing  in  the  G.R.P.  gives \r\nthe  slightest  indication  that  the  Board  of  Regents  will  take  any \r\nsteps,  or  that  they  care  to  take  any  steps,  to  remedy  this \r\nsituation.   (A  particularly  cogent  discussion  and  vivid  illustration \r\nof  the  operation  of  the  affirmative  action  mechanisms  in  faculty \r\nselection  at  Georgia  State  University  is  included  in  this  document \r\nas  appendix  XI ) . \r\n\r\nAffirmative  Action  in  University  System  Non-Academic  Employment \r\n\r\nExcluded  from  the  faculty  and  student  bodies  of  predominantly \r\nwhite  institutions  in  the  University  System  of  Georgia,  Blacks  are \r\n\r\n\r\n-85- \r\n\r\n\r\nnevertheless  employed  in  significant  numbers  throughout  the  system. \r\nIllustrative  of  their  position  in  the  system  is  the  situation  at \r\nthe  University  of  Georgia.  There,  by  a  recent  calculation,  Blacks \r\nmade  up  1.2$  of  the  faculty  and  1.6%   of  the  administration. \r\nBlacks  comprised  6.6fo  of  the  professional  non-faculty  employees, \r\nk.6#\u003e   of  the  secretarial/clerical  workers,  9,6%   of  the  skilled \r\ncxaft  workers,  and  a  mere  .7%   of  the  technical/professional \r\nworkers.   However,  57.^  of  the  service/maintenance  workers, \r\nthe  lowest-paid  amployees  at  the  University  of  Georgia,  were  Black. \r\nMany  were  paid  at  salaries  near  the  minimum  wage.   (Documentation \r\nrelevant  to  this  situation  is  contained  herein  as  appendix  X.) \r\n\r\nPrograms  to  enable  these  employees  to  upgrade  their  positions \r\nare  inconceivable  under  present  policies  and  practices  of  the \r\nUniversity  System,  since  these  policies  bar  Blacks  from  entering \r\nthe  institutions  where  they  work  on  an  equal  basis  with  those \r\nwhite  students  after  whom  they  are  expected  to  clean  up.   And  if \r\nthe  children  of  these  workers  were  able  to  circumvent  the  pseudo- \r\nacademic  barriers  designed  to  keep  them  out  of  the  institutions \r\nwhere  their  parents  work,  the  financial  burden  of  a  university \r\neducation  could  hardly  be  borne  by  an  hourly  wage-worker  lacking \r\neven  a  retirement  plan.   Such  is  the  dismal  state  of  affirmative \r\naction  in  the  University  System  of  Georgia. \r\n\r\nComposition  of  the  Board  of  Regents \r\n\r\nFollowing  their  discourse  on  affirmative  action  in  section  III \r\nof  the  G.R.P.,  the  Regents  take  note  that  the  members  of  the  Board \r\n\r\n\r\n-86- \r\n\r\n\r\nare  appointed  \"by  the  governor  for  fixed  terms.  Apparently  this  is \r\nintended  to  excuse  the  unrepresentative  character  of  the  Board. \r\nIndeed,  of  fifteen  Board  members,  all  are  men  and  only  two  are \r\nBlack.  Moreover,  the  socio-economic  status  of  the  Board  members \r\nis  significantly  different  from  that  of  the  student  population \r\nserved  by  public  higher  education  in  the  state.   (One  of  the  two \r\nBlack  members,  for  example,  is  President-elect  of  the  Atlanta \r\nChamber  of  Commerce.) \r\n\r\nYet  the  Regents  do  not  govern  the  University  System  directly \r\nat  all;  their  day-to-day  governance  is  effected  through  their  staff. \r\nLogically,  if  the  Regents  recognize  their  own  inadequacies  in \r\nrepresenting  the  citizens  they  serve,  they  should  seek  to  compensate \r\nfor  this  deficiency  by  judicious  selection  of  their  staff.  Yet \r\nof  their  thirteen  senior  staff  members,  only  two  are  Black.   (This \r\nnumber  rises  by  one  if  the  Director  of  Special  Studies  is  counted  as \r\na  senior  staff  member.)  Such  a  staff  merely  reinforces  the  Board's \r\nown  composition  and  tendencies.   Indeed,  the  Vice  Chancellor,  who \r\nis  responsible  for  monitoring  the  affirmative  action  programs  in \r\nthe  institutions  in  the  system,  and  under  whose  aegis  the  G.R.P. \r\nwas  prepared,  is  himself  white.  The  inadequacies  of  affirmative \r\naction  programs  in  the  University  System,  and  of  the  whole  process \r\nof  desegregation  in  the  system,  can  be  traced  to  the  failure  of \r\nthe  Board  of  Regents  to  put  together  a  staff  willing  to  aggressively \r\n\r\n\r\n-87- \r\n\r\n\r\npursue  desegregation  goals  rather  than  defensively  thwarting  and \r\nretarding  them, \r\n\r\nOur  Specific  Pecomr.endations \r\n\r\nFundamental  to  the  pursuit  of  affirmative  action  goals  in \r\nthe  University  System  of  Georgia  is  the  commitment  by  the  state, \r\ncalled  for  earlier  in  this  document,  to  restructure  the  system  to \r\nserve  the  educational  needs  of  the  citizens  of  the  state  effectively. \r\nIn  particular,  the  predominantly  Black  schools  need  to  \"be  upgraded \r\nand  enhanced,  the  curricula  of  all  of  the  colleges  and  universities \r\nneed  to  be  reconstituted  to  recognize  the  diversity  of  the  potential \r\nstudent  population,  and,  above  all,  the  public  colleges  need  to  be \r\noperod  up  to  provide  for  the  education  of  all  Georgia  citizens  who \r\nhave  completed  high  school  or  hold  an  equivalency  certificate. \r\nBeyond  those  earlier  recommendations,  we  call  for  specific  policies \r\nto  ensure  that  affirmative  action  ceases  to  be  a  mere  paper \r\ncommitment.   Specifically,  we  recommend  the  following  measures! \r\n\r\n1.  That  the  staff  of  the  Board  of  Regents  be  immediately \r\nreconstituted  to  reflect  the  racial  composition  of  the \r\nstate  in  general  and  of  the  potential  student  population \r\nof  the  University  System  in  particular.   (fief.  HEW \r\nGuidelines,  section  III,  subsections  A  and  G) \r\n\r\n2.  That  the  enhancement  of  racial  and  cultural  diversity \r\nin  the  faculty,  as  well  as  in  the  administration  and \r\naff ,  of  University  System  institutions  be  recognized \r\n\r\nby  the  Board  of  Regents  as  a  primary  goal  for  the  academic \r\nenrichment  of  students  in  all  public  institutions  of \r\nhigher  education  in  Georgia.   All  institutional  adminis- \r\ntrators shall  be  directed  to  regard  such  enhancement  as \r\nprimary  in  evaluation  of  academic  credentials  of \r\napplicants  for  faculty  and  professional  staff  positions. \r\n(Ref.  HEW  Guidelines,  section  III,  subsections  A  and \r\nB) \r\n\r\n\r\n-88- \r\n\r\n\r\n3.  That  immediate  and  specific  goals  \"be  set  \"by  the  Board \r\nof  Regents  for  the  increase  of  Elack  faculty  members \r\nat  all  predominantly  white  institutions  in  the  University \r\nSystem.   Such  goals  shall  he  set  first  for  the  university- \r\nlevel  Institutions,  which  have  proven  least  successful \r\nin  implementing  affirmative  action  policies  through  in- \r\nhouse  action,  and  administrators  of  such  institutions \r\nshall  be  held  accountable  for  seeing  that  such  goals \r\nare  met  within  a  specific  time  period.   (Ref.  HEW \r\nGuidelines,  section  III,  subsection  E) \r\n\r\nk.      That  the  Applicant  Clearing  House  presently  in  operation \r\nin  the  University  System  be  restructured  so  that  all \r\nBlack  applicants  for  positions  in  any  institution  within \r\nthe  University  System  may,  if  they  consent,  have  their \r\ncredentials  placed  on  file  for  consideration  for  all \r\nappropriate  positions  opening  up  in  the  University \r\nSystem.   (Ref.  HEW  Guidelines,  section  III,  subsections \r\nA  and  B) \r\n\r\n5.  That  the  state  of  Georgia  commit  itself  to  policy  changes \r\nnecessary  to  allow  fuller  utilization  of  those  Black \r\nfaculty  members  and  supportive  staff  personnel  currently \r\nemployed  within  the  University  System.  This  means  that \r\nstate  law  must  be  amended  so  that  Black  faculty  and \r\nstaff  in  the  system  can  receive  additional  compensation \r\nfor  consultation  and  teaching  outside  of  their  home \r\ninstitutions.   (Ref.  HEW  Guidelines,  section  III,  sub- \r\nsections D  and  F) \r\n\r\n6.  That  Black  faculty  and  staff  currently  employed  by  the \r\nUniversity  System  be  constituted  into  committees  by \r\nacademic  discipline  to  aid  in  and  review  selections  of \r\napplicants  for  posts  in  their  respective  academic  fields \r\nat  all  predominantly  white  institutions  in  the  system. \r\nIn  particular,  they  shall  see  that  all  potential  Black \r\nfaculty  members  with  appropriate  credentials  on  file  in \r\nthe  Applicant  Clearinghouse  be  considered  for  the  positions \r\navailable.   (Ref.  HEW  Guidelines,  section  III,  subsections \r\nD  and  F) \r\n\r\n7,  That  free  tuition  and  waiver  of  fees  for  all  institutions \r\nin  the  University  System  be  provided  for  all  employees \r\nand  the  immediate  families  of  all  employees  of  any \r\ninstitution  in  the  University  System.   (Ref.  HE1//  Guidelines, \r\nsection  III,  subsections  C  and  F) \r\n\r\n\r\n-89- \r\n\r\n\r\nIY.   SUBMISSION  OF  PLANS  AND  MONITORING \r\n\r\nAlthough  the  HEW  Guidelines  are  specific  with  regard  to  the \r\nestablishment  of  \"a  biracial  citizens  advisory /monitoring  committee \r\nto  assist  the  state  in  monitoring  the  implementation  of  the  plan\" \r\n(HEW  Guidelines,  section  IV,  subsection  C),  the  G.R.P.  does  not \r\ncommit  itself  to  such  a  mechanism  of  accountability. \r\n\r\nVe  therefore  recommend  the  following  in  this  regard: \r\n\r\n1.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  establishment  of \r\n\r\na  biracial  monitoring  committee  composed  of  the  people  who \r\nare  directly  affected  by  the  implementation  of  this  plan. \r\n\r\n2.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  following  composition \r\nof  such  a  biracial  committee:   low-income  people,  students, \r\nfaculty,  and  staff,  including  both  professional  and  non- \r\nprofessional employees,  of  the  University  System  of \r\nGeorgia. \r\n\r\n3.  That  the  state  commit  itself  to  the  encouragement  and \r\nsupport  of  the  endeavors  of  this  monitoring  committee. \r\n\r\n\r\n-• \r\n\r\n\r\nOFFICE  OF  THE  CHANCELLOR \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\n244  WASHINGTON    STflEET,  5.W. \r\n\r\nATLANTA,  GEORGIA  30334 \r\n\r\n\r\nSeptember  2,  1977 \r\n\r\n\r\nMr.  David  S.  Tatel,  Director \r\n\r\nOffice  for  Civil  Rights \r\n\r\nDepartment  of  Health,  Education  \u0026  Welfare \r\n\r\nOffice  of  the  Secretary \r\n\r\nWashington,  D.  C.  20201 \r\n\r\nDear  Mr.  Tatel: \r\n\r\nThe  Regents  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  are  pleased  to  submit  this \r\ndocument,  entitled  A  Plan  for  the  Further  Desegregation  of  the  University \r\nSystem  of  Georgia,  in  response  to  your  letter  of  July  2,  1977. \r\n\r\nThis  Plan,  in  spite  of  the  short  time  available,  has  been  worked  at  with \r\ngreat  seriousness  and  intensity  by  the  Board  of  Regents,  in  conjunction  with \r\nall  elements  of  the  University  System.   Several  lengthy  public  meetings  were \r\nheld  for  the  expression  of  a  wide  variety  of  opinion.   In  the  words  of  the \r\nPlan  \"The  Board  of  Regents  recognizes  that  it  has  more  than  a  legal  respon- \r\nsibility in  its  efforts  to  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  true  desegre- \r\ngation of  the  University  System  of  Georgia.\" \r\n\r\nIn  overall  numbers,  the  projections  contained  in  our  Plan  are  generally  on \r\nthe  order  of  those  numbers  suggested  as  goals  by  the  Guidelines.   They  grew \r\nout  of  our  recent  experience  and  our  view  of  the  dynamics  of  the  future. \r\nQuoting  again,  \"The  Board  of  Regents  regards  the  projections  contained  in \r\nthis  document  as  reasonable  objectives  based  upon  all  factors  available  for \r\nconsideration.\"   However,  \"The  fundamental  educational  decisions  implicit  in \r\nthe  furtherance  of  all  of  Georgia's  public  higher  education  are  necessarily \r\nthe  responsibility  of  the  Board  of  Regents.   This  responsibility  can  not  be \r\nabdicated  in  the  pursuit  of  externally  defined  statistical  objectives.\" \r\n\r\nWe  shall  be  pleased  to  provide  any  further  information  which  you  may  require \r\nin  your  review  of  this  Plan. \r\n\r\n\r\nSincerely, \r\n\r\nGeorge  L.  Sampson,  J/. A \r\n\r\n\r\nEnclosure \r\n\r\n\r\n/ \r\n\r\n\r\nA  PLAN  FOR  THE  FURTHER  DESEGREGATION \r\n\r\nOF  THE \r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\n\r\nSubmitted: \r\n\r\nOffice  for  Civil  Rights \r\nDepartment  of  Health,  Education  and  Welfare \r\nWashington,  D.  C. \r\n\r\n\r\nSeptember  1,  1977 \r\n\r\n\r\nC.  T.  Ox f or d^Ch airman   \"~^~~--  George  Bu/Sbee,  Governor \r\n\r\nBoard  of  .-Regents  State  of  Georgia \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  OF   CONTENTS \r\n\r\nPART  I \r\n\r\nPAGE \r\n\r\nIntroduction \r\n\r\nI.   Elements  of  the  Plan  4 \r\n\r\nA.  University  System  Structure  and  Institutional \r\n\r\nRole  Definition  6 \r\n\r\nB.  Senior  College  Resources  Assessment  and  Plans \r\n\r\nfor  Development  16 \r\n\r\n1.  Degree  Programs  16 \r\n\r\n2.  Fiscal  Resource  Allocation  and  Application  33 \r\n\r\n3.  Physical  Plant  and  Campus  Development  120 \r\n\r\n4.  Student  Financial  Aid  145 \r\n\r\nC.  Academic  Program  Coordination  147 \r\n\r\nD.  New  Academic  Programs  155 \r\n\r\nE.  Impact  Studies  156 \r\n\r\nF.  Notification  of  Mission  Changes  158 \r\nG,H.  Measures  and  Timetables  159 \r\n\r\nII.    Student  Enrollment  160 \r\n\r\nA.   Undergraduate  Student  Enrollment  167 \r\n\r\nB  (1),  Senior  College  and  University  176 \r\n\r\nB  (2),  First  Year  Enrollment  176 \r\n\r\nD.  \"Other  Race\"  First  Year  Enrollment  176 \r\n\r\nC.   Graduate  and  Professional  School  Enrollment  178 \r\n\r\nE.  Degree  Productivity  192 \r\n\r\nF.  Student  Mobility  194 \r\n\r\nIII.   A.-  F.   Further  Desegregation  of  Faculty  and  Staff  197 \r\n\r\nG.  Composition  of  the  Board  of  Regents  218 \r\nIV.    Submission  of  Plans  and  Monitoring  219 \r\n\r\n\r\n= \r\n\r\n\r\nPART  II \r\n\r\n\r\nI.   University  System  of  Georgia  Governance  1 \r\n\r\nA.  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  1 \r\n\r\n1.  Creation  of  the  Board  of  Regents  1 \r\n\r\n2.  Membership  2 \r\n\r\n3.  Powers  of  the  Board  2 \r\n\r\nB.  Regents'  Office  Staff  3 \r\n\r\nC.  Institutional  Administrative  Role  5 \r\n\r\nD.  The  University  System  Advisory  Council  6 \r\n\r\nE.  Examples  of  the  Coordinating  Process  8 \r\nII.   Student  Recruitment  10 \r\n\r\nA.  Admissions,  Promotion  and  Recruitment  10 \r\n\r\nB.  Application  Procedures  12 \r\n\r\nC.  Financial  Assistance  13 \r\nIII.   Student  Financial  Aid  24 \r\n\r\nIV.   Student  Retention  45 \r\n\r\nA.  Introduction  45 \r\n\r\nB.  Academic  Reasons  for  Special  Studies  47 \r\n\r\nC.  Special  Studies  Program  Components  49 \r\n\r\nD.  Testing  in  Special  Studies  52 \r\n\r\nE.  Special  Studies  Evaluation  53 \r\n\r\nV.  A  Plan  For  The  Further  Desegregation  Of  Fort  Valley \r\n\r\nState  College                        s  55 \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nA  PLAN  FOR  THE  FURTHER  DESEGREGATION \r\n\r\nOF  THE \r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nINTRODUCTION \r\n\r\nThis  document,  together  with  all  supportive  materials,  is  provided  in \r\nresponse  to  the  letter  and  attendant  Guidelines  of  Mr.  David  S.  Tatel,  Director, \r\nOffice  for  Civil  Rights,  Department  of  Health,  Education,  and  Welfare,  dated \r\nJuly  2,  1977.   It  represents  a  plan  detailing  both  current  processes  proven \r\nto  be  effective  and  specific  additional  steps  which  will  be  taken  by  the \r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia  in  its  efforts  toward  the  achievement  of  full \r\n\r\n\r\ndesegregation  of  the  University  System.   The  predecessor  plan  dated  June  1, \r\n1974,  and  semi-annual  progress  reports  numbers  I  through  VI  filed  under  that \r\nplan,  should  be  considered  as  supplemental  materials  in  support  of  this  document. \r\n\r\nThis  document,  prepared  under  the  direction  of  the  Regents  of  the  Univer- \r\nsity System  of  Georgia,  represents  a  single  comprehensive  state-wide  plan  in- \r\nvolving all  aspects  of  University  System  institution  operations.  All  policies \r\nand  procedures  described  are  applicable  on  a  System-wide  basis.  However,  specific \r\nreference  is  made  to  unique  opportunities  and  problems  of  individual  institu- \r\ntions where  such  reference  is  felt  to  be  informative. \r\n\r\nIt  should  be  especially  noted  that  this  Plan  represents  only  one  step \r\nin  the  evolutionary  efforts  by  the  Board  of  Regents  directed  toward  the \r\nnecessarily  nebulous  objective  of  elimination  of  all  vestiges  of \r\na  formerly  dual  system.   This  Plan  was  prepared  during  a  very  short  time \r\ninterval  as  mandated  by  the  Guidelines.   It  represents  the  best  review  possible \r\nunder  these  severe  time  contraints, of  the  present  status  of  University  System \r\ndesegregation,  the  effectiveness  of  processes  in  force,  and  the  definition \r\nof  projected  future  actions.   It  should  therefore  be  considered  as  an  interim \r\n\r\n\r\ndocument,  subject  to  further  analysis  and  refinement. \r\n\r\nIt  is  recognized  that  readers  of  this  Plan  will  have  varied  degrees  of \r\ninsight  with  regard  to  and  experience  with  the  University  System  of  Georgia. \r\nTherefore  for  clarity  this  Plan  is  divided  into  two  major  sections:  Part  I \r\nprovides  a  narrative  and  supporting  statistical  information  related  to \r\neach  major  aspect  of  Mr.  Tatel's  July  2,  1977  letter  couched  in  a  format  suit- \r\nable for  the  informed  reader;  Part  II  presents  supplemental  cross-referenced \r\ninformation  and  data  for  use  by  other  reviewers. \r\n\r\nThrough  presentation  of  this  Plan  the  Board  of  Regents  commits  itself \r\nto \r\n\r\nA.  continue  the  momentum  of  further  desegregation \r\nof  the  University  System  that  has  characterized \r\nthe  operation  of  the  present  Plan. \r\n\r\nB.  take  all  additional  steps  productive  of  further \r\ndesegregation  consistent  with  sound  principles \r\nand  practices  of  higher  education. \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  interprets  its  responsibility,  under  its  constitutional \r\nduty,  under  court  orders  in  force,  and  under  governmental  administrative  direct- \r\nives in  force,  to  be:   to  provide  all  the  University  System's  programs  and \r\nservices  without  discrimination  for  or  against  any  person  on  the  basis  of  race, \r\nsex,  color,  age,  religion,  or  national  origin.   These  programs  and  services \r\ninclude,  but  are  not  limited  to,  admission  to  and  continuance  in  courses  of \r\ninstruction  and  all  aspects  of  employment. \r\n\r\nAll  materials  submitted  in  this  document  are  prefaced  by  the  specific \r\nobservation  that  the  University  System  is  neither  now  nor  has  been  In  recent \r\nyears  operated  in  a  manner  discriminatory  toward  any  minority  group.   All \r\ninstitutions  operate  with  entrance  requirements  designed  to  meet  the  specific \r\n\r\n\r\nacademic  needs  of  the  institution  and  apply  those  requirements  without  regard \r\nto  race,  color,  age,  religion,  sex  or  national  origin  of  the  applicant.   Students \r\ndisadvantaged  in  either  a  material  or  educational  sense  are  provided  with  finan- \r\ncial aid  and  remedial  studies  programs  designed  to  compensate  to  the  greatest \r\nextent  possible  for  their  previous  conditions.   Faculty,  professional  staff \r\nand  support  personnel  are  all  recruited,  hired,  and  advanced  under  the  basic \r\nprecepts  of  positive  affirmative  action.   University  System  building  programs \r\nhave  been  accomplished  with  the  specific  objective  of  meeting  the  needs  of  all \r\nthe  citizens  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  and  a  thorough  study  of  construction \r\npatterns  will  show  that  they  are  nondiscriminatory  in  nature.   In  summary,  good \r\nfaith  has  been,  and  is  being  practiced,  in  all  aspects  of  the  operations  of  the \r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia. \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  recognizes  that  it  has  more  than  a  legal  responsibility \r\nin  its  efforts  to  contribute  to  the  achievemnt  of  true  desegregation  of  the \r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia.   Continuing  Board  contributions  to  the  resolution \r\nof  subtle,  often  ill-defined  problems  of  discrimination  both  within  and  external \r\nto  the  System  will  be  made  on  a  comprehensive  basis.  This  commitment  is  made \r\nin  specific  recognition  of  the  fact  that  while  substantial  results  have  been \r\nachieved  in  desegregation  efforts  of  the  past,  full  realization  of  the  potential \r\nof  the  University  System  has  not  yet  been  achieved.   Processes  and  structures \r\nin  place  which  have  proven  successful  must  be  strengthened  while  additional \r\napproaches  are  developed  to  meet  newly  defined  educationally  orientated  needs. \r\n\r\n\r\nPART  I \r\nELEMENTS  OF  THE  PLAN \r\n\r\nThis  document  represents  a  plan  for  the  continued  desegregation  of  the \r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia.  As  such  it  describes  policies  and  procedures \r\nwhich  will  be  adhered  to  by  each  operational  element  of  the  System.   The  Board \r\nof  Regents  commits  itself  to  each  of  the  processes  described. \r\n\r\nAs  described  in  Part  II,  Section  1,    the  ultimate  responsibility  for \r\nand  authority  over  the  University  System  is  vested  in  the  Board  of  Regents. \r\nThe  development  of  this  and  the  previous  Plan  have  been,  therefore,  under  the \r\ndirect  guidance  of  the  Board  of  Regents,  and  the  detailed  elements  of  the  Plan \r\nhave  been  evaluated  and  approved  by  the  Board. \r\n\r\nThe  detailed  direction  for  plan  development  has  been  provided  by  the \r\nChancellor,  with  day  to  day  coordination  being  the  responsibility  of  the \r\nVice  Chancellor.  All  key  staff  persons  in  the  Regents'  Office  have  provided \r\nadvice  and  counsel  together  with  input  information  from  their  specific  areas \r\nof  functional  responsibility.   The  Vice  Chancellor  for  Services,  an  experienced \r\neducator  and  former  President  of  a  predominantly  black  institution,  was  exten- \r\nsively involved  in  the  analysis  of  plan  elements. \r\n\r\nIdeas,  information,  and  insight  were  obtained  from  the  presidents  of  each \r\nof  the  University  System  institutions.   These  presidents,  in  turn,  derived \r\nsupport  from  their  institutional  administrative,  academic,  and  affirmative \r\naction  personnel.   Presidents  of  the  three  historically  black  institutions \r\nand  the  presidents  of  the  proximate  predominantly  white  institutions  were \r\ninvolved  to  an  extensive  degree. \r\n\r\nAdditional  insight  helpful  in  the  development  of  this  Plan  was  derived \r\nfrom  the  efforts  and  attendant  documentation  of  several  groups  outside  the \r\ngovernance  structure  of  the  University  System. \r\n\r\n\r\n'. \r\n\r\n\r\nIn  summary  this  Plan  was  developed  through  the  efforts  of  appropriate \r\nindividuals  from  throughout  the  University  System  and  has  been  approved  by \r\nthe  Board  of  Regents. \r\n\r\nThe  validity  of  any  plan  is  measured  best  in  terms  of  its  productivity \r\nfollowing  implementation.   All  institutional  and  System  projections  pre- \r\nsented in  this  Plan  are  provided,  therefore,  as  benchmarks  for  future  evalu- \r\native purposes.   The  proper  interpretation  of  these  projections  is  dependent \r\nupon  a  clear  understanding  of  the  basic  factors  related  to  the  University \r\nSystem  growth  and  to  the  specific  characteristics  of  each  individual  insti- \r\ntution.  The  steps  that  will  be  carried  out  are  contained  in  a  number  of \r\nplaces  within  this  document,  since  the  Plan  describes  steps  being  taken  at \r\nthe  System  level  and  at  various  institutional  levels.   The  contribution  which \r\neach  step  makes  to  the  racial  composition  within  Georgia's  higher  education \r\nsystem  is  affected  by  the  contributions  made  by  other  steps.   Each  step  interacts \r\nwith  other  steps  to  bring  about  a  desired  effect.   The  Board  of  Regents  regards \r\nthe  projections  contained  in  this  document  as  reasonable  objectives  based  upon \r\nall  factors  available  for  consideration. \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  acknowledges  that  aspect  of  the  Guidelines  which \r\nemphasizes  that  projections  are  not  \"quotas.\"  It  is  understood  that  as  in \r\nprevious  successful  desegregation  plan  implementation,  that  non-effective \r\nprocesses  will  be  abandoned  or  modified  as  implementation  experiences  may \r\nwarrant.   As  the  Guidelines  point  out  \"the  courts  in  Adams  have  noted  that \r\nthese  are  indeed  ' complex  'issues.\"  _ \r\n\r\nThe  following  sub-divisions  of  this  section  address  in  an  explicitly \r\nstructured  manner  the  \"elements  of  a  plan\"  identified  in  the  HEW  Guidelines \r\ndated  July  2,  1977.   Cross  references  are  provided  in  those  Guidelines  and  to \r\nthe  supporting  documentation  provided  in  Part  II  of  this  Plan. \r\n\r\n\r\nI  -A   UNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  STRUCTURE  AND  INSTITUTIONAL  ROLE  DEFINITION \r\n\r\nReference:   Section  I-A       (Guidelines) \r\n\r\nPart    II-  __1 (Plan) \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  endorses  and  commits  itself  to  continued  adherence \r\nto  the  Guideline  proviso  that  the  mission  of  each  institution  within  the \r\nUniversity  System  be  defined  on  a  basis  other  than  race. \r\nSpecifically  the  Board  will: \r\n\r\na)  complete  the  implementation  of  the  basic \r\n\r\nt  recommendations  of  the  joint  Armstrong  State \r\n\r\nCollege  -  Savannah  State  College  Academic  Pro- \r\ngram Review  Committee.   (The  report  of  this \r\nCommittee  and  other  details  related  to  opera- \r\ntions of  these  geographically  proximate  senior \r\ncollege  units  of  the  University  System  are  pre- \r\nsented in  Section  I-C.)  \r\n\r\nb)  continue  the  detailed  implementation  of  the  Plan \r\nfor  the  Further  Desegregation  of  Fort  Valley  State \r\nCollege  as  ordered  by  the  United  States  District \r\nCourt,  Middle  District  of  Georgia.   (A  copy  of  the \r\nFVSC  Plan  is  presented  in  Part  II,  Section  5 \r\n\r\nof  this  Plan.) \r\n\r\nc)  establish  a  Joint  Study  Coranittee  composed  of \r\nmembers  of  the  faculty  and  staff  of  Albany  State \r\nCollege  and  Albany  Junior  College  to  develop  a \r\ndetailed  plan  for  the  enhanced  articulation  of \r\nthe  academic  programs  of  those  two  dissimilar \r\ninstitutions  for  review  by  the  Chancellor  and \r\n\r\n\r\nthe  Board  of  Regents.   This  committee  will  seek  to \r\nidentify  existing  or  proposed  academic  areas  in  which \r\n\r\n\r\ncoordinated  associate  degree  -  bachelor's  degree  pro- \r\ngrams of  study  may  be  pursued  by  individual  students. \r\nThese  coordinated  programs  will  be  similar  in  structure \r\nto  the  current  nursing  degree  programs.  The  committee \r\nwill  also  be  charged  with  the  development  of  academic \r\nadvisement  and  recruitment  programs  of  a  type  which \r\nwill  enhance  mobility  of  students  between  Albany  Junior \r\nCollege  and  Albany  State  College.   The  work  of  this  study \r\ncommittee  would  be  completed  within  one  year  of  the  date \r\nof  this  Plan. \r\n\r\n\r\nThese  commitments  are  consistent  with  the  basic  responsibility  of  the \r\n\r\nBoard  to  provide  college  programs  as  convenient  geographically  for  all \r\nstudents  as  resources  and  good  educational  judgement  will  allow.   Specifically \r\nthe  objectives  have  been  to: \r\n\r\na)  place  the  first  two  years  of  college  within \r\ncommuting  range  of  the  largest  possible  number  of \r\nstudents. \r\n\r\nb)  disperse  the  four-year  institutions  with  respect \r\nto  both  geography  and  population  in  order  to  serve \r\nas  many  students  as  possible  with  a  full  range  of \r\nfour-year  programs. \r\n\r\nAs  a  consequence  of  these  and  other  related  educational  considerations \r\na  major  policy  underlying  University  System  of  Georgia  planning  and  management \r\ndecisions  has  been  the  differentiation  of  institutional  function  within  the \r\nSystem.   This  concept  has  resulted  in  a  limited  number  of  university-level \r\ninstitutions  (4  units),  the  maintenance  of  a  senior  college  system  (12  units), \r\nand  the  establishment  of  a  geographically  accessible  junior  college  system \r\n(16  units) .   The  general  features  of  this  dispersion  are  indicated  in \r\nFigures  I  -A-l  and  Table  I-A-l. \r\n\r\nIn  the  context  of  this  Plan  it  is  most  important  to  note  that  the  three \r\n\r\nhistorically  black  schools,  Albany  State  College,  Fort  Valley  State  College, \r\nand  Savannah  State  College,  represent  units  of  the  twelve  member  senior \r\ncollege  group.   A  detailed  understanding  of  the  process  of  integration  and \r\neducation  in  the  University  System  requires  a  consideration  of  these  three \r\ninstitutions  and  the  special  situations  which  they  represent.   Section  I-B \r\n\r\npresents  a  summary  inventory  of  academic,  fiscal,  and  physical  resources \r\navailable  to  these  historically  black  senior  college  units  • \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\n\r\nJ!r\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nFIGURE     I   -  A  -   1 \r\n\r\n\r\n-J  ¦  f. \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n£* \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\\±.- \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n.1?  - \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n\u0026\u003c*.¦#•  *'VVm.*v-V?i^V \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e'£^    A  Universities — Graduate \r\n1  Senior  Colleges \r\n\r\n\r\nDallon \r\n\r\n\r\nD  ah  I  \u003c  mega \r\n2  Gainesville \r\n\r\n\r\nJunior  Colleges \r\nFour  Year  Technical \r\n\r\n\r\n±^f.^  .'s£-«g  J \r\n\r\n\r\nRome \r\n\r\n\r\ni-  -  **%!«*.  Carrollton \r\n\r\n\r\nMarietta \r\nd       A  tlantu \r\n\r\nA_ \r\n\r\n\r\n£±  A  them \r\n\r\n\r\nMorrow \r\n\r\n\r\nAugusta \r\n\r\n\r\nSgfl \r\n\r\n-is  ^ \r\n\r\n\r\nBarnesville \r\n\r\n\r\nMilledgeville \r\n\r\n\r\nMacon \r\n\r\n\r\nColumbus \r\n\r\n\r\nFort  Valley \r\n\r\n\r\nA  mericus \r\n\r\n\r\nCochran \r\n\r\n\r\nSwainsboro \r\nStatesboro  Q \r\n\r\n\r\nSavannah \r\n\r\n\r\nAlbanv \r\n\r\n\r\nTijton \r\n\r\n\r\nDouglas \r\n\r\n\r\nWaycross \r\n\r\n\r\nBrunswick \r\n\r\n\r\nBainbridge \r\n\r\n\r\n¦  'Mm \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  I  -  A  -  1 \r\n\r\n\r\nGRADUATE  INSTITUTIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nGeorgia  Institute  of  Technology \r\nGeorgia  State  University \r\nMedical  College  of  Georgia \r\nUniversity  of  Georgia \r\n\r\n\r\nAtlanta \r\nAtlanta \r\nAugusta \r\nAthens \r\n\r\n\r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\n\r\n\r\nAlbany  State  College \r\nArmstrong  State  College \r\nAugusta  College \r\nColumbus  College \r\nFort  Valley  State  College \r\nGeorgia  College \r\nGeorgia  Southern  College \r\nGeorgia  Southwestern  College \r\nNorth  Georgia  College \r\nSavannah  State  College \r\nValdosta  State  College \r\nWest  Georgia  College \r\n\r\n\r\nAlbany \r\n\r\nSavannah \r\n\r\nAugusta \r\n\r\nColumbus \r\n\r\nFort  Valley \r\n\r\nMilledgeville \r\n\r\nStatesboro \r\n\r\nAmericus \r\n\r\nDahl onega \r\n\r\nSavannah \r\n\r\nValdosta \r\n\r\nCarroll ton \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  COLLEGES \r\n\r\n\r\nAbraham  Baldwin  Agricultural  College \r\n\r\nAlbany  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAtlanta  Junior  College \r\n\r\nBainbridge  Junior  College \r\n\r\nBrunswick  Junior  College \r\n\r\nClayton  Junior  College \r\n\r\nDalton  Junior  College \r\n\r\nEmanuel  County  Junior  College \r\n\r\nFloyd  Junior  College \r\n\r\nGainesville  Junior  College \r\n\r\nGordon  Junior  College \r\n\r\nKennesaw  Junior  College \r\n\r\nMacon  Junior  College \r\n\r\nMiddle  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nSouth  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nWaycross  Junior  College \r\n\r\n\r\nTift on \r\n\r\nAlbany \r\n\r\nAtlanta \r\n\r\nBainbridge \r\n\r\nBrunswick \r\n\r\nMorrow \r\n\r\nDalton \r\n\r\nSwainsboro \r\n\r\nRome \r\n\r\nGainesville \r\n\r\nBarnesville \r\n\r\nMarietta \r\n\r\nMacon \r\n\r\nCochran \r\n\r\nDouglas \r\n\r\nWaycross \r\n\r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n\r\nand  Section  I-C  presents  steps  in  process  to  effectuate  academic  program \r\ncoordination  between  Armstrong  State  College  and  Savannah  State  College. \r\nThe  remainder  of  this  section, devoted  to  general  information  on  University \r\nSystem  structural  characteristics  and  institutional  role  definitions,  is  pre- \r\nsented to  establish  the  framework  within  which  these  special  situations  must \r\nbe  considered. \r\nUniversity  System  Structural  Characteristics \r\n\r\nAssociated  with  the  concept  of  differentiated  institutional  function \r\nis  the  evolveraent  of  Regents'  policy  during  the  1960's  to  establish  a \r\ngeographically  dispersed  system  of  public  higher  education.   The  disper- \r\nsion policy  is  based  on  long  range  goals  to  provide  opportunity  for  com- \r\nprehensive education  beyond  the  high  school  for  all  Georgia  citizens,  with \r\nan  ultimate  objective  being  the  provision  of  at  least  two  years  of  college, \r\nwithin  reasonable  commuting  distance,  of  all  who  want  to  go  to  college. \r\nThe  change  in  numbers  of  students  attending  the  three  basic  categories \r\nof  institutions  reflects  the  movement  toward  achieving  this  objective. \r\nIn  1960  there  were  1,764  students  attending  the  three  junior  colleges  out \r\nof  a  total  System  enrollment  of  30,686.   This  represents  5.8  percent  of  the \r\ntotal  enrollment.   By  1976  there  were  26,436  students  attending  sixteen \r\njunior  colleges.   This  represented  21.1  percent  of  the  total  enrollment. \r\nThe  current  and  projected  System  enrollment  \"mix\"  is  as  follows: \r\n\r\n\r\n11 \r\n\r\n\r\nX   of  Total  System  Enrollment \r\n\r\n\r\nType  of  Institution  Fall          Fall            Fall \r\n\r\n~'  -  1950 1976 1931 \r\n\r\nUniversity  53.6          42.8            41.7 \r\n\r\nSenior  College  35.6          36.1            35.1 \r\n\r\nJunior  College  5.8          21.1            23.2 \r\n\r\nTotal  100.0         100.0           100.0 \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  higher  education  concept  outlined  here  may  be  depicted \r\n\r\nas  a  pyramid,  the  broad  base  being  provided  by  community  junior \r\n\r\ncolleges,  the  intermediate  level  represented  by  degree-granting \r\nV \r\nstate  colleges  and  undergraduate  university  programs,  and  the \r\n\r\napex  consisting  of  highly  specialized  and  professional  instruction \r\nand  research.   The  following  paragraphs  provide  a  summary  of  the \r\nbasic  role  and  function  within  the  University  System  of  each  of \r\nthe  three  types  of  institution.   Detailed  programmatic  information \r\nis  provided  in  Part  B. \r\nInstitutional  Role  Definitions \r\n1.   Universities \r\n\r\nThe  university  level  institutions  provide  opportunities  for \r\nstudents  to  pursue  work  toward  doctorates  and  other  advanced  de- \r\ngrees.  They  also  provide  a  wide  variety  of  resources  for  use  by \r\nall  segments  of  education,  including  other  institutions  cf  higher \r\neducation,  and  other  segments  of  society,  including  business  and \r\nindustry.   The  majority  of  the  research  and  state-wide  public \r\nservice  programs  are  conducted  through  these  institutions.   The \r\ngeneral  policy  followed  by  the  Board  of  Regents  in  allowing  the \r\nestablishment  of  graduate  programs  is  in  accordance  with  these \r\nguidelines:  (1)  The  University  of  Georgia  develops  the  doctoral \r\nprogram  in  disciplines  where  there  can  be  demonstrated  a  need  for \r\n\r\n12 \r\n\r\n\r\npersonnel,  where  financial  resources  are  available  to  support  the \r\nprogram,  and  where  faculty  are  available  or  can  be  recruited  to \r\nassure  high  level  competence  in  offering  the  doctoral  program; \r\n(2)  The  Georgia  Institute  of  Technology  places  principal  emphasis \r\nin  the  areas  of  engineering  with  additional  doctoral  programs  of- \r\nfered in  such  supporting  and  related  areas  as  the  sciences,  mathe- \r\nmatics, psychology,  and  industrial  management;  (3)  Georgia  State \r\nUniversity  offers  the  doctoral  program  in  education,  business,  and \r\n\\   economics,  and  such  arts,  humanities  and  social  science  programs \r\nas  are  considered  important  and  essential  to  serve  the  educational \r\nbusiness  and  governmental  areas  of  the  growing  Atlanta  region; \r\n(4)  The  Medical  College  of  Georgia  emphasizes  the  Doctor  of  Medi- \r\ncine, Doctor  of  Dental  Medicine  professional  degrees  with  encour- \r\nagement for  strengthening  the  biological  sciences  important  in \r\nsupporting  the  medical  and  allied  health  sciences. \r\n\r\n2.   Senior  Colleges \r\n\r\nThe  senior  colleges  of  the  University  System  function  as \r\nregional  institutions  and  offer  graduate  degree  programs  below \r\nthe  doctoral  level,  in  addition  to  offering  undergraduate  degree \r\nprograms.  About  82.  percent  of  the  graduate  enrollment  at  these \r\ninstitutions  is  in  teacher  education  programs.   The  large  num- \r\nber of  offerings  beyond  the  undergraduate  level  in  education  is \r\nin  response  to  demands  from  the  various  specialties  required  in \r\nthe  teaching  profession. \r\n\r\nThe  primary  role  of  the  senior  colleges  continues  to  be  to \r\nprovide  a  four-year  education  for  students  seeking  baccalaureate \r\ndegrees.   The  student  bodies  of  the  senior  colleges  include,  in \r\n\r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n\r\n\\ \r\n\r\n\r\naddition  Co  the  large  numbers  of  students  who  enter  as  freshmen, \r\nan  increasing  number  of  students  who  transfer  from  other  institutions \r\nparticularly  from  junior  colleges.  The  expansion  of  the  senior \r\ncolleges  and  the  continued  improvement  in  the  quality  of  their \r\nacademic  programs  help  to  make  possible  the  orderly  growth  of  the \r\njunior  colleges  by  ensuring  that  ample  opportunities  exist  for \r\njunior  college  graduates  to  continue  their  education. \r\n\r\nThe  expansions  and  improvements  at  the  senior  colleges  also \r\nhave  enabled  these  institutions  to  accommodate  large  numbers  of \r\nstudents  who  otherwise  would  have  been  dependent  upon  the  univer- \r\nsities for  undergraduate  education.   This  has  helped  the  universi- \r\nties to  devote  an  increasing  percentage  of  their  resources  to  grad- \r\nuate work,  research,  and  public  service. \r\n\r\n3.   Junior  Colleges \r\n\r\nThe  junior  colleges  offer  two-year  college  transfer  and  career \r\nprograms  leading  to  associate  degrees  and  two-year  and  one-year \r\ncareer  programs  leading  to  certificates. \r\n\r\nThe  college  transfer  associate  degree  programs  are  designed \r\nfor  students  who  plan  to  continue  tht»ir  education  at  senior  col- \r\nleges, professional  schools,  and  universities  upon  graduation  from \r\njunior  colleges.   Inter-institutional  student  transfer  is  facili- \r\ntated by  a  coordinated  core  curriculum  developed  by  all  System \r\ninstitutions  acting  under  the  direction  of  the  Regents'  Office  staff. \r\n\r\nThe  career  associate  degree  programs  are  designed  to  prepare \r\nstudents  to  begin  employment  immediately  upon  graduation  from  junior \r\ncolleges;  they  also  offer  opportunities  for  working  people  to  obtain \r\ndegrees  while  continuing  full-time  or  part-time  employment.   These \r\n\r\n14 \r\n\r\n\r\nprograms  are  offered  in  such  fields  as  agricultural  equipment  tech- \r\nnology, criminal  justice,  dental  hygiene,  nursing,  and  secretarial \r\nscience.   Several  of  the  junior  colleges  in  recent  years  have \r\nadded  to  their  traditional  career  programs  a  number  of  vocational- \r\ntechnical  career  programs.   These  programs  are  closely  coordinated \r\nwith  the  State  Department  of  Education  which  operates  Georgia's \r\nvocational -technical  school  system. \r\n\r\nThe  geographic  dispersal  of  institutions  has  had  a  beneficial \r\neffect  on  the  desegregation  process  through  the  provision  of \r\neducational  opportunity  in  an  accessible  and  relatively  economi- \r\ncal manner.   The  impact  of  this  effect  is  reflected  in  the  enroll- \r\nment figures  presented  in  Table  II-l  and  Table  II-2  of  Section  II \r\nof  this  Plan. \r\n\r\n\r\n15 \r\n\r\n\r\nI  -  B  SENIOR  COLLEGE  RESOURCES  ASSESSMENT  AND  PLANS  FOR  DEVELOPMENT \r\n\r\nReference:   Section  I  -  B  (1-5)        (Guidelines) \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  commits  itself  to  the  continued  development  of \r\nAlbany  State  College,  Fort  Valley  State  College,  and  Savannah  State  College \r\nin  keeping  with  their  respective  roles  as  senior  college  units  within  the \r\noverall  University  System  structure.   This  commitment  encompasses  the  con- \r\ntinued provision  of  fiscal  resources,  physical  resources,  authorized  program \r\nstructures,  and  other  resources  on  a  basis  comparable  with  those  provided  to \r\nthe  nine  other  senior  college  units  which  have  similar  missions. \r\n\r\nThe  nature  and  extent  of  this  Board  commitment  to  the  continued  develop- \r\nment of  the  three  historically  black  System  institutions  is  best  assessed \r\nthrough  a  comparative  review  of  the  current  status  of  senior  college  resource \r\navailability  in  the  key  areas  of  available  degree  programs,  resident  instruction \r\nfunding  levels,  and  physical  plant  development.   Salient  aspects  of  this  com- \r\nprehensive review  are  presented  below. \r\nDegree  Programs \r\n\r\nAs  described  in  the  previous  section  on  University  System  structural \r\ncharacteristics  and  institutional  mission  definition,  the  twelve  senior \r\ncolleges  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  function  as  general  liberal \r\narts  institutions  serving  on  a  regional  basis.   (The  special  problem  pre- \r\nsented by  Armstrong  State  College  and  Savannah  State  College,  proximate \r\ninstitutions  serving  the  same  region,  is  addressed  in  Part  I,  Section  I  -  C \r\nof  this  Plan.) \r\n\r\nBasic  educational  principles  upon  which  program  development  decisions \r\nare  based  suggest  that  the  following  twelve  areas  of  study  should  be  avail- \r\nable in  all  twelve  senior  college. \r\n\r\n16 \r\n\r\n\r\nBiology \r\n\r\nBusiness  and  Economics \r\n\r\nEducation \r\n\r\nEnglish \r\n\r\nFine  Arts \r\n\r\nHealth  and  Physical  Ed. \r\n\r\n\r\nHistory  and  Political  Science \r\n\r\nMathematics  and  Computer  Science \r\n\r\nModern  Languages \r\n\r\nPhysical  Science \r\n\r\nPsychology \r\n\r\nSociology \r\n\r\n\r\nDuplication  should  be  permitted  without  question,  except  possibly  in \r\nlow  demand  sub- fields  of  broad  areas  of  study,  such  as  Education,  Modern \r\nLanguages  and  the  Physical  Sciences.   Each  institution  should  have  at  least \r\none  major  in  each  of  the  twelve  generic  areas.  A  small  institution  might \r\nhave  only  Chemistry  as  a  major  under  the  Physical  Sciences,  but  a  large  in- \r\nstitution might  have  majors  in  Physics  and  Geology  as  well  as  Chemistry. \r\n\r\nTable  I-B-l  indicates  the  extent  to  which  these  generic  undergraduate \r\nprograms  are  currently  available  at  the  University  System  senior  colleges. \r\n\r\n\r\n17 \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  I-B-l \r\nPROGRAM  STRUCTURE  OF  SENIOR  COLLEGES \r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n(0 \r\n\r\n\r\n9) \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc \r\no \r\nu \r\n\r\n4J \r\n00 \r\n\r\na \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nM| \r\n\r\n4) \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n9 \r\n\r\nM| \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nCD \r\nM| \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nv-. \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nM| \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\nx. \r\n*j \r\n\r\n3 \r\nO \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nMl \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nM \r\nM \r\n\r\no \r\ncd \r\no \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\na; \r\n\r\n*-\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nJ= \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\n4-* \r\n\r\n« \r\nCO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n4J \r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n*o \r\nl-l \r\nCO \r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nM \r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n,0GY \r\n\r\n\r\nINESS  AND   ECONOMICS \r\n\r\n\r\n:ation \r\n\r\n\r\nx \r\n\r\n\r\nLISH \r\n\r\n\r\nS  ARTS \r\n\r\n\r\n;lth  and  phys.  ed. \r\n\r\n\r\nX  X \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\r\nrORY  AND  POLL    SCI. \r\n\r\n\r\nH  AND  COMPUTER  SCI. \r\n\r\n\r\nx        x \r\n\r\n\r\nN  LANG \r\nS.    SCI. \r\n\r\n:h. \r\n\r\nflOLOGY \r\n\r\n) \r\n\r\n\r\nx       x \r\n\r\n\r\nX  X \r\n\r\n\r\n18 \r\n\r\n\r\nAdditional  areas  of  study  beyond  the  broad  generic  areas  are  also \r\navailable  at  selected  institutions.   These  special  program  areas  include \r\nNursing  at  Albany  State  College  and  at  Georgia  Southwestern  College;  Agri- \r\nculture, Home  Economics  and  Electronic  Technology  at  Fort  Valley  State  College; \r\nCriminal  Justice  and  Allied  Health  Science  at  Armstrong  State  College;  and \r\nEngineering  Technology  at  Savannah  State. College. \r\n\r\nMasters  level  graduate  education  in  the  senior  colleges  has  been  con- \r\ncentrated in  the  field  of  Teacher  Education  with  more  limited  offerings  avail- \r\nable in  Business, Liberal  Arts  and  Science.   No  doctoral  level  programs  are \r\nprovided. \r\n\r\nAll  degree  programs  of  the  University  System  are  reviewed  for  accredi- \r\ntation by  the  appropriate  accrediting  agency.   This  accreditation  process \r\ninsures  the  maintenance  of  a  satisfactory  minimum  quality  level  as  measured \r\nby  professional  standards. \r\n\r\nNew  degree  programs  and  cooperative  degree  programs  approved  by  the  Board  of \r\nRegents  for  the  32  units  of  the  University  System  during  the  period  January  1974 \r\nthrough  December  1976  are  presented  in  Table  I-B-2  and  I-B-3,  respectively. \r\nThese  programs  are  listed  by  institution,  date  of  approval,  and  effective \r\ndate. \r\n\r\nThese  data  show  that  a  dramatic  decrease  can  be  noted  after  1974  in \r\nthe  total  number  of  degree  programs  approved  for  all  units  (1974  -  68; \r\n1975  -  26;  1976  -  17).  Among  the  senior  colleges  of  the  System,  a  similar \r\nreducing  tendency  was  observed  (24  -  7  -  11).   It  is  not  known  what  impact \r\nthe  budgetary  uncertainties  experienced  by  the  University  System  during  this \r\nperiod  might  have  had  on  degree  program  considerations. \r\n\r\nWhen  the  senior  colleges  are  identified  as  \"historically  Black\"  and \r\n\"other\"  and  compared  with  regards  to  the  number  of  degree  programs  that \r\nwere  approved  during  this  period,  a  relationship  can  be  observed.   Excluding \r\n\r\n19 \r\n\r\n\r\nthe  two  master's  degree  programs  approved  for  the  joint  graduate  program \r\nbetween  Savannah  State  College  and  Armstrong  State  College,  a  total  of  70 \r\nacademic  program  proposals  were  submitted  during  1974  through  1976  to  the \r\nRegents'  Office  by  senior  colleges  of  the  University  System.   Of  this  number \r\n42  were  approved  by  the  Board  of  Regents.   Ten  of  the  approved  proposals  or \r\n24%  of  the  total  were  for  the  three  \"historically  Black\"  institutions.   The \r\nremaining  28  proposals  (8  of  which  were  submitted  by  Albany  State  College, \r\nFort  Valley  State  College  and  Savannah  State  College)  are  currently  under \r\nreview. \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  will  continue  its  careful  assessment  of  the  academic \r\nprogram  needs  of  the  senior  college  units  to  insure  that  they  become  increas- \r\ningly capable  of  meeting  the  full  range  of  needs  of  all  prospective  students. \r\nExamples  of  the  types  of  programs  currently  under  active  consideration  would \r\ninclude  bachelor's  degree  programs  in  Political  Science,  Social  Science  Edu- \r\ncation and  Forensic  Science  at  Albany  State  College;  a  bachelor's  degree  pro- \r\ngram in  Computer  Science  at  Fort  Valley  State  College;  and  joint  master's \r\ndegree  programs  in  Chemistry,  and  Science  Education  at  Armstrong  State  College \r\nand  Savannah  State  College. \r\n\r\n\r\n20 \r\n\r\n\r\nTable  I-B-2 \r\n\r\n\r\nDate  Approved \r\nMarch  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nNovember  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nApril  1974 \r\nMay  1974 \r\nMay  1974 \r\nMay  1974 \r\nMay  1974 \r\n\r\nSeptember  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nDEGREE  PROGRAMS  ATr ROVED \r\nJanuary  1974  -  December  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nGeorgia  Institute  of  Technology \r\nMaster  of  Science  in  Health  Systems \r\n\r\nSouthern  Technical  Institute \r\nAssociate  in  Textile  Management \r\n\r\n\r\nGeorgia  State  University \r\n\r\nBachelor  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Mental \r\n\r\nHealth \r\nBachelor  of  Science  in  Education  with  a  major  . \r\n\r\nin  Vocational  and  Career  -Development \r\nMaster  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Vocational \r\n\r\nand  Career  Development \r\nMaster  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Speech \r\n\r\nPathology \r\nBachelor  of  Science  in  Education  with  majors \r\n\r\nin  Health  Education,  Physical  Education, \r\n\r\nand  Safety  Education \r\nBachelor  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Recreation \r\n\r\n\r\nEffective  Date \r\n\r\n\r\nSpring  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1974 \r\nSummer  1974 \r\nSummer  1974 \r\nSummer  1974 \r\nSummer  1974 \r\n\r\nFall  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nApril  1974 \r\n\r\nJanuary  1975 \r\nJune  1975 \r\n\r\nSeptember  1975 \r\nFebruary  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nMedical  College  of  Georgia \r\n\r\nBachelor  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Nuclear \r\n\r\nMedicine  Technology \r\nAssociate  in  Science,  in  Physical  Therapy \r\nAssociate  in  Science  with  a  major. in  Dental \r\n\r\nHygiene \r\n\r\nBachelor  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Respira- \r\ntory Therapy \r\n\r\nMaster  of  Health  Education  with  a  major  in \r\nOccupational  Therapy \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1974 \r\n\r\nFall  1975 \r\nFall  1975 \r\n\r\nSeptember  1975 \r\nSpring  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n21 \r\n\r\n\r\nDate  Approved \r\nJune  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nJuly  19 7A \r\nMay  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nJuly  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nTable  I-B-2 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nPage  2 \r\nUniversity  of  Georcia \r\n\r\nJ  B \r\n\r\nMaster  of  Arts  for  Teachers  with  majors  in  • \r\n\r\nEnglish,  French,  German,  History,  Romance \r\n\r\nLanguages,  and  Spanish \r\nMaster  of  Plant  Protection  and  Pest  Management \r\nDoctor  of  Philosophy  in  Child  and  Family \r\n\r\nDevelopment \r\nBachelor  of  Arts  with  an  interdisciplinary \r\n\r\nmajor  in  Criminal  Justice \r\n\r\n\r\nEffective  Date \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  1974 \r\nSeptember  1976 \r\n\r\nFall  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nApril  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nAlbany  State  College \r\n\r\nBachelor  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Special \r\nEducation \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\n¦  January  1974 \r\nFebruary  1974 \r\n\r\nOctober  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nNovember  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nArmstrong  State  College \r\n\r\nBachelor  of  Arts  with  a  major  in  Economics \r\n\r\nMaster  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Business \r\nEducation  (with  Savannah  State  College) \r\n\r\nBachelor  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Mathe- \r\nmatical Sciences  with  four  optional  con- \r\ncentrations in:   pure  Mathematics,  Applied \r\nMathematics,  Mathematics  Education,  or \r\nComputer  Science \r\n\r\nMaster  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Early \r\nChildhood  Education  (with  Savannah \r\nState  College) \r\n\r\n\r\nSeptember  1974 \r\nSummer  1974 \r\n\r\nNovember  1,  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nMay  1974 \r\n\r\nOctober  1974 \r\nOctober  1975 \r\nOctober  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nAugusta  College \r\n\r\n\r\nMaster  of  Education  a  major  in. Reading \r\n\r\nEducation \r\nMaster  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Psychology \r\nAssociate  in  Science  in  Business  Administration  Fall  1975 \r\nBachelor  of  Fine  Arts  with  a  major  in  Art        Spring  1977 \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1974 \r\nWinter  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nFebruary  1974 \r\nMay  1974 \r\n\r\nJune  1974 \r\nJuly  1974 \r\n\r\nMay  1975 \r\nFebruary  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nColumbus  College \r\n\r\nBachelor  of  Arts  with  a  major  in  German \r\nBachelor  of  Science  with  majors  in  Health \r\n\r\nEducation  and  Psychology \r\nBachelor  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Recreation \r\nBachelor  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Earth \r\n\r\nScience \r\nBachelor  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Nursing \r\nAssociate  in  Science  with  a  major  in \r\n\r\nRespiratory  Therapy \r\n\r\n\r\nSeptember  1, \r\nFall  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\n1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nFall \r\nFall \r\n\r\n\r\n1974 \r\n1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  1975 \r\nSummer  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n22 \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nTable  I-B-2 \r\nPage  3 \r\n\r\n\r\nDate  .Approved \r\n\r\nMarch  1974 \r\nMay  1974 \r\n\r\nMay  1974 \r\n\r\nDecember  1974 \r\n\r\nMarch  1975 \r\n\r\nMay  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nFort  Valley  State  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Science  in  Electronics  Technology \r\nBachelor  of  Arts  with  majors  in  Psychology  and \r\n\r\nCriminal  Justice \r\nAssociate  of  Arts  with  a  major  in  Criminal \r\n\r\nJustice \r\nMaster  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Vocational \r\n\r\nRehabilitation \r\nMaster  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Mental \r\n\r\nHealth \r\nAssociate  in  Animal  Health \r\n\r\n\r\nEffective  Date \r\n\r\nSpring  1974 \r\nFall  1974 \r\n\r\nFall  1974 \r\n\r\nFall  197  5 \r\n\r\nSummer  1975 \r\n\r\nSummer  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nJanuary  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nJune  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nSeptember  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nGeorgia  College \r\n\r\nBachelor  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Political \r\n\r\nScience \r\nMaster  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Early \r\n\r\nChildhood  Education \r\nBachelor  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Nursing \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nSeptember  197 \r\n\r\n\r\nJanuary  1974 \r\nMarch  1974 \r\nJune  1975 \r\n\r\nNovember  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nGeorgia  Southern  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  of  Science  in  Criminal  Justice \r\nBachelor  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Journalism \r\nAssociate  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Office \r\n\r\nAdministration \r\nAssociate  in  Education \r\n\r\n\r\nSeptember  197^- \r\nFall  1974 \r\nFall  1975 \r\n\r\nWinter  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nFebruary  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nGeorgia  Southwestern  College \r\n\r\nMaster  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Business \r\nEducation \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nNorth  Georgia  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nFebruary  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nMarch  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nNovember  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nSavannah  State  College \r\n\r\nMaster  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Business \r\n\r\nEducation  (with  Armstrong  State  College) \r\nBachelor  of  Arts  with  majors  in  History  and \r\n\r\nPolitical  Science \r\nMaster  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Early \r\n\r\nChildhood  Education  (with  Armstrong  State \r\n\r\nCollege) \r\n\r\n23 \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1974 \r\nSummer  1974 \r\nWinter  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nTable  I-B-2 \r\nPage   A \r\n\r\n\r\nDate  Approved \r\n\r\n\r\nJune  19 7 A \r\n\r\nSeptember  197A \r\nMay  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nValdosta  State  College \r\n\r\nMaster  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Business \r\n\r\nEducation \r\nBachelor  of  Arts  with  a  major  in  Economics \r\nMaster  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Early \r\n\r\nChildhood  Education \r\n\r\n\r\nEffective  Date \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  197A \r\n\r\nFall  19 7 A \r\nSummer  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nJanuary  197A \r\nJanuary  197A \r\nFebruary  197A \r\nMay  1976 \r\n\r\nJuly  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nWest  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  of  Science  in  Computer  Science \r\nAssociate  of  Science  in  Criminal  Justice \r\nMaster  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Media \r\nAssociate  of  Science  with  majors  in  Accounting; \r\n\r\nFinance;  Marketing;  and  Office  Administration \r\nMaster  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Physical \r\n\r\nEducation \r\n\r\n\r\nJune  197A \r\nMarch  19 7 A \r\nJune  197A \r\nMay  13,  1976 \r\n\r\nSummer  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nAbraham  Baldwin  Agricultural  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nJuly  19 7 A \r\n\r\n\r\nAlbany  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Arts  with  a  major  in  Medical \r\nLaboratory  Technology \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  197A \r\n\r\n\r\nJuly  197A \r\nJuly  19 7 A \r\n\r\n\r\nDecember  197A \r\n\r\n\r\nDecember  197A \r\n\r\n\r\nAtlanta  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Arts  in  the  Liberal  Arts  areas \r\nAssociate  in  Science  in  the  Physical,  Biological \r\n\r\nand  Social  Sciences;  Mathematics;  Business \r\n\r\nAdministration;  Education;  and  selected \r\n\r\nAllied  Health  Sciences \r\nAssociate  of  Arts  with  a  major  in  -Library /Media \r\n\r\nAssistance  (career  program) \r\nAssociate  of  Science  with  majors  in:   Aviation \r\n\r\nAdministration  (with  Georgia  State  University) ; \r\n\r\nBusiness  Management;  Criminal  Justice;  Mental \r\n\r\nHealth;  Recreation;  Rehabilitation  Services; \r\n\r\nSocial  Services;  Teacher  Assistance-Elementary; \r\n\r\nand  Teacher  Assistance-Secondary \r\n\r\n(career  programs) \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  197A \r\nFall  197A \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1975 \r\nWinter  197A \r\n\r\n\r\n2A \r\n\r\n\r\nTable  I-B-2 \r\nPage  5 \r\n\r\n\r\nDate  Approved \r\n\r\nBainbridpc  Junior  College \r\n\r\nDecember  1975    Associate  of  Applied  Science \r\n\r\n\r\nEffective  Date \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nBrunswick  Junior  Colleee \r\n\r\n\r\nDecember  1976    Associate  of  Science  in  Accounting \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1977 \r\n\r\n\r\nJuly  19 7 A \r\n\r\n\r\nOctober  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nClayton  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Arts  with  majors  in  Library/Media     Fall  1974 \r\n\r\nand  Business  Management  in  Banking  and  Finance \r\nAssociate  in  Arts  with  a  major  in  Accounting       Fall  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nJanuary  1974 \r\n\r\nOctober  1974 \r\nMarch  1975 \r\n\r\nOctober  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nDalton  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Science  with  a  major  in  Drafting \r\nand  Design  Technology \r\n\r\nAssociate  of  Science  in  Applied  Technology \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Science  in  Business  Computer  Pro- \r\ngramming (career  program) \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Science  with  a  major  in  Marketing \r\nand  Management \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1974 \r\n\r\n'  Fall  1974 \r\nWinter  1975 \r\n\r\nFall  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nJuly  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nEmanuel  County  Junior  College \r\nAssociate  in  Science  with  a  major  in  Management    Fall  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nJuly  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nFloyd  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Arts  with  a  major  in  Dietetic \r\nTechnology \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nMarch  1974 \r\nJanuary  1975 \r\nJanuary  1975 \r\nMarch  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nGainesville  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Paraprofessional  Teaching \r\nAssociate  in  Accounting  (career  program) \r\nAssociate  in  Child  Care  (career  program) \r\nAssociate  in  Science  with  a  major  in  Pre- \r\nengineering  Technology \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1974 \r\nSpring  1975 \r\nSpring  1975 \r\nSpring  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nJune  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nGordon  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Arts  with  a  major  in  Business \r\nManagement \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nTable  I-B-2 \r\nPage  6 \r\n\r\n\r\nDate  Approved \r\n\r\n\r\nKennesaw  Junior  College \r\n\r\n\r\nEffective  Date \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nOctober  197A \r\nOctober  1974 \r\nJuly  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nMacon  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Accounting \r\nAssociate  in  Retail  Merchandising \r\nAssociate  in  Applied  Science  in  Public \r\nManagement \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  1974 \r\nFall  1974 \r\nFall  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nMiddle  Georgia  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nOctober  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nOctober  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nSouth  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Applied  Science  with  majors  in \r\nAgri-business  and  Agri-production  and \r\nManagement \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Science  with  a  major  in  Automotive \r\nReplacement  Management \r\n\r\n\r\nOctober  9,  1975 \r\nOctober  9,  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nDecember  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nWaycross  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Arts,  Associate  in  Science,  and \r\nAssociate  in  Applied  Science \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n26 \r\n\r\n\r\nTable  I-B-3 \r\n\r\nCOOPERATIVE  DEGREE  PROCRAMS  APPROVED \r\nJanuary  19 74  -  December  1977 \r\n\r\n\r\nDate  Approved \r\n\r\n\r\nNovember  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nGeorgia  Institute  of  Technology \r\n\r\nCooperative  \"3-2\"  Dual  Degree  Program \r\n(with  Savannah  State  College) \r\n\r\n\r\nEffective  Date \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1977 \r\n\r\n\r\nSouthern  Technical  Institute \r\n\r\nFebruary  1976    Associate  in  Science  with  a  major  in  Fire  Science  Spring  1976 \r\n\r\n(with  Floyd  Junior  College) \r\n\r\n\r\nJuly  19 7 A \r\n\r\n\r\nMarch  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nGeorgia  State  University \r\n\r\nAssociate  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Aviation \r\nAdministration \r\n\r\n(with  Atlanta  Junior  College  and  Clayton \r\nJunior  College) \r\n\r\nMedical  College  of  Georgia \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Science  in  Dental  Laboratory  Tech- \r\nnology \r\n\r\n(with  Augusta  Area  Vocational-Technical \r\nSchool) \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nSpring  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nSeptember  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nUniversity  of  Georgia \r\n\r\nCareer  ladder  programs  in  Data  Processing  and \r\nSecretarial  Science  at  the  associate  and \r\nbachelor's  levels \r\n\r\n(with  Gainesville  Junior  College  and  Lanier \r\nArea  Vocational-Technical  School) \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1977 \r\n\r\n\r\nNovember  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nAlbany  State  College \r\n\r\nPlan  of  agreement  to  offer  the  Master's  degree \r\nin  Business  Administration \r\n(with  Valdosta  State  College) \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\n27 \r\n\r\n\r\nTable  I-B-3 \r\nPage  2 \r\n\r\n\r\nDate  Approved \r\nFebruary  1974 \r\nNovember  19  75 \r\n\r\n\r\nArmstrong  State  College \r\n\r\n*Master  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Business \r\n\r\nEducation \r\n\r\n(with  Savannah  State  College) \r\n*Master  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Early \r\n\r\nChildhood  Education \r\n\r\n(with  Savannah  State  College) \r\n\r\n\r\nEffective  Date \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nAugusta  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nJune  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nJune  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nColumbus  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Applied  Science  with  a  major  in \r\n\r\nElectronics  Technology \r\n\r\n(with  Columbus  Area  Vocational-Technical \r\n\r\nSchool) \r\nAssociate  in  Applied  Science  with  a  major  in \r\n\r\nData  Processing \r\n\r\n(with  Columbus  Area  Vocational-Technical \r\n\r\nSchool) \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nFort  Valley  State  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nGeorgia  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nGeorgia  Southwestern  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\n*Joint  Graduate  Programs  between  Savannah  State  College  and  Armstrong  State  College \r\nappear  on  both  the  \"Degree  Programs  Approved\"  list  and  on  the  \"Cooperative  Degree \r\nPrograms  Approved\"  list. \r\n\r\n\r\n28 \r\n\r\n\r\nTable  I-B-3 \r\nPage  3 \r\n\r\n\r\nDate  Approved \r\n\r\n\r\nMarch  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nMarch  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nMarch  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nNorth  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nGraduate  programs  in  Elementary  Education,  Early \r\nChildhood  Education  and  Special  Education \r\n(with  University  of  Georgia) \r\n\r\nGraduate  programs  in  Physical  Education  and  in \r\nSecondary  Education  with  teaching  fields  in: \r\nBusiness  Education,  Science,  Social  Studies, \r\nBehavioral  Science,  and  Mathematics \r\n(with  University  of  Georgia) \r\n\r\nGraduate  programs  in  Art  Education,  Music  Edu- \r\ncation, and  Secondary  Education  with  teaching \r\nfields  in  English  and  Foreign  Language \r\n(with  University  of  Georgia) \r\n\r\n\r\nEffective  Date \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nFebruary  1974 \r\nNovember  1975 \r\nNovember  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nSavannah  State  College \r\n\r\n^Master  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Eusiness \r\n\r\nEducation \r\n\r\n(with  Armstrong  State  College) \r\n*Master  of  Education  with  a  major  in  Early \r\n\r\nChildhood  Education \r\n\r\n(with  Armstrong  State  College) \r\nCooperative  Dual  Degree  \"3-2\"  Program \r\n\r\n(with  Georgia  Institute  of  Technology) \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1977 \r\n\r\n\r\nValdosta  State  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nWest  Georgia  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nAbraham  Baldwin  Agricultural  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nAlbany  Junior  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\n*Joint  Graduate  Programs  between  Savannah  State  College  and  Armstrong  State  College \r\nappear  on  both  the  \"Degree  Programs  Approved\"  list  and  on  the  \"Cooperative  T'ogree \r\nPrograms  Approved\"  list. \r\n\r\n29 \r\n\r\n\r\nTable  I-B-3 \r\nPage  4 \r\n\r\n\r\nDate  Approved \r\nJuly  1974 \r\nDecember  1974 \r\nDecember  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nEffective.  Date \r\n\r\n\r\nMay  19  7  G \r\n\r\n\r\nAtlanta  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Applied  Science,  offered  independ- \r\nently and \r\n(with  Atlanta  Area  Technical  School) \r\n\r\nAssociate  of  Science  with  a  major  in  Aviation \r\nAdministration \r\n(with  Georgia  State  University) \r\n\r\nAssociate  of  Applied  Science  with  majors  in: \r\nArchitectural  Drafting;  Auto  Body  and  Fender \r\nRepair;  Automotive  Mechanics;  Aviation  Main- \r\ntenance Technology;  Barbering;  Brick-laying; \r\nCabinet  Making;  Carpentry;  Child  Development; \r\nClerical  Office  Specialist;  Commercial  Art; \r\nComputer  Data  Processing;  Cosmetology;  Dental \r\nAssisting;  Dental  Laboratory  Technology;  Diesel \r\nTruck  Mechanics;  Electronics;  Food  Service \r\nManagement;  Industrial  Drafting;  Machine  Shop; \r\nMarketing;  Medical  Laboratory  Assisting;  Medical \r\nLaboratory  Assisting;  Medical  Office  Assisting; \r\nPrinting  and  Lithography;  Radio-Television \r\nMechanics;  Refrigeration;  Air  Conditioning  and \r\nHeating;  Secretarial  Studies;  and  Surveying \r\n(with  Atlanta  Area  Technical  School) \r\n[career  programs] \r\n\r\nAssociate  of  Applied  Science  with  a  major  in \r\nVocational  Education \r\n\r\n(with  the  State  Department  of  Education  and \r\nGeorgia  State  University) \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nBainbridge  Junior  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nBrunswick  Junior  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nJanuary  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nClayton  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Science  in  Aviation  Administration \r\n(with  Georgia  State  University) \r\n\r\n\r\nSpring  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nDalton  Junior  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\n30 \r\n\r\n\r\nTable  I-B-3 \r\nPage  5 \r\n\r\n\r\nDate  Approved \r\n\r\n\r\nEffective  Date \r\n\r\n\r\nEmanuel  County  Junior  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nNovember  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nFebruary  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nFloyd  Junior  College \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Science  with  a  major  in  Data \r\nProcessing \r\n\r\n(with  Coosa  Valley  Area  Vocational- \r\nTechnical  School) \r\n[career  program] \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Science  with  a  major  in  Fire  Science  Spring  1976 \r\n(with  Southern  Technical  Institute) \r\n\r\n\r\nGainesville  Junior  Coller.e \r\n\r\n\r\nJuly  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nSeptember  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nAssociate  of  Applied  Science  with  majors  in: \r\nAir-cooled  and  Outboard  Engines;  Automobile \r\nMechanics;  Auto  Body  and  Fender  Repair; \r\nBrick  Masonry;  Carpentry;  Cosmetology;  Data \r\nProcessing;  Electronic  Technology;  Heating \r\nand  Air  Conditioning;  Industrial  Electricity; \r\nMachine  Shops;  Plant  Maintenance;  Welding \r\n(with  Lanier  Area  Vocational-Technical  School) \r\n\r\nCareer  ladder  programs  in  Data  Processing  and \r\nSecretarial  Science  at  the  associate  and \r\nbachelor's  degree  levels \r\n\r\n(with  University  of  Georgia  and  Lanier  Area \r\nVocational-Technical  School) \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nWinter  1977 \r\n\r\n\r\nApril  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nMarch  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nGordon  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Arts  with  a  major  in  Radiologic \r\nTechnology \r\n\r\n(with  Griffin-Spalding  County  Area  Vocational- \r\nTechnical  School) \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Arts  with  a  major  in  Textile \r\nTechnology \r\n(with  Upson  Area  Vocational-Technical  School) \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nSummer  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nMarch  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\nKennesaw  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAssociate  in  Data  Processing \r\n\r\n(with  Marietta-Cobb  Area  Vocational-Technical \r\n\r\nSchool) \r\n\r\n[career  program] \r\n\r\n\r\nSpring  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\n31 \r\n\r\n\r\nTable  I-B-3 \r\nPage  6 \r\n\r\n\r\nDate  Approved \r\n\r\n\r\nMacon  Junior  College \r\n\r\n\r\nEffective  Date \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nMiddle  Georgia  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nSouth  Georgia  College \r\n\r\n\r\nnone \r\n\r\n\r\nWaycross  Junior  College \r\n\r\n\r\nSeptember  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nAssociate  of  Applied  Science  with  technical \r\n\r\nspecialties  in:   Child  Development;  Computer \r\nProgramming;  Drafting;  Forest  Technology; \r\nMarketing  and  Management;  Secretarial  Science \r\n(with  Way cross-Ware  County  Area  Vocational- \r\nTechnical  School) \r\n\r\n\r\nFall  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n32 \r\n\r\n\r\nFiscal  Resource  Allocation  and  Application \r\n\r\nThe  allocation  of  fiscal  resources  to  the  individual  institutions  is \r\nbest  understood  in  the  context  of  the  appropriations  process.   The  Board  of \r\nRegents  employs  a  highly  focused  approach  to  the  Legislature  in  its  appro- \r\npriation request.   The  budget  request  is  submitted  through  the  Governor  to \r\nthe  Legislature.   The  request  embraces  all  activities  of  the  University  System, \r\nincluding  resident  instruction  and  special  activities,  such  as  the  Eugene \r\nTalmadge  Memorial  Hospital,  Agricultural  and  Engineering  Experiment  Stations, \r\nand  other  organized  activities.   The  Governor's  recommendation  to  the  Legis- \r\nlature is  followed  by  the  Chancellor's  presentation  of  the  University  System's \r\nrequest  to  the  Appropriations  Committee  of  the  House  and  Senate.   The  Legis- \r\nlature appropriates  funds  for  the  University  System  in  the  final  appropriation \r\nbill.  All  funds  for  the  support  of  resident  instruction  are  received  either \r\nas  personal  services  or  operating  expense  monies.  The  detailed  utilization \r\nof  these  funds  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  Board  of  Regents. \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  allocates  operating  funds  to  the  several  institutions \r\nas  the  culminating  step  in  an  extended  evaluation  process.  Individual  budget \r\nconferences  are  held  with  each  institution  of  the  System  during  the  months \r\nof  October  and  November  under  the  general  direction  of  the  Vice  Chancellor. \r\nThe  presidents  present  their  needs  and  plans  for  the  institution  for  the  new \r\nfiscal  year  beginning  July  1.   This  conference  is  comprehensive  in  scope. \r\nThe  president  is  given  the  opportunity  to  present  any  problem  that  he  feels \r\nshould  be  discussed.   The  range  of  these  discussions  is  from  students,  faculty, \r\nfinances,  and  facilities  to  general  morale  of  the  institution.   Results  of \r\nthis  initial  conference  are  correlated  with  reports  on  the  academic,  physical, \r\nand  fiscal  aspects  of  the  individual  institution.  A  second  budget  conference \r\nis  held  in  March  and  April.   Tentative  budget  allocations  are  made  to  the \r\ninstitution  at  this  conference  for  the  new  fiscal  year.   The  presidents  are \r\n\r\n33 \r\n\r\n\r\ngiven  advance  information,  and  they  are  prepared  to  discuss  the  adequacy  or \r\ninadequacy  of  the  allocations  at  this  meeting.   In  this  total  process,  the \r\nBoard  of  Regents  is  concerned  with  trying  to  meet,  out  of  available  funds, \r\nthe  needs  of  each  of  the  institutions.  Specific  fiscal  problems  related \r\nto  further  desegregation  of  the  System  is  addressed  for  the  most  part  through \r\nthe  general  institutional  allocation.   Fiscal  problems  peculiar  to  the  his- \r\ntorically Black  institutions  are  thus  reflected  in  their  relative  allocation \r\nand  expenditure  levels  when  such  levels  are  stated  on  an  equivalent  full-time \r\nstudent  basis. \r\n\r\nTables  I-B-4  and  I-B-5  present  the  actual  allocations  and  expenditures \r\nof  University  System  senior  colleges  for  fiscal  years  1970  through  1977  with \r\ninitial  estimates  for  fiscal  year  1978. \r\n\r\nDuring  the  first  part  of  the  period  the  average  was  about  the  same  for \r\npredominantly  black  and  white  schools.  As  predominantly  black  college  enroll- \r\nments began  to  decline  in  FY  1972,  the  rate  of  state  appropriate  per  E.F.T. \r\nstudent  has  increased  dramatically.   Enrollment  at  the  predominately  black \r\ninstitutions  has  decreased  during  a  time  period  in  which  institutional  re- \r\nsources appropriated  for  personnel,  facilities  operation,  and  salary  in- \r\ncreases have  been  increased.   This  increased  resource  availability,  coupled \r\nwith  decreased  enrollment,  has  resulted  in  a  rapid  increase  in  the  funding \r\nlevel  expressed  in  terms  of  dollars  per  equivalent  full  time  student.   This \r\neffect  is  even  more  pronounced  in  an  expenditures  comparison  since  the  his- \r\ntorically black  colleges  receive  relatively  greater  grant  support  (particularly \r\nfrom  the  federal  level)  for  their  academic  activities. \r\n\r\nThe  operating  budgets  for  the  senior  colleges  for  fiscal  year  1978  and \r\n\r\nan  analysis  of  these  operating  budgets  are  presented  in  Tables  I-B-6  and \r\n\r\nI-B-7  respectively.   These  budgets  do  not  include  auxiliary  enterprises \r\n\r\n(dormitories,  food  service,  etc.),  capital  funds  for  physical  plant  develop \r\n\r\nment,  or  student  financial  aid  since  those  budgets  do  not  reflect  in  the \r\n\r\ndirect  cost  of  instruction  on  a  per  student  basis. \r\n\r\n36 \r\n\r\n\r\nIf  a  conclusion  were  to  be  drawn  from  these  four  Tables,  it  would \r\nhave  to  be  that  predominantly  black  college  funding  has  improved  greatly \r\nin  the  past  nine  years  when  compared  to  predominantly  white  colleges. \r\n\r\n\r\n35 \r\n\r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\n\r\noo  cn  *t \r\n\r\n«a- .—  on \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  I \r\n\r\n\r\n—  ¦—  O \r\nVD  O  CT\u003e \r\n\r\nojuiin \r\nf-oon \r\n\r\n\r\nJ    I \r\n\r\n\r\nin  ooo\u003en  om»f  i —  —  oiqwoiN \r\ncnc— r^uo*Ti^iJJMi^iOvoa5«3-voco \r\ncn  *r  co  cm  cm  cm  . —  on  co  r^  vo  vo  in  in \r\n\r\nCMCMCMCMCMCMCM«—  r—  r—  \u003c—  *-  t—  ¦— \r\n\r\n\r\n!¦». \r\n\r\ncm  ^  in \r\n\r\nPJSi — \r\n\r\nr\u003e» \r\n\r\n^-tno\u003e \r\n\r\n1—  ID  O \r\n\r\nCM  ».  cn \r\n\r\nua  -a-  -a- \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\nMi      m     «i \r\n\r\nn     •*     « \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\nCM  VO  \u003c¦ \r\n\r\ni—  vo  *r \r\n\r\nV¥ \r\n\r\n^COCM \r\n\r\nlO \r\n\r\n*r .—  in \r\n\r\nvo  **¦\u003e  in \r\n\r\np^ \r\n\r\ncm  o  in \r\n\r\non  co  cn \r\n\r\nO  1^  o \r\n\r\nco  «r  co \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n*   •    • \r\n\r\nn     •      •» \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\nCM  tO  IT) \r\n\r\n.—  CO  in \r\n\r\n•*¦«? \r\n\r\n^COCM \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nt\u003e~  r—  I— \r\n\r\ncvis^t \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nr—  CO  CO \r\n\r\nISWO \r\n\r\nCO  CT\u003e  in \r\n\r\n«cr  co  co \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n•»     «     * \r\n\r\n•     «     m \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\nCM  in  «3\" \r\n\r\n•—  vo  *r \r\n\r\n._  CO  CM \r\n\r\nNN(neomNowNio*r-coN \r\n\r\n•—  r—  CM  I —  NOlflO\u003ei —   \"O  *T    O  *T   Ol \r\n\r\ncn  cm  cm  cn  o\u003e  ¦ —  cncOvommvococM \r\n\r\n\r\n•  1 \r\n\r\ntMTrMOOlflNUTCOVDOOOQNN \r\n\r\nOCMKrojvocn^r^ra\u003ecoincoioin \r\nmococoovovor-.cocMrocOi —  r— \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  CM  , \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  . \r\n\r\n\r\nlONUJO. —  VOCMtoCMCOVO^COi— \r\n\r\nm\u003e— r\u003e-ur\u003eLn\u003e^-«cf\"r— r-.r-^r^-O'3'CO \r\niorocOP~«a-cr\u003ecnr^^cMCOincMCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  CM  i \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  , \r\n\r\n\r\n^~ \r\n\r\noiniM \r\n\r\nCO  CM  f— \r\n\r\nCM  CO  CO \r\n\r\nf^ \r\n\r\n\u003c—  •—  «*• \r\n\r\n•—  CO  IO \r\n\r\n«j-  in  . — \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\nm     •     m \r\n\r\n•k     *     m \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\nCM  in  ^r \r\n\r\n.—  CO  CO \r\n\r\nv» \r\n\r\n**COOJ \r\n\r\n»- \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n».  cm  «3- \r\n\r\nOWN \r\n\r\nLlI \r\n\r\nr^. \r\n\r\nCTl  CO  CO \r\n\r\ncm  o  cr\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ntj-  in  o \r\n\r\nr—  «a-  r»«. \r\n\r\nra \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n«k           M           * \r\n\r\nm     m      m \r\n\r\n\u003cc      t- \r\n\r\nLu \r\n\r\nr-lOO \r\n\r\n-i—  CM  CM \r\n\r\n-*      to \r\n\r\n««\u003e \r\n\r\n^COCM \r\n\r\nC9 \r\n\r\ng        t \r\n\r\nLU          LU \r\n\r\nO  tO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nOM« \r\n\r\noio^r \r\n\r\nLU  0£ \r\n\r\nr*. \r\n\r\nID  CM  lO \r\n\r\nro  . —  co \r\n\r\nU-ObJ \r\n\r\ncm  o  in \r\n\r\no  in  co \r\n\r\nO  LlI  a. \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n•t       «       M \r\n\r\n*        *        «k \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\nlu \r\n\r\ni—  r-  m \r\n\r\nI—  ¦—  CM \r\n\r\n3E  _JZ \r\n\r\n^COCM \r\n\r\nLU  oo \r\n\r\nu-  l_\u003e  _ \r\n\r\nCO           1- \r\n\r\n\u003e-«*:\u003c: \r\n\r\nMO« \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\no^rai \r\n\r\nO  r^  vo \r\n\r\n—•  a \r\n\r\nr»» \r\n\r\nco  cm  en \r\n\r\ncn  cm  in \r\n\r\n\u003e-  Z  a. \r\n\r\nONM \r\n\r\nO  CM  CM \r\n\r\nhWO \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n¦t      «      «» \r\n\r\nM        »       • \r\n\r\n\u003c-\u003eioa \r\n\r\nLu \r\n\r\n#—  io  in \r\n\r\ni~  r^  cn \r\n\r\nm       a. \r\n\r\n««* \r\n\r\n*»Nf\" \r\n\r\nLU         \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n»-i          UJ \r\n\r\nz        »~ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nin  «*  o \r\n\r\nvo  vo  in \r\n\r\n=3        \u003c£ \r\n\r\n»» \r\n\r\nin  cti  co \r\n\r\nvo  ro  cm \r\n\r\n1- \r\n\r\no  co  •— \r\n\r\nO  CM  CO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n*    *    • \r\n\r\n»    »    *• \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\nr—  lO  LO \r\n\r\n«».CM«— \r\n\r\nCOOCOCMi —  (MNOMOtOMJlM \r\n\r\ni- co  n  win  •*  in  o  i —  cm  vo  *r  o  •— \r\n^-f— i —  cncocriC0vo«3-CMi'O^i-i —  i — \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  CM  , \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  . \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  f\u003e^  i 1 —  CMOVOI^-OCMCOCOCMVO \r\n\r\nCO  CT\u003e  r—  MoNNCOOJinMOO'Vt \r\n\r\nvo  «r  *r  *r  r«»  «a-  cm  ¦ —  ¦ —  cn  o  co  ct\u003e  cn \r\n\r\n\r\nvoo^Nco^Ottbmr-Ncn. — \r\nin  vovooi-  cM«3-cnco«3-cMcncnco \r\n\r\nCOCMCMCO«3\"CMOOOCnOCM^.Cn \r\n\r\n\r\ninQCOini-NNNOinotmf \r\nCMCOiTiincMinoincficriCMCMCMin \r\n\r\n(MOOHr-r-Ol'-OOr-NrsOl \r\n\r\n\r\n1         t \r\n\r\n^¦incocoi —  co*roiovoCMOo\u003ecF» \r\no  in  cm  co  cm  co  ^}-  ¦ —  ioOMni —  co \r\n\r\n»—   Or-r-r-O0\u003ef-Of-OWC0Cn \r\n\r\n\r\n¦u \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n•3 \r\n\r\n•a \r\n\r\nQJ    QJ \r\n\r\n¦o \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\ni- \r\n\r\nt. \r\n\r\ncn  cn \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n(U \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\ncu  cu \r\n\r\n¦4J \r\n\r\n-u\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nr—  r— \r\n\r\n..  IO \r\n\r\n•  •  to \r\n\r\n\u003cc \r\n\r\n\u003c£ \r\n\r\nr—   r— \r\n\r\n¥\u003e \r\n\r\nV) \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nV    i~ \r\n\r\na\u003e  s- \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\n\u003cU \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\ncn  0) \r\n\r\ncn  cu \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nV  Q. \r\n\r\nat  o. \r\n\r\nQJ--» \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\n4.    t_ \r\n\r\npw \r\n\r\n»^ \r\n\r\n¦—  3 \r\n\r\n•— \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nt—  c \r\n\r\n.—  c \r\n\r\n«—  ,^--*' \r\n\r\n^~ \r\n\r\n¦f\"  ¦r-' \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n—  O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc  c \r\n\r\no-^- \r\n\r\n\u003cJ  \"f- \r\n\r\nCO  \u003c_)    QJ \r\n\r\n--»o \r\n\r\nOJ    OJ \r\n\r\n¦u \r\n\r\n\u003c4-\u003e \r\n\r\n- —        cn \r\n\r\n3         — » \r\n\r\nOO  IO \r\n\r\nt-  \u003co \r\n\r\nt.    A3 \r\n\r\ni-    QJ \r\n\r\n— -^  u.  3— » \r\n\r\no-^-  ¦*-\u003e \r\n\r\no-^  +J \r\n\r\nOJ    o  i — \r\n\r\nCO          O^— 3 \r\n\r\nJ£    QJ \r\n\r\nt-  t-  c \r\n\r\n•^    i-    c \r\n\r\ncni-  i—  3 \r\n\r\n^— ¦   QJ  -f—           *»^' \r\n\r\no  *-\u003e \r\n\r\nC    O.  3 \r\n\r\nC    O.  3 \r\n\r\nQJ    C    O- — \r\n\r\nCO  3 \r\n\r\ncn  c   qj \r\n\r\n«  f- \r\n\r\nQJ    o    O \r\n\r\nQJ    O   O \r\n\r\n\u003c—    QJ  O \r\n\r\n*— -• \r\n\r\nQJ    QJ    QJ    cn  QJ \r\n\r\n1—  J= \r\n\r\nV)    L    U \r\n\r\nm  i.  u \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\ni—  CO            QJ \r\n\r\ncni —  i/i   qj   cn \r\n\r\nco  3 \r\n\r\nQ.TJ \r\n\r\no--o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO         C   cn \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nQJ  i—           i —    QJ \r\n\r\n^¦^ \r\n\r\njc  o.  \u003co \r\n\r\nQJ     Q.    \u003cT5 \r\n\r\n,^^ \r\n\r\nt_\u003e  -*:   S-   \u003cU \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCT \r\n\r\nr-     O     411-1- \r\n\r\n* — * \r\n\r\n3— » \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e  \u003e. \r\n\r\nU\u003c    01 \r\n\r\n\u003c/\u003e \r\n\r\n+j  \u003c:  «d \r\n\r\ni/\u003e \r\n\r\n1— \r\n\r\nu  aii — \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\n•—  O  4-\u003e    o  •— \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n^--3 \r\n\r\n\u003co      z \r\n\r\ni- \r\n\r\n•\u003c-         X \r\n\r\nj_ \r\n\r\nZD \r\n\r\nQJ     lO    *-\u003e  r— \r\n\r\ni — \r\n\r\nf— \r\n\r\nO         t-  v_)    O \r\n\r\n\u003e — \r\n\r\nv^ \r\n\r\n\u003cj  -»-\u003e \r\n\r\nt—   0\u003e \r\n\r\nai \r\n\r\n-c  aj \r\n\r\nai \r\n\r\nI— \r\n\r\n+-\u003e  i —   in   o \r\n\r\ni — \r\n\r\n« — ¦ \r\n\r\nO    C   JZ           (_\u003e \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\nc  c \r\n\r\nCO  4-\u003e    S- \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\n3  4-\u003e   t. \r\n\r\n*-) \r\n\r\n»— « \r\n\r\nIO  CO    QJ  (_\u003e \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nS-  3    QJ \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\ncn  Qj \r\n\r\nIO    IO \r\n\r\n«s  \u003cu \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\niO    0) \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n1— \r\n\r\n¦w       s \r\n\r\nt_\u003e  o \r\n\r\nQJ    QJ           -t-\u003e    QJ \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nQJ   cn \r\n\r\nc  c \r\n\r\n\u003e»¦«-»  ¦•-\u003e \r\n\r\nIO \r\n\r\n^-,+J  +J \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\noo    \u003e,jr   \u003co \r\n\r\n?J  -C     \u003e,  (O   -U) \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\nI—     QJ \r\n\r\n•t—  *^ \r\n\r\nr-WL \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n^-  wo    u. \r\n\r\n=J \r\n\r\n¦z. \r\n\r\n\u003c—    4J  -r- \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nIO    +-\u003e  r—    ?J     IO \r\n\r\nf— \r\n\r\n^—  ^~ \r\n\r\nE   E \r\n\r\n-»J        «o \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\n•*-»           IO \r\n\r\nCT \r\n\r\n»— * \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e-u\u003e  3  cn-i-\u003e \r\n\r\n*r- \r\n\r\n+-\u003e    3   -U\u003e  WO   -U\u003e \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nO  — \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nCVS \r\n\r\nC    QJ   3 \r\n\r\nQJ   c   o  s- \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\ncnoo  o   c        to \r\n\r\no  \u003c_\u003e  o \r\n\r\nT3  \"CJ \r\n\r\n«o  oo'^r \r\n\r\n\u003co  oia^ \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\ni—     IO  LT\u003e     O \r\n\r\nJ-\u003e \r\n\r\ns_ \r\n\r\nm  io  w \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nQJ    OJ \r\n\r\nc  \u003co \r\n\r\nC    ro \r\n\r\n-*— ^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ni—     C            QJ \r\n\r\nOO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nJ=            C    C    IO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n(.    u. \r\n\r\ntm      i-    ^— \r\n\r\n•r-    S-  ^~ \r\n\r\nIO  -i-    \u003co  O \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\nIO    IO  f\"    o  *-¦ \r\n\r\nIO \r\n\r\n3   io \r\n\r\nCu  Cu \r\n\r\nE    IV.— \r\n\r\n1— \r\n\r\nE    W^ \r\n\r\nI— \r\n\r\n_1 \r\n\r\n\u003e   E  — \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003eC3 \r\n\r\nc  -r-   E   t.  m \r\n\r\n•f— \r\n\r\nit: \r\n\r\no  \u003e   \u003ca  lu \r\n\r\no  \u003e  \u003co \r\n\r\nLu \r\n\r\n»— • \r\n\r\no  enjz \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nc  cn  o  ¦?-\u003e  o \r\n\r\nCT\u003e \r\n\r\n1     1 \r\n\r\nTXU.UJ \r\n\r\n¦O  \u003cC  Lu  U.J \r\n\r\n\u003cc \r\n\r\n*-\u003e  TJ    S-  ¦\u003c-\u003e \r\n\r\nt) \r\n\r\n-u\u003e \r\n\r\nUJ    LO    t/IT) \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\n3    3 \r\n\r\na) \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nI— \r\n\r\nL.     QJ    O    S- \r\n\r\nJD \r\n\r\nLO \r\n\r\n\u003e    O    QJ    E  i— \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr—    cn \r\n\r\n*-^^-*» \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\nt. \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nOL0JO \r\n\r\n^~ \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\nIO    QJ    i-     C    IO \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nO    3 \r\n\r\nCO  3 \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu.auz\u003c3inoaouu\u003c \r\n\r\n36 \r\n\r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n\r\nin  m \r\n\r\nCM  CO \r\n\r\n*  * \r\n\r\n«•  cm \r\n\r\n\r\n«3-incofO*j-vocMCMincri'— \"^¦'i-o \r\nin  o~\u003e  cr\u003e  ^-  co  cr\u003e  \u003e —  co  vo  o  vo  ¦ —  m  cm \r\n\r\nr—  CM  i —  StOCMNOCOMOlOinifl \r\n\r\n\r\nS! \r\n\r\n\r\nin  cO  cn \r\n\r\nr—  CT\u003e  CM \r\n\r\n\r\nm*J-«0-rOCOCOCOCOCMCMCMCMCMCM \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  «»•  «*• \r\n\r\n\r\nCn  VO \r\n\r\nin  oo \r\n\r\n\r\nSi \r\n\r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nC-x \r\n\r\nr»» \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nr». \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\nA \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\ninCTlr—   OlO^r-  U1(7\\U1MI1r-   CM \r\n(NJOCOir)r-Or-CTlUl«)irnO\u003c}-(») \r\n\r\nm^J-COCOfOCOCOCMCMCMCMCMCMCM \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n\r\nin  r*. \r\nCT\u003e  CT\u003e \r\nr-»  cn  O \r\n\r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\r\nrs.  •—  r». \r\n\r\nVO  O  cn \r\n\r\nM         •»         * \r\n\r\nm  «*¦  cm \r\nco  cm \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n(M^-eONoci'-  coco. —  \u003eo-  m  *r  cn  omw \r\n\r\ninrvCOOsoOvOvOiMnNtvii —  o  r-»  o  r-» \r\n\r\n^¦COCOCOCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM  VD  CO  CO \r\n\r\n\r\nr-.  in  oo \r\nco  cn  oo \r\n**¦  oo  CM \r\n\r\nco  m  cm \r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nio \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCn \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nSlOONfOinOClMCO. —  COCMin  r—  i —  VO  N^TCM \r\n\r\nooomcncMCMOvoinocococor^  rococo  cn  O  in \r\n\r\nKrcjiforovovoooincMCMi —  cmoo  OMficn  ro  ro  cm \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\n^J-CO^J-COCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM \r\n\r\n\r\nVO  \u003c¦  CM \r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\n\r\n«*•       co \r\n\r\nco       co \r\n\r\nin        r— \r\n\r\n\r\nM»t\u003caT\u003e.OONi-CJirOCDOvOr-00 \r\nr—  CO«a-CMCO00COC\\JC0inCMCT\u003e'—  CO \r\n\r\npsintvwij-Nrs^, —  CMOi —  cn  cn \r\n\r\n\r\nin  cm  ** \r\n\r\nCM  t—  CO \r\n\r\noo  vo  in \r\n\r\n\r\nCOCOCOCOCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM.—  r— \r\n\r\n\r\nin  ^r  co \r\n\r\n\r\n00  CO  CO \r\n\r\n\u003c—  «3-  00 \r\nin  i—  r— \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  CO  CM \r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\n=3 \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n(9 \r\n\r\ncc \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nUJuj \r\nOLUq; \r\n\r\nUJ  o \r\n\r\n•\"       a; \r\n\r\nwop \r\n\r\n\u003e\"  =  Q \r\n\r\nB\"g \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nr«.        00 \r\n\r\nCM  r— \r\n\r\n\r\nVO  CO \r\n\r\n00  O \r\n\r\n\r\nMTKtomiosONifltMinN \r\n\r\nCO. —  ONN^fpNN, —  *3\"  CO  CT\u003e  \u003c— \r\n\r\nr-  r-~  i —  itoitN \r\n\r\n\r\nO  oo  cn  r~  o  vo  co \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  00  ¦ — \r\n\r\nin  o  r\u003e» \r\n\r\n\r\nCMCMCOCMCMCMCMCMi—  i —  . —  CM. —  I— \r\n\r\n\r\novooo. —  oomcoincocncncovocn \r\nCMf—  aiCONinorsOi —  o\u003c=J-ooco \r\nCMcococncoocnoor»r~r-«cn«3-vo \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  CM  CM  . \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  i \r\n\r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nX~-~ \r\n\r\nrs. \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nrv \r\n\r\n•\u003e- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nmifiaj^r^oiooiftcoin^LniTi \r\ncvjivOi —  rvoinrsM^cftcvjoo \r\n\r\ni—  \u003c3n  ¦ —  MOr-  O000P^P-.r^CTl«S\"VO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  r—  CM  i \r\n\r\n\r\nvo  in  cm \r\n\r\n\r\nr\u003e.  in  vo \r\n\r\nCM  VO  00 \r\n\r\no  in  i— \r\n\r\nCk  *  «k \r\n\r\nr-  in  cm \r\n\r\n\r\n*t  en  in \r\ncm  en  r- \r\np^  CO  CT\u003e \r\n\r\n*         «         » \r\n\r\nvo  in  r- \r\n\r\n\r\nvp  r*.  r-» \r\nocftr\u003c \r\n\r\n*3-  r-»  CO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  CM  i— \r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\n\r\nvo  ^r  co \r\n\r\nr-WO \r\n\r\nin  co  r^ \r\n\r\n»    »    » \r\n\r\nr—  CM  r- \r\nCOCM \r\n\r\n\r\nr-»  vo  in \r\ncm  in  r\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\n»  *  * \r\nrsOlr- \r\nCM  w— \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\ni—  VO \r\nCO  CO \r\nr-        VO \r\n\r\n\r\ni—  w—  f~~  \u003cS\\  r—  CO*j-r-~vO«J-00CnQ\u003c,''\u003e \r\n\r\nin  co  . —  cooooisooconioos \r\ncor^cnmr^oomr^vovor^comin \r\n\r\n\r\n«r  o  •— \r\n\r\nCJ\"\u003e  CO  00 \r\n\r\nCO  «—  r-» \r\n\r\n»     *     • \r\n\r\nvo  in  ^~ \r\n\r\n\r\nvo  in  vo \r\n\r\nco  CM  CO \r\n\r\ncm  co  vo \r\n\r\n*    •»    «* \r\n\r\n*r  f-»  r— \r\n\r\nCM  «— \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCT\u003e \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nIV \r\n\r\n^~ \r\n\r\nt— \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\n^— \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCj \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni. \r\n\r\ns- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•^ \r\n\r\n•r\u003e \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n.*: \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦»J \r\n\r\nio \r\n\r\n•»— \r\n\r\n5     § \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\nE  E \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n¦p  -o \r\n\r\no\u003e  IV \r\n\r\no.  o. \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nr- \r\nLU \r\nQ \r\n\r\n\r\nIV \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n«J \r\n\r\nJ- \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\n\u003cV   0) \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ncn  cn \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nco  co \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003cc \r\n\r\n¦  • \r\n\r\n,  . \r\n\r\np*»  r*\" \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nIO \r\n\r\n'  vt \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nIV \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\no-\u003e \r\n\r\nCT\u003e               *J \r\n\r\nCn \r\n\r\n+J \r\n\r\nIV \r\n\r\n^-^                        CO \r\n\r\nat            c \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n1-  t- \r\n\r\n3                      r- \r\n\r\nf—                  IV \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nr\"\" \r\n\r\n¦»—'''                                 C^ \r\n\r\ni—               TJ \r\n\r\n^— \r\n\r\n¦o \r\n\r\nT\"  *r— \r\n\r\n*— »  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO                 3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nc  c \r\n\r\nCO  O \r\n\r\nCO            -—»o \r\n\r\nO)               3 \r\n\r\n, , \r\n\r\nO                  4-\u003e \r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO    CO \r\nCO  CO \r\n\r\nfc.      '-^ \r\n\r\nco           »--  s-«— « \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nt- \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nwo       co \r\n\r\n.— ---.                O  3 \r\n\r\n\u003e^— ' \r\n\r\nO  *-\u003e            !- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n+J \r\n\r\nJ_ \r\n\r\n-*:    0) \r\n\r\ncrif-'— «~-- \r\n\r\n^-  3  \u003c-»  oi  -^  — ' \r\n\r\ni-  c       ai \r\n\r\n•r* \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no  *¦\u003e \r\n\r\na)  c  co \r\n\r\no- — 3  o\u003e  c \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nC    3           Q. \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nQ. \r\n\r\ntO  *r~ \r\n\r\n¦ —    a\u003e CO  O          41    CD    QJ \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\u003cu  o \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦—  JZ \r\n\r\nr—  CO            C7\u003e \r\n\r\nCO         I —  CO    CI \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO    O           ¦!-\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n+J \r\n\r\nCO  3 \r\n\r\nO            CD    0) \r\n\r\nC    CT  CO  . —            CO \r\n\r\nf— \r\n\r\n. — ^ \r\n\r\nTJ            \u003c/l \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\nvo \r\n\r\nc_)  J\u003c:   cr\u003e.— \r\n\r\nt_    CO    en  O    Ol  \u003c— \r\n\r\nr^— \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n^¦^ \r\n\r\nj^  nj^  o \r\n\r\n1) \r\n\r\nfO \r\n\r\n^ — * \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e\u003e» \r\n\r\nu  \u003cv  \u003c— \r\n\r\nCO  . —    CO  \u003c_\u003e  +-• . — \r\n\r\nO  3 \r\n\r\n«¦— ' \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO    CO    Ol  o \r\n\r\n+-\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n^—  r— \r\n\r\n\u003cU     tO  r—     O \r\n\r\n-U  •—  r-             -r-     O \r\n\r\nc_\u003e \r\n\r\nv«-' \r\n\r\nfll  I. \r\n\r\n•r- \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nS- \r\n\r\n4-\u003e  ¦\u003e-\u003e \r\n\r\n+-\u003e  r-  ,—  \u003c_) \r\n\r\nifl  O  \u003c—  c  ^:  cj \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr-             CO  ^~ \r\n\r\n^r \r\n\r\n\u003cv \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nc  c \r\n\r\niO  CO  o \r\n\r\nCO  \u003c_\u003e    O    i~  3 \r\n\r\nd) \r\n\r\nO) \r\n\r\nen  O) \r\n\r\na  '-  -\u003e  \"3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n5- \r\n\r\n¦!-\u003e \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\nIO    IO \r\n\r\n¦•-\u003e       o  o\u003e \r\n\r\nJ           \u003c_)    CO            CO \r\n\r\n*-\u003e \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nCO     (-    -4-\u003e \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\ns_ \r\n\r\n•!-\u003e \r\n\r\nc  c \r\n\r\nCO    \u003e,         *-\u003e \r\n\r\n-C    \u003co          J=    \u003e,-*-\u003e \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\nI — \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e-m  ia  o \r\n\r\n\u003e» \r\n\r\n*-\u003e \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n.^—  ft* \r\n\r\ni—  cy  \u003co \r\n\r\n+J  •»-    (T3   4-\u003e  1—    fl \r\n\r\n\u003c-\u003e \r\n\r\nf— \r\n\r\n^~ \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nr-L     3h \r\n\r\n^- \r\n\r\nC- \r\n\r\n3  r- \r\n\r\nE   E \r\n\r\n\u003e,.(_\u003e  +J  +J \r\n\r\n3    OV.-    3   -4-\u003e   \u003c-\u003e \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n»— \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\n¦p  (O  a \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\nIO \r\n\r\nCT \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\ncu  c:  to  co \r\n\r\no   J-   o\u003e  O   C  CO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c_) \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nC    3            CO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003cV \r\n\r\n-a  -c» \r\n\r\nF—    (O  ¦•-\u003e \r\n\r\n1/1    O    l-l/l    «) \r\n\r\ncn\u003c_\u003e \r\n\r\nl_\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003ca  cr*f  en \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nO-'* \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCO    CO \r\n\r\n• —  ci/)i: \r\n\r\nco  O        c  \u003co \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n1/1 \r\n\r\nc         \u003e-^  IO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n» — ' \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\ni.    w. \r\n\r\n(t3  »r—              fO \r\n\r\nmo  co  fo  -f-  ¦•-\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n(O \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n«3 \r\n\r\n•r-   ^-              fc. \r\n\r\n^— \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nc- \r\n\r\nCC  CL \r\n\r\ns»   E   \u003e%  c \r\n\r\n•r-             O  T-     E     1^ \r\n\r\n!_ \r\n\r\n¦t— \r\n\r\nJD \r\n\r\n¦M \r\n\r\nE  ¦—  r-    CO \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\n^~ \r\n\r\n1— \r\n\r\nIV \r\n\r\nO  c:  c \r\n\r\nOXT         en  o   O \r\n\r\n*~\u003e \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nIO \r\n\r\nO    ITJ  U.    \u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nU. \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n1       1 \r\n\r\nWO    IO   ra \r\n\r\nt-   •*-\u003e  ¦*-\u003e    S_  \"O  \"O \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nT3ll.UK \r\n\r\n¦O  Ll_  UJ  «f \r\n\r\nI-    CO  J3    \u003e \r\n\r\no  i-  i/i  o  iv  ¦ — \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nf— \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nIV \r\n\r\ni^-^*—^ \r\n\r\nO    I-  «—    \u003cQ \r\n\r\nCO    O    CO    CO    t-    13 \r\n\r\ni- \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ns- \r\n\r\nCO  3 \r\n\r\niLa.\u003ciouz3U}a.\u003e\u003cuu\u003c \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nQl \r\n\r\n37 \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE   I-B-6 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY   SYSTEM  OF   GEORGIA \r\nSENIOR  COLLEGE   BUDGET   SUMMARY \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n33 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n63,480,202 \r\n14,374,598 \r\n\r\n77.854,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n704,903 \r\n319,567 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  1.024.470 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,545,422 \r\n5.573.606 \r\n\r\n10,13,9,028 \r\n\r\n\r\n68,730,527 \r\n20.267.771 \r\n\r\n88.998.298 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$        21,915,000 \r\n55,939,800 \r\n\r\n$        77,854,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n$     1,024,470 \r\n\r\n\r\n$     1,024,470 \r\n\r\n\r\n10,119,028 \r\n\r\n\r\n10,119,028 \r\n\r\n\r\n$        33,058,498 \r\n55.939,800 \r\n\r\n$        88,998,298 \r\n\r\n\r\n39 \r\n\r\n\r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n86  7.04 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n942. \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n43.49 \r\n\r\n50.01 \r\n\r\n49.43 \r\n\r\n26.88 \r\n\r\n26.48 \r\n\r\n25.42 \r\n\r\n1,675.67 \r\n\r\n1,775.30 \r\n\r\n1,772.96 \r\n\r\n59.48 \r\n\r\n52.63 \r\n\r\n43.32 \r\n\r\n36.95 \r\n\r\n41.00 \r\n\r\n46.43 \r\n\r\n307.65 \r\n\r\n331.72 \r\n\r\n34  3.34 \r\n\r\n66.68 \r\n\r\n72.31 \r\n\r\n70.58 \r\n\r\n2.216.80 \r\n\r\n2.349.45 \r\n\r\n2.351.49 \r\n\r\n5.08 \r\n\r\n6.24 \r\n\r\n6.85 \r\n\r\n6.57 \r\n\r\n7.05 \r\n\r\n6.65 \r\n\r\n.50 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n.25 \r\n\r\n6.49 \r\n\r\n6.99 \r\n\r\n7.86 \r\n\r\n.09 \r\n\r\n2.05 \r\n\r\n2.20 \r\n\r\n15.53 \r\n\r\n18.40 \r\n\r\n16.58 \r\n\r\n1.85 \r\n\r\n1.92 \r\n\r\n1.67 \r\n\r\n36.11 \r\n\r\n42.65 \r\n\r\n42.06 \r\n\r\n87.79 \r\n\r\n88.25 \r\n\r\n87.49 \r\n\r\n24.03 \r\n\r\n20.50 \r\n\r\n17.50 \r\n\r\n114.48 \r\n\r\n131.09 \r\n\r\n137.66 \r\n\r\n30.05 \r\n\r\n36.80 \r\n\r\n32.94 \r\n\r\n256.35 \r\n\r\n276.64 \r\n\r\n275.59 \r\n\r\n939.36 \r\n\r\n\r\n73.13 \r\n\r\n51.37 \r\n\r\n126.96 \r\n\r\n457.87 \r\n\r\n49.03 \r\n\r\n75.05 \r\n\r\n52.71 \r\n\r\n143.59 \r\n\r\n482.47 \r\n\r\n41.47 \r\n\r\n75.50 \r\n\r\n49.10 \r\n\r\n142.64 \r\n\r\n490.58 \r\n\r\n38.34 \r\n\r\n758.36 \r\n\r\n795.29 \r\n\r\n796.16 \r\n\r\n4,134.66 \r\n\r\n4,406.62 \r\n\r\n4,404.66 \r\n\r\n4,134.66 \r\n\r\n4,406.62 \r\n\r\n4,404.66 \r\n\r\n82.83 \r\n\r\n80.59 \r\n\r\n60.08 \r\n\r\n346.94 \r\n\r\n293.58 \r\n\r\n357.19 \r\n\r\n4,564.43 \r\n\r\n4,780.79 \r\n\r\n4,821.93 \r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR.,  RSCH.  \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,085,006 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,24  3,760 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,375,543 \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n375,737 \r\n\r\n360,727 \r\n\r\n381,412 \r\n\r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\n\r\n30 \r\n\r\n,833,438 \r\n\r\n33 \r\n\r\n,124,424 \r\n\r\n35 \r\n\r\n,990,242 \r\n\r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\n\r\n533,831 \r\n\r\n479,927 \r\n\r\n434,360 \r\n\r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n301,445 \r\n\r\n327,849 \r\n\r\n379,533 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,897,907 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,079,891 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n375,796 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  fi,  TECH-STUDENTS \r\n\r\n252,733 \r\n\r\n289,352 \r\n\r\n287,485 \r\n\r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\n$35 \r\n\r\n,280,097 \r\n\r\n$  37 \r\n\r\n,905,930 \r\n\r\n$  41 \r\n\r\n,224,371 \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n112,703 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n137,614 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n157,528 \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n97,380 \r\n\r\n102,808 \r\n\r\n115,250 \r\n\r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\n\r\n9,201 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n4,500 \r\n\r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\n\r\n53,605 \r\n\r\n60,730 \r\n\r\n73,751 \r\n\r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n873 \r\n\r\n12,159 \r\n\r\n16,627 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\n\r\n111,931 \r\n\r\n139,225 \r\n\r\n135,699 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\n\r\n7.608 \r\n\r\n8.161 \r\n\r\n7.787 \r\n\r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n393.801 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n460,697 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n511,142 \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n161,776 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,170,294 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n269,753 \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n198,745 \r\n\r\n207,312 \r\n\r\n200,768 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\n\r\n699,841 \r\n\r\n817,795 \r\n\r\n950,329 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n115,279 \r\n175,(41 \r\n\r\n143,059 \r\n\r\n135,206 \r\n\r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n343,460 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n55^.556 \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\n\r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n307,60!* \r\n\r\n§5,1 \r\n\r\n313,775 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6, \r\n\r\n428,023 \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.    ADM.    OFFICERS \r\nSTUDENT    PERSONNEL   OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE    ASSITANTS \r\nCLERICAL   \u0026   TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL   \u0026   TECH-STUDENTS \r\nF.I.C.A.,    GR.    INS.    \u0026   RETIREMENT \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n$  1,626,986  $  1,670,565  $  1,814,512 \r\n\r\n725,205  752,590  780,961 \r\n\r\n1,599,806  1,800,597  1,989,586 \r\n\r\n3,059,332  3,207,305  3,642,184 \r\n\r\n171,555  150,859  142,661 \r\n\r\n4,075,835  4,663,513  4,956,971 \r\n\r\n$  11,258,719  $  12,253,429  $  13,326,875 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  54,415,866 \r\n206,681 \r\n\r\n$  54,622,547 \r\n\r\n$         873,984 \r\n\r\n$    4,292,543 \r\n\r\n$59,789,074 \r\n\r\n\r\n§58,777,291  §64,046,967 \r\n\r\n21,537 \r\n(553,011)  (588,302) \r\n\r\n§  58,224,280  $  63,480,202 \r\n\r\n§  848,609  §  704,903 \r\n\r\n§     3,723,940  §    4,545,422 \r\n\r\n§62,796,829  §68,730,527 \r\n\r\n\r\n40 \r\n\r\n\r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611      TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\n\"Actual \r\n\r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n485,923 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY   1977 \r\n\r\n\r\n686,483 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\n712,066 \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  \u0026  MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS  \u0026  MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,  WATER,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\n618  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  S  PRINTING \r\n\r\n619  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE  \u0026  BONDING \r\n623  TUITION  \u0026  SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n627  OTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n630  PER  DIEM  AND  FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$   143,681 \r\n\r\n2,430,547 \r\n\r\n589,429 \r\n\r\n743,608 \r\n\r\n3,096,147 \r\n\r\n278,320 \r\n\r\n725,887 \r\n\r\n101,891 \r\n\r\n396,641 \r\n\r\n1,049,975 \r\n\r\n347,572 \r\n\r\n$  9,903,698 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  157,001 \r\n2,673,069 \r\n579,956 \r\n801,337 \r\n3,355,460 \r\n286,540 \r\n791,281 \r\n145,120 \r\n352,798 \r\n371,927 \r\n249,050 \r\n\r\n$   9,763,539 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  139,430 \r\n2,575,762 \r\n750,167 \r\n909,114 \r\n3,772,300 \r\n301,527 \r\n802,442 \r\n133,297 \r\n380,965 \r\n496,702 \r\n191,163 \r\n\r\n$  10,452,869 \r\n\r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613   MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT \r\n626   EQUIPMENT \r\n626   BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$  99,934 \r\n1,110,427 \r\n1,537,548 \r\n\r\n$  2,747,909 \r\n\r\n\r\n$      64,781 \r\n\r\n873,161 \r\n\r\n1,648,398 \r\n\r\n$   2,586,340 \r\n\r\n\r\n$      53,140 \r\n\r\n824,256 \r\n\r\n1,681,365 \r\n\r\n$   2,558,761 \r\n\r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000   UNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n000   PERSONAL  SERVICES  LAPSE  ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$13,137,530 \r\n\r\n\r\n$         360,268 \r\n$    5,158,153 \r\n\r\n\r\n$18,655,951 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n78,047 \r\n553,011 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n631,058 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n,667,420 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n282,296 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5, \r\n\r\n307,263 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n19, \r\n\r\n256,979 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n62,600 \r\n588,302 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n650,902 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n14 \r\n\r\n,374,598 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n319,567 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n573,606 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n20 \r\n\r\n267,771 \r\n\r\n41 \r\n\r\n\r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT  TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL  APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS  \u0026  GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT  COST  RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES  OF  EDUCATIONAL  DEPTS. \r\n\r\nOTHER  SOURCES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n$   18,099,481 \r\n1,965,753 \r\n\r\n338,503 \r\n\r\n$   20,403,737 \r\n\r\n60,547 \r\n\r\n2,128 \r\n\r\n26,141 \r\n\r\n399,275 \r\n\r\n239,793 \r\n\r\n257,426 \r\n\r\n1 21.389,047 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   19,884,015 \r\n2,069,987 \r\n\r\n315,950 \r\n\r\n$   22,269,952 \r\n\r\n60,527 \r\n\r\n10,250 \r\n\r\n158,621 \r\n\r\n168,800 \r\n\r\n1Q9.85Q \r\n\r\n$ 22.  778,  QQP \r\n\r\n\r\n$   19,045,853 \r\n1,787,801 \r\n\r\n318,367 \r\n\r\n$   21,152,021 \r\n\r\n60,527 \r\n\r\n4,150 \r\n\r\n382,066 \r\n\r\n162,886 \r\n\r\n153, 35Q \r\n\r\n$   21.915.000 \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  R  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n733,695 \r\n284,024 \r\n216,533 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,234,252 \r\n\r\n\r\n67  3,200 \r\n314,504 \r\n143,201 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,130,905 \r\n\r\n\r\n524, 41^ \r\n\r\n338,771 \r\n161,281 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,024,470 \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS  \u0026  CONTRACTS  -  GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE    \u0026    LOCAL \r\nGRANTS    \u0026   CONTRACTS    -    NON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n7,595,614 \r\n\r\n1,077,651 \r\n\r\n777,431 \r\n\r\n9,450,696 \r\n\r\n\r\n8,142,364 \r\n349,981 \r\n538,858 \r\n\r\n\r\n9,031,203 \r\n\r\n\r\n8,027,539 \r\n1,082,672 \r\n1,008,817 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   10,119,028 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$   32,073,995 \r\n46,371,030 \r\n\r\n$       78,445,025 \r\n\r\n\r\n$       32,940,108 \r\n49,113,700 \r\n\r\n$       82,053,808 \r\n\r\n\r\n$       33,058,498 \r\n55,939,800 \r\n\r\n$       88,998,298 \r\n\r\n\r\n42 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nALBANY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\n\r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,066,627 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n90,558 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n894,198 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,051,383 \r\n\r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n786,773 \r\n\r\n3,486 \r\n\r\n1,105,802 \r\n\r\n1,896,061 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,853,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n94^044 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,000,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6,947,444 \r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,142,000 \r\n3,711,400 \r\n\r\n4,853,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n94,044 \r\n\r\n\r\n94,044 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  2,000,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  2,000,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,236,044 \r\n3,711,400 \r\n\r\n6,947,444 \r\n\r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\n\r\nALBANY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n09.10 \r\n\r\n\r\n69.60 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n3.02 \r\n\r\n3.73 \r\n\r\n2.73 \r\n\r\n100.89 \r\n\r\n105.34 \r\n\r\n107.75 \r\n\r\n2.35 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n.75 \r\n\r\n19.50 \r\n\r\n20.05 \r\n\r\n20.79 \r\n\r\n4.67 \r\n\r\n2.04 \r\n\r\n1.79 \r\n\r\n132.43 \r\n\r\n133.16 \r\n\r\n135.81 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n5.00 \r\n\r\n5.00 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n1.23 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n10.23 \r\n\r\n10.00 \r\n\r\n11.00 \r\n\r\n66.88 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.92 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n3.00 \r\n\r\n3.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n27.66 \r\n\r\n27.68 \r\n\r\n28.46 \r\n\r\n23.37 \r\n\r\n25.91 \r\n\r\n25.91 \r\n\r\n7.38 \r\n\r\n3.11 \r\n\r\n2.98 \r\n\r\n65.33 \r\n\r\n63.70 \r\n\r\n62.35 \r\n\r\n277.09 \r\n\r\n276.46 \r\n\r\n276.04 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n277.09 \r\n\r\n276.46 \r\n\r\n276.04 \r\n\r\n5.26 \r\n\r\n5.58 \r\n\r\n5.94 \r\n\r\n40.37 \r\n\r\n36.53 \r\n\r\n85.17 \r\n\r\n322.72 \r\n\r\nTIM. 57 \r\n\r\n107.15 \r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR  ,  RSCH.  \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nSTUDENT  PERSONNEL  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nF.I.C.A.,  GR.  INS.  \u0026  RETIREMENT \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n$           51,120 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n51,610 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n56,970 \r\n\r\n31,571 \r\n\r\n44,499 \r\n\r\n34,905 \r\n\r\n1,803,314 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,919,967 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,158,356 \r\n\r\n21,150 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n12,000 \r\n\r\n138,152 \r\n\r\n142,666 \r\n\r\n162,289 \r\n\r\n18,743 \r\n\r\n7,fnn \r\n\r\n7,477 \r\n\r\n$    2,064,050 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n166,572 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n431,997 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n71,973 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n72,930 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n92,670 \r\n\r\n15,436 \r\n\r\n15,586 \r\n\r\n13,300 \r\n\r\n14,540 \r\n\r\n14,715 \r\n\r\n16,325 \r\n\r\n4,777 \r\n\r\n3,994 \r\n\r\n4,160 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n166,726 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n107,225 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n126,455 \r\n\r\n429,074 \r\n\r\n\r\n89 , 800 \r\n\r\n42,617 \r\n\r\n321,725 \r\n\r\n166,599 \r\n\r\n28,661 \r\n\r\n268,769 \r\n\r\n\r\n447,  4 ',4 \r\n\r\n\r\n92,400 \r\n\r\n41,000 \r\n\r\n339,005 \r\n\r\n172,350 \r\n\r\n12,400 \r\n\r\n300,300 \r\n\r\n\r\n488,801 \r\n\r\n\r\n100,700 \r\n22,500 \r\n\r\n376,170 \r\n\r\n205,304 \r\n12,400 \r\n\r\n322,300 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    918,171   $    957,455   $  1,039,374 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  3,518,021 \r\n22,934 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  3,678,706   $  4,086,627 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,540,955 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n69,132 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n521,234 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n4,131,321 \r\n\r\n(20,000) \r\n\r\n\r\n(20,000) \r\n\r\n\r\n$  3,658,706  $  4,066,627 \r\n\r\n$     77,973  $  90,558 \r\n\r\n$    480,547  $  894,198 \r\n\r\n;  4,217,220  $  5,051,  Hi) \r\n\r\n\r\n44 \r\n\r\n\r\nALBANY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611      TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\n\"\"Actual \r\n\r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n22.170 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY  1977 \r\n\r\n\r\n26,610 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY   1978 \r\n\r\n\r\n27,878 \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  \u0026  MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS  \u0026  MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,  WATER,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\n618  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  \u0026  PRINTING \r\n\r\n619  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE  \u0026  BONDING \r\n\r\n62  3  TUITION  \u0026  SCHOIAKSHIl'.'J \r\n\r\n627  OTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n610  PER  DIEM  AND  FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n5,813 \r\n\r\n109,079 \r\n\r\n40,601 \r\n\r\n49,182 \r\n\r\n237,723 \r\n\r\n11,272 \r\n\r\n68,367 \r\n\r\n5,700 \r\n\r\n61,322 \r\n\r\n129,451 \r\n\r\n15,679 \r\n\r\n\r\n734.189 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,600 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n9,880 \r\n\r\n91,334 \r\n\r\n96,294 \r\n\r\n53,446 \r\n\r\n56,155 \r\n\r\n61,313 \r\n\r\n63,224 \r\n\r\n254,400 \r\n\r\n259,920 \r\n\r\n13,100 \r\n\r\n8,394 \r\n\r\n77,940 \r\n\r\n73,520 \r\n\r\n10,706 \r\n\r\n10,640 \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\n57,680 \r\n\r\n19,500 \r\n\r\n21,980 \r\n\r\n3,000 \r\n\r\n1.500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n666,339 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n659,195 \r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613   MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT \r\n626   EQUIPMENT \r\n626   BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n2,579 \r\n\r\n31,397 \r\n\r\n117.545 \r\n\r\n\r\n151,521 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,000 \r\n\r\n9,840 \r\n\r\n49,905 \r\n\r\n\r\n61,745 \r\n\r\n\r\n9,700 \r\n70.000 \r\n\r\n\r\n79,700 \r\n\r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000   UNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n000   PERSONAL  SERVICES  LAPSE  ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n907,880 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,080,368 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,988.248 \r\n\r\n20,000 \r\n\r\n20,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n20,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n20,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n774,694 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n786,773 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,532 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,486 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,519,453 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n105,802 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,297,679 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n896.061 \r\n\r\n45 \r\n\r\n\r\nALBANY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT  TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL  APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS  \u0026  GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT  COST  recoveries \r\n\r\nSALKS    fc    SERVICES    OF    EDUCATIONAL   DEi'TS . \r\nOTHER   SOURCES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n1,016,161 \r\n122,883 \r\n\r\n645 \r\n\r\n1,139,689 \r\n\r\n\r\n41,763 \r\n8,950 \r\n\r\ni?.04i \r\n\r\n\r\n1.202,445 \r\n\r\n\r\n983,877 \r\n\r\n125,123 \r\n\r\n1,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,110,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,000 \r\n9,500 \r\n8,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,133,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n991,013 \r\n\r\n119,820 \r\n\r\n667 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,111,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n12,000 \r\n\r\n8,500 \r\n\r\n10,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,142,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n55,739 \r\n13,393 \r\n\r\n\r\n69,132 \r\n\r\n\r\n71,505 \r\n10,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n81,505 \r\n\r\n\r\n80,044 \r\n14,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n94,044 \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS  \u0026  CONTRACTS \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  \u0026  LOCAL \r\nGRANTS  \u0026  CONTRACTS \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\n\r\nNON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n1,157,079 \r\n\r\n423,502 \r\n\r\n21,021 \r\n\r\n1,601,602 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    1,989,006 \r\n\r\n10,994 \r\n\r\n$    2,000,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,498,172 \r\n373,638 \r\n128,190 \r\n\r\n\r\n2 , 000,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  . \r\n\r\n\r\n$    2,873,179 \r\n3,246,390 \r\n\r\n$    6,119,569 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,214,505 \r\n3,300,400 \r\n\r\n6,514,905 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,236,044 \r\n3,711,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,947,444 \r\n\r\n\r\n46 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nARMSTRONG  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n4,026,298 \r\n8  30.60? \r\n\r\n4,856,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n40,000 \r\n44 . 500 \r\n\r\n\r\n84,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n46,710 \r\n_2JU2Q£_ \r\n\r\n\r\n137,916 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,113,008 \r\n5,079,316 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,480,000 \r\n3,376,900 \r\n\r\n4,856,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n84 ,  500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n137,916 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,702,416 \r\n3,376,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n84,500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n137,916 \r\n\r\n5,079,316 \r\n\r\n47 \r\n\r\n\r\nARMSTRONG  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.19 \r\n\r\n\r\n45.00 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n50.19 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n112.48 \r\n\r\n122.64 \r\n\r\n121.74 \r\n\r\n7.84 \r\n\r\n6.73 \r\n\r\n7.59 \r\n\r\n.44 \r\n\r\n.60 \r\n\r\n.40 \r\n\r\n17.04 \r\n\r\n20.75 \r\n\r\n20.00 \r\n\r\n3.24 \r\n\r\n4.63 \r\n\r\n4.67 \r\n\r\n143.04 \r\n\r\n159.35 \r\n\r\n158.40 \r\n\r\n.37 \r\n.31 \r\n\r\n.36 \r\n.36 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n.27 \r\n\r\n.48 \r\n\r\n.69 \r\n\r\n.80 \r\n\r\n.05 \r\n\r\n.81 \r\n\r\n.05 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.80 \r\n\r\n2.06 \r\n\r\n2.69 \r\n\r\n5.25 \r\n\r\n\r\n7.99 \r\n2.51 \r\n\r\n9.00 \r\n2.56 \r\n\r\n10.66 \r\n.59 \r\n\r\n14.69 \r\n\r\n17.56 \r\n\r\n16.50 \r\n\r\n47.40 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n5.02 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n3.00 \r\n\r\n6.24 \r\n\r\n9.60 \r\n\r\n9.00 \r\n\r\n26.09 \r\n\r\n27.45 \r\n\r\n27.14 \r\n\r\n1.61 \r\n\r\n1.19 \r\n\r\n.86 \r\n\r\n42.96 \r\n\r\n46.24 \r\n\r\n44.00 \r\n\r\n247.49 \r\n\r\n275.40 \r\n\r\n268.99 \r\n\r\n247.49 \r\n\r\n275.40 \r\n\r\n268.99 \r\n\r\n4.95 \r\n\r\n3.68 \r\n\r\n3.91 \r\n\r\n13.91 \r\n\r\n10.41 \r\n\r\n3.21 \r\n\r\n266.35 \r\n\r\n289.49 \r\n\r\n276.11 \r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGLTtD \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR.,  RSCH.  \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.    ADM.    OFFICERS \r\nSTUDENT    PERSONNEL   OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE    ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL   \u0026   TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL    \u0026   TECH-STUDENTS \r\nF.I.C.A.,    GR.    INS.    \u0026    RETIREMENT \r\n\r\nSUB- TOTAL  $ \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n54,219 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n107,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n116,100 \r\n\r\n2,057,170 \r\n\r\n71,323 \r\n\r\n8,000 \r\n\r\n100,308 \r\n\r\n15,165 \r\n\r\n2,306,185 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,287,288 \r\n\r\n70,600 \r\n\r\n6,000 \r\n\r\n120,173 \r\n\r\n21,680 \r\n\r\n2,478,621 \r\n\r\n85,950 \r\n\r\n4,000 \r\n\r\n123,190 \r\n\r\n21,830 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,612,741 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2,829,691 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,772 \r\n3,274 \r\n\r\n4,872 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,560 \r\n3,780 \r\n\r\n4,680 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n24,000 \r\n6,700 \r\n\r\n4,443 \r\n\r\n239 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,622 \r\n250 \r\n\r\n20.900 \r\n\r\n6,300 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n20,600 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n37,000 \r\n\r\n56,393 \r\n\r\n49,994 \r\n11,516 \r\n\r\n\r\n83,634 \r\n\r\n59,010 \r\n12,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n117,903 \r\n\r\n\r\n154.644. \r\n\r\n\r\n82,50C \r\n\r\n73,406 \r\n\r\n2,738 \r\n\r\n158,644 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n254,730 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n290,947 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n295,866 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n96,507 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n97,600 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n105,400 \r\n\r\n58,753 \r\n\r\n48,975 \r\n\r\n41,500 \r\n\r\n82,051 \r\n\r\n123,575 \r\n\r\n129,965 \r\n\r\n162,323 \r\n\r\n170,786 \r\n\r\n182,306 \r\n\r\n7,485 \r\n\r\n5,648 \r\n\r\n4,023 \r\n\r\n241,423 \r\n\r\n?74,nnn \r\n\r\n292,903 \r\n\r\n648,542 \r\n\r\n\r\n756,097 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,347,960 \r\n123 \r\n\r\n$    3,348,083 \r\n\r\n$  64,448 \r\n\r\n$        200,039 \r\n\r\n$   3,612,570 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,799,816         $    4,077,298 \r\n\r\n\r\n(68,011) \r\n\r\n\r\n(51,000) \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,731,805         $    4,026,298 \r\n$  36,816         $  40,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$        145,401 \r\n$   3,914,022 \r\n\r\n\r\n46,710 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   4,113,008 \r\n\r\n\r\n48 \r\n\r\n\r\nARMSTRONG  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611   TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n22»a33 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY   1977 \r\n\r\n\r\n38.317 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\n34,646 \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  \u0026  MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS  \u0026  MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  I'OWER,  WATER,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\nGill  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  K    PRINTING \r\n\r\nf.l'J  kHNTAI.'J \r\n\r\ni,20  INSURANCE  h.    BONDING \r\n\r\n623  TUITION  f  SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n\r\n627  OTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n630  PER  DIEM  AND  FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n7,264 \r\n\r\n130,067 \r\n\r\n30,920 \r\n\r\n35,382 \r\n\r\n199,371 \r\n\r\n25,322 \r\n\r\n34,395 \r\n\r\n4,598 \r\n\r\n11,896 \r\n\r\n26,864 \r\n\r\n3;, 967 \r\n\r\n\r\n538.046 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,00000 \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\n7,000 \r\n\r\n141,699 \r\n\r\n132,046 \r\n\r\n32,864 \r\n\r\n43,136 \r\n\r\n41,250 \r\n\r\n50,557 \r\n\r\n220,000 \r\n\r\n102,622 \r\n\r\n24,031 \r\n\r\n25,910 \r\n\r\n36,870 \r\n\r\n33,783 \r\n\r\n5,175 \r\n\r\n5,515 \r\n\r\n14,460 \r\n\r\n17,445 \r\n\r\n15,705 \r\n\r\n22,545 \r\n\r\n44,160 \r\n\r\n13,939 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n583,214 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n654.506 \r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613   MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT \r\n626   EQUIPMENT \r\n626   BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n6,933 \r\n148,816 \r\n164,667 \r\n\r\n\r\n320,416 \r\n\r\n\r\n14,553 \r\n100,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n114,553 \r\n\r\n\r\n20,450 \r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n90,450 \r\n\r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000      UNASSIGNED    BALANCE \r\n\r\n000      PERSONAL   SERVICES    LAPSE    ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n880,751 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n32,538 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n147,073 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1.060.362 \r\n\r\n68,011 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n68,011 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n804,095 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n28,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n103,389 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n936,384 \r\n\r\n51,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n51,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n830,602 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n44,500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n91,206 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n966,308 \r\n\r\n49 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nAUGUSTA  COLLEGE \r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n\"OTOTeT\" \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAT- \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,561,655 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n45,200 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n21,975 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,628,830 \r\n\r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n1,106,545 \r\n\r\n24,800 \r\n\r\n266,000 \r\n\r\n1,397,345 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n287,975 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6,026,175 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n2,005,000 \r\n3,663,200 \r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n287,975 \r\n\r\n\r\n287,975 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  2,362,975 \r\n\r\n3,663,200 \r\n\r\n§  6,026,175 \r\n\r\n\r\n51 \r\n\r\n\r\nAUGUSTA  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n5.04 \r\n\r\n\r\n5.04 \r\n\r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.80 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.80 \r\n\r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\n117.13 \r\n\r\n130.48 \r\n\r\n127.19 \r\n\r\n12.03 \r\n\r\n10.27 \r\n\r\n3.60 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n1.25 \r\n\r\n1.25 \r\n\r\n29.34 \r\n\r\n30.75 \r\n\r\n32.00 \r\n\r\n7.29 \r\n\r\n10.33 \r\n\r\n10.30 \r\n\r\n169.79 \r\n\r\n187.06 \r\n\r\n178.34 \r\n\r\n5.28 \r\n\r\n\r\n5.28 \r\n\r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR.,  RSCH.  \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE   ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n84,433 \r\n\r\n2,132,254 \r\n85,788 \r\n\r\n171,359 \r\n32,512 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUNTED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n85,200 \r\n\r\n2,436,800 \r\n\r\n76,933 \r\n\r\n12,000 \r\n\r\n181,895 \r\n\r\n50,022 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n93,900 \r\n\r\n2,578,150 \r\n\r\n28,700 \r\n\r\n13,000 \r\n\r\n219,794 \r\n\r\n50,306 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  2,506,346   $  2,842,850   $  2,983,850 \r\n\r\n\r\n30,775 \r\n\r\n\r\n30,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n33,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n30,775 \r\n\r\n\r\n30.000 \r\n\r\n\r\n33,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n14.76 \r\n\r\n16.50 \r\n\r\n16.50 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH -REGULAR \r\n\r\n1.55 \r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\n2.62 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\n\r\n22.31 \r\n\r\n26.00 \r\n\r\n26.12 \r\n\r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\n\r\n, \r\n\r\nPLANT \r\n\r\n61.39 \r\n\r\n68.06 \r\n\r\n68.14 \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER \r\n\r\n91,668 \r\n\r\n86,166 \r\n\r\n5,321 \r\n\r\n183,155 \r\n\r\n\r\n104,250 \r\n\r\n95,325 \r\n\r\n11,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n!10,575 \r\n\r\n\r\n115,250 \r\n\r\n103,614 \r\n\r\n11,698 \r\n\r\n\"230,  io2 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    353,397   $    395,799    $    440,339 \r\n\r\n\r\n'J.MH \r\n\r\n10.00 \r\n\r\n10.00 \r\n\r\n/.no \r\n\r\n/.()() \r\n\r\n6.85 \r\n\r\n44.12 \r\n\r\n45.25 \r\n\r\n43.70 \r\n\r\n.78 \r\n\r\n1.55 \r\n\r\n1.94 \r\n\r\n61.78 \r\n\r\n63.80 \r\n\r\n62.49 \r\n\r\n320.31 \r\n\r\n349,74 \r\n\r\n340.37 \r\n\r\n320.31 \r\n\r\n349.74 \r\n5.65 \r\n\r\n340.37 \r\n\r\n3.06 \r\n\r\n4.44 \r\n\r\n4.20 \r\n\r\n2.70 \r\n\r\n.31 \r\n\r\n327.57 \r\n\r\n358.09 \r\n\r\n345.12 \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.    ADM.    OFFICERS  5          lHf,,f\u003e'\u003e0 \r\n\r\nSTUDENT    PERSONNEL  OFFICERS  100,134 \r\nADMINISTRATIVE    ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\nCLERICAL   \u0026   TECH- REGULAR  268,001 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL   \u0026   TECH-STUDENTS  3,815 \r\n\r\nF.I.C.A.,    GR.    INS.    \u0026   RETIREMENT  258,709 \r\n\r\nSUB- TOTAL  $         817,309 \r\n\r\n\r\nI  8(.,  \u003c.'\u003e\u003c) \r\n101,000 \r\n\r\n284,253 \r\n\r\n7,600 \r\n\r\n329,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n204,262 \r\n109,500 \r\n\r\n306,642 \r\n\r\n9,500 \r\n\r\n344,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,890,982 \r\n(15,589) \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,875,393 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n45,328 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n51,567 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,972,288 \r\n\r\n$        908.503 \r\n\r\n$    4,387,727 \r\n\r\n(50,000) \r\n$   4.337.727 \r\n\r\n$  50,600 \r\n\r\n$  31,850 \r\n\r\n5   4,420, L77 \r\n\r\n\r\n973,904 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    4,661,655 \r\n(100,000) \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n4,561,655 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n45,200 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n21,975 \r\n\r\n\u003c-• \r\nV \r\n\r\n4,628,8  30 \r\n\r\n52 \r\n\r\n\r\nAUGUSTA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611   TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  \u0026  MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS  S.   MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,  WATEK,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\n618  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  \u0026  PRINTING \r\n\r\n619  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE  \u0026  BONDING \r\n623  TUITION  \u0026,  SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n627  OTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n630  PER  DIEM  AND  FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613   MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT \r\n626   EQUIPMENT \r\n626   BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n36,342 \r\n\r\n\r\n17,910 \r\n224,432 \r\n\r\n38,714 \r\n\r\n59,466 \r\n\r\n170,529 \r\n\r\n12,307 \r\n\r\n48,282 \r\n\r\n7,832 \r\n\r\n18,928 \r\n\r\n124,175 \r\n46,778 \r\n\r\n769,353 \r\n\r\n\r\n13,589 \r\n61,055 \r\n83,639 \r\n\r\n158,283 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nFY \r\n\r\n197/ \r\n\r\nFY \r\n\r\n197E \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n44 \r\n\r\n,850 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n45, \r\n\r\n350 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n19 \r\n\r\n,110 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n19, \r\n\r\n600 \r\n\r\n241 \r\n\r\n,361 \r\n\r\n269, \r\n\r\n240 \r\n\r\n58 \r\n\r\n,403 \r\n\r\n68, \r\n\r\n789 \r\n\r\n68 \r\n\r\n300 \r\n\r\n84, \r\n\r\n030 \r\n\r\n201 \r\n\r\n586 \r\n\r\n246, \r\n\r\n666 \r\n\r\n17 \r\n\r\n000 \r\n\r\n16, \r\n\r\n000 \r\n\r\n44 \r\n\r\n610 \r\n\r\n50, \r\n\r\n600 \r\n\r\n11 \r\n\r\n504 \r\n\r\n12, \r\n\r\n790 \r\n\r\n17, \r\n\r\n000 \r\n\r\n20, \r\n\r\n000 \r\n\r\n9, \r\n\r\n025 \r\n\r\n7, \r\n\r\n300 \r\n\r\n16, \r\n\r\n060 \r\n\r\n17, \r\n\r\n840 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n703, \r\n\r\n959 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n812, \r\n\r\n855 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n7, \r\n\r\n840 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7 \r\n\r\n840 \r\n\r\n76, \r\n\r\n824 \r\n\r\n51, \r\n\r\n500 \r\n\r\n111, \r\n\r\n000 \r\n\r\n89 \r\n\r\n000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n195, \r\n\r\n664 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n148 \r\n\r\n340 \r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000   UNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n000   PERSONAL  SERVICES  LAPSE  ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n963,978 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,625 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n162,734 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,135,337 \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n994,473 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n19,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n319,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,332,873 \r\n\r\n100,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n100,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,106,545 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n24,800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n266,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,397,345 \r\n\r\n53 \r\n\r\n\r\nAUGUSTA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -   77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n~  GM'RAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT  TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\n\r\n1,629,196 \r\n\r\n200,542 \r\n\r\n57,722 \r\n\r\n1,887,460 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,918,000 \r\n\r\n260,000 \r\n\r\n58,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,236,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,682,000 \r\n\r\n190,000 \r\n\r\n58,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,930,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL    APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS    \u0026   GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT   COST    RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES    \u0026   SERVICES   OF   EDUCATIONAL  DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER   SOURCES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n1,248 \r\n\r\n7,903 \r\n\r\n57,350 \r\n\r\n73,670 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,027,631 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,000 \r\n29,000 \r\n40,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,311,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,000 \r\n29,000 \r\n40,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,005,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n53,953 \r\n\r\n\r\n53,953 \r\n\r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS  \u0026  CONTRACTS  -  GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  S  LOCAL \r\nGRANTS  \u0026  CONTRACTS  -  NON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n173,890 \r\n40,411 \r\n\r\n\r\n214,301 \r\n\r\n\r\n169,000 \r\n181,850 \r\n\r\n\r\n350,850 \r\n\r\n\r\n168,400 \r\n119,575 \r\n\r\n\r\n287,975 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n2,295,885 \r\n2,811,740 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,107,625 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    2,731,850 \r\n3,021,200 \r\n\r\n$    5,753,050 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,362,975 \r\n3,663,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,026,175 \r\n\r\n\r\n54 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nCOLUMBUS  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6,491,400 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n122,888 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n246,645 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6,860,933 \r\n\r\n1,579,700 \r\n\r\n60,012 \r\n\r\n196,693 \r\n\r\n1,836,405 \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n8,071,100 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n182,900 \r\n\r\n\u003c* \r\n\r\n443,330 \r\n\r\nU,f.')7,  33H \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,729,000 \r\n5,342,100 \r\n\r\n8,071,100 \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\n182,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n443,338 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,355,238 \r\n5,342,100 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n182,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n443,338 \r\n\r\n8,697,338 \r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\n\r\nCOLUMBUS  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n!975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n248.03 \r\n\r\n\r\n,39 \r\n,67 \r\n\r\n\r\n76.60 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.76 \r\n\r\n5.50 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n.46 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n182.07 \r\n\r\n194.71 \r\n\r\n194.56 \r\n\r\n10.82 \r\n\r\n8.79 \r\n\r\n8.62 \r\n\r\n.40 \r\n\r\n.50 \r\n\r\n.50 \r\n\r\n42.38 \r\n\r\n45.91 \r\n\r\n45.55 \r\n\r\n8.14 \r\n\r\n6.59 \r\n\r\n6.59 \r\n\r\n262.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n.41 \r\n1.24 \r\n\r\n.60 \r\n\r\n\r\n87.54 \r\n\r\n\r\n261.82 \r\n\r\n\r\n.43 \r\n1.30 \r\n\r\n.64 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR.,   RSCH.   \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n\r\n83,304 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n116,545 \r\n\r\n$    136,800 \r\n\r\n7,171 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n3,313,346 \r\n\r\n3,620,456 \r\n\r\n3,918,782 \r\n\r\n99,169 \r\n\r\n72,275 \r\n\r\n69,270 \r\n\r\n3,800 \r\n\r\n3,900 \r\n\r\n3,900 \r\n\r\n245,888 \r\n\r\n270,638 \r\n\r\n303,450 \r\n\r\n37,492 \r\n\r\n34,462 \r\n\r\n35,140 \r\n\r\n$  3,790,170   $  4,118,276   $  4,467,342 \r\n\r\n\r\n8,133 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,536 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n9,777 \r\n\r\n0,458 \r\n\r\n19,673 \r\n\r\n22,608 \r\n\r\n8,536 \r\n\r\n\r\n11,902 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.47 \r\n\r\n4.63 \r\n\r\n4.08 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\n\r\n29,608 \r\n\r\n37,739 \r\n\r\n35,686 \r\n\r\n.68 \r\n\r\n.63   ' \r\n\r\n.85 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\n3,122 \r\n\r\n3,171 \r\n\r\n4,619 \r\n\r\n5.21 \r\n\r\n7.51 \r\n\r\n7.30 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n51.321 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n77,655 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n84.592 \r\n\r\n6.67 \r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n89,523 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n92,960 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n92,880 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n15,749 \r\n\r\n15,875 \r\n\r\n15,000 \r\n\r\n14.80 \r\n\r\n17.00 \r\n\r\n17.00 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\n\r\n94,420 \r\n\r\n106,450 \r\n\r\n127,500 \r\n\r\n3.52 \r\n\r\n3.50 \r\n\r\n3.80 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\n16,182 \r\n215,874 \r\n\r\n17,000 \r\n\r\n19,000 \r\n\r\n25.99 \r\n\r\n28.50 \r\n\r\n28.80 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n232,285 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n254, J80 \r\n\r\n89.08 \r\n\r\n\r\n\".64 \r\n2.14 \r\n4.94 \r\n47.''\" \r\n1.87 \r\n\r\n7.50 \r\n2.00 \r\n7.00 \r\n52.46 \r\n3.44 \r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n2.23 \r\n7.00 \r\n52.90 \r\n2.88 \r\n\r\n64 .  34 \r\n\r\n72.40 \r\n\r\n72.01 \r\n\r\n420.17 \r\n\r\n457.95 \r\n\r\n459.01 \r\n\r\n420.17 \r\n\r\n457.95 \r\n\r\n459.01 \r\n\r\n9.03 \r\n\r\n12.32 \r\n\r\n11.00 \r\n\r\n31.34 \r\n\r\n33.94 \r\n\r\n19.38 \r\n\r\n460.54 \r\n\r\n504.21 \r\n\r\n489.39 \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nSTUDENT  PERSONNEL  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nF.I.C.A.,  GR.  INS.  \u0026  RETIREMENT \r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n425,780 \r\n\r\n\r\n489,406 \r\n\r\n\r\n549,522 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n161,331 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n164,520 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n165,100 \r\n\r\n28,296 \r\n\r\n27,900 \r\n\r\n34,142 \r\n\r\n70,565 \r\n\r\n98,384 \r\n\r\n110,385 \r\n\r\n319,444 \r\n\r\n347,151 \r\n\r\n389,041 \r\n\r\n8,629 \r\n\r\n16,624 \r\n\r\n14,341 \r\n\r\n379,500 \r\n\r\n470,000 \r\n\r\n497,555 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n967,765 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,124,579 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,210,564 \r\n\r\n$  5,450,910  $  6,042,201   $  6,566,400 \r\n3,729 \r\n\r\n-  (75,000)       (75,000) \r\n\r\n$  5,454,639  $  5,967,201   $  6,491,400 \r\n\r\n$     84,698  $    121,252   $ \r\n\r\n\r\n122,888 \r\n\r\n\r\n370,918 \r\n\r\n\r\n441,334 \r\n\r\n\r\n246,645 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  5,910,255   $  6,530,287   $  6,860,933 \r\n\r\n\r\n56 \r\n\r\n\r\nCOLUMBUS  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nf \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611   TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\n\"Actual \r\n\r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n38.330 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY  1977 \r\n\r\n\r\n54,595 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY   1978 \r\n\r\n\r\n51.876 \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  \u0026  MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS  \u0026  MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,  WATER,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\n618  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  \u0026  PRINTING \r\n\r\n619  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE  \u0026  BONDING \r\n623  TUITION  \u0026  SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n627  OTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n630  PER  DIEM  AND  FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n6,513 \r\n\r\n259,258 \r\n\r\n77,535 \r\n\r\n86,284 \r\n\r\n371,783 \r\n\r\n14,662 \r\n\r\n66,465 \r\n\r\n8,624 \r\n\r\n23,514 \r\n\r\n69,299 \r\n\r\n36,060 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   1.019.997 \r\n\r\n\r\n$       9,500 \r\n\r\n5       9,500 \r\n\r\n282,005 \r\n\r\n285,573 \r\n\r\n71,721 \r\n\r\n75,410 \r\n\r\n110,394 \r\n\r\n123,664 \r\n\r\n436,600 \r\n\r\n485,600 \r\n\r\n22,452 \r\n\r\n28,141 \r\n\r\n122,052 \r\n\r\n113,556 \r\n\r\n16,000 \r\n\r\n17,000 \r\n\r\n12,000 \r\n\r\n12,255 \r\n\r\n63,303 \r\n\r\n64,311 \r\n\r\n33,942 \r\n\r\n33.905 \r\n\r\n$   1,179,969 \r\n\r\n5   1. 248.915 \r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613   MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT \r\n626   EQUIPMENT \r\n626   BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n11,681 \r\n113,304 \r\n170.433 \r\n\r\n\r\n295,418 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,800 \r\n\r\n50,670 \r\n\r\n152,865 \r\n\r\n\r\n210,335 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,800 \r\n\r\n58,289 \r\n\r\n138,820 \r\n\r\n\r\n203, 9Q9 \r\n\r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000   UNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n000   PERSONAL  SERVICES  LAPSE  ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,353,745 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n69,310 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n254,557 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,677,612 \r\n\r\n75,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n75,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,519,899 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n57,048 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n258,579 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,835,526 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n75.000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n75.000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1.579.700 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n60,012 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n196.693 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1.836,405 \r\n\r\n57 \r\n\r\n\r\nCOLUMBUS  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\nFISCAL  YEA*  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT  TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\n\r\n2,243,041 \r\n\r\n316,815 \r\n\r\n74,228 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,634,084 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,518,056 \r\n\r\n357,194 \r\n\r\n68,000 \r\n\r\n2,943,250 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,447,250 \r\n\r\n167,000 \r\n\r\n66,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,680,750 \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL  APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS  \u0026  GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT  COST  RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES  5,  SERVICES  OF  EDUCATIONAL  DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER  SOURCES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n1,063 \r\n\r\n250 \r\n\r\n250 \r\n\r\n18,895 \r\n\r\n15,000 \r\n\r\n15,000 \r\n\r\n23,377 \r\n\r\n13,500 \r\n\r\n17,000 \r\n\r\n12,855 \r\n\r\n3,000 \r\n\r\n16,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,690,274 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,975,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,729,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n139,786 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n165,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n165,000 \r\n\r\n14,222 \r\n\r\n13,300 \r\n\r\n17,900 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n154,008 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n178,300 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n182,900 \r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS    \u0026    CONTRACTS \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  h.    LOCAL \r\nGRANTS  £.  CONTRACTS \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\n\r\nNON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n524,364 \r\n\r\n6,258 \r\n\r\n94,853 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n4 \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\n561,163 \r\n\r\n3,081 \r\n\r\n136,169 \r\n\r\n700,413 \r\n\r\n,853,713 \r\n,512,100 \r\n\r\n,365,813 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n371,912 \r\n\r\n3,459 \r\n67,967 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n625,475 \r\n\r\n3,469,757 \r\n4,118,110 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n5 \r\n\r\n443,338 \r\n\r\n,355,238 \r\n,342,100 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,587,867 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\n697,338 \r\n\r\n58 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nFORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nS \r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,436,730 \r\n1,062,670 \r\n\r\n5,499,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n19,480 \r\n10,779 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n984,553 \r\n1,015,447 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,440,763 \r\n2,088,896 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n30,259 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,000,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,529,659 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,124,000 \r\n4,375,400 \r\n\r\n5,499,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n30,259 \r\n\r\n\r\n30,259 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,000,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,000,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,154,259 \r\n4,375,400 \r\n\r\n7,529,659 \r\n\r\n\r\n59 \r\n\r\n\r\nFORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n66.75 \r\n\r\n\r\n304.72 \r\n\r\n\r\n304.72 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.89 \r\n\r\n\r\n76.85 \r\n\r\n\r\n383.46 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n73.40 \r\n\r\n\r\n306.22 \r\n\r\n\r\n306.22 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.53 \r\n\r\n\r\n48.12 \r\n\r\n\r\n356.87 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.75 \r\n\r\n4.75 \r\n\r\n4.75 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\n108.38 \r\n\r\n109.38 \r\n\r\n111.16 \r\n\r\n.33 \r\n\r\n.79 \r\n\r\n1.09 \r\n\r\n6.43 \r\n\r\n6.47 \r\n\r\n7.08 \r\n\r\n20.26 \r\n\r\n21.16 \r\n\r\n29.21 \r\n\r\n11.56 \r\n\r\n7.58 \r\n\r\n8.81 \r\n\r\n156.71 \r\n\r\n156.13 \r\n\r\n169.10 \r\n\r\n.53 \r\n\r\n.31 \r\n\r\n.26 \r\n\r\n.01 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n.54 \r\n\r\n.31 \r\n\r\n.26 \r\n\r\n5.83 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n12.45 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n10.00 \r\n\r\n10.00 \r\n\r\n2.24 \r\n\r\n2.24 \r\n\r\n2.45 \r\n\r\n21.52 \r\n\r\n19.24 \r\n\r\n19.45 \r\n\r\n77.32 \r\n\r\n\r\n13.19 \r\n\r\n12.50 \r\n\r\n12.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\n32.21 \r\n\r\n31.09 \r\n\r\n31.09 \r\n\r\n6.80 \r\n\r\n6.55 \r\n\r\n6.47 \r\n\r\n59.20 \r\n\r\n57.14 \r\n\r\n58.56 \r\n\r\n324.69 \r\n\r\n\r\n324. \r\n\r\n69 \r\n\r\n2. \r\n\r\n61 \r\n\r\n73. \r\n\r\n,00 \r\n\r\n400. \r\n\r\n30 \r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR.,  RSCH.  \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.    ADM.    OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE   ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR   FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME   FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE    ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL    \u0026   TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL    \u0026    TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nSTUDENT  PERSONNEL  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nF.I.C.A.,  GR.  INS.  \u0026  RETIREMENT \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n$     87,429 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n113,126 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n128,835 \r\n\r\n58,631 \r\n\r\n59,161 \r\n\r\n77,058 \r\n\r\n1,999,956 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,062,879 \r\n\r\n2, \r\n\r\n,258,157 \r\n\r\n4,892 \r\n\r\n12,974 \r\n\r\n28,146 \r\n\r\n34,771 \r\n\r\n36,247 \r\n\r\n39,690 \r\n\r\n141,314 \r\n\r\n150,367 \r\n\r\n209,217 \r\n\r\n32,044 \r\n\r\n22.867 \r\n\r\n25,012 \r\n\r\n$  2,359,037 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,46?,62.J \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2, \r\n\r\n,766,115 \r\n\r\n2,388 \r\n\r\n1,368 \r\n\r\n1,424 \r\n\r\n31 \r\n2,419 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1.368 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,424 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n76,957 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n19,911 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n22,000 \r\n\r\n97,169 \r\n\r\n69,832 \r\n\r\n80,230 \r\n\r\n5,403 \r\n\r\n73,626 \r\n\r\n78,068 \r\n\r\n5,600 \r\n\r\n5,600 \r\n\r\n6,132 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n185,129 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n168,969 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n186,430 \r\n\r\n$    387,940   $    448,850   $    510,947 \r\n\r\n\r\n246,196 \r\n10,417 \r\n74,393 \r\n\r\n244,519 \r\n17,002 \r\n\r\n325,928 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ 918,455 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  3,852,980 \r\n60,861 \r\n\r\n\r\n236,393 \r\n10,500 \r\n73,284 \r\n\r\n234,787 \r\n\r\n16,435 \r\n\r\nJ12^2JJ \r\n\r\n\r\n257,382 \r\n20,374 \r\n91,541 \r\n\r\n253,084 \r\n16,220 \r\n\r\n333,213 \r\n\r\n\r\n883,612 \r\n\r\n\r\n971,814 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  3,965,420   $  4,436,730 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,913,841 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n12,905 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n946,578 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,873,324 \r\n\r\n$  3.965.420  $  4,436,730 \r\n\r\n$  14.733  $  19,480 \r\n\r\n$  581,330  $  984,553 \r\n\r\n$  4,561,483  $  5,440,763 \r\n\r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n\r\nFORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n66.75 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.75 \r\n\r\n4.75 \r\n\r\n4.75 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\n108.38 \r\n\r\n109.38 \r\n\r\n111.16 \r\n\r\n.33 \r\n\r\n.79 \r\n\r\n1.09 \r\n\r\n6.43 \r\n\r\n6.47 \r\n\r\n7.08 \r\n\r\n20.26 \r\n\r\n21.16 \r\n\r\n29.21 \r\n\r\n11.56 \r\n\r\n7.58 \r\n\r\n8.81 \r\n\r\n156.71 \r\n\r\n156.13 \r\n\r\n169.10 \r\n\r\n73.40 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR.,  RSCH.  \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n\r\n$     87,429 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n113,126 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n128,835 \r\n\r\n58,631 \r\n\r\n59,161 \r\n\r\n77,058 \r\n\r\n1,999,956 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,062,879 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n258,157 \r\n\r\n4,892 \r\n\r\n12,974 \r\n\r\n28,146 \r\n\r\n34,771 \r\n\r\n36,247 \r\n\r\n39,690 \r\n\r\n141,314 \r\n\r\n150,367 \r\n\r\n209,217 \r\n\r\n32,044 \r\n\r\n22.867 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n25,012 \r\n\r\n$  2,359,037 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n•462.621 \r\n\r\n,766,115 \r\n\r\n.53 \r\n\r\n.31 \r\n\r\n.26 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\n\r\n2,388 \r\n\r\n1,368 \r\n\r\n1,424 \r\n\r\n.01 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n31 \r\n2,419 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n.54 \r\n\r\n.31 \r\n\r\n.26 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1.368 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,424 \r\n\r\n5.83 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n76,957 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n19,911 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n22,000 \r\n\r\n12.45 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n97,169 \r\n\r\n69,832 \r\n\r\n80,230 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n10.00 \r\n\r\n10.00 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\n\r\n5,403 \r\n\r\n73,626 \r\n\r\n78,068 \r\n\r\n2.24 \r\n\r\n2.24 \r\n\r\n2.45 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\n5,600 \r\n\r\n5,600 \r\n\r\n6,132 \r\n\r\n21.52 \r\n\r\n19.24 \r\n\r\n19.45 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n185,129 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n168,969 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n186,430 \r\n\r\n77.32 \r\n\r\n\r\n13. \r\n\r\n19 \r\n\r\n12 \r\n\r\n50 \r\n\r\n12 \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n1. \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n6. \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n7. \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n32 \r\n\r\n21 \r\n\r\n31 \r\n\r\n09 \r\n\r\n31. \r\n\r\n09 \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\n80 \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\n47 \r\n\r\n59. \r\n\r\n20 \r\n\r\n57 \r\n\r\n14 \r\n\r\n58 \r\n\r\n56 \r\n\r\n304 \r\n\r\n72 \r\n\r\n306. \r\n\r\n22 \r\n\r\n324. \r\n\r\n69 \r\n\r\n304. \r\n\r\n72 \r\n\r\n306. \r\n\r\n22 \r\n\r\n324. \r\n\r\n69 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n89 \r\n\r\n2. \r\n\r\n53 \r\n\r\n2. \r\n\r\n61 \r\n\r\n76. \r\n\r\n85 \r\n\r\n48. \r\n\r\n12 \r\n\r\n73. \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n383. \r\n\r\n46 \r\n\r\n356. \r\n\r\n87 \r\n\r\n400, \r\n\r\n30 \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER  $ \r\n\r\n\r\n387,940   $    448,850   $    510,947 \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.    ADM.    OFFICERS  $          246,196 \r\n\r\nSTUDENT   PERSONNEL  OFFICERS  10,417 \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE    ASSISTANTS  74,393 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL    \u0026   TECH-REGULAR  244,519 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL    \u0026   TECH- STUDENTS  17,002 \r\n\r\nF.I.C.A.,    GR.    INS.    \u0026    RETIREMENT  325,928 \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL  $          918,455 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n$  3,852,980 \r\n60,861 \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n3,913,841 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n12,905 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n946,578 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,873,324 \r\n\r\n236,393 \r\n10,500 \r\n73,284 \r\n\r\n234,787 \r\n\r\n16,435 \r\n\r\n_3J^2JJ \r\n\r\n\r\n257,382 \r\n20,374 \r\n91,541 \r\n\r\n253,084 \r\n16,220 \r\n\r\n333,213 \r\n\r\n\r\n883,612 \r\n\r\n\r\n971,814 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  3,965,420   5  4,436,730 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  3.965.420  $  4,436,730 \r\n\r\n$  14.733  $  19,480 \r\n\r\n$  581,330  $  984,553 \r\n\r\n$  4,561,483  $  5,440,763 \r\n\r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n\r\nFORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611   TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n41,208 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY   1977 \r\n\r\n\r\n47,762 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY   1978 \r\n\r\n\r\n51,549 \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  S  MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS  \u0026  MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,  WATER,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\nGift  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  \u0026  PRINTING \r\n\r\n\u003c\u003e1\u003c)  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE    \u0026    BONDING \r\n\r\n623  TUITION   \u0026   SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n\r\n627  OTHER   OPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\n630  PER  DIEM  AND   FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n3,769 \r\n\r\n42,578 \r\n\r\n24,832 \r\n\r\n65,483 \r\n\r\n317,417 \r\n\r\n1,158 \r\n45,489 \r\n\r\n8,943 \r\n42,552 \r\n29,878 \r\n14,864 \r\n\r\n\r\n596,963 \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n4,020 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,284 \r\n\r\n132,103 \r\n\r\n147,020 \r\n\r\n28,306 \r\n\r\n27,20-. \r\n\r\n66,406 \r\n\r\n70,035 \r\n\r\n294,400 \r\n\r\n309,120 \r\n\r\n15,720 \r\n\r\n13,335 \r\n\r\n50,421 \r\n\r\n46,427 \r\n\r\n6,030 \r\n\r\n6,426 \r\n\r\n55,400 \r\n\r\n51,819 \r\n\r\n11,500 \r\n\r\n10,550 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n664,306 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n686,220 \r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613   MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT \r\n626   EQUIPMENT \r\n626   BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n83,465 \r\n51,763 \r\n\r\n\r\n135,228 \r\n\r\n\r\n162,455 \r\n145,457 \r\n\r\n\r\n307,912 \r\n\r\n\r\n153,261 \r\n171,640 \r\n\r\n\r\n324,901 \r\n\r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000      UNASSIGNED   BALANCE \r\n\r\n000      PERSONAL   SERVICES   LAPSE   ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHFR \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n773,399 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11,163 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,061,363 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,845,925 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,019,980 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,276 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n313,566 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,341,822 \r\n\r\n**• \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,062,670 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n10,779 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,015,447 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n2,088,896 \r\n\r\n61 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nFORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT  TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL  APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS  \u0026  GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT  COST  RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES  OF  EDUCATIONAL  DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER  SOURCES \r\n\r\n\r\n789,204 \r\n\r\n57,425 \r\n\r\n8,025 \r\n\r\n\r\n854,654 \r\n\r\n\r\n60,547 \r\n\r\n\r\n103,529 \r\n\r\n4,010 \r\n\r\n2.410 \r\n\r\n\r\n906,371 \r\n\r\n52,836 \r\n\r\n8,500 \r\n\r\n967,707 \r\n\r\n60,527 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,766 \r\n5,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n1.P31.150 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,035,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n800,976 \r\n\r\n56,500 \r\n\r\n8,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n865,976 \r\n\r\n\r\n60,527 \r\n\r\n\r\n192,497 \r\n5,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.124. OOP \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n5,295 \r\n18,773 \r\n\r\n\r\n24,068 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,064 \r\n17,945 \r\n\r\n\r\n23,009 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,650 \r\n\r\n5,064 \r\n\r\n18,545 \r\n\r\n\r\n30,259 \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS  \u0026  CONTRACTS  -  GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  \u0026  LOCAL \r\nGRANTS  \u0026  CONTRACTS  -  NON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n2,007,941 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,007,941 \r\n\r\n\r\n894,896 \r\n\r\n\r\n894,896 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    2,000,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    2,000,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,063,159 \r\n3,656,090 \r\n\r\n$    6,719,249 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    1,952,905 \r\n3,950,400 \r\n\r\n$    5,903,305 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,154,259 \r\n\r\n4,375,400 \r\n\r\n$    7,529,659 \r\n\r\n\r\n62 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n} \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL — \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n4, \r\n\r\n613, \r\n\r\n,473 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n16, \r\n\r\n,054 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n92, \r\n\r\n,723 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4, \r\n\r\n,722, \r\n\r\n,250 \r\n\r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n1, \r\n\r\n.090, \r\n\r\n,427 \r\n\r\n25, \r\n\r\n,846 \r\n\r\n152, \r\n\r\n,268 \r\n\r\n1, \r\n\r\n268, \r\n\r\n541 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5, \r\n\r\n703, \r\n\r\n?9P \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n41, \r\n\r\n,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n244, \r\n\r\n991 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5, \r\n\r\n990, \r\n\r\n791 \r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,940,000 \r\n3,763,900 \r\n\r\n5,703,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n41,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n244,991 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,226,891 \r\n\r\n3,763,900 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n41,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n244,991 \r\n\r\n5,990,791 \r\n\r\n63 \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n57.36 \r\n\r\n\r\n287.32 \r\n\r\n\r\n287. 32 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.04 \r\n\r\n\r\n11.93 \r\n\r\n\r\n301.29 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\n2.55 \r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\n3.50 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.40 \r\n\r\n122.19 \r\n\r\n132.42 \r\n\r\n133.37 \r\n\r\n9.51 \r\n\r\n7.75 \r\n\r\n7.15 \r\n\r\n2.27 \r\n\r\n2.75 \r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\n20.52 \r\n\r\n21.02 \r\n\r\n21.53 \r\n\r\n2.46 \r\n\r\n3.53 \r\n\r\n3.39 \r\n\r\n160.50 \r\n\r\n170.97 \r\n\r\n172.84 \r\n\r\n62.33 \r\n\r\n\r\n303.50 \r\n\r\n\r\n303. \r\n\r\n,50 \r\n\r\n1. \r\n\r\n45 \r\n\r\n7. \r\n\r\n79 \r\n\r\n312. \r\n\r\n74 \r\n\r\nINSTR.,  RSCH.  \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  S.   TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n60,459 \r\n\r\n10,730 \r\n\r\n2,211,158 \r\n\r\n77,407 \r\n\r\n20,045 \r\n\r\n151,635 \r\n\r\n9,169 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n59,453 \r\n10,815 \r\n2,450,687 \r\n78,800 \r\n24,200 \r\n156,637 \r\n13,170 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n94,910 \r\n17,270 \r\n2,682,758 \r\n52,017 \r\n24,000 \r\n169,553 \r\n13,189 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  2,540,603   $  2.793.762   $  3,053,697 \r\n\r\n\r\n.73 \r\n\r\n.76 \r\n\r\n.37 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\n\r\n8,538 \r\n\r\n8,915 \r\n\r\n4,503 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n.08 \r\n\r\n.06 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n269 \r\n\r\n232 \r\n\r\n.73 \r\n\r\n.84  . \r\n\r\n.43 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,538 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n9.184 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,735 \r\n\r\n6.24 \r\n\r\n6.50 \r\n\r\n6.49 \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n84,418 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n87,834 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n95,831 \r\n\r\n4.08 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n5.00 \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n31,247 \r\n\r\n31,073 \r\n\r\n40,218 \r\n\r\n3.70 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n3.00 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\n\r\n20,784 \r\n\r\n22,470 \r\n\r\n18,843 \r\n\r\n1.11 \r\n\r\n1.64 \r\n16.14 \r\n\r\n1.71 \r\n16.20 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\n4,101 \r\n\r\n6,125 \r\n\r\n6,684 \r\n\r\n15.13 \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\n140,550 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n147,502 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\ni^1  -576\" \r\n\r\n64.16 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n5.95 \r\n\r\n6.15 \r\n\r\n6.15 \r\n\r\n7.84 \r\n\r\n7.60 \r\n\r\n6.60 \r\n\r\n31.75 \r\n\r\n33.48 \r\n\r\n33.93 \r\n\r\n4.06 \r\n\r\n1.99 \r\n\r\n1.75 \r\n\r\n53.60 \r\n\r\n53.22 \r\n\r\n52.43 \r\n\r\n306.06 \r\n\r\n\r\n306. \r\n\r\n.06 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n.74 \r\n\r\n6. \r\n\r\n.44 \r\n\r\n314. \r\n\r\n,24 \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nSTUDENT  PERSONNEL  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nF.I.C.A.,  GR.  INS.  \u0026  RETIREMENT \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n352,223 \r\n\r\n\r\n386,701 \r\n\r\n\r\n452,798 \r\n\r\n\r\n102,729 \r\n78,897 \r\n97,265 \r\n\r\n205,184 \r\n15,149 \r\n\r\n294,032 \r\n\r\n\r\n103,620 \r\n81,455 \r\n97,075 \r\n\r\n219,336 \r\n7,440 \r\n\r\n339,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n110,630 \r\n92,414 \r\n97,794 \r\n\r\n244,390 \r\n6,902 \r\n\r\n367,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n793,256 \r\n\r\n\r\n847,926        $         919,130 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,835,170       $    4,185,075        $    4,591,936 \r\n\r\n\r\n93,776 \r\n\r\n\r\n21,537 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,928,946 \r\n$  17,833 \r\n\r\n\r\n147,273 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    4,094,052 \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n4,185,075 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n13,519 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n106,398 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4, 304,992 \r\n\r\nS    4,613,473 \r\n$  16,054 \r\n\r\n\r\n92,723 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    4,722,250 \r\n\r\n\r\n64 \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611   TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  \u0026  MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS  \u0026  MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,  WATER,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\n618  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  \u0026  PRINTING \r\n\r\n619  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE  \u0026  BONDING \r\n623  TUITION  \u0026  SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n627  OTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n630  PER  DIEM  AND  FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n41,414 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,104 \r\n\r\n186,051 \r\n\r\n99,956 \r\n\r\n48,212 \r\n\r\n255,625 \r\n\r\n19,569 \r\n\r\n44,612 \r\n\r\n8,677 \r\n\r\n19,655 \r\n\r\n138,849 \r\n\r\n12,182 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n840,492 \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY   1977 \r\n\r\n\r\n52.238 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ 58,32  7 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,747 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,884 \r\n\r\n181,109 \r\n\r\n186,995 \r\n\r\n67,090 \r\n\r\n67,118 \r\n\r\n62,574 \r\n\r\n73,850 \r\n\r\n307,496 \r\n\r\n366,402 \r\n\r\n29,600 \r\n\r\n28,100 \r\n\r\n54,670 \r\n\r\n47,939 \r\n\r\n13,425 \r\n\r\n13,225 \r\n\r\n20,929 \r\n\r\n20,569 \r\n\r\n45,814 \r\n\r\n42,561 \r\n\r\n8.781 \r\n\r\n4,828 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n796.235 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n856,471 \r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613   MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT \r\n626   EQUIPMENT \r\n626   BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n3,761 \r\n\r\n92,825 \r\n\r\n110,621 \r\n\r\n\r\n207,207 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,641 \r\n\r\n56,532 \r\n\r\n103.13? \r\n\r\n\r\n162.305 \r\n\r\n\r\n52,982 \r\n110,047 \r\n\r\n\r\n$     163,029 \r\n\r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000   UNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n000   PERSONAL  SERVICES  LAPSE  ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$  28,047 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  12,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,089,113 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n33,243 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n178,806 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,301,162 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n28,047 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,038,825 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n19,481 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n136,370 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1.194.676 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n12,600 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,090,427 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n25,846 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n152,268 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,268,541 \r\n\r\n65 \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT  TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\n\r\n1,552,333 \r\n\r\n133,928 \r\n\r\n34,793 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,721,054 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,816,950 \r\n\r\n120,000 \r\n\r\n30,550 \r\n\r\n1,967,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,753,800 \r\n\r\n120,000 \r\n\r\n33,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,907,500 \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL  APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS  \u0026  GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT  COST  RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES  OF  EDUCATIONAL  DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER  SOURCES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n17,180 \r\n19,631 \r\n13,594 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.771,459 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,000 \r\n\r\n12,600 \r\n\r\n2,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,989,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n7,50C \r\n16,500 \r\n\r\n8,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,940,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n17,623 \r\n33.453 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n13,600 \r\n19,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n13,100 \r\n28.800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n51,076 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n33,000 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n41,900 \r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS    \u0026    CONTRACTS    -    GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE    \u0026    LOCAL \r\nGRANTS    \u0026   CONTRACTS    -    NON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n250,218 \r\n26,709 \r\n49,152 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n223,686 \r\n\r\n2,900 \r\n\r\n16,182 \r\n\r\n242,768 \r\n\r\n2,264,768 \r\n3,234,900 \r\n\r\n5,499,668 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n205,678 \r\n17,601 \r\n21,712 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n326,079 \r\n\r\n2,148,614 \r\n3,246,600 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n244,991 \r\n\r\n2,226,891 \r\n\r\n3,763,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,395,214 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,990,791 \r\n\r\n66 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n9,383,740 \r\n1,937,960 \r\n\r\n11,321,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    338,570 \r\n70,118 \r\n\r\nc    408,688 \r\n\r\n\r\n586,284 \r\n682,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,268,284 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   10,308,594 \r\n2,690,078 \r\n\r\n$   12,998,672 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n3,010,000 \r\n8,311,700 \r\n\r\n11,321,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  408,688 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  408,688 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  1,268,284 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  1,268,284 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,686,972 \r\n8,311,700 \r\n\r\n12,998,672 \r\n\r\n\r\n; \r\n\r\n\r\n67 \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n1Q75-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n14.16 \r\n\r\n16.23 \r\n6.41 \r\n\r\n\r\n36.80 \r\n\r\n\r\n120.76 \r\n\r\n\r\n111.52 \r\n\r\n\r\n608.39 \r\n\r\n\r\n608. \r\n\r\n,  39 \r\n\r\n24. \r\n\r\n,94 \r\n\r\n28. \r\n\r\n.60 \r\n\r\n661. \r\n\r\n,93 \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n3.35 \r\n\r\n3.34 \r\n\r\n3.34 \r\n\r\n259.74 \r\n\r\n264.34 \r\n\r\n263.08 \r\n\r\n.76 \r\n\r\n.70 \r\n\r\n.70 \r\n\r\n15.60 \r\n\r\n15.76 \r\n\r\n17.18 \r\n\r\n36.45 \r\n\r\n40.67 \r\n\r\n40.79 \r\n\r\n8.12 \r\n\r\n12.28 \r\n\r\n10.70 \r\n\r\n330.02 \r\n\r\n343.09 \r\n\r\n341.79 \r\n\r\n.58 \r\n\r\n.61 \r\n\r\n.57 \r\n\r\n2.59 \r\n\r\n2.45 \r\n\r\n2.35 \r\n\r\n.99 \r\n\r\n.81 \r\n\r\n.96 \r\n\r\n.09 \r\n\r\n.05 \r\n\r\n.05 \r\n\r\n4.01 \r\n\r\n5.36 \r\n\r\n4.37 \r\n\r\n1.03 \r\n\r\n.80 \r\n\r\n.45 \r\n\r\n9.29 \r\n\r\n10.10 \r\n\r\n8.75 \r\n\r\n15.00 \r\n\r\n20.09 \r\n8.33 \r\n\r\n\r\n43.42 \r\n\r\n\r\n133.90 \r\n\r\n\r\n125.51 \r\n\r\n\r\n656.02 \r\n\r\n\r\n656. \r\n\r\n02 \r\n\r\n26. \r\n\r\n27 \r\n\r\n37. \r\n\r\n71 \r\n\r\n720. \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n15.00 \r\n\r\n20.00 \r\n\r\n8.44 \r\n\r\n\r\n43.44 \r\n\r\n\r\n131.22 \r\n\r\n\r\n5.00 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n5.00 \r\n\r\n5.00 \r\n\r\n36.72 \r\n\r\n39.65 \r\n\r\n39.32 \r\n\r\n58.88 \r\n\r\n67.37 \r\n\r\n67.59 \r\n\r\n6.92 \r\n\r\n7.49 \r\n\r\n6.89 \r\n\r\n124.80 \r\n\r\n\r\n650.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n650. \r\n\r\n,00 \r\n\r\n26. \r\n\r\n36 \r\n\r\n40. \r\n\r\n66 \r\n\r\n717. \r\n\r\n02 \r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR.,  RSCH.  \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nSTUDENT  PERSONNEL  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nF.I.C.A.,  GR.  INS.  \u0026  RETIREMENT \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNAS SIGN ED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n168,336 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n169,800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n187,700 \r\n\r\n76,660 \r\n\r\n77,633 \r\n\r\n84,820 \r\n\r\n4,754,132 \r\n\r\n4,918,540 \r\n\r\n5,355,923 \r\n\r\n9,165 \r\n\r\n10,000 \r\n\r\n10,000 \r\n\r\n141,812 \r\n\r\n145,027 \r\n\r\n158,057 \r\n\r\n207,342 \r\n\r\n232,943 \r\n\r\n265,157 \r\n\r\n30,152 \r\n\r\n49,057 \r\n\r\n43,843 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5.387.599 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,603,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6.105.500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n12,777 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n13,541 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n13,622 \r\n\r\n30,775 \r\n\r\n26,449 \r\n\r\n35,294 \r\n\r\n16,493 \r\n\r\n15,294 \r\n\r\n19,949 \r\n\r\n873 \r\n\r\n459 \r\n\r\n427 \r\n\r\n23,191 \r\n\r\n31,830 \r\n\r\n28,194 \r\n\r\n3.831 \r\n87,940 \r\n\r\n3.197 \r\n\r\n1,859 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n90.770 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n99,345 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n175,260 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n185,170 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n204,353 \r\n\r\n89,427 \r\n\r\n108,830 \r\n\r\n119,234 \r\n\r\n23,809 \r\n\r\n33,100 \r\n\r\n34,588 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n288,496 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n327,100 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n3SC. *75 \r\n\r\n753,981 \r\n\r\n\r\n820,141 \r\n\r\n\r\n899,141 \r\n\r\n\r\n138,883 \r\n58,795 \r\n\r\n448,484 \r\n\r\n346,636 \r\n25,670 \r\n\r\n624,140 \r\n\r\n\r\n163,350 \r\n72,605 \r\n\r\n471,490 \r\n\r\n406,723 \r\n29,911 \r\n\r\n707,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n178,400 \r\n79,500 \r\n\r\n521,725 \r\n\r\n448,523 \r\n28,431 \r\n\r\n750,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  1.642,608   $  1,851,079   $  2,006,579 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  8,160,624 \r\n'  29,768 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  8,692,090   $  9,468,740 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,190,392 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n292,996 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n400,622 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,884,010 \r\n\r\n(85,000) \r\n\r\n\r\n(85,000) \r\n\r\n\r\n$  8,607,090  $  9,383,740 \r\n\r\n$  305,026  $    338,570 \r\n\r\n$  544,454  $    586,284 \r\n\r\n$  9,456,570  $  10,308,594 \r\n\r\n\r\n68 \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHERN  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611   TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n78,685 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY  1977 \r\n\r\n\r\n105,348 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\n$     105,476 \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  \u0026  MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS  \u0026  MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,  WATER,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\n618  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  \u0026  PRINTING \r\n\r\n619  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE  \u0026  BONDING \r\n623  TUITION  \u0026  SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n627  OTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n630  PER  DIEM  AND  FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n20,928 \r\n316,465 \r\n\r\n37,037 \r\n117,376 \r\n356,550 \r\n\r\n65,095 \r\n141,464 \r\n\r\n15,062 \r\n\r\n28,544 \r\n159,351 \r\n\r\n32,266 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   1.290.138 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n16,933 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n12,650 \r\n\r\n456,376 \r\n\r\n260,198 \r\n\r\n29,947 \r\n\r\n134  075 \r\n\r\n86,319 \r\n\r\n107,500 \r\n\r\n362,501 \r\n\r\n351,650 \r\n\r\n51,559 \r\n\r\n65,775 \r\n\r\n97,709 \r\n\r\n125,225 \r\n\r\n29,636 \r\n\r\n13,900 \r\n\r\n34,066 \r\n\r\n34,000 \r\n\r\n25,875 \r\n\r\n140,495 \r\n\r\n28,080 \r\n\r\n33,500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,219,001 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1.278,968 \r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613   MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT \r\n626   EQUIPMENT \r\n626   BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n128,497 \r\n248,819 \r\n\r\n\r\n377,316 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  12,500 \r\n209,600 \r\n269,161 \r\n\r\n$     491,261 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  8,50^ \r\n175,931 \r\n284,085 \r\n\r\n$     468,516 \r\n\r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000   UNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n000   PERSONAL  SERVICES  LAPSE  ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1.746,139 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n63,568 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n415,617 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2.225.324 \r\n\r\n85,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n85,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,900,610 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n65,200 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n624,026 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,589,836 \r\n\r\n85,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n85,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,937,960 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n70,118 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n682, COO \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,690,078 \r\n\r\n69 \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHERN  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEOULE  OF  REVENUE \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT  TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\n\r\n2,335,595 \r\n\r\n381,261 \r\n\r\n6,989 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,723,845 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,605,500 \r\n\r\n400,000 \r\n\r\n6,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,012,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,545,000 \r\n\r\n390,000 \r\n\r\n6,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,941,500 \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL  APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS  \u0026  GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT  COST  RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES  OF  EDUCATIONAL  DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER  SOURCES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n31,219 \r\n\r\n27,412 \r\n37,660 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,820,136 \r\n\r\n\r\n30,000 \r\n13,750 \r\n33,250 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,089,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n30,000 \r\n\r\n6,600 \r\n\r\n31,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,010,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n102,213 \r\n\r\n222,990 \r\n\r\n31,361 \r\n\r\n\r\n356,564 \r\n\r\n\r\n101,366 \r\n\r\n237,935 \r\n\r\n30,925 \r\n\r\n\r\n370,226 \r\n\r\n\r\n120,350 \r\n\r\n253,663 \r\n\r\n34,675 \r\n\r\n\r\n408,688 \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS  \u0026  CONTRACTS  -  GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE   \u0026   LOCAL \r\nGRANTS    \u0026  CONTRACTS    -    NON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n290,824 \r\n243,428 \r\n281,987 \r\n\r\n\r\n816,239 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    1,168,480 \r\n\r\n\r\nS    1,168,480 \r\n\r\n\r\n451,887 \r\n378,242 \r\n438,155 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,268,284 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,992,939 \r\n7,116,395 \r\n\r\n$   11,109,334 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    4,627,706 \r\n7,418,700 \r\n\r\n$   12,046,406 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,686,972 \r\n8,311,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n12,998,672 \r\n\r\n\r\n70 \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHERN  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT  TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\n\r\n2,335,595 \r\n\r\n381,261 \r\n\r\n6,989 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,723,845 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,605,500 \r\n\r\n400,000 \r\n\r\n6,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,012,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,545,000 \r\n\r\n390,000 \r\n\r\n6,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,941,500 \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL  APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS  \u0026  GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT  COST  RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES  OF  EDUCATIONAL  DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER  SOURCES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n31,219 \r\n\r\n30,000 \r\n\r\n30,000 \r\n\r\n27,412 \r\n\r\n13,750 \r\n\r\n6,600 \r\n\r\n37,660 \r\n\r\n33,250 \r\n\r\n31,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,820,136 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,089,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,010,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n102,213 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n101,366 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n120,350 \r\n\r\n222,990 \r\n\r\n237,935 \r\n\r\n253,663 \r\n\r\n31,361 \r\n\r\n30,925 \r\n\r\n34,675 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n356,564 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n370,226 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n408,688 \r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS    \u0026    CONTRACTS \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  \u0026  LOCAL \r\nGRANTS  \u0026  CONTRACTS \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\n\r\nNON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n290,824 \r\n243,428 \r\n281,987 \r\n\r\n\r\n816,239 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    1,168,480 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    1,168,480 \r\n\r\n\r\n451,887 \r\n378,242 \r\n438,155 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,268,284 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n3,992,939 \r\n7,116,395 \r\n\r\n\r\n$       11,109,334 \r\n\r\n\r\n$         4,627,706 \r\n7,418,700 \r\n\r\n$      12,046,406 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,686,972 \r\n8,311,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n12,998,672 \r\n\r\n\r\n71 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHWESTERN  COLLEGEi. \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n3,823,654 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11,893 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n152,291 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n3,987,838 \r\n\r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n929,146 \r\n\r\n18,306 \r\n\r\n239,560 \r\n\r\n1,187,012 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,752,800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n30.199 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n391,851 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,174,850 \r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,060,000 \r\n3,692,800 \r\n\r\n4,752,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n30,199 \r\n\r\n\r\n30,199 \r\n\r\n\r\n391,851 \r\n\r\n\r\n391,851 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,482,050 \r\n3,692,800 \r\n\r\n5,174,850 \r\n\r\n\r\n72 \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHWESTERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n.^75-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n133.02 \r\n\r\n\r\n74 \r\n\r\n\r\n19 \r\n\r\n\r\n58.44 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n8.91 \r\n3.65 \r\n26.91 \r\n1.29 \r\n\r\n\r\n44.76 \r\n\r\n\r\n253.98 \r\n\r\n\r\n253.98 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.64 \r\n\r\n\r\n11.2Q \r\n\r\n\r\n266.82 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n1.75 \r\n\r\n1.66 \r\n\r\n1.66 \r\n\r\n1.41 \r\n\r\n104.02 \r\n\r\n114.76 \r\n\r\n110.19 \r\n\r\n4.81 \r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n2.79 \r\n\r\n.99 \r\n\r\n2.75 \r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\n17.04 \r\n\r\n17.44 \r\n\r\n16.67 \r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\n1.84 \r\n\r\n2.02 \r\n\r\n142.45 \r\n\r\n\r\n,86 \r\n\r\n\r\n22 \r\n\r\n\r\n63.62 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n9.19 \r\n3.65 \r\n27.50 \r\n1.20 \r\n\r\n\r\n45.54 \r\n\r\n\r\n270.88 \r\n\r\n\r\n270. \r\n\r\n,88 \r\n\r\n1. \r\n\r\n,58 \r\n\r\n11. \r\n\r\n,19 \r\n\r\n283. \r\n\r\n65 \r\n\r\n137.33 \r\n\r\n\r\n,85 \r\n\r\n\r\n,21 \r\n\r\n\r\n.72 \r\n\r\n.86 \r\n\r\n.85 \r\n\r\n.08 \r\n\r\n.11   . \r\n\r\n.06 \r\n\r\n1.73 \r\n\r\n2.05 \r\n\r\n1.97 \r\n\r\n6.96 \r\n\r\n8.00 \r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\n.50 \r\n\r\n.50 \r\n\r\n.50 \r\n\r\n6.98 \r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\n1.5Q \r\n\r\n1.72 \r\n\r\n1.68 \r\n\r\n16.03 \r\n\r\n17.22 \r\n\r\n16.18 \r\n\r\n60.94 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n9.20 \r\n4.64 \r\n27.50 \r\n1.79 \r\n\r\n\r\n47.13 \r\n\r\n\r\n263.55 \r\n\r\n\r\n263. \r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\n1. \r\n\r\n63 \r\n\r\n10. \r\n\r\n57 \r\n\r\n275. \r\n\r\n,75 \r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR.,  RSCH.  \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n43,475 \r\n\r\n21,614 \r\n\r\n1,915,396 \r\n\r\n38,100 \r\n\r\n6,396 \r\n\r\n112,462 \r\n\r\n10,756 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n43,891 \r\n\r\n21,819 \r\n\r\n2,106,090 \r\n\r\n16,600 \r\n\r\n17,600 \r\n\r\n115,726 \r\n\r\n8,274 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n52,250 \r\n\r\n20,082 \r\n\r\n2,235,018 \r\n\r\n24,650 \r\n\r\n16,000 \r\n\r\n118,679 \r\n\r\n9,321 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  2.148.199   $  2,330,000   $  2. 476.000 \r\n\r\n\r\n12,872 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,465 \r\n\r\n4,123 \r\n385 \r\n\r\n\r\n18,845 \r\n\r\n\r\n136,155 \r\n\r\n\r\n329,832 \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.  ADM.  OFFICERS  $     82,890 \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  PERSONNEL  OFFICERS  130,870 \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS  52,829 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR  180,935 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS  5,563 \r\n\r\nF.I.C.A.,  GR.  INS.  \u0026  RETIREMENT  244,414 \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL  $    697,501 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n$  3,330,532 \r\n\r\n817 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,331,349 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n12,216 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n145,726 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,489,291 \r\n\r\n15,079 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,720 \r\n\r\n4,995 \r\n\r\n5J^ \r\n\r\n\r\n16,320 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,700 \r\n\r\n5,404 \r\n327 \r\n\r\n\r\n21±21\u0026 \r\n\r\n\r\n71,7^1 \r\n\r\n\r\n79,249 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n88,688 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n87\u003e297 \r\n\r\n9,434 \r\n\r\n9,510 \r\n\r\n10,460 \r\n\r\n40,648 \r\n\r\n41,295 \r\n\r\n45,964 \r\n\r\n6,824 \r\n\r\n7,720 \r\n\r\n7.720 \r\n\r\n147,213 \r\n\r\n\r\n151,441 \r\n\r\n\r\n370,258 \r\n\r\n\r\n407,258 \r\n\r\n\r\n84,894 \r\n139,824 \r\n\r\n54,733 \r\n\r\n183,568 \r\n\r\n5,413 \r\n\r\n287,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n90,500 \r\n151,115 \r\n\r\n70,351 \r\n\r\n203,988 \r\n\r\n8,250 \r\n\r\n301,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n755,432 \r\n\r\n\r\n825,204 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,625,213        $    3,883,654 \r\n\r\n\r\n(80.000) \r\n\r\n\r\n(60,000) \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3.545.213        ?    3,823,654 \r\n$  10.584        $  11,893 \r\n\r\n\r\n148,375 \r\n\r\n\r\n152,291 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,704,172         $     3,987,838 \r\n\r\n\r\n73 \r\n\r\n\r\n¦ \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHWESTERN  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611   TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\n\"Actual \r\n\r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n27,914 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY  1977 \r\n\r\n\r\n43,242 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\n45,110 \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  \u0026  MATERIALS \r\n\r\nfl5  REPAIRS  \u0026  MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,  WATER,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\n618  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  \u0026  PRINTING \r\n\r\n619  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE  \u0026  BONDING \r\n623  TUITION  \u0026  SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n627  OTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n630  PER  DIEM  AND  FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n7,291 \r\n\r\n153,992 \r\n\r\n40,447 \r\n\r\n36,814 \r\n\r\n175,777 \r\n\r\n17,318 \r\n\r\n50,783 \r\n\r\n5,132 \r\n\r\n28,137 \r\n\r\n32,907 \r\n\r\n17,489 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n566,087 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,804 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n7,984 \r\n\r\n171,657 \r\n\r\n170,662 \r\n\r\n36,847 \r\n\r\n37,513 \r\n\r\n38,110 \r\n\r\n40,147 \r\n\r\n196,180 \r\n\r\n220,570 \r\n\r\n21,542 \r\n\r\n21,542 \r\n\r\n54,381 \r\n\r\n54,516 \r\n\r\n7,289 \r\n\r\n7,469 \r\n\r\n30,200 \r\n\r\n30,200 \r\n\r\n18,732 \r\n\r\n19,607 \r\n\r\n8,748 \r\n\r\n8,455 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n591,490 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n618,665 \r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613   MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT \r\n626   EQUIPMENT \r\n626   BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n16,437 \r\n126,695 \r\n112,248 \r\n\r\n\r\n255,380 \r\n\r\n\r\n$      10,000 \r\n\r\n81,927 \r\n\r\n115,928 \r\n\r\n$     207,855 \r\n\r\n\r\n10,000 \r\n\r\n74,439 \r\n\r\n120,932 \r\n\r\n\r\n205,371 \r\n\r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000   UNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n000   PERSONAL  SERVICES  LAPSE  ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n849,381 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n19,448 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n159,177 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,028,006 \r\n\r\n80, \r\n80, \r\n\r\n,000 \r\n,000 \r\n\r\n60, \r\n\r\n,  OOU \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n922, \r\n\r\n,587 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n929, \r\n\r\n,146 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n18, \r\n\r\n865 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n18, \r\n\r\n306 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n498, \r\n\r\n227 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n239, \r\n\r\n,560 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,439, \r\n\r\n679 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,187, \r\n\r\n012 \r\n\r\n74 \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHWESTERN  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT  TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL  APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS  \u0026  GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT  COST  RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES  OF  EDUCATIONAL  DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER  SOURCES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n1,038,313 \r\n\r\n30,469 \r\n\r\n3,709 \r\n\r\n1,072,491 \r\n\r\n\r\n20,186 \r\n\r\n9,858 \r\n\r\n880 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,103,415 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,104,500 \r\n\r\n25,000 \r\n\r\n3,000 \r\n\r\n1,132,560 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,000 \r\n\r\n7,900 \r\n\r\n600 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,146,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,016,400 \r\n\r\n27,000 \r\n\r\n3.000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,046,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,000 \r\n\r\n8,100 \r\n\r\n500 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.060.000 \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n11,783 \r\n19,881 \r\n\r\n\r\n31,664 \r\n\r\n\r\n8,318 \r\n21,131 \r\n\r\n\r\n29,449 \r\n\r\n\r\n8,318 \r\n21.881 \r\n\r\n\r\n30,199 \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS  \u0026  CONTRACTS  -  GOVERNMENTAL \r\nFEDERAL \r\nSTATE  \u0026  LOCAL \r\nGRANTS  \u0026  CONTRACTS  -  NON -GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n255,878 \r\n49,025 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n606,201 \r\n40,401 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n340,064 \r\n51,787 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n304,903 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n646,602 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n391.851 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,439,982 \r\n3,077,315 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,822,051 \r\n3,321,800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n3 \r\n\r\n,482,050 \r\n692.800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4^517^297 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,143,851' \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n174,850 \r\n\r\n75 \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHWESTERN  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT  TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL  APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS  \u0026  GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT  COST  RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES  OF  EDUCATIONAL  DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER  SOURCES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n1,038,313 \r\n\r\n30,469 \r\n\r\n3,709 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,072,491 \r\n\r\n\r\n20,186 \r\n\r\n9,858 \r\n\r\n88  0 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,103,415 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,104,500 \r\n\r\n25,000 \r\n\r\n3,000 \r\n\r\n1,132,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,000 \r\n\r\n7,900 \r\n\r\n600 \r\n\r\n\r\n1 ,  146,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,016,400 \r\n27,000 \r\n\r\n3.000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,046,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,000 \r\n\r\n8,100 \r\n\r\n500 \r\n\r\n\r\nJ.,Q6Q,QQQ \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n11,783 \r\n19,881 \r\n31,664 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,318 \r\n21,131 \r\n29,449 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,318 \r\n21.881 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n30,199 \r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS    \u0026   CONTRACTS    -   GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE    \u0026    LOCAL \r\nGRANTS    \u0026   CONTRACTS    -    NON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n255,878 \r\n49,025 \r\n\r\n\r\n304,903 \r\n\r\n\r\n606,201 \r\n40,401 \r\n\r\n\r\n646,602 \r\n\r\n\r\n340,064 \r\n51.787 \r\n\r\n\r\n391.851 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,439,982 \r\n3,077,315 \r\n\r\n4,517,297 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    1,822,051 \r\n3,321,800 \r\n\r\n$    5,143,851 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,482,050 \r\n3.692.800 \r\n\r\n5.174.850 \r\n\r\n\r\n76 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nNORTH  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,750, \r\n\r\n067 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n14, \r\n\r\n480 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n119, \r\n\r\n,841 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,884, \r\n\r\n388 \r\n\r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n684, \r\n\r\n533 \r\n\r\n9, \r\n\r\n500 \r\n\r\n254, \r\n\r\n900 \r\n\r\n949, \r\n\r\n933 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3, \r\n\r\n,434, \r\n\r\n600 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n23, \r\n\r\n980 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n374, \r\n\r\n741 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n,83?, \r\n\r\n32; \r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n815,000 \r\n2,619,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,434,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n23,980 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  23,980 \r\n\r\n\r\n374,741 \r\n\r\n\r\n374,741 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,213,721 \r\n2,619,600 \r\n\r\n3,833,321 \r\n\r\n\r\n) \r\n\r\n\r\n77 \r\n\r\n\r\nNORTH  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T. \r\n\r\nPOSITIONS \r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n\"975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n.92 \r\n\r\n.92 \r\n\r\n.92 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n63.92 \r\n\r\n67.58 \r\n\r\n68.33 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n3.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n2.25 \r\n\r\n2.35 \r\n\r\n11.01 \r\n\r\n12.14 \r\n\r\n13.14 \r\n\r\n2.79 \r\n\r\n4.86 \r\n\r\n4.86 \r\n\r\n79.64 \r\n\r\n92.75 \r\n\r\n93.60 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n.50 \r\n\r\n.50 \r\n\r\n.50 \r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n42.64 \r\n\r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n44.16 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR.,  RSCH.  \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.    ADM.    OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE   ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME    FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE    ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL    \u0026   TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL    \u0026    TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n24,820 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n25,939 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n28,520 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n9,000 \r\n\r\n10,000 \r\n\r\n1,190,151 \r\n\r\n1,276,335 \r\n\r\n1,406,203 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n33,600 \r\n\r\n27,468 \r\n\r\n8,550 \r\n\r\n15,675 \r\n\r\n16,726 \r\n\r\n67,813 \r\n\r\n75,124 \r\n\r\n88,743 \r\n\r\n10,218 \r\n\r\n15,927 \r\n\r\n17,440 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,301,552 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1.451 .600 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n1,535,100 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n25,666 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n26,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n29,000 \r\n\r\n6,890 \r\n\r\n6,946 \r\n\r\n7,606 \r\n\r\n5,522 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,132 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n38,078 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n..  .  ,3a,  S46 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n42,738 \r\n\r\n4.25 \r\n\r\n5.00 \r\n\r\n5.00 \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n52,486 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n62,795 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n68,600 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  S  TECH-REGULAR \r\n\r\n28,956 \r\n\r\n30,611 \r\n\r\n33,515 \r\n\r\n3.83 \r\n\r\n3.83 \r\n\r\n3.83 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\n12,720 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n12,720 \r\n106,126 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n13,819 \r\n\r\n12.08 \r\n\r\n12.83 \r\n\r\n12.83 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n94,162 \r\n\r\n115,934 \r\n\r\n44.16 \r\n\r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\n283,871 \r\n\r\n\r\n295,720   $    323,720 \r\n\r\n\r\n5. \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n5. \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n6. \r\n\r\n50 \r\n\r\n4. \r\n\r\n67 \r\n\r\n4. \r\n\r\n.67 \r\n\r\n4. \r\n\r\n67 \r\n\r\n3. \r\n\r\n,00 \r\n\r\n7. \r\n\r\n,00 \r\n\r\n6. \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n24. \r\n\r\n,07 \r\n\r\n21. \r\n\r\n,92 \r\n\r\n22. \r\n\r\n,63 \r\n\r\n4. \r\n\r\n,44 \r\n\r\n3. \r\n\r\n15 \r\n\r\n3. \r\n\r\n,15 \r\n\r\n41. \r\n\r\n.18 \r\n\r\n41. \r\n\r\n,74 \r\n\r\n42. \r\n\r\n,95 \r\n\r\n178. \r\n\r\n,04 \r\n\r\n193. \r\n\r\n,98 \r\n\r\n196. \r\n\r\n,04 \r\n\r\n178. \r\n\r\n,04 \r\n\r\n193. \r\n\r\n1. \r\n\r\n12. \r\n\r\n207, \r\n\r\n,98 \r\n\r\n196. \r\n\r\n,04 \r\n\r\n,68 \r\n\r\n,33 \r\n\r\n1. \r\n\r\n,33 \r\n\r\n17, \r\n\r\n.80 \r\n\r\n,10 \r\n\r\n9. \r\n\r\n,05 \r\n\r\n196, \r\n\r\n.52 \r\n\r\n.41 \r\n\r\n206. \r\n\r\n,42 \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.  ADM.  OFFICERS  $ \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  PERSONNEL  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nF.I.C.A.,  GR.  INS.  \u0026  RETIREMENT \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL  $    571,130 \r\n\r\n\r\n114,709 \r\n67,597 \r\n35,353 \r\n\r\n159,093 \r\n13,779 \r\n\r\n180,599 \r\n\r\n\r\n118,000 \r\n68,251 \r\n76,285 \r\n\r\n138,787 \r\n10,252 \r\n\r\n216,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n140,677 \r\n75,759 \r\n83,295 \r\n\r\n156,627 \r\n10,217 \r\n\r\n231,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n627,575 \r\n\r\n\r\n697,575 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n$     2,288,793  $  2,519,567  $  2,775,067 \r\n(1,139) \r\n\r\n-  (25,000)  (25,000) \r\n\r\n$     2,287,654  $  2,494,567  $  2,750,067 \r\n\r\n$           11,095  $  17,000  $  14,480 \r\n\r\n$          196,452  $  167,304  $  119,841 \r\n\r\n$    2,495,201  $  2,678,871  $  2,884,388 \r\n\r\n\r\n78 \r\n\r\n\r\nNORTH  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611   TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n27.292 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY   1977 \r\n\r\n\r\n44,287 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY   1978 \r\n\r\n\r\n44,537 \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  \u0026  MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS  \u0026   MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,  WATER,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\n618  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  \u0026  PRINTING \r\n\r\n619  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE  \u0026  BONDING \r\n623  TUITION  \u0026  SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n627  OTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n630  PER  DIEM  AND  FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n10,950 \r\n\r\n159,245 \r\n\r\n28,070 \r\n\r\n25,383 \r\n\r\n152,163 \r\n\r\n46,651 \r\n\r\n12,579 \r\n\r\n6,577 \r\n\r\n20,261 \r\n\r\n29,049 \r\n\r\n15,977 \r\n\r\n\r\n5Q6.8Q5 \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n9,939 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,939 \r\n\r\n175,000 \r\n\r\n167,330 \r\n\r\n34,112 \r\n\r\n41,062 \r\n\r\n25,200 \r\n\r\n35,127 \r\n\r\n146,102 \r\n\r\n165,102 \r\n\r\n23,532 \r\n\r\n22,182 \r\n\r\n44,005 \r\n\r\n50,637 \r\n\r\n6,515 \r\n\r\n6,515 \r\n\r\n22,000 \r\n\r\n23,000 \r\n\r\n35,623 \r\n\r\n33,504 \r\n\r\n7.736 \r\n\r\n9,236 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n529,764 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n562,634 \r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613   MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT \r\n626   EQUIPMENT \r\n61:6   BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n77,311 \r\n43.095 \r\n\r\n\r\n12Q.4Q6 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,482 \r\n45,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n48,482 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,562 \r\n\r\n48.800 \r\n\r\n\r\n52,36? \r\n\r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000   UNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n000   PERSONAL  SERVICES  LAPSE  ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n654,503 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,647 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n195,903 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n859,053 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n25.000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n25.000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n647.533 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n9,500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n229,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n886,933 \r\n\r\n25,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n25,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n684,533 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n9,500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n254,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n948,933 \r\n\r\n79 \r\n\r\n\r\nNORTH  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT  TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\n\r\n680,549 \r\n40,404 \r\n14,477 \r\n\r\n\r\n735,430 \r\n\r\n\r\n742,600 \r\n40,000 \r\n10,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n792,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n750,600 \r\n42,000 \r\n10,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n802,600 \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL  APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS  \u0026  GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT  COST  RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES  OF  EDUCATIONAL  DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER  SOURCES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n2,128 \r\n\r\n34,024 \r\n2,134 \r\n3,501 \r\n\r\n\r\n777,217 \r\n\r\n\r\n10,000 \r\n2,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n805,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n10,000 \r\n2,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n815,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n12,357 \r\n7.385 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n13,500 \r\n13,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n16,500 \r\n7,480 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n19.742 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n26,500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n23,980 \r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS    \u0026   CONTRACTS \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  \u0026  LOCAL \r\nGRANTS  \u0026  CONTRACTS \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\n\r\nNON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n353,016 \r\n39,339 \r\n\r\n\r\n392,355 \r\n\r\n\r\n358,934 \r\n38,270 \r\n\r\n\r\n397,204 \r\n\r\n\r\n343,000 \r\n31,741 \r\n\r\n\r\n374,741 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,189,314 \r\n2,164,940 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,354,254 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    1,228,704 \r\n2,337,100 \r\n\r\n$    3,565,804 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,213,721 \r\n2,619,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,833,321 \r\n\r\n\r\n80 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSAVANNAH  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,329,118 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n778,952 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,108,070 \r\n\r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n1,034,282 \r\n\r\n15,000 \r\n\r\n770,780 \r\n\r\n1,820,062 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,363,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n15,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,549,732 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6,928,132 \r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,400,000 \r\n3,963,400 \r\n\r\n5,363,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  15,000  $  1,549,732 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  15,000  $  1,549,732 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,964,732 \r\n\r\n3,963,400 \r\n\r\n6,928,132 \r\n\r\n\r\n81 \r\n\r\n\r\nSAVANNAH  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PCRSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.00 \r\n\r\n2.75 \r\n\r\n99.24 \r\n\r\n4.09 \r\n\r\n18708 \r\n127.16 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.72 \r\n8.67 \r\n\r\n\r\n13.39 \r\n\r\n\r\n72.94 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.00 \r\n3.50 \r\n\r\n111.01 \r\n\r\n1.43 \r\n\r\n19.50 \r\n\r\n138.44 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n.08 \r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.08 \r\n\r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n9.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n15.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n81.97 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.00 \r\n\r\n3.29 \r\n\r\n112.75 \r\n\r\n20?42 \r\n139.46 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n.08 \r\n2.15 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.23 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n9.00 \r\n\r\n15.00 \r\n\r\n81.98 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR.,  RSCH.  \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.    ADM.    OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE    ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR   FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME   FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE   ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL   \u0026   TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL   \u0026   TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n73,119 \r\n\r\n30,820 \r\n\r\n1,924,824 \r\n\r\n35,866 \r\n\r\n108,577 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n5     77,200  5     88,366 \r\n\r\n39,520  44,662 \r\n\r\n2,081,733  2,273,524 \r\n14,762 \r\n\r\n\r\n120,718 \r\n\r\n\r\n140,061 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  2,173,206   $  2,333,933   $  2,546,613 \r\n\r\n\r\n21,iOO   $ \r\n\r\n\r\n15,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n500 \r\n11,700 \r\n\r\n500 \r\n16,200 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n— = — \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n33.300 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n32,200 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n61,609 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n76,301 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n84,256 \r\n\r\n51,402 \r\n\r\n53,569 \r\n\r\n58,982 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n113,011 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n129.870 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n143, /38 \r\n\r\n478,269 \r\n\r\n\r\nS4Sf4fifi \r\n\r\n\r\n597,466 \r\n\r\n\r\n5. \r\n\r\n30 \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\n.05 \r\n\r\n4, \r\n\r\n.00 \r\n\r\n1. \r\n\r\n70 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n.70 \r\n\r\n2. \r\n\r\n,00 \r\n\r\n8. \r\n\r\n.28 \r\n\r\n9, \r\n\r\n.78 \r\n\r\n9, \r\n\r\n,67 \r\n\r\n45. \r\n\r\n,16 \r\n\r\n45 \r\n\r\n.40 \r\n\r\n49. \r\n\r\n,50 \r\n\r\n1. \r\n\r\n90 \r\n\r\n,22 \r\n\r\n62. \r\n\r\n34 \r\n\r\n64. \r\n\r\n,15 \r\n\r\n65. \r\n\r\n,17 \r\n\r\n275. \r\n\r\n83 \r\n\r\n302. \r\n\r\n64 \r\n\r\n304. \r\n\r\n84 \r\n\r\n275. \r\n\r\n,83 \r\n\r\n302. \r\n19. \r\n41. \r\n\r\n64 \r\n\r\n304. \r\n\r\n84 \r\n\r\n27. \r\n\r\n,28 \r\n\r\n04 \r\n\r\n61. \r\n\r\n.£1 \r\n\r\n12 \r\n\r\n60. \r\n\r\n44 \r\n\r\n364. \r\n\r\n62 \r\n\r\n362. \r\n\r\n80 \r\n\r\n365. \r\n\r\n28 \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.  ADM.  OFFICERS  $    114,440 \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  PERSONNEL  OFFICERS  23,482 \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS  106,458 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR  344,923 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS  9,241 \r\n\r\nF.I.C.A.,  GR.  INS.  \u0026  RETIREMENT  305,751 \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL  $    904,295 \r\n\r\n\r\n126,300 \r\n34,070 \r\n126,222 \r\n329,854 \r\n1,000 \r\n.343,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n99,500 \r\n\r\n30,441 \r\n\r\n137,163 \r\n\r\n422,497 \r\n\r\n365,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n$  3,668,781 \r\n949 \r\n\r\n\r\n960,446 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  1,054,601 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  4,003,015    $  4,374,118 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,669,730 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n246,119 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n680,264 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,596,113 \r\n\r\n(45,000) \r\n\r\n\r\n(45,000) \r\n\r\n\r\n$  3.958.01S  $  4,329,118 \r\n\r\nI 195,826    $ I \r\n\r\n$    451,382  $    778,952 \r\n\r\n$  4,605,223  $  5,108,070 \r\n\r\n\r\n82 \r\n\r\n\r\nSAVANNAH  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611  TRAVEL \r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  £  MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS  \u0026  MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,  WATER,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\n618  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  \u0026  PRINTING \r\n\r\n619  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE  \u0026  BONDING \r\n623  TUITION  \u0026  SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n627  OTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n630  PER  DIEM  AND  FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613   MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT \r\n626   EQUIPMENT \r\n626   BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n26,492 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY   1977 \r\n\r\n\r\n38,287 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\n43,990 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n21,073 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n10,748 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n14,000 \r\n\r\n263,867 \r\n\r\n182,983 \r\n\r\n205,978 \r\n\r\n23,844 \r\n\r\n30,089 \r\n\r\n35,045 \r\n\r\n51,059 \r\n\r\n48,324 \r\n\r\n53,960 \r\n\r\n169,044 \r\n\r\n197,671 \r\n\r\n283,751 \r\n\r\n12,917 \r\n\r\n15,000 \r\n\r\n15,000 \r\n\r\n42,393 \r\n\r\n30,406 \r\n\r\n31,000 \r\n\r\n5,780 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n7,200 \r\n\r\n7,300 \r\n\r\n59,791 \r\n\r\n65,970 \r\n\r\n76,958 \r\n\r\n104,809 \r\n\r\n25,900 \r\n\r\n19,600 \r\n\r\n18,768 \r\n\r\n5.400 \r\n\r\n7,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n773,345 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n619.691 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n749,592 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11,188 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n69,979 \r\n\r\n22,815 \r\n\r\n30,700 \r\n\r\n108,166 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n94.092 \r\n116,907 \r\n\r\n115,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n189,333 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n145,700 \r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000   UNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n000   PERSONAL  SERVICES  LAPSE  ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n45,000 \r\n95,000 \r\n\r\n45,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n95,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n989,170 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n869,885 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,034,282 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n32,300 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n14,874 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n15,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n596,299 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n509,618 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n770,780 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,617,769 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n1.394.377 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n1,820,062 \r\n\r\nS3 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nVALDOSTA  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n6,539,763 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,780 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n246,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6,792,443 \r\n\r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n1,471,237 \r\n\r\n37,220 \r\n\r\n313,100 \r\n\r\n1,821,557 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,011,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4  3,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n560,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,614,000 \r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n2,670,000 \r\n5,341,000 \r\n\r\n8,011,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n43,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n43,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n560,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n560,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,273,000 \r\n5,341,000 \r\n\r\n8,614,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n) \r\n\r\n\r\n85 \r\n\r\n\r\nVALDOSTA  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n6.34 \r\n\r\n6.34 \r\n\r\n6.34 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n178.01 \r\n\r\n188.62 \r\n\r\n189.10 \r\n\r\n5.04 \r\n\r\n4.92 \r\n\r\n5.67 \r\n\r\n3.66 \r\n\r\n4.67 \r\n\r\n4.67 \r\n\r\n33.54 \r\n\r\n33.50 \r\n\r\n33.50 \r\n\r\n8.37 \r\n\r\n9.98 \r\n\r\n9.70 \r\n\r\n235.96 \r\n\r\n249.03 \r\n\r\n249.98 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n10.77 \r\n21.98 \r\n\r\n\r\n33.42 \r\n\r\n\r\n82.72 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.00 \r\n.25 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.25 \r\n\r\n\r\n10.75 \r\n\r\n20.50 \r\n3.17 \r\n\r\n\r\n34.42 \r\n\r\n\r\n90.74 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.00 \r\n\r\n.25 \r\n\r\n4.25 \r\n\r\n\r\n10.75 \r\n\r\n21.57 \r\n1.35 \r\n\r\n\r\n33.67 \r\n\r\n\r\n92.14 \r\n\r\n\r\n5.20 \r\n\r\n2.98 \r\n\r\n2.57 \r\n\r\n52.40 \r\n\r\n11.44 \r\n\r\n5.00 \r\n3.00 \r\n3.00 \r\n56.84 \r\n8.73 \r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n3.00 \r\n2.00 \r\n57.00 \r\n7.30 \r\n\r\n74.59 \r\n\r\n76.57 \r\n\r\n75.30 \r\n\r\n429.69 \r\n\r\n455.01 \r\n\r\n455.34 \r\n\r\n429.69 \r\n\r\n455.01 \r\n\r\n455.34 \r\n\r\n2.06 \r\n\r\n1.16 \r\n\r\n1.12 \r\n\r\n21.30 \r\n\r\n26.02 \r\n\r\n23.96 \r\n\r\n453.05 \r\n\r\n482.19 \r\n\r\n480.42 \r\n\r\nINSTR.,  RSCH.  \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGUIAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\nGEN.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nSTUDENT  PERSONNEL  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nF.I.C.A.,  GR.  INS.  \u0026    RETIREMENT \r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n161,522 \r\n\r\n13,610 \r\n\r\n3,258,700 \r\n\r\n62,535 \r\n\r\n26,300 \r\n\r\n184,825 \r\n?srnfi7 \r\n\r\n\r\n160,569 \r\n\r\n13,740 \r\n\r\n3,526,717 \r\n\r\n41,350 \r\n\r\n33,600 \r\n\r\n181,512 \r\n\r\n\r\n180,198 \r\n15,420 \r\n3,842,765 \r\n48,133 \r\n36,960 \r\n201,036 \r\n29,050 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  3,732,579   $  3.987.540   $  4.353.562 \r\n\r\n\r\n23,858 \r\n\r\n\r\n19,759 \r\n\r\n\r\n24,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2b, 440 \r\n\r\n\r\n33,000 \r\n750 \r\n\r\n\r\n35,256 \r\n750 \r\n\r\n\r\n43,617   $_ \r\n\r\n\r\n57.750 \r\n\r\n\r\n61,446 \r\n\r\n\r\n154,535   $    155,764   $ \r\n\r\n\r\n137,789 \r\n1,995 \r\n\r\n\r\n129,028 \r\n12,300 \r\n\r\n\r\n172,116 \r\n\r\n149,928 \r\n4,050 \r\n\r\n\r\n294,319 \r\n\r\n\r\n297,092   $_ \r\n\r\n\r\n,  0^4 \r\n\r\n\r\n506,213   $    559,956   $    623,544 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  128,137 \r\n49,659 \r\n33,887 \r\n\r\n377,080 \r\n34,304 \r\n\r\n430,997 \r\n\r\n$  1,054,064 \r\n\r\n\r\n126,228 \r\n50,172 \r\n39,180 \r\n\r\n417,276 \r\n26,190 \r\n\r\n494,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  1,153,046 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    151,462 \r\n\r\n54,720 \r\n\r\n26,472 \r\n\r\n466,563 \r\n\r\n21,900 \r\n\r\n524,000 \r\n\r\n$  1,245,117 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  5,630,792  $  6,055,384  $  6,609,763 \r\n(3,846) \r\n\r\n-  (45,000)      no, OOP) \r\n\r\n$  5,626,946  $  6,010,384  $  6,539,763 \r\n\r\n\r\n17,214 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,280 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,780 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    245,915   $    263,781   $    246,900 \r\n$  5,890,075    $  6,2/9,445   $  6,792,443 \r\n\r\n\r\n86 \r\n\r\n\r\nVALDOSTA  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR   1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY   1977 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nFY   1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611      TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES    S,   MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS    \u0026    MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,    WATER,    AND    NATURAL   GAS \r\n\r\n618  PUBLICATIONS,    PUBLICITY,    \u0026    PRINTING \r\n\r\n619  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE    \u0026    BONDING \r\n623  TUITION   \u0026    SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n627  OTHER  OPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n630  PER  DIEM  AND    PEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613      MOTOR  VEHICLE   EQUIPMENT \r\n626      EQUIPMENT \r\n626      BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n76,655 \r\n\r\n\r\n9,774 \r\n\r\n283,580 \r\n\r\n59,198 \r\n\r\n76,054 \r\n\r\n261,978 \r\n\r\n23,787 \r\n\r\n39,936 \r\n\r\n7,980 \r\n\r\n43,751 \r\n\r\n153,830 \r\n\r\n60,671 \r\n\r\n\r\n$       1,020,539 \r\n\r\n\r\n117,946 \r\n176,538 \r\n\r\n$  294,484 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1Q7.6H8 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n108,287 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n37,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11,934 \r\n\r\n267,805 \r\n\r\n294,299 \r\n\r\n62,464 \r\n\r\n74,255 \r\n\r\n88,425 \r\n\r\n90,964 \r\n\r\n324,137 \r\n\r\n338,147 \r\n\r\n19,624 \r\n\r\n18,500 \r\n\r\n30,215 \r\n\r\n40,546 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n13,000 \r\n\r\n11,909 \r\n\r\n37,500 \r\n\r\n41,000 \r\n\r\n8,480 \r\n\r\n16,130 \r\n\r\n62,170 \r\n\r\n46,160 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n950,820 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n983,844 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n18,500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n15,400 \r\n\r\n54,050 \r\n\r\n54,400 \r\n\r\n222,058 \r\n\r\n239,306 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n294,608 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n309,106 \r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000      UNASSIGNED    BALANCE \r\n\r\n000      PERSONAL   SERVICES    LAPSE   ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,391,678 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n62,017 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n315,387 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,769,082 \r\n\r\n45,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n45,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,398,116 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n37,220 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n296,219 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,731,555 \r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,471,237 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n37,220 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n313,100 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n1,821,557 \r\n\r\n87 \r\n\r\n\r\nVALDOSTA  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT   FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT   TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL    STUDENT   FEES \r\n\r\n\r\n2,075,055 \r\n\r\n339,278 \r\n\r\n50,918 \r\n\r\n2,465,251 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,297,200 \r\n\r\n345,000 \r\n\r\n49,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,691,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,233,000 \r\n\r\n350,000 \r\n\r\n48.000 \r\n\r\n2,631,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL    APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS    S.   GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT   COST   RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES    \u0026   SERVICES   OF    EDUCATIONAL   DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER  SOURCES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n23,830 \r\n15,766 \r\n28,346 \r\n19.956 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.553.149 \r\n\r\n\r\n10,000 \r\n\r\n12,300 \r\n\r\n12,000 \r\n\r\n6,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,732,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,900 \r\n13,500 \r\n14,000 \r\n\r\n7,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,670,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n31,576 \r\n47,655 \r\n\r\n\r\n79,231 \r\n\r\n\r\n25,000 \r\n17,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n42,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n25,000 \r\n18,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n4  3,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS    \u0026   CONTRACTS \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE   \u0026   LOCAL \r\nGRANTS    \u0026   CONTRACTS \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\n\r\nNON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n415,098 \r\n\r\n121,093 \r\n\r\n25,111 \r\n\r\n\r\n561,302 \r\n\r\n\r\n560,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n560,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n396,600 \r\n\r\n141,131 \r\n\r\n22,269 \r\n\r\n\r\n560,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,193,682 \r\n4,465,475 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,334,500 \r\n4,676,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,273,000 \r\n5,341,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n7,659,157 \r\n\r\n\r\n8,011,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n8,614,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n88 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nWEST  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n8,457,677 \r\n1.860.723 \r\n\r\n1Q.J18.4QQ \r\n\r\n\r\n374,350 \r\n4R5.flSn \r\n\r\n\r\n860.200 \r\n\r\n\r\n8,832,027 \r\n2«J34Bu-SX3 \r\n\r\nn.i7R.finn \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n2,540,000 \r\n7,778,400 \r\n\r\n10,318,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n860,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n860,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,400,200 \r\n7,778,400 \r\n\r\n11,178,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n89 \r\n\r\n\r\nWEST  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL   SERVICES \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR   1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n300.50 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.27 \r\n\r\n\r\n113.34 \r\n\r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n5.00 \r\n\r\n20.06 \r\n\r\n45.16 \r\n\r\n.54 \r\n\r\n\r\n76.76 \r\n\r\n\r\n531.63 \r\n\r\n\r\n531. \r\n\r\n.63 \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n27, \r\n\r\n.93 \r\n\r\n559. \r\n\r\n56 \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n7.17 \r\n\r\n9.00 \r\n\r\n7.17 \r\n\r\n7.64 \r\n\r\n5.25 \r\n\r\n4.25 \r\n\r\n227.60 \r\n\r\n234.02 \r\n\r\n233.74 \r\n\r\n1.90 \r\n\r\n5.25 \r\n\r\n2.36 \r\n\r\n6.16 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n8.00 \r\n\r\n42.49 \r\n\r\n48.83 \r\n\r\n49.75 \r\n\r\n7.54 \r\n\r\n8.65 \r\n\r\n7.75 \r\n\r\n315.00 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.65 \r\n\r\n\r\n117.08 \r\n\r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\n5.00 \r\n\r\n22.63 \r\n\r\n47.80 \r\n\r\n2.85 \r\n\r\n\r\n85.28 \r\n\r\n\r\n558.82 \r\n\r\n\r\n558. \r\n\r\n82 \r\n\r\n25. \r\n\r\n95 \r\n\r\n584. \r\n\r\n77 \r\n\r\n313.02 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\n.50 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n.25 \r\n\r\n1.65 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR.,   RSCH.    \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.    ADM.    OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE    ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR   FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME    FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE   ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL    \u0026    TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL    \u0026    TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.    ADM.    OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE    ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR   FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME    FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE   ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL    \u0026   TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL    \u0026    TECH-STUDENTS \r\n\r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n192,770 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n228,427 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n210,994 \r\n\r\n124,930 \r\n\r\n84,540 \r\n\r\n77,195 \r\n\r\n4,273,037 \r\n\r\n4,436,932 \r\n\r\n4,801,985 \r\n\r\n28,436 \r\n\r\n52,033 \r\n\r\n48,026 \r\n\r\n51,771 \r\n\r\n33,600 \r\n\r\n67,200 \r\n\r\n268,232 \r\n\r\n331,492 \r\n\r\n374,627 \r\n\r\n31,395 \r\n\r\n36,011 \r\n\r\n34,877 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,970,571 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,203.035 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,614,904 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n21,625 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n21,798 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n23,869 \r\n\r\n46,483 \r\n\r\n45,960 \r\n\r\n49,742 \r\n\r\n9,201 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n4,500 \r\n\r\n14,359 \r\n\r\n\r\n11,156 \r\n\r\n\r\n12,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n6.27 \r\n\r\n5.15 \r\n\r\n5.40 \r\n\r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n91,668 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n78.914 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n90,911 \r\n\r\n13.00 \r\n\r\n11.00 \r\n\r\n11.00 \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n167,705 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n140,057 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n152,000 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\n3.00 \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE   ASSISTANTS \r\n\r\n29,710 \r\n\r\n65,436 \r\n\r\n41,560 \r\n\r\n12.37 \r\n\r\n12.00 \r\n\r\n16.93 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL    \u0026   TECH-REGULAR \r\n\r\n80,312 \r\n\r\n82,866 \r\n\r\n125,450 \r\n\r\n5.39 \r\n\r\n6.31 \r\n\r\n5.47 \r\n\r\nCLERICAL    \u0026   TECH- STUDENTS \r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n22,434 \r\n300,161 \r\n\r\n26,500 \r\n\r\nIi,*17 \r\n\r\n34.76 \r\n\r\n36.31 \r\n\r\n36.40 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n314,859 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n343,627 \r\n\r\n115.94 \r\n\r\n\r\n8.00 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n22.95 \r\n\r\n51.69 \r\n\r\n2.33 \r\n\r\n\r\n88.97 \r\n\r\n\r\n559.73 \r\n\r\n\r\n559. \r\n\r\n,73 \r\n\r\ntm \r\n\r\n25. \r\n\r\n.00 \r\n\r\n584. \r\n\r\n,73 \r\n\r\nOPER.   \u0026  MAINT.   OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND   OTHER \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.    \u0026  GENERAL    INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.    ADM.    OFFICERS \r\nSTUDENT    PERSONNEL   OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE    ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL   \u0026   TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL    \u0026   TECH-STUDENTS \r\nF.I.C.A.,    GR.    INS.    \u0026   RETIREMENT \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION   TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED    BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL    SERV.    LAPSE    EST. \r\nTOTAL   GENERAL   OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n752,298 \r\n\r\n\r\n763,077       $         838,621 \r\n\r\n\r\n164,714 \r\n75,688 \r\n276,796 \r\n284,595 \r\n2,257 \r\n521,573 \r\n\r\n\r\n170,610 \r\n76,838 \r\n\r\n309,364 \r\n\r\n302,434 \r\n11,946 \r\n\r\n592,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n210,499 \r\n68,996 \r\n\r\n344,725 \r\n\r\n363,219 \r\n10,477 \r\n\r\n629,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    1,325,623        $    1,463,192        $    1,626,916 \r\n\r\n\r\n$    7,440,321 \r\n14,298 \r\n\r\n\r\n$     7,823,077        5    8,514,979 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,454,619 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\nmt \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n385,955 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,840,574 \r\n\r\n(60,000) \r\n\r\n\r\n(57,302? \r\n\r\n\r\n$  7,763,077  $  8,457,677 \r\n\r\n$  $ \r\n\r\n$  361,284  $  374,350 \r\n\r\n$  8,124,361  $  8,832,027 \r\n\r\n\r\n90 \r\n\r\n\r\nWEST  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING   EXPENSES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR   1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611   TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING   SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  \u0026  MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS  \u0026  MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,  WATER,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\n618  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  \u0026  PRINTING \r\n\r\n619  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE  \u0026  BONDING \r\n623  TUITION  \u0026  SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n627  OTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n630  PER  DIEM  AND  FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613   MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT \r\n626   EQUIPMENT \r\n626   BOOKS \r\n\r\n\r\n47,132 \r\n\r\n\r\n25,292 \r\n\r\n301,933 \r\n\r\n88,275 \r\n\r\n92,913 \r\n\r\n428,187 \r\n\r\n28,262 \r\n\r\n131,122 \r\n\r\n16,986 \r\n\r\n38,290 \r\n\r\n51,513 \r\n\r\n44,971 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n1,247,744 \r\n\r\n\r\n33,766 \r\n\r\n59,137 \r\n\r\n150,014 \r\n\r\n242,917 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nFY \r\n\r\n1977 \r\n\r\nFY \r\n\r\n1978 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n83,259 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n95,040 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n24,600 \r\n349,637 \r\n\r\n74,667 \r\n104,722 \r\n414,387 \r\n\r\n33,380 \r\n148,002 \r\n\r\n18,640 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n28,775 \r\n360.127 \r\n\r\n90,405 \r\n116.056 \r\n442,750 \r\n\r\n38,640 \r\n134,693 \r\n\r\n20,608 \r\n\r\n42,673 \r\n28,570 \r\n19,473 \r\n\r\n47,850 \r\n\r\n56,850 \r\n\r\n4,250 \r\n\r\n$      1 \r\n\r\n.258,751 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,341,004 \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\n4,500 \r\n130,413 \r\n239,800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,600 \r\n139,042 \r\n223,735 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n374,713 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n367,377 \r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000   UNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n000   PERSONAL  SERVICES  LAPSE  ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING   EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,537,793 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n19,409 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n590,869 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,148,071 \r\n\r\n60,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n60,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1, 776, 723 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n498,916 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n2,275,639 \r\n\r\n57,302 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n57,302 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,860,723 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n485,850 \r\n\r\n\u003c* \r\n\r\n2,346,573 \r\n\r\n91 \r\n\r\n\r\n¦•¦ \r\n\r\n\r\nWEST  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUOGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT  TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\n\r\n2,260,858 \r\n\r\n153,492 \r\n\r\n37,640 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,451,990 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,324,000 \r\n\r\n154,000 \r\n\r\n35,000 \r\n\r\n2,513,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,298,000 \r\n\r\n144,000 \r\n\r\n35,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,477,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL  APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS  \u0026  GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT  COST  RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES  OF  EDUCATIONAL  DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER  SOURCES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n54,813 \r\n10,998 \r\n20,386 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,538,187 \r\n\r\n\r\n35,000 \r\n\r\n21,000 \r\n\r\n1,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$         2,570,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n40,000 \r\n\r\n8,500 \r\n\r\n14,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,540,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n19,409 \r\n\r\n\r\n19,409 \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS    6    CONTRACTS    -   GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE    \u0026    LOCAL \r\nGRANTS    \u0026   CONTRACTS    -    NON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n698,620 \r\n171,213 \r\n106,991 \r\n\r\n\r\n976,824 \r\n\r\n\r\n421,500 \r\n\r\n344,000 \r\n\r\n94,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n860,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n615,215 \r\n\r\n150,793 \r\n\r\n94,192 \r\n\r\n\r\n860,200 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$         3,534,420 \r\n6,454,225 \r\n\r\n$        9,988,645 \r\n\r\n\r\n$         3,430,200 \r\n6,969,800 \r\n\r\n$      10,400,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$         3,400,200 \r\n7,778,400 \r\n\r\n$      11,178,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n92 \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE   I-B-7 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY   SYSTEM  OF   GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF   SENIOR  COLLEGE \r\nOPERATING  BUDGETS \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n93 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  S,  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\noperation  \u0026  maintenance  of  physical  plant \r\nstudent  services,  general  administration \r\nand  general  institutional \r\n\r\nsub-totai. \r\nunassh;ni:d  haianck \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n37,352,210 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n40,291,079 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n43,554,72!) \r\n\r\n677,009 \r\n\r\n754,586 \r\n\r\n840,838 \r\n\r\n50,200 \r\n\r\n59,092 \r\n\r\n52,415 \r\n\r\n528,447 \r\n\r\n572,128 \r\n\r\n614,936 \r\n\r\n4,189,111 \r\n\r\n4,551,199 \r\n\r\n4,802,720 \r\n\r\n11,028,687 \r\n\r\n10,859,398 \r\n\r\n12,063,654 \r\n\r\n13,727,732 \r\n\r\n14,726,171 \r\n\r\n15,841,372 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n67,553,396 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n71,813,653 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n77,770,663 \r\n\r\n206,681 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n78,047 \r\n71,891^700 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n84,1  17 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n67,760,077 \r\n\r\n77,854.800 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$  20,403,737 \r\n985,310 \r\n\r\n5  21,389,047 \r\n46,371,030 \r\n\r\n$  67,760,077 \r\n\r\n\r\nS    22,269,952 \r\n\r\n508,048 \r\n\r\n$    22,778,000 \r\n49,113,700 \r\n\r\n$   71,891,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n21,152,021 \r\n\r\n\r\n762,979 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n21,915,000 \r\n55,939,800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n77,854,800 \r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T. \r\n\r\n\r\n4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n16, \r\n\r\n389 \r\n\r\n16, \r\n\r\n,850 \r\n\r\n16, \r\n\r\n,112 \r\n\r\n9, \r\n\r\n149 \r\n\r\n9, \r\n\r\n344 \r\n\r\n8, \r\n\r\n,980 \r\n\r\n3, \r\n\r\n806 \r\n\r\n3, \r\n\r\n,780 \r\n\r\n3, \r\n\r\n482 \r\n\r\n29, \r\n\r\n344 \r\n\r\n29, \r\n\r\n974 \r\n\r\n28, \r\n\r\n574 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2, \r\n\r\n309 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2, \r\n\r\n398 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2, \r\n\r\n725 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n695 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n743 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n740 \r\n\r\n34 \r\n\r\n17 \r\n\r\n27 \r\n\r\n1,580 \r\n\r\n1,638 \r\n\r\n1,958 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,309 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,398 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,725 \r\n\r\n94 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYS1LM  01\"  (iEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  A  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY    PERSONNEL    -    E.K.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-    AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR    REPLACEMENT   FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER   OPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,   GfNFRAl    ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGI.NLRAL    INS1  IHiriONAI \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\n1,842.5 \r\n\r\n1,944.4 \r\n\r\n1,937.5 \r\n\r\n33,129,458 \r\n\r\n$   35,536,687 \r\n\r\nS    38 \r\n\r\n,561,090 \r\n\r\n374.4 \r\n\r\n405.1 \r\n\r\n413.9 \r\n\r\n2,150,639 \r\n\r\n2,369,243 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,663,281 \r\n\r\n2,799,322 \r\n\r\n3,198,827 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n,223,610 \r\n\r\n18.8 \r\n\r\n22.4 \r\n\r\n21.8 \r\n\r\n274,262 \r\n\r\n313,311 \r\n\r\n351,456 \r\n\r\n17.2 \r\n\r\n20.3 \r\n\r\n20.  ) \r\n\r\n119,540 \r\n\r\n147,386 \r\n\r\n]'.«),  fiWi \r\n\r\n134,645 \r\n\r\n111,431 \r\n\r\n10),  V')4 \r\n\r\n111.9 \r\n\r\n108.8 \r\n\r\n105.0 \r\n\r\n1,360,521 \r\n\r\n1,377,606 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,470,521 \r\n\r\n144.4 \r\n\r\n167.8 \r\n\r\n170.7 \r\n\r\n815,120 \r\n\r\n965,854 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,086,035 \r\n\r\n1,569,250 \r\n\r\n1,648,398 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,681,365 \r\n\r\n444,220 \r\n\r\n559,341 \r\n\r\n564,799 \r\n\r\n47.8 \r\n\r\n44.4 \r\n\r\n45.5 \r\n\r\n537,032 \r\n\r\n530,872 \r\n\r\n602,870 \r\n\r\n819.2 \r\n\r\n898.1 \r\n\r\n89  3.9 \r\n\r\n4,770,575 \r\n\r\n5,282,903 \r\n\r\n5, \r\n\r\n,825,153 \r\n\r\n814,470 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n3,209,964 \r\n\r\n3,355,490 \r\n\r\n3, \r\n\r\n,772,300 \r\n\r\n1,696,646 \r\n\r\n1,690,133 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,863,331 \r\n\r\n251.6 \r\n3,951,997 \r\n\r\n506.8 \r\n3,230,887 \r\n4,075,835 \r\n2,469,013 \r\n\r\n$  67,553,396 \r\n\r\n206,681 \r\n\r\n$   67,760,077 \r\n\r\n\r\n270.7 \r\n4,231,752 \r\n\r\n524.1 \r\n3,358,164 \r\n4,663,513 \r\n2,472,742 \r\n\r\n$    71,813,653 \r\n\r\n78,047 \r\n\r\n$    71,891,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n207.2 \r\n4,585,059 \r\n\r\n528.9 \r\n3,784,845 \r\n4,956,971 \r\n2,514,497 \r\n\r\n$    77,770,663 \r\n\r\n84,137 \r\n\r\n$    77,854,800 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n2,224.8 \r\n\r\n$      38,716,238 \r\n\r\n1,909.8 \r\n\r\n11,623,793 \r\n\r\n4,075.835 \r\n\r\n13,137,530 \r\n\r\n206,681 \r\n\r\n$     67,760,077 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,346.3 \r\n\r\n41,459,356 \r\n\r\n2,059.8 \r\n\r\n12,654,422 \r\n\r\n4,663,513 \r\n\r\n13,036,362 \r\n\r\n78,047 \r\n\r\n71,891,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,331.5 \r\n\r\n44,968,126 \r\n\r\n2,073.2 \r\n\r\n14,121,870 \r\n\r\n4,956,971 \r\n\r\n13,723,6')6 \r\n\r\n84,137 \r\n\r\n77,854,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n95 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nALBANY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\n\"ACTUAL  ' \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUIl-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n5  2,087,564 \r\n\r\n51,132 \r\n\r\n\r\n241,821 \r\n860,840 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u0026Ui.4J \r\n\r\n\r\n4,425,901 \r\n22.934 \r\n\r\n4.448.133.5 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,139,689 \r\n62^-2^6 \r\n\r\n1,202,445 \r\n3,246,390 \r\n\r\n4,448,835 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n211,130 \r\n801,000 \r\n\r\n1,180,005 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,433,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,433,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,110,000 \r\n23,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,133,000 \r\n3,300,400 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,199,300    $    2,459,738 \r\n41,965  46,248 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,433,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n226,130 \r\n872,753 \r\n\r\n1.240.;.  31 \r\n4,853,400 \r\n\r\n4-853.400 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,111,500 \r\n\r\n3Q.5QQ \r\n\r\n1,142,000 \r\n3,711,400 \r\n\r\n4,853,400 \r\n\r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T.  -  4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n1,118 \r\n453 \r\n\r\n1,169 \r\n489 \r\n\r\n976 \r\n681 \r\n\r\n1,571 \r\n\r\n1.658 \r\n\r\n1,657 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,832 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,674 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,929 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n725 \r\n\r\n40 \r\n\r\n2,067 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n$ \r\n\r\n669 \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n1,992 \r\n\r\n2,674 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n671 \r\n\r\n18 \r\n\r\n2,240 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n2,832 \r\n\r\n2,929 \r\n\r\n96 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\nALBANY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,   RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n108.3 \r\n\r\n1,907,155 \r\n\r\n24.2 \r\n\r\n156,895 \r\n\r\n74,646 \r\n\r\n\r\n111.1 \r\n\r\n2,016,076 \r\n\r\n22.1 \r\n\r\n150,496 \r\n\r\n74,693 \r\n\r\n\r\n113.2 \r\n\r\n2,262,231 \r\n\r\n22.  6 \r\n\r\n160,766 \r\n\r\n7J,9H«\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\n7.0 \r\n\r\n87, \r\n\r\n,409 \r\n\r\n3.2 \r\n\r\n19, \r\n\r\n,317 \r\n\r\n117, \r\n\r\n,545 \r\n\r\n17, \r\n\r\n,550 \r\n\r\n4.0 \r\n\r\n48, \r\n\r\n,379 \r\n\r\n65.1 \r\n\r\n380, \r\n\r\n,695 \r\n\r\n117, \r\n\r\n,590 \r\n\r\n237, \r\n\r\n,723 \r\n\r\n76, \r\n\r\n,453 \r\n\r\n34.6 \r\n454,142 \r\n\r\n30.7 \r\n195,260 \r\n268,769 \r\n266,373 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   4,425,901 \r\n\r\n\r\n22,934 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   4,448,835 \r\n\r\n\r\n7.0 \r\n\r\n8.0 \r\n\r\n88,516 \r\n\r\n105,970 \r\n\r\n3.0 \r\n\r\n3.0 \r\n\r\n18,709 \r\n\r\n20,485 \r\n\r\n49,905 \r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n54,000 \r\n\r\n29,675 \r\n\r\n4.8 \r\n\r\n3.8 \r\n\r\n55,120 \r\n\r\n51,575 \r\n\r\n64.8 \r\n\r\n63.1 \r\n\r\n392,334 \r\n\r\n437,226 \r\n\r\n254,400 \r\n\r\n259,920 \r\n\r\n99,146 \r\n\r\n124,032 \r\n\r\n34.7 \r\n472,405 \r\n\r\n29.0 \r\n184,750 \r\n300,300 \r\n222,550 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,433,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n33.4 \r\n\r\n499,370 \r\n\r\n28.9 \r\n\r\n217,704 \r\n322,300 \r\n209,157 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.433.400 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,853,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.853.400 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n149.9 \r\n\r\n$       2,448,706 \r\n\r\n127.2 \r\n\r\n800,546 \r\n\r\n268,769 \r\n\r\n907,880 \r\n\r\n22,934 \r\n\r\n$       4,448,835 \r\n\r\n\r\n152.8 \r\n2,576,997 \r\n\r\n123.7 \r\n801,409 \r\n300,300 \r\n754,694 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.433.400 \r\n\r\n\r\n154.6 \r\n2,867,571 \r\n\r\n121.4 \r\n896,756 \r\n322,300 \r\n766,773 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,853,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n97 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTLM  0^  GLORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nARMSTRONG  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  *.  MAINTKNANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SKRVICKH,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\n\r\n$   2,483,995 \r\n\r\n\r\n40,058 \r\n335,269 \r\n571,515 \r\n\r\n797,874 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,740,352    $    2,963,302 \r\n\r\n\r\n38,000 \r\n276,644 \r\n597,000 \r\n\r\n883,904 \r\n\r\n\r\n37,000 \r\n255,144 \r\n684,480 \r\n\r\n\r\n910,966 \r\n\r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$   4,228,711 \r\n123_ \r\n\r\n$   4,228,834 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,535,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,856,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n$     4,5  35,900    $ 4,856,900 \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$   1,480,461 \r\n61,673 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,599,700 \r\n44,300 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,430,795 \r\n49,205 \r\n\r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n\r\n$   1,542,134 \r\n2,686,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n1 , 644 , 000 \r\n2,891,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,480,000 \r\n3,376,900 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n5   4,228,834 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,535,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,856,900 \r\n\r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T.  -  4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n1,498 \r\n\r\n493 \r\n\r\n95 \r\n\r\n2,086 \r\n\r\n1,534 \r\n494 \r\n114 \r\n\r\n1,483 \r\n\r\n348 \r\n\r\n78 \r\n\r\n2,142 \r\n\r\n1,909 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2L027 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,118 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,544 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n710 \r\n\r\n29 \r\n\r\n1,288 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,027 \r\n\r\n\r\n747 \r\n\r\n21 \r\n\r\n1.350 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,118 \r\n\r\n\r\n749 \r\n\r\n26 \r\n\r\n1  .769 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.544 \r\n\r\n\r\n98 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\nARMSTRONG  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  A  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\nl-'AOH.TY   -  K.X.T.  I 'OS  IT10NS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-    AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR   REPLACEMENT   FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER   OPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n122.7 \r\n\r\n133.9 \r\n\r\n133.7 \r\n\r\n$    2,190,712 \r\n\r\n$     2,470,888 \r\n\r\n$    2,684,071 \r\n\r\n20.3 \r\n\r\n25.3 \r\n\r\n24.7 \r\n\r\n115,473 \r\n\r\n141,853 \r\n\r\n145,020 \r\n\r\n177,810 \r\n\r\n127,611 \r\n\r\n133,611 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n1.2 \r\n\r\n1.7 \r\n\r\n15,918 \r\n\r\n16,020 \r\n\r\n30,700 \r\n\r\n.8 \r\n\r\n.9 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n4,682 \r\n\r\n4,880 \r\n\r\n6,300 \r\n\r\n19,458 \r\n\r\n17,100 \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n4.2 \r\n\r\n6.0 \r\n\r\n5.2 \r\n\r\n56,393 \r\n\r\n83,634 \r\n\r\n82,500 \r\n\r\n10.5 \r\n\r\n11.6 \r\n\r\n11.3 \r\n\r\n61,510 \r\n\r\n71,010 \r\n\r\n76,144 \r\n\r\n164,667 \r\n\r\n100,000 \r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n52,699 \r\n\r\n22,000 \r\n\r\n26,500 \r\n\r\n1.9 \r\n\r\n1.9 \r\n\r\n1.9 \r\n\r\n22,682 \r\n\r\n22,892 \r\n\r\n24.912 \r\n\r\n43.1 \r\n\r\n48.3 \r\n\r\n45.5 \r\n\r\n232,048 \r\n\r\n268,055 \r\n\r\n270,954 \r\n\r\n9,800 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n199,371 \r\n\r\n220,000 \r\n\r\n302,622 \r\n\r\n107,614 \r\n\r\n86,053 \r\n\r\n86,000 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n15.3 \r\n\r\n17.6 \r\n\r\n1ft. 0 \r\n\r\n237,311 \r\n\r\n270,150 \r\n\r\n276,865 \r\n\r\n27.7 \r\n\r\n28.6 \r\n\r\n28.0 \r\n\r\n169,808 \r\n\r\n176,434 \r\n\r\n186,329 \r\n\r\n241,423 \r\n\r\n274,000 \r\n\r\n292,903 \r\n\r\n149.332 \r\n\r\n163.320 \r\n\r\n160,869 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,228,711 \r\n\r\n123 \r\n\r\n4.228.834 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,535,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,856,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,535,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,856,900 \r\n\r\n143.2 \r\n\r\n158.7 \r\n\r\n156.6 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,500,334 \r\n\r\n104.3 \r\n\r\n606,203 \r\n\r\n241,423 \r\n\r\n880,751 \r\n\r\n123 \r\n\r\n4,228,834 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,840,692 \r\n\r\n116.6 \r\n\r\n685,124 \r\n\r\n274,000 \r\n\r\n736,084 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n,074,736 \r\n\r\n112.4 \r\n\r\n709,659 \r\n\r\n292,903 \r\n\r\n779,602 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,535,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,856,900 \r\n\r\n99 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\n\r\nAUGUSTA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n2,057,002 \r\n21.913 \r\n\r\n30,775 \r\n305,305 \r\n801,388 \r\n\r\n1,038,577 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,854,960 \r\n(15,589) \r\n\r\n\r\n3,064,167 \r\n25,833 \r\n\r\n30,000 \r\n366,000 \r\n779,998 \r\n\r\n1,066,202 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,332,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,839,371 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,332,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,207,500 \r\n24.500 \r\n\r\n33,000 \r\n364,000 \r\n904,997 \r\n\r\n1,134,203 \r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT   VV.VS \r\n\r\n(JTIIKH    INTERNA!.    REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,887,460 \r\n140,171 \r\n\r\n2,027,631 \r\n2,811,740 \r\n\r\n4,839,371 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,236,000 \r\n75,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,311,000 \r\n3,021,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,332,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n1,930,000 \r\n75,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,005,000 \r\n3,663,200 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\nENROLLMENT   (e.f.t.  -  4  quarters) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n1,701 \r\n584 \r\n155 \r\n\r\n1,763 \r\n643 \r\n156 \r\n\r\n2,562 \r\n\r\n1,678 \r\n576 \r\n137 \r\n\r\n2,440 \r\n\r\n2,391 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,983 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,081 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,370 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n774 \r\n\r\n57 \r\n\r\n1,152 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n873 \r\n\r\n29 \r\n\r\n1,179 \r\n\r\n2,081 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n5 \r\n\r\n807 \r\n\r\n31 \r\n\r\n1,532 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,983 \r\n\r\n2,370 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nAUGUSTA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  f,   RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLXTENSION  X  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  ii.l'.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  RKPLACRMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\n\u003c\u003etiii:i\u003c  oi'MKATINC   i:xi'i:n:;i::; \r\n\r\nMIIDINI    SLHVICIS,  (iLNIKAl    ADMINISTRATION  A \r\n\r\nGENLRAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\n133.2 \r\n\r\n146.0 \r\n\r\n136.0 \r\n\r\n2,302,475 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2,610,933 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n2,713,750 \r\n\r\n36.6 \r\n\r\n41.1 \r\n\r\n42.3 \r\n\r\n203,871 \r\n\r\n231,917 \r\n\r\n270,100 \r\n\r\n172,569 \r\n\r\n247,150 \r\n\r\n248,150 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n4.8 \r\n\r\n5.  J \r\n\r\n30,775 \r\n\r\n30,000 \r\n\r\n33,000 \r\n\r\n6.0 \r\n91,668 \r\n16.3 \r\n91,487 \r\n83,639 \r\n38,511 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.9 \r\n26,294 \r\n59.5 \r\n327,103 \r\n118,950 \r\n170,52'J \r\nl'.H,5]2 \r\n\r\n\r\n16.9 \r\n286,784 \r\n\r\n44.9 \r\n271,816 \r\n258,709 \r\n221,268 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   4,854,960 \r\n(15,589) \r\n$   4,839,371 \r\n\r\n\r\n7.0 \r\n\r\n7.0 \r\n\r\n104,250 \r\n\r\n115,250 \r\n\r\n19.0 \r\n\r\n19.1 \r\n\r\n106,325 \r\n\r\n115,312 \r\n\r\n111,000 \r\n\r\n89,000 \r\n\r\n44,425 \r\n\r\n44,438 \r\n\r\n1.9 \r\n\r\n1.9 \r\n\r\n26,578 \r\n\r\n30,555 \r\n\r\n66.1 \r\n\r\n66.2 \r\n\r\n369,221 \r\n\r\n409,784 \r\n\r\n201 , 586 \r\n\r\n246,666 \r\n\r\nl»2,f»l  J \r\n\r\n21  /,'\u003e'».! \r\n\r\n17.0 \r\n\r\n287,650 \r\n46.8 \r\n291,853 \r\n329,000 \r\n157,699 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,332,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n16.9 \r\n313,762 \r\n\r\n45.6 \r\n316,142 \r\n344,000 \r\n160,299 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,332,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  r:.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n161.1 \r\n$   2,711,702 \r\n\r\n159.2 \r\n920,571 \r\n258,709 \r\n963,978 \r\n(15,589) \r\n\r\n$      4,839,371 \r\n\r\n\r\n174.8 \r\n\r\n3,032,833 \r\n\r\n174.9 \r\n\r\n1,025,894 \r\n\r\n329,000 \r\n\r\n944,473 \r\n\r\n\r\n5-332.200 \r\n\r\n\r\n165.2 \r\n3,175,762 \r\n\r\n175.1 \r\n\r\n1,141,893 \r\n\r\n344,000 \r\n\r\n1,006,545 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n101 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\n\r\nCOLUMBUS  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n4,143,388 \r\n\r\n\r\n89,016 \r\n\r\n445,146 \r\n\r\n1,000,373 \r\n\r\n1,126,732 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,804,655 \r\n3,729 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,468,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n113,000 \r\n\r\n462,000 \r\n\r\n1,097,000 \r\n\r\n1,347,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n7,487,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,830,632 \r\n\r\n\r\n122,000 \r\n\r\n470,000 \r\n\r\n1,209,016 \r\n\r\n1,439,452 \r\n\r\n8,071,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,808,384 \r\n\r\n\r\n7,487,100    $    8,071,100 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n2,634,084 \r\n56,190 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,690,274 \r\n4,118,110 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,808, 384 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,943,250 \r\n31,750 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,975,000 \r\n4,512,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n7,487,100 \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n2,680,750 \r\n48,250 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,729,000 \r\n5,342,100 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,071,100 \r\n\r\nENROI.LMLNT \r\n\r\n\r\n(K.K.T.  -  4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\n.minion  division \r\n:.i:nion  division \r\ni;kadiiati-:  division \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n2,255 \r\n941 \r\n\r\n_!24 \r\n\r\n3,530 \r\n\r\n2,326 \r\n\r\n1,019 \r\n\r\n345 \r\n\r\n2,11«J \r\n\r\n¦\u003er. \r\n\r\nJ5] \r\n\r\n3,690 \r\n\r\n3,405 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,929 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,029 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,370 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n746 \r\n\r\n16 \r\n\r\n1,167 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n798 \r\n9 \r\n\r\n1,222 \r\n\r\n2,029 \r\n\r\n$ \r\nS \r\n\r\n787 \r\n\r\n14 \r\n\r\n1,569 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,929 \r\n\r\n2,370 \r\n\r\n102 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nCOLUMBUS  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,   RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY      -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-   AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-   AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING   EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC   PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC   PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING   EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF   PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY    PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-   AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC   PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR   REPLACEMENT   FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER   OPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,   GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL    INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC   PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC   PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE    BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED   BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    H.K.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE    BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING   EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED   BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n197.5 \r\n\r\n209.5 \r\n\r\n209.7 \r\n\r\n$       3.506,790 \r\n\r\n$            3,813,176 \r\n\r\n$         4,128,752 \r\n\r\n50.5 \r\n\r\n52.5 \r\n\r\n52.1 \r\n\r\n283,380 \r\n\r\n305,100 \r\n\r\n338,590 \r\n\r\n353,218 \r\n\r\n349,824 \r\n\r\n363,290 \r\n\r\n1.1 \r\n\r\n2.3 \r\n\r\n2.4 \r\n\r\n18,591 \r\n\r\n36,745 \r\n\r\n44,287 \r\n\r\n4.1 \r\n\r\n5.3 \r\n\r\n4.9 \r\n\r\n32,730 \r\n\r\n40,910 \r\n\r\n40,305 \r\n\r\n37,695 \r\n\r\n35,345 \r\n\r\n37,408 \r\n\r\n7.7 \r\n\r\n8.0 \r\n\r\n8.0 \r\n\r\n105,272 \r\n\r\n108,835 \r\n\r\n107,880 \r\n\r\n18.3 \r\n\r\n20.5 \r\n\r\n20.8 \r\n\r\n110,602 \r\n\r\n123,450 \r\n\r\n146,500 \r\n\r\n170,433 \r\n\r\n152,865 \r\n\r\n138,820 \r\n\r\n58,839 \r\n\r\n76,850 \r\n\r\n76,800 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n44,904 \r\n\r\n46,500 \r\n\r\n53,370 \r\n\r\n71.6 \r\n\r\n82.5 \r\n\r\n84.1 \r\n\r\n380,876 \r\n\r\n442,906 \r\n\r\n496,152 \r\n\r\n16,085 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n485,600 \r\n\r\n436,630 \r\n\r\n485,600 \r\n\r\n72,908 \r\n\r\n170,964 \r\n\r\n173,894 \r\n\r\n14.7 \r\n\r\n16.5 \r\n\r\n16.2 \r\n\r\n260,192 \r\n\r\n290,804 \r\n\r\n309,627 \r\n\r\n49.7 \r\n\r\n55.9 \r\n\r\n55.8 \r\n\r\n328,073 \r\n\r\n363,775 \r\n\r\n403,382 \r\n\r\n379,500 \r\n\r\n470,000 \r\n\r\n497,5I\u003e5 \r\n\r\n158,967 \r\n6,804,655 \r\n\r\n222,421 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n228,888 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,487,100 \r\n\r\n8,071,100 \r\n\r\n3,729 \r\n6,808,384 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,487,100 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,071,000 \r\n\r\n221.0 \r\n\r\n236.3 \r\n\r\n236.3 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,890,845 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,249,560 \r\n\r\n4,590,540 \r\n\r\n199.2 \r\n\r\n221.7 \r\n\r\n222.7 \r\n\r\n1,180,565 \r\n\r\n1,322,641 \r\n\r\n1,478,299 \r\n\r\n379,500 \r\n\r\n470,000 \r\n\r\n497,555 \r\n\r\n1,353,745 \r\n\r\n1,444,899 \r\n\r\n1,504,700 \r\n\r\n3,729 \r\n6,808,384 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,487,100 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,071,100 \r\n\r\n103 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nFORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION    \u0026   MAINTENANCE   OF   PHYSICAL   PLANT \r\nSTUDENT   Sfc:RVICES,    GENERAL   ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL    INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,433,457 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,650,577 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,938,789 \r\n\r\n56,739 \r\n\r\n96,189 \r\n\r\n118,142 \r\n\r\n9,393 \r\n\r\n5,254 \r\n\r\n5,448 \r\n\r\n14,217 \r\n\r\n2,662 \r\n\r\n2,759 \r\n\r\n276,016 \r\n\r\n327,276 \r\n\r\n371,540 \r\n\r\n771,349 \r\n\r\n838,000 \r\n\r\n920,000 \r\n\r\n1,065,208 \r\n4,626,379 \r\n\r\n1,065,442 \r\n\r\n1,142,722 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,985,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,499,400 \r\n\r\n60,861 \r\n4,687,240 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,985,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,499,400 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n854,654 \r\n176,496 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   1,031,150 \r\n3,656,090 \r\n\r\n$  4,687,240 \r\n\r\n\r\n967,707 \r\n67,293 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,035,000 \r\n3,950,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,985,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n865,976 \r\n258,024 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1, \r\n\r\n4, \r\n\r\n,124,000 \r\n,375,400 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n5, \r\n\r\n,499,400 \r\n\r\nINKOLLMLNT \r\n\r\n\r\n(K.F.T. \r\n\r\n\r\n4  yUARTKKS) \r\n\r\n\r\n.JUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n866 \r\n485 \r\n111 \r\n\r\n1,462 \r\n\r\n878 \r\n521 \r\n130 \r\n\r\n866 \r\n\r\n484 \r\n111 \r\n\r\n1,529 \r\n\r\n1,461 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,206 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,261 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,7G4 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n584 \r\n\r\n121 \r\n\r\n2,501 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,206 \r\n\r\n\r\n633 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n592 \r\n\r\n44 \r\n\r\n177 \r\n\r\n2,584 \r\n\r\n2,995 \r\n\r\n3,261 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,764 \r\n\r\n\r\n104 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nFORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY    PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-    AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC   PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n124-9 \r\n\r\n2,185,6B0 \r\n\r\n31.8 \r\n\r\n173,357 \r\n\r\n140,552 \r\n\r\n\r\n127.4 \r\n\r\n2,289,387 \r\n\r\n28.7 \r\n\r\n173,234 \r\n\r\n289,399 \r\n\r\n\r\n131.1 \r\n\r\n2,531,880 \r\n\r\n3M.0 \r\n\r\n2  34,22'J \r\n\r\n296,204 \r\n\r\n\r\n.5 \r\n\r\n.3 \r\n\r\n.3 \r\n\r\n2,420 \r\n\r\n1,368 \r\n\r\n1,424 \r\n\r\n11,797 \r\n\r\n1,294 \r\n\r\n1,335 \r\n\r\n18.3 \r\n\r\n7.0 \r\n\r\n7.0 \r\n\r\n174,126 \r\n\r\n89,743 \r\n\r\n102,230 \r\n\r\n3.2 \r\n\r\n12.2 \r\n\r\n12.5 \r\n\r\n11,003 \r\n\r\n79,226 \r\n\r\n84,200 \r\n\r\n83,465 \r\n\r\n145,457 \r\n\r\n171,640 \r\n\r\n7,422 \r\n\r\n12,850 \r\n\r\n13,470 \r\n\r\n1.3 \r\n\r\n1.3 \r\n\r\n1.4 \r\n\r\n24,685 \r\n\r\n23,944 \r\n\r\n27,392 \r\n\r\n65.5 \r\n\r\n72.1 \r\n\r\n75.9 \r\n\r\n363,254 \r\n\r\n424,906 \r\n\r\n483,555 \r\n\r\n12,000 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n317,417 \r\n\r\n294,400 \r\n\r\n309,120 \r\n\r\n53,993 \r\n\r\n94,750 \r\n\r\n99,933 \r\n\r\n20.2 \r\n\r\n19.5 \r\n\r\n21.0 \r\n\r\n331,006 \r\n\r\n320,177 \r\n\r\n369,297 \r\n\r\n39.0 \r\n\r\n37.7 \r\n\r\n37.5 \r\n\r\n261,521 \r\n\r\n251,222 \r\n\r\n269,304 \r\n\r\n325,928 \r\n\r\n312,213 \r\n\r\n333,213 \r\n\r\n146.753 \r\n4,626,379 \r\n\r\n181.830 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\ni70fqnR \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,985,400 \r\n\r\n5,499,400 \r\n\r\n60,861 \r\n4,687.240 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,985,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\nsr4qqr4on \r\n\r\n163.4 \r\n\r\n153.9 \r\n\r\n159.1 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,690,812 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,699,307 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,003,413 \r\n\r\n141.3 \r\n\r\n152.3 \r\n\r\n165.6 \r\n\r\n836,240 \r\n\r\n953,900 \r\n\r\n1,100,104 \r\n\r\n325,928 \r\n\r\n312,213 \r\n\r\n333,213 \r\n\r\n773,399 \r\n\r\n1,019,980 \r\n\r\n1,062,670 \r\n\r\n60.861 \r\n4.68.7.240. \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,985,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n¦i,d99,\u003cinn \r\n\r\n105 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nGEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES   RELATED  TO   INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION    t»    PUBLIC    SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION    \u0026    MAINTENANCE   OF    PHYSICAL    PLANT \r\nSTUDENT   SERVICES,    GENERAL   ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL    INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED   BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n2,779,135 \r\n\r\n36,206 \r\n\r\n3,004 \r\n\r\n9,643 \r\n\r\n295,264 \r\n\r\n857,213 \r\n\r\n943.818 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,924,283 \r\n93.776 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,006,601 \r\n\r\n38,683 \r\n\r\n4,000 \r\n\r\n11,859 \r\n\r\n297,000 \r\n\r\n795,000 \r\n\r\n1,042,710 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,195,853 \r\n\r\n28,047 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,018,059 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,223,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,277,667 \r\n\r\n40,552 \r\n\r\n4,000 \r\n\r\n7,034 \r\n\r\n318,000 \r\n\r\n920,000 \r\n\r\n1.1P2,5:Q \r\n\r\n5,669,763 \r\n\r\n34.137 \r\n\r\n5,703,900 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT   FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER    INTERNAL    REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,721,054 \r\n50,405 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,771,459 \r\n3,246,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,018,059 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,967,500 \r\n21,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,989,000 \r\n3,234,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,223,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,907,500 \r\n32,500 \r\n\r\n1,940,000 \r\n3,763,900 \r\n\r\n5,703,900 \r\n\r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T.  -  4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n1,056 \r\n812 \r\n485 \r\n\r\n1,064 \r\n813 \r\n484 \r\n\r\n1,031 \r\n807 \r\n454 \r\n\r\n2,353 \r\n\r\n2,361 \r\n\r\n2,292 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,133 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,213 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,480 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n732 \r\n\r\n21 \r\n\r\n1,380 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n833 \r\n\r\n10 \r\n1,370 \r\n\r\n2,213 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n$ \r\n\r\n832 \r\n\r\n14 \r\n\r\n1,642 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,133 \r\n\r\n2,488 \r\n\r\n106 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\nGEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\n\r\nNON- ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  KEPI.ACFMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMTC  PERSONNEL  -  K.I'.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n\r\n137.5 \r\n\r\n2,379,799 \r\n\r\n23.0 \r\n\r\n160,904 \r\n\r\n277,742 \r\n\r\n\r\n146.4 \r\n\r\n2,623,955 \r\n\r\n24.6 \r\n\r\n169,807 \r\n\r\n255,522 \r\n\r\n\r\n147.9 \r\n\r\n2,870,955 \r\n\r\n24.9 \r\n\r\n182,742 \r\n\r\n268,522 \r\n\r\n\r\n.7 \r\n\r\n.8 \r\n\r\n.4 \r\n\r\n8,538 \r\n\r\n9,184 \r\n\r\n4,735 \r\n\r\n1,105 \r\n\r\n2,675 \r\n\r\n2,299 \r\n\r\n10.3 \r\n\r\n10.5 \r\n\r\n11.5 \r\n\r\n115,665 \r\n\r\n118,907 \r\n\r\n136,049 \r\n\r\n4.8 \r\n\r\n5.6 \r\n\r\n4.7 \r\n\r\n24,885 \r\n\r\n28,595 \r\n\r\n25,527 \r\n\r\n110,621 \r\n\r\n103,132 \r\n\r\n110,047 \r\n\r\n44,093 \r\n\r\n46,366 \r\n\r\n46,377 \r\n\r\n1.4 \r\n\r\n1.4 \r\n\r\n1.4 \r\n\r\n20,742 \r\n\r\n21,010 \r\n\r\n23,953 \r\n\r\n56.0 \r\n\r\n60.9 \r\n\r\n62.  H \r\n\r\n331,481 \r\n\r\n365,691 \r\n\r\n42H,H45 \r\n\r\n100,200 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n255,625 \r\n\r\n307,496 \r\n\r\n366,402 \r\n\r\n149,165 \r\n\r\n100,803 \r\n\r\n100,800 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n17.8 \r\n\r\n17.8 \r\n\r\n16.8 \r\n\r\n278,891 \r\n\r\n282,150 \r\n\r\n300,838 \r\n\r\n35.8 \r\n\r\n35.5 \r\n\r\n35.7 \r\n\r\n220,333 \r\n\r\n226,776 \r\n\r\n251,292 \r\n\r\n294,032 \r\n\r\n339,000 \r\n\r\n367,000 \r\n\r\n150,562 \r\n\r\n194,784 \r\n\r\n183,380 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,924,283 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,195,853 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,669,763 \r\n\r\n93,776 \r\n\r\n28,047 \r\n\r\n34,137 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,018,059 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,223,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,70  3,900 \r\n\r\n165.6 \r\n\r\n174.7 \r\n\r\n176.2 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,774,355 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n3,025,012 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,307,842 \r\n\r\n121.7 \r\n\r\n128.8 \r\n\r\n129.9 \r\n\r\n766,783 \r\n\r\n821,063 \r\n\r\n917,094 \r\n\r\n294,032 \r\n\r\n339,000 \r\n\r\n367,000 \r\n\r\n1,089,113 \r\n\r\n1,010,778 \r\n\r\n1,077,827 \r\n\r\n93,776 \r\n\r\n28,04  7 \r\n\r\n34,137 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n5,018,059 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,223,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,703,900 \r\n\r\n107 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES    RELATED   TO    INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION    \u0026    PUBLIC    SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION    S,    MAINTENANCE   OF    PHYSICAL    PLANT \r\nSTUDENT    SERVICES,    GENERAL    ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND   GENERAL    rNSTITUTIONAI. \r\n\r\nSUM-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED    BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n$    5,597,973 \r\n\r\n135,215 \r\n\r\n25,374 \r\n\r\n111,286 \r\n\r\n585,159 \r\n\r\n1,457,229 \r\n\r\n1.994.527 \r\n\r\n$    9,906,763 \r\n29,768 \r\n\r\ni 9,936.  53J. \r\n\r\n\r\n5,897,168 \r\n\r\n138,582 \r\n\r\n31,950 \r\n\r\n117,000 \r\n\r\n642,000 \r\n\r\n1,461,400 \r\n\r\n2,219,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n10,507,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n10,507,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,337,256 \r\n\r\n147,977 \r\n\r\n32,967 \r\n\r\n128,000 \r\n\r\n692,000 \r\n\r\n1,591,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.  391!.  100 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11,321,700 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11.321.700 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2,723,845 \r\n96.291 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,820,136 \r\n7,116.395 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n9^36^531 \r\n\r\n3,012,000 \r\n77,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,089,000 \r\n7,418,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n10,507,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,941,500 \r\n68.500 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n3,010,000 \r\n8,311,700 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11,321,700 \r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T.  -  4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n2,048 \r\n\r\n1,500 \r\n\r\n578 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,126 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,070  2,202 \r\n\r\n1,525  1,440 \r\n\r\n560  576 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,155 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,218 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n2,408 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,529  $ \r\n\r\n\r\n2,684 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n660 \r\n\r\n23 \r\n\r\n1.725 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,408 \r\n\r\n\r\n725 \r\n\r\n19 \r\n\r\n1,785 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,529 \r\n\r\n\r\n697 \r\n\r\n16 \r\n\r\n1,971 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,684 \r\n\r\n\r\n108 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\n\r\nNON- ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  I'URHONNKIi  -  K.K.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n285.4 \r\n\r\n290.1 \r\n\r\n290.3 \r\n\r\n$   5,150,105 \r\n\r\n$     5,321,000 \r\n\r\n$    5,796,500 \r\n\r\n44.6 \r\n\r\n53.0 \r\n\r\n51.5 \r\n\r\n237,494 \r\n\r\n282,000 \r\n\r\n309,000 \r\n\r\n370,963 \r\n\r\n464,700 \r\n\r\n412,700 \r\n\r\n4.3 \r\n\r\n3.9 \r\n\r\n3.9 \r\n\r\n60,918 \r\n\r\n55,743 \r\n\r\n69,292 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n6.2 \r\n\r\n4.8 \r\n\r\n27,022 \r\n\r\n35,027 \r\n\r\n30,053 \r\n\r\n23,346 \r\n\r\n26,230 \r\n\r\n28,655 \r\n\r\niA.A \r\n\r\n15.0 \r\n\r\nl'j.O \r\n\r\n175,260 \r\n\r\n185,170 \r\n\r\n204,353 \r\n\r\n22.6 \r\n\r\n28.4 \r\n\r\n28.5 \r\n\r\n113,236 \r\n\r\n141,930 \r\n\r\n153,822 \r\n\r\n248,819 \r\n\r\n269,161 \r\n\r\n284,085 \r\n\r\n47,844 \r\n\r\n45,739 \r\n\r\n49,740 \r\n\r\n7.2 \r\n\r\n7.8 \r\n\r\n10.4 \r\n\r\n79,356 \r\n\r\n88,455 \r\n\r\n124,865 \r\n\r\n113.6 \r\n\r\n126.1 \r\n\r\n120.8 \r\n\r\n674,625 \r\n\r\n731,686 \r\n\r\n774,276 \r\n\r\n104,345 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n356,550 \r\n\r\n362,501 \r\n\r\n351,650 \r\n\r\n242,353 \r\n\r\n278,758 \r\n\r\n340,609 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n45.7 \r\n\r\n50.6 \r\n\r\n50.3 \r\n\r\n646,162 \r\n\r\n707,445 \r\n\r\n779,625 \r\n\r\n65.8 \r\n\r\n74.9 \r\n\r\n74.5 \r\n\r\n372,306 \r\n\r\n436,634 \r\n\r\n476,954 \r\n\r\n624,140 \r\n\r\n707,000 \r\n\r\n750,000 \r\n\r\n351,919 \r\n\r\n368,521 \r\n\r\n385.521 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n9,906,763 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n10,507,700 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n11,321,700 \r\n\r\n29,768 \r\n9,936,531 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n10,507,700 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n11. 321. 700 \r\n\r\n349.6 \r\n\r\n359.6 \r\n\r\n359.5 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n6,032,445 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6,269,358 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6,849,770 \r\n\r\n258.8 \r\n\r\n296.4 \r\n\r\n290.5 \r\n\r\n1,504,039 \r\n\r\n1,715,732 \r\n\r\n1,868,970 \r\n\r\n624,140 \r\n\r\n707,000 \r\n\r\n750,000 \r\n\r\n1,746,139 \r\n\r\n1,815,610 \r\n\r\n1,852,960 \r\n\r\n29,768 \r\n9,936,531 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n10,507,700 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11,321,700 \r\n\r\n109 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHWESTERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-70 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  S.    MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n2,335,556 \r\n\r\n\r\n22,566 \r\n278,501 \r\n678,608 \r\n\r\n\r\n$     2,526,000    $    2,668,224 \r\n\r\n\r\n864,682 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,179,913 \r\n817 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,180,730 \r\n\r\n24,000 \r\n299,000 \r\n686,000 \r\n\r\n932,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,467,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n26,000 \r\n311,228 \r\n748,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,752,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  4,467,800  $         4.752.800 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nstuhknt  i'i:i:s \r\n\r\n\u003crnii:H    INTKKNA1.   RKVKNUE \r\n\r\nSUU-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n1,072, 49) \r\n\r\nJO/J24 \r\n\r\n1,103,415 \r\n3,077,315 \r\n\r\n4,180,730 \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\nL,n2,'j00 \r\n13,500 \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n1,04b, 400 \r\n\r\n1J.G00 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,146,000 \r\n3,321,800 \r\n\r\ns \r\n$ \r\n\r\n1 , 060 , 000 \r\n3.692.800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,467,800 \r\n\r\n4.752.800 \r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T. \r\n\r\n\r\n4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n792 \r\n513 \r\n365 \r\n\r\n1,670 \r\n\r\n912 \r\n473 \r\n331 \r\n\r\n852 \r\n435 \r\n265 \r\n\r\n1,716 \r\n\r\n1,552 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,503 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,604 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,062 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT   FEICS \r\n\r\nOTHER    INTERNAL    REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE   APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n642 \r\n\r\n19 \r\n\r\n1,842 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n660 \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\n1,936 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n674 \r\n\r\n9 \r\n\r\n2,379 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2^503 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,604 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,062 \r\n\r\n110 \r\n\r\n\r\nI1NIVI  KM  IV   \\Y\\IIM  01    lilOKI.IA \r\n\r\nANALYSIS  01    LXPLNDITUHLS \r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHWESTERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  K.I'.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSE.'; \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  K.I'.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  K.K.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDLNT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGLNLRAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  K.I'.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\n113.5 \r\n\r\n123.2 \r\n\r\n118.6 \r\n\r\n2,024,981     $ \r\n\r\n2,206,000    5 \r\n\r\n2,348,000 \r\n\r\n19.6 \r\n\r\n19.3 \r\n\r\n18.7 \r\n\r\n123,218 \r\n\r\n124,000 \r\n\r\n128,000 \r\n\r\n187,357 \r\n\r\n196,000 \r\n\r\n192,224 \r\n\r\n.9 \r\n\r\n1.1 \r\n\r\n1.1 \r\n\r\n14,337 \r\n\r\n16,799 \r\n\r\n18,020 \r\n\r\n.8 \r\n\r\n.9 \r\n\r\n.') \r\n\r\n4,508 \r\n\r\n5,511 \r\n\r\n5,7  il \r\n\r\n\\,/2i \r\n\r\n1 ,  (.90 \r\n\r\n/,:\u003eA\"\u003e \r\n\r\n7.4 \r\n\r\n8.5 \r\n\r\n7.5 \r\n\r\n88,683 \r\n\r\n98,198 \r\n\r\n97,757 \r\n\r\n8.6 \r\n\r\n8.7 \r\n\r\n8.7 \r\n\r\n47,472 \r\n\r\n49,015 \r\n\r\n53,684 \r\n\r\n112,248 \r\n\r\n115,928 \r\n\r\n120,932 \r\n\r\n30,098 \r\n\r\n35,859 \r\n\r\n38,855 \r\n\r\n.6 \r\n\r\n.7 \r\n\r\n.7 \r\n\r\n11,025 \r\n\r\n11,816 \r\n\r\n13,170 \r\n\r\n57.8 \r\n\r\n62.9 \r\n\r\nf.O.^ \r\n\r\n318,807 \r\n\r\n358,442 \r\n\r\n394,088 \r\n\r\n20,100 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n175,777 \r\n\r\n196,180 \r\n\r\n220,570 \r\n\r\n152,899 \r\n\r\n119,562 \r\n\r\n120,172 \r\n\r\n16.6 \r\n266,589 \r\n\r\n28.2 \r\n186,498 \r\n244,414 \r\n167.181 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,179,913 \r\n\r\n\r\n_an \r\n\r\n\r\n16.8 \r\n279,451 \r\n\r\n28.7 \r\n188,981 \r\n287,000 \r\n177,368 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,467,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n17. «) \r\n3 11,9\u003c  \u003eG \r\n\r\n29.3 \r\n212,238 \r\n301,000 \r\n174,144 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,752,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,180,730 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,467,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,752,800 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n138.4 \r\n\r\n2,394,590 \r\n\r\n115.6 \r\n\r\n691,528 \r\n\r\n244,414, \r\n\r\n849,381 \r\n\r\n817 \r\n\r\n4,180,730 \r\n\r\n\r\n149.6 \r\n2,600,448 \r\n\r\n121.2 \r\n737,765 \r\n287,000 \r\n842,587 \r\n\r\n\r\n145.1 \r\n2,775,743 \r\n\r\n118.5 \r\n806,911 \r\n301,000 \r\n869,146 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.467.800 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,752,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n111 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\n\r\nNORTH  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  C.ENKRAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n$   1,470,958 \r\n\r\n\r\n46,768 \r\n170,395 \r\n567,450 \r\n\r\n687,725 \r\n\r\n$   2,943,296 \r\n(1,139) \r\n\r\n$   2,942,157 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,595,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n43,413 \r\n194,587 \r\n534,000 \r\n\r\n775.100 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,142,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,738,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n47,605 \r\n208,395 \r\n581,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n?.;42,lQp \r\n\r\n\r\n859,600 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,434,600 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,4  34,600 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n735,430 \r\n41.787 \r\n\r\n\r\n792,600 \r\n12.400 \r\n\r\n\r\n802,600 \r\n12,400 \r\n\r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$     777,217 \r\n2.164.940 \r\n\r\n$   2,942.157 \r\n\r\n\r\n805,000 \r\n2,337,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,142,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n815,000 \r\n2.619,600 \r\n\r\n3-434.600 \r\n\r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n( K .  V .  T \r\n\r\n\r\n4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\n.MINK'K  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nf,  »H \r\n378 \r\n168 \r\n\r\n1,184 \r\n\r\n000 \r\n\r\n348 \r\n148 \r\n\r\n070 \r\n\r\n34U \r\n\r\n139 \r\n\r\n1,182 \r\n\r\n1,163 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2,485 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n2,658 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,953 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n621 \r\n\r\n35 \r\n\r\n1,829 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,485 \r\n\r\n\r\n670 \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n1,978 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,658 \r\n\r\n\r\n090 \r\n\r\n11 \r\n\r\n2,252 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,953 \r\n\r\n\r\n112 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\nNORTH  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-   AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC   PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    K.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\nFRINGE    HENEITTS \r\nOPERATING   expense:; \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  balance \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n65.8 \r\n\r\n75.8 \r\n\r\n75.6 \r\n\r\n5        1,223,521 \r\n\r\n5            1,360,549 \r\n\r\n$           1,488,917 \r\n\r\n13.8 \r\n\r\n17.0 \r\n\r\n18.0 \r\n\r\n78,031 \r\n\r\n91,051 \r\n\r\n106,183 \r\n\r\n169,406 \r\n\r\n143,400 \r\n\r\n142,900 \r\n\r\n1.5 \r\n\r\n1.5 \r\n\r\n1.5 \r\n\r\n32,556 \r\n\r\n32,946 \r\n\r\n36,606 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n5,522 \r\n\r\n5,600 \r\n\r\n6,132 \r\n\r\n8,690 \r\n\r\n4,867 \r\n\r\n4,867 \r\n\r\n4.3 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n52,486 \r\n\r\n62,795 \r\n\r\n(»H,G()0 \r\n\r\n7.8 \r\n\r\n7.8 \r\n\r\n7.H \r\n\r\n41,676 \r\n\r\n43,331 \r\n\r\n47,334 \r\n\r\n43,095 \r\n\r\n45,000 \r\n\r\n48,800 \r\n\r\n33,138 \r\n\r\n43,461 \r\n\r\n43,661 \r\n\r\n1.1 \r\n\r\n1.2 \r\n\r\n1.2 \r\n\r\n11,001 \r\n\r\n11,479 \r\n\r\n12,491 \r\n\r\n41.5 \r\n\r\n43.0 \r\n\r\n43.0 \r\n\r\n272,870 \r\n\r\n284,241 \r\n\r\n311,229 \r\n\r\n52,000 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n152,163 \r\n\r\n146,102 \r\n\r\n165,102 \r\n\r\n79,416 \r\n\r\n92,178 \r\n\r\n92,178 \r\n\r\n12.7 \r\n217,659 \r\n\r\n28.5 \r\n172,872 \r\n180,599 \r\n116.595 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n16.1 \r\n262,536 \r\n\r\n25.1 \r\n149,039 \r\n216,000 \r\n147,525 \r\n\r\n,142,100 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n17.1 \r\n299,731 \r\n\r\n25.8 \r\n\r\n166,844 \r\n\r\n2  31,000 \r\n\r\nJSiZjMZ'j \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,943,296 \r\n(1.139) \r\n\r\n,434,600 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2.942.157 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n,142,100 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n.434.600 \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n84.3 \r\n\r\n1,526,222 \r\n\r\n93.7 \r\n\r\n581,972 \r\n\r\n180,599 \r\n\r\n654,503 \r\n\r\n(1.139) \r\n\r\n\r\n2.942.157 \r\n\r\n\r\n98.4 \r\n1,718,826 \r\n\r\n95.1 \r\n584,741 \r\n216,000 \r\n622,533 \r\n\r\n\r\n99.2 \r\n\r\n1,893,854 \r\n\r\n96.8 \r\n\r\n650,213 \r\n\r\n231,000 \r\n\r\n659,533 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,142,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n¦3.434,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n113 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSAVANNAH  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  6  MAINTKNANCE  OK  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2,235,947 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,409,367 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2,647,494 \r\n\r\n72,611 \r\n\r\n88,130 \r\n\r\n95,633 \r\n\r\n9,647 \r\n\r\n9,888 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n15,745 \r\n\r\n42,000 \r\n\r\n45,000 \r\n\r\n238,448 \r\n\r\n259,562 \r\n\r\n300,930 \r\n\r\n931,967 \r\n\r\n848,000 \r\n\r\n997,000 \r\n\r\n1,153,586 \r\n\r\n1,120,953 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,227,343 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n4,657,951 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n4,777,900 \r\n\r\n5,313,400 \r\n\r\n949 \r\n\r\n50.000 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,658,900 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n4,827,900 \r\n\r\n5,363,400 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,237,328 \r\n94,522 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,304,495 \r\n44,505 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,327,000 \r\n73.000 \r\n\r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n\r\n1,331,850 \r\n3,327,050 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,349,000 \r\n3,478,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,400,000 \r\n3,963,400 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n4,658,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,827,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,363.400 \r\n\r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T. \r\n\r\n\r\n4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nIXIMNDI  IIIKl     PI  R    MtlDINI \r\n\r\n\r\n1,247 \r\n\r\n636 \r\n\r\n95 \r\n\r\n1,246 \r\n\r\n637 \r\n\r\n93 \r\n\r\n1,123 \r\n\r\n650 \r\n\r\n93 \r\n\r\n1,978 \r\n\r\n1,976 \r\n\r\n1,866 \r\n\r\n1* \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n2,305 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,44  3 \r\n\r\n$  __ \r\n\r\n2.H74 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n\r\n625 \r\n\r\n48 \r\n\r\n1,682 \r\n\r\n\r\n660 \r\n.  23 \r\n\r\n1,760 \r\n\r\n\r\n711 \r\n\r\n39 \r\n\r\n2,124 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n2,355 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,443 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,874 \r\n\r\n\r\n114 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\nSAVANNAH  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\nFACULTY   -  K.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMrC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\n\r\nopkkatinc  expense.:; \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    K.I'.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n109.1 \r\n\r\n117.9 \r\n\r\n119.1 \r\n\r\n$         2,064,629 \r\n\r\n$           2,213,215 \r\n\r\n$           2,406,552 \r\n\r\n18.1 \r\n\r\n20.5 \r\n\r\n20.4 \r\n\r\n108,577 \r\n\r\n120,718 \r\n\r\n140,061 \r\n\r\n144,999 \r\n\r\n173,452 \r\n\r\n196,514 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n3.1 \r\n\r\n1.1 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n33,300 \r\n\r\n16,000 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n2.1 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n16,200 \r\n\r\n10,745 \r\n\r\n8,700 \r\n\r\n12,1100 \r\n\r\n4.7 \r\n\r\n6.0 \r\n\r\n6.0 \r\n\r\n61,609 \r\n\r\n76,301 \r\n\r\n84,256 \r\n\r\n8.7 \r\n\r\n9.0 \r\n\r\n9.0 \r\n\r\n51,402 \r\n\r\n53,569 \r\n\r\n58,982 \r\n\r\n108,166 \r\n\r\n94,092 \r\n\r\n115,000 \r\n\r\n17,271 \r\n\r\n35,600 \r\n\r\n42,692 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n1.5 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n15,625 \r\n\r\n23,262 \r\n\r\n17,250 \r\n\r\n71.9 \r\n\r\n80.5 \r\n\r\n81.0 \r\n\r\n462,644 \r\n\r\n522,204 \r\n\r\n580,216 \r\n\r\n79,000 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n169,044 \r\n\r\n197,671 \r\n\r\n283,751 \r\n\r\n205,654 \r\n\r\n104,863 \r\n\r\n115,783 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n15.3 \r\n\r\n18.5 \r\n\r\n15.6 \r\n\r\n244,380 \r\n\r\n286,592 \r\n\r\n267,104 \r\n\r\n47.0 \r\n\r\n45.6 \r\n\r\n49.5 \r\n\r\n354,164 \r\n\r\n330,854 \r\n\r\n422,497 \r\n\r\n305,751 \r\n\r\n343,000 \r\n\r\n365,000 \r\n\r\n249,291 \r\n\r\n160,507 \r\n\r\n172,742 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,657,951 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,777,900 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n5,313,400 \r\n\r\n949 \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,658,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,827,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,363,400 \r\n\r\n129.1 \r\n\r\n145.5 \r\n\r\n141.8 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,370,618 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,609,408 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,773,912 \r\n\r\n146.7 \r\n\r\n157.1 \r\n\r\n163.0 \r\n\r\n992,412 \r\n\r\n1,050,607 \r\n\r\n1,235,206 \r\n\r\n305,751 \r\n\r\n343,000 \r\n\r\n365,000 \r\n\r\n989,170 \r\n\r\n774,885 \r\n\r\n939,282 \r\n\r\n949 \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,658,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,827,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,363,400 \r\n\r\n115 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nVALDOSTA  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL   EXPINUITIIRLS \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   4,009,119 \r\n\r\n\r\n47,859 \r\n\r\n509,107 \r\n\r\n1,125,305 \r\n\r\n1,331,080 \r\n\r\n$   7,022,470 \r\n(3,846) \r\n\r\n?   /. 010,624 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,299,040 \r\n\r\n\r\n64,340 \r\n\r\n566,000 \r\n\r\n1,052,000 \r\n\r\n1.427.120 \r\n\r\n\r\n7,408,500 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,659,562 \r\n\r\n\r\n68,340 \r\n\r\n608,000 \r\n\r\n1,141,000 \r\n\r\n1,534,998 \r\n\r\n8,011,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n7.400.500  $ U^OLLUUO \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$   2,465,251 \r\n87,898 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,691,200 \r\n40.800 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,631,000 \r\n\r\n39,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOIAI    KLVINIir \r\n\r\n\r\n$       2,553,149 \r\n4,465,475 \r\n\r\n$       7,010,624 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,732,000 \r\n4,676.500 \r\n\r\n\r\n7,408,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,670,000 \r\n5,341,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nH,01 1,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nLNK0LIMIN1 \r\n\r\n\r\n(i-i  -i*. \r\n\r\n\r\n4  yllARTKHS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n1,812 \r\n951 \r\n544 \r\n\r\n3,307 \r\n\r\n1,845 \r\n969 \r\n549 \r\n\r\n1,756 \r\n941 \r\n483 \r\n\r\n3,363 \r\n\r\n3,180 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,122 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,203 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2^519 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n745 \r\n\r\n27 \r\n\r\n1,350 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,122 \r\n\r\n\r\n800 \r\n\r\n12 \r\n\r\n1,391 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,203 \r\n\r\n\r\n827 \r\n\r\n12 \r\n\r\n1,680 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,519 \r\n\r\n\r\n116 \r\n\r\n\r\nVALDOSTA  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT  TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\n\r\n2,075,055 \r\n\r\n339,278 \r\n\r\n50.918 \r\n\r\n2,465,251 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,297,200 \r\n\r\n345,000 \r\n\r\n49,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,691,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,233,000 \r\n\r\n350,000 \r\n\r\n48.000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,631,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL  APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS  \u0026  GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT  COST  RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES  OF  EDUCATIONAL  DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER  SOURCES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n23,830 \r\n15,766 \r\n28,346 \r\n19.9S6 \r\n\r\n10,000 \r\n\r\n12,300 \r\n\r\n12,000 \r\n\r\n6,500 \r\n\r\n3,900 \r\n13,500 \r\n14,000 \r\n\r\n7r600 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n2.553.. 149 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2, \r\n\r\n,732,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2, \r\n\r\n,670,000 \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n31,576 \r\n47,655 \r\n\r\n\r\n79,231 \r\n\r\n\r\n5      25,000 \r\n\r\n17,500 \r\n\r\n$       42,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n25,000 \r\n18,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n43,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS    \u0026   CONTRACTS \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  \u0026  LOCAL \r\nGRANTS  \u0026  CONTRACTS \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\n\r\nNON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n415,098 \r\n\r\n121,093 \r\n\r\n25,111 \r\n\r\n\r\n561,302 \r\n\r\n\r\n560,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n560,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n396,600 \r\n\r\n141,131 \r\n\r\n22,269 \r\n\r\n\r\n560,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$    3,193,682 \r\n4,465,475 \r\n\r\n$    7,659,157 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,334,500 \r\n4,676,500 \r\n\r\n8,011,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,273,000 \r\n5,341,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n8,614,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n88 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nWEST  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL \r\nSERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED \r\nOPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL \r\nBUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nPERSONAL  SERVICES \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n8,457,677 \r\n1.860.723 \r\n\r\n1Q.316.4QQ \r\n\r\n\r\n374,350 \r\n4B5.R50. \r\n\r\n\r\nafjfi.znn \r\n\r\n\r\n8,832,027 \r\n2,-Ufi, 57? \r\n\r\nn ,i7Rffinn \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n2,540,000 \r\n7,778,400 \r\n\r\n10,318,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n860, 200 \r\n\r\n\r\n860,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,400,200 \r\n7,778,400 \r\n\r\n11,178,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n89 \r\n\r\n\r\nWEST  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  PERSONAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nE.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.27 \r\n\r\n\r\n6.27 \r\n\r\n\r\n34.76 \r\n\r\n\r\n113.34 \r\n\r\n\r\n6.00 \r\n\r\n5.00 \r\n\r\n20.06 \r\n\r\n45.16 \r\n\r\n.54 \r\n\r\n\r\n76.76 \r\n\r\n\r\n531.63 \r\n\r\n\r\n531 \r\n\r\n63 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n27. \r\n\r\n93 \r\n\r\n559. \r\n\r\n56 \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n7.17 \r\n\r\n9.00 \r\n\r\n7.17 \r\n\r\n7.64 \r\n\r\n5.25 \r\n\r\n4.25 \r\n\r\n227.60 \r\n\r\n234.02 \r\n\r\n233.74 \r\n\r\n1.90 \r\n\r\n5.25 \r\n\r\n2.36 \r\n\r\n6.16 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n8.00 \r\n\r\n42.49 \r\n\r\n48.83 \r\n\r\n49.75 \r\n\r\n7.54 \r\n\r\n8.65 \r\n\r\n7.75 \r\n\r\n300.50 \r\n\r\n315.00 \r\n\r\n313.02 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n1.00 \r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\n2.50 \r\n\r\n.50 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n.25 \r\n\r\n1.65 \r\n\r\n\r\n5.15 \r\n\r\n\r\n36.31 \r\n\r\n\r\n117.08 \r\n\r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\n5.00 \r\n\r\n22.63 \r\n\r\n47.80 \r\n\r\n2.85 \r\n\r\n\r\n85.28 \r\n\r\n\r\n558.82 \r\n\r\n\r\n558. \r\n\r\n82 \r\n\r\n25. \r\n\r\n95 \r\n\r\n584. \r\n\r\n77 \r\n\r\n1.65 \r\n\r\n\r\n5.40 \r\n\r\n\r\n13.00 \r\n\r\n11.00 \r\n\r\n11.00 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n7.00 \r\n\r\n3.00 \r\n\r\n12.37 \r\n\r\n12.00 \r\n\r\n16.93 \r\n\r\n5.39 \r\n\r\n6.31 \r\n\r\n5.47 \r\n\r\n36.40 \r\n\r\n\r\n115.94 \r\n\r\n\r\n8.00 \r\n\r\n4.00 \r\n\r\n22.95 \r\n\r\n51.69 \r\n\r\n2.33 \r\n\r\n\r\n88.97 \r\n\r\n\r\n559.73 \r\n\r\n\r\n559 \r\n\r\n73 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n25 \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n584 \r\n\r\n73 \r\n\r\nPOSITION  TITLE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTR.,  RSCH.  \u0026  RELATED \r\nACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACAD.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nREGULAR  FACULTY \r\nPART-TIME  FACULTY \r\nGRADUATE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nLIBRARIANS \r\n\r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  S  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-STUDENTS \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nOPER.  \u0026  MAINT.  OF  PHYSICAL \r\nPLANT \r\n\r\nLABOR  AND  OTHER \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERV.,  GENERAL \r\n\r\nADMIN.  \u0026  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nGEN.  ADM.  OFFICERS \r\nSTUDENT  PERSONNEL  OFFICERS \r\nADMINISTRATIVE  ASSISTANTS \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH-REGULAR \r\nCLERICAL  \u0026  TECH- STUDENTS \r\nF.I.C.A.,  GR.  INS.  \u0026  RETIREMENT \r\nSUB- TOTAL \r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nFUNCTION  TOTALS \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nPERSONAL  SERV.  LAPSE  EST. \r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n192,770 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n228,427 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n210,994 \r\n\r\n124,930 \r\n\r\n84,540 \r\n\r\n77,195 \r\n\r\n4,273,037 \r\n\r\n4,436,932 \r\n\r\n4,801,985 \r\n\r\n28,436 \r\n\r\n52,033 \r\n\r\n48,026 \r\n\r\n51,771 \r\n\r\n33,600 \r\n\r\n67,200 \r\n\r\n268,232 \r\n\r\n331,492 \r\n\r\n374,627 \r\n\r\n31,395 \r\n\r\n36.011 \r\n\r\n34,877 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,970,571 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n5,203,035 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,614,904 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n21,625 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n21,798 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n23,869 \r\n\r\n46,483 \r\n\r\n45,960 \r\n\r\n49,742 \r\n\r\n9,201 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n4,500 \r\n\r\n14,359 \r\n\r\n\r\n11,156 \r\n\r\n\r\n12,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n91,668 \r\n\r\n\r\n78.914   $     90,911 \r\n\r\n\r\n167,705 \r\n29,710 \r\n80,312 \r\n22,434 \r\n\r\n\r\n140,057 \r\n65,436 \r\n82,866 \r\n\r\n26.500 \r\n\r\n\r\n152,000 \r\n\r\n41,560 \r\n\r\n125,450 \r\n\r\n\r\n300,161 \r\n\r\n\r\n314,859 \r\n\r\n\r\n343,627 \r\n\r\n\r\n752,298 \r\n\r\n\r\n763.077 \r\n\r\n\r\n838,621 \r\n\r\n\r\n164,714 \r\n75,688 \r\n276,796 \r\n284,595 \r\n2,257 \r\n521,573 \r\n\r\n\r\n170,610 \r\n76,838 \r\n\r\n309,364 \r\n\r\n302,434 \r\n11,946 \r\n\r\n592,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n210,499 \r\n68,996 \r\n\r\n344,725 \r\n\r\n363,219 \r\n10,477 \r\n\r\n629,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  1,325,623   $  1,463.192   $  1,626,916 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  7,440,321 \r\n14,298 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  7,823,077   $  8,514,979 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,454,619 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n385,955 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,840,574 \r\n\r\n(60,000) \r\n\r\n\r\n(57,302; \r\n\r\n\r\n$  7,763.077  $  8,457,677 \r\n\r\n$  $ \r\n\r\n$  361.284  $  374,350 \r\n\r\n$  8,124,361  $  8,832,027 \r\n\r\n\r\n90 \r\n\r\n\r\nWEST  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\nSCHEDULE  OF  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nFY  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\nTRAVEL \r\n\r\n611   TRAVEL \r\n\r\n\r\nOPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n612  MOTOR  VEHICLE \r\n\r\n614  SUPPLIES  \u0026  MATERIALS \r\n\r\n615  REPAIRS  \u0026  MAINTENANCE \r\n\r\n616  COMMUNICATION \r\n\r\n617  POWER,  WATER,  AND  NATURAL  GAS \r\n\r\n618  PUBLICATIONS,  PUBLICITY,  \u0026  PRINTING \r\n\r\n619  RENTALS \r\n\r\n620  INSURANCE  \u0026  BONDING \r\n623  TUITION  \u0026  SCHOLARSHIPS \r\n627  OTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n630  PER  DIEM  AND  FEES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  SUPPLIES  AND  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\nEQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n613   MOTOR  VEHICLE  EQUIPMENT \r\n626   EQUIPMENT \r\n626   BOOKS \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EQUIPMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n47,132 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n25,292 \r\n\r\n301,933 \r\n\r\n88,275 \r\n\r\n92,913 \r\n\r\n428,187 \r\n\r\n28,262 \r\n\r\n131,122 \r\n\r\n16,996 \r\n\r\n38,290 \r\n\r\n51,513 \r\n\r\n44,971 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,247,744 \r\n\r\n33,766 \r\n\r\n59,137 \r\n\r\n150,014 \r\n\r\n\r\n242,917 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nFY \r\n\r\n197/ \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nFY \r\n\r\n197E \r\n\r\n; \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n83 \r\n\r\n,259 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n95 \r\n\r\n,040 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n24, \r\n\r\n,600 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n28, \r\n\r\n,775 \r\n\r\n349, \r\n\r\n,637 \r\n\r\n360, \r\n\r\n,127 \r\n\r\n74, \r\n\r\n,667 \r\n\r\n90, \r\n\r\n,405 \r\n\r\n104, \r\n\r\n,722 \r\n\r\n116, \r\n\r\n056 \r\n\r\n414, \r\n\r\n,387 \r\n\r\n442, \r\n\r\n750 \r\n\r\n33, \r\n\r\n,380 \r\n\r\n38, \r\n\r\n640 \r\n\r\n148, \r\n\r\n,002 \r\n\r\n134, \r\n\r\n693 \r\n\r\n18, \r\n\r\n640 \r\n\r\n20, \r\n\r\n608 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n42, \r\n\r\n,673 \r\n\r\n47, \r\n\r\n850 \r\n\r\n28, \r\n\r\n570 \r\n\r\n56, \r\n\r\n850 \r\n\r\n19, \r\n\r\n473 \r\n\r\n4, \r\n\r\n250 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,258, \r\n\r\n751 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,341, \r\n\r\n004 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4, \r\n\r\n500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4, \r\n\r\n600 \r\n\r\n130, \r\n\r\n413 \r\n\r\n139, \r\n\r\n042 \r\n\r\n239, \r\n374, \r\n\r\n800 \r\n713 \r\n\r\n223, \r\n\r\n735 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n367, \r\n\r\n377 \r\n\r\nOTHER \r\n\r\n000   UNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n000   PERSONAL  SERVICES  LAPSE  ESTIMATE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OTHER \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nSPONSORED  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,537,793 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n19,409 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n590,869 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,148,071 \r\n\r\n60,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n60,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,776,723 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n498,916 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n2,275,639 \r\n\r\n57,302 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n57,302 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,860,723 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n485.850 \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n2,346,573 \r\n\r\n91 \r\n\r\n\r\nWEST  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSCHEDULE  OF  REVENUE \r\nFISCAL  YEAR  1978 \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\nREVENUE \r\n1975  -  76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETEO \r\nREVENUE \r\n1976  -  77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\nREVENUE \r\n1977  -  78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nGENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nSTUDENT   FEES \r\nMATRICULATION \r\nNON-RESIDENT   TUITION \r\nOTHER \r\n\r\nTOTAL  STUDENT   FEES \r\n\r\n\r\n2,260,858 \r\n\r\n153,492 \r\n\r\n37,640 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,451,990 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,324,000 \r\n\r\n154,000 \r\n\r\n35,000 \r\n\r\n2,513,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,298,000 \r\n\r\n144,000 \r\n\r\n35,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,477,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nGOVERNMENTAL   APPROPRIATIONS \r\n\r\nENDOWMENTS \r\n\r\nGIFTS    S.   GRANTS \r\n\r\nINDIRECT   COST    RECOVERIES \r\n\r\nSALES    \u0026   SERVICES   OF    EDUCATIONAL   DEPTS . \r\n\r\nOTHER  SOURCES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  GENERAL  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n54,813 \r\n10,998 \r\n20,386 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,538,187 \r\n\r\n\r\n35,000 \r\n\r\n21,000 \r\n\r\n1,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,570,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n40,000 \r\n\r\n8,500 \r\n\r\n14,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,540,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nDEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\nGOVERNMENTAL  SUPPORT \r\nSALES  \u0026  SERVICES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  DEPARTMENTAL  SERVICES \r\n\r\n\r\n19 , 409 \r\n\r\n\r\n19,409 \r\n\r\n\r\nSPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\nGRANTS    S    CONTRACTS    -   GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nFEDERAL \r\n\r\nSTATE    \u0026    LOCAL \r\nGRANTS    \u0026   CONTRACTS    -    NON-GOVERNMENTAL \r\n\r\nTOTAL  SPONSORED  OPERATIONS \r\n\r\n\r\n698,620 \r\n171,213 \r\n106,991 \r\n\r\n\r\n976,824 \r\n\r\n\r\n421,500 \r\n\r\n344,000 \r\n\r\n94,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n860,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n615,215 \r\n\r\n150,793 \r\n\r\n94,192 \r\n\r\n\r\n860,200 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAL  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$         3,534,420 \r\n6,454,225 \r\n\r\n$        9,988,645 \r\n\r\n\r\n$         3,430,200 \r\n6,969,800 \r\n\r\n$      10,400,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n$         3,400,200 \r\n7,778,400 \r\n\r\n$      11,178,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n92 \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE   I-B-7 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY   SYSTEM  OF   GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF   SENIOR  COLLEGE \r\nOPERATING  BUDGETS \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n93 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  S.   PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\noperation  \u0026  maintenance  of  physical  plant \r\nstudent  services,  general  administration \r\nand  general  institutional \r\n\r\nsub-total \r\n\r\niinassk;ni;i)  hai.anck \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n$   37,352,210 \r\n\r\n677,009 \r\n\r\n50,200 \r\n\r\n528,447 \r\n\r\n4,189,111 \r\n\r\n11,028,687 \r\n\r\n13,727,732 \r\n\r\n$   67,553,396 \r\n206, 681 \r\n\r\n$   67,760,077 \r\n\r\n\r\n40,291,079 \r\n\r\n754,586 \r\n\r\n59,092 \r\n\r\n572,128 \r\n\r\n4,551,199 \r\n\r\n10,859,398 \r\n\r\n\r\n14,726,171 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n71,813,653 \r\n78,047 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n71,891,700 \r\n\r\n43,554,728 \r\n\r\n840,838 \r\n\r\n52,415 \r\n\r\n614,936 \r\n\r\n4,802,720 \r\n\r\n12,063,654 \r\n\r\n\r\n15,841,372 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n77,770,663 \r\n84,1  17 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n77,854,800 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$  20,403,737 \r\n985,310 \r\n\r\n$  21,389,047 \r\n46,371,030 \r\n\r\n$  67,760,077 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   22,269,952 \r\n508,048 \r\n\r\n$   22,778,000 \r\n49,113,700 \r\n\r\n$        71,891,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n$        21,152,021 \r\n762,979 \r\n\r\n$        21,915,000 \r\n55,939,800 \r\n\r\n$         77,854,800 \r\n\r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T. \r\n\r\n\r\n4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n16,389 \r\n9,149 \r\n3,806 \r\n\r\n29,344 \r\n\r\n16,850 \r\n9,344 \r\n3,780 \r\n\r\n29,974 \r\n\r\n16,112 \r\n8,980 \r\n3,482 \r\n\r\n28,574 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n2,309 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,398 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,725 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n695 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n743 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n740 \r\n\r\n34 \r\n\r\n17 \r\n\r\n27 \r\n\r\n1,580 \r\n\r\n1,638 \r\n\r\n1,958 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,309 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,398 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,725 \r\n\r\n94 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY   SYS1I.M  01    GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF   EXPENDITURES \r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL  BUDGETED  BUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76  1976-77  1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,   RESEARCH   \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSE.1; \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  A  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY    PERSONNEL    -    K.I-'.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-    AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR   REPLACEMENT   FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\nOTHER   OPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GTNFRAl  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGI.NLUAL  INSTIIUriONAI \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS  251. 6  270.7  207.2 \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT  3,951,997  4,2  31,752  4,585,059 \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS              506.8              524.1  528.9 \r\n\r\nAMOUNT  3,230,887  3,358,164  3,784,845 \r\n\r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS  4,075,835  4,663,513  4,956,971 \r\n\r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES  2,469,013  2,472,742  2,51^,497 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET  $  67,553,396    $   71,813,653    $   77,770,663 \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE  206,681     78,047 84,137 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  $   67,760,077     $    71,891,700     $    77,854,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,842.5 \r\n\r\n1,944.4 \r\n\r\n1,937.5 \r\n\r\n3,129,458 \r\n\r\nS        35 \r\n\r\n,536,687 \r\n\r\n$        38 \r\n\r\n,561,090 \r\n\r\n374.4 \r\n\r\n405.1 \r\n\r\n413.9 \r\n\r\n2,150,639 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,369,243 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,663,281 \r\n\r\n2,799,322 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n,198,827 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n,223,610 \r\n\r\n18.8 \r\n\r\n22.4 \r\n\r\n21.8 \r\n\r\n274,262 \r\n\r\n313,311 \r\n\r\n351,456 \r\n\r\n17.2 \r\n\r\n20.3 \r\n\r\n20.  ! \r\n\r\n119,540 \r\n\r\n147,  38f\u003e \r\n\r\ni'iyf«iWi \r\n\r\n134,645 \r\n\r\n111,431 \r\n\r\n10l,V\u003e4 \r\n\r\n111.9 \r\n\r\n108.8 \r\n\r\n105.0 \r\n\r\n1,360,521 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,377,606 \r\n\r\n1, \r\n\r\n,470,521 \r\n\r\n144.4 \r\n\r\n167.8 \r\n\r\n170.7 \r\n\r\n815,120 \r\n\r\n965,854 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,086,035 \r\n\r\n1,569,250 \r\n\r\n1, \r\n\r\n,648,398 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n,681,365 \r\n\r\n444,220 \r\n\r\n559,341 \r\n\r\n564,799 \r\n\r\n47.8 \r\n\r\n44.4 \r\n\r\n45.5 \r\n\r\n537,032 \r\n\r\n530,872 \r\n\r\n602,870 \r\n\r\n819.2 \r\n\r\n898.1 \r\n\r\n893.9 \r\n\r\n4,770,575 \r\n\r\n5, \r\n\r\n,282,903 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n,825,153 \r\n\r\n814,470 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n3,209,964 \r\n\r\n3, \r\n\r\n,355,490 \r\n\r\n3, \r\n\r\n,772,300 \r\n\r\n1,696,646 \r\n\r\n1. \r\n\r\n,690,133 \r\n\r\n1, \r\n\r\n,863,331 \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS  2,224.8  2,346.3  2,331.5 \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT  $   38,716,238  $    41,459,356  $    44,968,126 \r\n\r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS  1,909.8  2,059.8  2,073.2 \r\n\r\nAMOUNT  11,623,793  12,654,422  14,121,870 \r\n\r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS  4,075,835  4,663,513  4,956,971 \r\n\r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES  13,137,530  13,036,362  13,723,696 \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE  206,681     78,047     84,137 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY  $  67,760,077  $   71,891,700  $   77,854,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n95 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nALBANY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nUUDGLTCl) \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  C.KNKRAI.  I  NSTTTUTIONA1. \r\n\r\nSUII-TOTAl, \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n5  2,087,564 \r\n\r\n51,132 \r\n\r\n\r\n241,821 \r\n860,840 \r\n\r\n\r\n84*544 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,425,901 \r\n22.914 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,448,835 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  2,199,300  $  2,459,738 \r\n\r\n41,965  46,248 \r\n\r\n\r\n211,130 \r\n801,000 \r\n\r\n1,180,005 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,433,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,433,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n226,130 \r\n872,753 \r\n\r\n1.24H. 531 \r\n\r\n4,853,400 \r\n\r\n4.853. 4QQ \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,139,689 \r\n62.756 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,202,445 \r\n3,246,390 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,448,835 \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n1,110,000 \r\n23,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,133,000 \r\n3,300,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,433,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,111,500 \r\n\r\n30.500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,142,000 \r\n3,711,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,853,400 \r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T. \r\n\r\n\r\n4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n1,118 \r\n453 \r\n\r\n1,169 \r\n489 \r\n\r\n976 \r\n681 \r\n\r\n1,571 \r\n\r\nl.f.58 \r\n\r\n1,657 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,832 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,674 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n2,929 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n725 \r\n\r\n40 \r\n\r\n2,067 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n669 \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n1,992 \r\n\r\n2,674 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n671 \r\n\r\n18 \r\n\r\n2,240 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,832 \r\n\r\n2,929 \r\n\r\n96 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nALBANY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUOGETEO \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-    AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR   REPLACEMENT   FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER   OPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n\r\n108.3 \r\n\r\n111.1 \r\n\r\n113.2 \r\n\r\n1,907,155 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,016,076 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,262,231 \r\n\r\n24.2 \r\n\r\n22.1 \r\n\r\n22.  G \r\n\r\n156,895 \r\n\r\n150,496 \r\n\r\n169,760 \r\n\r\n74,646 \r\n\r\n74,693 \r\n\r\n73,  WJ \r\n\r\n7.0 \r\n\r\n7.0 \r\n\r\n8.0 \r\n\r\n87,409 \r\n\r\n88,516 \r\n\r\n105, ')70 \r\n\r\n3.2 \r\n\r\n3.0 \r\n\r\n3.0 \r\n\r\n19,317 \r\n\r\n18,709 \r\n\r\n20,485 \r\n\r\n117,545 \r\n\r\n49,905 \r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n17,550 \r\n\r\n54,000 \r\n\r\n29,675 \r\n\r\n4.0 \r\n\r\n4.8 \r\n\r\n3.8 \r\n\r\n48,379 \r\n\r\n55,120 \r\n\r\n51,575 \r\n\r\n65.1 \r\n\r\n64.8 \r\n\r\n63.1 \r\n\r\n380,695 \r\n\r\n392,334 \r\n\r\n437, 22(. \r\n\r\n117,590 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n237,723 \r\n\r\n254,400 \r\n\r\n259,920 \r\n\r\n76,453 \r\n\r\n99,146 \r\n\r\n124,032 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n34.6 \r\n\r\n34.7 \r\n\r\n33.4 \r\n\r\n454,142 \r\n\r\n472,405 \r\n\r\n499,370 \r\n\r\n30.7 \r\n\r\n29.0 \r\n\r\n28.9 \r\n\r\n195,260 \r\n\r\n184,750 \r\n\r\n217,704 \r\n\r\n268,769 \r\n\r\n300,300 \r\n\r\n322,300 \r\n\r\n266,373 \r\n\r\n222,550 \r\n\r\n209,157 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,425,901 \r\n\r\n22,934 \r\n\r\n4,448,835 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,433,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,853,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n.433.400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,853.400 \r\n\r\n149.9 \r\n\r\n152.8 \r\n\r\n154.6 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,448,706 \r\n\r\n127.2 \r\n\r\n800,546 \r\n\r\n268,769 \r\n\r\n907,880 \r\n\r\n22,934 \r\n\r\n4^448,835 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,576,997 \r\n\r\n123.7 \r\n\r\n801,409 \r\n\r\n300,300 \r\n\r\n754,694 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,867,571 \r\n\r\n121.4 \r\n\r\n896,756 \r\n\r\n322,300 \r\n\r\n766,773 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n.433.400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,853,400 \r\n\r\n97 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  0^  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nARMSTRONG  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES    RELATED   TO    INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION    S.    PUBLIC    SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION    (.    MAINTENANCE    Of--    PHYSICAL    PLANT \r\n.STUDENT    SERVICES,    GENERAL    ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL    INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED    BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n2,483,995 \r\n\r\n\r\n40,058 \r\n335,269 \r\n571,515 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n707,874 \r\n\r\n4,228,711 \r\n123 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n4,228,834 \r\n\r\n2,740,352 \r\n\r\n\r\n38,000 \r\n276,644 \r\n597,000 \r\n\r\n883,904 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,535,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,963,302 \r\n\r\n\r\n37,000 \r\n255,144 \r\n684,488 \r\n\r\n91b, 966 \r\n\r\n4,850,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,535,900    S    4,856,900 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER    INTERNAL   REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$        1,480,461 \r\n61,673 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,599,700 \r\n44,300 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,430,795 \r\n49,205 \r\n\r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$   1,542,134 \r\n2,686,700 \r\n\r\n$   4,228,834 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,644,000 \r\n2,891,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,535,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,480,000 \r\n3,376,900 \r\n\r\n4,856,900 \r\n\r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T.  -  4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n1,498 \r\n\r\n493 \r\n\r\n95 \r\n\r\n2,086 \r\n\r\n1,534 \r\n494 \r\n114 \r\n\r\n1,4R3 \r\n\r\n348 \r\n\r\n78 \r\n\r\n2L142 \r\n\r\n1,909 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,027 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2^118 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,544 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n710 \r\n\r\n29 \r\n\r\n1,288 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,027 \r\n\r\n\r\n747 \r\n\r\n21 \r\n\r\n1.350 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,118 \r\n\r\n\r\n749 \r\n\r\n26 \r\n\r\n1,769 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,544 \r\n\r\n\r\n98 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\nARMSTRONG  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  A  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nF  ACUITY   -  K.K.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.K.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  K.K.T.  I'O.STTLONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n122.7 \r\n\r\n133.9 \r\n\r\n133.7 \r\n\r\n$    2,190,712 \r\n\r\nS     2,470,888 \r\n\r\n$     2,684,071 \r\n\r\n20.3 \r\n\r\n25.3 \r\n\r\n24.7 \r\n\r\n115,473 \r\n\r\n141,853 \r\n\r\n145,020 \r\n\r\n177,810 \r\n\r\n127,611 \r\n\r\n133,611 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n1.2 \r\n\r\n1.7 \r\n\r\n15,918 \r\n\r\n16,020 \r\n\r\n30,700 \r\n\r\n.8 \r\n\r\n.9 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n4,682 \r\n\r\n4,880 \r\n\r\n6,300 \r\n\r\n19,458 \r\n\r\n17,100 \r\n\r\n~ \r\n\r\n4.2 \r\n\r\n6.0 \r\n\r\n5.2 \r\n\r\n56,393 \r\n\r\n83,634 \r\n\r\n82,500 \r\n\r\n10.5 \r\n\r\n11.6 \r\n\r\n11.3 \r\n\r\n61,510 \r\n\r\n71,010 \r\n\r\n76,144 \r\n\r\n164,667 \r\n\r\n100,000 \r\n\r\n70,000 \r\n\r\n52,699 \r\n\r\n22,000 \r\n\r\n26,500 \r\n\r\n1.9 \r\n\r\n1.9 \r\n\r\n1.9 \r\n\r\n22,682 \r\n\r\n22,892 \r\n\r\n24,912 \r\n\r\n43.1 \r\n\r\n48.3 \r\n\r\n45.5 \r\n\r\n232,048 \r\n\r\n268,055 \r\n\r\n270,954 \r\n\r\n9,800 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n199,371 \r\n\r\n220,000 \r\n\r\n302,622 \r\n\r\n107,614 \r\n\r\n86,053 \r\n\r\n86,000 \r\n\r\n15.3 \r\n\r\n17.6 \r\n\r\n10.0 \r\n\r\n237,311 \r\n\r\n270,150 \r\n\r\n276,865 \r\n\r\n27.7 \r\n\r\n28.6 \r\n\r\n28.0 \r\n\r\n169,808 \r\n\r\n176,434 \r\n\r\n186,329 \r\n\r\n241,423 \r\n\r\n274,000 \r\n\r\n292,903 \r\n\r\n149.332 \r\n4,228,711 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n163.320 \r\n,535,900 \r\n\r\n160.869 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,856,900 \r\n\r\n123 \r\n4.228.834 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,535,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,856,900 \r\n\r\n143.2 \r\n\r\n158.7 \r\n\r\n156.6 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,500,334 \r\n\r\n104.3 \r\n\r\n606,203 \r\n\r\n241,423 \r\n\r\n880,751 \r\n\r\n123 \r\n\r\n4,228,834 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,840,692 \r\n\r\n116.6 \r\n\r\n685,124 \r\n\r\n274,000 \r\n\r\n736,084 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n,074,736 \r\n\r\n112.4 \r\n\r\n709,659 \r\n\r\n292,903 \r\n\r\n779,602 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,535,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n^856^900 \r\n\r\n99 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\n\r\nAUGUSTA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE  ( \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n2,057,002 \r\n21,913 \r\n\r\n30,775 \r\n305,305 \r\n801,388 \r\n\r\n1,038,577 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,854,960 \r\n(15,589) \r\n\r\n\r\n3,064,167 \r\n25,833 \r\n\r\n30,000 \r\n366,000 \r\n779,998 \r\n\r\n1,066,202 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,332,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,839,371 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,332,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,207,'jOO \r\n24,500 \r\n\r\n33,000 \r\n364 , 000 \r\n904,997 \r\n\r\n1,134,203 \r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  VV.V.S \r\n\r\nOTIIKK    INTERNAL    KEVKNUK \r\n\r\n\r\n1,887,460 \r\n140,171 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,236,000 \r\n75,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,930,000 \r\n75,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nSUU-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE   APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n2,027,631 \r\n2,811,740 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,839,371 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,311,000 \r\n3,021,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,332,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,005,000 \r\n3,663,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T.  -  4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n1,701 \r\n584 \r\n155 \r\n\r\n1,763 \r\n643 \r\n\r\n156 \r\n\r\n1,678 \r\n576 \r\n\r\n137 \r\n\r\n2,440 \r\n\r\n2,562 \r\n\r\n2,391 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,983 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,081 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,370 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n774 \r\n\r\n57 \r\n\r\n1,152 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n873 \r\n\r\n29 \r\n\r\n1,179 \r\n\r\n2,081 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n$ \r\n\r\n807 \r\n\r\n31 \r\n\r\n1,532 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,983 \r\n\r\n2,370 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nAUGUSTA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  ft  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  A  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPIACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nIITIIEK  OPENATINC  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nMIIDINI    SLKVIUS,   (.INIRAI    ADMINI  SfUAT  ION   f. \r\nGENLHAL    INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n133.2 \r\n\r\n146.0 \r\n\r\n136.0 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n2,302,475 \r\n\r\nS     2,610,933 \r\n\r\n$    2,713,750 \r\n\r\n36.6 \r\n\r\n41.1 \r\n\r\n42.3 \r\n\r\n203,871 \r\n\r\n231,917 \r\n\r\n270,100 \r\n\r\n172,569 \r\n\r\n247,150 \r\n\r\n248,150 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n4.8 \r\n\r\n5.  J \r\n\r\n30,775 \r\n\r\n30,000 \r\n\r\n33,000 \r\n\r\n6.0 \r\n91,668 \r\n16.3 \r\n91,487 \r\n83,639 \r\n38,511 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.9 \r\n26,294 \r\n59.5 \r\n327,103 \r\n118,950 \r\n170,52'J \r\nJ'.M,512 \r\n\r\n\r\n16.9 \r\n286,784 \r\n\r\n44.9 \r\n271,816 \r\n258,709 \r\n221,268 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   4,854,960 \r\n(15,589) \r\n$   4,839,371 \r\n\r\n\r\n7.0 \r\n\r\n7.0 \r\n\r\n104,250 \r\n\r\n115,250 \r\n\r\n19.0 \r\n\r\n19.1 \r\n\r\n106,325 \r\n\r\n115,312 \r\n\r\n111,000 \r\n\r\n89,000 \r\n\r\n44,425 \r\n\r\n44,438 \r\n\r\n1.9 \r\n\r\n1.9 \r\n\r\n26,578 \r\n\r\n30,555 \r\n\r\n66.1 \r\n\r\n66.2 \r\n\r\n369,221 \r\n\r\n409,784 \r\n\r\n201 , 586 \r\n\r\n246,666 \r\n\r\n]H2,6I3 \r\n\r\n21/,')').! \r\n\r\n17.0 \r\n287,650 \r\n\r\n46.8 \r\n291,853 \r\n329,000 \r\n157,699 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,332,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n16.9 \r\n313,762 \r\n\r\n45.6 \r\n316,142 \r\n344,000 \r\n160,299 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,332,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n161.1 \r\n$   2,711,702 \r\n\r\n159.2 \r\n920,571 \r\n258,709 \r\n963,978 \r\n(15,589) \r\n\r\n$      4,839,371 \r\n\r\n\r\n174.8 \r\n\r\n3,032,833 \r\n\r\n174.9 \r\n\r\n1,025,894 \r\n\r\n329,000 \r\n\r\n944,473 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,332,209 \r\n\r\n\r\n165.2 \r\n3,175,762 \r\n\r\n175.1 \r\n\r\n1,141,893 \r\n\r\n344,000 \r\n\r\n1,006,545 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,668,200 \r\n\r\n\r\n101 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nSUMMARY  OF   EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\n\r\nCOLUMBUS  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES    RELATKD   TO    INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION    \u0026    PUBLIC    SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION    6    MAINTENANCE   OF    PHYSICAL    PLANT \r\nSTUDENT    SERVICES,    GENERAL   ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL    INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED    BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n4,143,388 \r\n\r\n\r\n89,016 \r\n\r\n445,146 \r\n\r\n1,000,373 \r\n\r\n1,126,732 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,804,655 \r\n3,729 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,468,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n113,000 \r\n\r\n462,000 \r\n\r\n1,097,000 \r\n\r\n1,347,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n7,487,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n6,808,384 \r\n\r\n\r\n7,487,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,830,632 \r\n\r\n\r\n122,000 \r\n\r\n470,000 \r\n\r\n1,209,016 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,439,452 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,071,100 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n8,071,100 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,634,084 \r\n56,190 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,943,250 \r\n31,750 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n2,680,750 \r\n48,250 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2,690,274 \r\n4,118,110 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,975,000 \r\n4,512,100 \r\n\r\n2,729,000 \r\n5,342,100 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n6,808, 384 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,487,100 \r\n\r\n8,071,100 \r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(K.K.T \r\n\r\n\r\n4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSKNIOK  DIVISION \r\nCKADIIATH  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n2,255 \r\n941 \r\n\r\n3,530 \r\n\r\n2,326 \r\n\r\n1,019 \r\n\r\n345 \r\n\r\n2,119 \r\n9  V\u003e \r\n\r\nJ51 \r\n\r\n3,690 \r\n\r\n3,405 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,929 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,029 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,370 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n746 \r\n\r\n16 \r\n\r\n1,167 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n$ \r\n\r\n798 \r\n\r\n9 \r\n\r\n1,222 \r\n\r\n2,029 \r\n\r\n$ \r\nS \r\n\r\n787 \r\n\r\n14 \r\n\r\n1,569 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n1,929 \r\n\r\n2,370 \r\n\r\n102 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nCOLUMBUS  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  K.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY    PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-    AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC   PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  K.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n197.5 \r\n\r\n209.5 \r\n\r\n209.7 \r\n\r\n5   3.506,790 \r\n\r\n$     3,813,176 \r\n\r\n$    4,128,752 \r\n\r\n50.5 \r\n\r\n52.5 \r\n\r\n52.1 \r\n\r\n283,380 \r\n\r\n305,100 \r\n\r\n338,590 \r\n\r\n353,218 \r\n\r\n349,824 \r\n\r\n363,290 \r\n\r\n1.1 \r\n\r\n2.3 \r\n\r\n2.4 \r\n\r\n18,591 \r\n\r\n36,745 \r\n\r\n44,287 \r\n\r\n4.1 \r\n\r\n5.3 \r\n\r\n4.9 \r\n\r\n32,730 \r\n\r\n40,910 \r\n\r\n40,305 \r\n\r\n37,695 \r\n\r\n35,345 \r\n\r\n37,408 \r\n\r\n7.7 \r\n\r\n8.0 \r\n\r\n8.0 \r\n\r\n105,272 \r\n\r\n108,835 \r\n\r\n107, 8R0 \r\n\r\n18.3 \r\n\r\n20.5 \r\n\r\n20.8 \r\n\r\n110,602 \r\n\r\n123,450 \r\n\r\n146,500 \r\n\r\n170,433 \r\n\r\n152,865 \r\n\r\n138,820 \r\n\r\n58,839 \r\n\r\n76,850 \r\n\r\n76,800 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n44,904 \r\n\r\n46,500 \r\n\r\n53,370 \r\n\r\n71.6 \r\n\r\n82.5 \r\n\r\n84.1 \r\n\r\n380,876 \r\n\r\n442,906 \r\n\r\n496,152 \r\n\r\n16,085 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n485,600 \r\n\r\n436,630 \r\n\r\n485,600 \r\n\r\n72,908 \r\n\r\n170,964 \r\n\r\n173,894 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n14.7 \r\n\r\n16.5 \r\n\r\n16.2 \r\n\r\n260,192 \r\n\r\n290,804 \r\n\r\n309,627 \r\n\r\n49.7 \r\n\r\n55.9 \r\n\r\n55.8 \r\n\r\n328,073 \r\n\r\n363,775 \r\n\r\n403,382 \r\n\r\n379,500 \r\n\r\n470,000 \r\n\r\n497,555 \r\n\r\n158,967 \r\n6,804,655 \r\n\r\n222,421 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n228,888 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,487,100 \r\n\r\n8,071,100 \r\n\r\n3,729 \r\n6,808,384 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,487,100 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,071,000 \r\n\r\n221.0 \r\n\r\n236.3 \r\n\r\n236.3 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,890,845 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,249,560 \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n4,590,540 \r\n\r\n199.2 \r\n\r\n221.7 \r\n\r\n222.7 \r\n\r\n1,180,565 \r\n\r\n1,322,641 \r\n\r\n1,478,299 \r\n\r\n379,500 \r\n\r\n470,000 \r\n\r\n497,555 \r\n\r\n1,353,745 \r\n\r\n1,444,899 \r\n\r\n1,504,700 \r\n\r\n3,729 \r\n6,808,384 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n7,487,100 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n8,071,100 \r\n\r\n103 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nFORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES   RELATED  TO   INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION   \u0026    PUBLIC   SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION    \u0026    MAINTENANCE    OF    PHYSICAL    PLANT \r\nSTUDENT    SERVICES,    GENERAL   ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL    INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED   BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   2,433,457 \r\n\r\n56,739 \r\n\r\n9,393 \r\n\r\n14,217 \r\n\r\n276,016 \r\n\r\n771,349 \r\n\r\n1,065,208 \r\n\r\n$   4,626,379 \r\n60,861 \r\n\r\n$   4,687,240 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,650,577 \r\n\r\n96,189 \r\n\r\n5,254 \r\n\r\n2,662 \r\n\r\n327,276 \r\n\r\n838,000 \r\n\r\n1,065,442 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,985,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,985,400 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,938,789 \r\n\r\n118,142 \r\n\r\n5,448 \r\n\r\n2,759 \r\n\r\n371,540 \r\n\r\n920,000 \r\n\r\n1,142,722 \r\n\r\n5,499,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,499,400 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n854,654 \r\n176,496 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   1,031,150 \r\n3,656,090 \r\n\r\n$  4,687,240 \r\n\r\n\r\n967,707 \r\n67,293 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,035,000 \r\n3,950,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,985,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n865,976 \r\n258,024 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,124,000 \r\n4,375,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,499,400 \r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(K.I'.T.  -  \u003c1  yUARTKKS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n866 \r\n485 \r\n111 \r\n\r\n1,462 \r\n\r\n878 \r\n521 \r\n130 \r\n\r\n866 \r\n484 \r\n111 \r\n\r\n1,529 \r\n\r\n1,461 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,206 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,261 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,764 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n584 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n633 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n592 \r\n\r\n121 \r\n\r\n44 \r\n\r\n177 \r\n\r\n2,501 \r\n\r\n2,584 \r\n\r\n2,995 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,206 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,261 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,764 \r\n\r\n104 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nFORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL,  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\n\r\nNON- ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY   PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-   AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n\r\n124.9 \r\n\r\n2,185,6B0 \r\n\r\n31.8 \r\n\r\n173,357 \r\n\r\n140,552 \r\n\r\n\r\n127.4 \r\n\r\n2,289,387 \r\n\r\n28.7 \r\n\r\n173,234 \r\n\r\n289,399 \r\n\r\n\r\n131.1 \r\n\r\n2,531,880 \r\n\r\n3H.U \r\n\r\n234,229 \r\n\r\n296,204 \r\n\r\n\r\n.5 \r\n\r\n.3 \r\n\r\n.3 \r\n\r\n2,420 \r\n\r\n1,368 \r\n\r\n1,\u003c24 \r\n\r\n11,797 \r\n\r\n1,294 \r\n\r\n1,335 \r\n\r\n18.3 \r\n\r\n7.0 \r\n\r\n7.0 \r\n\r\n174,126 \r\n\r\n89,743 \r\n\r\n102,230 \r\n\r\n3.2 \r\n\r\n12.2 \r\n\r\n12.5 \r\n\r\n11,003 \r\n\r\n79,226 \r\n\r\n84,200 \r\n\r\n83,465 \r\n\r\n145,457 \r\n\r\n171,640 \r\n\r\n7,422 \r\n\r\n12,850 \r\n\r\n13,470 \r\n\r\n1.3 \r\n\r\n1.3 \r\n\r\n1.4 \r\n\r\n24,685 \r\n\r\n23,944 \r\n\r\n27,392 \r\n\r\n65.5 \r\n\r\n72.1 \r\n\r\n75.9 \r\n\r\n363,254 \r\n\r\n424,906 \r\n\r\n483,555 \r\n\r\n12,000 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n317,417 \r\n\r\n294,400 \r\n\r\n309,120 \r\n\r\n53,993 \r\n\r\n94,750 \r\n\r\n99,933 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n20.2 \r\n\r\n19.5 \r\n\r\n21.0 \r\n\r\n331,006 \r\n\r\n320,177 \r\n\r\n369,297 \r\n\r\n39.0 \r\n\r\n37.7 \r\n\r\n37.5 \r\n\r\n261,521 \r\n\r\n251,222 \r\n\r\n269,304 \r\n\r\n325,928 \r\n\r\n312,213 \r\n\r\n333,213 \r\n\r\n146.753 \r\n4,626,379 \r\n\r\n181.830 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n170r9f)R \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,985,400 \r\n\r\n5,499,400 \r\n\r\n60.861 \r\n4.687.240 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,985,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,499,400 \r\n\r\n163.4 \r\n\r\n153.9 \r\n\r\n159.1 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,690,812 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,699,307 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,003,413 \r\n\r\n141.3 \r\n\r\n152.3 \r\n\r\n165.6 \r\n\r\n836,240 \r\n\r\n953,900 \r\n\r\n1,100,104 \r\n\r\n325,928 \r\n\r\n312,213 \r\n\r\n333,213 \r\n\r\n773,399 \r\n\r\n1,019,980 \r\n\r\n1,062,670 \r\n\r\n60.R61 \r\n4.68.7, 24fl \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,985,400 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\ns,  \u003cm,  arm \r\n\r\n105 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nGEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES   RELATED  TO   INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION   \u0026    PUBLIC   SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION    \u0026    MAINTENANCE   OF    PHYSICAL    PLANT \r\nSTUDENT    SERVICES,    GENERAL    ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL    INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED   BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\n2,779,135 \r\n\r\n36,206 \r\n\r\n3,004 \r\n\r\n9,64  3 \r\n\r\n295,264 \r\n\r\n857,213 \r\n\r\n?43,818 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,924,283 \r\n93.776 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,006,601 \r\n\r\n38,683 \r\n\r\n4,000 \r\n\r\n11,859 \r\n\r\n297,000 \r\n\r\n795,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,042,710 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,195,853 \r\n28,047 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,018,059 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,223,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,277,667 \r\n\r\n40,552 \r\n\r\n4,000 \r\n\r\n7,034 \r\n\r\n318,000 \r\n\r\n920,000 \r\n\r\n1.10?. 510 \r\n\r\n5,669,763 \r\n\r\n34.137 \r\n\r\n5,703,900 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER    INTERNAL    REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,721,054 \r\n50,405 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,967,500 \r\n21,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,907,500 \r\n32,500 \r\n\r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n1,771,459 \r\n3,246,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,018,059 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,989,000 \r\n3,234,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n5,223,900 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,940,000 \r\n3,763,900 \r\n\r\n5,703,900 \r\n\r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T.  -  4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n1,056 \r\n812 \r\n485 \r\n\r\n1,064 \r\n813 \r\n484 \r\n\r\n1,031 \r\n807 \r\n\r\n454 \r\n\r\n2,353 \r\n\r\n2,361 \r\n\r\n2,292 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,133 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,213 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,480 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n732 \r\n\r\n21 \r\n\r\n1,380 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n833 \r\n\r\n10 \r\n1,370 \r\n\r\n2,213 \r\n\r\n5 \r\nS \r\n\r\n832 \r\n\r\n14 \r\n\r\n1,642 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,133 \r\n\r\n2,468 \r\n\r\n106 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\nGEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMA.IOR  REP1«ACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMTC  PERSONNEL  -  K.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  K.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n\r\n137.5 \r\n\r\n2,379,799 \r\n\r\n23.0 \r\n\r\n160,804 \r\n\r\n277,742 \r\n\r\n\r\n146.4 \r\n\r\n2,623,955 \r\n\r\n24.6 \r\n\r\n169,807 \r\n\r\n255,522 \r\n\r\n\r\n147.9 \r\n\r\n2,870,955 \r\n\r\n24.9 \r\n\r\n182,742 \r\n\r\n268,522 \r\n\r\n\r\n.7 \r\n\r\n.8 \r\n\r\n.4 \r\n\r\n8,538 \r\n\r\n9,184 \r\n\r\n4,735 \r\n\r\n1,105 \r\n\r\n2,675 \r\n\r\n2,299 \r\n\r\n10.3 \r\n\r\n10.5 \r\n\r\n11.5 \r\n\r\n115,665 \r\n\r\n118,907 \r\n\r\n136,049 \r\n\r\n4.8 \r\n\r\n5.6 \r\n\r\n4.7 \r\n\r\n24,885 \r\n\r\n28,595 \r\n\r\n25,527 \r\n\r\n110,621 \r\n\r\n103,132 \r\n\r\n110,047 \r\n\r\n44,093 \r\n\r\n46,366 \r\n\r\n46,377 \r\n\r\n1.4 \r\n\r\n1.4 \r\n\r\n1.4 \r\n\r\n20,742 \r\n\r\n21,010 \r\n\r\n23,953 \r\n\r\n56.0 \r\n\r\n60.9 \r\n\r\n62.  H \r\n\r\n331,481 \r\n\r\n365,691 \r\n\r\n42H,H4!\u003e \r\n\r\n100,200 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n255,625 \r\n\r\n307,496 \r\n\r\n366,402 \r\n\r\n149,165 \r\n\r\n100,803 \r\n\r\n100,800 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n17.8 \r\n\r\n17.8 \r\n\r\n16.8 \r\n\r\n278,891 \r\n\r\n282,150 \r\n\r\n300,838 \r\n\r\n35.8 \r\n\r\n35.5 \r\n\r\n30.7 \r\n\r\n220,333 \r\n\r\n226,776 \r\n\r\n251,292 \r\n\r\n294,032 \r\n\r\n339,000 \r\n\r\n367,000 \r\n\r\n150,562 \r\n\r\n194,784 \r\n\r\n183,380 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n4,924,283 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n5,195,853 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,669,763 \r\n\r\n93,776 \r\n\r\n28,047 \r\n\r\n34,137 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,018,059 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,223,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,70  3,900 \r\n\r\n165.6 \r\n\r\n174.7 \r\n\r\n176.2 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,774,355 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,025,012 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,307,842 \r\n\r\n121.7 \r\n\r\n128.8 \r\n\r\n129.9 \r\n\r\n766,783 \r\n\r\n821,063 \r\n\r\n917,094 \r\n\r\n294,032 \r\n\r\n339,000 \r\n\r\n367,000 \r\n\r\n1,089,113 \r\n\r\n1,010,778 \r\n\r\n1,077,827 \r\n\r\n93,776 \r\n\r\n28,047 \r\n\r\n34,137 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,018,059 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,223,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5^703,900 \r\n\r\n107 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES    RELATED   TO    INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION    \u0026    PUBLIC   SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION    \u0026    MAINTENANCE   OF    PHYSICAL    PLANT \r\nSTUDENT    SERVICES,    GENERAL   ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND   GKNKRAI.    rNSTITUTlONAI. \r\n\r\nSUM-TOTAL \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n5,597,973 \r\n\r\n135,215 \r\n\r\n25,374 \r\n\r\n111,286 \r\n\r\n585,159 \r\n\r\n1,457,229 \r\n\r\n1,994,527 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,897,168 \r\n\r\n138,582 \r\n\r\n31,950 \r\n\r\n117,000 \r\n\r\n642,000 \r\n\r\n1,461,400 \r\n\r\n2,219,600 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n6,337,256 \r\n\r\n147,977 \r\n\r\n32,967 \r\n\r\n128,000 \r\n\r\n692,000 \r\n\r\n1,591,400 \r\n\r\n2.  302.100 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n9,906,763 \r\n29.768 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n10,507,700 \r\n\r\n11,321,700 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n9,936,531 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n10,507,700 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11.321.700 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n2,723,845 \r\n96.291 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,820,136 \r\n7,116,395 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n9,936^531 \r\n\r\n3,012,000 \r\n77,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,089,000 \r\n7,418,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n10,507,700 \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,941,500 \r\n68.500 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,010,000 \r\n8,311,700 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11,321,700 \r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T.  -  4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n2,048 \r\n\r\n1,500 \r\n\r\n578 \r\n\r\n2,070 \r\n\r\n1,525 \r\n\r\n560 \r\n\r\n2,202 \r\n\r\n1,440 \r\n\r\n576 \r\n\r\n1,126 \r\n\r\n4,155 \r\n\r\n4,218 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2t408 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,529 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,684 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n660 \r\n23 \r\n\r\n1.725 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,408 \r\n\r\n\r\n725 \r\n\r\n19 \r\n\r\n1,785 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,529 \r\n\r\n\r\n697 \r\n\r\n16 \r\n\r\n1,971 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,684 \r\n\r\n\r\n108 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  I'KRSONNKJ.  -  K.r.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n285.4 \r\n\r\n290.1 \r\n\r\n290.3 \r\n\r\n$   5,150,105 \r\n\r\n$     5,321,000 \r\n\r\n$    5,796,500 \r\n\r\n44.6 \r\n\r\n53.0 \r\n\r\n51.5 \r\n\r\n237,494 \r\n\r\n282,000 \r\n\r\n309,000 \r\n\r\n370,963 \r\n\r\n464,700 \r\n\r\n412,700 \r\n\r\n4.3 \r\n\r\n3.9 \r\n\r\n3.9 \r\n\r\n60,918 \r\n\r\n55,743 \r\n\r\n69,292 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n6.2 \r\n\r\n4.8 \r\n\r\n27,022 \r\n\r\n35,027 \r\n\r\n30,053 \r\n\r\n23,346 \r\n\r\n26,230 \r\n\r\n28,655 \r\n\r\nJ4.2 \r\n\r\n15.0 \r\n\r\nl'j.O \r\n\r\n175,260 \r\n\r\n185,170 \r\n\r\n204, J53 \r\n\r\n22.6 \r\n\r\n28.4 \r\n\r\n28.5 \r\n\r\n113,236 \r\n\r\n141,930 \r\n\r\n153,822 \r\n\r\n248,819 \r\n\r\n269,161 \r\n\r\n284,085 \r\n\r\n47,844 \r\n\r\n45,739 \r\n\r\n49,740 \r\n\r\n7.2 \r\n\r\n7.8 \r\n\r\n10.4 \r\n\r\n79,356 \r\n\r\n88,455 \r\n\r\n124,865 \r\n\r\n113.6 \r\n\r\n126.1 \r\n\r\n120.8 \r\n\r\n674,625 \r\n\r\n731,686 \r\n\r\n774,276 \r\n\r\n104,345 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n356,550 \r\n\r\n362,501 \r\n\r\n351,650 \r\n\r\n242,353 \r\n\r\n278,758 \r\n\r\n340,609 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n45.7 \r\n\r\n50.6 \r\n\r\n50.3 \r\n\r\n646,162 \r\n\r\n707,445 \r\n\r\n779,625 \r\n\r\n65.8 \r\n\r\n74.9 \r\n\r\n74.5 \r\n\r\n372,306 \r\n\r\n436,634 \r\n\r\n476,954 \r\n\r\n624,140 \r\n\r\n707,000 \r\n\r\n750,000 \r\n\r\n351,919 \r\n\r\n368,521 \r\n\r\n385.521 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n9,906,763 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n10,507,700 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11,321,700 \r\n\r\n29,768 \r\n9,936,531 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n10,507,700 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11. 321.700 \r\n\r\n349.6 \r\n\r\n359.6 \r\n\r\n359.5 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6,032,445 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6,269,358 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n6,849,770 \r\n\r\n258.8 \r\n\r\n296.4 \r\n\r\n290.5 \r\n\r\n1,504,039 \r\n\r\n1,715,732 \r\n\r\n1,868,970 \r\n\r\n624,140 \r\n\r\n707,000 \r\n\r\n750,000 \r\n\r\n1,746,139 \r\n\r\n1,815,610 \r\n\r\n1,852,960 \r\n\r\n29,768 \r\n9,936,531 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n10.507.700 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n11,321,700 \r\n\r\n109 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHWESTERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nRFVfNUr \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   2,335,556 \r\n\r\n\r\n22,566 \r\n278,501 \r\n678,608 \r\n\r\n864,682 \r\n\r\n$   4,179,913 \r\n817 \r\n\r\n$   4,180,730 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1977-70 \r\n\r\n\r\n$     2,526,000    $    2,668,224 \r\n\r\n\r\n24,000 \r\n299,000 \r\n686,000 \r\n\r\n932,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,467,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n26,000 \r\n311,228 \r\n748,000 \r\n\r\n999,348 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,752,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  4,467,800  $  4,752.800 \r\n\r\n\r\nSTIIDKNT  I'l'.i::; \r\n\r\n(rniliH    INTKKNAI.    KKVKNUU \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n1,072,4'J] \r\nJ0.924 \r\n\r\n1,103,415 \r\n3,077,315 \r\n\r\n4,180,730 \r\n\r\nl,H2,'joo \r\n\r\n1 3 , 500 \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\nl,()4t. \r\n\r\n,401) \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,146,000 \r\n3,321,800 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,060, \r\n3.692 \r\n\r\n4.752 \r\n\r\n,000 \r\n,800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,467,800 \r\n\r\n,800 \r\n\r\nENROLLMENT   (e.f.t.  -  4  quarters) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n792 \r\n513 \r\n365 \r\n\r\n1,670 \r\n\r\n912 \r\n473 \r\n331 \r\n\r\n852 \r\n435 \r\n265 \r\n\r\n1,716 \r\n\r\n1,552 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,503 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,604 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3,062 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n642 \r\n\r\n19 \r\n\r\n1,842 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n660 \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\n1,936 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n674 \r\n\r\n9 \r\n\r\n2,379 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,503 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,604 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3.062 \r\n\r\n110 \r\n\r\n\r\nIMIVIK'.IIY  '.YMIM  01  GUMMA \r\n\r\nANALYSIS  01  I.XPLNIUTURLS \r\nGLORGIA  SOUTHWESTERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADFMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\n\r\noi'KKATINC  EXPENSE.'! \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDLNT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGLNLRAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n113.5 \r\n\r\n123.2 \r\n\r\n118.6 \r\n\r\nS    2,024,981 \r\n\r\n$     2,206,000 \r\n\r\n$     2,348,000 \r\n\r\n19.6 \r\n\r\n19.3 \r\n\r\n18.7 \r\n\r\n123,218 \r\n\r\n124,000 \r\n\r\n128,000 \r\n\r\n187,357 \r\n\r\n196,000 \r\n\r\n192,224 \r\n\r\n.9 \r\n\r\n1.1 \r\n\r\n1.1 \r\n\r\n14,337 \r\n\r\n16,799 \r\n\r\n18,020 \r\n\r\n.8 \r\n\r\n.9 \r\n\r\n.') \r\n\r\n4,508 \r\n\r\n5,511 \r\n\r\nr»,v  n \r\n\r\n1,721 \r\n\r\nl,(\u003e90 \r\n\r\n2,.'A\"\u003e \r\n\r\n7.4 \r\n\r\n8.5 \r\n\r\n7.5 \r\n\r\n88,683 \r\n\r\n98,198 \r\n\r\n97,757 \r\n\r\n8.6 \r\n\r\n8.7 \r\n\r\n8.7 \r\n\r\n47,472 \r\n\r\n49,015 \r\n\r\n53,684 \r\n\r\n112,248 \r\n\r\n115,928 \r\n\r\n120,932 \r\n\r\n30,098 \r\n\r\n35,859 \r\n\r\n38,855 \r\n\r\n.6 \r\n\r\n.7 \r\n\r\n.7 \r\n\r\n11,025 \r\n\r\n11,816 \r\n\r\n13,170 \r\n\r\n57.8 \r\n\r\n62.9 \r\n\r\n(\u003e0.^ \r\n\r\n318,807 \r\n\r\n358,442 \r\n\r\n394 , OOH \r\n\r\n20,100 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n175,777 \r\n\r\n196,180 \r\n\r\n220,570 \r\n\r\n152,899 \r\n\r\n119,562 \r\n\r\n120,172 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n16.6 \r\n\r\n16.8 \r\n\r\n17.') \r\n\r\n266,589 \r\n\r\n279,451 \r\n\r\n311,900 \r\n\r\n28.2 \r\n\r\n28.7 \r\n\r\n29.3 \r\n\r\n186,498 \r\n\r\n188,981 \r\n\r\n212,238 \r\n\r\n244,414 \r\n\r\n287,000 \r\n\r\n301,000 \r\n\r\n167.181 \r\n4,179,913 \r\n\r\n177,368 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n174.144 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,467,800 \r\n\r\n,752,800 \r\n\r\n817 \r\n4,180,730 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4.467,800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n,752,800 \r\n\r\n138.4 \r\n\r\n149.6 \r\n\r\n145.1 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,394,590 \r\n\r\n115.6 \r\n\r\n691,528 \r\n\r\n244,414, \r\n\r\n849,381 \r\n\r\n817 \r\n\r\n4,180,730 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,600,448 \r\n\r\n121.2 \r\n\r\n737,765 \r\n\r\n287,000 \r\n\r\n842,587 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n,775,743 \r\n\r\n118.5 \r\n\r\n806,911 \r\n\r\n301,000 \r\n\r\n869,146 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4.467,800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4, \r\n\r\n,752,800 \r\n\r\n111 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\n\r\nNORTH  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  S.  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n$   1,470,958 \r\n\r\n\r\n46,768 \r\n170,395 \r\n567,450 \r\n\r\n687,725 \r\n\r\n$      2,943,296 \r\n(1,139) \r\n\r\n$       2,942,157 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,595,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n43,413 \r\n194,587 \r\n534,000 \r\n\r\n775.100 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,142,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n?.;42,1QQ \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,738,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n47,605 \r\n208,395 \r\n581,000 \r\n\r\n859,600 \r\n3,434,600 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,4  34,600 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n735,430 \r\n41,787 \r\n\r\n\r\n792,600 \r\n12,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n802,600 \r\n12,400 \r\n\r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$     777,217 \r\n2-164.940 \r\n\r\n$   2.942.157 \r\n\r\n\r\n805,000 \r\n2,337,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n3,142,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n815,000 \r\n2,619,600 \r\n\r\n3.434.600 \r\n\r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(K.K.T.  -  4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\n.IMNI\u003c\u003eI\u003c  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n0  »H \r\n378 \r\n168 \r\n\r\n1.184 \r\n\r\nOHO \r\n348 \r\n148 \r\n\r\n0/1. \r\n34U \r\n\r\n139 \r\n\r\n1,182 \r\n\r\n1,163 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,485 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n2^658 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,953 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n621 \r\n\r\n35 \r\n\r\n1,829 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,485 \r\n\r\n\r\n670 \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n1,978 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,658 \r\n\r\n\r\n090 \r\n\r\n11 \r\n2,252 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,953 \r\n\r\n\r\n112 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\nNORTH  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\n\r\nfringe  iwnei-tts \r\n\r\noperating  expense:; \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  balance \r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976 \r\n\r\n-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n65.8 \r\n\r\n75.8 \r\n\r\n75.6 \r\n\r\nS    1,223,521 \r\n\r\n$    1, \r\n\r\n360,549 \r\n\r\n$     1,488,917 \r\n\r\n13.8 \r\n\r\n17.0 \r\n\r\n18.0 \r\n\r\n78,031 \r\n\r\n91,051 \r\n\r\n106,183 \r\n\r\n169,406 \r\n\r\n143,400 \r\n\r\n142,900 \r\n\r\n1.5 \r\n\r\n1.5 \r\n\r\n1.5 \r\n\r\n32,556 \r\n\r\n32,946 \r\n\r\n36,606 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n5,522 \r\n\r\n5,600 \r\n\r\n6,132 \r\n\r\n8,690 \r\n\r\n4,867 \r\n\r\n4,867 \r\n\r\n4.3 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n5.0 \r\n\r\n52,486 \r\n\r\n62,795 \r\n\r\n(ill,  (\u003e()() \r\n\r\n7.8 \r\n\r\n7.8 \r\n\r\n7.H \r\n\r\n41,676 \r\n\r\n43,331 \r\n\r\n47,334 \r\n\r\n43,095 \r\n\r\n45,000 \r\n\r\n48,800 \r\n\r\n33,138 \r\n\r\n43,461 \r\n\r\n43,661 \r\n\r\n1.1 \r\n\r\n1.2 \r\n\r\n1.2 \r\n\r\n11,001 \r\n\r\n11,479 \r\n\r\n12,491 \r\n\r\n41.5 \r\n\r\n43.0 \r\n\r\n43.0 \r\n\r\n272,870 \r\n\r\n284,241 \r\n\r\n311,229 \r\n\r\n52,000 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n152,163 \r\n\r\n146,102 \r\n\r\n165,102 \r\n\r\n79,416 \r\n\r\n92,178 \r\n\r\n92,178 \r\n\r\n12.7 \r\n\r\n16.1 \r\n\r\n17.1 \r\n\r\n217,659 \r\n\r\n262,536 \r\n\r\n299,731 \r\n\r\n28.5 \r\n\r\n25.1 \r\n\r\n25.8 \r\n\r\n172,872 \r\n\r\n149,039 \r\n\r\n166,844 \r\n\r\n180,599 \r\n\r\n216,000 \r\n\r\n231,000 \r\n\r\n116.595 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n147,525 \r\n3,142,100 \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nMiZALZ'J \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,943,296 \r\n\r\n,434,600 \r\n\r\n(1.139) \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2.942.157 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3.142,100 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n3. \r\n\r\n.434,600 \r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n84.3 \r\n\r\n1,526,222 \r\n\r\n93.7 \r\n\r\n581,972 \r\n\r\n180,599 \r\n\r\n654,503 \r\n\r\n(1.1.19) \r\n\r\n\r\n2.942.157 \r\n\r\n\r\n98.4 \r\n1,718,826 \r\n\r\n95.1 \r\n584,741 \r\n216,000 \r\n622,523 \r\n\r\n\r\n99.2 \r\n1,893,854 \r\n\r\n96.8 \r\n650,213 \r\n231,000 \r\n659,533 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.142,100 \r\n\r\n\r\n3r434r(snn \r\n\r\n\r\n113 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSAVANNAH  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  (.  MAINTENANCE  OK  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n2,235,947 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2,409,367 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,647,494 \r\n\r\n72,611 \r\n\r\n88,130 \r\n\r\n95,633 \r\n\r\n9,647 \r\n\r\n9,888 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n15,745 \r\n\r\n42,000 \r\n\r\n45,000 \r\n\r\n238,448 \r\n\r\n259,562 \r\n\r\n300,930 \r\n\r\n931,967 \r\n\r\n848,000 \r\n\r\n997,000 \r\n\r\n1,153,586 \r\n\r\n1.120.953 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n1,227,343 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n4,657,951 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,777,900 \r\n\r\n5,313,400 \r\n\r\n949 \r\n\r\n50.000 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,658,900 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n4,827,900 \r\n\r\n5^363^400 \r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,237,328 \r\n94,522 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,304,495 \r\n44,505 \r\n\r\nS \r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,327,000 \r\n73,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,331,850 \r\n3,327,050 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n1,349,000 \r\n3,478,900 \r\n\r\n1,400,000 \r\n3,963,400 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n4,658,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,827,900 \r\n\r\n5, 363,400 \r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(E.F.T. \r\n\r\n\r\n4  QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL   ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nIXI'I  NDI  IIIRl     PI  l\u003c    S  MHM  N  I \r\n\r\n\r\n1,247 \r\n\r\n636 \r\n\r\n95 \r\n\r\n1,246 \r\n\r\n637 \r\n\r\n93 \r\n\r\n1,123 \r\n\r\n650 \r\n\r\n93 \r\n\r\n1,978 \r\n\r\n1,976 \r\n\r\n1,866 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2,355 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2,44  3 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,(174 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  PEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n625 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n660 \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\n711 \r\n\r\n48 \r\n\r\n23 \r\n\r\n39 \r\n\r\n1,682 \r\n\r\n1,760 \r\n\r\n2,124 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,355 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2^443 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,874 \r\n\r\n114 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\nSAVANNAH  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\nFACULTY   -  K.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  K.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  KXPKN.SK; \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    K.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n109.1 \r\n\r\n117.9 \r\n\r\n119.1 \r\n\r\n$    2,064,629 \r\n\r\n$     2,213,215 \r\n\r\n$     2,406,552 \r\n\r\n18.1 \r\n\r\n20.5 \r\n\r\n20.4 \r\n\r\n108,577 \r\n\r\n120,718 \r\n\r\n140,061 \r\n\r\n144,999 \r\n\r\n173,452 \r\n\r\n196,514 \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n3.1 \r\n\r\n1.1 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n33,300 \r\n\r\n16,000 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n2.1 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n16,200 \r\n\r\n10,745 \r\n\r\n8,700 \r\n\r\n12,MO() \r\n\r\n4.7 \r\n\r\n6.0 \r\n\r\n6.0 \r\n\r\n61,609 \r\n\r\n76,301 \r\n\r\n84,2  50 \r\n\r\n8.7 \r\n\r\n9.0 \r\n\r\n9.0 \r\n\r\n51,402 \r\n\r\n53,569 \r\n\r\n58,982 \r\n\r\n108,166 \r\n\r\n94,092 \r\n\r\n115,000 \r\n\r\n17,271 \r\n\r\n35,600 \r\n\r\n42,692 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n1.5 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n15,625 \r\n\r\n23,262 \r\n\r\n17,250 \r\n\r\n71.9 \r\n\r\n80.5 \r\n\r\n81.0 \r\n\r\n462,644 \r\n\r\n522,204 \r\n\r\n580,216 \r\n\r\n79,000 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n169,044 \r\n\r\n197,671 \r\n\r\n283,751 \r\n\r\n205,654 \r\n\r\n104,863 \r\n\r\n115,783 \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n15.3 \r\n\r\n18.5 \r\n\r\n15.  C \r\n\r\n244,380 \r\n\r\n286,592 \r\n\r\n267,104 \r\n\r\n47.0 \r\n\r\n45.6 \r\n\r\n49.5 \r\n\r\n354,164 \r\n\r\n330,854 \r\n\r\n422,497 \r\n\r\n305,751 \r\n\r\n343,000 \r\n\r\n365,000 \r\n\r\n249,291 \r\n\r\n160,507 \r\n\r\n172.742 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,657,951 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,777,900 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n5,313,400 \r\n\r\n949 \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,658,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,827,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,363,400 \r\n\r\n129.1 \r\n\r\n145.5 \r\n\r\n141.8 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,370,618 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n2,609,408 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,773,912 \r\n\r\n146.7 \r\n\r\n157.1 \r\n\r\n163.0 \r\n\r\n992,412 \r\n\r\n1,050,607 \r\n\r\n1,235,206 \r\n\r\n305,751 \r\n\r\n343,000 \r\n\r\n365,000 \r\n\r\n989,170 \r\n\r\n774,885 \r\n\r\n939,282 \r\n\r\n949 \r\n\r\n50,000 \r\n\r\n50.000 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n4,658,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n4,827,900 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n5,363,400 \r\n\r\n115 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\nVALDOSTA  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL   CXPINIHTIIRLS \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1976-76 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,009,119 \r\n\r\n\r\n47,859 \r\n\r\n509,107 \r\n\r\n1,125,305 \r\n\r\n\r\n1,331,080 \r\n\r\n\r\nS   7,022,470 \r\n(3.846) \r\n\r\n?   7,010,024 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,299,040 \r\n\r\n\r\n64,340 \r\n\r\n566,000 \r\n\r\n1,052,000 \r\n\r\n1.427.120 \r\n\r\n\r\n7,408,500 \r\n\r\n\r\nZx.400.50JJ \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\n4,659,562 \r\n\r\n\r\n68,340 \r\n\r\n608,000 \r\n\r\n1,141,000 \r\n\r\n1-534.098 \r\n\r\n8,011,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n_tK.OLL.U0O \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$   2,465,251 \r\n87,898 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,691,200 \r\n40.800 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,631,000 \r\n39,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\n\r\n$       2,553,149 \r\n4,465,475 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,732,000 \r\n4,676,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,670,000 \r\n5,341,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTAI    RIVINIir \r\n\r\n\r\n7,010,024 \r\n\r\n\r\n7.408,500 \r\n\r\n\r\nH, 01 1,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nLNK0I.IMIN1 \r\n\r\n\r\n(i:.i\\T \r\n\r\n\r\nA   yilARTKHS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n1,812 \r\n951 \r\n\r\n544 \r\n\r\n3,307 \r\n\r\n1,845 \r\n969 \r\n549 \r\n\r\n1,756 \r\n941 \r\n483 \r\n\r\n3,363 \r\n\r\n3,180 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,122 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,203 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,519 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n745 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n800 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n827 \r\n\r\n27 \r\n\r\n12 \r\n\r\n12 \r\n\r\n1,350 \r\n\r\n1,391 \r\n\r\n1,680 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,122 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,203 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,519 \r\n\r\n116 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nVALDOSTA  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,  RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T-  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\niuhiK:: \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDtNT  SLRVIUS,  GLNLRAL  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC    PERSONNEL   -    E.F.T.     POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC    PERSONNEL    -    E.F.T.    POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE    BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING    EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\n194.1 \r\n\r\n205.6 \r\n\r\n206.8 \r\n\r\n1,522,667     5 \r\n\r\n3,775,976     S \r\n\r\n4,123,476 \r\n\r\n41.9 \r\n\r\n43.5 \r\n\r\n43.2 \r\n\r\n209,912 \r\n\r\n211,564 \r\n\r\n230,086 \r\n\r\n276,540 \r\n\r\n311,500 \r\n\r\n306,000 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n1.0 \r\n\r\n23,858 \r\n\r\n24,000 \r\n\r\n25,440 \r\n\r\n2.0 \r\n\r\n3.2 \r\n\r\n3.2 \r\n\r\n19,759 \r\n\r\n33,750 \r\n\r\n36,006 \r\n\r\n4,242 \r\n\r\n6,590 \r\n\r\n6,894 \r\n\r\n10.8 \r\n\r\n10.8 \r\n\r\n10.8 \r\n\r\n154,535 \r\n\r\n155,764 \r\n\r\n172,  llf. \r\n\r\n22.6 \r\n\r\n23.7 \r\n\r\n2.'.'t \r\n\r\n1  l')f7f\u003c4 \r\n\r\n141,  i:»h \r\n\r\n1'.  1,'1/H \r\n\r\n1  /«\u003e,'.  »M \r\n\r\n2,!2,0'jtl \r\n\r\n/  »•),  UK. \r\n\r\n38,250 \r\n\r\n46,850 \r\n\r\n42,600 \r\n\r\n4.4 \r\n\r\n4.4 \r\n\r\n4.4 \r\n\r\n53,794 \r\n\r\n58,672 \r\n\r\n66,165 \r\n\r\n78.3 \r\n\r\n86.3 \r\n\r\n87.7 \r\n\r\n452,419 \r\n\r\n501,284 \r\n\r\n557,379 \r\n\r\n152,000 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n261,978 \r\n\r\n324,137 \r\n\r\n338,147 \r\n\r\n205,114 \r\n\r\n167,907 \r\n\r\n179,  U)\u003ei \r\n\r\n10.8 \r\n211,683 \r\n\r\n63.8 \r\n411,384 \r\n430,997 \r\n277. Qlfi \r\n\r\n\r\n$   7,022,470 \r\n\r\n(3,846) \r\n\r\n$   7,018,624 \r\n\r\n\r\n11.0 \r\n\r\n215,580 \r\n65.6 \r\n\r\n443,466 \r\n494,000 \r\n774,074 \r\n\r\n\r\n7,408,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n7,408,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n11.0 \r\n\r\n232,654 \r\n\r\n64.3 \r\n\r\n488,463 \r\n524,000 \r\n288,981 \r\n\r\n\r\n8,011,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n8,011,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\nAMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n216.7 \r\n\r\n3,912,743 \r\n\r\n213.0 \r\n\r\n1,287,052 \r\n\r\n430,997 \r\n\r\n1,391,678 \r\n\r\n(3,846) \r\n\r\n7,018,624 \r\n\r\n\r\n228.4 \r\n4,171,320 \r\n\r\n226.7 \r\n\r\n1,390,064 \r\n\r\n494,000 \r\n\r\n1,353,116 \r\n\r\n\r\n7,408,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n229.6 \r\n\r\n4,553,686 \r\n\r\n225.7 \r\n\r\n1,532,077 \r\n\r\n524,000 \r\n\r\n1,401,237 \r\n\r\n\r\n8,011,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n117 \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURES \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nSUMMARY  OF  EXPENDITURES  AND  REVENUE \r\n\r\nWEST  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION \r\n\r\nACTIVITIES  RELATED  TO  INSTRUCTION \r\nRESEARCH \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\nSTUDENT  SERVICES,  GENERAL  ADMINISTRATION \r\nAND  GENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  EXPENDITURFS \r\n\r\n\r\n5,118,116 \r\n\r\n303,193 \r\n\r\n2,782 \r\n\r\n100,514 \r\n\r\n508,680 \r\n\r\n1,405,450 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.539.379 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n8,978,114 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\nR\u003c992.412 \r\n\r\n5,435,407 \r\n\r\n325,204 \r\n\r\n8,000 \r\n\r\n85,854 \r\n\r\n650,000 \r\n\r\n1,370,000 \r\n\r\n1,665,335 \r\n\r\n\r\n9,539,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n$         5,826,564 \r\n\r\n367,786 \r\n\r\n10,000 \r\n\r\n98,198 \r\n\r\n677,353 \r\n\r\n1,494,000 \r\n\r\n1,844,499 \r\n\r\n$       10,318,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n9,539,800  $       10,318,400 \r\n\r\n\r\nREVENUE \r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSUB-TOTAL \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\n\r\n$   2,451,990 \r\n86,197 \r\n\r\n$   2,538,187 \r\n6,454,225 \r\n\r\n$   8,992,412 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,513,000 \r\n\r\n57,000 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,570,000 \r\n6,969,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n9,5  39,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n2,477,000 \r\n63,000 \r\n\r\n2,540,000 \r\n7,778,400 \r\n\r\n10,318,400 \r\n\r\n\r\nENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\n(L.F.T.  -  4  (QUARTERS) \r\n\r\n\r\nJUNIOR  DIVISION \r\nSENIOR  DIVISION \r\nGRADUATE  DIVISION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nEXPENDITURE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n1,358 \r\n\r\n1,403 \r\n\r\n876 \r\n\r\n1,357 \r\n\r\n1,403 \r\n\r\n870 \r\n\r\n1,350 \r\n\r\n1,335 \r\n\r\n795 \r\n\r\n3,637 \r\n\r\n3,630 \r\n\r\n3,480 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,473 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,628 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,965 \r\n\r\nREVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FEES \r\n\r\nOTHER  INTERNAL  REVENUE \r\n\r\nSTATE  APPROPRIATION \r\n\r\nTOTAL  REVENUE  PER  STUDENT \r\n\r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n674 \r\n\r\n24 \r\n\r\n1,775 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n$ \r\n\r\n692 \r\n\r\n16 \r\n\r\n1\u003e920 \r\n\r\n2,628 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n712 \r\n\r\n18 \r\n\r\n2,235 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,473 \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\n2,965 \r\n\r\n118 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\nANALYSIS  OF  EXPENDITURES \r\n\r\nWEST  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nACTUAL \r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGETED \r\n1976-77 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDCETED \r\n1977-78 \r\n\r\n\r\nINSTRUCTION,   RESEARCH  \u0026  RELATED  ACTIVITIES \r\n\r\nFACULTY   -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON- ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T. \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nEXTENSION  \u0026  PUBLIC  SERVICE \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  K.K.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nLIBRARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nBOOKS \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nOPERATION  \u0026  MAINTENANCE  OF  PHYSICAL  PLANT \r\n\r\nSUPERVISORY  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nMAJOR  REPLACEMENT  FUNDS \r\nUTILITIES \r\n\r\nOTHER  OPERATINC  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nSTUDLNT  SLRVICLS,  GLNL'RAI  ADMINISTRATION  \u0026 \r\nGENERAL  INSTITUTIONAL \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\n\r\nTOTAL  ASSIGNED  BUDGET \r\n\r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET \r\n\r\n\r\n250.5 \r\n\r\n257.5 \r\n\r\n255.5 \r\n\r\n4,670,944     S \r\n\r\n!    4,835,532     5 \r\n\r\n!     5,205,400 \r\n\r\n50.0 \r\n\r\n57.5 \r\n\r\n57.5 \r\n\r\n299,627 \r\n\r\n367,503 \r\n\r\n409,504 \r\n\r\n453,520 \r\n\r\n565,576 \r\n\r\n589,446 \r\n\r\n4.0 \r\n\r\n3.5 \r\n\r\nJ.H \r\n\r\n77, 309 \r\n\r\n67,758 \r\n\r\n78,111 \r\n\r\n2.3 \r\n\r\n1.7 \r\n\r\n1  7 \r\n\r\n14,359 \r\n\r\n11,156 \r\n\r\n12,800 \r\n\r\n8,846 \r\n\r\n6,940 \r\n\r\n7,28/ \r\n\r\n17.0 \r\n\r\n18.0 \r\n\r\n14.0 \r\n\r\n197,415 \r\n\r\n205,493 \r\n\r\n193,530 \r\n\r\n17.8 \r\n\r\n18.3 \r\n\r\n22.4 \r\n\r\n102,746 \r\n\r\n109,366 \r\n\r\n150,067 \r\n\r\n150,014 \r\n\r\n239,800 \r\n\r\n223,735 \r\n\r\n58,505 \r\n\r\n95,341 \r\n\r\n109,991 \r\n\r\n18.0 \r\n\r\n12.5 \r\n\r\n12.4 \r\n\r\n178,545 \r\n\r\n141,144 \r\n\r\n157,172 \r\n\r\n95.3 \r\n\r\n104.6 \r\n\r\n103.6 \r\n\r\n573,753 \r\n\r\n621,933 \r\n\r\n681,449 \r\n\r\n32,400 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n428,187 \r\n\r\n414,387 \r\n\r\n442,750 \r\n\r\n192,565 \r\n\r\n192,536 \r\n\r\n212,629 \r\n\r\n31.0 \r\n517,198 \r\n\r\n45.7 \r\n286,852 \r\n521,573 \r\n213.756 \r\n\r\n\r\n$        8,978,114 \r\n\r\n14,298 \r\n\r\n$        8,992,41? \r\n\r\n\r\n34.6 \r\n\r\n556,812 \r\n\r\n50.7 \r\n\r\n314,380 \r\n592,000 \r\n202,143 \r\n\r\n\r\n9,539,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n9,539,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n35.0 \r\n624,220 \r\n\r\n54.0 \r\n373,696 \r\n629,000 \r\n717.SR3 \r\n\r\n\r\n10,318,400 \r\n\r\n\r\nin,T1R,4f)0 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\nACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n-  AMOUNT \r\nNON-ACADEMIC  PERSONNEL  -  E.F.T.  POSITIONS \r\n\r\n_  AMOUNT \r\nFRINGE  BENEFITS \r\nOPERATING  EXPENSES \r\nUNASSIGNED  BALANCE \r\n\r\nTOTAL  BUDGET  SUMMARY \r\n\r\n\r\n302.5 \r\n\r\n5,462,866 \r\n\r\n229.1 \r\n\r\n1,455,882 \r\n\r\n521,573 \r\n\r\n1,537,793 \r\n\r\n14,298 \r\n\r\n8.992.412 \r\n\r\n\r\n313.6 \r\n\r\n5,665,595 \r\n\r\n245.3 \r\n\r\n1,565,482 \r\n\r\n592,000 \r\n\r\n1,716,723 \r\n\r\n\r\n9,539,800 \r\n\r\n\r\n308.3 \r\n\r\n6,101,291 \r\n\r\n251.6 \r\n\r\n1,784,688 \r\n\r\n629,000 \r\n\r\n1,803,421 \r\n\r\n\r\n10,3.18,400 \r\n\r\n\r\n119 \r\n\r\n\r\nPhysical  Plant  and  Campus  Development \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  acknowledges  the  responsibility  for  the  provision \r\nof  an  adequate  physical  plant  and  associated  campus  environment  for  each  of \r\nthe  University  System  institutions.   The  Board  commits  itself  to  the  appli- \r\ncation of  available  capital  resources  in  a   manner  which  promises \r\nto  result  in  maximum  plant  quality  attainable  subject  to  the  limited  resources \r\navailable. \r\n\r\nThis  section  provides  an  assessment  of  the  results  of  that  policy  as \r\nit  relates  to  the  twelve  member  senior  college  group.   As  background,  it \r\nshould  be  noted  that  direct  Regents'  expenditure  authority  is  limited  to \r\nproperty  owned  by  the  Board  of  Regents.   However,  informal  efforts  involving \r\nlocal  and  state  government  and  private  individuals  are  pursued  wherever  the \r\nresults  of  such  efforts  are  believed  to  be  in  the  best  interests  of  the  Uni- \r\nversity System.   These  informal  efforts  are  primarily  related  to  street  re- \r\nlocation and  paving  projects  and  urban  renewal  and  improvement  programs.   The \r\nlevel  of  success  is  highly  dependent  on  local  political  and  social  factors \r\nas  well  as  upon  the  more  tangible  matter  of  availability  of  funds  to  the \r\nparties  concerned.   This  type  of  cooperation  with  external  agencies  and  in- \r\ndividuals will  be  continued  as  an  important  aspect  of  this  Plan. \r\n\r\nUniversity  System  construction  project  priorities  are  established  under \r\nthe  direction  of  the  Vice  Chancellor  for  Construction  and  Physical  Plant. \r\nAll  projects  are  evaluated  by  the  Buildings  and  Grounds  Committee  of  the  Board \r\nof  Regents  and  must  be  approved  by  the  action  of  the  full  Board. \r\n\r\nThe  development  of  construction  priorities  proceeds  in  a  systematic, \r\n\r\nneed-oriented  manner.   A  statistical  record  is  maintained  on  the  utilization \r\n\r\nof  all  teaching  stations  and  student  stations  in  all  academic  facilities  in \r\n\r\n/  each  of  the  institutions  of  the  University  System.   This  computer  based \r\n\r\nstatistical  analysis  is  updated  yearly.   The  Management  Information  Group \r\n\r\n120 \r\n\r\n\r\n¦  - \r\n\r\n\r\nof  the  Regents'  Office  staff  develops  detailed  utilization  information  from \r\nthis  data  base. \r\n\r\nA  formal  annual  request  is  presented  to  the  Chancellor  by  the  president \r\nof  each  institution  providing  priority  recommendations  for  new  capital  outlay \r\nprojects.   Each  institutional  list  may  be  modified  at  any  time  by  the  president. \r\n\r\nThe  Vice  Chancellor  for  Construction  and  Physical  Plant  and  his  staff  are \r\nconstruction  industry  professionals.   They  have  developed  an  accumulated  knowl- \r\nedge of  the  physical  plant  condition  and  needs  of  each  institution.   Based  upon \r\nthe  presidents'  requests,  as  substantiated  by  the  statistical  information  and \r\nthe  staff's  personal  knowledge  of  the  needs  of  the  institutions,  the  Vice  Chan- \r\ncellor for  Construction  and  Physical  Plant  recommends  a  list  of  proposed  pro- \r\njects to  the  Chancellor.   After  review  and  possible  attendant  modification \r\nby  the  Chancellor,  this  list  of  projects  is  recommended,  at  the  appropriate \r\ntime,  to  the  Board  of  Regents  as  the  proposed  Capital  Outlay  Program. \r\n\r\nThe  Vice  Chancellor  for  Construction  and  Physical  Plant  also  has  the  re- \r\nsponsibility for  the  identification  and  implementation  of  rehabilitation  projects \r\nand  for  the  overall  supervision  of  the  University  System  Preventive  Maintenance \r\nProgram. \r\n\r\nMaterials  providing  a  chronological  tabulation  of  recent  construction \r\nprojects  are  presented  in  Tables  I-B-8  and  I-B-9  as  requested  in  the  Guidelines. \r\n\r\nProjects  are  identified  as  being  completed,  under  construction,  or  not  under \r\nconstruction  by  the  symbols  C,  UC,  and  NUC  respectively.   Projects  identified \r\nas  NUC  in  this  table  had  been  approved  and  funded  but  had  not  reached  the \r\nactual  construction  phase  as  of  June  1,  1977.  A  description  of  the  general \r\nphysical  plant  condition  and  campus  environment  for  each  institution  is  pro- \r\nvided in  Table  I-B-10.   A  meaningful  institutional  comparison  based  on  these \r\ndata  and  descriptions  requires  simultaneous  consideration  of  institutions  of \r\nlike  type,  size,  and  vintage.   These  basic  data  do  not  reveal  any  obvious \r\ndiscrimination  in  facilities  development  at  the  comparable  historically \r\n\r\nblack  and  historically  white  senior  colleges. \r\n\r\n121 \r\n\r\n\r\nProjected  total  capital  outlay  expenditures  by  the  Board  of  Regents \r\nare  expected  to  be  comparable  with  those  of  recent  years;  e.g.,  in  the  broad \r\nrange  of  eleven  to  twenty-two  million  dollars  per  year.   These  expenditures \r\nwill  continue  to  be  made  on  a  System-wide  priority  basis.   No  funds  will  be \r\nutilized  in  a  manner  which  knowingly  will  impede  the  continued  desegregation \r\nof  the  University  System.   Development  of  the  total  spectrum  of  facilities \r\non  the  historically  black  campuses  will  be  continued  commensurate  with  en- \r\nrollment projections.   Quality  improvement,  particularly  in  the  areas  of \r\ncampus  appearance  and  preventive  maintenance,  will  be  emphasized  by  the  staff \r\nof  the  Vice  Chancellor  for  Construction  and  Physical  Plant. \r\n\r\n\r\n122 \r\n\r\n\r\nC'.'. \r\n\r\nM    CO \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nO    P-. \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\ncr\u003e \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n^  -\u003c \r\n\r\nVC \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni— » \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nC  1 \r\n\r\n_-i \r\n\r\n-.^ \r\n\r\nU, \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nir, \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\np_I \r\n\r\n•    ~1 \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\n1  - \r\n\r\nto  co \r\n\r\no- \r\n\r\ni— i \r\n\r\nCsl \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\n(y~ \r\n\r\non \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nMD \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c?\u003e \r\n\r\nl,\"\u003e \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\u003e  o \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003cT \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003c  o \r\n\r\n¦ \r\n\r\nc  I \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\ntJ       •    Q \r\n\r\nO    H    p \r\n\r\nCSI \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ni—i \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nI—l    \"* \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni — i \r\n\r\nI—l \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\u003c£   tn    r- \r\nCi       •    CO \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n\u003c3\u003e \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n•X) \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCO    O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUO \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\ncr- \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n, — i \r\n\r\n. 1 \r\n\r\n\u003e    CO    X! \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nlO \r\n\r\nc-j \r\n\r\nLP \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nMD \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n1 — 1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c           CO \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\ni—l \r\n\r\nI—l \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nP-. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\n?J \r\nPQ \r\n\r\ns. \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nerf \r\n\r\n\u003c  r^ \r\nto  r- \r\n\r\n\u003eH     O^ \r\nt-t \r\n\r\nerf \r\np     'I \r\n\r\nO    r-l \r\n\r\na \r\nH   c \r\n\r\n\u003c:  d \r\no  o \r\n\r\n\r\nH \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nCrf    0\u003e \r\n\r\nH    r-1 \r\nCO \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n52 \r\n\r\no \r\nCO  »-) \r\n\r\nM \r\nPrf \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nD \r\nC \r\ncd \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nH \r\nO \r\nH \r\n\r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\ntO \r\n\r\n(^ \r\n\r\n?-3 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cJ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nC3 \r\n\r\nerf \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n-\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCrf \r\n\r\npsi \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nO. \r\n\r\nPw \r\n\r\n.J \r\n\r\n\u003c: \r\n\r\nH \r\nO \r\nH \r\n\r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nCx, \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n:s \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nPd \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nd-i \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n?o \r\n\r\n:s \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCrf \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nP-i \r\n\r\n^  o \r\n\r\n\r\nrJ \r\no \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nLT1 \r\n\r\nr-- \r\n\r\nr— ( \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n.—I \r\n\r\nao \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\nI/O \r\n\r\no\u003c \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nMD \r\n\r\ni—l \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr-\u003c \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nM? \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nuo \r\n\r\ni—i \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ny~i \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nuO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\nr-~ \r\n\r\nLO \r\n\r\nr*« \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nr-\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n1-^ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n^-i \r\n\r\ni—i \r\n\r\nI—I \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nLO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nr— ( \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cf \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr^- \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nCT. \r\n\r\ni— \u003c \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nC7\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\nr*«. \r\n\r\nt*» \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\u003cj\" \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ni—l \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n~^J \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nf-- \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n^-i \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003cf \r\n\r\nvD \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n^-i \r\n\r\nUO \r\n\r\ncr- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr^- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003c? \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n*\u003c \r\n\r\n•s \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nVI \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n^* \r\n\r\n^. \r\n\r\n•i \r\n\r\nA \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n•« \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n.-^ \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCM  ¦ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n«tf \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ni—l \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\u003c!\" \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003ct \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\ni—i \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCTx \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nmd \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCM \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nv£5 \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\nCO \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n\\0 \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nO^ \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\ni^~ \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nm \r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n1           vO \r\n\r\nr^~ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr~- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr~» \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\ni—i \r\n\r\nCTN \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003e            CM \r\n\r\ncr\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003cf \r\n\r\n^o \r\n\r\n^-1 \r\n\r\nT— 1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003cj- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n3           O \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\\D \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ni—i \r\n\r\nMD \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nuo \r\n\r\nMD \r\n\r\n•—I \r\n\r\nvD \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nr-«- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\nMO \r\nvO \r\n\r\nCM! \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\ni—i \r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\nco \r\n00 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\nO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nrO \r\n\r\nhJ \r\n\r\n.J \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n\u003c: \r\n\r\n\u003ct! \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e^ \r\n\r\nrO \r\n\r\n^3 \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nr-H \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•  O \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nQi \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCSS \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\ni*^- \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\u003c: \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cc \r\n\r\n^3 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c: \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c: \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n£3 \r\n\r\n\u003e¦ \r\n\r\n.H \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nS3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nOi \r\n\r\nct: \r\n\r\nCri \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\nPQ \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nc£ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nr-J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n?o \r\n\r\np \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nta \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\ntv. \r\n\r\n.o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nD£ \r\n\r\n123 \r\n\r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nJX, \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nIX. \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nr-  cm  co \r\n\r\nh    O    CO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\ncr\u003e  oo  m \r\n\r\nCO    O    vO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nr-t    r^    CO      1        1 \r\n\r\ni     i   co  o  \u003cr    i \r\n\r\n1      I \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nr*     -.     **    |      | \r\n\r\nit      •«    *\u003e    •»   i \r\n\r\ni       i \r\n\r\nCr \r\n\r\nin  co  in \r\n\r\nH    OO    (? \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nt-i  m \r\n\r\n\u003cJ-   co   r-i \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n68,220 \r\n27,838 \r\n45,657 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nf— i \r\n\r\n\r\n•u \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nl-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c: \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nTh \r\n\r\n•I— ] \r\n\r\npa  O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nI   w \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nH  2 \r\n\r\nex \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nU  cd \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nt-3   -X \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\n\u003c  SB \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nH   O \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc_\u003e \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\n-D \r\n\r\nD. \r\n\r\nCrf \r\n\r\nD- \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n5S \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\nOUOOOOOCjOCJC)    uuu \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n?— i  oo  in  co  r-.  vo  inmO  c^  n \r\nl^CfNO\u003e\u003cfO\u003cfh-OnNfri   O  in  oo  cm  O \r\n\r\n\r\nv£\u003e  o  o  o  9? \r\n\r\nm  \u003cf  O   \u003cf \r\n\r\n\r\n«sf   vO   o\u003e   CM   m \r\n\r\nin  o  in  i— i  co \r\n\r\nH    ^    CO    rl \r\n\r\n\r\nC/\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nr-i  \u003cf  as \r\n\r\ni—l  CT\\ \r\n\r\n\r\nfO    C\u003e   o \r\n\r\nm  o  \u003cr \r\ncm  m \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n00    \u003eJ° \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\n1-1 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\ncx \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nK- 1 \r\n\r\n•a \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\ned \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cC \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n4-) \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\n•-r \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nPQ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nm \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1 \r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nvD \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n/^s \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\na) \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nl-l \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nPQ\"*\u003e \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nl—l \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nw\u003cr \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n/~N \r\n\r\nP \r\n\r\nu\u003c^ \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\na)  ' \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\n4-)U \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n^-s \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n•rH \r\n\r\nCJ  °0 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\ni— 1 \r\n\r\no» \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^~n \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCd \r\n\r\n4_j  •H \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nPO \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nc-o \r\n\r\nS~\\ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nOJr— 1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\nc_\u003e \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n*o'ri \r\n\r\ni-t \r\n\r\n^-N \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n3^ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n«3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^-s \r\n\r\nCi \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\n4JPQ \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nv_^ \r\n\r\nw  ^ \r\n\r\nN—' \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nl—l \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nS_r- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n1  5 \r\n\r\nC£ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc0 \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\na  o \r\n\r\nS-. \r\n\r\nS-' \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nJ-J \r\n\r\nrC \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\n\u003cI3 \r\n\r\nat \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nV-X \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCX \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\n§  « \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n\u003e-. \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003cD \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nV-i \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nJ-J \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\np \r\n\r\n00  CO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nj-i \r\n\r\n0J \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nex \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•x \r\n\r\no  *-» \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n\u003ej \r\n\r\n^— v \r\n\r\nPQ \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nca \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n4_)    01 \r\n\r\nX\u003e \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nr~i \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\n,— v \r\n\r\n'O \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ni-i \r\n\r\nl—l \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\n-r-l \r\n\r\nx. \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nV4 \r\n\r\nex  r^ \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nij \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCO    C \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ncx \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-4 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n^     C \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\nDd \r\n\r\nU-4 \r\n\r\ni—i \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO) \r\n\r\nCX \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n•H   E \r\n\r\n\u003c0 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\ncQ \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\nci \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nco^ \r\n\r\nqj \r\n\r\n4_» \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nC_ \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nCX\u003c \r\n\r\nn: \r\n\r\n\u003eN \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\n-n \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•f-i \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n\"O \r\n\r\nc_\u003e \r\n\r\n04  w \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•1-4 \r\n\r\n4-» \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nVj \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n—1 \r\n\r\n14-1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\nc  «i \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCO     U \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nCn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nOflC \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\n•l-t \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nN      0) \r\n\r\nCX \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCX \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦H-H \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n•a \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n*-* \r\n\r\nCO      4J \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nV, \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCO    ^ \r\n\r\n4_» \r\n\r\nna \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nI—1 \r\n\r\n•—*    i— 1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr— ( \r\n\r\nX. \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n0)   3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCX    \u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nex \r\n\r\nt? \r\n\r\nDiJ \r\n\r\nex \r\n\r\n(Hi \r\n\r\nQCC \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n-^ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n^D \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\n\u003cm \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCNJ \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCNI \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nv£\u003e \r\n\r\nr^- \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n*\\ \r\n\r\nrs \r\n\r\nr. \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\nr\\ \r\n\r\n*\\ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003co- \r\n\r\nr—l \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003cJ\u003e \r\n\r\nu \r\nu \r\nw \r\n\r\n?J \r\n?J \r\n\r\no \r\na \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u003c: \r\n\r\nH \r\nco \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n?£ \r\n\r\no \r\ncd \r\nH \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nIS \r\n\r\n«*\"N \r\n\r\nS^' \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nl—l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n4_» \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nV_r\" \r\n\r\n5-^ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\n4-» \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n5J \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n/\"N \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\n/~s \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ntS3 \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n1-1 \r\n\r\n\u003e^x \r\n\r\ni-i \r\n\r\nU-, \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\n•a \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\nXi \r\n\r\nai \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nr—i \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\ncO \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nj-i \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n4-) \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCX \r\n\r\nr—l \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n(X \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nl—l \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•l-l \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc. \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\nCO  X\u003e \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n'O \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\ni—4 \r\n\r\nex \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n124 \r\n\r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\nO\" \r\n\r\nlu \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nON    O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c_i \r\n\r\nr-  —j \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n:— \r\n\r\nr-  o \r\n\r\ni— • \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\no  cm  o \r\n\r\nr-l    -H    \u003cr \r\n\r\n\r\nvD  in  in  o  o \r\n\r\nco  \u003ct  cm  \u003cr  o \r\n\r\no  co  m  o  o \r\n\r\nr-4  CO  \\D  r^  O \r\n\r\nrl  M  vO  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nO \r\n\r\nO      I \r\n*    • \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nI     CM       I \r\nI         -      I \r\n\r\non \r\n\r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nU* \r\n\r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nc. \r\n\r\n\u003cr  o  O  r-^  o \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nen  cr   o  \u003cr   m \r\n\r\nc-i \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\u003cr   cr    vD   cm   r-     i      i      i      i      i     i \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n^c \r\n\r\nr-\u003e    CM    CO    O    OO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003ci    — '   cn  co \r\n\r\nsc \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n*\" \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n•u \r\ncn \r\nO \r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•u \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n*•- \r\nO \r\nJ-i \r\n\r\n\r\ncj \r\n•u \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\ne \r\n•i-i \r\n\r\no \r\nu \r\nc. \r\n\r\na \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nu  u  a \r\n\r\nO   p    p  ^3 \r\n\r\nNst^NOCOOOniT.'-iNOocnireJNOOO  O \r\n\r\nr-t  r-^  co  m  r^  \u003cj-  cn  cm  cn  \u003e— i^N^vonocwfi^^oo  o \r\n\r\n©\"^-dcnuDooincnr^cnONi— tcnr-iincnr^^oocnoo  o \r\n\r\n\r\no\u003e  co  i~\\  in  r-4  cr\\  \\.n  w  t^  n  ^  r(  \u003ct  in  i-i  o  \u003c:  CO  m  m  to  o  o \r\ncninf^cocor-icMr~-cMOi'^\u003ct^NJcMincor^u~'\u003cJCMoo  o \r\nn  H  oo        r- »  vDr^o^^^^or^  \u003c— '       r-\u003c  i— i  i— i  im \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003co- \r\n\r\n\r\nuu  u \r\n\r\n\r\nu  Us \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\ni— 4 \r\n•CO- \r\n\r\n\r\nin  i^  \u003cf  cnmocMvoocoo \r\nr^CNiOcocMCMr^r^Oino \r\n\r\nvjc^Oc^^^Mininno \r\n\r\nv3'in,-DoLnor^OOLniP \r\ncoooHM-jr-iH\u003e3-\u003c-iniv. \r\nr~-  i—i  CO   in  m  i—i  o \r\n\r\n\r\n¦co \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nj-j \r\nto \r\n?n \r\nco \r\n\r\ntO \r\n\r\n\r\ncr   \\ \r\nr.  I \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nKfr \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\n•1-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nP* \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n?a \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nC \r\nO \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n•i-t \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nJ-J \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nca \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n/^s \r\n\r\ni— i \r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n^\u003e \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n/ — s \r\n\r\n.r— \\ \r\n\r\n\u003cw \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nTD \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\ns~\\ \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n\u003cr  in \r\n\r\n/T~\\ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\ni-4 \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n\u003ct \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nvd  cn \r\n\r\nr-~ \r\n\r\ni-i \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n60  a \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nas  o \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n•H \r\n1—4 \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n(/) \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nMO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ntd \r\n.r: \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nas \r\ncn \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n1— 1 \r\n\r\n•¦-J \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\n•u \r\n\r\nS~ N \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n^~\\ \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\n(X, \r\n\r\n*^^ \r\n\r\nr—l \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nI— 4 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n\r\nai \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nJ-I \r\n\r\n• — 1 \r\n\r\nCd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nE-i \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nv_- \r\n\r\nC-J \r\n\r\n:c \r\n\r\n^~* \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\n1 — 1 \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nT-^ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nEC \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\u003e-\u003e \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nrQ \r\n\r\n^c \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n*o \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n^^\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nJ-J \r\n\r\n\"O \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nP3 \r\n\r\non \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n\u003cH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nu, \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCj \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nrO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\nCJj \r\n\r\n•r-t \r\n\r\nCTJ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nr. \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCj \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\ncfl \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nO. \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCl \r\n\r\nj-i \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\"O \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n^-~s \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n,— \u003e \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nCj \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nca \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\nun \r\n\r\n-TD \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n»-j \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nDJ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n1 — 1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\ncC \r\n\r\n/— s \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n-G \r\n\r\nIV-H \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nM-l \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nU-( \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\u003cf \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\n1— 1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCjJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\njrt \r\n\r\nBJ \r\n\r\nftS \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nC3 \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni-i \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\"0 \r\n\r\n|J \r\n\r\nrf£ \r\n\r\nN.-* \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nccj \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\ni—i \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n^) \r\n\r\n^¦-1 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nPLi \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n\u003eN \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n¦XS \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦r-4 \r\n\r\n50 \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nV-i \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e-J \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦r-l \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n-.0 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4-) \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n0J \r\n\r\n\u003eN \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nDd \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n•r^ \r\n\r\ni_i \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4_) \r\n\r\nVj \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\nCfi \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\u003e-J \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nV-i \r\n\r\nCCS \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nU-i \r\n\r\nx: \r\n\r\nXI \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\nf— i \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nJ2 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nao \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nc3 \r\n\r\nV4 \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nP \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n*^ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\n•rl \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nt\" \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nV-. \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nr: \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•-• \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^3 \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•r-( \r\n\r\n•^4 \r\n\r\nJ-I \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nU-4 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\njti \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1—4 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nc3 \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\n-r-l \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n*\u003e \r\n•-— \r\n\r\nIS \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nVj \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\nrs \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^\u003e \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\n\u003c-\u003e \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nU-\u003e \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\n(—4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no^, \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n/— N \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n•~\\ \r\n\r\naj \r\n\r\n\u003e»^ \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nX^N \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\u003e, \r\n\r\n•— N \r\n\r\ni— 1 \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nVj \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\nCj \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003er- \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n•  — i \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\"^ \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nVj \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\nVj \r\nH4 \r\n\r\n1  ' \r\n\r\n60C \r\n\r\n^N \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n¦—I \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nI— 1 \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•rl \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nt: \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\nr~- \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nPC \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nTD \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1 — 1 \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nN— \u003c• \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\nC_) \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\"O \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\nOO \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\ni-4 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr—l \r\n\r\n—i \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n¦ — l \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nr^     \u003c \r\n\r\nX) \r\n\r\nVj \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ni— t \r\n\r\n, — ^ \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\nl \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•rH \r\n\r\nU-4 \r\n\r\n•r-i \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n• — i \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\n-x \r\n\r\nJ-I \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nco-  -a \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n»— i \r\n\r\nr^i \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n•r-4 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n¦r-l \r\n\r\n\u003ei \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\n•i-4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nC- \r\n\r\nCL \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n!-i \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e, \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nU-4 \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nGU \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nV-i \r\n\r\nV-i \r\n\r\nV-I \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nTD \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nU-4 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\n.o \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\ni_j \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr—l \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni — 1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ny. \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCJ\u003e \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n125 \r\n\r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n0) \r\n\r\n:\u003cy \r\n\r\na \r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\ncr \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\noa\u003eo^ncoNHcr»o \r\n\r\nOOmCOr-l.— IOCMO \r\n\r\ncooocmi-iooooct\u003eo \r\n\r\n^•OocTiCMr^M^mo \r\ncm  cm  c\u003e  cm  cm  oo  •\u003c}•         oo \r\n\r\n\r\n.cr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nCT \r\n\r\n•cr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nLTl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cj \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\neg \r\n\r\n\u003cr  o  o \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n0       ° \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\\jT\u003e \r\n\r\nG\u003e \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ni-4 \r\n\r\ni— i \r\n\r\no  o  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦^ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\n\u003c*• \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nm3     i \r\n\r\ni   \u003cr  vo  o    (     i     ii \r\ni      •»    •    «•  i     i    i    i \r\n\r\ncm \r\n\r\nc* \r\n\r\non \r\n\r\non \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nvT\u003e \r\n\r\nr— I \r\n\r\nO^ \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin  cm  o \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\ni     - \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nr- 1 \r\n\r\n¦— 1     r-l     CO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n1     2 \r\n\r\no  \u003cr  co  o  o  r-.  o \r\no  md  cm  oo  en  o  r-~ \r\n\u003cj-   CM   CO   l/\"     o    co   o \r\n\r\n\r\n«\\  *•¦ \r\n\r\n\r\nin  o  o  vo  o \r\nvo  in  oo \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n. — i  i—i  r—     « \r\n\r\n\r\ncr \r\nCO \r\n\r\no \" \r\n\r\n\r\n« \r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•r— \r\nO \r\n,-: \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nV4 \r\n\r\na \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\nCJ  CJ   CJ   CJ   CJ   CJ  CJ    o   5s \r\n\r\nr-\u003c  cr\u003c  00  O  o-\\    o  i— i  cr\u003e  O  !r^ \r\n\r\nn  oo  r^  \u003cf  co    mvor-^oo \r\n\u003c  vDlA  co  sj-    r--.— icooco \r\n\r\n\r\nin  m  co  r— i  r  \"^  co  w *  in  o \r\nt-4  r-4  m  h  n  co  o  \u003eo  in \r\n\r\nVO    m   r-4    CM    CO     O    ITIHN \r\n\r\n\r\n•CO- \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nCO- \r\n\r\n\r\no  oo \r\n\r\nooouooooou^cjScjcj  ^2 \r\n\r\nvOvOCOinvDOOsJvtOsf    \u003cfOCO\\£)   OO \r\n\r\nvocor^oov£\u003emr-mmoomo\u003c}-v£\u003euDO \r\nc\u003eOvOinc^cocovDinocMCOOr^\u003c— i  vdO \r\n\r\n\r\ncr\u003e \r\nr- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nt-*  oo \r\nr^  in \r\n\r\n\r\n•co- \r\n\r\n\r\nCn  i — '    CO \r\n\r\nCO  CO \r\n\r\nr-4  O \r\n\r\nOi  r-t \r\n\r\n\r\nponoomvcovo\\DOO \r\n\r\nN^OMnNCPO\u003cjno\" \r\ncocr\u003crcrcMCT\u003er-io  mo \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  || \r\n\r\nC7- \r\n\r\n\r\n¦CO- \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\nCJCJCJCJOUCJCJ^ \r\n\r\n\r\nco  in  ct\\  m  r-~  o  o \r\nin  CM  \u003cj-  t— i  o^  o  cm \r\ni— i  oo  \u003cr  o\u003e  co  in  r^ \r\n\r\n\r\nC.  O  \u003cf  o  .^  -c  CO \r\n\r\nCTi    \u003cj-  oo    o  in  v£\u003e    •— I \r\n\r\no  r~~  co  co  ctn  cm. oo \r\n\r\nIr,  e«              *v             •» \r\n\r\nCM  t-I    i-l   t-( \r\n•CO- \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nvOl \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nm  i \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nCTi \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n-I \r\n\r\n«\u003eli \r\n\r\n\r\nf-l \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX) \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nX-N \r\n\r\n/^N \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\n/-N \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nPQ \r\n\r\n/-\u003e \r\n\r\n,— \\ \r\n\r\n\u003cr- S \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nMD \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n/\"s \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\ni—i \r\n\r\nCT« \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n*«-s \r\n\r\n\u003cf \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCri \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nN— ^ \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nV_r \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nV.r' \r\n\r\nx_^ \r\n\r\nv_^ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ns\"~\\ \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\nv^' \r\n\r\nv^\" \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\n^-N \r\n\r\n/»\"N \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n^v \r\n\r\ns—^ \r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\n1 — ' \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n/^\u003e. \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cf \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nNX) \r\n\r\nMD \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nrr~S \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n1-1 \r\n\r\n\u003cf \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\ni—i \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nXI \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nA-N \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\n^-1 \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n¦\u003e — ' \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n^—N \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\nCv] \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nTD \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\n.-\u003c \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n?d \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n'    cd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n»w^ \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\nv-^ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n1— ) \r\n\r\n^-v \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nv^ \r\n\r\nv_^ \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\nOO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003c*_• \r\n\r\ni—l \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n..-1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n^— N \r\n\r\nv_-- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n•rH \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n1     r—\\ \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n•-H \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nOMO \r\n\r\nr-t \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n^  K \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•w \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nr: \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCT \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrG \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nX! \r\n\r\nGJ \r\n\r\nv— -CO \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nt— i \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nVJO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003cD \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nD-, \r\n\r\na, \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nr-4     00 \r\n\r\n*C^ \r\n\r\nCO  X) \r\n\r\n*o \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n^— ' \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\n\u003cy \r\n\r\nooo \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\no  x \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n•—I \r\n\r\n1       ¦- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n/— ^   r-\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•—I \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n(1) \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\n— - \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003c4-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nc^^ \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cC \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nO    \"H \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\u003cH \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCM     -1-t \r\n\r\n•-H \r\n\r\nDO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•r-t \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cf \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nin    oo  co \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nv--     C \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nID \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003cr     3 \r\n\r\niJ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nX) \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\npc! \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nrC \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nr-4     0) \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n*3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\n«    « \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n\u003cD \r\n\r\n\u003cC \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\nVj \r\n\r\ny — \\ \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n/-\u003e. \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCl \r\n\r\naj  cn \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n/—\\     -r-l \r\n\r\n.r— \\ \r\n\r\n/— N \r\n\r\n\u003e-•  a \r\n\r\n*o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nXI \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\ntC \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nOO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nU1 \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\nX  nj \r\n\r\nCM     C \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n00  c \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003c1) \r\n\r\nw    c \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nVj \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\nO- \r\n\r\nai \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n\u003cD \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nO-C \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nCM     -r-l \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n4-1    *0 \r\n\r\n0} \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nx-s \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\n•.-( \r\n\r\n^2 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr3 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nx-n  a) \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nCl. \r\n\r\nG  a \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\ni    Q \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ns~\\ \r\n\r\n•1-1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nc  c \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nf-\u003c     -r-l \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nAJ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nx. \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\nPC \r\n\r\nM-l \r\n\r\nin    G \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n*c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\np \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\na    rJ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\ncC \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\na   cj \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\nU-t \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nf-4      4J \r\n\r\nCO. \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n^3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^- ' \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni    \u003cu \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•.-1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\ncd  3 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n—-  o \r\n\r\nN_^ \r\n\r\n•i-4 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n\u003e— - \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\n\u003c4-t \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nd     CJ \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n•U \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n14-4 \r\n\r\nCM    oo \r\n\r\ni-4 \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nto  c \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\ncyo \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n_  £, \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nN— ^ \r\n\r\nX    ^ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\na) \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n^--  a \r\n\r\ncri \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\nr^  C/ \r\n\r\n^— ' \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003e% \r\n\r\nn  P^ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nu    c \r\n\r\n\u003e-4 \r\n\r\nCj \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n:r\u003e \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\u003e% \r\n\r\n\u003e, \r\n\r\na   w \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n•r\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e    ct3 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO    4-1 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no    o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n?Sr- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n4-) \r\n\r\nS-. \r\n\r\nJ-'      -r( \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nJ_l \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n-r-l \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nr4        S \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n4-1    l-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4.)      -r-l \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nJ_) \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n4-J   Cl-I \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\nr: \r\n\r\ni— 1 \r\n\r\nc3 \r\n\r\n3    C \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\ntA \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n_c \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\ni-\u003e \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nr\u003c \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\n•h  a \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•r-l       4-\u003e \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nco    o \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003e-i \r\n\r\n^J     -H \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nr-l            CJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nJ_J \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nE  o- \r\n\r\nP \r\n\r\nE   -h \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nCJ    o \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\n\u003e-• \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX) \r\n\r\no    E \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\n:j \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nX) \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\np \r\n\r\nxi    E \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\na-j \r\n\r\nl-i  o \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\nU      X \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nj=\u003e \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n3    l-i \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nci \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCD    *0 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni—i \r\n\r\n•—l \r\n\r\n4-» \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrO \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•r4       O \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\ncc) \r\n\r\nO  J-i \r\n\r\n\u003cC \r\n\r\nO    X \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nny \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nx    a \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\u003cJ \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nP-. \r\n\r\nhJ \r\n\r\n¦J    \u003c \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^J \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nEn \r\n\r\nr-l      rC \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ) \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nr^r \r\n\r\na  o- \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n«  \u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\ncc; \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nW  cc; \r\n\r\n126 \r\n\r\n\r\njj \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n4_» \r\n\r\n«_i \r\n\r\nu* \r\n\r\nU\u003c          u. \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•                     • \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n0J \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\ncr          cr \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nu, \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCO              00 \r\n\r\n, \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n.O     r-t    \u003cf    cO    O \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\no  \u003cr  in  m \r\n\r\nen  in \r\n\r\n—t  \u003cf \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr-  o   O \r\n\r\n•- \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nm  co  cm  r~»  o \r\n\r\nc-l \r\n\r\nin  oo   f\u003e  r\u003e- \r\n\r\n»•  r- \r\n\r\nr-»  vd \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nc^  m  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\ni     i \r\n\r\ni    cn  cn  \u003cr  co  o    ¦     i     i     ii     ii \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nC7\\    \u003cJ\"    00    CM       1 \r\n\r\ni    co  in \r\n\r\ncn  ,— i \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n00    O    Is*       '      1        • \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\ni     i \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nA          A          •%          M        | \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\n\u003ct   CO    CT\u003e    CO   CT\u003e \r\n\r\nLT\\ \r\n\r\nnh  o  a» \r\n\r\nO    C7N \r\n\r\nr--  r-- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\noo  vo  in \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nc/o \r\n\r\nm    CM    f^.    r-4    CM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\ncn  en  in \r\n\r\nm  in \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nen  \u003cr \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\njj \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n»J \r\n\r\n•\u003c— \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nex, \r\n\r\nOCJCJCJCJCJCJCJ \r\n\r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\ncj\u003e  a  p  p  o \r\n\r\ncnor- icnoinniocnoc  coooooo \r\n\u003cj-ooinmco\u003ci-OLnou-,  c\\  o  vo  o  o \r\nOsfvtONNu-iHCKton  co  o  cn  o  o \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c!¦  co  vp  ci  co  r- io\u003e— icnvDr-i  cm  c%i  m  o  cr-. \r\n\r\n\u003ci\"  Mvf^COtNNsi-rOO^Nsfr-lOO \r\n\r\nCM  t-li-HvOr-JCOmoCMCM  i— I \r\n\r\n\r\n•co- \r\n\r\n\r\nrn \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nOCJCJPCJOCJCJCJCJCJCJCJIS  CJCJ \r\n\r\ncocMooocoor^-cMC^cnoOc^\u003cr  o  o\u003e \r\n\r\ncjco-ocNiomco\u003c— i  vt  m  o\u003e  m  cn  cm  oo \r\n\r\nr^MDmcnm\u003e£)CMocn\u003cj-r^f^-cnsD  o  m \r\n\r\n\r\ncrvcMor^ovom\u003cTr^i— iinoc^i— i  in\u003etf \r\nco  o~\\  en  \u003cr  cr.  NONNvDstHsfo  r^.r-4 \r\nh  \u003cf  o\\r- 1  \u003c}-  cn  cm         r^  t— I  O  CM   CM \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003co- \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCmI \r\n\r\nocl \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nrl \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n•CO- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\n•r— \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\ntx \r\n\r\n•o \r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\no \r\n•r-i \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nw \r\np \r\np \r\no \r\nu \r\n\r\n\u003c5 \r\nl-l \r\n\r\no \r\nw \r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\nd \r\no \r\n\r\n•r-4 \r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n«4-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nd \r\no \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n4_» \r\na \r\n\r\nj_\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nd \r\n\u0026o  d \r\nd  \u003c \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n^  r-4 \r\n\r\nU  —l \r\n\r\nCO  eo \r\n\r\np-i  tri \r\n\r\n\r\no  \u003cu \r\n\r\nJ2  CO \r\nO \r\n\r\nCO  m \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nJO \r\n\r\nco  d \r\n\r\nP  o \r\n\r\n\r\nn-J  O \r\n\r\nCJ  CM \r\n\r\nCO  I \r\n\r\nt\u003eH  \u003e \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\no  60 \r\n\r\no  c \r\n\r\nTJ  \"H \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ni \r\nex \r\n\r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\n\r\nO  «H \r\n\r\nd  co \r\no \r\n\r\n•i-4  w \r\n\r\n4J  CD \r\n\r\nCO  CJ \r\n\r\nO  •«-) \r\n\r\na  \u003e \r\n\r\nT3  J-1 \r\n\r\nM  CJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nj-i \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nAJ \r\n\r\n•1-4 \r\n\r\nx\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nfi \r\n\r\njj \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\njo \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\n.C \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\nos \r\n\r\na-, \r\n\r\nIX \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\na \r\na \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n•H \r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\"J \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\ncn \r\nen \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc-j \r\n\r\nI \r\ncd \r\n\r\n\r\n60 \r\nC \r\n\r\ntj \r\n\r\nI— I  \u003c^s \r\n•H  CO \r\n3    CM \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c4-l \r\n\r\n0)  c \r\n\r\nW  M \r\n\r\nCO  • \r\n\r\nx  e \r\n\r\nP-l  QJ \r\n\r\na  co \r\n\r\nCO  \u003e-4 \r\n\r\n•  \u003e,  co \r\n\r\nCO  0-i \r\n\r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nCO      CJ \r\n0-1    W \r\n\r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e \r\nO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\nd \r\nU \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n4-1  CJ \r\n\r\nJ3  • \r\n\r\n•H  O \r\n\r\nU  0) \r\n\r\n4-1  rM \r\n\r\nco  w \r\n¦H \r\n\r\nQ  -3 \r\n\r\n\r\nco    a \r\na    cj \r\n\r\n\r\n5-i \r\nu \r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\ni—4 \r\n\r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n•r-t  vO \r\n^  O \r\n\r\nO     I \r\n\r\n4-1   u~\u003e \r\n•i-l  \\D \r\n\r\n3  cX \r\n\u003c  CO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nm \r\n\\o \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nrx \r\neo \r\n\r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\n•H    r-4  g \r\n\r\nr-l     a  a \r\n•H      CO \r\n\r\ncj     co  co \r\n\r\nCO     3  \u003e, \r\n\r\nU-i    d  CO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO  AJ \r\n\r\n\u003e^  o \r\n\r\nCO     CO  JD \r\n\r\na  .h \r\n\r\nV-i     Vl  )-i \r\n\r\nH     CJ  4J \r\n\r\nr— I  CO \r\n\r\nC)      ^  -r-l \r\n\r\nto  d  o \r\n\r\nCO      -r-( \r\n\r\n?     J-l  CO \r\n\r\ncj    am \r\n\r\nCO    CO  o \r\n\r\n\r\n¦x. \r\n\r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nOi \r\n\r\nd. \r\n\r\ncO \r\nja \r\nCJ \r\n\r\nI     co \r\nCJ    60 \r\n\r\n\r\n4-1     \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nC \r\nel) \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nCO   \"r-l \r\n\r\n•r-l      3 \r\n\r\nX  CO \r\nW \r\n\r\nr- 1 \r\n\r\nM-4     CO \r\n\r\nO    V. \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc  \u003e \r\n\r\nO    \u003cD \r\n¦^  CO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCO  l*-l \r\n\r\n\u003e    O \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nC    l-l \r\n\r\ncu  a \r\nex  ex \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nU \r\nex \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\ncx \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n\r\nCTN \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n•-) \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n^— s \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\na)    • \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003c--^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nCO   60 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCTi \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n*a \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCOTD \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nX. \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\ni— i \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nXr-I \r\n\r\n*-) \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n0-! \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\n/— s \r\n\r\n0-1  CO \r\n\r\n\u003e— ' \r\n\r\nCX \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nv_x \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n6  cj \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCJ  -H \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•u  E \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nfX, \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•r-4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nCO    CJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc^ \r\n\r\nr— i \r\n\r\n^-^ \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nm3 \r\n\r\n4_\u003e \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n^-\u003e \r\n\r\nCO  cO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\ni— i \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nX. \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nJ \r\n\r\nCXI \r\n\r\n•r-4 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n^— ¦* \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n\u003cf \r\n\r\nd\u003c \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nXI \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni— 1 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n•r-l     1 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n1 ' \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nS-J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n^-^ \r\n\r\n4_) \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\np  e \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n-O \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n—i \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\npq \r\n\r\neo  j: \r\n\r\n'-1 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•--( \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nP \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n•H    4_) \r\n\r\ni—i \r\n\r\nLt-I \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\na) \r\n\r\n, — ^ \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n,-\u003e \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\ncr; \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\n\u003cy \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n•r-4 \r\n\r\n\u003e-l     CO \r\n\r\ncU \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nV-i \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\n4J    \u003e, \r\n\r\n5-4 \r\n\r\nr— I \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n^— v \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ncx \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n«H \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCO  CO \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nX) \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n*3» \r\n\r\nCH \r\n\r\n1-1 \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCX \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nJS \r\n\r\n1+4 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCr-4 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nVw' \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nv_^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n^-4 \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nr-4    J-l \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•^ \r\n\r\n•WT \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCJ    J-l \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nl-l \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\ncj  c \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nZj \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n5-. \r\n\r\n•r-4     O \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nS-i \r\n\r\n5-J \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nJ-J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n5-.  CJ \r\n\r\nU_| \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n•r-4 \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n•r-4 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nJJ \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n4-) \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nEi \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\naj \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCJCJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\njO \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nccj \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nCJ  \u003cd \r\n\r\n\u003c  ¦ \r\n\r\ni— i \r\n\r\nI— 1 \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n1 — 1 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nX) \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•- '  ^ \r\n\r\n\u003c\"»  ¦ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n\u003cC \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nP \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nP \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nIX \r\n\r\ny- \r\n\r\nCX \r\n\r\n127 \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nO- \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no, \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ntr \r\nto \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ni     i \r\ni     i \r\n\r\ni \r\ni \r\n\r\n22,815 \r\n33,512 \r\n\r\n59,904 \r\n\r\ni \r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\ni \r\n\r\ni     i \r\n\r\n1     1     1     1 \r\n1     1     1     1 \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr* \r\nvO \r\n\r\nr—4 \r\n\r\n¦u \r\n\r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nOCOCOOOOOLOr-l \r\n\r\nvo\u003cj-fOcT*voooT-4r\u003e. \r\n\r\nOOOOsfiAOMr-iCO \r\n\r\n\r\n^OOcOC3\u003evOr^O \r\nr^  vO  vO  r^         og  \u003cr  cni \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCX3 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n(_r\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nt    i     i     i \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n•    •it \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\nlO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n0» \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\nt4 \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\\j \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n¦f] \r\n\r\na, \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na, \r\n\r\nV4 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nOvoomr^i— i   tnoooocr.^-icNO \r\n\r\nfO   N   OO    O    OMn    COC\\IO\u003cJ\"COvOC\\JO \r\nLT)    UO    CA    '.O    r- I   LTi     ITlNiniriin^COO \r\n\r\n\r\npH    vj     \u003c4*    CT\\    \u003cj\"  C     C\\J    CO    Cm    CT»    w    l-O    *n   O \r\nCO    CO   r-l    \u003cj    vO  O    V.O   ^J-    CN    CN    vO   \u003cJ-   vO   CM \r\n•st   CO  O    CO    UO \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003co- \r\n\r\n\r\nCNI \r\n\r\n\r\n¦CO \r\n\r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\ndJ    OCJ  o \r\n\r\nUUOUUUUUUUUUUS2DOD \r\n\r\nt^coc^co\u003crr^.o\\coooco\u003cj-oooo\u003cro \r\nuoovocNiinr^oininuococooooococ \r\n\r\n0\u003evjnO\\t^OCMOMNh.stcOOOr)NO \r\n\r\n\r\nC\\  vC \r\n\r\n\r\no  ir \r\n\r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\n\r\nOr^CT\u003eOCOCTSLnOvD\u003cJ\"^OCO\u003cJ- \r\n\r\nsNinonvonoiOHin        ¦— i \r\n\r\n\r\n/•\"¦\"N        /*v  1        £\u003e        i   ^-\\     i   JS        t^\\        .   #^ \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nCNI \r\n\r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\n\r\n-co- \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n# \r\nOJ. \r\n\r\n\r\nI' \r\n\r\n\r\nLO  CM    CN|    iT\u003e.  i  m \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n•CO- \r\n\r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n¦ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n^~s \r\n\r\nIB \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n/^^ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n/\"\u003e \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\noo \r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n1 \r\nOS \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\n^^ \r\n\r\nv_^ \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nN— ' \r\n\r\nt-4 \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nv_^ \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n-^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nl-l \r\n\r\nl \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nc\u003c \r\n\r\nc: \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦^-^ \r\n\r\nx-.'d \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nl \r\n\r\nv ' \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nPL. \r\n\r\nIT\u003e    r-l \r\n\r\nnj \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-» \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nr-l    \u003eH \r\n\r\nr-i \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\n.— 1 \r\n\r\n0)    CO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\ni    d \r\n\r\nPQ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCO  c \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n•i-4 \r\n\r\n£   PQ \r\n\r\nej \r\n\r\n5-4 \r\n\r\nCJ    -r-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n5-4 \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\n\r\nT\u003e \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n^^ \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nGO \r\n\r\nZZ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n5-i  TJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nO    r-l \r\n\r\nV4 \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd  -h \r\n\r\n\u003cU \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n.— I \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4J    -r4 \r\n\r\n0-1 \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\nCfl \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nG     G \r\n\r\nA \r\n\r\nCL \r\n\r\nrc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO    d \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO  3 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\npa \r\n\r\n,»•\"\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\n•r-l       CU \r\n\r\n•--( \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\npq \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n*o \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nCO    TJ \r\n\r\na) \r\n\r\n04 \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n-CO \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nS-i     (0 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nu-i \r\n\r\n•r^    r-4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n,— v \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\na    a \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc: \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO      CO \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u003e  \u003c \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nv-^ \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n04 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nf'~* \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\nT3     a \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no    CO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nd  \u003e \r\n\r\nT4. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e  c \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nd  cu \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n4_) \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n}-\u003c \r\n\r\n•h \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nEl \r\n\r\nO  CO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^r-l \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nr^     a \r\n\r\nU-4 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nU-4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCOU-I \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nre \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nV4 \r\n\r\n'ft \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nri  -a \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n14-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n5-1    O \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n•r-( \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n}-i \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\nJ-i     o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCU    o \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nPC, \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCi \r\n\r\n^-j \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\n_a    G \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\na-o  ij \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n*a \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-r  * \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•r-l      0) \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nC    CJ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n2; \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\n^\u003e \r\n\r\n^\u003e \r\n\r\nr-J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n_i   c\u003c \r\n\r\nc^ \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\nci \r\n\r\nCti \r\n\r\n^Joi \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nM \r\nM \r\nH \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\ny-^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nr-. \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nPS \r\n\r\n^^ \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003cJ\"    CU \r\n\r\npa \r\n\r\n\u003c!• \r\n\r\nrd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO    CJ \r\n\r\nv_x \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n/— v \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrd \r\n\r\n1    c \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCS! \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^-i \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\ni-i  cO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n\u003c}¦ \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nr-  C \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\ns— / \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nG \r\ncu \r\n\r\n1    cu \r\n\r\nOS    4-J \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\npa \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nv-^ \r\n\r\n^-^ \r\n\r\ni— i \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\npa  d \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n-ct \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nCJ- \r\n\r\n/T~S \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nv— '-H \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n^D \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\u003e•. \r\n\r\ncO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n*~^ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nJ-\"  S \r\n\r\n•U    -H \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nd  4-i \r\n\r\n-.4 \r\n\r\n•a \r\n\r\nv_x \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n* — ' \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•— N \r\n\r\nu  ^ \r\n\r\nCU     d \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nm9 \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-. \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nG    o \r\n\r\npa \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n•r-i \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\ncs \r\n\r\ncu  \u003e, \r\n\r\na    s \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n/^N \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCJ\u003e   CO \r\n\r\nCJ    TJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•ri \r\n\r\n~o \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO   w \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nt-4 \r\n\r\n\u003cf \r\n\r\n\u003el \r\n\r\nTD \r\n\r\nXi \r\n\r\n¦w \r\n\r\n4-J   r-4 \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nr-J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n\u003eH \r\n\r\nd  o \r\n\r\na.  tj \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\n/*~s \r\n\r\n/~ s \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\nca \r\n\r\n/^S \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•r-4 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\na  -h \r\n\r\na     r-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nv_^ \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\n,*•\u003e \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\nxi  pa \r\n\r\nds  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nto, \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\"4-4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•i-l \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n4_\u003e  TJ \r\n\r\n5-i    o \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n. — 1 \r\n\r\nCEi \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n-C \r\n\r\nCj \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\n\r\nCO  r-4 \r\n\r\na  -^ \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nV— ' \r\n\r\nV_ ' \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nv— ' \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n^— ' \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n-d \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^  \u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n4_\u003e \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\u003el \r\n\r\n\u003e.  L \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\n\u003e^ \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003cc \r\n\r\nC    CO  H    kl) \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n•r-l     C \r\n\r\nCxJ. \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003e^ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n\u003eM— 1  -r-l \r\n\r\nCO    CO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-) \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n—- \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n—1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nU-4 \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\n\u003cD  CM \r\n\r\nd    c \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•^4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n4_) \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n^~J \r\n\r\n•i-4 \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n\"O   O \r\n\r\n•H      -r4 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n\u003eH \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\na.  t3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nO    O \r\n\r\n^-4      4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n5-4 \r\n\r\n5-4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncc! \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\n5-4 \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\nc£ \r\n\r\n/- \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nJD \r\n\r\nG    5-i \r\n\r\nO     cj \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nGJ \r\n\r\ni— i \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nCJ    CJ \r\n\r\no    a \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\npa \r\n\r\nHJ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nc_2 \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nU- \r\n\r\nC4 \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\noscs \r\n\r\no  S \r\n\r\n128 \r\n\r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCd \r\n\r\n4-» \r\n\r\n\u003cU \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nex, \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\nO    ON \r\n\r\n¦ \r\n\r\ncm  i-^  cr. \r\n\r\ncn  o  O  o \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCO  r^ \r\n\r\nCT\\    CO   \u003cf \r\n\r\nr-x  o  o  cm \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nr^  cm    i \r\n\r\n1         1         1         1         1 \r\n\r\n1     sf    CN   vO \r\n\r\nI     CT\u003e   O    O   X\u003e      1       1 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n«s        *\\      I \r\n\r\n1         1         1         1         1 \r\n\r\n1         »\u003e      ,.      « \r\n\r\nI              rs          r\\          r.          r*        |            | \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nr-i    \u003cJ\\ \r\n\r\nr»-   CN    r-l \r\n\r\nh  cn  o  n \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH    \u003ct \r\n\r\nco  \u003cr  \u003cf \r\n\r\nvO    CO    rH \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nX-\u003e \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nC_J \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\n•r-« \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\n•P-l \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCu \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\ncj\u003e \r\n\r\nO  J3 \r\n\r\nOOUUOOCJCJCJCJUCJCJPuqjjSOUOOCJ \r\n\r\n\r\no   o        O  C_\u003e \r\n\r\nUD    ZD  O   d\u003e   X\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\no\u003eo\u003ctio\u003c^vDcoc\\iOr-\u003crooocoo0ovor^ccr^r-ir^^D  o  o  'X'  vo \r\n\u003ctr^inoc^r^uooor^r^LTivDo\u003crCNjoinvD\u003ctvococO'— '  mo^^r \r\n\r\nft         ft         «»         #.  *, 'ft  r.  r.         ft  ft  «  ft         •.  -_  p.,         *  ft  ft         ft  ft  ft  ft  ft**  ft  t  ft         * \r\n\r\nrNcrioooDinr-irorvHv3vDNfcr)srHM^inrN'-\u003c\u003c.''vD\u003ct\u003c?r-icO'-*r^ \r\ncm  ro  nNNcrisli^cncO(s;NNininin^'^co\u003cfCori \r\n\r\nt-l  NOlCTlHyO^-srCNl  cr- \r\n\r\n\r\nr^  co  \u003cr \r\n\r\nCM    i— I    CM \r\n\r\n\r\n¦CO- \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003e3- \r\n\r\n\r\n•CO- \r\n\r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•1— \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•J \r\n\r\nJU \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n*d \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nfj. \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003cr. \r\n\r\n1-1 \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCM \r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCJ) \r\n\r\nC_) \r\n\r\n\u003cr^, \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n1-J \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\ncr. \r\n\r\nt-4 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nvD \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003cL\u003e \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nM3 \r\n\r\noi \r\n\r\nv_^ \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n4-t \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n\u003cD \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n\u003e» \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4_) \r\n\r\nv^ \r\n\r\ni-H \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n5h \r\n\r\ni— 1 \r\n\r\ntJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrd \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n^^  r-l \r\n\r\n«— s \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\n-TO \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\"-r-i \r\n\r\nCO  pq \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nEC \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nr-H \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^-a \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n^— . \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n1     O \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\nrd \r\n\r\n/^S \r\n\r\n•-N \r\n\r\n^5 \r\n\r\nJ3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\n¦rH \r\n\r\n?o   o \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nr^- \r\n\r\nP-, \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nv-^  -H \r\n\r\nv^ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n*r4 \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nLM \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nra \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nM    ^ \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n¦-I \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n\u003e% \r\n\r\n*¦ — i \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n60   U \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c^N \r\n\r\n* « \r\n\r\nrS \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nCX,  Xl \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nPQ \r\n\r\nC     V \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\n5-t \r\n\r\n4-) \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\u003e^ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n\u003eh \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nry. \r\n\r\ntoUH \r\n\r\n•h  to \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\n^-^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nr'-. \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nTO    O \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nXI \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003e.rt \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\n-h  *ro \r\n\r\n\u003e, \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nJ-J \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nVi \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nr-H \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nlu  *J \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n•r-l     o \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nP-  XI \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nv— * \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nv— ' \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCn \r\n\r\n-3 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni    d \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n3    o \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nr- 1 \r\n\r\nor. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\np \r\n\r\nco -a \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n4_l \r\n\r\nCO    CO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCQ    tu \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n0^ \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nr— I \r\n\r\nv_^ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nPI \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nVj \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n5h    E \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nP-l \r\n\r\nti \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n•rH     O \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\na.  \u003e.a \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•h \r\n\r\n4_J \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nXI \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n/'-N \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\n^¦j \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nLi \r\n\r\nTO    CJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4_\u003e \r\n\r\nj-j \r\n\r\nC3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\u003cf \r\n\r\n«^~v \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n•d \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCJD \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\ncu  TO \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nX    VJ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n-3 \r\n\r\nS-i \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\n/— s \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nr: \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCO  \u003c—\u003e \r\n\r\nr-H \r\n\r\nCO     CO \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n*j \r\n\r\nO) \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n73 \r\n\r\nl \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nr-H \r\n\r\n\u003cf \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nas  cu \r\n\r\nCX, \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\n\u003e, \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nr-H \r\n\r\nc\u003c \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\nP \r\n\r\nh \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n^J   d \r\n\r\n5n \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n^-,-i \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nv_x \r\n\r\n•rH \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\u003e% \r\n\r\n^S \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nix \r\n\r\nO,  m3  aS \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n(J \r\n\r\n•u \r\n\r\ncx \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\niJ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nft. \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nS-4 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\na  cj \r\n\r\n05 \r\n\r\nU-4 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nu3 \r\n\r\ncq \r\n\r\n\u003e^ \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\n¦\u003e»— \u003c¦ \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr—  * \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n\u003e.  Ct \r\n\r\nto  m3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•rl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\u003es-^ \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^y \r\n\r\n\"» \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n\u003e-i \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\na   xj \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nV4 \r\n\r\nr-« \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n\u003e^ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrd \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n•¦H  r-l \r\n\r\n•rH \r\n\r\no    d \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nl-( \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n\u003cJ \r\n\r\nu-i   TO \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\n£    a \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\n5h \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nJ-4 \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nV4 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nX) \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\"O \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nO   \u003e \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nO    \"TO \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nEi \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr— t \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nca \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\nr— 1 \r\n\r\nO    3 \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n\u003e«     3 \r\n\r\ni\u003e \r\n\r\nt,* \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\nr-i \r\n\r\n•¦-I \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nX) \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nCu \r\n\r\nCO, \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n•rH \r\n\r\nU   E \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nTO     XJ \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n, — ( \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nTD \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\nO    0) \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nL2    CO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n*— * \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\np \r\n\r\nUa \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nrl- \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\ntt! \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\nDS \r\n\r\n*£ \r\n\r\n.u \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nas  as \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n129 \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  I-B-10 \r\n\r\n\r\nNARRATIVE  DESCRIPTION  OF \r\nPHYSICAL  PLANT  AND  CAMPUS  ENVIRONMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nOF \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM \r\nSENIOR  COLLEGE  UNITS \r\n\r\n\r\n130 \r\n\r\n\r\nALBANY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nAlbany  State  College  is  a  coeducational,  residential,  four-year  institution \r\nfounded  in  1903  and  located  on  a  campus  of  approximately  120  acres  located  on \r\nthe  east  side  of  the  Flint  River  in  the  center  of  the  City  of  Albany,  Borgia. \r\nIt  has  been  a  four-year  institution  since  1943.   The  oldest  building,  which  is \r\nthe  Administration  Building,  was  built  in  1921.   Most  of  the  buildings  on  the \r\ncampus  have  been  built  within  the  last  eighteen  years. \r\n\r\nConsiderable  remodeling  has  been  performed  on  the  older  buildings  to  improve \r\nthe  usability  of  the  facilities  and  to  renovate  their  condition.   A  former  city \r\nstreet  has  been  closed  and  converted  into  a  pedestrian  mall  in  the  center  of  the \r\ncampus.   Within  the  last  fourteen  years,  we  have  constructed  approximately  $8,750,000 \r\nin  new  facilities  including  a  200-bed  Dormitory,  a  new  Infirmary,  a  Student  Center, \r\nan  addition  to  the  Science  Building,  and  a  recently  completed  $1,250,000  Classroom \r\nBuilding  and  a  $500,000  Physical  Plant  Building.   We  have  in  design  a  Business \r\nAdministration  Building  with  a  project  budget  of  $1,000,000. \r\n\r\nAlbany  State  College  campus  is  located  in  a  section  of  the  City  of  Albany  which  is \r\npartially  commercial  and  industrial  and  partially  low  economic  level  residential  areas, \r\nWithin  the  last  seven  years,  we  have  been  able  to  secure  funds  to  purchase  portions  of \r\nthe  commercial  and  residential  areas  adjoining  the  campus.   This  has  permitted  us  to \r\nimprove  the  surrounding  environment.   However,  there  are  considerable  areas  still  re- \r\nmaining in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  campus  which  we  Would  like  to  either  acquire \r\nand  clean  out  or  to  have  cleaned  out  by  Urban  Renewal  type  of  process.   The  entrance \r\nof  the  institution  has  historically  been  through  a  depressed  area.   We  have  acquired \r\nland  to  reorient  the  entrance  onto  a  state  highway  to  create  a  better  impression  of \r\nthe  college  campus,  and  are  presently  working  with  the  Department  of  Transportation, \r\nState  of  Georgia,  to  have  this  entrance  constructed. \r\n\r\n\r\n131 \r\n\r\n\r\nARMSTRONG  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nArmstrong  State  College  is  a  coeducational,  non-residential,  four-year  insti- \r\ntution located  on  an  approximately  250  acre  campus,  ten  miles  southwest  of  the \r\ncenter  of  Savannah,  Georgia,   The  present  facilities  were  constructed  in  1965 \r\nand  the  present  physical  plant  is  all  relatively  new.   The  institution  is  an \r\noutgrowth  of  a  former  Savannah-owned  junior  college  originally  founded  in  1935. \r\n\r\nThe  present  campus  consists  of  ten  buildings  finished  between  1965  and  1970,  plus \r\na  recently  completed  Fine  Arts  Building  and  an  Addition  to  the  Library.   We \r\npresently  have  under  construction  a  Regional  Paramedical  Center.   All  of  the \r\npresent  buildings  are  in  very  satisfactory  condition. \r\n\r\nThe  present  campus  is  surrounded  by  wooded  areas  and  high  class  residential  neigh- \r\nborhood and  the  campus  fronts  upon  Abercorne  Street  which  is  a  main  four- lane \r\nhighway. \r\n\r\n\r\n132 \r\n\r\n\r\nAUGUSTA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nAugusta  College  is  a  four-year,  coeducational,  non-residential  institution  founded \r\n\r\nin  1925  as  the  Junior  College  of  Augusta.   It  became  a  part  of  the  Board  of  Regents \r\n\r\nin  1958,  progressing  to  a  four-year  school  in  1963  and  has  now  been  authorized \r\n\r\ngraduate  work.   It  is  located  on  a  65  acre  campus  in  the  western  area  of  the  City \r\n\r\nof  Augusta.   The  campus  is  held  by  the  Board  of  Regents  under  a  contractual  agreement \r\n\r\nwith  the  United  States  of  America  since  the  campus  is  the  historic  site  of  the  Augusta \r\n\r\nArsenal  and  some  of  the  buildings  on  this  campus  date  back  to  1816.   Four  of  the \r\n\r\nbuildings  were  constructed  in  1826  and  the  Arsenal  was  actually  used  in  most  of \r\n\r\nthe  wars  of  the  United  States  from  the  War  of  1812  through  World  War  II.   The \r\n\r\nPresident's  Home  is  a  National  Historical  Shrine. \r\n\r\nThe  academic  buildings  are  remodeled  military  warehouses.   In  addition  to  these \r\nbuildings  which  were  built  in  1941  and  remodeled  for  academic  purposes  in  early  1960's. \r\nwe  have  constructed  a  Fine  Arts  Building  and  a  Swimming  Pool  Building.   We  have  re- \r\nmodeled an  ordinance  building  into  a  student  center  and  we  have  performed  extensive \r\nrenovation  and  remodeling  of  the  older  facilities  in  order  to  maintain  their  condition \r\nand  upgrade  their  usability.   We  have  recently  completed  the  construction  of  a \r\n$2,500,000  Library  and  the  renovation  of  an  old  barracks  building  for  Business \r\nOperations.   In  July  of  this  year,  we  acquired  the  United  States  Army  Reserve  Armory, \r\nat  a  purchase  price  of  $662,000,  located  at  the  corner  of  Katherine  Street  and  Walton \r\nWay  adjoining  the  campus  of  Augusta  College,  although  the  property  itself  will  not \r\nbe  made  available  to  Augusta  College  until  after  the  construction  of  a  new  Army \r\nReserve  Center  scheduled  to  be  completed  by  June  1,  1980. \r\n\r\nThe  Augusta  College  campus  is  located  in  the  center  of  one  of  the  older  high  quality \r\nresidential  areas  of  the  City  of  Augusta  and  the  surrounding  area  contributes  to \r\nthe  well-being  of  the  school.   We  have  managed  to  acquire  some  adjoining  property \r\nas  it  has  become  available  and,  in  fact,  one  fine  piece  of  property  was  given  to \r\nthe  Regents  for  the  school. \r\n\r\n133 \r\n\r\n\r\nCOLUMBUS  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nColumbus  College  is  a  coeducational,  non-residential,  four-year  institution \r\nestablished  in  1958  and  recently  has  been  authorized  graduate  work.   It  is  located \r\non  an  approximately  135  acre  campus  in  the  northeastern  section  of  the  City  of \r\nColumbus,  Georgia. \r\n\r\nAll  of  the  buildings  on  Columbus  College  campus  have  been  constructed  since  1963 \r\nand  are  considered  to  be  in  excellent  operating  condition.   In  addition  to  the \r\noriginal  buildings  provided  by  the  local  community  as  a  part  of  the  establishment \r\nof  this  school,  Regents  has  constructed  approximately  $12,791,795  of  additional \r\nfacilities,  including  a  recently  completed  $2,250,000  Library,  a  $1,200,000  Lecture \r\nHall,  a  $900,000  Administration  Building  Addition,  and  a  $1,000,000  Continuing  Educatio \r\nBuilding,  this  latter  building  being  financed  entirely  by  a  local  single  gift  of \r\n$1,000,000.   We  have  also  recently  completed  a  $1,500,000  Classroom  Building.  We \r\nhave  currently  in  design  an  Addition  to  the  Student  Center  with  a  budget  of  $1,250,000. \r\nThe  enrollment  of  this  institution  has  expanded  rapidly  in  the  last  few  years  and \r\nif  the  enrollment  continues  to  grow,  additional  facilities  will  be  needed. \r\n\r\nThe  campus  is  located  in  an  area  where  it  is  bounded  partly  by  reasonably  good  re- \r\nsidential area  and  partly  by  roads  and  waterways  which  limit  any  encroachment  into \r\nthe  campus  area.   We  have  been  successful  in  the  last  five  years  in  acquiring  addi- \r\ntional property  adjacent  to  the  campus  for  future  expansion. \r\n\r\n\r\n134 \r\n\r\n\r\nFORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nFort  Valley  State  College  is  a  coeducational,  residential,  four-year  institution \r\nwhich  has  recently  been  authorized  to  offer  graduate  work.   It  was  founded  in \r\n1895  and  became  a  unit  of  the  University  System  in  1939.   It  is  located  on  one \r\nof  the  largest  campuses  in  the  University  System,  consisting  of  645  acres  on \r\nthe  west  side  of  the  City  of  Fort  Valley.   The  institution  is  partially  oriented \r\ntowards  instruction  in  agriculture  and  a  large  portion  of  the  campus  property  is \r\ndevoted  to  farm  type  operation  in  connection  with  this  instruction. \r\n\r\nThe  present  campus  buildings  date  back  to  the  early  1900's  in  a  few  cases.   Several \r\nof  the  buildings  were  built  in  the  late  1920's  and  early  1930's.   We  have  undertaken \r\nextensive  renovation  of  a  number  of  these  older  buildings  and  more  renovation  is \r\nneeded  as  soon  as  funds  are  available  to  accomplish  the  work.   Within  the  last \r\nfourteen  years,  Regents  has  added  approximately  $11,100,000  in  new  construction  on \r\nthis  campus,  including  the  completion  of  a  Food  Service  Building  and  some  new  Dormitory \r\nfacilities.   We  have  recently  completed  a  $2,000,000  Library,  a  $350,000  Infirmary,  and \r\na  $1,600,000  Classroom  Building.   We  have  also  recently  completed  the  Renovation  of \r\nDavison  Hall,  which  is  an  old  dormitory,  at  a  budget  of  $725,000,  and  we  have  completed \r\na  $550,000  Annex  to  Moore  Hall,  which  is  also  a  dormitory,,   We  have  under  construction \r\nan  Animal  Technician  Facility  with  a  budget  of  $200,000,  and  we  have  in  design  the \r\nRenovation  of  the  Old  Library  with  a  budget  of  $1,100,000. \r\n\r\nThe  academic  portion  of  the  Fort  Valley  State  College  campus  is  located  in  an  area \r\nof  the  City  of  Fort  Valley  which  is  an  economically  depressed  residential  area.   We \r\nare  unable  to  change  the  nature  of  this  neighborhood,  but  we  have  had  discussions \r\nwith  the  local  public  officials  and  they  have  expressed  a  willingness  to  attempt \r\nimprovement  of  the  environmnet  around  the  institution  as  a  local  political  action. \r\nIt  is  regretable  that  a  major  Urban  Renewal  project  could  not  be  initiated  in  this \r\n\r\n135 \r\n\r\n\r\nFORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE  (Continued) \r\n\r\ngeneral  area  for  the  improvement  of  the  environment  around  the  institution  and  the \r\nbenefit  of  the  City,  but\" federal  funds  for  such  projects  have  been  withdrawn.   Re- \r\ncommendations for  improved  highway  access  to  the  campus  were  suggesceu  by  the  mayor \r\nand  county  commissioners  but  have  never  developed.   During  the  last  four  years,  as \r\nfunds  were  made  available  by  the  Georgia  General  Assembly,  we  have  acquired  pieces \r\nof  property,  totaling  approximately  $300,000,  adjacent  to  the  college  campus,  which \r\ncontain  substandard  dwellings,  have  demolished  these  dwellings,  and  are  in  the \r\nprocess  of  landscaping  this  property  to  improve  the  environment  around  the  institution \r\n\r\n\r\n136 \r\n\r\n\r\n•j \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nGeorgia  College  is  a  four-year,  coeducational,  residential  institution  located \r\nadjacent  to  the  business- district  in  the  center  of  the  City  of  Milledgeville, \r\nGeorgia.   It  was  chartered  in  1889  and  for  many  years  was  known  as  uhe  Georgia \r\nState  College  for  Women.   It  became  coeducational  in  1967.   It  operates  on  a \r\n43  acre  main  campus  and  has  in  its  control  a  wooded  area  of  642  acres  approxi- \r\nmately \\\\   miles  west  of  the  main  campus  outside  of  the  City.   The  City  of \r\nMilledgeville  is  one  of  the  historical  cities  in  the  State  of  Georgia.   The \r\nCollege  President's  Home  is  the  former  governor's  mansion  of  the  State  of  Georgia. \r\nMany  of  the  original  buildings  are  in  the  National  Historical  Trust.   The  oldest \r\nof  the  original  dormitories  was  built  in  1897. \r\n\r\nThe  present  Georgia  College  campus  consists  mainly  of  remodeled  old  buildings \r\nwith  a  few  new  structures  built  mainly  for  dormitory  and  student  services.   Within \r\nthe  last  fourteen  years,  Regents  have  added  $8,720,000  new  construction,  consisting \r\nmainly  of  two  Dormitories,  a  Student  Center,  and  an  addition  to  the  Library  and \r\nthe  Science  Building.   We  have  recently  completed  the  first  phase  of  a  Physical \r\nEducation  Building  on  the  land  located  two  miles  west  of  the  main  campus,  and  we \r\nhave  also  completed  a  new  Education  Center  which  consists,  in  part,  of  remodeling \r\nan  older  existing  building.   We  have  also  completed  Phase  III,  of  an  Electrical \r\nDistribution  System  at  this  campus.   The  institution  has  been  growing  in  enrollment \r\nsince  it  was  changed  to  a  coeducational  status  and  major  renovation  and  new  con- \r\nstruction will  be  needed  to  replace  the  obsolete  and  structurally  unsafe  antiquated \r\nbuildings.   Considering  the  age  of  the  facilities,  the  condition  of  the  campus  is \r\nconsidered  very  good  and  a  tribute  to  the  diligence  of  the  staff  in  maintaining \r\na  difficult  situation. \r\n\r\nThe  main  downtown  campus  is  largely  surrounded  by  old  historical  residences  in  the \r\n\r\n\r\n137 \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  COLLECT  (ConLinued) \r\n\r\nhands  of  private  families  and  considered  as  monuments  which  cannot  be  altered. \r\nThere  is  one  small  area  -on  the  northeast  fringe  of  the  campus  of  low  grade \r\nprivate  construction  which  could  be  improved  for  the  environment  of  .1--  campus \r\nThe  rural  600  acre  area  is  surrounded  by  more  farms  and  timber  land  and  the \r\nenvironment  is  excellent. \r\n\r\n\r\n133 \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nGeorgia  Southern  College  is  a  coeducational,  residential,  baccalaureate  and \r\ngraduate  school  located  -in  the  southern  part  of  the  City  of  Statesboro,  Georgia. \r\nIt  occupies  a  campus  of  approximately  400  acres  and  it  was  established  in  1906, \r\nbecoming  a  part  of  the  University  System  in  1932. \r\n\r\nAll  of  the  buildings  at  this  institution  have  been  built  since  1935  with  the \r\nmajor  construction  occurring  in  two  phases,  one  in  the  middle  1950' s  and  one  in \r\nthe  late  1960's.   Within  the  last  fourteen  years,  Regents  have  constructed  $25,900,000 \r\nin  new  facilities  on  this  campus,  including  a  $1,400,000  Fine  Arts  Building,  a \r\n$3,500,000  Science  Complex,  and  a  $1,700,000  Education  Building.   We  have  recently \r\ncompleted  a  $4,000,000  Library,  a  $900,000  Infirmary,  a  $450,000  Home  Management \r\nHouses,  a  $990,000  Electrical  Distribution  System,  and  a  $200,000  Demonstration  School \r\nAddition.  We  have  also  completed  the  purchase  of  a  tract  of  land  adjacent  to  the \r\ncollege  campus  totaling  21%  acres  which  contains  six  apartment  buildings,  at  a  purchase \r\nprice  of  $350,000,  which  are  to  be  converted  into  dormitories,  which  conversion  will \r\ncost  $230,000.   We  have  presently  in  design  the  Remodeling  of  a  Dormitory  with  a \r\nbudget  of  $1,600,000,  and  Phase  I  of  a  Continuing  Education  Building  with  a  budget \r\nof  $1,000,000. \r\n\r\nThis  campus  is  located  in  a  \"V\"  between  two  major  roads  so  that  it  is  bounded  on \r\ntwo  sides  by  highways  and  the  back  side  of  the  triangular  shaped  campus  land  con- \r\ntains an  extensive  private  development  primarily  built  in  connection  with  the  in- \r\nstitution such  as  student  apartments,  dormitories,  shopping  centers,  etc.   The  area \r\naround  the  campus  is  considered  satisfactory  although  there  is  a  potential  problem \r\nthat  the  private  property  behind  the  campus  might  in  time  degenerate  into  an \r\nundesirable  area. \r\n\r\n\r\n139 \r\n\r\n\r\nGEORGIA  SOUTHWESTERN  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nGeorgia  Southwestern  College  is  a  coeducational,  residential,  four-year  insti- \r\ntution recently  authorized  to  start  a  graduate  program.  The  college  was  founded \r\nin  1906  and  became  a  four-year  institution  in  1964.  It  is  located  on  a  187  acre \r\ncampus  in  the  southeastern  part  of  the  City  of  Americus,  Georgia.  While  most  of \r\nthe  buildings  on  this  campus  are  relatively  new,  the  Administration  Building  was \r\nbuilt  in  1918  and  there  are  two  distinct  phases  of  construction,  one  in  the  middle \r\n1950's  and  the  current  program  which  started  in  the  middle  1960's. \r\n\r\nThe  older  buildings  on  this  campus  have  been  extensively  renovated  and  this  program \r\nis  continuing  as  funds  are  made  available.   The  electrical  distribution  system  on \r\nthe  campus  was  in  unsatisfactory  condition  seven  years  ago.   Since  that  time,  \\e \r\nhave  completed  all  three  phases  of  the  electrical  distribution  system.   Within  the \r\nlast  fourteen  years,  the  Board  of  Regents  has  added  nearly  $13,200,000  in  new  con- \r\nstruction on  this  campus,  including  the  completion  of  two  dormitories  and  the  con- \r\nstruction of  a  new  Library  and  a  new  Classroom-Office  Building.   We  have  in  design \r\na  new  Fine  Arts  Building  for  this  campus. \r\n\r\nThe  campus  is  located  in  a  residential  area  of  the  City  of  Americus  and  the  sur- \r\nrounding environment  is  considered  very  satisfactory.   However,  there  is  no  addi- \r\ntional land  adjoining  the  campus  which  could  be  procured  in  the  event  the  institution \r\nexpands. \r\n\r\n\r\n140 \r\n\r\n\r\nNORTH  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nNorth  Georgia  College  is  a  coeducational,  residential,  four-year  institution \r\nfounded  in  1873  and  located  in  the  center  of  the  City  of  Dahlonega,  Georgia. \r\nThe  central  campus,  of  approximately  200  acres,  contains  a  historical  ouilding \r\npresently  used  as  the  Administration  Building  and  this  building  originally  was \r\na  federal  mint  constructed  in  1879.   The  institution  has  a  long  history  of \r\nassociation  with  the  Department  of  the  Army  and  is  classified  as  one  of  the  four \r\nmilitary  colleges  in  the  United  States  by  the  Department  of  the  Army. \r\n\r\nThe  present  campus  consists  of  a  few  buildings  built  in  the  1800's  plus  a  series \r\nof  buildings  built  in  the  middle  1930' s  plus  the  new  construction  completed  within \r\nthe  last  decade. \r\n\r\nWithin  the  last  fourteen  years,  the  Board  of  Regents  has  constructed  approximately \r\n$7,680,000  in  new  buildings  including  a  new  Student  Center,  a  new  Library,  and \r\na  new  Dormitory.   In  addition,  we  have  completed  major  renovations  which  consist \r\nof  the  renovation  of  the  Administration  Building,  renovation  of  the  Old  Library, \r\nand  renovation  of  the  Old  Academic  Building  originally  built  in  1895. \r\n\r\nThe  present  campus  is  reasonably  well  surrounded  by  acceptable  residential  and \r\ncommercial  establishments  except  in  one  area  on  the  north  side  of  the  campus  and \r\nwe  have  been  acquiring  this  property  as  additional  campus  property  whenever  funds \r\nbecome  available. \r\n\r\n\r\n141 \r\n\r\n\r\nSAVANNAH  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nSavannah  State  College  is  a  coeducational,  residential  institution  founded  in \r\n1890.   It  is  presently  a  four-year  institution  with  one  graduate  program.   It \r\nis  located  on  a  bluff  overlooking  the  coastal  marshes  in  the  coranun.;;  cf \r\nThunderbolt,  Georgia,  which  is  on  the  southeast  side  of  Savannah,  Georgia. \r\nThe  present  campus  consists  of  approximately  160  acres.   However,  the  oldest \r\nportion  of  the  campus  located  east  of  the  Placentia  Canal  was  originally  deeded \r\nto  the  college  as  land  to  build  a  Negro  higher  education  institution. \r\n\r\nThe  buildings  on  this  campus  vary  in  age  from  Hill  Hall  built  in  1905  up  to \r\nthe  presently  constructed  buildings.   Within  the  last  fourteen  years,  the  Board \r\nof  Regents  has  constructed  $14,260,000  in  new  facilities  at  this  institution \r\nincluding  a  new  Student  Center  at  $1,200,000,  a  new  Science  Building  at  $1,200,000, \r\nand  two  new  Dormitories  at  approximately  $1,000,000  each.   We  have  just  recently \r\ncompleted  the  construction  of  a  $1,400,000  Classroom  Building,  a  $2,600,000  Librrry, \r\nand  a  $500,000  Field  House  and  Armory„   We  have  completed  extensive  utility  and \r\ncampus  development  construction  on  this  campus,  including  rebuilding  steam  plants \r\nand  steam  lines,  storm  sewers  and  water  supply  and  development  of  roads  and  park- \r\ning lots,  all  using  Regents'  cash.   We  presently  have  under  construction  the  remodel- \r\ning of  a  dormitory  for  married  students  with  a  budget  of  $960,000,  and  we  have  in \r\ndesign  the  remodeling  of  the  Old  Library  with  a  budget  of  $600,000. \r\n\r\nThe  area  around  Savannah  State  College  is  residential  and  apartment  developments  and \r\nthese  are  considered  to  be  satisfactory  areas.   There  is  one  area  at  the  northeast \r\ncorner  of  the  campus  where  the  existing  privately  owned  facilities  are  not  of  a \r\nquality  comparable  with  the  balance  of  the  neighborhood.,   We  have  attempted  to \r\npurchase  this  property  and  have  been  successful  in  some  instances  but  have  not \r\n/      completed  this  program  because  of  reluctant  sellers  and  lack  of  funds. \r\n\r\n\r\n142 \r\n\r\n\r\nVALDQSTA  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nValdosta  State  College  is  a  coeducational,  residential  institution  offering  four- \r\nyear  and  graduate  programs.   It  was  founded  in  1906  and  is  located  on  two  campuses \r\nin  the  City  of  Valdosta.   The  main  academic  campus  is  located  in  the  center  of \r\nthe  north  residential  area  of  the  City  of  Valdosta  and  the  additional  campus  is \r\nlocated  on  the  northern  limits  of  the  city  approximately  one  mile  from  the  main \r\nacademic  campus.   The  main  academic  campus  was  originally  started  at  this  insti- \r\ntution as  a  development  of  Spanish-Colonial  architecture.   We  have  maintained  this \r\nstyle  of  architecture  throughout  all  of  the  additions  to  date  on  the  main  campus. \r\n\r\nThe  buildings  at  Valdosta  State  College  vary  in  ages  from  1917  to  date.   With  the \r\nexception  of  the  two  older  academic  buildings,  most  of  the  heavily  used  buildings \r\nare  relatively  new.   Within  the  last  fourteen  years,  the  Board  of  Regents  has  con- \r\nstructed $17,075,000  in  new  facilities  including  a  $2,400,000  Science  and  Admini- \r\nstration Building,  a  $2,000,000  Fine  Arts  Building,  a  $2,250,000  500-bed  Dormitory, \r\na  $2,000,000  Library,  and  a  $1,800,000  Education  Center.   Renovation  has  been  per- \r\nformed on  a  number  of  buildings  including  a  Nursing  Building  and  older  dormitories \r\nwhich  have  been  converted  into  married  student  apartments.   We  have  just  recently \r\ncompleted  the  construction  of  a  $800,000  Bookstore  Facility  which  is  a  part  of  the \r\nStudent  Union  Complex.   We  currently  have  in  design  a  project  for  the  remodeling \r\nof  the  Old  Library  with  a  budget  of  $750,000. \r\n\r\nThe  area  around  both  campuses  of  this  institution  is  high  grade  residential  deve- \r\nlopment and  contributes  to  the  well  being  of  the  institution,  but  presents  a \r\nconsiderable  problem  with  regard  to  land  area  expansion. \r\n\r\n\r\n143 \r\n\r\n\r\nWEST  GEORGIA  COLLEGE \r\n\r\nWest  Georgia  College  is  a  coeducational,  residential  institution  offering \r\nbaccalaureate  and  graduate  degrees.   It  was  established  in  1933  and  occupies  a \r\ncampus  of  approximately  400  acres  on  the  western  edge  of  the  City  of  Carrollton, \r\nGeorgia.   The  institution  has  grown  in  size  very  rapidly  during  the  late  1960's. \r\n\r\nThe  buildings  on  the  West  Georgia  College  campus  vary  in  age  from  1907  to  date \r\nexcept  that  there  is  one  historic  building  built  in  1843.   Due  to  the  growth \r\npattern  of  the  institution,  the  Board  of  Regents  has  constructed  $25,200,000  in \r\nnew  facilities  within  the  last  fourteen  years,  including  a  $2,000,000  Biology- \r\nChemistry  Building,  a  $2,000,000  Multi-Purpose  Dormitory,  a  $3,000,000  Academic \r\nCenter,  and  numerous  dormitories  and  a  Student  Center.   We  have  also  completed \r\nthe  construction  of  a  new  Food  Service  Building  with  a  budget  of  $1,600,000.   We \r\npresently  have  under  construction  the  remodeling  of  the  Student  Center  with  a \r\nbudget  of  $155,000.   We  currently  have  in  design  an  Addition  to  the  Library  with \r\na  budget  of  $2,000,000. \r\n\r\nThe  institution  is  surrounded  on  three  sides  by  residential  development  and  by \r\n\r\nfarm  lands  at  the  rear  of  the  campus  land.   The  area  around  the  school  is  beneficial \r\n\r\nto  the  environment  of  the  school. \r\n\r\n\r\n144 \r\n\r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  FINANCIAL  AID \r\n\r\nA  copy  of  the  complete  University  System  Financial  Aid  Report  for  1976 \r\nis  presented  in  Part  II,  Section   3  .   The  reports  to  the  Office  for  Civil \r\nRights  indicate  the  number  of  applicants,  number  of  awards,  kind  of  awards, \r\nand  dollar  amounts  by  race/ ethnic  designation  and  sex.   A  summary  of  those \r\ntables  reveals  the  following  distribution  of  the  $48,716,673  in  total \r\nfinancial  aid  resources  available: \r\n\r\nA.  Grants  -  No  Repayment  Required \r\n\r\n57.9  percent  of  the  awards  in  this  category  were  made  to  black \r\n\r\nstudents \r\n\r\n59.6  percent  of  the  dollars  in  this  category  went  to  black  students \r\n\r\nAverage  award  in  this  category  was  $873 \r\n\r\nAverage  award  for  black  recipients  was  $952 \r\n\r\nAverage  award  for  white  recipients  was  $776 \r\n\r\nB.  Loans  -  Repayable  By  Cash  Only  And  By  Cash  Or  Service \r\n\r\n29.0  percent  of  the  awards  in  this  category  were  made  to  blacks \r\n\r\n25.8  percent    of    the  dollars   went    to  black  students \r\nAverage  award    in    this    category   $1,195 \r\n\r\nAverage  award  for  black  recipients  was  $885 \r\nAverage  award  for  white  recipients  was  $1,353 \r\n\r\nC.  Scholarships  -  No  Form  Of  Repayment  Required \r\n\r\n17.4  percent  of  the  awards  in  this  category  ware  made  to  blacks \r\n\r\n15.9  percent  of  the  dollars  went  to  black  students \r\nAverage  award  in  this  category  $530 \r\n\r\nAverage  award  for  black  recipients  was  $512 \r\nAverage  award  for  white  recipients  was  $593 \r\n\r\n145 \r\n\r\n\r\nD.  Employment \r\n\r\n33.3  percent  of  the  awards  in  this  category  were  made  to  black  students \r\n\r\n24.4  percent  of  the  dollars  went  to  black  students \r\nAverage  award  in  this  category  $946 \r\n\r\nAverage  award  for  black  recipients  was  $756 \r\nAverage  award  for  white  recipients  was  $1,023 \r\n\r\nE.  All  Categories \r\n\r\n38.7  percent  of  the  total  awards  were  made  to  black  students \r\n24.1  percent  of  the  total  dollars  went  to  black  students \r\nAverage  award  for  all  categories  $1,124 \r\nAverage  award  for  black  recipients  $1,107 \r\nAverage  award  for  white  recipients  $1,127 \r\n\r\n\r\n146 \r\n\r\n\r\nI-C  ACADEMIC  PROGRAM  COORDINATION \r\n\r\nReference:   Section  I-C  (Guidelines) \r\n\r\nPart  I -A \r\n\r\nI -B  (Degree  Programs)  (Plan) \r\n\r\nThe  Eoard  of  Regents  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  commits  itself \r\nto  a  continuation  of  the  implementation  of  its  plai  to  eliminate  educationally \r\nunnecessary  program  duplication  among  traditionally  black  and  traditionally \r\nwhite  institutions  in  the  same  service  area.  The  only  case  in  point,  in  this \r\nconnection,  is  Armstrong  State  and  Savannah  State  Colleges  both  located  in \r\nChatham  County  and  in  the  city  of  Savannah. \r\n\r\nIn  the  academic  year  1975-76  a  series  of  academic  development  activities \r\nemphasizing  academic  program  analyses  in  senior  colleges  were  initiated  and \r\nconducted  by  the  staff  of  the  Vice  Chancellor  for  Academic  Development  of \r\nthe  University  System  of  Georgia.   This  process  was  characterized  by  appro- \r\npriate institutional  involvement  in  the  plaining  and  data  collecting,  and  \u003c-he \r\nfeedback  opportunities  regarding  the  analyses.  The  major  purposes  of  this  process \r\nwere  to: \r\n\r\nA.  Determine  the  number  of  degrees  awarded  (1972-1975) \r\n\r\nB.  The  number  of  student  credit  hours  generated \r\n\r\nC.  The  cost  rate \r\n\r\nD.  Program  costs \r\n\r\nE.  Determine  the  amount  of  program  duplication. \r\n\r\nIn  these  analyses  it  was  indicated  that  the  situation  at  Armstrong  State \r\nCollege  and  Savannah  State  College,  the  only  proximate  senior  colleges  in  the \r\nsystem  which  served  the  same  region  -  the  Savannah/ Chatham  County  area  - \r\nwould  be  treated  as  a  special  case.   The  goal  of  this  effort  from  the  outset \r\nwas  a  cooperative  development  and  subsequent  implementation  of  a  plan  that \r\nwould  delineate  the  specific  role  of  each  college,  reduce  and/or  eliminate \r\n\r\n\r\n147 \r\n\r\n\r\nnon-generic  duplicative  programs  in  such  a  manner  as  to  promote  the  enroll- \r\nment of  a  significant  number  of  non-majority  students  on  each  campus.   The \r\noverall  effort  resulted  in  the  development  of  guidelines  that  would  regulate \r\nthe  cooperative  manner  in  which  academic  degree  programs  would  be  offered  by \r\nthe  two  institutions. \r\n\r\nThe  following  description  of  the  Armstrong  State-Savannah  State  plan \r\nwill  show  how  duplication  is  being  eliminated.   The  program  was  started  in \r\n1971  and  continued  in  response  to  the  directive  in  the  desegregation  plan \r\nof  the  University  System  of  Georgia  which  was  accepted  by  the  U.  S.  Depart- \r\nment of  Health,  Education  and  Welfare  on  June  31,  1974.   There  were  three \r\nareas  of  activity  to  be  explored  through  the  joint  efforts  of  Savannah  State \r\nCollege  and  Armstrong  State  College.   These  three  were \r\n\r\n1.  The  formation  of  a  Duplication  Committee,  composed  of  an \r\nequal  number  of  persons  from  each  college,  to  study  the \r\npresent  curricula  of  each  college  and  to  make  recommen- \r\ndations to  eliminate  unnecessary  duplication,  develop \r\ndiscrete  programs  at  each  college  which  would  attract \r\nminority  students,  and  examine  additional  areas  of \r\ncooperative  efforts  between  the  two  colleges. \r\n\r\n2.  The  formation  of  a  Recruitment  Committee,  composed  of  an \r\nequal  number  of  persons  from  each  college,  to  develop  a \r\nunified  approach  for  joint  effort  programs  through  which \r\nthe  area  high  school  counselors  will  be  informed  of  the \r\nopportunities  offered  at  the  two  institutions. \r\n\r\n3.  An  examination  through  the  joint  efforts  of  Department  Heads \r\nof  each  discipline  area  to  determine  where  unnecessary \r\nduplication  exists  and  to  determine  where  further  coopera- \r\ntive efforts  between  the  two  colleges  might  take  place. \r\n\r\n148 \r\n\r\n\r\nA  joint  committee  from  both  colleges  were  formed  into  a  Duplication  Committee \r\n\r\nArmstrong  S ta te  College: \r\n\r\nDr.  Henry  L.  Ashmore,  President,  Co-Chairman \r\n\r\nDr.  H.  Dean  Propst,  Dean  of  the  College \r\n\r\nDr.  Orange  Hall,  Tenured  Faculty  Member  (Head,  Business  Administration  Dept.) \r\n\r\nDr.  Henry  Harris,  Tenured  Faculty  Member  (Head,  Chemistry  Department) \r\n\r\nMiss  Lorraine  Anchors,  Tenured  Faculty  Member  (Professor  of:  English) \r\n\r\nMr.  James  Head,  President,  Alumnus \r\n\r\nMrs.  Harriet  Konter,  Alumna \r\n\r\nMr.  Glenn  Arnsdorff,  President,  Student  Government \r\n\r\nMiss  Beth  Fogarty,  Student \r\n\r\nMr.  James  Baker  (Recorder  for  Armstrong  State  College) \r\n\r\nSavannah  State  Colles \r\n\r\n\r\nDr.  Prince  Jackson,  Jr.,  President,  Co-Chairman \r\n\r\nDr.  Thomas  H.  Byers,  Dean  of  the  College \r\n\r\nDr.  Clyde  Hall.,  Tanurai  Faculty  Member  (Head,  Division  of  Technical  Sciences) \r\n\r\nMrs.  Martha  Wilson,  Tenure!  Faculty  Member  (Associate  Dean,  Undergraduate  Studies) \r\n\r\nDr.  Isaiah  Mclver,  Tenured  Faculty  Member  (Associate  Professor  of  Hi3tory) \r\n\r\nMrs.  Josie  B.  Sessoms,  Alumna \r\n\r\nMiss  Ruby  L.  King,  Alumna \r\n\r\nMr.  John  Clark,  President,  Student  Government \r\n\r\nMrs.  Jessie  Barnes,  Vice,  President,  Student  Government \r\n\r\nDr.  Hayward  Anderson  (Recorder  for  Savannah  State  College) \r\n\r\nIn  addition  to  the  regular  members  of  the  Duplication  Committee,  several \r\nalternates  for  committee  members  were  selected  and  served  from  time  to  time. \r\nThese  alternates  were  Dr.  E.  J.  Dean  (SSC) ,  Dr.  Luetta  Milledge  (SSC) ,  Mrs.  Jule \r\nR.  Stanfield  (ASC) ,  Dr.  Ida  J.  Gadsden  (SSC),  and  Mr.  Johnny  Campbell  (SSC). \r\n\r\nThe  Committee  was  fully  aware  of  the  background  of  the  desegregation \r\nproposals  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia.   It  was  aware  of  the  HEW's  concern \r\n\r\n149 \r\n\r\n\r\nthat,  if  two  state  coLleges  exist  in  the  same  locality,  efforts  must  be  made  to \r\ninsure  a  minimum  of  duplication  and  to  insure  increasingly  higher  percentages  of \r\nminority  groups  in  attendance  at  each  college.   It  was  also  aware  of  the  HEW's \r\nconcern  that  desegregation  efforts  should  not  put  an  undue  burden  on  the  Black \r\nInstitution,  the  Black  faculty,  and  the  Black  students. \r\n\r\nWith  the  above  background  in  mind,  the  following  was  implemented  to \r\nallow  the  two  state  colleges  in  Savannah  to  continue  to  exlstt  as  separate \r\nentities  while  yec  satisfying  the  mandate  to  dismantle  the  dual  system  of  public \r\nhigher  education  which  is  usually  inferred  whenever  traditionally  Black  and  White \r\ncolleges  exist  in  proximity.   This  is  being  achieved  by  providing  programs \r\nwhich  allow  them  to  maintain  their  respective  integrity  and  to  give  each \r\ncollege  unique,  significant,  and  separate  roles;  eliminating  unnecessary \r\nduplication;  cooperating  whenever  feasible;  and  working  jointly  in  special \r\nareas. \r\n\r\nEach  institution  has  been  given  programs  to  emphasize  and  develop,  thus \r\nproviding  discrete  programs  at  each  of  the  institutions  not  duplicated  at \r\nthe  other.   Deliberate  effort  is  made  to  place  at  each  institution  certain \r\ndegree  programs  which  would  attract  other  race  students  to  that  institution. \r\nThe  current  and  anticipated  strengths  of  each  institution  were  carefully \r\nevaluated  with  concern  for  protecting  and  developing  such  strengths.   Efforts \r\nwere  made  to  harness  the  strengths  of  the  two  institutions  so  that  complete \r\nand  adquate  educational  opportunities  would  exist  in  this  section  of  Georgia \r\nfor  the  whole  population. \r\n\r\nIn  light  of  the  above  the  following  are  being  implemented: \r\n1.  Discrete  degree  programs  at  each  college  which  cannot  be \r\nduplicated  at  the  other.   These  specific  programs  were \r\nidentified  by  the  Joint  Committee  on  the  basis  of  exist- \r\ning strengths  within  each  inst: ration.   They  were  recog- \r\nnized as  representative  of  areas  from  which  additional \r\n\r\n150 \r\n\r\n\r\nofferings  might  most  effectively  emerge. \r\n\r\n2.  Cooperative  degree  programs  offered  at  both  colleges  but  designed \r\nso  that  certain  courses  would  be  offered  only  at  one  institution \r\nbut  would  be  required  by  both,  thus  insuring  that  students  in  these \r\nprograms  would  attend  both  colleges  for  one  or  more  courses. \r\n\r\n3.  Joint  degree  programs  which  would  be  handled  on  a  joint  basis  similar \r\nto  that  of  the  Graduate  Program.   In  these  programs,  certain  pro- \r\nfessors are  appointed  on  a  joint  basis. \r\n\r\n4.  Degree  programs  which,  because  of  their  nature  and  supportive  functions, \r\nwould  be  duplicated  at  each  campus. \r\n\r\n5.  Graduate  programs  which  would  be  offered  jointly  and  separately. \r\n\r\nAREA  ONE  -  DISCRETE  DEGREE  PROGRAMS \r\nOffered  only  at  one  college,  not  duplicated  at  the  other \r\n\r\n\r\nArmstrong  State  College \r\nHealth  Professions \r\n\r\nPsychology \r\n\r\nPublic  Administration \r\n\r\n\r\nS avannah  St ate  Col lege \r\nEngineering  Technology \r\n\r\nHome  Economics \r\n\r\nPolitical  Science \r\n\r\n\r\nAnthropology \r\n\r\n\r\nSociology \r\n\r\n\r\nRomance  Languages \r\nSpeech  Correction \r\n\r\n\r\nIndustrial  Arts  \u0026  Trade  and \r\n\r\n\r\nIndustrial  Education \r\n\r\n\r\nAREA  TWO  -  COOPERATIVE  DEGREE  PROGRAMS \r\n\r\n\r\nOne  or  more  courses  in  each  program  will  be  offered  only  at  one  college, \r\nnot  duplicated  at  the  other,  but  required  by  each. \r\n\r\n\r\nBiology \r\n\r\nChemistry \r\n\r\nMathematics  6c  Computer  Science \r\n\r\nHealth,  Physical  Education  \u0026  Recreation \r\n\r\n\r\nHistory \r\n\r\n\r\nCriminal  Justice \r\n\r\n\r\nMusic \r\n\r\n\r\n151 \r\n\r\n\r\nAREA_  THREE  -  _J 0. 1 NT  DEGREE  JPROGRAie  m \r\nCertain  Joint  Degree  Programs  will  be  handled  in  the  same  or  in  a  similar \r\nmanner  as  programs  in  the  Graduate  Program.   Certain  professors  will  be  appointed \r\non  a  joint  basis. \r\n\r\nFine  Arts \r\nEarth  Sciences \r\nArt \r\n\r\nSocial  Work \r\n*  AREA  FOUR  -  DUPLICATIVE^  JPROGRAMS \r\n\r\nEach  college  wojld  offer  these \r\nArmstrong  State  College  Savann ah_S tat e_C o ll_e g_e \r\n\r\nEnglish  English \r\n\r\nTeacher  Education  Teacher  Education \r\n\r\nBusiness  Administration  Business  Administration \r\n\r\narea  JJVA ..\"  .GRADT4AT^  _™gra-ms_ \r\n\r\nThe  Graduate  Program  continues  in  operation  under  a  Joint  Graduate  Council \r\nIn  areas  where  a  degree  is  offered  at  both  colleges,  a  graduate  degree  in  that \r\narea  is  offered  jointly.   In  areas  where  a  degree  is  offered  by  one  college  but \r\nnot  the  other,  a  graduate  degree  in  that  area  is  offered  by  that  college  and  not \r\njointly.   However,  all  graduate  programs,  whether  joint  or  unilateral,  come  under \r\nthe  auspices  and  control  of  the  Joint  Graduate  Council. \r\n\r\nAlthough  most  of  the  Graduate  Programs  will  remain  jointly  .of fered ,  there \r\nwill  be  a  few  which  will  be  unilaterally  given  by  one  institution  inasmuch  as  the \r\nother  would  have  no  undergraduate  expertise  in  such  programs.   Therefore,  the \r\nfollowing  recommendations  were  approved  in  order  for  the  plan  to  move  without \r\nfriction: \r\n\r\n1.  That  both  institutions  review  the  nomenclature  of  their  degree  programs \r\nir.  an  effort  to  identify  specifically  the  kind  of  degree  offered. \r\n\r\n152 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.  That  each  institution  submit  to  the  Board  of  Regents  a  statement  which \r\nwould  include  the  specific  programs  to  be  offered  at  its  ca-npjs,  the \r\nnames  of  t\"he  degrees  and  the  proposal  for  any  new  degree  which  would \r\ncome  under  the  guidelines  of  the  plan. \r\n\r\n3.  That  a  joint  committee  be  formed  to  seek  out  non-duplicative  degree \r\nprograms  which  would  attract  non-majority  students  to  each  canpus. \r\n\r\n4.  That  a  joint  committee  be  formed  to  study  the  impact  new  programs  will \r\nhave  on  each  campus.   In  the  event  that  this  committee  cannot  agree  to \r\nthe  recommended  proposals  to  the  Regents  and  the  Presidents  cannot \r\nagree,  final  arbitration  will  be  handled  by  the  Chancellor's  Office. \r\nThis  committee,  under  the  direction  of  the  two  Deans  of  the  Colleges, \r\nwill  also  suparvise  the  implementation  of  the  coopsrative  programs \r\n\r\nat  the  two  colleges. \r\n(These  have  been  accomplished) . \r\n\r\nThe  following  table  shows  the  graduate  degrees  awarded,  by  race,  in  the \r\njoing  graduate  program  from  June  1972  -  August  1976. \r\n\r\n\r\nTotal \r\n\r\nGraduation  date \r\n\r\ndecrees \r\n\r\nBlac \r\n\r\nJune  72 \r\n\r\n25 \r\n\r\n20 \r\n\r\nAug  72 \r\n\r\n32 \r\n\r\n24 \r\n\r\nJune  73 \r\n\r\n32 \r\n\r\n26 \r\n\r\nAug  73 \r\n\r\n45 \r\n\r\n32 \r\n\r\nJune  74 \r\n\r\n38 \r\n\r\n28 \r\n\r\nAug  74 \r\n\r\n72 \r\n\r\n47 \r\n\r\nJune  75 \r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\n35 \r\n\r\nAug  75 \r\n\r\n82 \r\n\r\n39 \r\n\r\nJune  76 \r\n\r\n62 \r\n\r\n26 \r\n\r\nAug  76 \r\n\r\n57 \r\n\r\n28 \r\n\r\nThite \r\n\r\nA  s  ian \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n7 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n25 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n20 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n35 \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n27 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n153 \r\n\r\n\r\nJL-*^ \r\n\r\n\r\nP \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  Board  commits  itself  to  continue  to  eliminate  program  duplication \r\nconsistent  with  the  objectives  of  strengthening  the  traditionally  Black  College. \r\n\r\n\r\n154 \r\n\r\n\r\nI-D        NEW  ACADEMIC  PROGRAMS \r\n\r\nReference:   Section  I-D  (Guidelines) \r\n\r\nPart  I -A \r\n\r\nI-B  (Degree  Programs    (Plan) \r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  commits  itself  to  the  continued  placement  of \r\nundergraduate  and  graduate  degree  programs  at  the  three  historically  black \r\ninstitutions  consistent  with  their  missions  as  senior  units  of  the  University \r\nSystem.   A  diligent  effort  will  be  made  within  this  context  of  mission \r\ndefinition,  to  identify  programs  of  sufficient  student  demand  and  academic \r\nquality  to  attract  students  without  regard  to  race. \r\n\r\nA  recent  proposal  for  a  bachelor's  level  program  in  Forensic  Science \r\nat  Albany  State  College  is  representative  of  the  type  of  unique  program  to \r\nbe  investigated.   Similarly,  the  area  of  Marine  Biology  will  be  reviewed \r\nfor  possible  introduction  at  Savannah  State  College  in  an  effort  to  capital- \r\nize upon  its  physical  location  on  the  edge  of  a  marsh.   Possible  new  program \r\ndefinition  for  Fort  Valley  State  College  is  described  in  the  Court  ordered \r\nPlan  for  that  institution  presented  in  Part  II,  Section  5. \r\n\r\nResponsibility  for  the  review  of  program  proposals  generated  through \r\nthis  initiative  will  be  assigned  to  the  office  of  the  Vice  Chancellor  for \r\nAcademic  Development. \r\n\r\nIt  should  also  be  noted  at  this  point  that  both  Fort  Valley  State  College \r\nand  Savannah  State  College  have  been  awarded  multi=year  grants  in  excess  of \r\n$1.5  million  each  in  support  of  their  participation  in  the  Advanced  Insti- \r\ntutional Development  Program  (A.I.D.P.).   Proposals  for  the  utilization  of \r\nthese  funds  are  developed  in  cooperation  with  a  special  group  of  Regents' \r\nStaff  members  experienced  in  the  application  of  such  funds. \r\n\r\n\r\n155 \r\n\r\n\r\nI-E  IMPACT  STUDIES \r\n\r\nReference: Section  I-E   (Guidelines) \r\nPart  I-F      (Plan) \r\n\r\nGeneral  operations  of  the  University  System  require  numerous  decisions \r\nrelated  to  initiation  or  elimination  of  (a)  academic  programs,  (b)  facilities \r\ndevelopment  on  existing  campuses,  (c)  the  development  of  new  institutions, \r\nand  (d)  the  modification  of  institutional  admissions  standards.   Each  of  these \r\ndecisions  is  primarily  based  upon  consideration  of  System-wide  educational, \r\nresearch,  or  service  objectives.   It  is  also  true  that  a  limited  number  of \r\nsuch  decisions  require  an  evaluation  of  the  potential  impact  of  the  decision \r\non  the  specific  desegregation  efforts  of  one  or  more  System  institutions. \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  commits  itself  under  this  Plan  to  the  continued \r\nidentification  of  those  specific  proposals  which  have  potential  impact  on \r\ndesegregation  efforts  and  to  the  development  of  appropriate  impact  statements \r\ndirected  toward  a  measure  of  the  net  projected  effect  expected  from  the  im- \r\nplementation of  such  proposals. \r\n\r\nThe  identification  of  proposals  having  a  potential  impact  on  desegre- \r\ngation will  initially  be  the  responsibility  of  the  president  of  the  insti- \r\ntution recommending  the  specific  action  in  question.   The  Vice  Chancellor \r\nin  the  Regents'  Office  responsible  for  the  specific  functional  area  covered \r\nby  the  proposal  will  work  with  the  institution  in  the  development  of  the  data \r\nbase  required  for  an  assessment  of  the  net  impact  of  the  proposed  action.   The \r\nVice  Chancellor,  who  has  overall  responsibility  for  the  day  to  day  implemen- \r\ntation of  this  plan,  will  assess  the  completeness  of  the  impact  study  and \r\nwill  incorporate  an  appropriate  impact  statement  in  the  agenda  item  submitted \r\nto  the  Board  of  Regents  requesting  approval  of  the  proposed  action.   The  Vice \r\nChancellor  will  also  be  responsible  for  screening  all  proposals  prior  to  their \r\n\r\nintroduction  into  the  agenda  to  insure  that  no  proposals  requiring  impact \r\n\r\n156 \r\n\r\n\r\nstatements  have  been  overlooked. \r\n\r\nThis  action  was  implemented  effective  with  the  Fall  Quarter  of  1974 \r\nthrough  the  issuance  of  a  memorandum  to  the  presidents  by  the  Associate \r\nVice  Chancellor.   Full  implementation  of  this  action  was  effective  for  all \r\nproposals  submitted  subsequent  to  the  issuance  of  this  memorandum. \r\n\r\nIndirect  costs  attendant  with  the  development  of  these  impact  studies \r\nis  born  by  the  institutions  and  the  Regents'  Office  through  the  regular \r\noperating  budget.   This  is  accomplished  through  the  treatment  of  impact \r\nstatement  development  as  an  additional  parameter  in  the  current  proposal \r\nreview  process. \r\n\r\n\r\n157 \r\n\r\n\r\nI-F  NOTIFICATION  OF  MISSION  CHANGES \r\n\r\nReference:   Section  I-F  (Guidelines) \r\n\r\nPart  I-E  (Plan) \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  commits  itself  to  advise  the  Office  of  Civil \r\nRights  in  advance  of  action  on  major  changes  in  the  character  of  any \r\ninstitution  in  the  University  System  if  in  the  Board's  judgment  such \r\nchanges  would  appreciably  affect  the  further  desegregation  objectives \r\nof  the  System.   Such  prior  notification  would  be  limited  to  major  changes , \r\n\r\nIn  all  instances  decision  making  authority  would  vest  with  the  Board \r\nof  Regents  which  acknowledges  responsibility  for  proper  subsequent \r\ndeterminations  of  compliance  or  non-compliance  with  Title  VI  of  the  Civil \r\nRights  Act. \r\n\r\n\r\n158 \r\n\r\n\r\nI-G,  H    MEASURES  AND  TIMETABLES \r\n\r\nReference:   Sections  G  and  H       (Guidelines) \r\nPart  I,  Sections  A-F   (Plan) \r\n\r\nThe  specific  measures  (e.g.  institutional  mission  definition  and \r\nresources  assessment)  and  the  time  schedules  for  their  completion  are  pre- \r\nsented in  the  relative  sections  of  this  Plan.   It  should  be  noted  that \r\nsome  of  these  measures  have  already  been  completed  in  keeping  with  commit- \r\nments of  the  previous  Plan. \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  as  the  Constitutional  Body  responsible  for  public \r\nhigher  education  in  Georgia  commits  itself  to  the  specific  actions  detailed \r\nin  the  various  sections  of  this  Plan.   The  signing  of  this  document  con- \r\nstitutes such  commitment  by  the  Board  of  Regents. \r\n\r\n\r\n159 \r\n\r\n\r\nII        STUDENT  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\nAs  noted  in  the  introduction,  this  plan  represents  a  specific \r\nresponse  to  the  Guidelines  dated  July  2,  1977.   It  is  necessarily  an  interim \r\ndocument  subject  to  further  analysis  and  refinement.   It  cannot  completely \r\naddress  in  the  highly  structured  framework  of  the  Guidelines  some  of  the  very \r\nbroad  general  problems  associated  with  the  provision  of  increased  educational \r\nopportunity  for  students  of  all  races.   The  fundamental  educational  decisions \r\nimplicit  in  the  futherance  of  all  of  Georgia's  public  higher  education  are \r\nnecessarily  the  responsibility  of  the  Board  of  Regents.   This  responsibility \r\ncan  not  be  abdicated  in  the  pursuit  of  externally  defined  statistical  objectives \r\n\r\nThe  above  caveat  in  no  sense  minimizes  the  importance  of  specific \r\nmeasures  of  progress.   The  material  of  this  section  is  therefore  directed \r\ntoward  a  comparison  of  the  projected  progress  to  be  achieved  in  minority \r\nenrollments  with  the  individual  student  enrollment  guidelines.   These \r\ncomparisons  are  best  understood  in  the  context  of  the  current  status  of \r\nminority  enrollments.   The  comparisons  also  rest  upon  an  understanding  of  the \r\ngeneral  features  of  student  recruitment  and  retention. \r\n\r\nSuccessful  recruiting  and  retention  of  students  requires  a  coordinated \r\napproach  to  potential  applicants,  the  structuring  of  financial  aid  packages \r\nsufficient  to  meet  individual  needs,  and  the  provision  of  programs  directed \r\ntoward  the  academic  and  social  adjustment  required  for  long-range  academic \r\nsuccess.   Clearly-defined  problems  encountered  in  recruiting  are  in  large \r\nmeasure  race  independent,  being  primarily  related  to  the  educational  and \r\neconomic  background  of  the  potential  student.   Sociological  factors  so  im- \r\nportant in  efforts  to  increase  the  involvement  of  minorities  in  all  aspects \r\nof  higher  education  are  less  well  defined  and  frequently  require  approaches \r\nand  techniques  adapted  to  a  particular  institution  and  its  surrounding \r\ncommunity. \r\n\r\n160 \r\n\r\n\r\nMaterial  presented  in  Part  II,  Sections  1-4  describes  those  broad, \r\ngeneral  policies  prevailing  in  the  University  System  of  Georgia  which \r\nrelate  to  student  recruitment,  support,  and  retention.   Particular  attention \r\nis  called  to  the  Special  Studies  Program  designed  for  the  academically  dis- \r\nadvantaged of  all  races.   The  Board  of  Regents  has  committed  itself  to  the \r\nmaintenance  at  each  institution  of  comprehensive  academic  programs  designed \r\nto  aid  in  the  retention  of  students.   This  action  is  based  on  the  belief \r\nthat  the  question  of  special  compensatory  activities  goes  directly  to  the \r\nheart  of  the  problem  of  increasing  minority  student  enrollment. \r\n\r\nInstitutions  of  the  University  System  are  open  and  accessible  to  all \r\nstudents  with  admissions  predicated  totally  on  academic  criteria.   The  in- \r\nstitutions operate  without  regard  to  race. \r\n\r\nSections  II  A  throjgh  II  F  describe  specific  actions  designed  to \r\nadvance  the  process  of  further  desegregation  of  the  University  System  at  all \r\nlevels  of  student  enrollment.   The  remainder  of  this  section  presents  the \r\ngeneral  framework  within  which  further  progress  can  be  expected  to  occur. \r\n\r\nThe  black  enrollment  in  the  University  System  by  institution  over  the \r\nperiod  1972  through  1976  is  given  in  Table  II-l.   Table  II-2  provides  a  com- \r\nparison of  this  substantial  growth  in  minority  students  to  the  overall  System \r\nenrollment  growth.   These  tables  reveal  that  minority  enrollment  increased \r\nby  437,  between  1972  and  1976;  during  the  same  period  total  enrollment  increased \r\n18?,.   While  care  must  be  exercised  in  any  use  of  statistics,  these  figures  are \r\nconsidered  meaningful  particularly  as  they  relate  to  rates-of-increase . \r\n\r\nThe  extent  of  individual  institution  desegregation  during  the  period \r\n1972-76  is  conveyed  in  Table  II-3.   It  should  be  noted  that  minority  in  this \r\ntable  signified  \"other  race\"  enrollment.   The  2.97o  increase  between  1975  and \r\n1976  is  particularly  significant  since  total  enrollment  declined  by  2.97, \r\nduring  the  same  interval. \r\n\r\nTable  II-4  provides  a  detailed  breakdown  by  racial  categories  of \r\n\r\nUniversity  System  enrollment  during  the  1976  Fall  Quarter. \r\n\r\n161 \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  II-l \r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nBLACK  ENROLLMENT,  FALL,  1972-FALL,  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\n1972 \r\n\r\n\r\n1973 \r\n\r\n\r\n1974 \r\n\r\n\r\n1975 \r\n\r\n\r\n1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nGeorgia  Institute  of  Technology \r\n\r\nSouthern  Technical  Institute \r\nGeorgia  State  University \r\nMedical  College  of  Georgia \r\nUniversity  of  Georgia \r\n\r\nUniversity  Totals \r\n\r\nAlbany  State  College \r\nArmstrong  State  College \r\nAugusta  College \r\nColumbus  College \r\nFort  Valley  State  College \r\nGeorgia  College \r\nGeorgia  Southern  College \r\nGeorgia  Southwestern  College \r\nNorth  Georgia  College \r\nSavannah  State  College \r\nValdosta  State  College \r\nWest  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nSenior  College  Totals \r\n\r\nAbraham  Baldwin  Agricultural  College \r\n\r\nAlbany  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAtlanta  Junior  College \r\n\r\nBainbridge  Junior  College \r\n\r\nBrunswick  Junior  College \r\n\r\nClayton  Junior  College \r\n\r\nDal  ton  Junior  College \r\n\r\nEmanuel  County  Junior  College \r\n\r\nFloyd  Junior  College \r\n\r\nGainesville  Junior  College \r\n\r\nGordon  Junior  College \r\n\r\nKennesaw  Junior  College \r\n\r\nMacon  Junior  College \r\n\r\nMiddle  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nSouth  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nWaycross  Junior  College \r\n\r\n\r\nJunior  College  Totals \r\n\r\n\r\nSYSTEM  TOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n155 \r\n\r\n168 \r\n\r\n249 \r\n\r\n351 \r\n\r\n407 \r\n\r\n31 \r\n\r\n67 \r\n\r\n66 \r\n\r\n94 \r\n\r\n110 \r\n\r\n1,785 \r\n\r\n2,052 \r\n\r\n2,284 \r\n\r\n2,920 \r\n\r\n3,003 \r\n\r\n136 \r\n\r\n143 \r\n\r\n220 \r\n\r\n237 \r\n\r\n198 \r\n\r\n896 \r\n\r\n536 \r\n\r\n634 \r\n\r\n732 \r\n\r\n753 \r\n\r\n3,003 \r\n\r\n2,966 \r\n\r\n3,453 \r\n\r\n4,334 \r\n\r\n4,471 \r\n\r\n1,759 \r\n\r\n1,670 \r\n\r\n1,630 \r\n\r\n1,971 \r\n\r\n2,133 \r\n\r\n153 \r\n\r\n292 \r\n\r\n479 \r\n\r\n466 \r\n\r\n435 \r\n\r\n337 \r\n\r\n278 \r\n\r\n369 \r\n\r\n438 \r\n\r\n447 \r\n\r\n302 \r\n\r\n564 \r\n\r\n763 \r\n\r\n937 \r\n\r\n1,013 \r\n\r\n2,060 \r\n\r\n1,790 \r\n\r\n1,689 \r\n\r\n1,700 \r\n\r\n1,667 \r\n\r\n210 \r\n\r\n350 \r\n\r\n474 \r\n\r\n534 \r\n\r\n540 \r\n\r\n270 \r\n\r\n192 \r\n\r\n351 \r\n\r\n368 \r\n\r\n377 \r\n\r\n181 \r\n\r\n241 \r\n\r\n383 \r\n\r\n431 \r\n\r\n452 \r\n\r\n34 \r\n\r\n39 \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\n42 \r\n\r\n58 \r\n\r\n2,555 \r\n\r\n1,976 \r\n\r\n2,120 \r\n\r\n2,248 \r\n\r\n2,267 \r\n\r\n433 \r\n\r\n391 \r\n\r\n550 \r\n\r\n576 \r\n\r\n659 \r\n\r\n375 \r\n\r\n368 \r\n\r\n421 \r\n\r\n558 \r\n\r\n581 \r\n\r\n8,669 \r\n\r\n8,151 \r\n\r\n9,272 \r\n\r\n10,269 \r\n\r\n10,629 \r\n\r\n89 \r\n\r\n124 \r\n\r\n148 \r\n\r\n261 \r\n\r\n251 \r\n\r\n166 \r\n\r\n211 \r\n\r\n208 \r\n\r\n406 \r\n\r\n475 \r\n\r\n439 \r\n\r\n1^369 \r\n\r\n1,611 \r\n\r\n41 \r\n\r\n75 \r\n\r\n99 \r\n\r\n88 \r\n\r\n166 \r\n\r\n189 \r\n\r\n237 \r\n\r\n274 \r\n\r\n251 \r\n\r\n72 \r\n\r\n115 \r\n\r\n92 \r\n\r\n117 \r\n\r\n96 \r\n\r\n49 \r\n\r\n44 \r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\n92 \r\n\r\n71 \r\n\r\n34 \r\n\r\n70 \r\n\r\n70 \r\n\r\n114 \r\n\r\n105 \r\n\r\n.      Ill \r\n\r\n117 \r\n\r\n196 \r\n\r\n197 \r\n\r\n47 \r\n\r\n48 \r\n\r\n59 \r\n\r\n91 \r\n\r\n66 \r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\n92 \r\n\r\n90 \r\n\r\n105 \r\n\r\n152 \r\n\r\n88 \r\n\r\n134 \r\n\r\n56 \r\n\r\n59 \r\n\r\n50 \r\n\r\n134 \r\n\r\n144 \r\n\r\n183 \r\n\r\n337 \r\n\r\n352 \r\n\r\n90 \r\n\r\n61 \r\n\r\n124 \r\n\r\n194 \r\n\r\n199 \r\n\r\n175 \r\n\r\n200 \r\n\r\n238 \r\n\r\n284 \r\n\r\n297 \r\n45 \r\n\r\n1,236 \r\n\r\n1,548 \r\n\r\n2,191 \r\n\r\n3,954 \r\n\r\n4,315 \r\n\r\n12,908 \r\n\r\n12,665 \r\n\r\n14,916 \r\n\r\n18,557 \r\n\r\n19,415 \r\n\r\n^OURCE:   Quarterly  Enrollment  Reports,  Fall  Quarters  19  72-76. \r\n\r\nNOTE:   See  Table  II-l (a)  for  a  specification  of  the  Iledical  College  enrollment  by \r\nclassification  and  by  field. \r\n\r\n\r\n162 \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  IT-1  (a) \r\n\r\n\r\nMedical  College  of  Georgia \r\n^Black.  Enrollment  by  Class  and  Field \r\n\r\nFall,  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nClassification \r\n\r\n\r\nEnrollment \r\n\r\n\r\nField \r\n\r\n\r\nFreshman \r\nSophomore \r\nJunior \r\nSenior \r\n\r\n\r\n17 \r\n28 \r\n42 \r\n\r\n47 \r\n\r\n134 \r\n\r\n\r\n104 Undergraduate  Nursing \r\n\r\n50 Allied  Health \r\n\r\n134 \r\n\r\n17 Graduate  Nursing \r\n\r\n1 Anatomy \r\n\r\n18 \r\n\r\n19 Medicine \r\n\r\n18 Dentistry \r\n\r\n37 \r\n\r\n\r\nGraduate \r\n\r\n\r\n18 \r\n\r\n\r\nProfessional \r\n\r\n\r\n37 \r\n\r\n\r\nMedical  \u0026 \r\n\r\nDental  Residents \r\n\r\n\r\nOther \r\n\r\n\r\nTotal  Black  Enrollment \r\n\r\n\r\n198 \r\n\r\n\r\n163 \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nerf \r\nW \r\nK \r\nH \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\nrJ \r\n\r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n«  as \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n.J \r\n\r\np4 \r\n\r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n$ \r\n\r\nH \r\nO \r\nH \r\n\r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\n\r\nr}\u003e5 \r\n\r\n*« \r\n\r\n6^ \r\n\r\nB-5 \r\n\r\n^N \r\n\r\nIT\u003e \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nfr* \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\n\u003ci- \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nv^ \r\n\r\niH     (0 \r\n\r\n(0     CO \r\n\r\n3     \u003cU \r\n\r\n/—\\ \r\n\r\nC     M \r\n\r\n\\£\u003e \r\n\r\n\\£\u003e \r\n\r\no\\ \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n5  a \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\niO \r\n\r\na\\ \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n=\u003ei= \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nLO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\nrH     4J \r\n\r\nH     C \r\n\r\nco    \u003cU \r\n\r\ntt,    6 \r\n\r\n\u003ecr \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n.H \r\n\r\nOO \r\n\r\n•\u003cr \r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nH   H \r\n\r\nOn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n\u003cu    o \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\\D \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nX!     M \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nSj  c \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no  w \r\n\r\nB^S \r\n\r\ns~-\\ \r\n\r\n8»« \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n3-S \r\n\r\n«* \r\n\r\nOs \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\n\\D \r\n\r\n0)  ^ \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\nrri      W \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nr~- \r\n\r\n\u003ct \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nco    cd \r\n\r\n\\^ \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n3    \u003c1) \r\n\r\n^-\u003e. \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\niH    CO  g \r\n\r\n4J  rH \r\n\r\nH    o  o \r\n\r\ncd  ^ \r\n\r\nrH  C \r\n\r\nCQ  W \r\n\r\n\r\nrH  CO \r\n\r\ncc)  cO \r\n\r\n3  \u003cD     — \r\n\r\nc  u \r\n\r\n5  c* \r\n\r\n\r\no^ \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cn \r\n\r\nCM \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nvD \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\noo \r\no \r\nas \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nO^ \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nr\u003e5 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nON \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nrH \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\nrH \r\n00 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nm \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nOs \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\n•h  c: \r\n\r\nco   a) \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\nfe    g \r\n\r\nCT\\ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nr-i \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nr^- \r\n\r\nr-» \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nrH    rH \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO      O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n4J      VJ \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no  c \r\n\r\nH   W \r\n\r\nCd \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nr»» \r\n\r\nr-» \r\n\r\nr-^ \r\n\r\nf-^ \r\n\r\nr^- \r\n\r\nOn \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\na% \r\n\r\nr-{ \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\nu \r\na) \r\nj-j \r\nu \r\n\r\nffl \r\n\r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\nrJ \r\n4J \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n3 \r\ncr \r\n\r\n\r\n164 \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  II-3 \r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n?MINORITY  ENROLLMENT,  FALL  1972-FALL  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nGeorgia  Institute  of  Technology \r\n\r\nSouthern  Technical  Institute \r\nGeorgia  State  University \r\nMedical  College  of  Georgia \r\nUniversity  of  Georgia \r\nUniversity  Total \r\n\r\nAlbany  State  College \r\nArmstrong  State  College \r\nAugusta  College \r\nColumbus  College \r\nFort  Valley  State  College \r\nGeorgia  College \r\nGeorgia  Southern  College \r\nGeorgia  Southwestern  College \r\nNorth  Georgia  College \r\nSavannah  State  College \r\nValdosta  State  College \r\nWest  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nSenior  College  Total \r\n\r\nAbraham  Baldwin  Agric.  College \r\nAlbany  Junior  College \r\nAtlanta  Junior  College \r\nBainbridge  Junior  College \r\nBrunswick  Junior  College \r\nClayton  Junior  College \r\nDalton  Junior  College \r\nEmanuel  County  Junior  College \r\nFloyd  Junior  College \r\nGainesville  Junior  College \r\nGordon  Junior  College \r\nKennesaw  Junior  College \r\nMacon  Junior  College \r\nMiddle  Georgia  College \r\nSouth  Georgia  College \r\nWaycross  Junior  College \r\n\r\nJunior  College  Total \r\n\r\nSystem  Totals \r\nPercent  Change \r\n\r\n\r\n1972 \r\n\r\n1973 \r\n\r\n1974 \r\n\r\n1975 \r\n\r\n1976 \r\n\r\nBlack \r\n\r\nBlack \r\n\r\nBlack \r\n\r\nBlack \r\n\r\nBlack \r\n\r\n(White) \r\n\r\n(White) \r\n\r\n(White) \r\n\r\n(White) \r\n\r\n(White) \r\n\r\n155 \r\n\r\n168 \r\n\r\n249 \r\n\r\n351 \r\n\r\n407 \r\n\r\n31 \r\n\r\n67 \r\n\r\n66 \r\n\r\n94 \r\n\r\n110 \r\n\r\n1,785 \r\n\r\n2,052 \r\n\r\n2,284 \r\n\r\n2,920 \r\n\r\n3,003 \r\n\r\n136 \r\n\r\n143 \r\n\r\n220 \r\n\r\n237 \r\n\r\n198 \r\n\r\n896 \r\n\r\n536 \r\n\r\n634 \r\n\r\n732 \r\n\r\n753 \r\n\r\n3,003 \r\n\r\n2,966 \r\n\r\n3,453 \r\n\r\n4,334 \r\n\r\n4,471 \r\n\r\n(44) \r\n\r\n(63) \r\n\r\n(70) \r\n\r\n(122) \r\n\r\n(93) \r\n\r\n153 \r\n\r\n292 \r\n\r\n479 \r\n\r\n466 \r\n\r\n435 \r\n\r\n337 \r\n\r\n278 \r\n\r\n369 \r\n\r\n438 \r\n\r\n447 \r\n\r\n302 \r\n\r\n564 \r\n\r\n763 \r\n\r\n937 \r\n\r\n1,013 \r\n\r\n(11) \r\n\r\n(44) \r\n\r\n(117) \r\n\r\n(229) \r\n\r\n(198) \r\n\r\n210 \r\n\r\n350 \r\n\r\n474 \r\n\r\n534 \r\n\r\n540 \r\n\r\n270 \r\n\r\n192 \r\n\r\n351 \r\n\r\n368 \r\n\r\n377 \r\n\r\n181 \r\n\r\n241 \r\n\r\n383 \r\n\r\n431 \r\n\r\n452 \r\n\r\n34 \r\n\r\n39 \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\n42 \r\n\r\n58 \r\n\r\n(103) \r\n\r\n(275) \r\n\r\n(292) \r\n\r\n(421) \r\n\r\n(385) \r\n\r\n433 \r\n\r\n391 \r\n\r\n550 \r\n\r\n576 \r\n\r\n659 \r\n\r\n375 \r\n\r\n368 \r\n\r\n421 \r\n\r\n558 \r\n\r\n581 \r\n\r\n2,453 \r\n\r\n3,097 \r\n\r\n4,312 \r\n\r\n5,122 \r\n\r\n5,238 \r\n\r\n89 \r\n\r\n124 \r\n\r\n148 \r\n\r\n261 \r\n\r\n251 \r\n\r\n166 \r\n\r\n211 \r\n\r\n208 \r\n\r\n406 \r\n\r\n475 \r\n\r\n(63) \r\n\r\n(84) \r\n\r\n(67) \r\n\r\n41 \r\n\r\n75 \r\n\r\n99 \r\n\r\n88 \r\n\r\n166 \r\n\r\n189 \r\n\r\n237 \r\n\r\n274 \r\n\r\n251 \r\n\r\n72 \r\n\r\n115 \r\n\r\n92 \r\n\r\n117 \r\n\r\n96 \r\n\r\n49 \r\n\r\n44 \r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\n92 \r\n\r\n71 \r\n\r\n34 \r\n\r\n70 \r\n\r\n70 \r\n\r\n114 \r\n\r\n105 \r\n\r\n111 \r\n\r\n117 \r\n\r\n196 \r\n\r\n197 \r\n\r\n47 \r\n\r\n48 \r\n\r\n59 \r\n\r\n91 \r\n\r\n66 \r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\n92 \r\n\r\n90 \r\n\r\n105 \r\n\r\n152 \r\n\r\n88 \r\n\r\n134 \r\n\r\n.-56 \r\n\r\n59 \r\n\r\n50 \r\n\r\n134 \r\n\r\n144 \r\n\r\n183 \r\n\r\n337 \r\n\r\n352 \r\n\r\n90 \r\n\r\n61 \r\n\r\n124 \r\n\r\n194 \r\n\r\n199 \r\n\r\nJ275 \r\n\r\n200 \r\n\r\n238 \r\n\r\n284 \r\n\r\n297 \r\n\r\n45 \r\n\r\n1,236 \r\n\r\n1,548 \r\n\r\n1,815 \r\n\r\n2,669 \r\n\r\n2,771 \r\n\r\n6,692 \r\n\r\n7,611 \r\n\r\n9,580 \r\n\r\n12,125 \r\n\r\n12,480 \r\n\r\n13.7 \r\n\r\n25.9 \r\n\r\n26.6 \r\n\r\n2.9 \r\n\r\n*Enrollr.ent  figures  represent  black  enrollment  in  predominantly  white  institutions  and \r\nwhite  enrollment  in  predominantly  black  institutions. \r\n\r\nSOURCE:   University  System  Quarterly  Enrollment  Reports \r\n\r\n\r\n165 \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nui \r\noc \r\n\r\n\r\nZ  v \r\nco  01—  — \r\n\r\nK      I      UJUJH \r\n\r\no  c?z \r\n\r\n¦Z.  \\L-  \u003e- \r\n\r\n^  co \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  «v  c  ¦£•  «¦¦        •*  — \u003e  rv  ^  «»  *  r-  i\\j       ivi\u003c'  \u003e»  ipf-       a   •-•  f  w  w  w \r\nr^-^rv'^-rv       cccctvcoo       ~-  «*•  c  o  c      ~*  c  »-*  o  c  c \r\n\r\n\r\nHfi^pi        •*  r--  r~  cc        »\u003e \r\n\r\n•      •     •     •  •     .      «     «  . \r\n\r\no  c  c  ~-«       wr  co       •-• \r\n\r\n\r\nLL \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nOf \r\n\r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO- \r\n\r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nor \r\n\r\n\r\ncr  — »-  o       c*  r^  \u003c\\i  ^*  — •      u»-cor^rrr-o\"\u003c\\.'0'«C'^er\u003err^       ^rckf^\u003c?r\\rcerur\u003eroxCMr'»erc'0'f'»\u003e*       •*•       c \r\n8    I   uiZ'1  .....  ..............  .................  .        H \r\n\r\nZ  u\u003e  u.t  —'        r~  ¦tit,  ir.  if\u003c        (MrcMf^irNm^fCmf        c^J'«-»C\u003erv!f\\;.-«— «.*cr.-*r'»\u003ej'r''c',f\\jf\u003e       o* \r\n\r\n\r\nU.' \r\n\r\n\r\nOf \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e¦ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nM \r\n?J \r\n\r\n9 \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nr  co  -- \r\n\r\nS*  O  cr  Z  C \r\n\r\nUJ  U.1  «— \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cj  o  _»  CC \r\n*«  or      —  o \r\n\r\nll'Zff  - \r\n\r\n\r\nuj    I  I \r\n\r\n_i  _»  zr- \r\n\r\nUJ  cc \r\nU.   Z \r\n\r\n\r\ntx:  —O.    -C \r\n\r\nw  x  z  o  o \r\n»-  x  u  — \r\nu  »-  ac \r\n\r\nUJO \r\n\r\n\r\nX         Ir-Ot     \r\n\r\n«*  —  \u003ca  js.  «j \r\n\r\n«I  oc \r\n\r\nO.DQ \r\n\r\nco  to  ui \r\n\r\nZoc  \u003c— \r\n\u003c  uj-r \r\n\r\n«  —•3-.   O \r\n\r\nto  «=t  »-¦ \r\n\r\n\r\ncc  \u003c;  n \r\n»?  UJ—  o \r\n\r\n\u003cx  z \r\n\r\n\r\njet  DC    ~- \r\n\r\nUUN \r\n\r\n«  \u003ca  3.  o \r\n\r\nj \r\ni \r\n\r\noe  r  i \r\n\r\n\u003c  _»  z  -• \r\n\r\n_»  _J  Ul  O \r\n\r\no  oz  — \r\n\r\nui  z \r\nee  uj \r\n\r\nZ  Oh  uj \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e  ro  er\u003e  r-  cm  r-  j-«  rJc-oip^o \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  o^rNorNrnrmoM^^-rtP \r\n\r\n\r\nm  -j-  i\\r  r\"  «v \r\n\r\nin  ^  oo  oo  cc \r\n\r\n\r\nor»  m  •-•  «\u003e  o \r\n•m  «vt  r-  «•\u003e  »- \r\n\r\n\r\nC»^TO*   \u003e-•  w  \u003er  O  P-  \u003c7  l*'   OCOO  N \r\n\r\n\r\nr-u-\u003er-irr^r~«rcer,cr«cc\u003eir\u003eif\u003esT-rvif-~«o \r\n00\u003eC*O   OOO^OOOOCT^OOO^OOO \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n^^»r~*o\u003eo»s«\u003cc«)«vi*\u003e\u003eJ\u003eo\u003e«*\u003e       rf^r\u003e»eoomon\u003ci\u003e-\u003erfO\u003c'ih--h \r\n\r\n\r\n0^«r\\f-«M\u003c\\jir\u003e-0\u003ea«\\.o:    cc  in  o \r\n\r\n\r\npjfnpJNNM--*rj(\\j\u003e-«- •  cm  •-«  — in  - t        •-• \r\n\r\n\r\no  o  r~  «»•  r-       —»  as \r\n\r\n\r\nor^ciinNomo^p-  o      ^  nnMnmO'*if\\(\u003ciin\u003cf  mono  ^ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003ey  \u003cm  — » in  \u003cm \r\n•-•  in  m  -»-  «r \r\n\r\n\r\ncc  «c  m  \u003ej-  c \r\n\r\n\r\nNcc^ec^i-ir^CNirino^en-J/ \r\n\r\n\r\nr*-  o-/jcDof^-oo-oooor^cj\u003ej-oin. \r\n\r\n\r\nNnCnMN\u003eJOaC(M\u003e»\u003eT\u003cIIOMS    —* \r\n\r\n\r\npi  M  cm  c \r\nO*  CO  o\u003e  cr»  o» \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\no  cm  r-  -j-  \u003ej- \r\no  o  c  o  o \r\n\r\n\r\n-T  «\"\u003e  in  ol   c  -tpi  \u003e-•  «  -T  rim  as  m \r\n\r\n2D    tX\u003e  ff~-    — \" •   OD    CT»  CO    CJ*    *-4  CJ*    33  CD  r— \r\n\r\n\r\nu_i \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nLU \r\n3C \r\n\r\n13- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\nt_l \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\nu. \r\n\r\n\r\n—t  o  o  \"-*  \u003c\u003c\\ \r\no  o  ^-»  o  o \r\n\r\n\r\n— »  tn \r\n\r\n\r\neo  ~r  -^  m \r\no  o  o  o \r\n\r\n\r\nO  O  O  O  O \r\n\r\n\r\no      o  o \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cN1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e-  C7» \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n— J  u_ \r\n\r\na  o \r\n\r\n¦z \r\nx  or \r\n\r\nU   Ui \r\n\r\nUJ  »- \r\n\r\nt-  a \r\n\u003ci \r\n\r\nu.   3 \r\nZ3  3 \r\n\r\nUJ  JJJ \r\n\r\nI-  _l \r\n_»  \u003c» \r\n\r\n•-   LL \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cI   — \r\n\r\n\r\nCP  M'jr-  -^  -O  O  f^   •— •••-€•-¦ •  r\\J  r\\»  sj-  m  •— »  C\\ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c\\j  fM  -^  \u003cm  —\u003e        m  ro \r\nc  o  Ci  a  o       oo \r\n\r\n\r\nin  m  *r  — \u003c \r\nO  o  C  o \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\nC \r\n\r\n\r\nm  •-•  n  t*~ \r\n~*  o  o  o \r\n\r\n\r\n(M  co  ro  •-•  •-* \r\n\r\n\r\no  o  o  o  o \r\n\r\n\r\no  o  o  o \r\n\r\n\r\nOO  DO  ooooo  oo \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n\r\nf3 \r\n\r\n\r\nl_l \r\nu. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n4u  oriN \r\n\r\n•»    -»    »^    fO   OC \r\n\r\n\r\np^irifirM— «-a)e\\jec   »-»fi-»evio*oo \r\n\r\n\r\nr-\u003e»e^e«\u003em^«mr\\j'\u003c)fii\u003cjo»\u003cr-mc\\j%» \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003eo  «n  cm  co  :\u003e \r\n\r\nC\u003e  co  o  -n  — i \r\n\r\n¦TNONO \r\n\r\n\r\niMnNiMynoopiinifinort \r\n\r\n^     M     ^-1    r-l    CO     ^  »-»  CO  t-«r-«C\\l \r\n\r\nI  I       ! \r\n\r\n[  '  1  l \r\n\r\nr\\jr^  \u003err^r^-  — \u003c  — \u003coinino— «  o  •—• \r\n\r\nNnJONtOtOHNj-COOOOnN \r\n\r\n\r\nir\u003e \r\n\r\n. \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nHHI\\|Hf4  ^-«  O \r\n\r\n\r\nr~-  o-j-  cor-r-nvM \r\n\r\nr«  sTtjnooo^cr' \r\nin  o  -o  in  --\u003c  ¦— t  m  n \r\n\r\n\r\nmm  m  m  in  ^  iv  n -r       «n» \r\n\r\n\r\nrvi       mm \r\n\r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n*- \r\n\r\nr-  oc \r\n\r\n¦v. \r\n\r\ntJ \r\n\r\nwa \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n^  oc \r\n\r\n•— • \r\n\r\n•-t \r\n\r\n»- \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n—t \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\nr? \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nOC \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\nnr \r\n\r\nc* \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n-t \r\n\r\nOC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n\u003cNJ \r\n\r\n?- \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\n¦X \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\n¦1 \r\n\r\nOO \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\nz      o \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\no      o \r\n•-•       u. \r\n\r\n\r\n1- \r\n\r\n»- \r\n\r\nLO \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nliO \r\n\r\n.1 \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nOC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\no  \u003e- \r\n\r\nLU  »- \r\n\r\nr-  — • \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nU_  OC \r\n\r\no  ui \r\n\r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\ni- \r\n\r\n?-.  UJ \r\nh-    \u003e- \r\n\r\non  \u003cl \r\n\r\n\r\nrMrnmm— 'fr»\u003co\u003cM'-«nj'-\"ninm \r\n\r\n\r\n%n \r\n\r\n\r\n•—      \u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c  _\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\noc  oc \r\n\r\nU  (_l \r\nUJ  UI \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\n\r\nO         I- \r\n\r\nOC \r\n\r\no      •- \r\n\r\nUJ  \u003cT \r\n\r\no  •—  io \r\n\r\n•JJ \r\nul  re  cc \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nui  Ul \r\n\r\nui  o \r\n\r\no!     \u003e \r\n\r\nUl  LL \r\n\r\n-J  o  •-• \r\n\r\n\r\n.—  o \r\n\r\n1/1 \r\n\u003cI  OC \r\n\r\nt_\u003e   UJ \r\n\r\n—  ¦\u003e \r\n\r\nO  — i \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM   CM \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nO \r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\ni  m \r\n\r\n\r\n•-\u003c  »-t  •— •  ft\u003e  cm  •— «  ^^ \r\n\r\n\r\nrsi \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nui \r\n\r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\n3l    J \r\n\r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n'     o \r\n\r\nUJ \r\nUl  — » \r\nO  _J \r\n\r\nui  o \r\n_i  o \r\n\r\n_j \r\n\r\nO   UJ \r\n\r\nL\u003e  I- \r\n\r\n\u003ct \r\n\r\nUl  I- \r\n?-  CI \r\n«T \r\n\r\n»-  l? \r\nCO  ~ \r\n\r\na \r\n\u003e-  oc \r\n\r\n.:  •— \r\n\u003cI  to \r\n\r\nCC  2. \r\n_l  OC \r\n\r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO  Ul  LO  Ul \r\n\r\nUl  O  ~T  C \r\n\r\n70U)«U1UI \r\nCC   Ul  _l  _l  LD \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nL_)  Ul \r\n\r\n\r\nUl  o \r\nO  ui \r\nUl    _J \r\n\r\n\r\no  U \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003c  _) \r\n\r\nI-     CO \r\n\r\nio  : \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nO    _l \r\n\r\n3  o \r\n\r\n\r\n¦d  ui \r\n\r\n»-  o \r\n\r\nuo  ui \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\n\u003e•   _i \r\n\r\nUJ   \"I \r\n-_ I  o \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\u003cl  \u003c \r\n\r\nT\u003e   •— ¦ \r\n\r\nL3 \r\n\r\nt-     CC \r\n\r\nDC    L, \r\n\r\nO  uj \r\n\r\nLL     O \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  o \r\n\r\nUl   LJ \r\n\r\n—  \u003c \r\ni—  «-• \r\no  o \r\nO  or \r\n\r\n\r\n¦a  \u003ci  o \r\n\r\n\r\no  x \r\noc  i- \r\nf_i  cc \r\nui  O \r\nO  iT \r\n\r\n\r\n.J. \r\n\r\n\r\nO  \u003c  O  _l \r\n\r\no  o  «_\u003e  — I \r\n\r\n—      o \r\n\r\nui  T\"  ui  \u003c_\u003e \r\nl—  T  f- \r\n\r\n\u003cr  o  \u003ci  \u003cr \r\n\r\n?-   Ul  l~   — ¦ \r\n\r\nLO   »-     en  O \r\n\r\n:C \r\n\r\nx  z  \u003cr  o  i \r\n\r\n\u003c  a  K  uj \r\n\r\nr  uji/io \r\ni:  x  :  j \r\n\r\n\u003cI  H    Q  t- \r\n\r\n\u003e  J  -j  ui \r\n\u003c0\u003cUJ \r\nlO   tO  ¦\u003e    3. \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nC3C \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nL-J \r\n\r\nnr \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\n\r\nO  ui \r\nui  _i \r\n_l  _i \r\n-J  o \r\nO  i_\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nOl \r\nrC  TZ \r\n\r\nO  — \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no  ui \r\n\r\nUl  O  \u003c_\u003e \r\n\r\n_J  Ul  LU \r\n\r\nJ  J  J  Ul  Of \r\nO  _J  LU  O  O \r\nUO-IUIM \r\n\r\nu-i-ir \r\noc  o_ I  o \r\no  oc  o  o  -\u003e \r\n\r\n— •  n      u \r\n\r\nZ  — ¦  oc        \u003e- \r\n\r\n~  •  Z  O  ac  J— \r\n\r\n-\u003e  O  •—  O  z \r\n\r\n\r\no  v: \r\n\r\no  t_\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n2. \r\n\u003cT \r\nJL \r\n\u003cI \r\noc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\n\r\n«a \r\n\r\n\r\nCO    —I \r\n\r\n\r\noc  ^  a  z  ui \r\nen  io  »—  cj  S3 \r\n—  z  \u003e  »-  z \r\n\r\n— i   _)   «J   _J   «3 \r\n\r\n\u003ca_i\u003cr \r\n\r\nCO  CO  u  ?  Ul \r\n\r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n_)  Ul \r\n\r\n_l        o \r\n\r\nO  Ul  LU \r\n\r\nUl  CJ  O  _J  Ul \r\n'3  Ul   _I   O \r\n\r\nUl  OC  — I  O  Ul \r\nJD  JU  J \r\n_l  \u003e—  O  _l \r\n\r\nnzuKo \r\n\u003c_\u003e  r\u003e        O  O \r\n\r\n-\u003e  oC  — • \r\nOC         O  Z  CC \r\n\r\nuj-r  n \r\n\r\nb~  TJCD \r\n\r\n-\u003e  \u003e       \u003cl  —\u003e \r\n\r\ntO   Z  LO \r\n\r\nO  Ui   O    LU   .J- \r\n\r\n\u003e-  z  o  z  o \r\n\r\nu«  a  z  u \r\n\r\n_i\u003ct  O  ui  \u003cI \r\n\r\nU    O   O   i.     i \r\n\r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nL3  ui \r\n\r\nUl  O \r\n_l  LU \r\n_l  _J \r\nO  -I \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n— i  \u003cr \r\no  — \r\ncc  o \r\n\"~3  nc \r\n\r\n.J  \"~ \r\n\r\nO  ui \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n—I  i \r\na  t- \r\ncj  _\u003e \r\n•-  o \r\nx  to \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\noc \r\no \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\nLT \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nl~ \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n-3 \r\n\r\n\r\nCf \r\n\r\n\u003c1 \r\n\r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nOL \r\n\r\nLO  UJ \r\n\r\nUl  OC \r\n\r\nO  J \r\n\r\n¦«*  LL. \r\n\r\n*-  _l \r\n\r\nZ  UJ \r\nU)  to \r\nt_\u003e \r\n\r\nOC  CO \r\n\r\nLU  •-• \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nh- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\n77 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•— # \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n~\" \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nI-1: \r\n\r\n»— € \r\n\r\nUl  O \r\n\r\nZl \r\n\r\n—  1 \r\n\r\n1- \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n•v \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\n~rm \r\n\r\nZ2 \r\n\r\n*. \r\n\r\n*~ \r\n\r\no  »- \r\n\r\n^* \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nto  H- \r\n\r\n»-• \r\n\r\n•— • \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\n•— \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n^_ \r\n\r\n•— • \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCO  Ul \r\n\r\n*— \r\n\r\n.  \" \r\n\r\n•^J \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n1- \r\n\r\n-13 \r\n\r\n^) \r\n\r\n»- \r\n\r\n•-• \r\n\r\n»— t \r\n\r\nh- \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n•— • \r\n\r\n_\u003e \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\n-~ \r\n\r\n\u003c3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n•— ¦ \r\n\r\nDC \r\n\r\n—  '-1 \r\noc  to \r\ncu  T1 \r\nx  oc \r\n\u003e-  \u003c_l \r\nrj  \u003e \r\no  ** \r\n\r\nLO    jT \r\n\r\n1        I \r\n\u003c     CC \r\n\r\n\r\nT^F \r\n\r\n\r\nII -A   UNDERGRADUATE  STUDENT  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  makes  a  continuing  commitment  to  the  achievement \r\nof  the  objective  of  proportionate  first  year  enrollment  of  minority  and  majority \r\nhigh  school  graduates  in  postsecondary  institutions  in  Georgia.   The  Board  of \r\nRegents  also  recognizes  and  endorses  the  more  restrictive  objective  of  propor- \r\ntionate first  year  enrollments  in  public  institutions  of  higher  education.   This \r\nposition  is  especially  significant  in  Georgia  which,  as  noted  below,  has  substan- \r\ntial minority  enrollments  in  the  predominately  black  private  college  complex  of \r\nthe  Atlanta  University  Center  and  in  the  Vocational  Technical  Schools  operated \r\nunder  the  auspicies  of  the  State  Board  of  Education. \r\n\r\nThe  objective  stated  in  the  Guidelines  of  equal  proportions  of  black  and \r\nwhite  high  school  graduates  enrolling  in  two-year  and  four-year  undergraduate \r\npublic  higher  education  institutions  should  be  examined  in  the  broader  con- \r\ntext of  \"postsecondary  institutions\"  -  both  public  and  private.   While  figures \r\non  first  year  enrollment  for  the  postsecondary  sector  are  not  currently  avail- \r\nable, total  enrollment  figures  as  conveyed  in  Table  II-A-1  provide  insight  as \r\nto  the  general  situation.   It  is  noted  that  approximately  equal  numbers  of \r\nminority  persons  are  enrolled  within  and  without  the  University  System.   This \r\ntable  is  deficient  in  that  it  does  not  explicitly  reflect  the  substantial \r\nout-of-state  component  of  the  private  school  enrollment  nor  does  it  reflect \r\nenrollment  in  proprietary  schools. \r\n\r\nTable  II-A-2  gives  the  current  best  estimate  of  the  racial  composition \r\nof  the  1976  Georgia  high  school  graduating  class.   The  available  statistics \r\ndo  not  yield  precise  racial  ratios  however  it  seems  realistic  to  conclude \r\nthat  approximately  307=,  of  the  current  year  high  school  graduates  in  Georgia \r\nare  black  and  approximately  70  percent  are  white.   It  is  this  ratio  that  will \r\nbe  used  for  comparative  purposes  later  in  this  section. \r\n\r\nEnrollment  Projections \r\n\r\nThe  validity  of  any  Plan  is  measured  best  in  terms  of  its  productivity \r\n\r\n167 \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  I I -A- I \r\n\r\n\r\nGeorgia  Postsecondary  Enrollment  —  Fall  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nUniversity  System \r\nDeKalb  Community  College \r\nVocational  Technical  Schools \r\nPrivate  Colleges \r\n\r\n\r\nWhite \r\n\r\n\r\n159,504 \r\n\r\n\r\n80 \r\n\r\n\r\nBlack \r\n\r\n\r\nTotal \r\n\r\n\r\nNumber \r\n\r\n% \r\n\r\nNumber \r\n\r\n% \r\n\r\nNumber \r\n\r\n105,854 \r\n\r\n85 \r\n\r\n19,415 \r\n\r\n15 \r\n\r\n125,269 \r\n\r\n9,586 \r\n\r\n86 \r\n\r\n1,601 \r\n\r\n14 \r\n\r\n11,187 \r\n\r\n22,110 \r\n\r\n69 \r\n\r\n9,904 \r\n\r\n31 \r\n\r\n32,014 \r\n\r\n21,954 \r\n\r\n69 \r\n\r\n9,699 \r\n\r\n31 \r\n\r\n31,653 \r\n\r\n40,619         20         200,123 \r\n\r\n\r\n168 \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  I I -A- 2 \r\n\r\n\r\n1976  Georgia  High  School  Graduates \r\n\r\n\r\nBlack \r\nWhite \r\nTotal \r\n\r\n\r\nHSG* \r\n18,456 \r\n41,292 \r\n59,748 \r\n\r\n\r\n% \r\n\r\n\r\n31 \r\n69 \r\n100 \r\n\r\n\r\nBased  on \r\n\r\n\r\n177  of  184^ \r\n\r\n\r\nSchool  Systems \r\n\r\n\r\nBlack \r\nWhite \r\nTotal \r\n\r\n\r\nHSG \r\n18,500 \r\n42,559 \r\n61,059** \r\n\r\n\r\n% \r\n\r\n\r\n30 \r\n70 \r\n100 \r\n\r\n\r\nBased  on  the  assumption \r\nthat  white  graduates \r\ncomprise  the  preponder- \r\n\r\n\r\nance of  the  totals  from \r\n\r\n\r\npublic  and  private  systems \r\n\r\n\r\nwhere  racial  information \r\n\r\n\r\nis  currently  unavailable. \r\n\r\n\r\n*Source:   OCR  Individual  School  Campus  Report:   Form  OS/CR  102 \r\n**Includes  all  others:   HSG  includes  also  remaining  students  from \r\nsystems  where  racial  information  unavailable. \r\n\r\n\r\n*There  are  188  systems, however,  4  systems  do  not  have  a  graduating  senior  class. \r\n\r\n\r\n169 \r\n\r\n\r\nfollowing  implementation.   Previous  material  in  this  section  has  indicated \r\nthe  substantial  progress  in  minority  student  enrollment  realized  to  date \r\nwithin  the  University  System.   Other  sections,  particularly  in  Part  II, \r\ndescribe  the  recruitment  and  retention  processes  which  have  proven  effect- \r\nive or  which  show  promise  for  future  success.   It  is  therefore  appropriate \r\nat  this  point  to  provide  institutional  and  System  projections,  as  benchmarks \r\nfor  future  evaluative  purposes.   The  proper  interpretation  of  these  projections \r\nis  dependent  upon  a  clear  understanding  of  the  basic  factors  related  to  Uni- \r\nversity System  growth  and  to  the  specific  characteristics  of  each  individual \r\ninstitution.   The  Board  of  Regents  regards  the  projections  contained  in  this \r\ndocument  as  reasonable  objectives  based  upon  all  factors  available  for  con- \r\nsideration. \r\n\r\nGrowth  dynamics  for  the  total  University  System  play  a  fundamental  role \r\nin  the  determination  of  changes  in  racial  composition.   There  were  30,686 \r\nstudents  enrolled  in  the  University  System  institutions  during  the  Fall  Quarter \r\nof  1960.   This  increased  to  125,269  students  by  the  fall  of  1976.   The  rate \r\nof  growth  during  the  past  several  years  has  averaged  about  4  percent  per  year. \r\nHowever,  the  Fall  Quarter  of  1975  increase  over  the  previous  year  was  11%, \r\nwith  a  fall  1976  decrease  of  37«.   This  represents  a  substantial  modification \r\nin  the  rate  of  increase  realized  in  preceding  years  which  could  indicate  a \r\ntrend  toward  a  leveling  off  in  enrollment.   Quantifiable  factors  considered \r\nwhen  projecting  enrollment  include  population  and  birth  rates,  high  school \r\ngraduate  statistics,  and  regional  national  trends. \r\n\r\nThe  1970  Census  of  Population  indicates  that  Georgia  had  an  increase \r\n\r\nin  population  of  16.4%  over  that  of  1960.   The  Census  Bureau  projects  that \r\n\r\nGeorgia  will  continue  to  experience  an  overall  population  growth  of  about  17% \r\n\r\nduring  the  seventies.  About  437\u003c,  of  Georgia's  total  population  were  under  21 \r\n\r\nin  1970.   This  will  be  the  basis  for  continued  growth  in  the  University  System \r\n\r\nduring  the  decade  of  the  seventies  and  eighties.   In  1970  about  26.2%  of  the  total \r\n\r\npopulation  was  non-white  and  the  1980  projection  is  24%. \r\n\r\n!70 \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  exact  gain  in  higher  education  enrollment  that  Georgia  will \r\nexperience  during  the  next  few  years  is  uncertain,  but  the  trend  is  toward \r\nachieving  national  and  regional  averages. \r\n\r\nCurrent  projections  reflect  the  probability  that  the  System  will \r\ncontinue  to  experience  enrollment  growth,  but  at  a  lower  rate  than  in  the \r\nsixties. \r\n\r\nProjections  of  enrollment  for  the  coming  years  are  based  on  the \r\nUniversity  System  realizing  a  growth  rate  somewhat  below  that  of  the  last  decade. \r\nUsing  these  projections,  the  System  will  enroll  about  142,000  students  by  1982. \r\n\r\nIn  addition  to  the  state-wide  considerations  discussed  in  the  preced- \r\ning paragraphs,  each  institution  considered  several  other  factors  when  project- \r\ning their  enrollment  through  1982.   These  factors  included,  but  were  not \r\nlimited  to:   current  enrollment  trends  (by  race),  minority  student  retention \r\nfactors,  legal  residence  of  students  (Georgia,  out-of-state),  students  residing \r\nin  institution-owned  housing,  high  school  graduates  (black  and  white)  within \r\nthe  recruiting  area,  estimate  of  high  school  graduates  (black  and  white)  continu- \r\ning their  formal  education,  demographic  characteristics  of  commuting  area, \r\nand  sociological  factors  relating  to  minority  recruitment. \r\n\r\nA  realistic  projection  of  System  enrollment  by  racial  composition  is \r\nbased  on  evaluation  at  the  institutional  level.  The  projection  process  must  be \r\ninitiated  at  the  institution,  which  is  the  primary  organizational  unit  that \r\ncomprises  the  system  of  public  higher  education  in  Georgia.   The  Regents'  Office \r\nstaff  is  responsible  for  the  evaluation  of  these  institutional  estimates  in \r\nterms  of  System-wide  factors.   The  modification  of  estimates,  after  consultation \r\nwith  the  institution,  is  accomplished  where  the  necessity  for  such  modification \r\nis  indicated. \r\n\r\nTable  II-A-3  presents  the  projection  of  total  University  System  enroll- \r\nment by  race  for  the  period  1977  through  1982.   This  table  indicated  a  pro- \r\njection of  total  black  enrollment  of  29,998  students  by  1982.   This  projection \r\nis  based  on  the  conviction  that  the  percentage  of  black  students  enrolling  in \r\n\r\nSystem  institutions  will  continue  to  be  significantly  greater  than  the  overall \r\n\r\n171 \r\n\r\n\r\nenrollment  growth.   The  fall  of  1976  black  enrollment  represented  15.5 \r\npercent  of  the  total  System  enrollment.   By  Fall  Quarter  1982  it  is  projected \r\nthat  black  enrollment  will  be  about  21  percent  of  total  System  enrollment. \r\nStated  in  percentage  increase  terms  —  black  enrollment  is  expected  to  increase \r\nby  55  percent  between  1976  and  1982  while  total  System  enrollment  is  increasing \r\nby  14  percent. \r\n\r\nA  comparison  of  the  projections  of  Table  II-A-3,  with  the  30/70  ratio \r\nof  black  to  white  high  school  graduates,  and  first  year  student  enrollments \r\ncan  be  accomplished  through  reference  to  Table  II-A-4.   This  table  shows  that \r\nthe  total  number  of  non-duplicated  Regular  and  Special  Studies  students  totaled \r\n24,140  in  the  four  academic  quarter  1975-76  year.   Of  this  total  5,215  or  21.6 \r\npercent  were  black  and  18,925  or  78.4  percent  were  white. \r\n\r\nDirect  correspondence  between  high  school  graduates  and  first  year \r\nstudent  enrollment  cannot  be  established  due  to  the  attendance  patterns  for \r\nolder  students,  part-time  students,  etc.,  However,  based  on  the  assumption  that \r\ndelayed  or  protracted  enrollment  characteristics  are  stable  with  time,  the \r\nfigures  of  Tables  II-A-2  and  II-A-4  indicate  that  on  the  average  approximately \r\n44  percent  of  white  Georgia  high  school  graduates  and  28  percent  of  black \r\nGeorgia  high  school  graduates  enroll  in  University  System  institutions.   These \r\nparticipation  proportions  would  be  equalized  only  through  a  combined  increase \r\nin  the  proportion  of  black  high  school  graduates  attending  college,  a  decrease \r\nin  the  proportion  of  white  high  school  graduates  attending,  or  a  combination \r\nof  these  factors. \r\n\r\nNumerically,  the  preceding  condition  would  total  (18,500)  (0.16)  = \r\n2960  additional  black  first  year  students  or  a  decrease  of  (42,559)  (0.16)  = \r\n6809  white  first  year  students. \r\n\r\nIf  It  is  assumed  that  roughly  one-fourth  of  the  10,583  projected  in- \r\ncrease in  black  enrollment  by  1982  is  at  the  first  year  level  (for  simplicity, \r\nattrition  and  graduate  enrollment  components  are  assumed  to  off-set),  2,646  new \r\n\r\n\r\n173 \r\n\r\n\r\nBEGINNING  FRESHMEN  BY  RACE  AT \r\nPREDOMINANTLY  WHITE /PREDOMINANTLY  BLACK  INSTITUTIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nBlack       White \r\n\r\n\r\nPredominantly  White  -  4  Year: \r\n\r\nTotal  //  Regular  \u0026  Special  Studies \r\n%  of  Total \r\n\r\nPredominantly  Black  -  4  year: \r\n\r\nTotal  #  Regular  \u0026  Special  Studies \r\n%  of  Total \r\n\r\nPredominantly  White  -  2  Year: \r\n\r\nTotal  it   Regular  \u0026  Special  Studies \r\n%  of  Total \r\n\r\nPredominantly  Black  -  2  year: \r\n\r\nTotal  //  Regular  \u0026  Special  Studies \r\n%  of  Total \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n1539 \r\n\r\n10364 \r\n\r\n6.4 \r\n\r\n42.9 \r\n\r\n1586 \r\n\r\n23 \r\n\r\n6.6 \r\n\r\n0.1 \r\n\r\n1330 \r\n\r\n8512 \r\n\r\n5.5 \r\n\r\n35.3 \r\n\r\n760 \r\n\r\n26 \r\n\r\n3.1 \r\n\r\n0.1 \r\n\r\n5215 \r\n\r\n18925 \r\n\r\n21.6 \r\n\r\n78.4 \r\n\r\nSOURCE:   1975-76  Normative  Data  for  the  Freshman  Class \r\n\r\n\r\n174 \r\n\r\n\r\nfirst  year  black  students  would  be  enrolled  in  University  System  institutions \r\nby  the  1982-83  academic  year. \r\n\r\nThe  projection  of  first  year  black  enrollment  in  the  1982-83  academic \r\nyear  as  presented  in  Table  II-A-3  would  be  enhanced  if  increased  levels  of \r\nminority  enrollment  would  be  achieved  in  selected  institutions.  The  Board \r\nof  Regents  therefore  commits  itself  to  a  detailed  review,  under  the  direction \r\nof  the  Chancellor,  of  the  recruitment  practices  and  policies  of  each  institution \r\nwith  special  emphasis  to  be  placed  on  practices  effecting  minority  enrollments. \r\nThis  review  will  take  cognizance  of  special  institutional  conditions  such  as \r\nthe  racial  composition  of  the  recruiting  area  and  will  substantiate  these \r\nconditions  to  the  greatest  extent  possible  with  attainable  data.  The  develop- \r\nment of  enhanced  recruitment  plans  will  place  emphasis  upon  the  identification \r\nof  the  academically  better  prepared  minority  student. \r\n\r\nEach  institutional  review  will  be  completed  within  six  months  of  the \r\ndate  of  this  Flan. \r\n\r\n\r\n175 \r\n\r\n\r\nII  -  B  (1),  (2);  D   SENIOR  COLLEGE  AND  UNIVERSITY \r\n\r\nFIRST  YEAR  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\nReference:   II  -  B  (1),  (2) \r\nII  -  D \r\n\r\nII  -  A \r\n\r\n\r\n(Guidelines) \r\n\r\n\r\n(Plan) \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  commits  itself  to  the  continued  reduction  of  any \r\ndisparity  in  \"other  race\"  first  year  enrollment  in  the  twelve  senior  colleges \r\nand  four  universities  of  the  University  System.  While  the  Guidelines  specifi- \r\ncally separate  the  historically  black  and  white  institutions  in  this  process, \r\nthe  extant  court  order  related  to  Fort  Valley  State  College  appears  to  pre- \r\nclude any  uneveness  of  timing  of  actions.   However,  cognizance  is  taken  of \r\nthe  special  problems  confonting  both  the   historically  black  schools  and \r\nother  special  situations. \r\n\r\nTable  II-3-1  illustrates  the  absolute  numbers  and  percentages  of  Georgia \r\nhigh  school  graduates  of  first  year  \"other  race\"  students  in  the  senior \r\ncolleges  and  universities.   The  percentage  disparity  in  proportions  of  black \r\nand  white  high  school  graduates  attending  these  institutions  is  on  the  order \r\nof  16  percent.   Numerically  this  corresponds  to  approximately  2,960  students. \r\n\r\nProjections  deduced  from  Tables  II-l  and  II-A-3  indicate  an  increase \r\nof  approximately  1,579  first  year  black  students  in  the  predominately \r\nwhite  senior  colleges  and  universities  by  1982-83. \r\n\r\nProjections  deduced  from  Tables  II-l  and  II-A-3  also  indicate  an \r\nincrease  of  approximately  82  first  year  white  students  in  the  historically \r\nblack  senior  colleges  by  the  1982-83  school  year. \r\n\r\n\r\n176 \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  II-B-1 \r\n\r\n\r\nFIRST  YEAR  STUDENTS  BY  RACE  AT \r\nSENIOR  COLLEGES  AND  UNIVERSITY  LEVEL  INSTITUTIONS \r\n\r\n\r\nBlack         White \r\n\r\n\r\nPredominately  White  Institutions \r\n\r\nTotal  No.  Regular  \u0026  Special  Studies \r\n%  of  HSG  (by  race) \r\n\r\nPredominately  Black  Institutions \r\n\r\nTotal  No.  Regular  \u0026  Special  Studies \r\n%  of  HSG  (by  race) \r\n\r\n\r\n1539 \r\n\r\n10,364 \r\n\r\n8.3 \r\n\r\n24.4 \r\n\r\n1586 \r\n\r\n23 \r\n\r\n8.6 \r\n\r\n0.0 \r\n\r\n177 \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nII -C      GRADUATE  AND  PROFESSIONAL  SCHOOL  ENROLLMENT \r\n\r\nReference:   II-C  (Guidelines) \r\n\r\nA  review  of  the  data  of  Table  II-C-1  reveals  that  the  overall  Guideline \r\nobjective  that  at  least  equal  proportions  of  black  and  white  state  resident \r\ngraduates  from  undergraduate  institutions  enter  and  graduate  from  state  system \r\ngraduate  schools  has  already  been  met.   Twelve  percent  of  the  8216  graduate \r\nand  professional  degrees  awarded  during  the  period  July  197  5  through  June  1976 \r\nwere  received  by  blacks  while  10  percent  of  the  13127  bachelors  degrees  were \r\nawarded  to  blacks.   However,  a  detailed  review  of  Tables  II-C-2,  II-C-3,  and \r\nII-C-4  reveals  that  a  real  and  pervasive  desegregation  problem  is  concealed \r\nby  these  overall  statistics.   These  tables,  which  provide  information  on  the \r\ndistribution  of  degrees  awarded  by  academic  discipline,  reveal  that  the  pre- \r\nponderance of  bachelors  degrees  received  by  blacks  are  in  the  fields  of  business, \r\neducation,  and  social  science.   A  similar,  but  somewhat  less  pronounced,  dis- \r\ntribution of  degrees  awarded  to  blacks,  is  noted  at  the  masters  level. \r\nFigure  II-C-5  provides  a  composite  overview  of  this  degree  distribution  ex- \r\npressed as  a  percentage  of  degrees  awarded  to  blacks  and  a  percentage  of \r\ndegrees  awarded  to  whites  by  academic  discipline. \r\n\r\nThe  conclusion  can  be  drawn  that  in  9  discipline  areas  the  percentages \r\nof  degrees  awarded  to  blacks  at  the  masters  level  was  greater  than  the  per- \r\ncentage awarded  at  the  bachelors  level  and  that  in  10  discipline  areas  the \r\ncorresponding  percentage  decreased.   The  causes  of  the  relative  decline  in \r\nthe  10  areas  are  believed  varied;  e.g.,  few  black  engineering  students  have \r\nbeen  enrolled  at  Georgia  Tech  for  a  sufficient  time  to  have  received  an  ad- \r\nvanced  degree.  Also  many  undergraduate  engineering  graduates  seek  immediate \r\nemployment  in  response  to  the  strong  demand  for  black  engineers.   Public \r\nAffairs  and  Service  is  an  example  of  an  area  where  immediate  employment \r\n\r\n178 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nDegrees  Awarded  Between  July,  1975  and  June,  1976 \r\n\r\n\r\nDegree \r\n\r\nBlack \r\n\r\n%  of \r\nTotal \r\n\r\nWhite. \r\n\r\n%  of \r\nTotal \r\n\r\nBachelors \r\n\r\n1292 \r\n\r\n10% \r\n\r\n11834 \r\n\r\n90% \r\n\r\nMasters \r\n\r\n847 \r\n\r\n12% \r\n\r\n6401 \r\n\r\n88% \r\n\r\nDoctorates \r\n\r\n18 \r\n\r\n4% \r\n\r\n427 \r\n\r\n96% \r\n\r\n*Professlonal \r\n\r\n17 \r\n\r\n3% \r\n\r\n513 \r\n\r\n97% \r\n\r\nGraduate  Enrollment \r\n\r\n2174 \r\n\r\n12% \r\n\r\n16806 \r\n\r\n88% \r\n\r\nProfessional  Enrollment \r\n\r\n57 \r\n\r\n3% \r\n\r\n1757 \r\n\r\n97% \r\n\r\n*Social  Work  degrees  as  awarded  by  University  of  Georgia  are  not  included  in \r\nthis  level  for  HEW  reporting. \r\n\r\n\r\nSOURCE:   1975-76  HEW  Survey:   OE  FORM  2300-2.1,3/76. \r\n\r\n\r\n179 \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\n«3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n(\u003e\u003c \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n«e \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n¦\u003cT \r\n\r\n^r \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nVO     P\u003e \r\n\r\nTT \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nr-H \r\n\r\nrH|  rO \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\nlO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n^H \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\ni-H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\ntDlCN \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\n•T \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\n.-1 \r\n\r\n\u003cT \r\n\r\nID \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nJi \r\nH \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\n•— « \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n*-' \r\n\r\n\u003cN \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nvaav  xoarsns \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\naod  siviox  m \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nTT \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\nr« \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nr-* \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\n09 \r\n\r\n-X! \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n(N \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n(X) \r\n\r\n-H \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n*—* \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\n^j \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrg \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n¦\u003cT \r\n\r\nr-\\ \r\n\r\nCT \r\n\r\nffl \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n«J \r\n\r\n3D3TI0D       § \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nkO \r\n\r\n^-\\ \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\ntC \r\n\r\nvioaoao  isaM — \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n^T \r\n\r\nr-\\ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncm \r\n\r\n•-^ \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nrs \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nkO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nIJi \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr-* \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n.-i \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n-H \r\n\r\nl£ \r\n\r\naxvis  vxsootya \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\n•^T \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nl— 1 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ni-i \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\np\" \r\n\r\n3IVXS     § \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n^H \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr\u003e \r\n\r\nHYNNYAYS  — \r\n\r\nTo\" \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n^T \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n~\u003e \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003cJ\\ \r\n\r\nr-\u003c \r\n\r\n• — i \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\niH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n!N \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\n^-\\ \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n¦*£\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\naoanoo     § \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\u003cv \r\n\r\n\u003eX! \r\n\r\nt-* \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\ni/ \r\n\r\nVIDH030    HAaoN  — \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nIN \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nrr. \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n(Ti \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003cN \r\n\r\nI ) \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nNaaisaMHinos  \u003c \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nYIDH033  „ \r\n\r\n^H \r\n\r\nTT \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nan \r\n\r\n^r \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\nu3 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n0^ \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n¦\u003cT \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr-t \r\n\r\nr-i \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\np« \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ntiaaHxnos \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n\\rroaoao  n \r\n\r\n.-h \r\n\r\ny0 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\nr~^ \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nUT \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n^-\\ \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n3B3TIOD  § \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n^7 \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nr-i \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nVIDH03S \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr~- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr-t \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n0^ \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr-t \r\n\r\n\u003c-t \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nl£ \r\n\r\naivis    jbi \r\n\r\nxanvA  xaoa \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n*? \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nr-{ \r\n\r\nr~l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n^-1 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\n(N \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n\u003c* \r\n\r\np» \r\n\r\ni0 \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\n^T \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n\u003c£i \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cN \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCT\u003e \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\n393T10D  \u003c \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n¦\u003cJ\" \r\n\r\nsnawmoo \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nfN \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\ni» \r\n\r\nuD \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nIC \r\n\r\nE\u003e3TI0D  g \r\n\r\n¦*¦ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nrH \r\nCO \r\n\r\nYisnonv \r\n\r\nIN \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\u003c-\u003e, \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cN \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nUO \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n3JiViS        o \r\n\r\non \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003cf \r\n\r\n«T \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nU\") \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrsi \r\n\r\nC-l \r\n\r\nIN \r\n\r\n.«                   9NfM,T,erw\u003erv»2L \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003c* \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nr-i \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\n01                                                             03 \r\n\r\nr-t \r\n\r\naxvis  o \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nANVa IV  — \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003eX\u003e \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\ni—l \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr-t \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n^T \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n^r \r\n\r\n\u003c* \r\n\r\n*T \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cT\u003c \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n•y \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUD \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr-\\ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nr\\| \r\n\r\nTT \r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n^-\u003c \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nvioaoao  3.0 \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nALisaaAiNn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nr-t \r\n\r\nr~- \r\n\r\n^T \r\n\r\n»» \r\n\r\naoanoo  § \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nivDiaaw \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n\u003c» \r\n\r\nTJ- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCTi \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCTl \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nCTl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nvr \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCJ1 \r\n\r\n*T \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n04 \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n^0 \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\u003c-l \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\naivis  „,  f \r\n\r\nl/) \r\n\r\nCl \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nvioaoaD \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr-\\ \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nr~- \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nf-l \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nI-H) \r\nCN \r\n\r\no-\u003e \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nHD3X        \u003c \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nro \r\nCN \r\n\r\nNaamnos \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\ntO \r\n\r\nrsi \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCTl \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n•-\u003c \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nHoax    ** \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n\u003c\"M \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nvioaoaD \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCT\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nu \r\nu \r\n\r\n3 \r\n0 \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ntji \r\n•-H \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n4) \r\nQ \r\n\r\n.-i \r\nifl \r\n¦U \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n4) \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n0) \r\n•H \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nE \r\nc \r\n0 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n\u003cD \r\n0 \r\n¦H \r\n\r\ne\u003e \r\n\r\nIfl \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCr \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nN. \r\n\r\n•P \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nr3 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nSh \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nIfl \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nIU \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n31 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nHi \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nPS \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nIS \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n(71 \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nai \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nA \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\n9 \r\n\r\nl\u003c3 \r\n\r\nC3 \r\n\r\ni. \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nB] \r\n\r\nCI) \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\n£. \r\n\r\ntS \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nID \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n(11 \r\n\r\nV4 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nti \r\n\r\n4) \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n•u \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nID \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\ner \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n.D \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\ni\u003e \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\nVj \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nCT,r- \r\n\r\ni: \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n91 \r\n\r\nOi \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n•J \r\n\r\n¦h \r\n\r\nr\" \r\n\r\nn) \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nId \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n(. \r\n\r\nt) \r\n\r\n(fl \r\n\r\nrr, \r\n\r\nft! \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nIfl \r\n\r\nt-l \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nti \r\n\r\nkJ \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nIH \r\n\r\nC! \r\n\r\nti \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\ni-i \r\n\r\n¦P \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nVj \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCu \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nJJ \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n¦\u003e- \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nTI \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nr-\u003c \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nIfl \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n•iH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n71 \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nfl \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nai \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n-U \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCn \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n•P \r\n\r\n4^ \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nU3 \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nJ3 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nSh \r\n\r\n)H \r\n\r\nR \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n1    ) \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\n— 1 \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nTI \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n(0 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•w \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\n¦iH \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\niH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\nifl \r\n\r\n^1 \r\n\r\n-H \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n11 \r\n\r\n4-i \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\nr\" \r\n\r\n¦-1 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n(i \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n¦-H \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n51  H \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n(A \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nfc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCT^ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nVj \r\n\r\nid \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\n+r \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003c   \u003e \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nai \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nVl \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n0   \"C \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\u003eT1 \r\n\r\n3) \r\n\r\n•H     r3    »H \r\n\r\njz\\  in \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\n,- \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\u003c\\ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\noa \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nU, \r\n\r\nfa \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n-H \r\n\r\nJ \r\n\r\nJl \r\n\r\nEl \r\n\r\ns: \r\n\r\nfa \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nMl \r\n\r\nf-l \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n2 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n2 \r\nB \r\n\r\n\r\nup \r\n\r\nr- \r\nON \r\n\r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\na- \r\n\r\nl-H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nLT \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\nlp*- \r\n\r\ni-i \r\n\r\ni33 \r\n\r\n\u003eT \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\nun \r\n\r\nt\\0 \r\n\r\nl\u003e \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\npH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n\\f \r\n\r\nr\u003e \r\n\r\n(T \r\n\r\nv£ \r\n\r\n^|r-|\u003e£ \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nJ)j \r\n\r\n'J \r\n\r\nTl  CI  (% \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nV3HY\u003c \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\nV0 \r\n\r\n(N \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nf-\u003c \r\n\r\nH     IN    IN \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\nX03rans~~ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nTViOi \r\n\r\nIN \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nr*i \r\n\r\nCNI \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003cN \r\n\r\ntC \r\n\r\n\u003cn|o \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003cN \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nrsil \r\n\r\nlO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nu^ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr*i \r\n\r\n^-i \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^, \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr« \r\n\r\nn— 4 \r\n\r\n^T \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\\V \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nu-1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1S3M \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n(Tl \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n[N \r\n\r\nrsi \r\n\r\nr»i \r\n\r\nca \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\nrn \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\n(\u003e¦ \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nTT \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nr— i \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nu-t \r\n\r\nILViS      \u003c \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\nr-1 \r\n\r\nvisocnvA \r\n\r\n— i \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n— ¦ I \r\n\r\n~-l \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\n\\o \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nca \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\non \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ntC \r\n\r\n(_| \r\n\r\n3IWXS  — \r\n\r\n\u003cH \r\n\r\nTT \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nHVNNVAVS \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n(Tl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^H \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nIN \r\n\r\nca \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\n^H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nnj \r\n\r\ncm \r\n\r\n' \r\n\r\n.D \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nwioaoaD\": \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nHXHON \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nl \r\n\r\nCj \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^H \r\n\r\nB) \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nfN \r\n\r\n[M \r\n\r\nrn \r\n\r\nao \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n^H \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n[N \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nog \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nrsi \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nVI0M03O  B \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nIN \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nl£ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nI-1 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n-- \r\n\r\n^T \r\n\r\ni— \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr\" \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nNH2HinOS  * \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nVI3M03D \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nl*i \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n^: \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nrn \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n3D3TI0D\u003c \r\n\r\n1/ \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\nr\u003e \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nVIOHOm \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n3XVXS      \u003c \r\n\r\nA3TTOA  XHOi \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\nl£ \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nIt \r\n\r\n\\C \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n**, \r\n\r\nsnHwmoo  \u003c \r\n\r\n»H \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ni* \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nrs \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nid \r\n\r\n^r \r\n\r\nur \r\n\r\n\u003cN \r\n\r\nvxsnsnv  \u003c \r\n\r\nun \r\n\r\nl\u003e \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nJ3 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n^T \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nvn \r\n\r\naxvxs      \u003c \r\n\r\n•T \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nUNoaxswav \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCI \r\nIT \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n*-i \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\n'O \r\n\r\naxvxs \r\n\r\nANVU'IV \r\n\r\nf« \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCT\u003e \r\n\r\non \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\nUT \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\n^s \r\n\r\nfS \r\n\r\nof \r\n\r\nIN \r\n\r\nv£\u003e \r\n\r\nr-\u003c \r\n\r\n\"1 \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu-v \r\n\r\n~-* \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\\0 \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nfl \r\n\r\nCd \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n*r \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nIT \r\n\r\nl£ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nf-f \r\n\r\nc* \r\n\r\n(N \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nVISH03D    JO \r\n\r\nAiisaaAiNn  _ \r\n\r\n\u003c_\u003e \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\u003e-* \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrr \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm*  cm \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nIS \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003e-t \r\n\r\n^H \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n.-I \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n3D3TI0D  \u003c \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nr-( \r\n\r\nTV3IQ3H-.   . \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n^-4 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n*-i \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\nIN \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n^^ \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\n~-« \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nvT \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nf~\u003c \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\n~ \r\n\r\nt*\u003e \r\n\r\n«-* \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\neg \r\n\r\nIN \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n(-J \r\n\r\n\u003e~* \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nMl \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3XVXS \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\nWTfWn^D \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nNT \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n(N \r\n\r\nJ\" \r\n\r\nr-i \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nHD3X \r\n\r\nNaaHxnos \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n9 \r\nH33X     * \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nuO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nIT \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\ntN \r\n\r\n~* \r\n\r\nIf \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nu-l \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nVI0aO3D \r\n\r\nca \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n-^ \r\n\r\nOl \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n9 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n1* \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\n11 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4) \r\n\r\nl/l \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\n'1 \r\n\r\nS3 \r\n\r\n^H \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n*-\u003e \r\n\r\nc \r\n0 \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\ntl \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\na; \r\n\r\n\u003c-\u003e \r\n\r\n(A \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nF \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nj-\u003e \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n91 \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nfl \r\n\r\nU) \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n¦0 \r\n\r\n\u003e¦ \r\n\r\nV) \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nie \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\u003e, \r\n\r\nTl \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nc. \r\n\r\nu-l \r\n\r\nTl \r\n\r\na) \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n4) \r\n\r\nid \r\n\r\nIH \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\nT\u003e \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\"1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nDi \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\ni) \r\n\r\n1) \r\n\r\n.- \r\n\r\niJ \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n¦r-l \r\n\r\n\"1 \r\n\r\nu) \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\" \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nj= \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n^-f \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nU1 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nc; \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n4' \r\n\r\n\u003eH \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n•t^ \r\n\r\n|fl \r\n\r\n4) \r\n\r\ntri \r\n\r\nTl \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nHj \r\n\r\n(i \r\n\r\n(T \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\n4) \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nif \r\n\r\noi \r\n\r\nWj \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nr. \r\n\r\n-.-\u003c \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nP\u003e \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n«4 \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n.a \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nid \r\n\r\nS) \r\n\r\nij \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nJC \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n9 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n¦— 1 \r\n\r\nid \r\n\r\ni-\u003e \r\n\r\nid \r\n\r\nL. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nID \r\n\r\n(1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n(/I \r\n\r\n\u003eJ \r\n\r\nu.g \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n1— 1 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n¦u \r\n\r\n¦a \r\n\r\na] \r\n\r\nHI \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n—I \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\n¦w \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003eH \r\n\r\nrr \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-»H \r\n\r\nf-H \r\n\r\n«H \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n(\u003e \r\n\r\nbi \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n^l \r\n\r\n\"0 \r\n\r\n3. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nJJ \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\n--. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n«¦ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003e1 \r\n\r\n(A \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nca \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n*-* \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\na; \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nvt \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCP \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\n1/1 \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\n11 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\niJ \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nig \r\n\r\n:\" \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\n»0 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n-^ \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\n\u003cn \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n-~l \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n11 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nIJ \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n41 \r\n\r\na.' \r\n\r\n—» \r\n\r\n_: \r\n\r\n—I \r\n\r\nHI \r\n\r\n^— 1 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n-H \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\n«    H \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\n£; \r\n\r\n5, \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n41 \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n*J \r\n\r\nt. \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nh \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n\u003cV]  O \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n£; \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\ntr\u003e \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n.1 \r\n\r\nh \r\n\r\n,* \r\n\r\n*-\u003c \r\n\r\n'A \r\n\r\n*-¦ \r\n\r\n— i \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\n\u003el \r\n\r\nfl \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nU      4J \r\n\r\nij \r\n\r\nfci \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\nSi \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n:-i \r\n\r\nc \r\nu \r\n\r\n—* \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\nr. \r\n\r\n0. \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nsl \r\n\r\nSI \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\no \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\n3 \r\nCI \r\n\r\nc \r\no \r\n\r\n¦H \r\nU \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n3 \r\nT3 \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCm \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nw \r\ng \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\n\r\nX         10 \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nCO  l-t \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n¦I- \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n1 \r\nH \r\n\r\n-T \r\n\r\nj~i \r\n\r\nL/1 \r\n\r\n1* \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\n-C \r\n\r\n-I \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\n•1 \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\n--                   cTi    1 \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n3 \r\n-1 \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n'J \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nA \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\nin \r\nH \r\n\r\nb \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n-\u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nt— 1 \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n38aiTO0     3 \r\n\r\n383x103     \u003c \r\n\r\n33B3S \r\nB38opxBA     * \r\n\r\n»8aTT°0     3 \r\n33«3S \r\n\r\nubuubabs     m \r\n\r\na3aXTO0     \u003c \r\nB78.1033  qjiON \r\n\r\nnaaasaftq^nos      \u003c \r\n\r\nBf8.I03f) \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\ncuaq^nos     § \r\nBf8aoaj) \r\n\r\na8axx°D     § \r\nB-p8ioaD     „ \r\n\r\nPQ. \r\n\r\na8axx°0  33*3 S     5 \r\n\r\n^TTBA  3JOJ \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\na8axx°0     5 \r\n\r\nsnqmnxon \r\n\r\nPQ \r\n\r\n5 \r\na8axx°D \r\nBisnSny     m \r\n\r\na8axx°0     § \r\n\r\n33B3S \r\n3ao33soi.iv \r\n\r\n383XXOD     \u003c \r\n\r\n»3B3S \r\n^neqxv \r\n\r\nB?3j03g     •\u003c \r\n\r\nTa- \r\nrn \r\n\r\n3N \r\nr-J \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n-J \r\n\r\nJ- \r\n\r\n.n \r\n\r\nu-1 \r\n\r\n¦T \r\n\r\nT. \r\n\r\n3^ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n-H \r\n\r\n-n \r\n\r\n3 \r\nX3 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n-1 \r\nN \r\n\r\nCO \r\nCN \r\n\r\nj£3Tsi3ATufl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\n-H \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n-\u003e \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\nB-p8ao33     \u003c \r\n\r\nJO    383XXO0 \r\n\r\nX^OTpaH \r\n\r\n30 \r\n\r\n»                      ON \r\n\r\nu-l \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n33B3S       9 \r\nB-pSaoso \r\n\r\nPQ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n3^ \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\n¦* \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\nuasqtjnos \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nHO  31       ¦\u003c \r\n\r\nB-p8ao39 \r\n\r\npa \r\n\r\n¦» \r\n\r\n-H \r\n\r\niTl \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nP \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCfl \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\nc \r\nf- \r\nCJ \r\no \r\nc \r\n\r\nCD \r\n41 \r\n\r\n-a  o \r\n\r\n§  s \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n01    CO \r\nt-l     01 \r\n\r\n3   Pti \r\n\r\nU     \u003ej \r\n¦H     3 \r\n\r\nid     4-\u003e \r\n\r\n60    CO \r\n\r\n\u003c  z \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nc \r\nw \r\n\r\n-0 \r\n\r\nx' \r\no \r\np \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\n3 \r\n4J \r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\nCO \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nQJ \r\nU \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCD \r\nTH \r\n\r\no \r\nto \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\ncj \r\n•H \r\nM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nt-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n— 1 \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc \r\no \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\niH \r\n\r\nc \r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\ntH \r\nCJ \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n-3 \r\n\r\nl-i \r\n\r\n01 \r\n4J \r\n3 \r\np. \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nto \r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n¦a \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nc \r\n— 1 \r\nr-l \r\n\r\n0) \r\n4) \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc \r\nw \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n-3 \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nt3 \r\n01 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n—1 \r\n\r\n01 \r\nCO \r\nn) \r\n3 \r\nCJ \r\nC \r\nCO \r\nrJ \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n¦H \r\n01 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nc \r\no \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nat \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\nM \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nJ3 \r\n\r\ni_i \r\niH \r\n\r\nCD \r\n01 \r\nX \r\n\r\nCO \r\nCJ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nW \r\n01 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n0) \r\nM \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nu \r\n4J \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\n01 \r\nCJ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr-1 \r\nh \r\n\r\n00 \r\nl-i \r\n\r\n.43 \r\n\r\nTT \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n1J \r\n\r\nca \r\nB \r\n\r\n01 \r\nJ3 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n0) \r\nO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nIT \r\n\r\nCJ \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\nTT \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n0) \r\nCJ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\ntH \r\nCJ \r\n00 \r\n\r\n— 1 \r\n\r\n(0 \r\nU \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\u003e^ \r\nJ\u0026 \r\n\r\nHi \r\n\r\n\u003eT \r\n\r\nid \r\nC \r\n\r\n.-T \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\ngg \r\n\r\nCV. \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\na \r\nco \r\n\r\n-3 \r\nCM \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•H \r\nr-l \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nPt \r\n\r\n0) \r\nCI \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n•h \r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\nrH \r\n0 \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n(0 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nTT \r\nr-l \r\n\r\nC \r\ntT \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n—i \r\nc \r\n\r\ncu \r\nu \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\ni* \r\n-3 \r\n3 \r\n(J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\n•a \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\ntJ \r\n\r\nC \r\nH \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nn) \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCQ \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\ncfl \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\nt-\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\na \r\n\r\n01           3 \r\n4-\u003e              2 \r\n\r\n-H              O     \u003e \r\n\r\n-c        H  h \r\n\r\n3        co  *j \r\n\r\nCO    to \r\n\r\nrH              W    T-l \r\nCO             [fc     4J \r\n\r\n4-\u003e              O      C \r\nO              Oi      01 \r\n\r\nH          0-3 \r\n\r\n0' \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ntH \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nTT \r\n\r\n•a \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\n¦o \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n2: \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\ni— 1 \r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\nCO \r\n4J \r\nO \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n4-1 \r\ntH \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n4J \r\n\r\no \r\nH \r\n\r\n182 \r\n\r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY   SYSTEM  OF    GEORGIA \r\n\r\n\r\nRACIAL   PERCENTAGES   BY   ACADEMIC   AREAS \r\n\r\n\r\nBachelor's \r\n%  % \r\n\r\nBlack        White \r\n\r\n\r\njriculture   \u0026  Natural   Resources \r\n\r\nrchitecture  and  Environmental  Design \r\n\r\nrea  Studies \r\n\r\nliological  Studies \r\n\r\nusiness   \u0026  Management \r\n\r\nJDmmunications \r\n\r\njamputer  \u0026  Information  Sciences \r\n\r\niiucation \r\n\r\ntagineering \r\n\r\nine  \u0026  Applied  Arts \r\n\r\njDreign  Languages \r\n\r\nealth  Professions \r\n\r\nome  Economics \r\nI \r\n\r\n•aw \r\n\r\njatters \r\n\r\niibrary  Science \r\n\r\nMathematics \r\n\r\nlilitary  Science \r\n\r\nlysical  Science \r\n\r\nsychology \r\n\r\nolic  Affairs  and  Service \r\n-»cial  Science \r\naeology \r\n\r\nnterdisciplinary \r\nintermediate  Study \r\nlantistry \r\nsdicine \r\nst.  Medicine \r\naw \r\n\r\n\r\n1.8 \r\n1.8 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n7.4 \r\n9.2 \r\n3.8 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n16.8 \r\n3.3 \r\n4.1 \r\n6.2 \r\n7.6 \r\n4.2 \r\n\r\n7.7 \r\n\r\n17.0 \r\n\r\n4.4 \r\n\r\n7.8 \r\n\r\n13.4 \r\n\r\n15.4 \r\n\r\n\r\n98.2 \r\n\r\n98.2 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n92.6 \r\n\r\n90.8 \r\n\r\n96.2 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n83.2 \r\n\r\n96.7 \r\n\r\n95.9 \r\n\r\n93.8 \r\n\r\n92.4 \r\n\r\n95.8 \r\n\r\n92.3 \r\n\r\n83.0 \r\n\r\n95.6 \r\n92.2 \r\n86.6 \r\n84.6 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n\r\nMasters \r\n\r\n%     .  % \r\n\r\nBlack   White \r\n\r\n\r\n4.0 \r\n10.3 \r\n\r\n13.5 \r\n2.6 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n2.7 \r\n\r\n15.3 \r\n\r\n0.7 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n10.6 \r\n\r\n2.9 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n8.7 \r\n7.7 \r\n2.9 \r\n\r\n8.8 \r\n\r\n5.2 \r\n\r\n8.8 \r\n\r\n19.2 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\r\n96.0 \r\n89.7 \r\n\r\n86.5 \r\n\r\n97.4 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n97.3 \r\n\r\n84.7 \r\n\r\n99.3 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n89.4 \r\n\r\n97.1 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n91.3 \r\n\r\n92.3 \r\n\r\n97.1 \r\n\r\n91.2 \r\n94.8 \r\n91.2 \r\n80.8 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n\r\nDoc.  S  Prof. \r\n\r\n%       % \r\n\r\nBlack   White \r\n\r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\r\n2.7 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n9.5 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n20 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n2.1 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n\r\n97.4 \r\n100 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n90.5 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n80 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n97.9 \r\n100 \r\n100 \r\n\r\n\r\n1.9 \r\n\r\n88.1 \r\n\r\n3.5 \r\n\r\n96.5 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n100 \r\n\r\n1.4 \r\n\r\n98.6 \r\n\r\n»TE:   Percentages  based  on  institutional  data  as  reported  for  the  1975-76  HEW  Survey  : \r\n0E  FORM  2300-2.1,3/76. \r\n\r\n\r\n183 \r\n\r\n\r\nprovides  an  attractive  alternative  to  graduate  school. \r\n\r\nThe  positive  impact  that  the  rate  of  increase  in  minority  enrollment \r\ndescribed  in  earlier  sections  will  make  in  the  solution  to  this  degree  dis- \r\ntribution problem  should  not  be  minimized. \r\n\r\nThe  essential  commitment  which  the  Board  of  Regents  must  make  is  to  the \r\ncontinued  provision  of  an  undergraduate  education  for  all  University  System \r\nstudents  of  a  quality  such  that  they  may  successfully  compete  in  advanced \r\nareas  of  formal  study  or  professional  practice. \r\n\r\nWhile  time  will  resolve  the  basic  problem,  the  Board  of  Regents  recog- \r\nnizes that  additional  interim  actions  are  required  if  significant  minority \r\nrepresentation  is  to  be  achieved  at  the  doctoral  and  professional  level.   It \r\ntherefore  commits  itself  to  the  development  of  processes  which  will  provide \r\nearly  identification  of  promising  students  who  may  normally  be  considered \r\neconomically  or  educationally  disadvantaged.   Such  students  will  be  provided \r\nwith  the  opportunity  to  bring  their  skills  to  a  level  sufficient  to  permit \r\nthem  to  compete  at  the  advanced  graduate  or  professional  level. \r\n\r\nWhile  details  for  such  activities  in  broad  areas  will  be  developed \r\nduring  the  first  twelve  months  of  implementation  of  .this  Plan,  an  example  is \r\ncontained  in  the  following  proposal  submitted  by  the  Medical  College  of \r\nGeorgia. \r\n\r\n\r\n184 \r\n\r\n\r\nFOUR  SPECIAL  PROGRAMS  SPONSORED  BY  THE  SCHOOL  OF  MEDICINE,  MCG,  FOR \r\nEDUCATIONALLY  DISADVANTAGED  STUDENTS \r\nGENERAL  COMMENTS \r\n\r\nKind  of  Students  for  Whom  the  Programs  are  intended.   These  programs  are  for \r\ncollege  students  from  under-represented  and  disadvantaged  groups  of  citizens \r\nwho  are  innately  talented  and  highly  motivated  toward  becoming  a  physician \r\nor  entering  one  of  the  other  medical  professions,  but  have  suffered  educa- \r\ntionally from  poor  quality  schooling,  usually  at  the  elementary  or  secondary \r\nlevels.   Because  of  their  early  educational  deficits  they  have  had  difficulty \r\nin  obtaining  the  near  perfect  grade-point  average  in  college  necessary  to \r\ncompete  for  admission  into  professional  school;  they  also  do  not  generally \r\nscore  well  on  the  national  aptitude  tests  which  are  also  required  for  admission \r\nto  professional  schools.  Other  than  a  clear  indication  that  the  student  is \r\nfrom  an  under-represented  group  (a  minority  or  economically  disadvantaged \r\ngroup),  has  good  potential,  is  a  resident  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  and  has \r\nbeen  disadvantaged  by  poor  quality  education,  there  is  no  further  restriction \r\non  the  applicants  for  this  program. \r\n\r\nObjectives;  1)  To  increase  the  enrollment  of  under  represented,  educationally \r\ndisadvantaged  students  into  the  School  of  Medicine  and  other  medical  professional \r\nschools  at  the  Medical  College  of  Georgia.   2)   to  enrich  the  students'  college- \r\nlevel  education  with  summer  programs  to  make  them  more  competitive  for  admission \r\ninto  medical  profession  schools,  and  3)  to  institute  a  tutorial  program  for \r\nstudents  experiencing  temporary  academic  defficulties  with  the  medical \r\ncurriculum. \r\n\r\nProposed  Programs  -  Three  different  level  summer  programs  and  a  tutorial  program \r\nare  proposed. \r\n\r\n\r\n185 \r\n\r\n\r\nA.  A  SUMMER  PROGRAM  FOR  RISING  JUNIOR  COLLEGE  STUDENTS.   (See  Budget  Proposal  A) \r\n\r\nApplicants  -  Applications  will  be  invited  from  students  who  will  have  finished \r\ntheir  second  year  of  undergraduate  work  by  June  of  the  given  year.   Georgia \r\nresidents  attending  out-of-state  schools  as  well  as  in-state  schools  will  be \r\nconsidered  for  admission  into  the  program. \r\n\r\nSelection  of  Students  -  Students  will  be  selected  according  to  their  grade- \r\npoint  average  and  recommendations  from  faculty  and/or  counselors  at  their \r\nundergraduate  institution. \r\n\r\nNumber  of  Students  Admitted  -  Not  more  than  50  students  will  be  selected. \r\n\r\nLength  of  Course  -  The  course  will  last  8-weeks\"during  the~months  of  July  and \r\nAugust. \r\n\r\nThe  Curriculum  -  This  program  will  be  revitalized  and  a  somewhat  altered  version \r\n\r\nof  the  present  summer  course  for  college  students.  One  change  will  require \r\n\r\nthat  the  applicants  are  rising  sophomores  rather  than  rising  juniors.  Another \r\n\r\nis  that  the  program  will  be  open  to  all  underrepresented ,  disadvantaged  groups. \r\n\r\nThe  students  will  be  given  a  survey  course  in  biomedical  science  and  will  also \r\n\r\nbe  given  courses  in  learning  skills.  During  their  stay  on  campus  they  will  also \r\n\r\nbe  exposed  to  the  various  types  of  medical  professions  for  which  the  Medical  College \r\n\r\nawards  degrees  and  certification. \r\n\r\nThe  academic  portion  of  the  program  will  be  stringent  and  the  students  will  be \r\n\r\nthoroughly  evaluated  for  their  special  talents  and  abilities. \r\n\r\nObjectives  -  1)  To  introduce  the  students  to  the  various  health  professions, \r\n2)  to  supply  the  studerits  with  educational  enrichment  in  science  at  the \r\ncollege  level. \r\n\r\n\r\n186 \r\n\r\n\r\n3)   to  supply  the  students  with  an  evaluation  of  their  abilities  and \r\naptitudes  to  help  them  make  a  choice  regarding  a  professional  career,  and \r\nA)  to  supply  the  students  with  the  type  of  evaluation  that  they  may  use \r\nin  making  application  to  a  professional  health  school  or  for  applying  for \r\nacceptance  into  the  Medical  Schools  Summer  Program  for  Rising  Seniors. \r\n\r\nB.   SUMMER  PROGRAM  FOR  RISING  SENIOR  COLLEGE  STUDENTS.   (See  Budget  Proposal  B) \r\n\r\nApplicants  -  Applications  will  be  invited  from  students  aspiring  to  enter \r\nmedical  school,  who__will  have  finished  their  third  year  of  undergraduate  work \r\nby  June  of  the  given  year. \r\n\r\nSelection  of  Schools  -  Acceptance  into  the  program  will  be  based  on  the  students' \r\ngrade-point  average  and  recommendations  from  faculty  and/or  counselors  from \r\ntheir  undergraduate  institution.   Students  that  have  attended  the  Summer  Program \r\nfor  Rising  Juniors  may  submit  their  evaluations  from  that  program  for  considera- \r\ntion by  the  Admissions  Committee. \r\n\r\nNumber  of  Students  -  Not  more  than  30  students  will  be  accepted  into  the  program. \r\n\r\nLength  of  the  Program  -  The  program  will  be  for  8  weeks  during  July  and  August. \r\n\r\nCurriculum  -  The  students  will  be  given  short  blocks  of  courses,  didactic \r\nmaterial  and  discussions,  covering  difficult  material  in  Cell  Biology,  Bio- \r\nchemistry, Human  Physiology  and  Microbiology.  The  courses  will  include  laboratory \r\nsessions.   Time  will  be  set  apart  for  observation  in  the  clinical  areas  and \r\npersonal  contact  with  clinical  faculty. \r\n\r\nObjectives  -  1)   To  present  the  students  with  courses  comparable  to  those  in  the \r\nmedical  school  curriculum. \r\n\r\n2)  To  evaluate  the  students  in  order  to  help  them  realize  their  abilities  and \r\naptitude  for  entering  the  medical  curriculum,  and \r\n\r\n187 \r\n\r\n\r\n3)   to  supply  the  students  with  experience  and  an  evaluation  that  they  may  use \r\nin  applying  for  acceptance  into  medical  school. \r\n\r\nC.  A  SUMMER  PROGRAM  FOR  PREREGISTERED  MEDICAL  STUDENTS   (See  Budget  Proposal  C) \r\nSelection  of  Students  -  Ten  students  will  be  selected  from  our  list  of  accepted \r\nmedical  students  for  a  given  year.  They  will  be  students  who,  because  of  their \r\nMCAT  scores  or  their  college  gradepoint  average  or  a  combination  of  the  two, \r\nmight  benefit  from  an  early  introduction  into  the  medical  curriculum. \r\n\r\nLength  of  Program  -  The  program  will  be  held  during  four  weeks  in  August. \r\n\r\nCurriculum  -  During  morning  of  the  four  weeks  the  students  will  be  given  lectures \r\nand  participate  in  discussions  on  difficult  concepts  that  occur  in  the  basic \r\nscience  courses  during  the  first-year  medical  curriculum.  Afternoons  will  be \r\ntaken  up  mostly  by  workshops  in  learning  skills  such  as  reading  for  speed  and \r\ncomprehension,  techniques  for  memorization,  organization  of  materials  and  test- \r\ntaking.   The  students  will  also  attend  clinics  and  participate  in  faculty-student \r\ndiscussion  on  the  medical  curriculum. \r\n\r\nObjectives  -  1)   To  introduce  the  students  to  some  of  the  difficult  subject \r\nmatter  that  they  will  be  dealing  with  in  the  regular  curriculum,  and  2)   to \r\nprepare  the  students  for  coping  with  the  exceptionally  large  amount  of  material \r\nthat  must  be  learned  in  the  medical  curriculum. \r\n\r\nD.  A  TUTORIAL  PROGRAM  FOR  MEDICAL  STUDENTS  DURING  THE  FIRST  TWO  YEARS  OF  THE \r\nMEDICAL  CURRICULUM  (See  Budget  Proposal  D) \r\n\r\nBackground  -  The  extreme  change  in  students'  life  brought  on  by  the  pressures  and \r\nresponsibilities  of  the  medical  curriculum  often  leads  to  temporary  academic \r\nproblems,  particularly  during  the  first  two  years  of  medical  school.   This  presents \r\nanother  and  perhaps  the  last  hurdle  that  the  disadvantaged  student  must  complete \r\n\r\n188 \r\n\r\n\r\nIn  order  to  be  successful  in  the  medical  curriculum. \r\n\r\nProposal  -  It  is  proposed  that  the  School  of  Medicine  institute  a  tutorial  program \r\nfor  students  having  temporary  academic  difficulty  during  the  first  two  years  of \r\nthe  medical  curriculum.   The  tutorial  sessions  would  be  under  the  supervision  of \r\nfaculty  involved  with  the  particular  subject  matter  in  which  the  student  or  students \r\nare  having  difficulty.  Tutors  would  be  selected  from  graduate  students  and  advanced \r\nmedical  students  having  a  talent  for  such  work  and  expertise  in  the  material  to  be \r\nreviewed.   Tutorial  sessions  would  be  conducted  on  Saturday  mornings  and  evenings \r\nduring  the  week.   They  would  be  conducted  as  classes  for  individual  students  or \r\ngroups  of  students  depending  on  the  needs  of  the  students.  Only  students  recommended \r\nby  the  faculty  would  be  eligible  for  the  tutorial  service. \r\n\r\nE.  AND  F.   OTHER  PROPOSALS \r\n\r\nTwo  other  items  are  proposed  for  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  programs  for \r\ndisadvantaged  students : \r\n\r\n1)  A  competitive  scholarship  for  three  students.   (See  Budget  Proposal  E) \r\nAt  present  we  are  losing  some  of  our  most  promising  disadvantaged \r\nstudent  applicants  because  of  scholarships  offered  to  them  by  other \r\nmedical  schools. \r\n\r\n2)  Funds  for  recruitment.   (See  Budget  Proposal  F) \r\n\r\nThere  are  many  talented  disadvantaged  students  who  do  not  realize  the \r\nopportunities  that  are  open  to  them  in  the  medical  professions.  A \r\nstrong  recruitment  program  would  help  us  get  this  informantion  to  them. \r\n\r\n\r\n189 \r\n\r\n\r\nSPECIAL  PROGRAMS  FOR  EDUCATIONALLY  DISADVANTAGED  STUDENTS \r\n\r\nBUDGET  PROPOSAL \r\n\r\n\r\nPROPOSAL  A \r\n\r\nSUMMER  PROGRAM  FOR  RISING  JUNIOR  COLLEGE  STUDENTS \r\n\r\n50  students  for  8  weeks \r\n^  Room  and  Board \r\n$100 /week  x  8  x  50 \r\n\r\nStipend \r\n\r\n$70/week  x  8  x  50 \r\n\r\nFaculty  -  6  FTE \r\n\r\n@  $2500/month  =  $5,000 \r\n\r\nSecretary \r\n\r\nSupplies  and  Equipment \r\n\r\nTotal \r\n\r\n\r\n$  40,000 \r\n\r\n28,000 \r\n\r\n30,000 \r\n\r\n1,500 \r\n\r\n2,500 \r\n\r\n$  102,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nPROPOSAL  B \r\n\r\nSUMMER  PROGRAM  FOR  RISING  SENIOR  COLLEGE  STUDENTS \r\n\r\n30  students  for  8  weeks \r\nRoom  and  Board \r\n$100/week  x  8  x  30 \r\n\r\nStipend \r\n\r\n$100 /week  x  8  x  30 \r\n\r\nFaculty  -  6  FTE \r\n\r\n@  $2,500/month  =  $5,000 \r\n\r\nSecretary \r\n\r\nSupplies  and  Equipment \r\n\r\n(for  lectures  and  laboratory) \r\n\r\nTotal \r\n\r\n\r\n24,000 \r\n\r\n24,000 \r\n\r\n30,000 \r\n1,500 \r\n\r\n10,000 \r\n$  89,500 \r\n\r\n\r\n190 \r\n\r\n\r\nBUDGET  PROPOSAL  CONTINUED \r\n\r\n\r\nPROPOSAL  C \r\n\r\nSUMMER  PROGRAM  FOR  PREREGISTERED  MEDICAL  STUDENTS \r\n\r\n10  students  for  4  weeks \r\nRoom  and  Board \r\n$100/week  x  4  x  10 \r\n\r\nStipend \r\n\r\n$100/week  x  4  x  10 \r\n\r\nFaculty  -  6  FTE \r\n@  $2500/month \r\n\r\nSecretary \r\n\r\nSupplies  and  Equipment \r\n\r\n\r\nTotal \r\n\r\n\r\n$   4,000 \r\n\r\n4,000 \r\n\r\n15,000 \r\n\r\n750 \r\n\r\n1,250 \r\n\r\n$  25,000 \r\n\r\n\r\nPROPOSAL  D \r\nTUTORIAL  PROGRAM \r\n\r\n\r\n5  Tutors  for  32  weeks \r\n\r\n6  hours /week, $8. 50 /hour, 32  weeks \r\n\r\n\r\n$   8,160 \r\n\r\n\r\nPROPOSAL  E \r\nSCHOLARSHIPS \r\n\r\n\r\nThree  @  $6,500  per  scholarship \r\n\r\n\r\n$  19,500 \r\n\r\n\r\nPROPOSAL  F \r\n\r\nRECRUITMENT \r\n\r\n\r\nTrips  twice  a  month  for \r\n\r\n2  people  -  $250  per  trip  for  7  months \r\n\r\n7  x  $500  $   3,500 \r\n\r\n\r\nGRAND  TOTAL  ALL  PROGRAMS \r\n\r\n\r\n$  247,660 \r\n\r\n\r\n191 \r\n\r\n\r\nII-E      DEGREE  PRODUCTIVITY \r\n\r\nReference:  II-E  (Guidelines) \r\n\r\nThe  goal  that  requires  a  reduction  (elimination)  of  the  disparity  in \r\nthe  proportions  of  black  and  white  students  completing  and  graduating  from \r\nUniversity  System  institutions  involves  several  fundamental  principles. \r\nPerhaps  the  most  important  has  to  do  with  the  basic  determination  of  graduation \r\nrequirements . \r\n\r\nThe  current  situation  appears  to  be  one  in  which  the  attrition  for  black \r\nstudents  at  the  four  year  college  level  is  approximately  one-third  greater  than \r\nfor  white  students. \r\n\r\nThis  obervation  is  based  on  the  following: \r\n\r\nB        W \r\n\r\n\r\nUniversity  System  Enrollment     15%       85% \r\nBachelor's  Graduates  10%       90% \r\n\r\nAttrition  rates  are  influenced  to  an  unknown  extent  by  the  time  lag \r\neffect  related  to  the  rapid  recent  increase  in  minority  enrollment;  however, \r\nit  can  be  concluded  that  the  actual  disparity  is  less  than  that  indicated  above. \r\n\r\nThe  increased  productivity  in  terms  of  both  black  and  white  graduates \r\ndepends  heavily  upon  the  capability  of  individual  institutions  to  develop \r\nundergraduates  who  are  fully  competitive  academically.   This  in  turn  depends \r\nupon  the  general  preparation  of  students  entering  the  University  System.   The \r\nfollowing  Table  II-E-1  of  composite  SAT  scores  suggests  the  magnitude  of \r\nthe  problem. \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  commits  itself  to  the  maintenance  of  regular  and \r\nremedial  programs  of  a  type  sufficient  to  meet  these  academic  needs. \r\n\r\n\r\n192 \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  II-E-1 \r\n\r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\nThe  Effects  of  CEEB-SAT  Composite  Cutoff  Scores \r\n\r\n1975-76 \r\n\r\nPERCENT  LOSS  IN  APPLYING  COMPOSITE  CEEB-SAT  CUTOFF \r\nENTERING \r\n\r\nINSTITUTION            FRESHMEN  500  550  600  650  700  750  800  850  9C0 \r\n\r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia     30,412  5.0  11.3  18.5  26.4  35.1  44.4  53.1  62.1  69.6 \r\n\r\nGeorgia  Institute  of  Technology    1,859  .1  .3    .3  .4  .8  1.3  1.9   3.8   7.2 \r\n\r\nSouthern  Technical  Institute        381  1.0   3.4  7.6  15.0  25.2  37.0  50.7  64.3 \r\n\r\nGeorgia  State  University         1,709  1.8  4.8  10.0  15.7  22.4  30.3  39.8  50.4  60.1 \r\n\r\nMedical  College  of  Georgia         105            1.0  1.9  7.6  17.1  37.1  56.2  67.6 \r\n\r\nUniversity  of  Georgia           3,023  .2  .3    .6  1.2  3.2  7.2  13.3  23.4  34.7 \r\n\r\nAlbany  State  College             706  26.3  50.1  68.3  80.2  88.5  93.9  96.3  98.6  99.3 \r\n\r\nArmstrong  State  College         .  880  1.9  5.7  10.9  19.3  28.9  41.7  50.7  61.0  68.9 \r\n\r\nAugusta  College               1,064  2.1  6.8  13.0  19.6  27.1  37.7  47.6  59.2  68.3 \r\n\r\nColumbus  College               1,470  4.3  10.1  16.5  24.6  36.7  49.9  59.5  68.9  76.4 \r\n\r\nFort  Valley  State  College          484  28.3  51.7  71.3  81.0  88.2  93.0  95.2  95.7  96.1 \r\n\r\nGeorgia  College                 478  4.0  8.6  15.3  22.0  32.6  44.6  53.3  64.2  74.7 \r\n\r\nGeorgia  Southern  College         1,196  .3  1.7   3.9  7.7  15.4  25.8  38.4  52.7  64.6 \r\n\r\nGeorgia  Southwestern  College       466  7.1  15.7  24.7  35.0  45.7  56.9  66.7  75.3  80.9 \r\n\r\nNorth  Georgia  College            380  1.6  4.7   8.9  16.1  22.9  28.9  41.3  52.4  65.3 \r\n\r\nSavannah  State  College            683  21.7  40.6  61.8  75.4  83.3  89.6  94.1  96.2  98.0 \r\n\r\nValdosta  State  College          1,105  2.7  7.1  12.9  21.5  30.1  42.5  53.5  65.6  74.3 \r\n\r\nWest  Georgia  College            1,021  3.5  10.0  17.4  23.3  35.4  47.8  61.3  71.7  79.9 \r\n\r\nAbraham  Baldwin  Agric.  College    1,217  6.7  13.6  23.3  34.5  46.4  58.2  68.2  77.5  83.7 \r\n\r\nAlbany  Junior  College           1,110  9.0  18.6  27.5  26.8  47.2  56.6  64.1  72.8  79.3 \r\n\r\nAtlanta  Junior  College           1,060  18.7  42.7  61.8*73.0  84.1  89.6  93.6  96.2  97.7 \r\n\r\nBainbridge  Junior  College          298  6.4  13.8  24.8  34.2  46.3  58.4  65.8  74.8  83.9 \r\n\r\nBrunswick  Junior  College          678  9.4  20.1  32.2  44.4  55.5  63.0  71.1  78.3  84.5 \r\n\r\nClayton  Junior  College           1,921  2.1  6.5  13.2  23.5  35.7  47.8  59.9  71.1  77.4 \r\n\r\nDal  ton  Junior  College             862  3.5  9.3  18.0  29.4  41.4  53.0  64.0  73.5  80.9 \r\n\r\nEmanuel  County  Junior  College       152  6.6  17.8  27.0  44.1  52.0  63.2  69.1  78.9  84,9 \r\n\r\nFloyd  Junior  College              534  3.9  11.0  20.8  33.5  43.8  55.6  64.6  74.5  82.0 \r\n\r\nGainesville  Junior  College         854  6.0  13.6  23.1  34.3  45.7  59.6  70.3  79.7  85.6 \r\n\r\nGordon  Junior  College             507  4.3  10.8  18.7  28.6  40.4  50.5  60.0  69.0  75.0 \r\n\r\nKennesaw  Junior  College         1,484  1.1  4.2\"  9.6  18.4  28.2  41.8  53.2  63.7  74.2 \r\n\r\nMacon  Junior  College            1,157  3.2  8.9  17.0  29.3  39.8  50.3  60.9  71.0  79.0 \r\n\r\nMiddle  Georgia  College            967  4.8  11.3  19.5  29.0  40.4  52.2  63.2  72.7  B',.0 \r\n\r\nSouth  Georgia  College             601  7.8  19.3  30.8  45.6  58.7  69.1  76.9  83.5  89.0 \r\n\r\n193   ^ \r\n\r\n\r\nII-F  STUDENT  MOBILITY \r\n\r\nReference:  Section  II-F  (Guidelines) \r\n\r\nMobility,  with  no  restriction  other  than  academic  performance  at  the \r\noriginal  institution,  is  provided  by  the  core  curriculum.  -=¦ \r\n\r\nThe  core  curriculum  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  was  established \r\nfor  the  general  purpose  of  aiding  and  facilitating  the  educational  progress \r\nof  students  as  they  pursue  baccalaureate  degrees  within  and  among  the  units \r\nof  the  University  System.   It  represents  an  effort  to  deal  effectively  with \r\nincreasing  curricular  problems  of  students  which  result  from  increased  enroll- \r\nment at  institutions  of  higher  education,  increased  number  and  percentage  of \r\nstudents  enrolled  in  junior  colleges,  increased  mobility  of  student  population, \r\nincreased  number  and  complexity  of  major  fields  of  studies  offered  by  senior \r\nunits,  and  increased  problems  related  to  transfer  of  credit  among  units  of \r\nthe  University  System. \r\n\r\nThe  core  curriculum  provides  for  (1)  ninety  quarter  credit  hours  of  which \r\nsixty  are  in  general  education  and  thirty  in  a  major  area  of  study,  (2)  the \r\nassurance  of  acceptance  of  transfer  of  the  core  curriculum  or  a  fractional  part \r\nthereof  toward  a  baccalaureate  degree,  and  (3)  the  preservation  of  the  maximum \r\npossible  amount  of  institutional  autonomy. \r\n\r\nThe  designated  academic  areas  of  study  within  the  60-hour  portion  of  the \r\ncore  curriculum  comprise  broad  fields  of  study  and  are  not  limited  to  specific \r\ncourses  or  course  content.   Hence,  each  institution  has  the  latitude  of \r\ncurricular  development  within  this  flexible  plan.   The  three  following  areas  of \r\nstudy  are  included  in  and  defined  as  a  part  of  the  general  education  portion  of \r\nthe  core  curriculum:  Humanities,  20  hours;  Mathematics-Natural  Science,  20  hours; \r\nand  Social  Science,  20  hours.   The  remaining  30  hours  in  the  core  curriculum \r\nare  devoted  to  work  related  to  the  student's  major  field  of  study.   The  require- \r\nments in  this  area  of  study  are  established  by  the  Advisory  Council  upon \r\n\r\n194 \r\n\r\n\r\nrecommendation  of  the  appropriate  academic  committees  and  the  Committee  on \r\nTransfer  of  Credit. \r\n\r\n\r\n195 \r\n\r\n\r\nII-G  and  H    MEASURES  AND  TIMETABLES \r\n\r\nReference:   Section  II-F  (Guidelines) \r\n\r\nParti,  Section  A-F  (Plan) \r\n\r\nProjected  actions  and  attendant  enrollment  figures  called  for  in  this \r\nsection  of  the  Guidelines  are  contained  in  the  specific  preceding  sections \r\nof  this  Plan. \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents,  as  the  Constitutional  Body  responsible  for  public \r\nhigher  education  in  Georgia, through  endorsement  of  this  document  commits \r\nitself  to  the  specific  actions  contained  in  this  Plan. \r\n\r\n\r\n196 \r\n\r\n\r\nIII.   FURTHER  DESEGREGATION  OF  FACULTY  AND  STAFF \r\n\r\nReference:   Section  III-A,B,C,D,E,  and  F     (Guidelines) \r\nPart  II,  Section  _1_  (Plan) \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  will  make  a  concerted  effort  to  achieve  a  greater \r\ndegree  of  desegregation  of  administration,  faculty,  and  staff  throughout  the \r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia  by  taking  several  steps.   In  order  to  commit  the \r\nentire  University  System,  the  Board  passed  at  its  October  meeting  in  1975 \r\nan  Affirmative  Action  Commitment  which  acts  as  an  umbrella  statement  for  all \r\nschools  within  the  University  System.   This  commitment  which  is  presented  in \r\nits  entirety  below,  reaffirms  the  Board's  commitment  to  equal  employment \r\nopportunities  and  reflects  the  policies  of  the  Board  to  prevent  \"discrimina- \r\ntion practices  against  any  person  employed  or  seeking  employment  because  of \r\nrace,  color,  religion,  national  origin  or  sex.\"  The  commitment  further  states \r\nthat  affirmative  action  efforts  will  be  made  to  \"increase  the  number  of \r\nminorities  and  women  in  those  occupational  categories  where  their  present \r\nemployment  is  less  than  would  be  expected  by  their  availability  in  the  job \r\nmarket.\" \r\n\r\nThe  commitment  requires  that  each  institution  in  the  System  prepare \r\nand  monitor  annually  an  affirmative  action  plan.   During  1977,  each  in- \r\nstitution except  Georgia  Institute  of  Technology,  whose  plan  has  been \r\napproved,  Georgia  State  University  and  the  University  of  Georgia,  whose  plans \r\nare  currently  being  reviewed  by  the  Department  of  Health,  Education,  and \r\nWelfare  will  attend  a  two-day  workshop  on  preparing  a  new  affirmative  action \r\nplan  which  will  be  ready  for  submission  to  HEW  on  or  before  July  1,  1978. \r\nOne  workshop  was  held  in  May,  1977  and  two  of  the  eight  plans  have  been \r\ndelivered  to  HEW  for  review.   Three  workshops  will  be  held  in  October  1977. \r\n\r\nAs  soon  as  the  evaluation  of  the  Affirmative  Action  Plans  is  received \r\nthe  office  of  the  Vice  Chancellor  for  Personnel  with  assistance  from  the \r\n\r\n197 \r\n\r\n\r\nDepartment  of  Health,  Education.,  and  Welfare  will  work  with  each  institution \r\nin  a  careful  review  and  revision,  where  necessary,  of  its  plan. \r\n\r\nIn  order  to  assist  in  the  desegregation  of  the  University  System,  the \r\nBoard  established  the  University  System  of  Georgia  Applicant  Clearinghouse \r\nfor  administrative  and  faculty  positions.   Each  campus  has  a  coordinator \r\nto  serve  as  a  liaison  with  the  Clearinghouse.   The  official  beginning  date \r\nfor  the  Applicant  Clearinghouse  was  February  1,  1975. \r\n\r\nConcurrently,  the  Applicant  Clearinghouse  Office  was  established  to \r\nprovide  the  insitutional  coordinators  with  guidance  and  assistance  in  es- \r\ntablishing procedures  on  their  own  campuses  for  compliance  with  the  Appli- \r\ncant Clearinghouse  System,  to  distribute  forms  and  instructions  for  their \r\npreparation. \r\n\r\nSeveral  requirements  were  imposed  upon  the  institutions  regarding  the \r\nApplicant  Clearinghouse.  Departments  are  required  to  file  with  the  Appli- \r\ncant Clearinghouse  all  applicants  considered  for  final  review  unless  the \r\napplicant  requests  that  his  or  her  name  not  be  included.   The  applicants \r\nare  to  be  entered  at  the  time  of  final  review  and  preferably  before  the  final \r\nselection  is  made.  When  an  institution  is  unable  to  identify  and  attract \r\nsuitable  minorities  and  women  applicants,  it  is  required  to  consult  the  Appli- \r\ncant Clearinghouse  in  a  further  effort  to  identify  such  applicants.   It  should \r\nbe  pointed  out,  however,  that  any  determination  of  a  candidate's  qualifications \r\nremains  with  the  academic  departments. \r\n\r\nA  brochure  was  designed  and  printed  in  May  1977,  which  explains  the \r\npurpose,  history,  and  procedures  of  the  Clearinghouse  to  prospective  appli- \r\ncants as  well  as  the  administrative  staff  of  the  University  System. \r\n\r\nThroughout  the  year  the  Applicant  Clearinghouse  Coordinator  in  Athens \r\nvisited  schools  in  the  System  to  assist  them  in  their  use  of  this  facility. \r\nIn  February  of  this  year,  the  Applicant  Clearinghouse  Coordinator  and  the \r\n\r\n\r\n198 \r\n\r\n\r\nAssistant  Vice  Chancellor  for  Personnel  visited  Tallahassee,  Florida,  to \r\nstudy  the  State  University  System  of  Florida  Central  Applicant  Pool  and \r\nPosition  Vacancy  Listing  Service.   The  outcome  of  this  visit  is  the  exchange \r\nof  black  applicants  between  the  two  systems.   Each  applicant  received  from \r\nthe  Florida  Pool  will  be  sent  an  application  and  a  brochure.   This  combina- \r\ntion of  the  informational  resources  of  Georgia  and  Florida  will  increase  the \r\nnumber  of  blacks  available  for  review  for  administrative  and  faculty  positions \r\n\r\nUnder  this  Plan,  the  Board  of  Regents  will  extend  the  use  of  the  Appli- \r\ncant Clearinghouse  to  include  a  listing  of  position  vacancies  in  the  Univer- \r\nsity System  for  all  faculty,  administrative,  and  staff  positions  defined \r\nas  positions  exempt  from  the  Wage  and  Hour  Law.   The  details  of  this  expanded \r\nfunction  will  require  extensive  prior  review  and  discussion;  however,  the \r\ntotal  expanded  function  will  be  implemented  prior  to  January  1,  1979.  Develop- \r\nmental activities  will  be  conducted  under  the  direction  of  the  Assistant  Vice \r\nChancellor  for  Personnel. \r\n\r\nThe  Applicant  Clearinghouse  will  thus  more  effectively  serve  as  an  im- \r\nplementing devise  for  the  Board  of  Regents  Affirmative  Action  Commitment \r\nstated  below. \r\n\r\nSpecific  employment  projections  will  be  an  outgrowth  of  the  complex \r\nmanpower  assessment  and  vacancy  assumptions  which  constitute  a  part  of  each \r\naffirmative  action  plan.   Data  related  to  the  current  racial  composition  of \r\nthe  administration,  faculty,  and  staff  of  each  operating  unit  of  the  Univer- \r\nsity System,  the  labor  pool  analysis  for  each  specific  job  classification, \r\nand  the  projection  of  the  nature  and  redress  of  any  hiring  disparities  thus \r\nrevealed  are  or  will  be  contained  in  the  affirmative  action  plans  described \r\nin  this  section. \r\n\r\n\r\n199 \r\n\r\n\r\nAFFIRMATIVE  ACTION  COMMITMENT \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia \r\nhas  adopted  the  following  Program  as  its  Affirmative  Action \r\nCommitment   consistent  with  Executive  Order  Number  11246,  as \r\namended  by  executive  Order  Number  11375,  and  all  appropriate \r\nregulations  and  guidelines  issued  thereunder,  including  Higher \r\nEducation  Guidelines  Executive  Order  Number  11246,  issued  by \r\nthe  U.  S.  Department  of  Health  Education  and  Welfare,  Office \r\nof  the  Secretary,  Office  of  Civil  Rights,  and  \"Revised  Order \r\nNumber  4\"   (Chapter  60  -  Office  of  Federal  Contract  Compliance, \r\nEqual  Employment  Opportunity,  Department  of  Labor,  Part  60-2, \r\nAffirmative  Action  Programs) . \r\n\r\nPolicy \r\n\r\nIt  shall  be  the  policy  of  the  Board  of  Regents  of  the \r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia  to  initiate  comprehensive  affir- \r\nmative action  programs  to  provide  equal  employment  opportunities \r\nto  all  employees  and  applicants  for  employment.   The  University \r\nSystem  will  not  engage  in  discriminatory  practices  against  any \r\nperson  employed  or  seeking  employment  because  of  race,  color, \r\nreligion,  national  origin,  or  sex. \r\n\r\nPositive  efforts  to  effect  further  affirmative  action \r\nprograms  throughout  the  University  System  shall  be  persued  con- \r\nstantly and  intensely.   The  affirmative  action  programs  in  the \r\nUniversity  System  shall  be  consistent  with  the  Regents'  standards \r\nof  quality  and  excellence;   they  shall  be  specific  in  identifying \r\nareas  of  under-utilization  and  in  prescribing  corrective  measures. \r\nThe  intent  of  the  Affirmative  Action  Commitment   of  the  University \r\n\r\n200 \r\n\r\n\r\nSystem  of  Georgia  is  that  it  shall  reflect  fully  the  spirit  of \r\nthe  law. \r\n\r\nEach  institution  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  shall \r\nprepare,  implement,  and  maintain  an  affirmative  action  program. \r\nAll  affirmative  action  programs  shall  be  reviewed  and  approved  by \r\nthe  Chancellor  before  they  are  published  and  disseminated. \r\n\r\nII.   Responsibilities  of  the  President \r\n\r\nEach  president  of  each  institution  shall,  in  accordance  with \r\nprinciples  stated  in  this  policy  and  with  the  aid  of  the  faculty \r\nand  administrative  staff,  develop,  administer,  maintain,  disseminate, \r\nand  monitor  a  detailed  written  affirmative  action  program,  with  an \r\nappropriate  reporting  system,  to  include  specific  steps  designed \r\nto  increase  the  number  of  minorities  and  women  in  those  occupational \r\ncategories  where  their  present  employment  is  less  than  would  be \r\nexpected  by  their  availability  in  the  job  market.   The  Affirmative \r\nAction  Program  shall  follow  the  procedures  outlined  in  Chapter  60 \r\nof  Title  41,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations,  Part  60-2  (Revised  Order \r\nNo.  4). \r\n\r\nEach  president  shall  establish  procedures  for  monitoring,  up- \r\ndating, and  maintaining  the  affirmative  action  program  of  the  insti- \r\ntution.  He  shall  make  sure  that  all  administrators  of  the  institu- \r\ntion comply  fully  with  the  affirmative  action  program  and  that  all \r\nemployees  are  informed  of  the  personnel  policies  of  the  institution. \r\nHe  shall  provide  for  the  maintenance  of  records  and  the  preparation \r\nof  reports  that  will  document  efforts  and  performance  under  the \r\naffirmative  action  program.   Reports  shall  be  made  to  the  Regents' \r\nOffice  as  requested  by  the  Chancellor.   The  President  shall  provide \r\nfor  prompt  reporting  to  the  Chancellor  of  any  complaints  or  charges \r\n\r\n201 \r\n\r\n\r\nof  discrimination  filed  against  the  institution  with  the  Office \r\nof  Federal  Contract  Compliance,  the  Office  of  Civil  Rights  of  the \r\nDepartment  of  Health,  Education,  and  Welfare,  the  Equal  Employment \r\nOpportunity  Commission  or  any  other  federal  or  state  compliance \r\nagency.  The  president  shall  provide  also  for  status  reports  on \r\nany  investigations  as  they  might  occur  and  shall  forward  to  the \r\nChancellor  copies  of  findings  and/or  settlements  growing  out  of \r\ncomplaints  and/or  charges. \r\n\r\nIII.   Responsibilities  of  the  Office  of  the  Chancellor \r\n\r\nA.  The  Chancellor  has  delegated  to  the  Vice  Chancellor \r\nresponsibility  for  the  coordination  and  performance  review  of \r\nthe  University  System'  s  equal  employment  commitment    for  the \r\ndevelopment  and  maintenance  of  an  effective  affirmative  action \r\nprogram  in  each  institution  of  the  University  System  for  deal- \r\ning with  appropriate  federal  and/or  state  agencies  in  equal  em- \r\nployment opportunity  matters,  and  for  monitoring  any  activities \r\nbetween  the  individual  institutions  and  such  agencies. \r\n\r\nB.  The  Vice  Chancellor  shall  be  responsible  also  for  the \r\nfollowing: \r\n\r\n(1)   The  Vice  Chancellor  shall,  in  consultation  with  the \r\nAssistant  Vice  Chancellor  for  Personnel,  who  is  the  EEO  Officer \r\nfor  the  System,  and  other  officers  whom  he  may  designate,  review \r\nall  University  System  policies,  practices,  and  benefits  affecting \r\npersonnel  to  ensure  all  employees  of  equal  treatment  consistent \r\nwith  legal  requirements  for  non-discrimination  and  equal  employ- \r\nment opportunity,  and  compliance  with  affirmative  action  require- \r\nments as  outlined  in  Chapter  60  of  Title  41,  Code  of  Federal \r\n\r\nRegulations,  Part  60-2  (Revised  Order  Number  4),  and  the  Equal \r\n\r\n202 \r\n\r\n\r\nEmployment  Opportunity  Act  of  1972,  and  EEOC  Guidelines  on \r\nEmployee  Selection  and  on  Discrimination  because  of  Race,  Color, \r\nReligion,  National  Origin,  or  Sex. \r\n\r\n(2)  Provide  each  president  periodically  (but  at  least \r\nonce  a  year)  with  current  University  System  consolidated  employ- \r\nment data  showing  the  number  of  regular  academic,  management, \r\nand  career  staff  employees  of  ethnic  group,  sex,  and  occupational \r\ncategories  designated  in  the  Equal  Employment  Opportunity  Infor- \r\nmation Report,  or  such  other  reports  as  may  be  substituted  for \r\nthe  Equal  Employment  Opportunity  Report. \r\n\r\nIV.   Underutilization,  Goals  and  Time  Tables \r\n\r\nTo  identify  problems  of  discrimination  that  already \r\nexist,  or  may  evolve,  and  in  the  development  of  an  effective \r\naffirmative  action  program,  the  president  of  each  institution \r\nshall  make  an  exhaustive  analysis  of  the  institution's  work  force \r\nto  determine  whether  underutilization  of  women  and  minorities \r\nexists  in  any  of  the  departments'  major  job  classifications  (as \r\ndefined  in  60-2. 11a  of  Amendments  to  Revised  Order  No.  4)  ex- \r\nistent at  the  institution.   If  underutilization  is  found  to  exist, \r\nthe  president  shall  take  steps  to  determine  if  such  underutiliz- \r\nation exists  as  a  result  of  personnel  policies  or  practices  which \r\ndiscriminate  or  result  in  discrimination  because  of  race,  color, \r\nreligion,  national  origin  or  sex.   Each  of  these  job  classifi- \r\ncations will  be  assigned  to  one  of  the  following  categories  in \r\ncorrelation  to  EEO-6:   (See  Appendices  1,  II,  and  III \r\n\r\n(1)  Executive/Administrative/Managerial \r\n\r\n(2)  Deans/Assistant  Deans \r\n\r\n(3)  Instructional \r\n\r\n(4)  Professional  Non-Instructional \r\n\r\n\r\n203 \r\n\r\n\r\n(5)  Clerical/Secretarial \r\n\r\n(6)  Technical/Paraprofessional \r\n\r\n(7)  Crafts/Trades  (includes  maintenance) \r\n\r\n(8)  Service  Workers \r\n\r\nWhere  underutilization  is  present,  he  must  establish  goals  and \r\ntime  tables  for  action  correcting  or  eliminating  the  deficiencies. \r\n\r\nUnderutilization  is  defined  as  having  fewer  women  or \r\nminority  persons  in  a  particular  department  or  job  than  reasonably \r\nwould  be  expected  by  their  availability  in  the  relevant  labor  force \r\n(nationwide,  state,  or  local  community). \r\n\r\nGoals  are  projected  levels  of  achievement  which  should  be \r\nthe  result  of  the  president* s  analysis  of  his  institutions  defi- \r\nciences,  of  what  his  institution  expects  to  do  to  remedy  them  when \r\nit  has  determined  the  extent  of  the  availability  in  the  relevant \r\nlabor  force.   Goals  should  be  used  to  increase  the  employment  of \r\nminorities  and  women  in  appropriate  organizational  units  and \r\noccupational  categories  of  the  institution.   The  president  should \r\nnot,  however,  consider  a  goal  to  be  a  quota.   Specific  goals  must \r\nbe  established  for  the  employment  of  women  and  minorities  through \r\nthe  conduct  of  a  work-force  availability  analysis  separately  for \r\nminorities  and  women. \r\n\r\nA.   Utilization  Analysis \r\n\r\nIn  determining  whether  underutilization  exists  in  any  of  the \r\njob  categories  delineated  by  the  Government  and  major  job  classifi- \r\ncation therein,  the  institution  shall  make  an  analysis  of  the  work \r\nforce  and  employment  availability  of  both  minorities  and  women. \r\nThe  factors  that  must  be  considered  in  making  each  analysis  shall \r\ninclude  but  not  necessarily  be  limited  to  those  that  are  set  out \r\n\r\n\r\n204 \r\n\r\n\r\nin  Section  60-2.11,  Title  41,  Code  of  Federal  Regulations  (Revised \r\nOrder  Number  4) . \r\n\r\n(1)  Minorities.   In  analyzing  the  minority  work  force  and \r\navailability  of  minorities  to  determine  whether  there \r\nis  underutilization  of  minorities,  the  institutions \r\nshall  consider  the  following: \r\n\r\na.  The  male  and  female  minority  population  of  the \r\nlabor  area  surrounding  the  institution. \r\n\r\nb.  The  size  of  the  male  and  female  minority  unem- \r\nployment force  having  requisite  skills  in  the \r\nlabor  area  surrounding  the  institution. \r\n\r\nc.  The  percentage  of  the  male  and  female  minority \r\nwork  force  in  the  immediate  labor  area. \r\n\r\nd.  The  availability  of  male  and  female  minorities \r\nhaving  requisite  skills  in  an  area  in  which  the \r\ninstitution  can  reasonably  recruit. \r\n\r\ne.  The  availability  of  promotable  and  transferable \r\nmale  and  female  within  the  institution. \r\n\r\nf.  The  existence  of  training  institutions  or \r\nprograms  capable  of  training  males  and  females \r\nin  the  requisite  skills. \r\n\r\ng.  The  degree  of  training  which  the  institution  is \r\nreasonably  able  to  undertake  as  a  means  of  making \r\nall  job  classes  available  to  male  and  female \r\nminorities. \r\n\r\nh.   Other  means  that  may  be  available  to  an  institution \r\nlocally  in  analyzing  the  male  and  female  minority \r\nwork  force. \r\n\r\n(2)  Women,    In  analyzing  the  work  force  and  availability  of \r\nwomen  to  determine  whether  there  is  underutilization  of \r\nwomen  in  professional  or  non-academic  positions,  the \r\ninstitution  shall  consider  the  following: \r\n\r\na.  The  size  of  the  female  unemployment  force  having \r\nrequisite  skills  in  the  labor  area  surrounding  the \r\ninstitution. \r\n\r\nb.  The  percentage  of  the  female  work  force  as  compared \r\nwith  the  total  work  force  in  the  immediate  labor \r\narea. \r\n\r\nc.  The  availability  of  women  seeking  employment  in  the \r\nlabor  or  recruitment  area  of  the  institution. \r\n\r\nd.  The  availability  of  women  having  requisite  skills \r\nin  an  area  in  which  the  institution  can  reasonably \r\nrecruit. \r\n\r\ne.  The  availability  of  promotable  and  transferable \r\nfemale  employees  within  the  institution. \r\n\r\n205 \r\n\r\n\r\nf.  The  existence  of  training  institutions  or  programs \r\ncapable  of  training  persons  in  the  requisite  skills. \r\n\r\ng.  The  degree  of  training  which  the  institution  is  reasonably \r\nable  to  undertake  as  a  means  of  making  all  job  classes \r\navailable  to  women  (by  race) . \r\n\r\nh.   Other  means  that  may  be  available  to  an  institution  locally \r\nin  analyzing  the  female  work  force  (by  race) . \r\n\r\n(3)  Reasonable  Time  Tables  should  be  established  by  the  institution \r\nfor  the  accomplishment  of  its  goals.   Time  tables  should  be  care- \r\nfully formulated  estimates  of  the  time  required  to  meet  specific \r\ngoals,  taking  into  consideration  anticipated  needs  for  appoint- \r\nments to  the  faculty,  to  administrative  positions,  and  to  other \r\npositions  categorized  by  the  Equal  Opportunity  Commission. \r\n\r\nThe  goals  and  time  tables  set  by  an  institution,  together \r\nwith  supporting  data,  shall  be  a  part  of  and  written  into  the \r\naffirmative  action  programs,  as  required  by  Section  60-2.12 \r\nof  revised  Order  Number  4. \r\n\r\nGoals  and  time  tables  shall  be  reviewed  at  least  annually  to \r\ndetermine  whether  and  the  extent  to  which,  deficiencies  continue \r\nto  exist.   Adjustments  should  be  made  in  goals  and  time  tables \r\nas  the  employment  of  women  and  minorities  changes. \r\n\r\nReports.   A  report  on  the  achievement  of  goals  and  time \r\ntables  shall  be  made  to  the  Vice  Chancellor  annually  at  the \r\ntime  the  Equal  Employment  Information  Report  is  busmitted. \r\nV.  Personnel  Employment  Policies  and  Procedures \r\n\r\nThe  success  of  the  Regents'  Affirmative  Action  Commitment  is \r\ndependent  upon  sound  personnel  policies  and  procedures  dealing  with \r\nfaculty  appointments,  non-academic  employment,  promotions,  leaves,  sep- \r\narations, and  training.   Policies  have  been  adopted  by  the  Board  of  Regents \r\nregarding  the  standards  and  procedure  for  employment  for  personnel  for \r\nmajor  faculty  and  administrative  positions,   (Policies,  pp.  112-112a) ; \r\n\r\n\r\n206 \r\n\r\n\r\nrequirements  for  academic  qualifications  and  faculty  status,  including \r\nqualifications  for  faculty  appointment,  criteria  for  promotions,  tenure, \r\ntransfers,  resignation  of  classified  (nonacademic)  personnel  (Policies, \r\np.  133;  see  Appendix  IV;  Classified  Personnel  Policy  for  the  University \r\nSystem  of  Georgia;  adopted  September  16,  1970). \r\n\r\nTo  strengthen  further  the  Affirmative  Action  Commitment   of  the \r\nBoard  of  Regents  and  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  Executive  Order \r\nNumber  11246,  as  amended,  and  Revised  Order  Number  4,  the  presidents \r\nshould  use  the  following  guides  in  supplementing  employment  procedures \r\nalready  in  existence  as  described  above: \r\n\r\nA.  Personnel  Involvement  in  Affirmative  Action  Program \r\n\r\nEach  president  shall  seek  and  take  positive  steps  to \r\nsecure  the  understanding  and  support  of  the  total  campus  and \r\nlocal  community  for  the  affirmative  action  program.   In  the \r\nimplementation  of  the  details  of  the  program  as  it  affects \r\nthe  faculty  and  other  personnel,  the  president  shall  enlist \r\nand  encourage  the  participation  of  representatives  from  the \r\nvarious  organizational  units,  and  to  assign  to  them,  through \r\nthe  EEO  Officer,  responsibilities  for  maintaining  an  effective \r\nprogram. \r\n\r\nB.  Recruitment \r\n\r\nEach  institution  shall  review  carefully  its  present  policies \r\nfor  recruitment  on  all  levels.   Where  these  policies  are  not  suf- \r\nficiently broad  to  insure  that  minority  and  women  candidates \r\nare  recruited,  new  or  modified  methods  shall  be  developed  and \r\nimplemented.   Particular  emphasis  shall  be  placed  on  recruitment \r\nof  women  and  minority  applicants  for  positions  in  occupational \r\n\r\n\r\n207 \r\n\r\n\r\ncategories  where  underutilization  has  been  found  to  exist  through \r\nutilization  analysis  of  the  institution's  work  force. \r\n\r\nRecruitment  channels  for  employment  of  women  and  minorities  in \r\nacademic  positions  may  include,  but  not  be  limited  to,  the  following: \r\n\r\n1.  Advertisements  in  appropriate  professional  journals  and \r\njob  registries. \r\n\r\n2.  Unsolicited  applications  or  inquiries. \r\n\r\n3.  Women  teaching  at  predominantly  women's  colleges  and  other \r\ninstitutions;  teaching  at  predominantly  minority  colleges \r\nand  other  institutions  (outside  the  University  System  of \r\nGeorgia) . \r\n\r\n4.  Minorities  or  women  professionally  employed  in  positions \r\nin  industry,  government,  law  firms,  hospitals. \r\n\r\n5.  Professional  women  and  minorities  working  at  independent \r\nresearch  institutions  and  libraries. \r\n\r\n6.  Professional  minorities  and  women  who  have  received  signi- \r\nficant grants  or  professional  recognition. \r\n\r\n7.  Women  and  minorities  already  at  the  institution  and  else- \r\nwhere working  in  other  capacities. \r\n\r\n8.  Minority  and  women  doctoral  recipients  who  are  not  presently \r\nusing  their  professional  training. \r\n\r\n9.  Women  and  minorities  presently  candidates  for  graduate \r\ndegrees  who  show  promise  of  outstanding  achievement. \r\n\r\n10.   Minorities  and  women  listed  in  relevant  professional  files, \r\nregistries  and  data  banks,  including  those  which  have  made \r\na  particularly  conscientious  effort  to  locate  women  and \r\nminority  persons. \r\n\r\nRecruitment  channels  for  employment  of  women  and  minorities  in \r\nadministrative  and  managerial  positions  and  in  other  EEO-6  job  cate- \r\ngories may  include,  but  will  not  be  limited  to: \r\n\r\n1.  Advertisements  in  appropriate  publications  and  job  registries \r\n\r\n2.  Unsolicited  applications  or  inquiries. \r\n\r\n3.  Women  attending  colleges  and  other  institutions  attended \r\npredominantly  by  women;  minorities  attending  colleges  and \r\nother  institutions  attended  predominantly  by  minorities. \r\n\r\n\r\n208 \r\n\r\n\r\n4.  Minorities  and  women  attending  vocational-technical  schools \r\nin  the  employment  area. \r\n\r\n5.  Women  and  minorities  already  employed  at  the  institution \r\nworking  in  other  positions  who  are  qualified  for  elevation \r\nto,  or  who  may  be  promotable  to  vacant  positions  at  a \r\nhigher  level. \r\n\r\n6.  Campus  student  placements  offices. \r\n\r\n7.  State  and  private  employment  agencies  located  in  the  employ- \r\nment area. \r\n\r\n8.  Employment  rosters  of  the  State  Merit  System. \r\n\r\n9.  Notices  on  bulletin  boards  in  areas  where  they  are  likely \r\nto  be  seen  by  women  and  minorities. \r\n\r\n10.   Minorities  and  women  listed  in  registries  and  data  banks. \r\n\r\nSources  listed  in  Revised  Order  Number  4  that  are  prepared  to \r\n\r\nrefer  minority  applicants  with  specific  skills  include: \r\n\r\nUrban  League \r\n\r\nJob  Corps \r\n\r\nEqual  Opportunity  Programs,  Inc. \r\n\r\nConcentrated  Employment  Programs \r\n\r\nNeighborhood  Youth  Corps \r\n\r\nSecondary  schools \r\n\r\nColleges  and  city  colleges  with  high  minority \r\n\r\nenrollment \r\nState  Employment  Service \r\n\r\nAspira  of  America,  Inc.,  New  York  (Puerto  Rico) \r\nLeague  of  United  Latin  American  Citizens \r\nService  Employees  Redevelopment \r\nG.  I.  Forum \r\n\r\nCommonwealth  of  Puerto  Rico     — \r\nCommunity  leaders  as  individuals \r\n\r\nSources  listed  in  Revised  Order  Number  4  that  are  prepared  to \r\n\r\nrefer  women  applicants  with  specific  skills  include: \r\n\r\nNational  Organization  for  Women \r\nWelfare  Rights  Organizations \r\nWomen's  Equity  Action  League \r\nTalent  Bank  for  Business  and  Professional \r\n\r\nWomen  (including  26  women's  organizations) \r\nProfessional  Women's  Caucus \r\n\r\nIntercollegiate  Association  of  University  Women \r\nNegro  Women's  sororities  service  groups  (Delta \r\n\r\nSigma  Theta,  Aloha  Kappa  Aloha,  and  Zeta  Phi \r\n\r\nBeta) \r\nNational  Council  of  Negro  Women \r\nAmerican  Association  of  University  Women \r\nYoung  Women's  Christian  Association \r\n\r\n209 \r\n\r\n\r\nJewish  Women's  Groups \r\nCatholic  Women's  Groups \r\nProtestant  Women's  Groups \r\nCommunity  leaders  as  individuals \r\n\r\nIn  their  efforts  to  recruit  minorities  and  women  with  specific \r\nskills,  the  institutions  should  take  advantage  of  sources  known  to \r\nthem  which  may  provide  useful  information  on  the  availability  of \r\nwomen  and  minorities,  both  within  the  immediate  recruitment  area \r\nand  in  the  nation. \r\n\r\nSpecific  recruiting  mechanisms  which  may  be  utilized  by  an \r\ninstitution  or  hiring  official  include: \r\n\r\na.  assuring  that  qualified  women  and  minorities  are  brought \r\nto  campus  for  interviews, \r\n\r\nb.  scanning  all  solicited  and  unsolicited  vitaes/applications \r\nfor  clues  as  to  the  minority  status  of  applicant, \r\n\r\nc.  special  efforts  to  interview  minorities  and  females  at \r\nprofessional/academic  conferences  and  conventions, \r\n\r\nd.  an  expanding  number  of  contacts  with  black  and  female \r\norganizations  and  individuals  in  the  interest  of  minority/ \r\nfemale  recruitment  with  necessary  monitoring  and  follow-up, \r\n\r\ne.  specific  requests  to  personnel  offices  that  qualified \r\nminority  and  female  applicants  be  included  in  personnel \r\nreferrals, \r\n\r\nf .  use  of  the  applicant  clearing  honse  which  has  been  es- \r\ntablished. \r\n\r\nC.   Appointments \r\n\r\nPersons  selected  for  appointment  from  among  applicants  who \r\nmeet  requirements  of  each  position,  as  provided  in  Policies  of \r\nthe  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  and  in \r\nthe  Classified  Personnel  Policy  for  the  University  System  of  Georgia, \r\nwill  assure  continuation  of  the  highest  standards  of  excellence  pre- \r\nscribed by  the  Board  of  Regents. \r\n\r\n\r\n210 \r\n\r\n\r\nNo  applicant  may  be  denied  employment,  nor  shall  any \r\napplicant  be  selected  for  employment  on  the  basis  of  race,  color, \r\nreligion,  sex  or  national  origin  in  preference  to  a  better \r\nqualified  candidate. \r\n\r\nEqual  opportunity  for  employment  shall  be  assured  for  the \r\nemployment  of  men  and  women  in  occupational  categories  that  have \r\ntraditionally  been  identified  with  one  sex,  and  for  employment  of \r\nall  racial  and  ethnic  group  members  in  all  occupational  categories. \r\nD.   Employment  of  Relatives \r\n\r\n(1)  Faculty  Personnel \r\n\r\nThe  following  policy  on  the  employment  of  relatives  was \r\nadopted  by  the  Board  of  Regents  on  February  14,  1973,  and  is \r\nmade  part  of  this  affirmative  action  commitment: \r\n\r\na.  The  basic  criteria  for  the  appointment  and  promo- \r\ntion of  faculty  in  the  several  institutions  of  the \r\nUniversity  System  shall  be  appropriate  qualifications \r\nand  performance  as  set  forth  in  the  policies  of  the \r\nBoard  of  Regents.   Relationship  by  family  or  marriage \r\nshall  constitute  neither  an  advantage  nor  a  disad- \r\nvantage provided  the  individual  meets  and  fulfills \r\nthe  appropriate  University  System  appointment  and \r\npromotion  standards  as  set  forth  in  these  policies. \r\n\r\nb.  No  individual  shall  be  employed  in  a  department  or \r\nunit  under  the  supervision  of  a  relative  who  has  or \r\nmay  have  a  direct  effect  on  the  individual's  progress, \r\nperformance,  or  welfare. \r\n\r\nc.  In  accordance  with  the  policy  of  the  Board  of  Regents, \r\nthere  shall  be  no  discrimination  based  upon  race,  color, \r\nsex,  religion,  creed,  or  national  origin  of  employees \r\n\r\nin  their  appointment,  promotion,  retention,  remuner- \r\nation, or  any  other  condition  of  employment. \r\n\r\nd.  For  the  purpose  of  this  policy,  relatives  are  defined \r\nas  husbands  and  wives,  parents  and  children,  brothers, \r\nsisters, and  any  in-laws  of  any  of  the  foregoing. \r\n(Minutes,  February  14,  1973,  p.  312) \r\n\r\n(2)  Classified  Personnel.   (professional  and  administrative  staff) \r\nFor  the  employment  of  persons  related  to  each  other,  the \r\n\r\nfollowing  conditions  shall  apply: \r\n\r\n211 \r\n\r\n\r\na.  Employees  may  not  be  employed  in  the  same  adminis- \r\ntrative unit  where  one  has  direct  supervision  over \r\nthe  other. \r\n\r\nb.  Classified  employees  may  be  employed  in  the  same \r\nadministrative  unit  provided  neither  is  in  a  super- \r\nvisory or  administrative  capacity. \r\n\r\nE.  Promotions \r\n\r\nMembers  of  the  faculty  and  staff  of  each  institution  shall  be \r\nselected  for  promotion  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Policies \r\nof  the  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  and  the \r\npromotion  guidelines  established  at  the  various  institutions.   Promo- \r\ntions shall  be  made  in  a  manner  that  will  assume  continuation  of  the \r\nstandards  of  excellence  prescribed  by  the  Board  of  Regents.   Oppor- \r\ntunities for.  promotion  shall  be  made  available  to  all  employees \r\nequally  without  regard  to  race,  color,  sex,  religion,  or  national \r\norigin. \r\n\r\nNo  employee  may  be  denied  a  promotion,  nor  shall  any  employee \r\nbe  selected  for  promotion  on  the  basis  of  race,  color,  sex,  religion \r\nor  national  origin  in  preference  to  a  better  qualified  employee. \r\n\r\nF.  Salaries  and  Wages. \r\n\r\nEach  institution  must  insure  that  all  salaries  and  wages  paid \r\nits  various  employees  are  provided  without  discrimination  on  the \r\nbasis  of  race,  sex,  color,  religion  or  national  origin.   Accordingly, \r\nit  will  be  the  responsibility  of  each  institution  to  make  a  compara- \r\ntive analysis  of  all  salaries  and  wages  on  a  periodic  and  continuing \r\nbasis  to  ascertain  if  there  exists  cases  or  patterns  of  salary  or \r\nwage  discrimination  related  to  race,  color,  sex,  religion  or  national \r\norigin.   Where  such  cases  or  patterns  are  identified,  the  institution \r\nshould  expeditiously  effect  remedial  action. \r\n\r\n\r\n212 \r\n\r\n\r\nG.   Leaves. \r\n\r\nAll  leaves  provided  under  policies  adopted  by  the  Board  of \r\nRegents  for  faculty  and  classified  personnel  shall  be  granted  without \r\nregard  to  race,  color,  sex,  religion  or  national  origin.   (See \r\nAppendices  V  and  VI) . \r\n\r\nH.   Fringe  Benefits \r\n\r\nFringe  benefits,  including  medical,  hospital,  accident,  life \r\ninsurance  and  retirement,  shall  be  made  available  to  all  employees \r\nwithout  regard  to  race,  color,  sex,  religion,  national  origin,  or \r\nposition  classification. \r\n\r\nI.   Terminations \r\n\r\nAll  terminations  of  employment  of  faculty  and  staff  shall \r\nbe  made  in  accordance  with  the  policies  of  the  Board  of  Regents \r\ndelineated  in  Policies  of  the  Board  of  Regents  University  System  of \r\nGeorgia  and  in  Classified  Personnel  Policy  for  the  University  System \r\nof  Georgia.   All  terminations  shall  be  without  regard  to  race,  color \r\nsex,  religion  or  national  origin. \r\n\r\nJ.   Job  Classifications \r\n\r\nA  uniform  system  of  job  classification  and  titles  has  been \r\nestablished  for  the  institutions  of  the  University  System  (Appendices \r\nI,  II,  and  III).   Each  institution  shall  be  responsible  for  the \r\nplacement  of  individuals  employed  in  these  classifications  in  the \r\ngovernment  categories  covered  in  the  Equal  Employment  Opportunity \r\nInformation  Report. \r\n\r\nK.   Training. \r\n\r\nOpportunities  for  employee  training  and  development  shall  be \r\n\r\nmade  available  without  regard  to  race,  color,  sex,  religion  or \r\n\r\n213 \r\n\r\n\r\nnational  origin. \r\n\r\nThe  institutions  should  review  work  needs  to  determine  if \r\nduties  or  positions  need  to  be  revised  to  maximize  opportunity  for \r\ntraining  and  development. \r\n\r\nFor  the  faculty  employees,  the  institutions  shall  continue  to \r\nadhere  to  Regents'  policies  in  providing  leave  privileges  for  study \r\nand  research  to  increase  opportunities  for  promotion  in  rank  or \r\nposition.   The  Regents'  leave  policy  is  on  page  127  of  the  Policies \r\nof  the  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia \r\n(Appendix  V) . \r\n\r\nL.   Grievances. \r\n\r\nEach  institution  shall  establish  for  all  employees,  academic  and \r\nnon-academic,  standards  of  due  process  for  the  hearing  of  grievances \r\nto  ensure  fair  treatment  of  individual  cases  of  alleged  discrimination. \r\nThese  procedures  shall  be  established  within  the  framework  of  the \r\nby-laws  and  the  Policies  of  the  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University \r\nSystem  of  Georgia;   they  shall  be  written  and  made  available  to  all \r\npresent  and  prospective  employees. \r\n\r\nVI .   Internal  Audits  and  Reporting  System \r\n\r\nThe  institutions  of  the  University  System  shall  establish  a \r\n\r\nsystem  of  audit  and  reporting  that  will  be  helpful  in  the  implementation \r\n\r\nand  monitoring  of  the  affirmative  action  program,  and  in  the  evaluation \r\n\r\nof  its  effectiveness.   Each  institution  should  require  periodically \r\n\r\nformal  reports  at  least  semi-annually  for  faculty  and  quarterly  for \r\n\r\nnon-academic  personnel  from  the  head  of  each  school,  division,  or \r\n\r\ndepartment  as  to  specific  affirmative  actions  undertaken  and  the  degree \r\n\r\nto  which  the  goals  are  attained  and  time  tables  met.   It  is  understood \r\n\r\n214 \r\n\r\n\r\nthat  reporting  systems  will  vary  from  institution  to  institution \r\nbecause  of  size,  goals,  and  established  programs. \r\n\r\nHowever,  the  reporting  and  monitoring  system  should  be  or- \r\nganized to  provide  a  definite  indication  of  whether  or  not  the \r\naffirmative  action  program  is  succeeding  and  as  to  whether  or  not \r\ngood  faith  efforts  are  being  made  to  ensure  fair  treatment  of  women \r\nand  minorities  in  recruiting,  hiring,  promotions,  transfers,  and \r\nterminations. \r\n\r\nVII.   Dissemination  of  Affirmative  Action  Commitment \r\n\r\nWhen  approved  by  the  Board,  the  Affirmative  Action  Commitment \r\nshall  be  published,  and  copies  shall  be  forwarded  to  the  presidents \r\nof  all  institutions  in  the  University  System.   The  program  shall  be \r\ndescribed  in  the  System  Summary ,  the  monthly  news  publication  of  the \r\nUniversity  System.  The  public  shall  be  made  aware  of  the  University \r\nSystem's  Affirmative  Action  Commitment   through  the  news  media  and \r\nthrough  other  channels  appropriate  for  its  dissemination. \r\n\r\nEach  institution  shall  disseminate  its  own  affirmative  action \r\nplan  internally  in  accordance  with  directions  stated  in  Section  60-2.21 \r\nof  Revised  Order  Number  4  as  follows: \r\n\r\na.  Include  the  institution's  equal  employment  opportunity \r\nstatement  of  policy  in  the  institution's  statutes  and \r\npersonnel  handbook. \r\n\r\nb.  Publicize  it  in  the  university  or  college  newspaper, \r\nmagazine,  annual  report  and  other  media. \r\n\r\nc.  Conduct  special  meetings  with  executive,  management,  and \r\nsupervisory  personnel  to  explain  the  intent  of  the  plan \r\nand  individual  responsibility  for  its  effectiveness, \r\nmaking  clear  the  attitude  of  the  president,  the  Chancellor \r\n\r\n•  and  the  Board  of  Regents  toward  the  successful  implementation \r\nto  the  Affirmative  Action  Program. \r\n\r\n\r\n215 \r\n\r\n\r\nd.  Schedule  special  meetings  with  all  other  employees  and  ex- \r\nplain individual  employee  responsibilities. \r\n\r\ne.  Discuss  equal  employment  opportunity  statement  of  policy \r\nthoroughly  in  employee  orientation  and  training  program. \r\n\r\nf.  Publish  articles  covering  equal  employment  opportunity \r\nprograms,  progress  reports,  promotions,  etc.,  of  minority \r\nand  women  employees  in  institutional  publications. \r\n\r\ng.  Post  equal  employment  opportunity  statement  of  policy  on \r\nbulletin  boards  in  campus  buildings. \r\n\r\nh.   When  employees  are  featured  in  student  handbooks,  personnel \r\nhandbooks,  or  similar  publications,  both  minority  and  non- \r\nminority  men  and  women  should  be  pictured. \r\n\r\ni.  Make  available  to  employees  the  full  text  of  the  institution's \r\nAffirmative  Action  Program. \r\n\r\nEach  institution  shall  disseminate  its  affirmative  action  policy \r\n\r\nexternally  as  follows: \r\n\r\na.  Inform  all  recruiting  sources  verbally  and  in  writing  of \r\ninstitutional  policy  stipulating  that  these  sources \r\nactively  recruit  and  refer  minorities  and  women  for  all \r\npositions  listed. \r\n\r\nb.  Incorporate  the  Equal  Employment  Opportunity  clause  in  all \r\nrequisitions  for  purchases,  leases,  contracts,  etc.,  covered \r\nby  Executive  Order  Number  11246,  as  amended. \r\n\r\nc.  Notify  minority  and  women's  organizations,  community  agencies, \r\ncommunity  leaders,  secondary  schools,  and  other  colleges  and \r\nuniversities  in  the  immediate  area,  both  public  and  private, \r\nof  institutional  policy. \r\n\r\nd.  Communicate  to  all  prospective  employees  the  existence  of \r\n\r\nthe  institutional  affirmative  action  program,  and  its  benefits \r\nto  employees. \r\n\r\ne.  Send  written  notification  of  institutional  policy  to  all \r\nvendors  and  suppliers,  request  appropriate  action  on  their  part, \r\n\r\n\r\nVIII,   Reference  Materials \r\n\r\nIn  the  preparation  of  this  Affirmative  Action  Program  of \r\n\r\nthe  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia, \r\n\r\nthe  following  publications  have  been  relied  upon  extensively \r\n\r\nfor  reference  and  guidance: \r\n\r\nExecutive  Order  Number  11246,  amended  by \r\nExecutive  Order  Number  11375. \r\n\r\n216 \r\n\r\n\r\nRevised  Order  Number  4,  Title  41  -  Public \r\nContracts  and  Property  Management, \r\nChapter  60,  Part  60-2  -  U.  S.  Depart- \r\nment of  Labor,  Office  of  the  Federal \r\nContract  Compliance. \r\n\r\nAmendments  to  Revised  Order  Number  4^  Part \r\n\r\n60-2  -  Affirmative  Action  Plans,  Sections \r\n60-2.10,  and  60-2.11. \r\n\r\nRevised  Order  #14 ,  Part  60-60  of  Code  of \r\nFederal  Regulations. \r\n\r\nHigher  Education  Guidelines,  Executive  Order \r\nNumber  11246,  U.  S.  Department  of  Health \r\nEducation  and  Welfare,  Office  of  Civil \r\nRights,  dated  October  1,  1972. \r\n\r\nClassified  Personnel  Policy  for  the  University \r\nSystem  of  Georgia. \r\n\r\nPolicies  of  the  Board  of  Regents  of  the \r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia \r\n\r\nEqual  Employment  Act  of  1972  (Title  VII  of \r\nCivil  Rights  Act  as  amended) \r\n\r\nEEOC  Guidelines  on  Employee  Selection  and \r\nEEOC  Guidelines  on  Discrimination \r\nBecause  of  Sex. \r\n\r\nTitle  IX  of_  the  Education  Amendments  of  1972 \r\n(Higher  Education  Act) . \r\n\r\n\r\n21 \r\n\r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\n\r\nIII-G   COMPOSITION  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  REGENTS \r\n\r\nReference:   Section  III-G         (Guidelines) \r\n\r\nThe  Constitution  of  Georgia  provides  that  the  membership  of  the  Board \r\nof  Regents  shall  consist  of  one  member  from  each  of  the  ten  Congressional \r\nDistricts  in  the  State,  and  five  additional  members  from  the  State-at-Large, \r\nappointed  by  the  Governor  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate.   The  term  of  appoint- \r\nment of  each  Regent  is  seven  years.   Terms  of  the  members  of  the  Board  of \r\nRegents  are  staggered  or  overlapping  so  that  the  terms  of  only  two  members \r\nexpire  each  year,  except  that  the  terms  of  three  members  expire  at  the  end \r\nof  any  seven-year  period. \r\n\r\nRecent  appointments  to  the  Board  of  Regents  have  been  of  a  nature  to \r\nmake  the  Board  more  representative  of  the  racial  population  of  the  State. \r\nThis  procedure  will  be  continued  over  the  period  of  implementation  of  this \r\nPlan. \r\n\r\n\r\n218 \r\n\r\n\r\nIV.   SUBMISSION  OF  PLANS  AND  MONITORING \r\n\r\nThe  commitment  of  the  Board  of  Regents  to  complete  elimination  of  all \r\nvestiges  of  a  formerly  dual  system  of  public  higher  education  in  Georgia \r\nfar  exceeds  the  direct  or  implied  mandate  of  specific  legislation  or  guide- \r\nlines addressed  in  this  Flan. \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  through  submission  of  this  Plan  commits  itself  to \r\nthe  diligent  pursuit  of  the  explicit  objectives  described  in  its  several \r\nparts  and  to  the  full  implementation  of  these  actions  and  processes  iden- \r\ntified herein.  All  appropriate  steps  required  to  validate  this  commitment \r\nhave  been  taken  by  the  Board  of  Regents  in  keeping  with  its  responsibilities \r\nas  detailed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Georgia.   The  Governor  of \r\nGeorgia  joins  in  this  endorsement  to  the  extent  permitted  by  his  consti- \r\ntutionally defined  role  as  Chief  Executive  Officer  of  the  State  of  Georgia. \r\n\r\nTimely  reports  of  both  a  narrative  and  a  statistical  nature  will  be \r\nprovided  to  aid  the  Department  of  Health,  Education,  and  Welfare  in  its \r\nreview  of  progress  achieved  under  this  Plan.  Appropriate  report  formats \r\nwill  be  developed  through  consultation  with  representatives  of  the  Office \r\nfor  Civil  Rights. \r\n\r\nThis  Plan  has  been  developed  under  the  direction  of  a  special  sub-committee \r\nof  the  Board  of  Regents  through  an  open  process  in  which  public  involvement \r\nhas  played  an  important  part.   The  spirit  of  the  preparation  process  will  be \r\npreserved  and  strengthened  during  the  implementation  phase  through  the  appoint- \r\nment of  a  Special  Regents'  Committee  on  Desegregation.   This  Committee  will \r\nbe  charged  with  the  responsibility  for  an  on-going  review  of  not  only  progress \r\nmade  under  the  Plan  but  also  the  identification  of  possible  problem  areas, \r\nand  the  discussion  of  broad  academic  matters  to  the  extent  that  such  matters \r\n\r\n\r\n219 \r\n\r\n\r\npotentially  effect  the  desegregation  process.   The  Committee  will  further \r\nbe  charged  with  the  responsibility  for  the  assessment  of  representative \r\npublic  views  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  Plan  and  the  wider  aspects \r\nof  the  desegregation  process. \r\n\r\nAs  stated  in  the  Introduction,  \"This  Plan  was  prepared  during  a  very \r\nshort  time  interval  as  mandated  by  the  Guidelines.   It  represents  the  best \r\nreview  possible,  under  these  severe  time  constraints,  of  the  present  status \r\nof  University  System  desegregation,  the  effectiveness  of  processes  in  force, \r\nand  the  definition  of  projected  future  actions.   It  should  therefore  be \r\nconsidered  as  an  interim  document  subject  to  further  analysis  and  refinement.\" \r\n\r\n\r\n220 \r\n\r\n\r\nPART  II \r\n\r\n\r\nMaterials  contained,  in  this  section  of  the  Plan  are  supplementary \r\nto  the  materials  contained  in  Part  I  for  it  is  recognized  that \r\nreaders  of  this  Plan  will  have  varied  degrees  of  insight  with \r\nregard  to  the  operation  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia. \r\nThis  section  should  aid  readers  who  are  not  well  informed  on  the \r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia  to  read  the  Plan  with  more  objectiv- \r\nity and  clarity.   This  section  includes  statements  on  the  following \r\nphases  of  University  System  operations: \r\n\r\n1.  University  System  of  Georgia  governance \r\n\r\n2.  Student  recruitment \r\n\r\n3.  Student  financial  aid \r\n\r\n4.  Student  retention \r\n\r\n5.  A  Plan  for  the  Further  Desegregation  of  Fort  Valley  State \r\nCollege \r\n\r\nAll  of  these  materials  are  referred  to  3nd  cross  referenced  in \r\nPart  I  of  the  Plan. \r\n\r\n\r\n\\ \r\n\r\n\r\nI.   UNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA  GOVERNANCE \r\n\r\nThe  design,  development,  and  projected  implementation  of  this \r\ndesegregation  plan  are  facilitated  greatly  by  the  governance  structure \r\nof  the  University  System  of  Georgia.   This  section  presents  a  detailed \r\noutline  of  that  governance  structure  together  with  selected  examples  of \r\nthe  coordinating  processes  realized  through  its  operation  in  specific \r\nprogram  and  policy  areas. \r\nA.   Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia \r\n\r\nThe  University, System  of  Georgia  is  composed  of  four  institu- \r\ntions of  university  level,  twelve  senior  colleges,  and  sixteen \r\njunior  colleges.   One  junior  college  has  been  authorized  for  con- \r\nversion to  a  senior  college  beginning  September,  1978.   The  Uni- \r\nversity System  is  governed  by  a  single  fifteen  member  constitutional \r\nbody  —  the  Board  of  Regents. \r\n\r\n1.   Creation  of  the  Board  of  Regents \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia, \r\na  corporation,  was  created  in  1931  by  an  Act  of  the  General \r\nAssembly  to  govern,  as  one  body,  all  state  institutions  of \r\nhigher  education  (Georgia  Laws  1931,  pp.  7,  20).   In  1943, \r\nthe  Board  of  Regents  became  a  constitutional  body  (Article  VIII, \r\nSect.  IV,  Paragraph  1,  Constitution  of  Georgia).   The  Constitu- \r\ntion vested  in  the  Board  the  responsibility  for  the  \"government, \r\n\r\n\r\nSWJ. \r\n\r\n\r\ncontrol.,  and  management  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  and \r\nall  of  its  institut tions\".   The  Board  is  the  onLy  legal  entity \r\nfor  all  .of  the  institutions  which  comprise  the  University  System. \r\n2.   Membership \r\n\r\nThe  Constitution  of  Georgia  provides  that  the  membership  of \r\nthe  Board  shall  consist  of  one  member  from  each  of  the  ten  Con- \r\ngressional Districts  in  the  State,  and  five  additional  members \r\nfrom  the  State-at -Large,  appointed  by  the  Governor  and  confirmed \r\nby  the  Senate.   The  terra  of  appointment  of  each  Regent  is  seven \r\nyears.  Terms  of  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Regents  are  staggered \r\nor  overlapping  so  that  the  terms  of  only  two  members  expire  each \r\nyear,  except  that  the  terras  of  three  members  expire  at  the  end \r\nof  any  seven-year  period. \r\n\r\n\r\n3,   Powers  of  the  Board \r\n\r\nUnder  its  general  powers  provided  by  law,  the  Board  is  autho- \r\nrized:  (1)  to  make  such  rules  and  regulations  as  are  necessary \r\nfor  the  performance  of  its  duties;  (2)  to  elect  or  appoint  pro- \r\nfessors, educators,  stewards,  or  any  other  officer  necessary  for \r\nall  of  the  institutions  in  the  University  System,  to  discontinue \r\nor  remove  them  as  the  good  of  the  System  or  any  of  its  schools \r\nor  institutions  or  stations  may  require,  and  to  fix  their  compen- \r\n\r\n\r\nsation;  (3)  to  establish  all  such  schools  of  learning  or  art  as \r\nmay  be  useful  to  the  State,  and  to  organize  them  in  the  way  most \r\nlikely  to  attain  the  ends  desired;  (4)  to  exercise  any  power \r\n\r\nusually  granted  to  such  corporation;  necessary  to  its  usefulness, \r\nwhich  is  not  in  conflict  with  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  this \r\nState.  (Acts  1931,  pp.  7,  24.) \r\n\r\nUnder  other  powers  provided  by  law,  the  Board  is  authorized: \r\n(1)  to  consolidate,  suspend,  remove,  and/or  discontinue  institutions, \r\nmerge  departments,  inaugurate  or  discontinue  courses,  and  abolish \r\nor  add  degrees;  (2)  to  sell,  lease,  or  otherwise  dispose  of  pro- \r\nperty held  by  the  Regents;  (3)  to  take  by  condemnation  private \r\nproperty  for  public  purposes  of  the  University  System  upon  paying \r\nor  tendering  just  compensation;  and  (4)  such  other  powers  provided \r\nby  law  and  the  Constitution. \r\n\r\nB.   Regents'  Office  Staff \r\n\r\nThe  Chancellor,  who  serves  as  the  chief  administrative  officer \r\nof  the  University  System,  is  responsible  for  the  implementation  of \r\nall  policies  established  by  the  Board  of  Regents.   The  Chau^ellor \r\nis  also  responsible  for  the  day  to  day  operations  of  the  University \r\nSystem,  and  he  accomplishes  this  function  with  the  assistance  of  an \r\nadministrative  staff  illustrated  by  the  Departmental  Organization \r\nChart  of  Figure  1. \r\n\r\nIt  will  be  noted  from  the  Organization  Chart  that  responsibility \r\nfor  specific  functional  areas  is  divided  among  designated  Vice  Chan- \r\ncellors with  specific  competence  in  the  functional  area.   The  work \r\nof  these  designated  Vice  Chancellors  is  coordinated  by  the  Vice \r\nChancellor,   Responsibility  for  and  authority  in  specific,  well- \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nC \r\n\r\n\r\n(X \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nz  u \r\no  — \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  o \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n— •  _J \r\nz  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  or \r\n\r\nor  z \r\nO  tu \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n\u003c  v\u003e \r\n\r\n»-  u- \r\nz  z \r\n\r\nUJ  UJ \r\n\r\n3:  o \r\n\r\nI-  UJ \r\n\r\na:  of \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\na. \r\nui \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n«-»  o \r\not \r\n\r\nO-lt- \r\nK-  CO  \u003c \r\n\r\nu  d  r \r\n\r\nuj  a.  a: \r\n\r\nOC  O \r\n\r\n—  U.  u. \r\n\r\nQ  O  IT \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003e: \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n_j \r\n\r\ni/l \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003c_) \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\nj; \r\n\r\na; \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003c. \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\noO \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c~\u003e \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\nrr- \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nl— \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003c_\u003e \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n\u003c/\u003e \r\n\r\n-\u003e \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\nCC \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\no  (J \r\n\r\nz  or  — \r\n\r\n\u003c  o  \u003e \r\n\r\nX  u-    cC \r\n\r\nO  UJ \r\n\r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\n_j \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n«/» \r\n\r\n«_\u003e \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nr\u003e \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\na£ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n»/» \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\\— \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n(/\u003e \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\u003c•\u003e \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\n\u003c_» \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nK- \r\n\r\n»— \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nXI \r\n\r\nH- \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ni/» \r\n\r\n\u003c_) \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n»\u003co \r\n\r\nun \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nor \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  t_\u003e  o \r\n»—  z  \u003c•» \r\n«/\u003e  \u003c  CC \r\n—  a:  uj \r\n0  «_\u003e  o_ \r\n»/» \r\n\r\n\u003c  UJ  ac \r\nvj  o \r\n\r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\n—I  X \r\n\r\nUJ  \u003c_\u003e \r\n\r\no  a: \r\n\r\nZ  a:  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c   O  uj \r\n\r\nX   U.  \u003c/\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c_\u003e  UJ \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\n0C \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ  CT    \u003c \r\n\r\nU  o  \u003c_\u003e \r\n\r\n—  u.  — \r\n\r\n\u003e  z \r\n\r\nz  r \r\n\r\n^  o \r\n\r\n1—  o \r\n*/» \r\n\r\n1/1 \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nL \r\n\r\n\r\n-*- \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ    \u003e- \r\n\r\n—  \u003c \r\nt-  I- \r\n3  UJ \r\n\u003c_\u003e  cC \r\nUJ  (-\u003e \r\nX   UJ \r\n\r\nuj  \u003c/\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nor \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\n(— \r\n\r\n_j \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n_j \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n_/ \r\n\r\n\u003c_J \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nos \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n» — \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n\u003c_\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n1_\u003e \r\n\r\nx\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c_\u003e \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nh- \r\n\r\ni/i \r\n\r\n\u003c_\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c/\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e• \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nx \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\ndefined  areas  is,  therefore,  clearly  established. \r\n\r\n\r\nC.    Institutional  Administrative  Role \r\n\r\nThe  institution  represents  the  primary  organizational  unit \r\nin  the  University  System  structure.   As  a  consequence,  a  major \r\nmanagement  responsibility  vests  in  the  president  of  each  indivi- \r\ndual institution.   The  president  has  broad  authority  with  regard \r\n\r\n¦ \r\n\r\nto  all  institutional  operations,  including  faculty  and  staff  em- \r\nployment, and  exercises  that  authority  subject  only  to  the  poli- \r\ncies and  directives  of  the  Board  of  Regents  and  the  Chancellor. \r\n\r\nThe  president  is  assisted  in  internal  institutional  admini- \r\nstration by  a  staff  appropriately  structured  to  meet  the  spe- \r\ncific management  requirements  of  the  institution. \r\n\r\nFaculty  committees  of  various  types  provide  additional  pro- \r\nfessional input  to  the  decision-making  processes,  especially  in \r\nthose  areas  related  to  academic  programs  and  faculty  recruitment. \r\n\r\nIn  summary,  each  institution  operates  subject  to  broad  Board \r\npolicy  in  a  manner  characterized  both  by  its  specific  assigned \r\nrole  and  mission  within  the  University  System  and  by  local  needs \r\nand  conditions  in  its  normal  area  of  student  recruitment. \r\n\r\n\r\n\\  . \r\n\r\n\r\nD.   The  University  System  Advisory  Council \r\n\r\n•  An  important  adjunct  to  the  Board  of  Regents  in  the  policy- \r\nmaking procedure  is  the  University  System  Advisory  Council.   Voting \r\nmembership  on  the  Council  includes  the  Chancellor,  the  Vice  Charfcellr- \r\nand  the  presidents  of  all  institutions  in  the  University  System. \r\n\r\nMeetings  of  the  Advisory  Council  are  held  quarterly. \r\n\r\nThe  Council  makes  recommendations  to  the  Chancellor,  and  through \r\nhim  to  the  Board,  regarding  all  academic  and  administrative  aspects \r\nof  the  operation  of  the  Universitv  Svstem. \r\n\r\nThe  University  System  Advisory  Council  has  21  academic  committees \r\nand  five  standing  administrative  committees,  representing  major  fields  of \r\nstudy  and  administrative  functions  in  the  System.   Each  committee \r\nincludes  representatives  from  institutions  of  the  System,  designated \r\nby  the  presidents  except  as  otherwise  provided.   Committee  recommen- \r\ndations formulated  at  meetings  are  made  to  the  Advisory  Council  for \r\nconsideration. \r\n\r\nThe  academic  committees,  each  of  which  meets  at  least  once  each \r\nyear,  are:  Biological  Science;  Business,  Industrial  Management,  and \r\nEconomics;  Chemistry;  Computer  Science  and  Systems  Analysis;  Criminal \r\nJustice;  English;  Fine  and  Applied  Arts;  Foreign  Languages;  Geological \r\nSciences  and  Geography;  Health  Professions;  History;  Home  Economics; \r\nLibraries;  Mathematical  Subjects;  Physical  Education  and  Recreation; \r\nPhysics;  Political  Science;  Psychology;  Sociology  and  Anthropology; \r\nSpecial  Studies;  and  Teacher  Education. \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  administrative  committees,  which  meet  as  required  to  handle \r\nmatters  in  their  respective  areas,  are:   Academic  Affairs,  Fiscal        \\ \r\nAffairs,  Public  Service;  Records  and  Admissions;  and  Student  Affairs. \r\n\r\n\r\n¦  -  : \r\n\r\n\r\nIn  addition  to  the  standing  academic  and  administrative  com- \r\nmittees, ad  hoc  committees  appointed  by  the  Chancellor  are  named  as \r\nnaeded  to  deal  with  special  matters;  these  include  Administrative \r\nProcedures;  Graduate  Work;  Research  Administration;  Testing;  and-^ \r\nTransfer  of  Credit. \r\n\r\n\r\nE.    Examples  of  Che  Coordinating  Process \r\n\r\nAn  understanding  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  governance \r\nstructure._can,  perhaps,  be  conveyed  best  through  illustration.  A \r\ntypical  example,  originating  from  a  single  institution,  would  \"be  the \r\napproval  and  introduction  of  a  new  academic  degree  program.   Faculty \r\nmembers  on  the  individual  campus  would  perceive  a  real  or  apparent \r\nneed  for  such  a  degree  program  and  would  prepare  a  request  to  their \r\npresident,  seeking  approval.   The  president  and  appropriate  faculty \r\nmembers  would  work  in  cooperation  with  the  Vice  Chancellor  for  Aca- \r\ndemic Development  to  further  assess  this  need  in  the  context  of  the \r\nUniversity  System.   Assuming  that  such  preliminary  discussions  ap- \r\npear premising,  the  institution  would  prepare  a  detailed  proposal \r\nfor  such  a  program,  including  all  relevent  academic  and  resource \r\nfactors.   This  proposal  would  be  submitted  by  the  institutional \r\npresident  to  the  Chancellor  for  further  evaluation.   The  Vice  Chan- \r\ncellor for  Academic  Development  is  responsible  for  the  proposal  re- \r\nview, and  for  such  purposes,  utilizes  the  services  of  other  staff \r\nmembers  and  other  required  System  or  non-System  academic  or  pro- \r\nfessional personnel.  At  such  time  as  the  proposal  appears  in  com- \r\npletely  acceptable  form,  the  Chancellor  makes  an  appropriate  recom- \r\nmendation to  the  Board  of  Regents  for  its  consideration.   The  Board \r\nthen  may  either  approve,  disapprove,  or  defer  action  on  the  recom- \r\nmendation.  In  the  case  of  approval,  the  Vice  Chancellor  for  Aca- \r\ndemic Development  follows  the  implementation  of  the  program. \r\n\r\nThe  development  of  the  University  System  Special  Studies  Pro- \r\ngram represents  an  alternative  System-wide  activity.   Details  of \r\nthis  program  are  presented  in  a  subsequent  section.   However,  from \r\n\r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\n\r\n\\ \r\n\r\n\r\n¦?\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nan  administrative  point  of  view,  it  can  be  noted  here  that  the \r\nimplementation  of  the  program  resulted  from  detailed  discussions, \r\ninvolving  presidents  and  other  administrative  and  academic  persons \r\nfrom  all  institutions,  acting  under  the  leadership  of  a  Regents^ \r\nOffice  staff  member.  A  detailed  recommendation  was  prepared  for \r\napproval  by  the  Chancellor  and  for  his  subsequent  recommendation \r\nto  the  Board  of  Regents.   Implementation  of  the  ensuing  Board \r\nPolicy  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Chancellor. \r\n\r\n\r\nStudent  Recruitment \r\n\r\nSuccessful  recruiting  and  retention  of  students  requires  a \r\ncoordinated  approach  to  potential  applicants,  the  structuring  of  financial  aid \r\npackages  sufficient  to  meet  individual  needs,  and  the  provision  of  programs \r\ndirected  toward  the  academic  and  social  adjustment  required  for  long-range \r\nacademic  success.   Clearly-defined  problems  encountered  in  recruiting  are  in  large \r\nmeasure  race  independent,  being  primarily  related  to  the  educational  and  economic \r\nbackground  of  the  potential  student.    Sociological  factors  so  important  in  efforts \r\nto  increase  the  involvement  of  minorities  in  all  aspects  of  higher  education  are \r\nless  well  defined  and  frequently  require  approaches  and  techniques  adapted  to  a \r\nparticular  institution  and  its  surrounding  community. \r\n\r\nThe  University  System  recruiting  policies  are  common  to  all  institutions; \r\nhowever,  recruiting  procedures  vary  within  the  System  due  to  the  type  and  geographic \r\nlocation  of  the  different  institutions.    For  example,  the  recruiting  procedure  of  a \r\ntwo-year  resident  institution  may  cover  the  entire  state.   However,  all  recruiting \r\nactivities  are  pursued  without  regard  to  race,  color,  sex,  age,  religion,  or  national \r\norigin. \r\n\r\nThe  objectives  of  the  University  System  recruiting  program  are  to  (1)  inform \r\nthe  populace  of  educational  opportunities  available;   (2)  stimulate  interest  in  higher \r\neducation;   and  (3)  provide  information  and  materials  that  will  help  students,  parents, \r\nand  counselors  with  the  process  of  educational  planning. \r\n\r\nThese  objectives  are  pursued  in  the  framework  of  the  following  principles \r\nof  admissions  promotions  and  recruitment: \r\nI.   ADMISSIONS  PROMOTION  AND  RECRUITMENT \r\n\r\n1.  Admissions  counselors  are  professional  members  of  their  institution's \r\nstaff.    As  professionals,  they  receive  remuneration  on  a  fixed  salary, \r\nrather  than  commission  on  bonus  based  on  the  number  of  students  recruited. \r\n\r\n2.  Admissions  officers  are  responsible  for  the  development  of  publications \r\n\r\nused  tor  promotional  and  recruitment  activities.   These  publications \r\n\r\nshould : \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n\r\na.  State  clearly  and  precisely  requirements  as  to \r\nsecondary- school  preparation,  admission  tests, \r\nand  transfer-student  admissions  requirements. \r\n\r\nb.  Include  statements  concerning  admissions  calendar \r\nthat  are  current  and  accurate. \r\n\r\nc.  Include  precise  information  about  opportunities \r\nand  requirements  for  financial  aid. \r\n\r\nd.  Describe  in  detail  any  special  programs  such  as \r\noverseas  study,  early  decision,  early  admission, \r\ncredit  by  examination,  or  advanced  placement. \r\n\r\ne.  Contain  pictures  and  statements  of  the  campus \r\nand  community  that  are  current  and  represent \r\nreality. \r\n\r\n3.  Colleges  and  universities  are  responsible  for  all  persons  who \r\nmay  become  involved  in  the  admissions,  promotional  and  recruit- \r\nment activities  (i.e.,  alumni,  coaches,  students,  faculty)  and \r\n\r\nfor  educating  them  about  the  principles  outlined  in  this  statement, \r\n\r\n4.  The  admissions  counselor  is  forthright,  accurate,  and  compre- \r\nhensive in  presenting  his  institution  to  high  school  personnel  and \r\nprospective  students.   The  admissions  counselor  adheres  to  the \r\nfollowing: \r\n\r\na.  State  clearly  the  requirements,  and  other  criteria. \r\n\r\nb.  Make  clear  all  dates  concerning  application,  noti- \r\nfication, and  candidate  reply,  for  both  admission \r\n\r\nf  and  financial  aid. \r\n\r\n\r\n11 \r\n\r\n\r\nc.  Furnish  data  descriptive  of  currently  enrolled  classes. \r\n\r\nd.  Avoid  invidious  comparisons  of  institutions. \r\n\r\n5,  The  admissions  counselor  avoids  unprofessional  promotional \r\ntactics,  such  as: \r\n\r\na.  Contracting  with  high-school  personnel  for  remuneration \r\nfor  referred  students. \r\n\r\nb.  Contracting  with  placement  services  that  require  a  fee \r\nfrom  the  institution  for  each  student  enrolled. \r\n\r\nc.  Encouraging  a  student's  transfer  if  the  student,  himself, \r\nhas  not  indicated  transfer  interest. \r\n\r\n\r\nII.   APPLICATION  PROCEDURES \r\n\r\n1.  Accept  full  responsibility  for  admissions  decisions  and  for \r\nproper  notification  of  those  decisions  to  candidates  and,  where \r\npossible,  to  secondary  schools. \r\n\r\n2.  Receive  information  about  a  candidate  in  confidence  and  to \r\nrespect  completely  the  confidential  nature  of  such  data. \r\n\r\n3.  Notify  high-school  personnel  when  using  students  on  admission \r\nselection  committee. \r\n\r\n4.  Not  apply  newly-revised  requirements  to  the  disadvantage  of \r\na  candidate  whose  secondary- school  course  has  been  estab- \r\nlished in  accordance  with  earlier  requirements. \r\n\r\n5.  Notify  the  candidate  as  soon  as  possible  if  the  candidate \r\nis  clearly  inadmissible. \r\n\r\n\r\n12 \r\n\r\n\r\n6.  Not  deny  admission  to  a  candidate  on  the  grounds  that  it \r\ndoes  not  have  aid  funds  to  meet  the  candidate's  apparent \r\nfinancial  need,  foreign  students  excepted. \r\n\r\n7.  Not  require  a  candidate  or  his  school  to  indicate  the  order \r\nof  the  candidate's  college  or  university  preference,  early \r\ndecision  plans  excepted. \r\n\r\n8.  Permit  the  candidate  to  choose  without  penalty  among  offers \r\nof  admission  until  he  has  heard  from  all  colleges  to  which \r\nthe  candidate  has  applied  or  until  the  candidate's  reply  date \r\n\r\n9.  Not  maintain  a  waiting  list  of  unreasonable  length  or  for \r\nan  unreasonable  period  of  time. \r\n\r\nIII.   FINANCIAL  ASSISTANCE:   (WHERE  SUCH  ASSISTANCE  IS  BASED \r\n\r\nUPON  NEED) \r\n\r\n1.  Financial  assistance  consists  of  scholarships,  grants,  loans, \r\nand  employment  which  may  be  offered  to  students  singly  or  in \r\nvarious  forms . \r\n\r\n2.  They  should  strive,  through  their  publications  and  communi- \r\ncations, to  provide  schools,  parents,  and  students  with \r\nfactual  information  about  its  aid  opportunities,  program  and \r\npractices. \r\n\r\n3.  Financial  assistance  from  colleges  and  other  sources  should \r\nbe  viewed  only  as  supplementary  to  the  efforts  of  the  family. \r\n\r\n4.  In  determining  the  financial  contribution  of  the  candidate's \r\nfamily,  they  use  methods  which  assess  ability  to  pay  in  a \r\n\r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n\r\nconsistent  and  equitable  manner  such  as  those  developed  by \r\nthe  College  Scholarship  Service  and  the  American  College \r\nTesting  Program. \r\n\r\n5.  They  should  clearly  state  the  total  yearly  cost  of  attendance \r\n\r\nand  should  outline  for  each  student  seeking  assistance  an \r\nestimate  of  his  need. \r\n\r\n6.  They  should  permit  the  candidate  to  choose,  without  penalty, \r\namong  offers  of  financial  assistance  until  he  has  heard  from \r\nall  colleges  to  which  the  candidate  has  applied  or  until  the \r\ncandidate's  reply  date. \r\n\r\n7.  They  should  clearly  state  policies  on  renewals. \r\n\r\n8.  They  should  not  announce  publicly  the  amount  of  financial \r\naward  on  an  individual  candidate  because  it  is  a  reflection \r\nof  the  family's  financial  situation. \r\n\r\nAll  institutions  of  the  University  System  participate  in  the  PROBE \r\nProgram.   The  PROBE  Program  is  an  intensive  statewide  effort  designed  to  present \r\nthe  educational  opportunities  afforded  by  all  institutions  of  the  University \r\nSystem  and  has  been  the  major  thrust  in  recruiting  in  recent  years.   This \r\nprogram  is  coordinated  by  the  Georgia  Education  Articulation  Committee  and  includes \r\nboth  public  and  private  colleges  and  universities,  diploma  schools  of  nursing, \r\nand  the  state  vocational-technical  schools. \r\n\r\nPROBE  Counselor  Workshops  are  held  over  the  state  for  the  purpose \r\nof  providing  information  and  materials  relating  to  the  various  available. \r\neducational  opportunities  of  all  University  System  institutions.    These  work- \r\n\r\n\r\n14 \r\n\r\n\r\nshops  are  cooperatively  planned  with  high  school  counselors,  college  representatives, \r\nand  financial  aid  officers  participating.   Opportunities  are  afforded  for  personal \r\ncontact  for  discussions  of  specific  problems  as  well  as  for  the  provision  of  com- \r\nplete general  information  in  the  form  of  printed  materials  for  the  counselors.   The \r\nworkshops  are  designed  specifically  for  the  counselor  who  works  directly  with  the \r\nstudent  and  his  family.    However,  contact  is  made  with  all  superintendents,  head- \r\nmasters, and  principals  for  their  information  and,  most  important,  to  solicit  their \r\nsupport.   The  counselor  must  be  given  release  time  to  attend  and  in  recent  years \r\nthe  secondary  school  administrative  structure  has  been  very  supportive  of  the \r\nworkshop  programs. \r\n\r\nTwelve  PROBE  Counselor  Workshops  were  held  beginning  October  4  and  ending \r\nNovember  11.   These  workshops  were  attended  by  521  high  school  counselors  over  the \r\nstate  and  several  superintendents,  principals,  and  school  board  members. \r\nArea  Place \r\n\r\nMarietta  Ramada  Inn,  1-75  at  Lockheed-Dobbins  Exit \r\n\r\nAtlanta  Hospitality  Inn,  1-285, East  Point \r\n\r\nDeKalb  Admiral  Benbow  Inn,  Doraville \r\n\r\nClayton  Holiday  Inn  South,  1-75,  Morrow \r\n\r\nMacon  Macon  Hilton  Hotel,  Macon \r\n\r\nAlbany  Albany  Downtowner  Motor  Inn,  Albany \r\n\r\nRome  Krannert  Center,  Berry  College \r\n\r\nColumbus  Turner  Center,  Columbus  College \r\n\r\nGainesville  Holiday  Hall,  Holiday  Inn,  Gainesville \r\n\r\nAugusta  Executive  House  of  Augusta \r\n\r\nSavannah  Savannah  Inn,  Savannah \r\n\r\nSwainsboro  Emanuel  County  Junior  College,  Swainsboro \r\n\r\nThe  topics  of  discussion  included: \r\n\r\n1.  Financial  Aid  (Federal-State-Other  Sources) \r\n\r\n2.  Special  Studies  Programs  (Program  for  Disadvantaged) \r\n\r\n3.  Admissions  Procedures \r\n\r\n4.  Career  Opportunities \r\n\r\n5.  Counselor  Rap  (counselor's  concerns) \r\n.\"6.  Release  of  Student  Information \r\n\r\n7.  Early  Admission \r\n\r\n8.  Joint  Enrollment \r\n\r\n9.  Credit  by  Examination \r\n\r\n10.  Career  Guidance  and  Education \r\n\r\n11.  ROTC  and  Service  Academies \r\n\r\n12.  Recruitment  Practices  and  Principles \r\n\r\n13.  Job  Placement  in  High  School \r\n\r\n15 \r\n\r\n\r\nDate \r\n\r\nCounselors \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n44 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n45 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\n80 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n7 \r\n\r\n18 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n11 \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n53 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n26 \r\n\r\n53 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n28 \r\n\r\n29 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n31 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n46 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n46 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n11 \r\n\r\n16 \r\n\r\n} \r\n\r\n\r\n14.  Title  IX \r\n\r\n15.  Athletic  and  Band  Programs \r\n\r\n16.  Family  Educational  Rights  and  Privacy  Act \r\n\r\n17.  Taking  the  SAT  (Film) \r\n\r\n18.  Grade  Inflation  and  Test  Score  Deflation \r\n\r\nTwenty-one  Educational  Fairs  and  four  Mini-Fairs  were  held  throughout \r\nthe  state  beginning  October  4  and  ending  November  17.    Mini-Fairs  were  very \r\nsuccessful  this  year  in  serving  the  relatively  isolated  areas  of  the  state \r\n\r\n\r\nArea \r\n\r\nMarietta \r\n\r\nDeKalb  (South) \r\n\r\nDeKalb  (North) \r\n\r\nClayton \r\n\r\nMacon \r\n?Eastman \r\n\r\nTifton \r\n\r\nAlbany \r\n*Valdosta \r\n*Bainbridge \r\n*Blairsville \r\n\r\nDalton \r\n\r\nRome \r\n\r\nNewnan \r\n\r\nColumbus \r\n\r\nGainesville \r\n*Toccoa \r\n\r\nAthens \r\n\r\nMilledgeville \r\n\r\nAugusta \r\n\r\nWaycross \r\n\r\nBrunswick \r\n\r\nSavannah \r\n\r\nSwainsboro \r\n\r\nAtlanta \r\n\r\nAtlanta \r\n\r\n*Mini-Fairs \r\n\r\n\r\nPlace \r\n\r\nCumberland  Mall \r\n\r\nSouth  DeKalb  Mall \r\n\r\nNorthlake  Mall \r\n\r\nSouthlake  Mall \r\n\r\nMacon  Mall \r\n\r\nDodge  County  High  School \r\n\r\nTown  and  Country  Plaza  Mall \r\n\r\nAlbany  Mall \r\n\r\nValdosta  Civic  Center \r\n\r\nBainbridge  High  School \r\n\r\nUnion  County  Recreation  Center \r\n\r\nDalton  Junior  College \r\n\r\nRiverbend  Mall \r\n\r\nNewnan  Armory \r\n\r\nColumbus  Square  Mall \r\n\r\nHoliday  Hall \r\n\r\nStevens  County  High  School \r\n\r\nHoliday  Inn \r\n\r\nHatcher  Square  Mall \r\n\r\nBell  Auditorium \r\n\r\nWaycross  Mall \r\n\r\nBrunswick  Mall \r\n\r\nSavannah  Civic  Center \r\n\r\nEmanuel  County  Junior  College \r\n\r\nGreenbriar  Mall \r\n\r\nMunicipal  Auditorium \r\n\r\n\r\nDate \r\n\r\n\r\nParticipating \r\nInstitutions \r\n\r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n123 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n118 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\n125 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n7 \r\n\r\n121 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n11 \r\n\r\n84 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n12 \r\n\r\n58 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n12 \r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n69 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n14 \r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n14 \r\n\r\n49 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n25 \r\n\r\n45 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n25 \r\n\r\n62 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n26 \r\n\r\n75 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n27 \r\n\r\n62 \r\n\r\nOct. \r\n\r\n28 \r\n\r\n73 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n66 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n57 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n65 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n59 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n81 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\n56 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n9 \r\n\r\n63 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n80 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n11 \r\n\r\n51 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n16 \r\n\r\n74 \r\n\r\nNov. \r\n\r\n17 \r\n\r\n94 \r\n\r\nThe  Educational  Fairs  are  designed  to  provide  students,  parents,  teachers, \r\ncounselors,  administrators,  and  other  interested  persons  with  factual  and  current \r\ninformation  about  all  phases  of  admissions,  financial  aid,  cost,  housing,  programs, \r\netc.   The  general  public  was  informed  about  the  Fairs  through  a  statewide  publicity \r\n\r\n\r\n16 \r\n\r\n\r\nprogram  using  newsletters,  newspaper  stories,  and  radio  and  television  coverage. \r\n\r\nThese  Fairs  were  blanketed  over  the  state  and  were  attended  by  several \r\nthousand  persons.   The  Fairs  were  held  in  Civic  Centers,  Shopping  Malls,  Armories, \r\nCommunity  Recreation  Centers,  Large  Convention-type  Motels,  and  Coliseums.    An \r\neffort  was  made  not  to  schedule  these  Fairs  on  a  college  campus,  but  in  two  in- \r\nstances adequate  facilities  were  not  available  except  on  college  campuses. \r\nParticipation  in  these  Fairs  is  voluntary.   Some  institutions  participate  in  all \r\nFairs  while  some  will  be  involved  in  only  one.   This  is  generally  determined  by \r\nthe  nature  of  the  institution.   For  example,  a  non-residential  college  is  not \r\nlikely  to  participate  in  fairs  outside  what  they  consider  to  be  their  service  area. \r\n\r\nEach  institution  participating  in  the  Fair  is  assigned  one  table. \r\nThe  location  of  an  institution's  table  is  determined  either  by  alphabetical \r\norder  by  name  of  institution  or  by  lottery.   Institutions  are  limited  to  visual \r\ndisplays  (audio  equipment  is  not  permitted) .   Each  person  attending  the  Fair  is \r\nprovided  with  a  general  information  brochure.    This  brochure  includes  a  listing \r\nof  all  participating  institutions,  and  a  map  of  the  Fair  facility  showing  the \r\nlocation  of  each  participating  institution. \r\n\r\nUniversity  System  Institutions  participated  in  three  additional \r\neducational  programs  that  follow  a  similar  format  to  the  PROBE  Fairs: \r\n\r\n1.  The  1976  Georgia  Governor's  Honor  Program  sponsored  a \r\nCOLLEGE  NIGHT  en  the  North  Georgia  College  Campus  July  7,  1976 \r\nand  on  the  Wesleyn  College  Campus  July  8,  1976. \r\n\r\n2.  The  National  Scholarship  Service  and  Fund  for  Negro  Students \r\n\r\n(NSSFNS)  sponsored  an  interview  program  in  Atlanta,  December \r\n10,  1976. \r\n\r\n\r\n17 \r\n\r\n\r\n3.   The  Georgia  Association  of  Junior  Colleges  sponsored  the  Junior \r\nCollege  Tour  which  began  January  19 ,  and  ended  February  26.   The \r\npurpose  of  the  Junior  College  Tour  is  to  afford  students  attending \r\ntwo-year  institutions  an  opportunity  to  discuss  their  future \r\neducational  plans  with  representatives  from  the  senior  institutions \r\nand  universities  within  the  state.   This  tour  also  provides \r\nfaculty  members  from  the  senior  and  university  institutions  oppor- \r\ntunities to  visit  Junior  College  faculty,  staff,  and  facilities. \r\nAll  University  System  Institutions  participated  in  this  program  in \r\n1976  with  the  exception  of  Gordon  Junior  College.    Gordon  did  not \r\nparticipate  in  1976  due  to  construction  on  their  campus. \r\n\r\nTwenty- three  visits  were  made  to  junior  colleges  in  1976: \r\n\r\n\r\nCITY \r\n\r\n\r\nPLACE \r\n\r\n\r\nDATE \r\n\r\n\r\nBainbridge \r\n\r\nAlbany \r\n\r\nCuthbert \r\n\r\nTifton \r\n\r\nDouglas \r\n\r\nBrunswick \r\n\r\nDalton \r\n\r\nRome \r\n\r\nWaleska \r\n\r\nMarietta \r\n\r\nClarkston \r\n\r\nMorrow \r\n\r\nYoung  Harris \r\n\r\nFranklin  Springs \r\n\r\nCleveland \r\n\r\nGainesville \r\n\r\nAtlanta \r\n\r\nClarkston \r\n\r\nMacon \r\n\r\nCochran \r\n\r\nMilledgeville \r\n\r\nMount  Vernon \r\n\r\nSwainsboro \r\n\r\n\r\nBainbridge  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAlbany  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAndrew  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAbraham  Baldwin  Agricultural  College \r\n\r\nSouth  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nBrunswick  Junior  College \r\n\r\nDalton  Junior  College \r\n\r\nFloyd  Junior  College \r\n\r\nReinhardt  Junior  College \r\n\r\nKennesaw  Junior  College \r\n\r\nDeKalb  (Central) \r\n\r\nClayton  Junior  College \r\n\r\nYoung  Harris  College \r\n\r\nEmanuel  Junior  College \r\n\r\nTruett-McConnell  College \r\n\r\nGainesville  Junior  College \r\n\r\nAtlanta  Junior  College \r\n\r\nDeKalb  (South) \r\n\r\nMacon  Junior  College \r\n\r\nMiddle  Georgia  College \r\n\r\nGeorgia  Military  College \r\n\r\nBrewton-Parker  College \r\n\r\nEmanuel  County  Junior  College \r\n\r\n\r\nJan.  19 \r\nJan.  20 \r\nJan.  20 \r\nJan.  21 \r\nJan.  21 \r\nJan.  22 \r\nJan.  26 \r\nJan.  27 \r\nJan.  27 \r\nJan.  28 \r\nJan.  28 \r\nJan.  29 \r\nFeb.  16 \r\nFeb.  17 \r\nFeb.  17 \r\nFeb.  18 \r\nFeb.  18 \r\nFeb.  19 \r\nFeb.  24 \r\nFeb.  24 \r\nFeb.  25 \r\nFeb.  25 \r\nFeb.  26 \r\n\r\n\r\n18 \r\n\r\n\r\nAll  University  System  institutions  are  listed  with  TIE-LINE,  a  state- \r\nwide information  and  referral  system  operated  by  the  Georgia  Department  of \r\nHuman  Resources.    This  service  affords  every  citizen  in  Georgia  telephone \r\naccess,  toll-free,  to  every  institution  within  the  University  System  of  Georgia. \r\nThe  purpose  of  this  program  is  the  dissemination  of  information  on  academic \r\nprograms,  admission  policies,  and  financial  aid  to  interested  parties. \r\n\r\nAll  University  System  institutions  particiapted  in  the  \"Georgia  on \r\nParade\"  celebrating  the  official  opening  of  The  Georgia  World  Congress  Center  in \r\nAtlanta,  Georgia.   This  was  a  five  day  exhibition  (December  1-5,  1976)  which \r\nfeatured  attraction  from  education,  industry,  business,  tourism,  culture,  cities \r\nand  counties,  transportation,  etc.  from  all  phases  of  life  in  Georgia. \r\n\r\nThe  University  System  of  Georgia  participating  through  the  Georgia \r\nEducational  Articulation  Committee  and  the  Georgia  Association  of  Student \r\nFinancial  Administrators  and  in  conjunction  with  Georgia  State  Scholarship \r\nCommission  prepared  and  distributed  an  excellent  Financial  Aid  Handbook  for \r\nGuidance  Counselors.    This  publication  was  designed  to  help  school  counselors \r\nassist  students  and  parents  in  locating  financial  aid  funds  needed  in  order  to \r\nattend  a  post-secondary  educational  institution.   The  publication  explains  terms \r\nand  concepts;  lists  types  and  forms  of  financial  aid;  and  who  to  contact  for \r\nfurther  information.   This  publication  has  been  well  received  by  the  Georgia \r\nHigh  School  Counselors. \r\n\r\nA  multi-media  program  on  financial  aid  was  also  developed  and  presented \r\nat  all  the  PROBE  Counselor  Workshops  by  the  professional  staff  of  the  Georgia \r\nState  Scholarship  Commission.   This  program  is  available  on  request  for  presen- \r\ntation in -the  high  schools,  PTA  programs,  civic  organization,  and  other  interested \r\ngroups  all  over  the  state.    This  program  has  also  been  well  received  and  has \r\nj  proven  to  be  an  excellent  method  of  conveying  information  on  the  various  aspects \r\nof  financial  aid  to  the  citizenry  of  Georgia. \r\n\r\n19 \r\n\r\n\r\nIn  addition  to  PROBE,  other  recruiting  procedures  found  to  be \r\neffective  include  the  following: \r\n\r\nDirect  mailings  to  High  School  Juniors  and  Seniors  with  follow-ups \r\nwith  those  expressing  interest  in  the  institution.    Mailing  lists  are \r\nprovided  by  local  school  officials. \r\n\r\nParticipation  in  local  school  career  and  educational  days. \r\n\r\nVisitations  to  the  local  schools  for  conferences  with  students, \r\nparents,  counselors,  teachers,  and  principals. \r\n\r\nHigh  School  Seniors  and  their  parents  are  invited  to  the  campus \r\nfor  a  day. \r\n\r\nHigh  School  Counselors  are  invited  to  the  campus  for  workshops \r\non  Admissions,  Financial  Aid,  Program  Offerings,  etc. \r\n\r\nJoint-enrollment  Programs  are  provided  for  talented  High  School \r\nSeniors. \r\n\r\nA  Dual-Degree  Program  affords  an  opportunity  to  attend  two \r\ninstitutions  and  earn  both  a  liberal  arts  and  an  engineering  degree. \r\n\r\nAn  open-house  is  sponsored  by  each  campus  for  the  general  public. \r\n\r\nThe  CEEB  Student  Search  Service  is  utilized. \r\nSpecial  efforst  are  made  by  the  various  institutions  to  recruit  from \r\ncertain  groups.   These  include  programs  to  recruit: \r\n\r\nNational  Scholarship  Service  and  Fund  for  Negro  Students  (NSSFNS) \r\n\r\nReferral  Service \r\n\r\nMinority  Students  eligible  for  admission  to  graduate  and \r\nprofessional  schools \r\n\r\nNational  Merit  Scholars  and  Semifinalists \r\n\r\nNational  Achievement  Scholars  and  Semifinalists \r\n\r\nVeterans \r\n\r\nUniversity  of  Georgia  -  State  of  Georgia  Certificate  of  Merit \r\n\r\nProgram \r\n\r\n20 \r\n\r\n\r\nIn  occupational  areas  where  acute  personnel  shortages  exist,  specific \r\nprograms  are  developed  to  attract  and  encourage  students  to  consider  the  academic \r\nprograms  which  lead  to  employment  in  these  areas.   Current  examples  are  the  health \r\ncare  fields  and  certain  educational  specialties. \r\n\r\nThe  University  System  of  Georgia  works  closely  with  several  agencies  in \r\npreparing  information  and  materials  concerning  information  about  all  types  of  post- \r\nsecondary  institutions.   These  materials  are  prepared  primarily  for  persons  that \r\nwork  with  students  and  parents  in  vocational  and  educational  planning.   One  example \r\nis  the: \r\n\r\nDirectory,  A  Guide  to  Colleges,  Vocational-Technical  and \r\n\r\nDiploma  Schools  of  Nursing.   Published  every  other  year  by \r\n\r\nthe  Georgia  Educational  Improvement  Council. \r\nThe  Regents'  Office  staff  also  publishes  and  distributes  materials  and \r\ninformation  for  both  the  professional  personnel  worker  and  the  general  public. \r\nThe  publication  titled,  \"The  University  System  of  Georgia\"  is  an  example  of  materials \r\ndistributed  to  both  professional  workers  and  made  available  for  general  consumption \r\nthrough  display  in  libraries,  reading  rooms  and  material  centers. \r\n\r\nA  publication  titled,  \"Normative  Data  for  the  1975-76  Freshman  Class, \r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia\"  is  an  example  of  materials  published  annually  for  the \r\nfaculty  and  administrative  officers  of  System  institutions  and  other  interested \r\nprofessional  personnel  that  work  with  students  in  vocational  and  educational  planning, \r\n\r\nFurther,  a  summary  of  the  Freshmen  year  performance  of  Georgia's  high \r\nschool  graduates  that  enrolled  in  institutions  of  the  University  System  is  mailed \r\nto  the  principal  of  the  student's  high  school.    The  summary  includes  the  following: \r\n\r\nThe  mean  high  school  average \r\n\r\nThe  mean  CEEB-SAT  Scores \r\n\r\nThe  mean  Freshman  Grade  Point  Average,  and \r\n\r\nThe  mean  number  of  credits  earned  during  the  freshman  year. \r\n\r\n21 \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  University  System  Advisory  Council  Administrative  Committee  on \r\nRecords  and  Admissions  reviews  and  evaluates  the  principles  and  practices  of \r\nrecruiting  annually. \r\n\r\nMinority  student  recruitment  will  be  continued  System-wide  on  an \r\nintensified  scale  utilizing  a  broad  range  of  techniques  of  the  type  described \r\nabove.    Increased  emphasis  will  be  placed  upon  direct  contact  with  the  family \r\nof  potential  students.   This  practice,  although  time  consuming,  has  been  proved \r\nhighly  effective  in  informing  the  potential  student  of  the  opportunities \r\navailable  to  him  within  the  University  System  framework.   Recruitment  teams \r\ninvolving  both  black  and  white  recruiters  will  continue  to  be  utilized  and \r\nincreased  involvement  of  minority  students  and  faculty  will  be  encouraged  in  the \r\nrecruitment  process. \r\n\r\nContinual  efforts  are  directed  toward  the  provision  of  appropriate \r\nprograms  in  all  institutions  of  the  University  System.   These  efforts  will  be \r\ncontinued  with  particular  emphasis  being  placed  on  the  identification  of  programs \r\nof  a  type  offering  promise  of  attraction  to  minority  students.   Exploitation  of \r\nthis  approach  will  be  difficult  since  there  are  no  clearly  established  patterns \r\nwhich  indicate  that  programs  of  specific  types  are  more  attractive  to  one  race \r\nthan  another.   Also,  additional  new  programs  are  not  anticipated  to  result,  in \r\nthemselves,  in  a  substantial  modification  of  student  enrollment  patterns  since \r\na  significant  breadth  of  program  is  already  available  in  the  various  University  System \r\ninstitutions. \r\n\r\nCooperative  programs  have  proved  to  be  highly  effective  in  efforts  to \r\nincrease  integration  with  the  University  System.  Such  efforts  will  be  continued \r\nand  expanded  as  specific  opportunities  present  themselves. \r\n\r\n\r\n22 \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  nature  of  financial  aid  programs  and  an  assessment  of  their  import \r\nupon  minority  student  enrollment  is  presented  below.    It  is  evident  that  the \r\nprovision  of  substantial  financial  aid  is  essential  to  the  total  recruiting  efforts. \r\n\r\n\r\n23 \r\n\r\n\r\nStudent  Financial  Aid \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  considers  student \r\n\r\nfinancial  aid  to  be  a  significant  and  indispensable  factor  within  the  spectrum \r\n\r\nof  needs  in  higher  education.   The  objective  of  the  Financial  Aid  Program  in \r\n\r\nthe  University  System  is  to  provide  financial  assistance  to  students  who,  without \r\n\r\nsuch  aid,  would  be  unable  to  begin  or  continue  in  an  institution  of  higher \r\n\r\neducation.   This  objective  is  pursued  within  the  framework  of  the  following \r\n\r\nprinciples  and  practices: \r\n\r\nGood  personal  and  professional  relationships  between \r\nthe  financial  aid  staff  and  those  of  other  offices  at  the \r\ninstitution  are  essential. \r\n\r\nAdmissions  decisions  at  the  institution  should  be  made \r\nwithout  regard  to  the  financial  need  of  the  applicant. \r\n\r\nBecause  financial  assistance  reflects  the  financial \r\nsituation  of  the  student's  family,  no  public  announcement \r\nof  the  amount  awarded  should  be  made  by  the  institution. \r\n\r\nConsultation  between  institutions  on  the  kind  and \r\namount  of  financial  assistance  that  is  to  be  offered  a \r\nmutual  candidate  should  be  encouraged,  assuring  relatively \r\nequal  aid  offers  to  the  student  and  making  it  possible  for \r\nhim  to  choose  an  institution  on  educational  rather  than \r\nfinancial  grounds. \r\n\r\nThe  institution  should  have  a  separate  brochure  on \r\nfinancial  aid.    This  brochure  should  include  information \r\non  financial  aid  available  at  the  institution  and  the \r\nprocedures  for  applying,  and  it  should  be  distributed \r\nsystematically  to  prospective  and  enrolled  students. \r\n\r\nEach  institution  has  an  obligation  to  assist  in \r\nrealizing  the  national  goal  of  equality  of  educational \r\nopportunity.    The  institution  should  cooperate  with \r\nsecondary  schools  and  postsecondary  educational  insti- \r\ntutions of  higher  learning  by  supplying  financial  aid \r\ninformation  and  services. \r\n\r\nThe  financial  aid  administrator  should  keep  informed \r\nof  progress  and  changes  in  the  financial  aid  and  educational \r\ncommunity.   He  should  participate  in  professional  organ- \r\nizations which  relate  to  financial  aid. \r\n\r\n\r\n24 \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  procedures  for  administering  financial  aid  programs  is  common  to  all \r\ninstitutions  in  the  University  System.    In  selecting  students  to  receive  financial \r\nassistance,  the  institution  places  primary  emphasis  upon  demonstrated  financial \r\nneed.    Academic  achievement,  character,  special  talent,  and  future  promise  may \r\nbe  considered.   An  applicant  for  financial  aid  who  is  applying  to  more  than  one \r\ninstitution  is  not  required  to  give  notice  of  acceptance  of  an  award  before  May  1. \r\nTransfer  applicants  are  given  the  same  consideration  for  financial  aid  as  any \r\nother  entering  aid  applicant.   Renewal  applicants  for  financial  aid  are  given \r\npreference.    The  institution  reviews  financial  assistance  awards  annually, \r\nadjusting  them  as  necessary.   Applicants  not  offered  financial  aid  are  pro- \r\nvided with  the  specific  reason  for  denial  and  sent  information  on  other  potential \r\nsources  of  aid. \r\n\r\nFinancial  assistance  consists  of  scholarships,  loans,  and  employment \r\noffered  singly  or  in  various  combinations  to  students.   To  insure  reasonable \r\nassistance  to  students,  a  system  of  packaging  is  practiced,  which  takes  into \r\nconsideration  future  financial  obligations  of  the  student.   Based  on  a  reason- \r\nable need  analysis,  the  total  amount  of  financial  assistance  offered  to  a \r\nstudent  from  all  sources  should  not  exceed  the  amount  he  needs.   When  offering \r\nfinancial  aid  to  a  student,  the  institution  states  the  budget,  resources  from  the \r\nparents,  resources  from  the  student,  and  the  estimated  financial  need,  so  that \r\nthe  student  may  determine  the  manner  in  which  the  institution  has  assumed  his \r\nexpenses  will  be  met.    Outside  awards  of  aid  are  cleared  and  administered \r\nthrough  the  Financial  Aid  Office  at  the  institution  and  appropriate  adjustments \r\nmade  in  assistance  offered  to  aid  recipients. \r\n\r\nThe  financial  aid  program  of  an  institution  is  administered  through  one \r\ncentralized  office,  so  that  the  most  efficient  use  of  available  funds  is  made. \r\nThe  financial  aid  program  is  considered  a  student  personnel  service  and  reports \r\nadministratively  to  the  chief  student  personnel  service  officer.   A  standing \r\n\r\n25 \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n\r\npolicy  and  advisory  committee  for  financial  aid  consisting  of  administrative \r\nofficials,  faculty,  students,  and  representatives  of  the  financial  aid  office \r\nfunctions  at  each  institution.   The  chairman  of  the  committee  is  someone  other \r\nthan  the  financial  aid  administrator.   The  committee  establishes  the  overall \r\npolicy  for  approval  by  the  institution.   It  may  also  serve  as  a  board  for \r\nstudents  who  wish  to  appeal  their  financial  aid  consideration. \r\n\r\nThe  procedure  for  applying  for  financial  aid  is  simple.    A  single \r\napplication  is  used.    Preferred  application  date  for  pre-freshman  applicants \r\nfor  financial  aid  is  established  by  the  Financial  Aid  Office.    One  system  of \r\nneed  analysis  is  used  for  all  aid  applicants.   Recipients  are  notified  of  the \r\nspecific  requirements  for  continuation  or  renewal  of  their  aid.    Financial  aid \r\ncommitments  are  made  as  soon  as  possible  to  assist  the  recipient  with  his \r\nfinancial  planning.   Notification  of  financial  aid  includes  how  the  recipient \r\nwill  receive  funds,  qualifications  for  renewal,  cancellation  features  of  any \r\npart  of  the  award,  and  a  request  that  the  institution  be  notified  of  other \r\nfinancial  aid  received. \r\n\r\nAll  institutions  within  the  University  System  of  Georgia  completed  a \r\npreprinted  form,  OCR  2000B3  -  Financial  Assistance  to  Students.   The \r\ninstitutional  reports  and  two  aggregate  reports  prepared  by  the  central  office, \r\nreflecting  totals  for  predominately  white  and  predominately  black  institutions \r\nare  attached.   These  reports  indicate  the  number  of  applicants,  number  of \r\nawards,  kind  of  awards,  and  dollar  amounts  by  race/ethnic  designation  and  sex. \r\nThe  report  covers  the  period  July  1,  1975  to  June  30,  1976. \r\n\r\n\r\n26 \r\n\r\n\r\n«ok \r\n\r\n•slk \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cjUJ \r\n\r\nQ\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nU \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ  o \r\no  ae. \r\n\u003cK.  z \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nOV» \r\nUiX \r\n0£\u003c \r\n\r\nm*os \r\n\r\nSO \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\nUJ  C£ \r\n\r\n\r\nZ  J \r\n\r\ntu  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003ca \r\n\r\nQ.U. \r\n\r\nas;to \r\n\r\nU-  Ml \r\n\r\n£\u0026 \r\n\r\nU-.P- \r\nlO \r\n\r\no. \r\nzo \r\n\r\n—  UJ \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\n!/)'(_) \r\n\r\np-uj \r\nz-j \r\n\u003cm \r\n\r\nk« \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nLi  i/\u003e1-» \r\n\r\n!Jt-  a\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nC£ \r\nUJ \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nio \r\n\r\nec \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\nz \r\n\r\nMl \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\na!  -. \r\no  a. \r\n\r\nu.  « \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ  H-  ~\u003e \r\nh-  Z  00 \r\n\r\nmi  UJO \r\n\r\n1  Mil— \r\n\r\n2  a. \r\n\r\n\r\nDMA  H  IM \r\n\r\n«r  «*¦  p»  o \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\neo  a.1 \r\n\r\nMl \r\n\u003c-» \r\n\r\nujI \r\n\r\nas; \r\n\r\n\r\nuj  i-  — \r\n\r\n-J  z\u003co \r\n«,\u003c  u\u003e;a \r\n\u003cX  ?-»:- \r\n3r'ui  a. | \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n19 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nas  UJ \r\n\r\nuj  jrm' \r\n\u003e  \u003c  u,o \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\no*  eoi(M  mi \r\n\r\nm  eo  ico  -o \r\nM\u003c0O  o\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n0  9\u003e^O \r\nO  |A|«4  p- \r\n\r\ntfllfllO    H \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nI \r\nto \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nUl \r\nUJI \r\nCIS \r\n\r\n\r\nZ! \r\nUJ \r\n\r\nui \r\na:,  as \r\n\r\nUJIO \r\n\r\na.  •€ \r\n\r\n•  - \r\n\r\n\r\nx  ¦•*¦ \r\nJ  c \r\n\r\n-J.— \r\n\r\nO; \r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\nZ' \r\nUji \r\n\r\n\r\n\\A  — . \r\n\r\no  ro \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\u003c.— \r\n\r\n\u003cl \r\n\r\n\r\n«/»i/\u003e  jw. \r\n\r\n\u003c  o'm  as  — . \r\nt-  aSiT  a  rsi \r\nO  «'.|—  o  o \r\n\r\nat      uj  — \r\n\u003cce:  i—i \r\no  \u003cj \r\nu.  u \r\n\r\nt-  ui  u  a:  — \r\n\r\n\r\ntu  I—  z \r\n\r\nX.         UJ \r\n\r\n_i  as  a \r\no  \u003c \r\na  u_  o \r\nor      \u003c \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n\r\nUJO \r\n\r\n\r\nvi- \r\nolas \r\n\r\nSO \r\n—  a. \r\n\r\n-4UJ \r\n\r\nas \r\nI \r\n\r\ni  a \r\n\r\no\u003c-» \r\nuj  \u003c \r\ner \r\n\r\no_z \r\n\r\nUJ  UJ \r\n\r\nace \r\na-3 \r\n\r\nil- \r\n\r\nmi  j \r\nro\u003c \r\n\u003c3 \r\n\r\nISITT. \r\n\r\nOS'S \r\n\r\n\r\nZ  Q  P-iUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\nz      c \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no      o \r\n\r\n\u003c-\u003e      u. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n3  uj  jj \r\n'Z  ?-¦ \r\n\r\n?•  M»  CO \r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nt-i  i  U.  U) \r\n!C3       i \r\n\r\n\r\n«/)  — i \r\n\r\nz  «: \r\n\r\nI  uj \r\n\r\n«  \u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nm  \u003cm \r\n•4-  JJ \r\n\r\n\r\nru  r\\i \r\nCO  o \r\n\r\n\r\nO  oj \r\n\r\n0\u003e  CD \r\n•O  CO \r\n\r\n\r\nO  0» \r\n\r\nm  a \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c*1 \r\nm \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\nm \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\neo \r\nm \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\na* \r\n\r\n\r\na*  tr»\"0  ' \r\n\r\nCO  fO  CO  r0| \r\n\r\n\r\no  ro'O*  p- \r\n\r\n»    »'  •    • \r\n-*\"  \u003cMC0  \u003cM \r\n\r\n^  «*•  ro \r\n\r\n\r\no  p-'o»  o» \r\n4-  p-tm  co \r\nro  o'nj  rsil \r\n\r\n•i:       —i \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nO  M'O  Oi \r\n\r\n«J-  (M   (M   P-  lf\\ \r\n\r\noe  n  **      o \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\no     j        i \r\n\r\n-J      I         ¦ \r\n\r\na    .       j \r\nz      \u003c \r\n\r\nr      m \r\nu  \u003eo     ' \r\nid  p-  oe \r\nm.  mi  o \r\n«/»  u  \u003c \r\n\r\nU.KOM \r\n\r\no  uj      o \r\n\r\n\u003e  U.  Q£ \r\n\r\ntUwQC \r\n\r\ni-  7:      uj \r\n\r\n3  D  uj  O. \r\nh-        (J \r\n\r\n\u003e—  JUJ  U.I \r\n\r\ni-  h-  -j  a, \r\n\u003ca  \u003c  j  a \r\n\r\nZH'QM        (- \r\n*•*  m  O  H \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\nas  u. \r\no  o \r\n\r\nUJ  ly \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n\r\n_J  (/\u003e' \r\n\u003c  a:  I \r\nO  uj! \r\n-t  \u003e¦ \r\n\r\nuj  3l \r\n\r\n'I \r\n\r\n\r\n«nco  (m \r\n\r\n\r\n(^  co  ^i \r\n\r\nHIO  3 \r\n\r\n»o  r-  «o \r\n\r\n\r\n^  CO \r\n\r\nco  r» \r\n\r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\n\r\na*  \u003co \r\n\r\nco  r- \r\n\r\n\r\nf\u003e4   CC \r\n\r\n\r\no  o \r\nm  o \r\n\r\n\r\no  m \r\n^  eo \r\n\r\n\r\no  — * \r\n\r\n^4   O \r\n\r\n\r\no  o  o  r-  i-i \r\n\r\nOI  3J  O*  CI  60 \r\n\r\nr-.sc  -o  m  o \r\n\r\n\r\nml»o  «r^r4  r- \r\nm  m   n  •   • \r\n\r\nNCh  N  h  O \r\n\r\no\u003e,        — ,-»  CO \r\n\r\n\r\n-Oi-*  irvr-  co \r\n\r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nm!\u003cj»  oloo  «o \r\neo  «*-  -^:  c\u003e  co \r\nr^\u003e  \u003co  m1  a*  m \r\n\r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\u003eo  o \r\n\r\nr-  eo \r\n\r\n\r\nO    -4 \r\n\r\nm  •*• \r\n\u003co  co \r\n\r\n\r\nm  eo  \u003c*\u003e  «i- \r\n\r\n¦\u003e  0\u003e  \u003c\u003e4  CO \r\n\r\nsO  p-lc»  %o \r\n\r\n\r\n%o  r- \r\n\r\n\r\n«^  m \r\n\r\n\r\nm  «o  co  o  -* \r\n\r\nO*  CM0»  mlCM  o\u003e \r\n\r\nO  4  \u003c0  Oi\u003c\u003e  \u003c0 \r\n\r\n\r\nco  coi \u003co  cor-  m \r\nr—  cwo  m;f»  %o \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\nO  J- \r\nr-co \r\n\r\n\r\nvO  CO  \u003cM \r\n\r\nr-  r-  \u003eo \r\n\r\n\r\nco  \u003cv  »*  «oi  eo  o \r\n\r\n\u003cNJ  r-lCO  (M|(M  \u003cM \r\n\r\nO^  r* \r\n\r\n\r\n•»¦  \u003eOl  «*\u003e  m  00  (\\j \r\n\r\n»  •!  •  m  »  • \r\n\u003c\u003e  o\u003ei  u\u003e  t^;  os  r- \r\n«**  \u003c-»i  in  **  o\u003e  m \r\n\r\ni         i \r\n\r\n\r\n_•  M  -^  .f  0*  O \r\nCO  \u003e0'  «o  f\u003e  O*  CO \r\n\r\n\u003cc  coi  in  *r  co  os \r\n\r\nI         i'- \r\n\r\n\r\nsO  m  oo'  \u003cm  eg  oa  \u003eo  r-  m  r-  m \r\nHin  o  h  i^r-cKiA  ¦on  ^ \r\n\u003c\u003c-ooos-«rg«0'p-cmr- \r\n\u003cM^-mir»»vi\u003e*-p-r'i'sjr-vO \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nLU \r\n(J \r\nUJ \r\n\r\nUJ  _l \r\nO  -J \r\nUJ  O \r\n\r\n-J  u \r\n\r\n\r\nli- \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nJC \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nUJ  ?- \r\nH-lO \r\n\r\nH-C! \r\n\r\n'•3 \r\n\u003e-  St \r\n\r\n~  I— \r\n\r\n\u003c  l/t \r\n\r\nw  s \r\n\r\n_i  a. \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no  ai \r\n\r\n\r\n-J  C \r\n\r\na  o \r\no \r\ni «/» \r\n\r\n\u003c  3 \r\n\r\nr-  ffl \r\n\r\nt-v  r \r\n\r\n3  3 \r\nO  -» \r\n3  O \r\n\r\n\u003c  u \r\n\r\n\r\n'UJ \r\n\r\niU \r\nUJ \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nUl   -J \r\n\r\no  o \r\nu  u \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\nm \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n0s \r\n\r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nrsi  co \r\nco  m \r\n\r\n\r\nfvi  m \r\nso  o \r\n\r\n\r\n«o  0\u003e \r\n\r\n00  ISJ \r\n\r\neo  r- \r\n\r\n\r\nru  -c \r\nco  I*- \r\n\r\n\r\neo  ro \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n1  •  !  •  • \r\nr-  O  »h \r\nru     i-4(\\j \r\n\r\n\r\n•- \r\nm \r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n:os \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\nos \r\nos \r\n\r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n'VJ \r\n\r\n'  (^ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nsO  CO \r\n\r\n•    • \r\n\r\n(VI  00 \r\n\r\n«^  m \r\n\r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n«VI  CD \r\n\r\n\r\n;rn \r\n\r\n\r\nO    X \r\n\r\no  uj \r\n\r\nZ  ui \r\n\r\nui  •\u003c  ;n \r\n\r\nu.  j  vi  t'  i  r \r\n\r\n\r\nIU  o \r\n\r\nO  '-U \r\n\r\nUJ   _l \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ  UJ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e  _J \r\n\r\nU,  C \r\n\r\n\r\n3  3 \r\n\r\nc  a \r\n\r\n_j  U  «/),  to \r\n«t  \u003c¦  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003eJH    MM \r\n\r\n13  '.i.  \u003co \r\nec  fc  as \r\n\r\nc  r~  a \r\n\r\nl.J  Ui  uj \r\no  o  O \r\n\r\n\r\n:  „_  I \r\n\r\n\r\na  o \r\n\r\nUl. \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003c  t— \r\n\r\n-\u003e  -x \r\n\r\n:a  i- \r\n\r\nas  to \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nU  X \r\nr.5   \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nr  \u003e \r\n\r\na  \u003c \r\n\r\n^  to \r\n\r\n\r\nu      I, \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n— - \r\n\r\n\r\n0|l- \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n77 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\ni— \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nQl \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nl!5 \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\nO \r\n\r\n,UI \r\n\r\n\r\nOtS \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nUl  I'J \r\n\r\n—i  O \r\n\r\n.X  Ui \r\n\r\n\u003c  -J \r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\no  3 \r\n\r\n_i  m \r\n\r\n\u003c  ^ \r\ntr  3 \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003e- \r\n\r\nr  -\u003e¦ \r\n\r\n\u003c  »\u003c \r\nr;  re \r\n\u003cn  _j \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c¦ \r\n\r\n\r\nMl    O \r\n\r\no  a \r\n\r\n\r\nr-o \r\nfvl  os \r\nos  in \r\n\r\n\r\n-I  «*¦ \r\no  m \r\nr-  «0 \r\n\r\n\r\nO  «M \r\n\r\nco  m \r\nso  \u003co \r\n\r\n\r\nm«LoO \r\n\r\nIf  I   \u003cM    O    Ml \r\n\r\nin  r-  to  -a \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  »f-lm  Ml \r\n\r\nm  cu  r-  m \r\n\r\n\r\n•n  p- \r\n\r\n\r\nsfi  CD \r\n\r\nOS  os  «#  o»  H  ? \r\n0\u003e0r\u003e  «OK» \r\n\r\n\r\nro  (M  MX  r- \r\n\r\n«Or-pr*^v» \r\n\r\n\r\n^  f-iru  mir»  os \r\no«  ^|o  ro;o  m \r\n\r\n\r\nMl   o \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  -a \r\n\r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n\r\nWmO»  + \r\n\r\n\u003er  -c  vo  ro \r\n\r\ninMOO \r\n\r\n\r\nos  r-  o  »vi  so  m \r\n\r\nm  ^' o  m  s^  oo \r\nos  «o  f-«or-  m \r\n\r\n\r\nO  fO  00  iO  p» \r\n\r\n*r  roio  roiin  m \r\na*  mii\u003cm      I     rsi \r\n\r\n\r\nmi  —\u003c  ru  orco  o \r\n\r\n•    •\u003c••••    • \r\nr*  mlm  mirsi  m \r\n\r\nt\u003e  ^  «S  Mt  (N»  «*¦ \r\n\r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n•O  \u003cOiCM  OifO  ^ \r\n\r\nro  O!oo  \u003cfiN  mi \r\n\r\ng  Mlin  m'm»  -4 \r\n\r\n\r\nro  P0(  O  ro  os  ro \r\nest  in  r— -\u003cs\u003e  m  os \r\n*+  nj.m  ^  fM  «J\" \r\n\r\n(SJ         IMtON \r\n\r\n\r\nm  rj  mi  v \r\n*\u003e  r-  ro  m» \r\n\r\n'•mifti* \r\n\r\n\r\nM  O \r\n\r\nIM  f\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n¦o \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\r\np-  p- \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nro  in  fo  os  «p  \u003co  o \r\n\r\n«o  eo  r»  p-  \u003e4-  o  o \r\nm  \u003cc  iO  no  po  r-  p» \r\n\r\n\r\nooi \r\n\r\n•   •  i \r\nrsi  vO  j \r\n\r\n\r\np»lm  n\u003e \r\n\r\n«  •  1 1   • \r\n\r\nM»*M   Ml \r\n\r\nMl  M \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nru \r\n\r\n\r\nm»^  M  +\u003e0*  OS \r\n\r\n•    » I  •     e  i  •  • \r\n\r\n«M  CO  C-  P-  00  O \r\n\r\nro  mi  wp  mi  v\u003e  sT \r\n\r\n\r\nm  \u003cJJ)  sf  co  los  m» \r\nmi  «o  so  ro  lo  \u003cM \r\noj  ru  nj  »4  |ro  \u003c• \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nO  UJ \r\n\r\nuj  o \r\n\r\n\r\n3  _J \r\n\r\nUl  3 \r\n\r\n^  Ul \r\n\r\n6  as \r\n\r\nM.    Q \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nO  UJ \r\n\r\nUJ  o \r\n\r\n_J  UJ \r\n\r\n— 1  -J \r\n\r\nn  -j \r\n\r\nUl  C \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\n*^cjn  i*i  \u003cf \r\no  o  m  »o  p-  \u003co \r\n\r\nHHIfl«lP-P» \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\n'JJ' \r\n\r\nuj: \r\n\r\n\r\nas  Z  m  ¦:*: \r\n\r\na  3--  3.^. \r\nmi  -j  o  mi  a \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\"1 \r\n\r\n\r\nas  a  uj \r\nOiuj  \u003c_)  o \r\nu       u: \r\n\r\nUJ  OS  -I \r\n\r\nJCJ \r\nJnO \r\n\r\nn  sr  u\u003e \r\n\r\nU  3 \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ. \r\n\r\nO'stS \r\n3  O \r\n\r\n\r\nM-   ft\"T  CiZ  UJ \r\n\r\n\r\nm.  .-3 \r\n\r\n\u003c:es \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  -J \r\n-J  *t \r\nu  o \r\n\r\n\r\nU- \r\n\r\n\r\n-1  I-jT \r\n\r\nas       O \r\na  u\u003e  —I \r\n\r\n\u003eT  -J  o \r\n\r\n3  mji-J \r\n-J  \u003e \r\n\r\n'.1  u\u003e  r* \r\n\r\n\u003e-  7.   L\"! \r\n\r\nO   Ml  ,*•» \r\n\r\n_J  \u003c  3 \r\nU.  15  O \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nMl \r\n\r\n-J  O \r\n\r\nC  ui \r\n\r\nUl   -J \r\n\r\n_l \r\ncf-O \r\n\r\nO  Ul \r\n\r\nZ  rtS \r\n\r\n3  3 \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\n•X  3 \r\n\u003c  \"» \r\n\r\nl/il \r\n\r\n3  O \r\n^  Ul \r\nIU  '\u003c \r\nStS  X \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nsT \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c0 \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\nm \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nPvl \r\nCD \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n|C0 \r\n\r\nNo \r\n\r\n\r\n00. \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nos \r\n\r\n* \r\np- \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nI'M \r\n\r\nfu \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nm.  !oo \r\n\r\nru  o» \r\n\r\np-  i«n \r\n\r\nin  O \r\n\r\nro  \u003c£ \r\n\r\n\r\niy \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n(5  m. \r\n\r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n7t \r\n\r\n\r\nu  a \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\nO \r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\nIS \r\n\r\nIS \r\n\r\n\r\nu\u003e \r\n.to \r\n\r\n\r\na- \r\n\u003c  O \r\nHo. \r\n\r\n\r\nI  -4 \r\nI \r\n\r\nti  cn \r\n\r\n\u003cUJ \r\n\r\nQ\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nIOC \r\n\r\n1° \r\nto. \r\nI \r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\nai \r\n\r\nOCX \r\n30C \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\ncu  c \r\netc: \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\nz\u003e \r\n\r\nUJ03 \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\u003e-a \r\n\r\n0.0 \r\nuin: \r\n\r\n0C\u003c \r\n•Jb\u003c \r\nQ* \r\n\r\nroe \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nCL-J \r\n\r\no \r\noo \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n—  ml \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n(OH- \r\n\r\nP-3 \r\nZP- \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n«-\u003e  a \r\noc  z \r\na.  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nZ  QC \r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\nJL   ml \r\n\r\nU  -J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ  P- \r\n\r\nxz \r\n\r\nt-  \u003c \r\na  at \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\ncr \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\nzz \r\n\r\nH«  or \r\nl/\u003e  ?-  o \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nne \r\nUJ \r\n\r\nP-  \u003e \r\nt-i  i-t \r\n3  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nOl \r\n\r\n\r\na  Zj  — \r\nzal\u003co \r\no \r\nt/i  — \r\n\r\n\r\nl  a. \r\n\r\n\u003c  zi  oc  Mi  m \r\n\r\noe  H  \u003c  -ti  a \r\n\r\nUJ   VI  i  _1   W  w \r\n\r\nO  0C|O      ; \r\n\r\nIU3I \r\nU.  Z!cj \r\nVI \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  ui  i   a_  — \r\n\u003e!qj  i-i  \u003er \r\n\r\nO  i-*  \u003c  X.  o \r\n\r\nOS  p-i  -J  Ull  — \r\n\r\nO  i.  O      I \r\n\r\narx \r\no  o,  v_\u003e \r\n\r\nZlbO \r\n\r\n\r\n-4  I  *- \r\n\r\n\u003c!-!  OiCI \r\n\r\nZhmO \r\nOOH- \r\n\r\nMXM \r\nUJrt \r\n\r\n\r\no.  u-.  or  o  cm \r\n\r\n3  0.0.J- \r\n\r\nIO  — \r\n\r\n\r\nu     ?    •  —  — \u003e \r\n\r\nh  u  a*,  u  h \r\nm  3  c?  a  o \r\n\r\nCD  or  a.  :z \r\n\r\n3  — \r\n\r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n\r\nZCI-iU \r\n\r\n\r\n*p- \r\n\r\neMO£ \r\n\r\nSO \r\n\r\nrt  UJ \r\n\r\nae \r\ni \r\n\r\ni  a \r\n3«~\u003e \r\n\r\n\"j  \u003c \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n\u003cp- \r\n\r\nej  Z \r\n.o  UJ \r\n95  O \r\n\r\n.\\2 \r\n\r\n\r\nn_l \r\n\r\n\u003c3 \r\n\r\nMi.\" \r\n\r\nc:  ;* \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nor. \r\nz     o- \r\n\r\nai \r\no      o \r\n\r\nrt        u. \r\nO \r\nP- \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n3  jj  ui \r\n\r\nX  P- \r\n\r\nh-  I—  i/» \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nOG \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  -o \r\n\r\nr»-  en \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\n!      1 \r\n\r\nin  cMl'n  o \r\n\r\n^  mm \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nin  »* \r\n\r\nvO  en \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nno \r\n\r\nO  e»\u003e \r\n\r\n¦*\"^ \r\n\r\nc«  «f \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003cd \r\n\r\np\u003e  — \r\n\r\ncn  W3 \r\n\r\ntr\u003e  rt \r\n\r\n•r \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4- \r\n\r\ncm  ^ \r\n\r\n«r  m \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nar»:r»-  -\u003c;o  m \r\n\r\n\u003ca  to  r—  cn \r\n\r\n«r  er\u003e \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n^«  \u003eC \r\n\r\nCO  o \r\n\r\nm  0 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ne\u003e \r\n\r\nCT«  0 \r\n\r\nco  .»¦ \r\n\r\n0  r— \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\nP» \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM  \u003cOIO  CM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncni»-«  eo|tn  o» \r\n\r\n\u003co  a?'sr  cr \r\n\r\nr-  m \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm  or» \r\n\r\nP-  o \r\n\r\nm  en \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nP»  CM \r\n\r\nO  CM \r\n\r\n«o  P- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n»       M      •»      » \r\n\r\n#¦ \r\n\r\n••     o      •••     «•\u003e      «^ \r\n\r\n\u003e  »j  •  »i \r\n\r\n»  « \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n*» \r\n\r\n»  p    •  *• \r\n\r\n•\u003e  - \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n•- \r\n\r\n«•    •»(  •»    •» \r\n\r\n»  ». \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\np-  o \r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nai-^i  cm \r\n\r\no  o» \r\n\r\n*r  o \r\n\r\nr-  -ai \r\n\r\nCM    — \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nm  c\\d \r\n\r\nO  CO \r\n\r\nCM  O \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\nJM \r\n\r\nJ3  \u003e  cm  en \r\n\r\nyO  P- \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003er \r\n\r\n~»  ,»¦ \r\n\r\n*o  CO \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\nm'O  *h \r\n\r\n\u003er  m \r\n\r\nt-  «o \r\n\r\n.M  \u003c1^0  (A \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nP-  O \r\n\r\no  in \r\n\r\n00  P- \r\n\r\np-  m \r\n\r\nr-  (VJ \r\n\r\ncn  p- \r\n\r\n¦o  cn \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nP» \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n¦j-  in \r\n\r\n**  eo \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003cn!^*  cn \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\ncn  \u003e»• \r\n\r\ncn  cm \r\n\r\nen  m \r\n\r\n\u003e*¦ \r\n\r\n\u003er \r\n\r\nm  «r \r\n\r\n¦*¦ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm*  mm \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\nrt   CM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\np» \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\n•¦ \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n*• \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n•n \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nmm \r\n\r\nCM  CI \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCM  O \r\n\r\n¦*¦  -4 \r\n\r\n«o  P- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\np-  mi \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\np» \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n•r \r\n\r\n0  OD \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n«t \r\n\r\nOl      o \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\ncm  \u003ca- \r\n\r\no  r- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm*  o \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nin  — \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nC«\", \r\n\r\ncv     m \r\n\r\n-*  \u003eo \r\n\r\n•-»  r— \r\n\r\ncn  \u003ca \r\n\r\n•f \r\n\r\ncn  o \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n»    *« \r\n\r\n•i \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n•i \r\n\r\n»  •\u003e \r\n\r\n•\u003e  •\u003e \r\n\r\n»      *M \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n•\u003e  • \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nm  in \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\nCM) \r\n\r\nm  cn \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n—\u003e  r- \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nm  oi \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no  ~* \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\ncn  cm \r\n\r\nCM  mm \r\n\r\n\u003c-l  CM \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nmm \r\n\r\nm  %r \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\nt- \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n•O  CO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\np» \r\n\r\n\u003c# \r\n\r\n•6 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nv\\ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\ncn  fh \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\np-  0 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCh \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n«*¦ \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nr*- \r\n\r\nCM   CO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM  P- \r\n\r\n««• \r\n\r\n\u003c0  P- \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\u003c• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•t \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n*  •\u003e \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n»  * \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nim \r\n\r\nT+ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm*    (C, \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no  * \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n** \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•r \r\n\r\n*r \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n-c \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n1^ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n*m\\ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nmm \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n\u003ca \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\nf*\u003e \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n¦*» \r\n\r\n*¦ \r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nf* \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n•* \r\n\r\n\u003er \r\n\r\n•\"  «n \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nO  O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nm  ^ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n-?a \r\n\r\nCM  O \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nO   O \r\n\r\n-r \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n«0! \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCMIO  O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n^»  f- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\np-  in \r\n\r\np-  m \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n•^ \r\n\r\nm  0 \r\n\r\n1*\" \r\n\r\n»* \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\nem \r\n\r\n*¦ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ncmo  -o \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\neo  ^\u003e \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nco  ca \r\n\r\nO  (Ml \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n-*«- \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n•\u003e  *\u003e \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n«  *  » \r\n\r\n1 \r\n1 \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n»  •. \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nm\u003e \r\n\r\nc» \r\n\r\n•  ¦ \r\n\r\npTcC \r\n\r\n¦» \r\n\r\nm\u003e \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n»fi|^- \r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c•* \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\nCM    m*\\           CM \r\n\r\nmm \r\n\r\nmm \r\n\r\ncn  cm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nmM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nI\" \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\nin  trom  tf\\ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nI \r\nmom \r\n\r\nCO  o \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\nO  O'  o  o \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\nm  a \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\n1 \r\n• \r\n\r\n0  oo  m \r\n\r\nm  0 \r\n\r\np-  0 \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ncm  p»  r—  «v \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nr-  —  c-  -o  tn \r\n\r\nr»  o'  o  mi  m  m \r\n\r\n\u003eo \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\np-  m \r\n\r\np-  mi  o  m1  o \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\ncm  m \r\n\r\n^  O  CM  P\" \r\n\r\np» \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\no»  »n  ¦  ~+  o*\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003ce \r\n\r\nOO  00  Ol  ~*  CM \r\n\r\nm  O'^h  m;  m*  o\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003cA~ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nP-  in; \r\n\r\nO  CO!  — 1  \u003eo.  o \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n0  p-.^-  p-'O  en \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n»  »  »  • \r\n\r\n.9 \r\n\r\n«•»•»»« \r\n\r\n?    mm    •\u003e••••     • \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n»    • \r\n\r\n»    •« \r\n\r\n»  »  » \r\n\r\nt\u003e \r\n\r\nmm \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nf*N'0\u003e0 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm  co  cn  r-  o \r\n\r\n-m  o:o  e\u003e  eo  m \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nO  CO \r\n\r\n*••-« \r\n\r\nP-  CM.  CM \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n-r \r\n\r\nP» \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCM  CM:        IA \r\n\r\n»H \r\n\r\n\u003c|  ^-  CMI  M  CM \r\n\r\nIMIOHN \r\n\r\n•a  cn \r\n\r\n-* \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nP4 \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nrt^ \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u003c*• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\n\u003eo  \u003co \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nG \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCM  CM \r\n\r\ncn  i\u003e \r\n\r\nm  co \r\n\r\n»»•  m \r\n\r\nco  r- \r\n\r\n\u003e*¦ \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\nm  m\u003e \r\n\r\n!\"-•* \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n0  ^* \r\n\r\n0  oi-e  ^ \r\n\r\n4- \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\nCM  \u003cOi        f\u003e \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\ncn  o\u003e  «*¦\u003e  o  o \r\n\r\no  t\"»!  cn  cm  en  ci \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm  in \r\n\r\nx**«0 \r\n\r\nco, \r\n\r\nO   rt \r\n\r\n\u003co  ^ \r\n\r\ncn  p- \r\n\r\n\u003eo \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCS  CO.        o \r\n\r\nrci \r\n\r\nr—  r-  mi  ej«  •-\u003c \r\n\r\n•\u003e'  «  »  *  •\u003e  i \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nm  p- \r\n\r\n\u003ec  o \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ncm  m \r\n\r\n0  m \r\n\r\neo  0 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n•O \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•\u003e    •\u003e          m \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n»»«•»» \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n»  ¦ \r\n\r\n»  • \r\n\r\n00  \u003cr \r\n\r\n»  •\u003e \r\n\r\n•     m \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\nrj  t\"-       O \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n^  cm  o-cm  m \r\n\r\nineno^wN \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nm  \u003e*¦ \r\n\r\nt-4  4\" \r\n\r\ncn  cn \r\n\r\n^r«*- \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ni    pl \r\ni \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n*+m  -i \r\n\r\nCM  CM \r\n\r\ncm  enjen     ;  cm  •* \r\n\r\nU.i \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nmm \r\n\r\n-• \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nJ \r\n\r\nto  h  o  o\u003e \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\noo  o \r\n\r\no  cn \r\n\r\n!      ! \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n«n \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n¦mT  C \r\n\r\nCM  O \r\n\r\nmm  m \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n0  0 \r\n\r\n0  \"* \r\n\r\nen  0 \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\nIA  ^\u003e  tf\u003e  \u003c0 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\nas  eo  co  co  m \r\n\r\nia  in  r*  m  o  O1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-  a \r\n\r\n»r  cnt  m  mm  m \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nO  P\"\"0  OO  mm \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\neo  r—  cm  \u003c• \r\n\r\nm*  o  o  cn  r- \r\n\r\ncn  irv  O  cmi  en  ^, \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦*¦ \r\n\r\no  c \r\n\r\nco  \u003co;  \u003co  spi  p-  a \r\n\r\ncm  cn;m  cm\u003co  m \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n+ \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n?«••\u003e» \r\n\r\ni! \r\n\r\n•   »«•\u003e• \r\n\r\n»••«••«»»»» \r\n\r\n¦\u003e \r\n\r\n»    • \r\n\r\n»!»\u003e»•» \r\n\r\n•  »•  •  » \r\n\r\n*  *i \r\n\r\n*• \r\n\r\n•* \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nin  irv  p-  «o \r\n\r\n1AM  Md   H \r\n\r\n«o  CM.  en  Oi  »o  »¦ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n^- \r\n\r\nO  IT \r\n\r\ncn  * \r\n\r\n0  H \r\n\r\np*  \u003cOvo  cn \r\n\r\n^P- \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003c• \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nfi  ao       O \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n(HHN^H \r\n\r\nuv  m*  cn  o  -r \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n«0   \u003c \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\nCM       | \r\n\r\nM'aH \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\np» \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nMl \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nC\\ \r\n\r\n1             |         - \r\n\r\n:       i \r\n\r\n1      ; \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n» \r\nmm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n0\u003e  o  p-  en \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\no»  ^  ^  «¦*  CI \r\n\r\nO  O  \u003c0  f^\u003e  cm  c*1 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n-4  0\u003e \r\n\r\no  -« \r\n\r\nO  0*  fO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n•J*  ao  j3  m \r\n\r\nP»  CM \r\n\r\nmm \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\no  o  -^  «*¦ \r\n\r\ncv \r\n\r\n«rnom«i \r\n\r\no  r-  en  cm,  m  a \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\no  c \r\n\r\nC\u003e  -*  rt  to  4- \r\n\r\nnJ»   rt .  in   O    CM   rt \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\n•-M \r\n\r\nJJOPC* \r\n\r\nIT \r\n\r\nm  \u003cr  .-4  cn  n \r\n\r\nr»  f-o  o  m  mi \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\np-  a3 \r\n\r\nO  O  en  o  in \r\n\r\n•^  O't-i  00:0  m \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nHNO\u003e»4 \r\n\r\nui \r\n\r\no  «o  co  ec  a \r\n\r\nen  %0  co  en  «o  C  en \r\n\r\n«*• \r\n\r\no  q \r\n\r\nen  o.  tn  o  \u003e*- \r\n\r\n: \r\n\r\nen  \u003co 'p-  rt;cn  en \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n¦eJT \r\n\r\ncc  r«-  oo  \u003c\\» \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no  O  m  CM  IT \r\n\r\nr-  m*  ^-  en  o  •* \r\n\r\n\u003e*¦ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\ni-i  IT \r\n\r\nr-  «»•  O  O  \u003co \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nO  O^  O  Gl'T  O \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nCM  f\u003e       ^\u003e \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\no  cn  cm  \u003c4-  cc \r\n\r\nCM  cnt  CM   m*  CM    \u003e* \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n*\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003er  «v \r\n\r\nm       cm \r\n\r\n•-4                             rt   -\u003c \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n•*• \r\n•• \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\nrmt \r\n\r\ni         1 \r\ni         ; \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\ni \r\ni \r\n\r\n1                 1 \r\n\r\n1                 i \r\n\r\n1                 1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\u003e  ! \r\n\r\nt             | \r\n\r\ni             ', \r\n\r\ni     ! \r\n•     i \r\n\r\ni     i \r\n!    | \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\n-i \r\na \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n| \r\ni \r\n\r\n! \r\n¦  I \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n°     ; \r\n\r\n!        i \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n• \r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n3     ! \r\n\r\n;        i \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n-i     i \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ngj        1 \r\n\r\n_j \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no    • \r\n\r\nj \r\n\r\n¦  O      | \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nl         ; \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n!         j \r\n\r\nz       \u003c \r\n\r\ni        I \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\nX        ** \r\n\r\n!      u. \r\n\r\n'    mi \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nUi           ' \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\nO'          i \r\n\r\nu  \u003e  o \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nUJ     ml \r\n\r\n?- \r\n\r\nO  UI \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nUJ. \r\n\r\nvu  \u003e-  ce. \r\n\r\nL'j            a \r\n\r\no  a \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\nUJ  o \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n_j         CI \r\n\r\nY-  -\u003e  C \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ  U           Uj    U \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nUJ  —J    UJ   UJ \r\n\r\n_J          0          UI \r\n\r\n(/I   UJ   \u003c \r\n\r\nUJ              - \r\n\r\n_i           Ui    (JJ    (J \r\n\r\no  u. \r\n\r\nO  — 1   _J  O  JJ \r\n\r\nai \r\n\r\nO  'JJ  UJ         0 \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nILCtCH \r\n\r\nUI  -J                c \r\n\r\nj  z  li  u  y  iu \r\n\r\n-  c \r\n\r\nJJ  O   — i  uj  (J\u003e \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nui  ij  j  j  ai  uj \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nO  oj        O \r\n\r\nO  -J              L. \r\n\r\nO  -x.  •JJ  _i  _l  O \r\n\r\na:  u \r\n\r\n-i  u  a  -i  u.' \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nO         IU  -J  C\u003e  _J \r\n\r\n'JJ \r\n\r\n\u003e   U.   QC \r\n\r\nuj  O \r\n\r\n\u003cJ  UJ   _J    _J    _l   UJ \r\n\r\nhJC   3  -J \r\n\r\no  «, \r\n\r\n-1         O   -J  -1 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\nU,      X       mi      O      UJ     _J \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\niumOQ \r\n\r\nju            u \r\n\r\n\u003c  - \r\n\r\nc  ae      -n  -j \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\nJO JU JC \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\nh\u003e  ^:      \u003cj \r\n\r\n_l                U!   H \r\n\r\nZ  to  o  o  o  _j \r\n\r\nZu \r\n\r\nu  o  a:  U  c \r\n\r\n\"\". \r\n\r\nrt1   rt    O           _J  CJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n3  Z3  'jj  U \r\n\r\n3  'U  U  C  « \r\n\r\nij  :'.  iu  u         1   : \r\n\r\n•-•0        .   CJ \r\n\r\nz  v  0  nc.  CJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nK-        O \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\nO  r-  O  UJ  1- \r\n\r\n;D  j.*:        jj  ui  u \r\n\r\nml \r\n\r\ni:zm^ \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nu  3      a  u  \u003c \r\n\r\nml \r\n\r\nml \r\n\r\nH\u003c    il  JJ  u. \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n•'lii  ji/ \r\n\r\n•jj  -u  r  \u003c  v-  m \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nJt  ^* \r\n\r\nc  _\u003e  r  0  -c \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n-\u003e  .x  ?»     ¦-¦ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n-t \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nI-HJC \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n¦         UJ  H-   _J  -J \r\n\r\n_J  H-  H-  i-l   \u003c   \u003ci  \u003c \r\n\r\nK- \r\n\r\na  c \r\n\r\n•m  -\u003e  3  11  0 \r\n\r\nJT \r\n\r\n3£       OZiC \r\n\r\n*-• \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n*- \r\n\r\n«/)  \u003c*  _J \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nk-    O    _J     C      \u003e \r\n\r\n-J  3  3  -\"»  ?-  M  M \r\n\r\nc  m  c  a.  y\u003e  \u003c4  o \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n_j  ?- \r\n\r\nr1     ¦  -\u003e  ~  \u003c~ \r\n\r\n\" \r\n\r\nOtUHlOnr \r\n\r\nc\u003e \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n2HG\u003e \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n«!       n  u  a \r\n\r\n»— \r\n\r\n\u003c  £! \r\n\r\n3  u»      r\u003e  z \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\n«  J  ^  -)  M  G \r\n\r\ny \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\n•-•  \u003cA  U  H \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nK-  '  J  u \r\n\r\nO  «/i  vi  o           (ad \r\n\r\niy\u003c  w \r\n\r\nTO^in \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nT  J2      !Z  lij \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003c/7  ^       :  CO   _ \r\n\r\ntij  ^r  «« \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\nO  VJ     _,  -1 \r\n\r\n3  •-*  ~\u003e  ^  O  O \r\n\r\n'U \r\n\r\n3C \r\n\r\n\u003c   \u003c   -J  V \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n¦  c  \u003cJ  r\u003e  -1 \r\n\r\n\u003c  ¦\u003c  \u003c  e.5   «r  u \r\n\r\nl\"l \r\n\r\nT. \r\n\r\n-X  *•*    mm    Si \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n-3  \u003e        \u003c•  -» \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n«  «-i  \u003c.  rt \r\n\r\n\u003e*  -y.  ?-  o  3 \r\n\r\nh*  M  \u003e-«          5*  (.' \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003e \r\n\r\n*-  cc  x  a  z \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\nv  t:  cr      uj \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n\u003cS  O  •  J  - \r\n\r\n\u003e       a \r\n\r\n?t  c—  'A  X \r\n\r\no  -t  it  x  r»  r \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nY.  r \r\n\r\njr    ¦  v\u003e  ?—  0 \r\n\r\n— ¦ \r\n\r\nfj  'jj.  r1  j..  t  -j \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n0. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nOS  ft   «  S \r\n\r\n•     : \r\n\r\n\u003c  •/)  D  3  H \r\n\r\nC'  QJ  u.'  •-•  -\u003c  c \r\n\r\n?- \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003c  i \r\n\r\n\u003c  z  ~  \u003e*  t- \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003eZOZga \r\n\r\n*- \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nVJ \r\n\r\nn  o  q  •- \r\n\r\n1      c \r\n\r\ntv  *r  Li  _i  \u003cm \r\n\r\nc  q  C  rf.  \u003e  _ \r\nui  ;J  uj  a  \u003c  ¦«\" \r\n\r\n1/! \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nt;  ¦• \r\n\r\nmi    l-l     ZS     \u003c     -i \r\nr-    \u003c     \"£     J     \u003c \r\n\r\nmf \r\n\r\noncj!;;uc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n'3 \r\n\r\n»A \r\n\r\nUJ  i'|  ui  \u003c1 \r\n\r\n:      ce \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\nix  -3  CD  rj \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003cx. \r\n\r\nM*.         — \r\n\r\n17. \r\n\r\nmi  \u003c  a  u-i  -«  — \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nV.      1 \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\no  u \r\n\r\n*:  - \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•« \r\n\r\n-\u003c  -* \r\n\r\nu  u. \r\n\r\n\"3  O  '.*\u003e  15  «/l  i \r\n\r\n1       1 \r\n\r\n-T \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c    « \r\n\r\n\u003c-:, \r\n\r\nJ.  u \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n•¦ \r\n\r\nu.  0  'j  \u003e: \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\n7\"-  «*'« \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO      j \r\n\r\n\"   1 \r\n\r\n(J\u003e \r\n\r\n¦ \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n«• \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n*;! \r\n\r\n?ft \r\n\r\n\r\nOC \r\nVJOJ \r\n\r\nWine \r\nn*l \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\nI \r\n\r\nOil \r\n\r\n% \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nOC \r\n\r\no \r\nu. \r\n\r\n\r\nX. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003eCr£ \r\n\r\n-IO \r\n\r\nzo \r\no,qc \r\n\r\na. \r\nX \r\n\r\n«n\u003e- \r\n\r\noca \r\nw. \r\n\r\no \r\n\u003e-ui \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\nuj\u003c \r\n\r\ncc\u003c \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003cOC \r\n\r\no.\u003c \r\n\r\nUl_l \r\n\r\nQC  -I \r\nQ \r\n\r\n\r\nC  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n-I  f) \r\n\u003c  z \r\n\r\nr-  \u003c \r\no  o \r\n\r\n\r\n_i  UJ \r\n\r\n\u003c  X \r\n\r\n\r\nUi  \u003c/\u003e \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\n*-•  3I\u003e- \r\nCC  O \r\n\r\na.  m \r\n\r\n\r\nuu  x \r\n_i  vi \r\nco  \u003c \r\n\u003c  u \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n\u003cz \r\na.  *-» \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nUi  X  — \r\n\r\n03  \u003cJO \r\n\r\n\u003cU|  — \r\n\r\n\r\nUl  XI  — \r\nOi  — \r\n\r\n\r\na.  i \r\n\r\nui \r\n\r\nat \r\n\r\n\r\n_JjUi  X  — \r\n\r\n«*i  _i u*»  ,«• \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nr-  z'  a  \u003c:  o \r\n»-»  o  \u003c  u  — \r\n\r\n!-*\u003e- \r\n\r\n*/\u003e  H- \u003c  Z! \r\n\r\nI O.  •»* \r\nlui \r\nIOC       I \r\n\r\n\r\nuiloz- \r\n\r\n\u003ci  o£  O;  O \r\n\r\nH3  _ij  — \r\n«ni  m \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e•  a!i-z!  — \r\n\r\n-/atr  \u003ctrj \r\n\r\nJKUJOO \r\n\u003c  3  Q  -J.  «- \r\n\r\ncc  «/)|3 \r\n\r\nUJZH \r\n\r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nU- \r\n\r\n\r\n1/) \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nJhh«- \r\n\r\n\u003c  O  Z  J  — \r\n\"-»   UJ   LU  to   o \r\nOKOO- \r\ni-»  f*  3  z \r\nKOh«« \r\n\r\n\u003c  i/l \r\nZ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003eu \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  0£ \r\n\r\n\"N.3 \r\n\r\n~\u003e  a, \r\n\r\n«-l  Ul \r\nQC \r\nI \r\n\r\ni  a \r\n\r\nUl  \u003c \r\n\r\nee \r\n\r\n\u003c?- \r\nO.Z \r\nIU  Ul \r\n\r\ncc  Q \r\n\r\n0u  3 \r\n\r\nII— \r\n\r\nI\" \r\n\r\nm!_i \r\nm,  «t \r\nO \r\ntn  x \r\no:  z \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nz:     o \r\n\r\nQ        O \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\na  uj  ui \r\n\r\n:  X  H- \r\nr-  r-  in \r\n\r\n•J  U.  «/» \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n'       u» \r\nH      \u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\n«r  o»len \r\n\r\nCM  en|\u003cM \r\n\r\n•4J  'JMN \r\n\r\n\u003c*•  m'l\u003er \r\n\r\n•*¦  Wl  «M \r\n\r\nIA  Ol-O \r\n\r\n\r\n«0 \r\n\r\n— ) \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cI3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•ft \r\n\r\no \r\nin \r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\ncm \r\n\r\n* \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\ni*vm  -« \r\no  cm  r» \r\nt\u003eo  o \r\n\r\n»  »  » \r\n\r\ntn  «m  r~ \r\n\r\nI      *» \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n\r\n-r  en  -4  oi \r\noo  oo\u003e  cm  o; \r\n^  o*  o  CM! \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n'o  ol \r\n\r\na  oi \r\n\r\ne\u003e  inj \r\n\r\n41 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e     !         \" \r\n°     i         i \r\n\r\n2      !  I \r\n\r\nz      \u003c    ! \r\nx     •-» \r\no  \u003e  o \r\n\r\nJJ  r-  Oi \r\nr—  i-i  O \r\n\r\n«/»  UJ    \u003c \r\n\r\nILOCOm \r\n\r\na  u.      \u003cJ \r\n\r\n\u003e  U.  QC \r\n\r\nw  h-  c  :¦? \r\n\r\n(—   ^  UJ \r\n\r\n^  O \r\n\r\ni-i    u  u,  ±. \r\n\r\nH-  *-  _J  O. \r\n\r\n\u003c/»  •»  _J \r\n\r\nZ  H  O  \u003ei \r\n\r\nt—  \u003csi  u  H\" \r\n\r\nt-i  i-»  \u003c  effl \r\n\r\nO  O  O  ¦*-\u003e \r\n\r\na  xm\u003e' \r\na  c  o  m. \r\n\r\nci  iu  ai  z| \r\nO  O,  'C  3j \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c5 \r\nCM \r\n\u003c#¦ \r\n• \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n-*  r— •  o  H      as \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nrvj \r\n\r\n\r\nMonh  cvj \r\n\r\nCO  U\"i   O\"\"   W  CD \r\n\r\nf-O  lOf\"  CO \r\n\r\nw  ^  co  tn \r\n\r\nfw  o  O  -*\"  0\" \r\n\r\ntn  cm      i-4  o\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n\r\n»Mi«r \r\n\r\nOt«M  «)•*¦  tn \r\n\r\nw  »  »|  •\u003e  •\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\ncotw  \u003en \r\n\r\n\r\nmi \r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\noi \r\n\r\nCNJ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cm  r-  m \r\n\r\nr+  r*   03 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\ntn \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n•¦ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n«r     o \r\n\r\n-«•     o \r\n\r\n\r\nr--43 \r\n\r\n•»  «* \r\n\r\n(MO \r\n\r\n\r\n:.  n \r\n\r\n\r\ntivr-  o \r\n\r\nao;  — \u003c  O \r\noo;0\u003e \r\n•\u003e  » \r\nmien  o \r\ncn|w  o \r\n\r\n\r\nJ. \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  as  tn'  m  o \r\n\r\n»4  N   •O1  H  If, \r\n\r\nmo  \u003c*-¦  r- \r\n\r\n*•  »  •»  » \r\n\r\nfT»  CO  CM :  •-•  \"O \r\n«*1 \r\n\r\n\r\nO  eo  r\u003e-  m  \u003e* \r\n\r\nfl(Mn\u003e4ifl \r\n•\u003e»«••¦ \r\n\r\nP—  f*  00    TO \r\n\r\ntj  (M  co  tn  fO \r\n\r\n\r\ntn  o« \r\n\r\nrn  o \r\ntn  vo \r\n\r\n\r\n03 \r\nO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nt~  O   »-4  «0 \r\n\r\nen  o  cm  tn \r\nCI  o»|o*  ^ \r\n¦••.{«• \r\n^  m|fM  cm \r\nin  \u003coio  co \r\n~*  «m  m  en \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n0* \r\nCO \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n\u003cn \r\n\r\n\r\n»40in \r\nO  f*~e« \r\ni-»  -4;0 \r\n»  »¦  » \r\ncm  en.  ¦-«\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nOlfM  o;eo  w \r\ntnfM  0'»r  fM \r\nOICM  \u003eT'«*\"  «r \r\n\r\n«*  •-  *-i  *•  ^ \r\no!\u003eo  coi«*-  \u003eo \r\n»*o  in  cm  -* \r\n\r\n^j,H  rtM  cm \r\n\r\n\r\n4, \r\n\r\nO  Oi \r\n\r\nen  vn| \r\n\r\n*   m \r\n\r\ntn  o; \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nen  m  n  o  en  m  r—       tn \r\ncor-enop*-(nrn        esi \r\n\r\nfO  -4   —t  o    ^4-   fCt|H \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\n»» \r\n\r\nCM \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nO  ITI  \u003cCf  ft  (9  N \r\n\r\no  fM  en  o  r—  \u003eo \r\n\r\n^*    CI  \u003c^    «-4    »* \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n\r\n.    ? \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUl \r\nUI_J \r\n\r\nO  _J \r\nUi  c \r\n-J  u \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\nT)  Ul \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nUl  H- \r\n\r\n\u003e—  \u003c/) \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n?-o \r\nyi  rr \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e-  CC \r\n\r\n\r\nU4 \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nIU \r\n\r\nI  H \r\nUl  ifi   \u003cv. \r\n\r\n\r\n-J  O   V \r\n\r\n'X \r\n\r\n\r\nt^ \r\nen  x \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nt/» \r\n\u003c :? \r\n\r\nI—  CD \r\n\r\nt«  r \r\n\r\no  -J \r\n\r\nz\u003e  c \r\n\r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nUl  o \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\no  es \r\n\r\nU  Uj \r\n\r\nZ  t/l \r\n\r\nuj  -»\u003e  f \r\n\r\nO  Ui  -^ \r\n\r\n¦ji  ^  i; \r\nJht- \r\n_J  3  3 \r\n\r\no  c  r \r\n\r\nUl  (/\u003e  l/t \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c•  \u003c \r\n\r\n•-4  ^-1  1-^ \r\n\u003c?     I*     t* \r\n\r\n•^  a.':  oc \r\nn  c-  \"3 \r\n\r\nJOOO \r\n\r\n\r\nuj  uj; \r\n\r\nLU  O  Ol \r\nO  UJ  UJ  UJ \r\n\r\nuj  _i  _iko \r\n\r\n-J   -J   -JIOJ \r\n\r\n\r\nCOO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ  Ua \r\n\r\n\u003c  ?—  I— \r\n\r\n1-1  \u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\nC   I—  H- \r\n\r\ncf.  \u003esi  in \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nUJ  z  \u003c \r\n\r\nC-   *t  \\- \r\n\r\n~.  '/\u003e \r\n\r\nr,  jt  n \r\n\r\n»—  -c  o \r\n\r\nV    \u003e  -1 \r\n\r\no  -t  \u003c \r\n\r\nZ|\u003c/\u003e  \u003e \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n» \r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n* \r\nen \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n¦o \r\n\r\nIP) \r\n•tn \r\n\r\n\r\n,tn \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e*¦  O \r\ntn  — \r\n«o  en \r\n\r\n•   i- \r\n«»¦  en \r\n\r\n•O  sT \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nr^  «*¦   ft   \u003e0 \r\n\r\n|»n  o  !*o  -o \r\n\r\no\u003e  tn  U«»  w \r\nen  en \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\nin \r\nen \r\n\r\n» \r\ntn \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\ncr\u003e  o \r\n\r\no  -4 \r\n\r\nI  \u003c•»  «• \r\nCM  »4l \r\nO  CM \r\nfM \r\n\r\n\r\nF» \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nf\u003e  O \r\nO  O \r\n\r\nco  m \r\n\r\n••  •» \r\n\r\nen  cm \r\n\r\ntn  cm \r\n\r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nO \r\nJC \r\n\r\n\r\nui \r\no \r\nui \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n,o \r\n\r\n\r\n¦  \u003c \r\n\r\nr- \r\n_J \r\n3 \r\nO  UJ \r\n\r\n1-4    O \r\n\r\ncc  ui \r\n\r\n\u003c  -J \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nv.  u \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n,0  O \r\n\r\n\r\n-» \r\n\u003e: \r\n\r\n;¦*:  \u003e- \r\n\r\na;  z \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n•  a:  a: \r\n\r\n'--.  -i \r\n\r\n\r\nwi  o \r\n\r\nk*r  -. \r\nI«0  en \r\n\r\n•»  » \r\n\r\n\r\nIfM \r\n\r\nGS \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nooooim* \r\no  o  .o  o  kr  o \r\n\r\nO  fM  ir»  »r  «o  en \r\n\r\n(MN^p4 \r\n\r\n\r\ni\u003co  o  o \r\n,o  \u003e1-  o \r\n\r\nIf*  o  o \r\n\r\nI    •»      •»\u003e     f» \r\n\r\nIf*  O  !f*\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nai \r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\nUJ  _J \r\nO  -J \r\n\r\nuj  O \r\n\r\n-J  o \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n-  * \r\no  a \r\n\r\ncC  z \r\n\r\n^\u003e  n \r\n\r\nio  uj \r\n\r\n-»  o \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n\u003c  •- \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  z  z \r\n\r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUl  Ul \r\n-I  O   Ul \r\n\r\nJiuO \r\n3  -J  UJ \r\n\r\n\r\nalOO \r\n\r\na      o \r\n\u003e-.  QC \r\n\r\nZ  C.0C \r\n3  ^  O \r\n-3  T  \u003e-\u003c \r\n3  Z \r\n*  -5  3 \r\nU       -» \r\n\r\n•-I    T  • \r\n\r\n-r.  3iZ \r\n».*  I—  Q \r\n\r\n\r\nfM  IV  \u003e0 \r\n\r\n\r\n^o  O \r\n\r\n»    • \r\n\r\n\r\nK)  W  **  «0 \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm \r\n\u003co \r\n«• \r\nen \r\nfM \r\n\r\n\r\nno \r\n\r\n•vi-l \r\n\r\n\r\n•43 \r\n\r\n^0 \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nf\u003e \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n?M \r\n\r\n\r\nin  vi  o  oo  o \r\nfM  h-i  m  cm  o \r\n\r\nen  ho  r-  ,»i-  m \r\n\r\n\r\no  co  !•»•  co \r\ncm  en \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\nco \r\n«\\j \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr- \r\nm \r\n\r\n4\" \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nen  cm  »r  in \r\n\r\nIT)   O   *    T1 \r\n\r\n»  r-  r-  -4 \r\n\r\n•»-•»¦•»  •\u003e \r\n\r\no  \u003co  o  w \r\n\r\nCM        I       «*• \r\n\r\n\r\nUl1 \r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\noc;     o \r\na.u.  u \r\n\r\ni—lO \r\n\r\n—    LU    CC \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\nUJ \r\n\r\n_l  O  -J \r\n\r\n\r\n29 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  ^3 \r\n\r\n\r\n3  \u003c-J \r\n\r\nc.  -J  «-. \r\nr  u,C \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n-l  O  -I  U  -I \r\n\r\n\r\nc  z  o \r\n\r\nU  3 \r\n\r\n\r\no  z \r\n\r\n\r\nul  \u003c-\u003e \r\n-J  z \r\n-I  3 \r\n\r\n\r\ncC  c. \r\nO  o \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\naC \r\n3  C \r\n\r\n\r\n-\u003e  \u003e \r\n\r\nt/\u003e \r\n\r\nO  CJ \r\n\r\n\u003e-  ^ \r\n\r\nO  «-\u003e.oC \r\n\r\n-i  \u003c  a \r\n\r\nu.  o,o \r\n\r\n\r\n7 \r\n\r\nJ5 \r\n\r\n\r\nZ  D \r\n\u003c  ~» \r\nl^\u003e' \r\n\r\nvj  i  rr \r\nz  o \r\nz  o \r\noj  :  «r \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n4» \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n*n \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\n(M \r\nfM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n•4- \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n»M \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\no \r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\nCO \r\n\r\n¦ft \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n\r\nes \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n•4J \r\n\r\n»\u003e \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n«\u003e \r\n\r\n•c \r\n\r\n\r\n«n \r\n\r\n*» \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n03 \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nr» \r\no \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\n\r\nO     'r- \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nI  o \r\n\r\nI   \u003c43 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n:  «» \r\n\r\n\r\n•jj \r\n\r\nLi \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nF \r\n\r\n\r\n¦  a. \r\n\r\n',3 \r\n\r\nOC \r\n\r\n'J \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nS5 \r\n\r\nIU \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nQ. \r\nUl \r\n\r\nrHoc \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n15 \r\n\r\nWill \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  '-0 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\no  a. \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nec \r\n\r\n\r\n_i  or \r\n\r\n-J  Ui \r\n\r\n\u003c  I \r\nl- \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\noc \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nt/\u003e  K \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\n\r\nuoc \r\n\r\n\u003eo \r\n\r\nSo. \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\nl       eSCD \r\n\r\ni     a \r\n\r\ni  o \r\n\r\nXu» \r\n\r\n\u003coc \r\nl      o\u003c \r\n\r\n:      Jx \r\n\u003e•\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003ca \r\n\r\nuioC- \r\n\r\n-*\u003c \r\n\r\n1       ea-J \r\n\r\n\u003c_l \r\n\u003e-o \r\n\u003co \r\na. \r\n\r\niu-j \r\n\r\nac\u003c \r\n\r\nI— \r\n\r\n«/\u003eo \r\n\r\nZh \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nUI  tO \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n\u003c  u \r\n\r\n\u003e  o£ \r\n\r\ni-»  3 \r\n\r\nce  a \r\na.  to \r\n\r\n\r\nX  al- \r\nio «_\u003ei«o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu  \u003e \r\nOf \r\n\r\n2  UI \r\n\r\n«-»  to \r\n\r\nQC \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nUI  to \r\n-i  z \r\n\r\nCO  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  o \r\n\r\n\r\na. \r\nui \r\n\r\n\r\n\\U  «/)    Mi \r\n\r\nJZ4 \r\n03  \u003cIO \r\n\r\n\r\n•ui \r\nec \r\n\r\n\r\nui  to  -» \r\n\r\n-j  zjm \r\nCQ  \u003c\u003e© \r\n\r\n\r\na. \r\nui \r\n\r\n\r\nUI|X  (Ol  — \r\n\r\nH;*-  oc  «*• \r\n\r\n\u003c._i  ui  a \r\n\r\n?-.\u003c  UI  — \r\nO   XI  CC. \r\n\r\n!X\u003c! \r\n\r\ni       Ui \r\n\r\n\r\n3  phZ- \r\n\u003c  ui .z  O'm \r\n_J  UiUI  «-i  o \r\n\r\nor:x  H~— \u003e \r\n\r\nc;    \u003c: \r\n\r\n\r\nz: \r\nui \r\n\r\n\r\n5! \r\n\r\nUij \r\n\r\n\r\n-i  X!  I  Z!~ \r\n\u003c  r~iv»  OJfM \r\n\r\nec  _i'ui  Mio \r\n\r\nUI  \u003c,  u.  to  — \r\nOvjO \r\nu:  X,  oc \r\n\r\nU.       ..       ] \r\n\r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\n•  I    (O  — \r\n\r\nio  oc  a.  — \r\n\r\ni_  \u003c  h*o \r\n\r\n.r  ji« \r\n\r\nu.  o  \u003co \r\n\r\n(J  X \r\nijj  o \r\n\r\noc  at \r\n\r\n\r\nz  a  t-  ui \r\n\r\n\r\nN.0C \r\n\r\nrvia. \r\n-^ui \r\n-« cc \r\n\r\nMl \r\n\r\na \r\nin-» \r\ni  \u003c \r\na \r\n\r\nUll— \r\n\r\nosr \r\n\r\n\u003cUI \r\n\r\nOJO \r\nU13 \r\n\r\noat- \r\no,  to \r\n\r\nO \r\nto  s \r\n\r\n%\\ \r\n\r\n\r\ni       ^l \r\n\r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nZ'       ? \r\nto \r\n\r\no      a \r\n\r\ni-\u003e        u. \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n5E \r\nUI  til \r\nX  \u003e- \r\n?-  \u003co \r\n\r\nI     *- \r\n\r\nMIL  l/\u003e \r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\nI      •- \r\ni/»      -¦\u003e¦ \r\nto \r\nas \r\n\r\n'it \r\n\r\n\r\nA \r\n\r\n\r\nen  -\u003c \r\n\r\n(M  W\u003e \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCO  V \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\n»TJ \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nw* \r\n\r\n0\u003eNOt \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO  f*1 \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nco  o \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\n•*  09 \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\n-¦•\u003e  f*» \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nf\u003e \r\n\r\nin  in \r\n\r\nfM  ^ \r\n\r\n«»• \r\n\r\nMIO  «0 \r\n\r\n5T\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-» \r\n\r\n~n \r\n\r\nfM  O \r\n\r\nJ-  0^ \r\n\r\nf\u003e \r\n\r\nV- \r\n\r\nO  (*\u003e \r\n\r\n$m \r\n\r\n*o  d \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n«¦ \r\n\r\nO  \u003cM  00   ,Q \r\n\r\n—  «JJ» \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n-« \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\n-*  tn \r\n\r\n«r  o \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nO    \u003cM \r\n\r\no» \r\n\r\n\u003er \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n-\u003e \r\n\r\n—  — \r\n\r\no»  tn \r\n\r\n-• \r\n\r\n*r \r\n\r\n^  CO \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nsr  m \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n¦O \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\no  *• \r\n\r\n?•  tn \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n¦o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n—  ? \r\n\r\n»f  m \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003cT3 \r\n\r\no  «r \r\n\r\nr»- \r\n\r\n~r \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nM\"  \u003cf- \r\n\r\nm  f\" \r\n\r\n-H \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no  — \r\n\r\n»-• \r\n\r\nM  o \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nt\u003e  -« \r\n\r\n¦0  o \r\n\r\na*  »— \r\n\r\nf\u003e \r\n\r\n41 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM   Ml \r\n\r\nr-  -« \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nO  M \r\n\r\nfw  Cf \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n\u003cr»  * \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ntn  .*- \r\n\r\nmr*- \r\n\r\nrM \r\n\r\npo  fi \r\n\r\nM  «M \r\n\r\n(M  fM \r\n\r\n0* \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\na \r\n* \r\n\r\n»M \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003cm \r\n\r\no \r\na\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c*¦ \r\n• \r\n\r\nrg \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n•\u003c \r\n\u003c-« \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\nr- \r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n— • \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nm \r\n«r \r\n\r\n•n \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nfM- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n•? \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n« \r\no \r\n«o \r\n«n \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nin- \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0* \r\n\r\n© \r\no \r\nf\u003e \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0» \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nsQ   CO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ntf\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no» \r\n\r\n— ? \r\n\r\no  m \r\n\r\no\u003e  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n«»» \u003co \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-r \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\no  a \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n¦4*  *+  CO,  -O \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO  0»  'fii        f— \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO  \u003e£ \r\n\r\nM-  O  O \r\n\r\no»       tn  \u003co  i\"» \r\n\r\nrrr \r\n\r\n-* \r\n\r\n«*. \r\n\r\nor— \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nr~»^  mifM \r\n\r\n!•+ \r\n\r\nm.  o»  «v»      o\u003e \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO  -^ \r\n\r\n¦  --  OtD \r\n\r\n«m       m  sn  -* \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nf*- \r\n\r\no;«n \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nO.SM'O \r\n\r\n*T  M \r\n\r\nCD  i-*         CO \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\n»^ \r\n\r\n\u003eo  m \r\n\r\n0  4-0 \r\n\r\n\u003cM       oom \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n«*• \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c¦+ \r\n\r\nf* \r\n\r\n(Mim     i  ¦¦+ \r\n\r\no4 \r\n\r\n|p4.CM(        iH \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nf*-4 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n¦4-fn|»* \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nfMi^* \r\n\r\n«M \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n** \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n4- \r\n\r\n|         1 \r\ni         | \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n~ \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1         1 \r\n\r\n\u003cM  OttfO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\nsf*   O     O \r\n\r\n^r \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ncm  m \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n40N \r\n\r\ni-t  o« \r\n\r\n«r  fM \r\n\r\nMl  jr \r\n\r\n¦43 \r\n\r\n«n \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nf*1 \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n.O*  Olf— \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nOj \r\n\r\n»¦*  c* \r\n\r\nfO \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nCO  o \r\n\r\nO  fO  1*^ \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\n0»  CO  0\"  O  {CM  CD \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\nff\u003e \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nl^r  m!\u003cM \r\n\r\n•r \r\n\r\n\"* \r\n\r\n33  fM \r\n\r\nf\u003e \r\n\r\n1*1 \r\n\r\no»  w \r\n\r\n!o  «o  co \r\n\r\n\u003cn  cd  «t  -4 \r\n\r\n-o  0\u003e \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n'»•••. \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•»    • \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n*¦    w \r\n\r\n*      «M     » \r\n\r\n«?».«»•. \r\n\r\n«    » \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n1  \u003eh  «oi  \u003co \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n»-4    rH \r\n\r\n'i- \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nfM  CM \r\n\r\nen  •-• \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\nr«-  ao \r\n\r\nCO  \u003eT \r\n\r\n\u003ch  f\u003e \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n»n \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n«n \r\n\r\nfO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n1-1 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nC0 \r\n\r\n\u003c•* \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\nO  CO \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nm- \r\n\r\no  •«¦ \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n, \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nt- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no  m \r\n\r\nm  «*» \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\ncm  m \r\n\r\n09  O \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n«0 \r\n\r\nm  as \r\n\r\n^4 \r\n\r\nim;0(W \r\n\r\nt- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n•r \r\n\r\nCO  f«- \r\n\r\nin  fM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nsr  fn  i-o  m \r\n\r\n-\u003c¦ \r\n\r\n•a* \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nim  in \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nr-^  o| \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr+   fM \r\n\r\ncm  en \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n\u003c\u003c\u003e  ^  :f\u003e  \u003c0 \r\n\r\n«*• \r\n\r\nfO \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•\u003e»-•* \r\n\r\n¦» \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n•? \r\n\r\n•»¦ \r\n\r\n»    » \r\n\r\n?  » \r\n\r\n¦\u003e. \r\n\r\n•  »  »  » \r\n\r\ni^  —  en  \u003ca \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n•¦ \r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n\r\ny\u003e  fM  »n! \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\no  ^\u003e \r\n\r\n00  00 \r\n\r\n1* \r\n\r\nf\u003e \r\n\r\n0* \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nfO   i  J, \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nW*    f* \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\n•M  *H \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nN  \u003e^ \r\n\r\nf» \r\n\r\n1         1 \r\n\r\n!    j \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nfc  o  o  a \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n!             j \r\n\r\no  o  ^  o \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni \r\no  co  o  m \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n^f \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nf«\u003e \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\no  0» \r\n\r\nfM  f- \r\n\r\n\u003co  f\u003e \r\n\r\n¦^ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nm  mo  \u003c3\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no  «o  m  r- \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nia \r\n\r\nco  o  »r  i*\\  r- \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nfO \r\n\r\n~ \r\n\r\nco  tn \r\n\r\n•J\" \r\n\r\n\u003cr  tr\\  -\u003c  in  \u003c*¦  p» \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm»  03   O  fO \r\n\r\nfO \r\n\r\no  «ii\"roin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n«r-  \u003eo  \u003er  ^  f\\i \r\n\r\n«»• \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nen  o\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003eo \r\n\r\nin  ?  \u003eo  «i  o  i\u003e \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nrM \r\n\r\nfA \r\n\r\n— i  »h'^-  r— \r\n\r\n«* \r\n\r\nN-OKVO« \r\n\r\npn \r\n\r\nm  i\u003cv  m  +  ^  c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n-* \r\n\r\n^                \u003c0:»^ \r\n\r\nIVIN  M(f|  NCJ \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n«0 \r\n\r\n\u003cM  ft          «*• \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n*4                        ^H \r\n\r\n»¦« \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\n\u003c* \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n1 \r\n! \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\n; \r\ni \r\n\r\n: \r\n\r\n: \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n1                              , \r\n\r\n|     i \r\n\r\nj     ; \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\n1                              1 \r\n\r\n1              i \r\n\r\n!    ! \r\n\r\ni         i \r\n\r\n!      ! \r\n\r\n1        ! \r\n\r\ni     j \r\n\r\ni       i \r\n\r\n!         1 \r\n\r\n1         1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nj \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\nj \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n1               ; \r\n\r\n-I \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n] \r\n\r\nI        i \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cJJ \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nI        i \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1               i \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\nLL' \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n'Ui \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n¦  o    : \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nz      \u003c \r\n\r\n; \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\nae \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nui! \r\n\r\nX        m. \r\n\r\n|           | \r\n\r\nLL \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n-I \r\n\r\n\u003cJ\u003e!                  I \r\n\r\nO  \u003e  \u003cJ» \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nUI  _l \r\n\r\n1— \r\n\r\nO  UI       ! \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nUll            1 \r\n\r\nUi  h-    CC \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\na  o \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nUI  o \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n_j          UJ \r\n\r\n»-  »-•  O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nUi  O         Ui  UJ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nIU    _J    UJ   UJ \r\n\r\n-1         L3         U) \r\n\r\nto  u:  \u003c \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n-I \r\n\r\n_l       UJ  o  o \r\n\r\nO  UJ \r\n\r\nO  -J  -J  O  'XI \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\ncmiu      o \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\nU.0COM \r\n\r\nUI   _J \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n-I  Z  O  UI  UI \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\nM    J \r\n\r\nUi  O  -i  Ui  o \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nLU   U   O    ^    LU   U \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nnu.       o \r\n\r\nO  -1 \r\n\r\nC  a.  oj  _i  _j \r\n\r\nJUj    J    J   J \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCI    LU \r\n\r\nJUO  juj \r\n\r\n»— i \r\n\r\nO         JJ   -J  '_\"\u003e   _j \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n\u003e  a.  oc \r\n\r\nIU  O \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\nO  _J \r\n\r\n-J         U  -i  -1 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\nUJ  re   _l  C   UJ   -J \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\ntUM  jo \r\n\r\n-J  u \r\n\r\n•J \r\n\r\n»-  JG^ \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\n\u003c  -J \r\n\r\nO  \u003c5!        3  -i \r\n\r\n\"~ \r\n\r\nJO  JU  JC \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n*-  7T         IU \r\n\r\n-J                  Ui \r\n\r\nZ  VI  o  u  o \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO  O  C  O  O \r\n\r\n-\u003e \r\n\r\n-J  *-  O         -JO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3  3'jjO \r\n\r\n^  lil  w  C \r\n\r\n•* \r\n\r\ni  ¦  i \r\n\r\n.X  'XI  o \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\nz  u \r\n\r\ni—  O         ij \r\n\r\nc  z  u  \u003c\u003c  a \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nH-        O \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nO  K-  '¦.\"\u003e  ai \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\njj  j:       xi  x \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n0C    ^   IH   Of \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nU  3         O  U  \u003c \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n\u003e—  Ui  JJ  u. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c   IU   -1 \r\n\r\n¦_. \r\n\r\nX  ~  \u003cr  \u003e-  h- \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nX  a: \r\n\r\nc  3  ;:  o  ^c \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\"i  -c?  •-•;      \u003e-• \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n1-  t-  _i  o \r\n\r\nH- \r\n\r\nUiH    J-l \r\n\r\n-j \r\n\r\n?-*—•-\"\u003c\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n1— \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nm  -» O  \u003e-•  Q \r\n\r\n-z \r\n\r\naC         O  Z  0C  \u003c_* \r\n\r\n^^ \r\n\r\nH      I \r\n\r\nH- \r\n\r\nto  \u003c  _J \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nK  *o  _i  \u003c- \r\n\r\n¦J \r\n\r\nZ\u003c  3  o  ?-  K- \r\n\r\n•— 1 \r\n\r\nC3 \r\n\r\n_l  •— \r\n\r\nZ        ¦)?« \r\n\r\n¦^ \r\n\r\nOuJi-no  CC \r\n\r\n'JJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\n?•  y-  o  \u003e \r\n\r\n1       H \r\n\r\n\u003c         OU \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nna  «nui \r\n\r\n•J3 \r\n\r\n?- \r\n\r\n\u003c  X \r\n\r\n3  UJ        3Z \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nm  J2-\u003e;mC \r\n\r\nTC \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nl- \r\n\r\n•-»\u003c/\u003e  «J  H \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nHOU \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nwwo \r\n\r\naC \r\n\r\nCI  3 \r\n\r\n-3  O  5£  -j  r\u003e \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n-^    JO            Z    LU \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nto  2          lO \r\n\r\nUJ  I   \u003ct \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n-3 \r\n\r\na  u     i-» \r\n\r\n3  •-••-»  sep  o \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c'_!  lO \r\n\r\n1  O  \u003c!  -^ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c  J  \u003c  H \r\n\r\n•jj \r\n\r\n7- \r\n\r\n«tkM2' \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n-»  \u003e¦      «r'-\u003e \r\n\r\nu\u003e \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n«M|\u003c    OC \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n\u003e-  a.  h-  O \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\nN^   ^4            Z   VI \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003e \r\n\r\nt-  L-tjjB  a  7i \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nto  'JJT  tO1        Ui \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nC3  C\"J.«J  CU \r\n\r\n!      a. \r\n\r\nrr  i—  v.  r- \r\n\r\n•_3 \r\n\r\nlvj  t  t  n \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nr  r. \r\n\r\nT    \".\u003c  «/!  H  C \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n3  I'.'  C  Li'.T  _J \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\na-     ! \r\n\r\n*¦ \r\n\r\nc:  sC|M  \u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003cW3DH \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n.-c  ui  ^-  •:  a \r\n\r\n?- \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  ~  z:  \u003e•  t- \r\n\r\nV  Z  3  TT'O  a \r\n\r\nh- \r\n\r\n3      I \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n¦  3  Qin  •-• \r\n\r\ni     e\u003e \r\n\r\n03   ^   (.\"\u003e  -i \r\n\r\nC\" \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nOC'ff   \u003e  -J \r\n\r\nv» \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nec  K \r\n\r\n-J   N-3   *t._J \r\n\r\n*t \r\n\r\na  \u003e-•  -e  z  o  a \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n•a    1 \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nUI  lU'UI   TZ \r\n\r\n!        cr. \r\n\r\n_l  c\u003c  3  O \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nUJUIO  \u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nTt  -J \r\n\r\ni-\u003ca:  J\u003c \r\n\r\njr \r\n\r\n-J  \u003c  3  U!!\u003c  \u003e-\u003e \r\n\r\no      ' \r\n\r\noC \r\n\r\np— \r\n\r\no  oj  r  d \r\n\r\n1    « \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003c.  \u003c  \u003c  o \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO  'J)  Z  to  \u003e \r\n\r\n~ \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  cOi'.O  uO \r\n\r\n1                    1 \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\nU.  O  |0  \u003ec \r\n\r\n¦c  r \r\n\r\nIO \r\n\r\n'.3      | \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n1 \r\nl \r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n|  ... \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\ni \r\n\r\n30 \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\n-. \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nl \r\n•1 \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nUl         \u003c \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\np-      « \r\noC       e \r\n\r\nu  o \r\n\r\nc  \u003c¦ \r\n\r\nALL \r\nENTS \r\n\r\n•a*             \u003c \r\n\r\nm  r-t \r\no  %o \r\n\r\nf4  CO \r\n00  — * \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n1 \r\nJ \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\na  «r \r\n\r\n4  u\u003e \r\n\r\n0(MM« \r\n\r\n*1    M   P-   mt \r\n\r\n(M    CO \r\n\r\nv0  cc \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\no  —  **¦ \r\n\r\nCM   «-    O \r\n\r\nP\"  c  0\u003e \r\n\r\n1 \r\nt\\       in \r\n\r\n1-          UN \r\n\r\nr-      p- \r\n\r\nPJ   «N  UN \r\nO   CM  H \r\n\r\n\u003e  *pn  p-  «r  oU»p-r-«o  w      m      un \r\nj\u003c  «  4  00  tf\u003e  \u003cr  a\u003e  010  9\u003e  n      |P4      0 \r\n-auNp-p-uNCMmuNi«»r«ar'4r      un      »^ \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\na      t \r\n\r\nu  \u003c \r\n\r\nat  •\"\"* \r\n\r\nCM  03 \r\n\r\nIN \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\na.      : \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\na  o. \r\n\r\n»¦* \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nUl        « \r\n\r\n\u003c  «* \r\n\r\nu,  •-• \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nml \r\n\r\n*o \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\ni \r\nltd \r\n\r\nr- \r\no* \r\n\r\np* \r\n\r\nUl  h- \r\n\r\nt-  z \r\n\r\n\"t  Ul \r\n\r\n¦»             1 \r\n\r\nCO         \u003c \r\n\r\nO        1 \r\n\r\n«N  a* \r\na  — \r\n\r\n—  CO \r\n\r\nCf \r\n\r\n«o  o \r\n\r\n\u003cvi  O \r\n\r\n-4  CJ\u003e  \u003cM  »¦* \r\n\r\niM  r-jo  -r \r\n¦«¦  trt  \u003co  oo \r\n\r\nO  P- \r\n\r\n00  \u003col \r\n1-  CO \r\n\r\no  «»  en \r\n\r\nUN  •¦  «n \r\n4-  —  o \r\n\r\nm»             -*   Pa- \r\npal          P-    'M \r\n\r\nco       O  «r \r\n\r\np- \r\nO \r\n\r\nP4 \r\n\r\n•0  m \r\nm  «o \r\n\r\np»  m \r\n\r\nO  O  «M  UN  (Pal  CO  O  0»  |P4           0\u003e          \u003c*1 \r\n0\u003e\u003eC\u003cNp«lUNOp*PMPalOP'           fl          \u003c0 \r\na000UNCMa«tOUNUNPn          UN          fPi \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nOf \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nX  «-i \r\n\r\ncm  r- \r\n\r\nrv \r\n\r\npa \r\n\r\nm9 \r\n\r\n«\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nx  a. \r\n\r\n-\u003c \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nOf \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nu  z \r\n\r\n\u003c  Ul \r\n\r\n— »      1 \r\n\r\np- \r\no \r\n\r\nCO  «*¦ \r\n\r\n-*  ID \r\n\r\npi \r\n\r\nea \r\n\r\nPI \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nr-  cm \r\n\r\nen  p- \r\nm  ir\u003e \r\n\r\nP«l  PS/ \r\n\r\ntn  cnl \r\n\r\n^  P3 \r\n\r\n»  tfi \r\n\r\no  \u003co \r\n\r\nm*    \u0026 \r\n\r\ncm  mj \r\n\r\nm  p*i \r\n\r\n\u003e4\"  f \r\nCM   f\" \r\nP-  P\" \r\n\r\nrm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n0«         CM  H \r\n\r\nm       0  «fl \r\np-      m  it \r\n\r\nP4- \r\n\r\n(«N  p\u003c \r\n\r\np-  cei \r\nun  in \r\n\r\no»  m  p«in  p»  p« \r\non  p«  pn  \u003co  (cm  «o \r\n\r\nON  P~  CO  pal  fl  fl \r\n\r\nptoin       P» \r\n\r\n«f\"-*  p»       P- \r\nar -r  m      *• \r\n\r\n» \r\nCO \r\n\r\nu\u003e \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\n-1    »H \r\n\r\n•w \r\n\r\n\u003cV  (f» \r\n\r\n** \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nas  a. \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\nec \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\nj \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\nU. \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\n¦ \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\npa) \r\n\r\na: \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nS3 \r\n\r\n23 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n0s  trt \r\no  r- \r\n\r\n¦4  «t1 \r\nca  in \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nCO  P- \r\n\r\np-  \u003eo \r\n\r\nm  tn \r\no  — \r\n«n  p- \r\n\r\nm  cm \r\n\r\nP-OH \r\n\r\n«o  CO \r\n\r\np.  o \r\n\r\np*  r- \r\n•o  o \r\n\r\noo  «r \r\n\r\nAC \r\n4)  C \r\n\r\npa \r\n\r\nUN \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nm      «»» u\u003e \r\n\r\nCO        CO  — \r\n\r\nr-       \u003co  «o \r\n\r\np4  0\u003e \r\n\r\nO  a0 \r\naJTPM \r\n\r\npal \r\n\r\nCO  a* \r\nCM  CM! \r\nCO  O \r\n\r\nf»  p- \r\n\r\naT    P* \r\nCO  fa- \r\n\r\n¦P*  aaTl \r\nO   ON) \r\n\r\n\"-CM \r\n\r\nON   ^ \r\n\r\nO  CO \r\nUN  O \r\n\r\npal \r\n\r\nUN  Pal  p* \r\n\r\n000 \r\n•0  un  Sin \r\n\r\nO \r\np— \r\n«o \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\np* \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nmf \r\n\r\n3: \r\n\r\nuiejj \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\"I \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nC \r\np\u003e \r\n31 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nUIKJ \r\n\r\n-1  zl \r\n\u003c  Ui \r\n\r\n(A \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr«*»-i \r\n\r\nCO  «M \r\n\r\nIM  mi \r\n\r\n•       C \r\n9 \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\np-^ \r\n\r\nmt  P- \r\n\r\n«  in \r\npfl  O* \r\n\r\nP»  CO \r\n\r\n¦0  U*\\ \r\n•G  P- \r\n\r\n-J3  UN \r\nf—  P- \r\n\r\nCO  P\" \r\n\r\nCM \r\n0\u003e \r\n\r\nM\u003e        CM  co \r\n\r\n¦O          CN  PM \r\nP»         COP^ \r\n\r\np»o \r\n\r\n0  mi \r\n\r\nO   pa- \r\n\r\nCO  Pal \r\n\r\n\u003er  u\\ \r\narm \r\n\r\nCO  p- \r\n\r\np4  p* \r\nP»  9 \r\n\r\n0  cr \r\n\r\nON  CM \r\n\r\nCM  Pal \r\n\r\n.reM \r\n\r\nUN    a0 \r\nCMVfN \r\n\r\nP-aO  P* \r\n\r\np-  •*-  p~ \r\n\r\nCM  aT  fP) \r\n\r\nr»p \r\n\r\npat \r\n\r\n•r \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4^* \r\n\r\np* \r\n\r\n' \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nul \r\nUl \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n1 \r\n\r\nx  H \r\n\r\ncn  «\u003e \r\n\r\n^« \r\n\r\n•*• \r\n\r\nl^H \r\n\r\nass: \r\n\r\nI      ui \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\no\u003c \r\n\r\ni       GC) \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\neC \r\n\r\nX'JJ \r\n\r\nOJi-i  -Ji  — \r\n\r\no  m  ¦\u0026  \u003e*\" \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nlf(  \u003co  «*¦ \r\n\r\ncm  r- \r\n\r\ncc  \u003cx \r\n\r\nMvaco  c \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\nCO      1  ^  »\u003e \r\n\r\nm  0 \r\n\r\nQ           (J \r\n\r\nm  cojo  p- \r\n\r\n•   •*  *   * \r\n\r\nO  O \r\n\r\n•\u003e    • \r\n\r\np*f- \r\n\r\n•     • \r\n\r\nm  pr» \r\n\r\n•  • \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n% \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nu»o \r\n\r\n•   • \r\nfi  \u003c«i \r\n\r\n•   • \r\n\r\ni  co  m \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\ni  •  ¦ \r\n\r\n0»  fM \r\n\r\n•   • \r\nP-  \u003eo \r\n\r\nmi  CO \r\n\r\n•     i \r\nCM  P» \r\n\r\nmt \r\n\r\ni  •    *   •   i \r\n\r\n4  03  CM  CM  f\\ \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nP-     |C \r\n\r\nCM          - \r\n\r\n3  p- \r\n\r\n\"1  CN \r\n\r\nO*   p4 \r\n\r\n0  en \r\nCM \r\n\r\nUN   p* \r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM  v0 \r\n\r\np« \r\n\r\nmi  — 1 \r\n\r\npa) \r\n\r\nCM  p*  O \r\npal  mi  CM \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\np4 \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nocaa \r\n\r\n\u003e--j \r\n\r\n\u003c!      as \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\n«j \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\n1     *\" \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nZee \r\n\r\nl_ \r\n\r\n•1*52 \r\n\r\n•w. \r\n\r\n^  c \r\n\r\ni  m  ^ \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nP\" \r\n\r\n»^^. \r\n\r\n1  CM  0* \r\n\r\nCM  0* \r\n•   •     I \r\n\r\n\u003eo  c \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\nJp~  ^ \r\n\r\ni  •   \u003c \r\n\r\n¦  CO  \\C \r\n]  0\u003e  IN \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nin      » \r\n\r\n9 \r\n\r\n¦1  c \r\n\r\n0      4 \r\n\r\no  a \r\n\r\nUN  CM \r\n\r\n1     •     « \r\n\r\naf\u003eCO \r\n\r\n•-     • \r\n\r\n^00 \r\n\r\n•   • \r\n\r\nP-  ON \r\n\r\n•      • \r\n\r\nO  p« \r\n•     • \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nON \r\n» \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n4\u003e \r\n\r\nilk \r\n\r\n5*, \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\na \r\n1 \r\n\r\nS)uO \r\n-1  \u003c \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni        \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c      \u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nm*  Pv \r\n\r\n1     •     * \r\n\r\n1  CM  OC \r\n\r\nCI  0\" \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO          ( \r\n\r\n«r     c \r\n\r\nPi  OC \r\n\r\np»  ^* \r\n\r\nO    P4 \r\n\r\no»  m \r\n\r\n1  PM  P\" \r\nIfPI \r\n\r\nmi    vO \r\n\r\ncm  m \r\n\r\nUN  UN \r\n\r\npavpal \r\n\r\nO  UN \r\nCM- \r\n\r\n•r  co \r\n\r\nCM  CM \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\nP- \r\nCM \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\nzu \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n03  2 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nq~ \r\n\r\n-\u003c \r\n\r\ns5 \r\n\r\n^-  % \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003c»- \r\n\r\nu\u003c \r\n\r\nj \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\n\u003e•\u003c/» \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n} \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUiUl \r\n\r\n.jp- \r\n\r\n\u003c  Q:p*  0! \r\n\r\nKtf'IC \r\nO  \u003c  V-  « \r\n\r\nno \r\n\r\nra  «\u003c \r\nirt  u \r\n\r\n^0   -4 \r\n\r\n1  \u003c0  w \r\n\r\n1  «o  0 \r\n\r\nI        \u003c \r\n•        C \r\n\r\no»  p»  m  o  p« \r\n\r\nO  (*\\  P4  \u003co  rv \r\n\r\ncm  ad  p»i  \u003ed  co  it \r\nCO  u\\  ao  p*  en  cc \r\n\r\nCM  mi  (M  rr\\  *f  If \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n!«     « \r\n\r\nlaO            « \r\n1  Pat \r\n\r\nn  \\r \r\n3  P- \r\n4-  - \r\n\r\n-a  0 \r\n\r\n•P4  P« \r\n\r\ni  0  u \r\n\r\n1  Pal  0 \r\n•-•  p \r\n\r\n4  CO  ON \r\n\r\nJ0»  p- \r\n\r\nCO  OC \r\n\r\np-p- \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nlUN  G \r\nUN  P- \r\n\r\nmt    pa \r\n\r\nlO  — \r\n\r\nun  m \r\n\r\n|Pal   CM \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\np* \r\n03 \r\nIM \r\n\r\nUN \r\nO \r\n\r\n1  ** \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nnu \r\n\r\n»-  X       u|  — \r\n\r\n(M  r4  f*  in         ^1 \r\n\r\ni         1      \" \r\n\r\n»^ \r\n\r\nPal \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003cU1 \r\n\r\n\u003cCCH \r\n\r\ni         - \r\n\r\n'             ' \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003e•_» \r\n\r\nO  \u003c1 \r\n\r\n} \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni             j \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003cai \r\n\r\nU.  Ul \r\n\r\n!      I \r\n\r\n1         ; \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nH  Ul'  U  fli  - \r\nZ  I  p»  \u003c  p* \r\niil  1-  X  ui  o \r\n\r\n*:      ui  \u003e»  — \r\n\r\nc  -*  o  a      »¦ \r\n«r  r«i  pa  r-      u \r\n\r\ntm  £J\u003e  CT   «J»          C \r\nO   ON   *          «\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003ci  frt  \u003c•  P4  \" \r\n\r\nru  \u003e*•  ir\u003e  m  p\u003e \r\n\r\n03  «0  p\"  01  P»  f» \r\n\r\nhOiflOh'C \r\n\r\n\u003cm  o  r»  o  in  r* \r\n^*-p-  r«i  (M  p»  \u003c \r\n\r\n^      '  \u003eo \r\n1  v0         CM \r\n\r\ni^  i a   ! \r\n\r\n4-  p\" \r\n\r\n-^  c \r\ntn  in \r\n\r\nPll  P*N  O  P\"l  0\"\u003e  0C \r\n\r\nj  cm  tn  p-  C\"  un  o- \r\n\r\nJ    mi   Psl   UN    \u003c0-  CM    \u003e* \r\n\r\nP«J       ,  f*  CV  CM \r\n\r\nO  C \r\n\r\n•~a  «- \r\n\r\nm  p* \r\n\r\n\"OP \r\n)  UN  «£ \r\n\r\n4|fO    P\" \r\n\r\n1  pat   0\" \r\n\r\n),P-  -o \r\niir—  p° \r\n\r\niimpi \r\n\r\nco \r\nco \r\n\r\npal \r\n\r\nip« \r\n(M \r\nP» \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n1  CO \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\njaO \r\n\r\ni       1 \r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n! \r\n1 \r\n\r\nim \r\n\r\nJiQ \r\n\r\n^  CU         fM          \u003ei \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n1               1 \r\n\r\n^* \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n_J  C  \u003c     ' \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n¦ \r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni               1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\na  u.  o \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\\          j \r\n\r\n1       1 \r\n\r\n1                              | \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\n0C        \u003c     , \r\n\r\n•-      • \r\n\r\nUi                  ! \r\n\r\n;        i \r\n|        1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni        1 \r\ni        i \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n1 \r\n| \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1         1 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nZO  H|UI \r\n\r\ni           1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nl \r\n1 \r\n1 \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\n1 \r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n'                 1 \r\n1 \r\n\r\n! \r\nI \r\n\r\ni  ! \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nj \r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n1 \r\ni \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\nj \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\ni \r\n\r\ni           • \r\nj           i \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\nj \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n!      • \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n5  1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nj \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n-1 \r\nO \r\n0 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\ni \r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n!  - \r\n\r\nj \r\n\r\n1       ! \r\n\r\n1           ! \r\n\r\n•a \r\n\r\np» \r\n*»» \r\n\r\naTr- \r\nCMoC \r\n\r\n~»UJ \r\n\r\n!o \r\n\r\nUJ\u003c \r\n\r\no»z \r\n\r\nUtUJ \r\n0CQ \r\n\r\no-r\u003e \r\n\r\n¦p- \r\n\r\njUl \r\n\r\nn-j \r\nm\u003c \r\n«o \r\nviz \r\n\r\nc4\u003c \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\npa| \r\n\r\nt— \r\n\r\nT* \r\np- \r\n•-* \r\n\r\nH \r\nH \r\n\r\ni \r\ni \r\n\r\n• \r\n\u003c \r\n\u003c \r\n( \r\nI \r\nI \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nt— \r\n\r\nu. \r\na \r\n\r\nSfl \r\n3 \r\n11 \r\n\r\nJ. \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nH \r\ni/» \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nt/1 \r\n\r\n\u003ei \r\n\r\nt— \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-J \r\no \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\ni-» \r\nUl \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n!\u003c \r\n\r\n,  \u003e-» \r\n\r\n\u003e•  o \r\n\r\n1-  0C \r\n\r\nM    O \r\n\r\nVI  UJ \r\nOC  V? \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003e  u. \r\n\r\nH«    C \r\n\r\n3  UJ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nU  Ui \r\n\r\nK  -I \r\n\r\n\u003c  -I \r\n\r\nH  C \r\n\r\nto  o \r\n\r\n^_J \r\n\r\n\u003e-»  \u003c \r\nt*:  »- \r\n\r\nq  O \r\nU    Ul \r\n\r\n1 \r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\na, \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\u003e? \r\n\r\nft \r\n\\n \r\n\r\n04 \r\nL'l \r\n\u003e \r\n•-I \r\n\r\n«: \r\ni-' \r\n\r\n0. \r\n\r\n:i \r\n\r\nr'i \r\n\r\no: \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n:  uj \r\na \r\n\r\n1    UJ \r\nUl   _J \r\n\r\nO  -1 \r\nUl  O \r\n\r\n-1  -1 \r\n\r\nCI  'JJ \r\n\r\na  i- \r\n.  \u003cr \r\n\r\nUl  1- \r\nH\"  Ul \r\n\r\n1—  O \r\n\r\nUJ  z \r\n\r\ni  a \r\n\r\n7*1- \r\n\r\n•n  •\u003c: \r\n\r\nJ  OC \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\ni    ! \r\n\r\ni      ( \r\n\r\ni   ' \r\n\r\n!          ! \r\n\r\nai  i \r\n\r\nUJ   'J \r\n\r\n'U  -i \r\n_)  -i \r\n_J  c \r\n\r\n3° \r\n\r\n\u003c  3 \r\n\r\nh»  If \r\n\r\n^  r \r\n\r\n3  3 \r\n\r\na  -j \r\n\r\n3  O \r\n\r\nuj    ! \r\n\r\n1  O      I \r\n:UI \r\nL              !  -I \r\n\r\n•  Ui  -i \r\n1          O  O \r\n\r\nWO            LU    t \r\n_J          LU   CO  ( \r\n\r\na  a  l'J  j  . \r\n\r\nU    -U    _J    _l \r\n\r\nhj; \r\n^  u\u003e  a  u \r\n\r\ne    IU  0C  Ui   U \r\n\r\n•  OU3      i   'JJ \r\n/    LU  Z~.  X   \u003c  \u003e— \r\n\r\n_J  1—  h-  \u003e-t   \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003e  _j  3  3  a  p- \r\n\r\n*  o  a  c  c*;  ui \r\n\r\ni      u  x \r\n\r\n•  1    ««  *i  \u003c  C3   \u003c \r\n5    ¦_\u003e  H  «      IZ \r\n\r\nl!  11  LJ  s  ? \r\n1-    at  ni  -\u003c  »-i  \u003c \r\n\r\nr  o  n  a  si  \u003e \r\nC  •_'  uj  :  j  n  \u003c \r\nu  l\"  i.i  o  i;  -i \r\n\r\nI         1 \r\n\r\n-1  LU \r\n\r\n:  -j \r\n\r\n.\u003e  -j \r\n:j \r\n\r\nJLl  0 \r\n\r\n«:  \u003c \r\n\r\n1/'    L3 \r\n\r\n-a:  0 \r\n\r\nK  U! \r\n\r\n1/1  O \r\n\r\n\u003c-• \r\n\r\nP  W \r\n_l  Vi \r\n\r\n1:  IU \r\n\r\n5  1   7! \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n]        : \r\n\r\nL  ' \r\n\r\n15 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1  0. \r\n,  3 \r\n\r\niS \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\u003c \r\n0; \r\n3 \r\n1— \r\n-1 \r\n3 \r\nO  I \r\n»-•  I \r\noC  1 \r\nJ  . \r\n\u003c  . \r\nc \r\n:?  * \r\n?-• \r\ny \r\nO  ' \r\n\r\nml     \u003e \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\na'  : \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\nJ  O  . \r\n\r\n.1   LU  ( \r\n\r\nL       ml    1 \r\n\r\n.  —1 \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\n.:  c \r\n\r\n-      t-4 \r\n\r\n-  rz \r\n\r\n?    3 \r\n\r\n:   -1 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nJ\"  ^ \r\n\r\najj    \u003c \r\n\r\nJ\"       mi \r\n\r\n_    H» \r\n\u003c     \u003c \r\n\r\n1 \r\n! \r\n\r\n3  Ul \r\n\r\nJU  0 \r\n-1    UJ \r\n\r\n-J     ml \r\n\r\n3  -J \r\n\r\nJ  O \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nai \r\n\r\n3  CC \r\n\r\n-  O \r\nz  *- \r\n\r\nr»  ^ \r\n\r\n-1  3 \r\n-\u003e \r\nUJ \r\n\r\nlo  ^ \r\n\r\nQ  U \r\n\r\nM    P* \r\n\r\nm  -x \r\n\r\n'  1   ui \r\njr.  Tt \r\n\r\nM  3 \r\n\u003c  QC \r\n\r\ni      c \r\n\r\n1  I \r\n\r\ni      c \r\njj \r\n\r\nj  UJ  r \r\nJJ  O  c \r\n\r\nJUi   \u003e \r\n\r\nmi    mi    i \r\n\r\n3  -j  : \r\n\r\nU  3  \" \r\n0 \r\n\r\nas       ; \r\n\r\nmi  o  ; \r\nrr  •-•  : \r\n3  r:  '. \r\n\r\na  2\"  1 \r\n1—  0  • \r\n\r\n\u003e  r-  ¦ \r\n¦\u003cK  -1 \r\nJ  \u003c \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nJ           L \r\n\r\n:      l \r\n\r\n4    c \r\n\r\nJ  Ul   (. \r\n-4  O \r\n\r\na  ui  ( \r\n;  -1  c \r\ni  _i  ? \r\n0  : \r\n-|u: \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\nE  * \r\n^  3  I \r\n=  —  • \r\n\r\n3  ¦ \r\n\r\n_   -\u003e \r\n\r\n3  e \r\ny  \u003e \r\n\r\nti  0 \r\n1  -1 \r\n\r\nJ    u. \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\ny \r\nji \r\n\r\nJ.          L \r\nJ          •- \r\n\r\ni  Ul  L \r\n\r\nJ  0  . \r\n\r\nLU  . \r\n\r\nSC   -1   a \r\n\r\n3  -1  \u003c. \r\n\r\n*o \r\n\r\n:\u003e      \u003c \r\n\r\n,0 \r\n\r\n_*  z  ¦ \r\n\r\n-1  3 \r\n-»  -I \r\n\r\nsJ \r\n\r\n/•  z \r\nju  a \r\n.r  a \r\n\r\n-*  C\u003cC \r\n\r\n\u003c  0 \r\n\r\nIS  13 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\nui \r\n\r\n3        U \r\n\r\nu       C \r\n\r\nJ  Ul  u \r\n\r\nJ  0  - \r\n\r\nJ    LU    _ \r\n\r\nJ  JC \r\n\r\n-J   L. \r\n\r\ntf  c \r\n\r\nn    U   a» \r\n-a            p \r\n--it \r\n\r\nD:C  0 \r\n\r\n-»•-  c \r\n\r\nZ  u \r\n\r\n\u003cc  -1 \r\n\r\n/*        u \r\n\r\ni\\  T  - \r\nz-o  c \r\nz.  u  c \r\n1/  «  »= \r\n\r\nr: \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n:  ui \r\n\r\nj  0 \r\n\r\ni  UJ \r\n\r\ni  -1 \r\n\r\n'     ml \r\n)    O \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n«  \u003c \r\n\r\n5  4-4 \r\nI  L3 \r\n\r\n:  \u003cjc \r\n\r\nj  n \r\n\r\nJ  L'J \r\n(J \r\n\r\nJ \r\nJ  T \r\n\r\n:  p- \r\n:  3 \r\n-  0 \r\n.  u» \r\n\r\ni \r\nI \r\n\r\nL \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nK \r\nO \r\n1— \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n:  3 \r\n\r\ni  u \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\ni \r\n1 \r\n\r\nj \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nL \r\n\r\n;  p- \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nIU \r\n|U1 \r\n\r\n•   pal \r\n\r\n¦  u. \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni     1 \r\nI     | \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\n1          i \r\nt          • \r\n1 \r\n\r\n1     i \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n|                     1 \r\n\r\n1   LI \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n¦* \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n.     1 \r\n\r\n'.  i \r\n\r\n1.. \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\nL \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nl \r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1    e \r\n\r\n•! \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n-N \r\n\r\n1 \r\n1 \r\n\r\n•C  CC \r\n\r\nHo \r\n(v  ex \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\nI \r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nec \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\nec \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nC \r\nu \r\n\r\nCT \r\n\r\nas\u003c \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\nZO \r\n\r\nuiec \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c\u003e \r\n\r\nCUCQ \r\nUl \r\n\r\nas  a \r\n\r\nUl \r\nUiO \r\n\r\nooc \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003c \r\n\r\naeae \r\n\r\ne\u003c\u003c \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nU.IO \r\n\r\nec \r\n\r\na\u003c \r\n\r\nz-» \r\n\r\n— -i \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nx\u003c \r\n\r\nlO*- \r\n\r\nrtfQ \r\n\u003cl- \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\na \r\nx \r\nu \r\nt/» \r\n\r\n\r\ni \r\ni \r\n\r\n\r\nfMOC \r\n\r\n\\o \r\n\r\n^«UI \r\n.  DC \r\nI. \r\n\r\no2 \r\n\r\nUJ  \u003c \r\n\r\na: \r\n««- \r\n\r\na*z \r\n\r\nUJ  tu \r\n\r\n-\u003co \r\n\r\n;  H \r\n1  to \r\n\r\n¦a  -j \r\n.*i  \u003c \r\nO \r\ntoz \r\n\r\n\r\nir \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nto)-» \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nI-     I \r\nI       I \r\n\r\n\u003c  x\u003c  »-»o \r\n\r\no  to \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nu \r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\ntut  I   «/*  — \r\n\r\n»—  0£  Q-\u003cM \r\n\r\n»-»  X  — \r\n»-»o  «oi \r\n\r\nXX      I \r\n\r\n^    ! \r\n\r\n\r\n3  \u003c  oc  a.  .* \r\n\r\n•-  O  _l  X  — \r\nHwCtrt \r\ntO  H\"  X       ' \r\nZ        U \r\n•-•       in \r\n\r\n\r\nZ  3  H-  LU \r\n\r\n\r\n2 \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nu \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e-i        u. \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n»- \r\n\r\n3  ui  u3 \r\n\r\n.  X  »- \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\nM  U.  IO \r\n\r\n!  a     ; \r\nh     \u003e* \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nJ \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nl \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\r\n=1 \r\n\r\n\r\nto  *n \r\n\r\n•i \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no  o \r\no  \u003cn \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nCD  ¦*¦ \r\nO  O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nooi       c\\ \r\no\u003e  q      a \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e*•  o      u\u003e \r\n«o  «o      © \r\n\r\n\r\no  «-• \r\nm  \u003co \r\n\r\n\r\n«M \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n-J     I \r\n\r\n§  ! \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\no  \u003e• \r\n\r\nUJ  h- \r\n\r\nl-  «-• \r\n\r\nU.    QC \r\n\r\na  uj \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nUJ    1-4 \r\n\r\nt-  z \r\n3  3 \r\nH-  ¦ \r\n•-t  Ul \r\nH-  H- \r\nt/»  *\u003c \r\nZ  H- \r\nn-  iO \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nuj  \u003c \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nu.  a: \r\n\r\no  a \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n•jj  a \r\na \r\n\r\na.  u. \r\n_j  a \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\no  \u003e» \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  -4  _J  tO \r\n\r\nH  fl   \u003c  Oj \r\n\r\nm  a  u  iu \r\n\r\nor.  a:  •-¦  \u003e \r\n\r\nC  a  a  m \r\n\r\nu1  U  in  2 \r\n\r\near  q \r\n\r\n\r\nJ \r\n\r\nKM \r\n\r\n\r\n«n  cm  r— \r\no  r-|r- \r\n\r\nO  O3|0 \r\n\r\n\r\n.\"J( \r\n\r\n\r\na  in \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\ned  n  -^  oin \r\n\r\n^  co  «—  IM  «c \r\n\r\n\r\n•*  \u003c0  l\u003c\u003e  «B   vC \r\n\r\n\r\n!        !• \r\n\r\nm  \u003co  m  p»  c \r\nfr-  rg  tr\\  «-  it \r\n-q  \u003cv*  »^  in  r- \r\n\r\n•  »  •  « \r\nt\u003e  -*  \u003c~\u003c  -c  If \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nLU \r\n¦J\u003e \r\nUJ \r\n\r\nJ \r\n_) \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nJJ \r\na \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nI-  lO \r\n\r\nvt \r\n\r\nh-  O \r\n\r\nto  z \r\n\r\n!  o \r\n\u003e*  ft \r\n\r\ny»  }\u003e. \r\n\r\n\u003c  in \r\n\r\no;  \u003e. \r\n\r\n-J  0£ \r\n\r\n1\" \r\n\r\n\r\no  o  in \r\nm  a  to \r\n\r\n\r\nO  vO \r\n««¦  CO \r\n\r\n\r\nMl \r\n\r\n\r\nMO \r\nr»ua \r\noio \r\n\r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\n^  o \r\n\r\n03  •* \r\n\r\nru  vj \r\n\r\n\r\nIO  \u003c\u003e \r\n\r\n•*•  o \r\n\r\n\r\nm!«n \r\n\r\nCO:  *?» \r\n\r\n¦or- \r\n\r\nCO  ^4 \r\n\r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cUI \r\n\r\n'  -J \r\n\r\nUl  _l \r\n\r\no  a \r\n\r\nUIO \r\n\r\n_j \r\n-J  z \r\n\r\na  ec \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nm        ao \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\nco  tn \r\n\r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nr%  f-  f~  r-  «m iin \r\n\r\n»  *     »     M    • \r\n\r\nr\\  ~*  ri  m1  r_i \r\n\r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n(VI \r\n\r\n\r\nIT. \r\n\r\n\r\ncm  tn \r\n\r\nco  c \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\no      i«0 \r\n\r\n\r\no  co \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nZ«o \r\n\u003c  iu  cfi  Ul \r\n\r\n(/    Ui  XX \r\n\r\n_l  ?-  k- \r\ni.  3  o  a \r\n\r\n.    Ul^l/l \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\nO'lL* \r\n\r\n?¦¦  ?£  ai  \u003c*; \r\nc   3  q  C \r\n\r\nt    mdit \r\nu  u  o \r\n\r\n\r\nui  ul \r\nui  o  o \r\no  UJ  iu  ui \r\n\r\nU  J  JU \r\n\r\nJ    -I    JU \r\n\r\n-JQC \r\n3UC \r\nU \r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\no  ** \r\nO  CO \r\n\r\n\r\nm  r-  a» \r\n«r  o  o \r\n\r\n\r\nOON \r\nN \r\n\r\n\r\nOHiinM^ \r\no  ooi  ^-  a^- \r\nr»-r-  f-  ^o \r\n\r\n\r\n— i  O  C0-.0 \r\n\r\n\r\nim \r\n\r\n\r\nj\u003e  i- \r\n\r\nQi    IO   CO \r\n\r\nUJ  I    -J \r\n\r\no  \u003c \r\n\r\n-?  is. \r\n\r\nr~.  z  r \r\n\r\ni—  \u003c  c \r\n\r\no-  \u003e \r\n\r\nO  \u003c  \u003ct \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c         V- \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\nO      !h- \r\nr\u003c \r\nrj \r\n\r\nU      ' \r\nO      | \r\no. \r\n\r\nI-         3 \r\n\r\n•  o     iO \r\n\r\nUJ         c£ \r\n\r\nJ  43 \r\n\r\n\r\n32 \r\n\r\n\r\no  in  !*¦  cm|o» \r\n\r\nm  r-to»  \u003crhn  «n \r\n\r\n»  •)  •»  » \r\n\r\n.O  ^J*IO\u003e   CD \r\n^  IM  \u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nO  \u003cJ\"  *M  CO  «*»  f\u003e» \r\n\r\nr-\u003e*-:(M  oin  \u003c*^ \r\n\r\n\r\nm  -o  \u003c0'0  co \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nO   CO  Of  CO \r\n\r\no  r»  \u003eo.«r \r\n\r\n•\u003c    •    «4    •» \r\n(M)*4  f^l \r\n\r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nOV \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n«M \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n«« \r\n\r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\n\r\n«M \r\n\r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM        llfl \r\n\r\n\r\n:  *3       i  m3 \r\n\r\nI  •»   i  •\u003e \r\n\r\n0* \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nI  \u003c \r\n\r\n!  t- \r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n!  o. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nae \r\n\r\n-• \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nMO \r\n\r\nXI  a. \r\n\r\ncm  ec \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nujJqc \r\n\r\n\u003cui \r\n\r\n\r\n»4, \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\nec \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\nuji \r\nec \r\n\r\n3X \r\n\r\na\u003c \r\n\r\nw  ec \r\nltd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-C£ \r\n\r\nza. \r\nur \r\n\r\n\r\n«;\u003c \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nuieeT \r\n\r\nSCO \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\na  to \r\nu \r\nas** \r\noct- \r\nane \r\n\r\nkL,-4 \r\n\r\n2SH- \r\n—  «/\u003e \r\n\r\nMO \r\n0_UJ \r\n\r\n«-*r- \r\n\r\nx  u \r\ni/riu \r\n\r\nerr-J \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nX \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\nKO \r\n\r\n\r\n4-K \r\nOJOi \r\n^O \r\n\r\n-4  ft. \r\n\r\n74  uj \r\n\r\naC \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nI  O \r\nDm \r\n\r\nLU\u003c \r\n\r\nor \r\n\u003cp- \r\n\r\niuuj \r\nOCQ \r\nftJ.3 \r\n\r\nio \r\n\r\nuojj \r\ncol\u003c \r\n««3 \r\nv»: \r\n\r\n\r\nai  o \r\n\r\nO  or \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\na:  3: \r\n\r\naj  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nft. \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nor \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\nor \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\na: \r\niu \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n_» to \r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c  z  o \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\na:  -4 \r\nO  ft. \r\nM \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nujr-  — \r\n\r\nr-  Z  oo \r\ni—  UJ \r\n\r\nx«- \r\n\r\nXft. \r\n\r\n74 \r\n\r\nu \r\nai \r\nec \r\n\r\nO  Zit- \r\n\r\n\u003c  ujio \r\n\r\n_J   1-4  — \r\n\r\nCD  ft. \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ  r— ~ \r\n-J  Z-O \r\n\r\n\u003c  uiiO \r\n\r\nuj  a.  I \r\nu»  •— »| \r\n\r\n«¦\u003e \r\n\r\nUJ| \r\n\r\no£j \r\n\r\nuj  i-|— . \r\n-J  z.m \r\n\r\n\u003c  UiO \r\n\r\n\r\nO.I \r\n\r\nu: \r\ntu: \r\n\r\nat, \r\n\r\n\r\ni  a*fc  — \r\n\r\nt  u  «¦* \r\n\r\nw\u003c  _l  o \r\n\r\nUJ|_I  -I  — \r\n\r\nO  03  O; \r\n\r\n\u003c       ec, \r\nH-     Z'      • \r\nZ      iu; \r\ntu \r\nu \r\n\r\nec'.x:  to  — \r\n\r\nuj'u  o  m \r\n\r\na;\u003ccc.c \r\n\r\ni  |_i\u003c  — \r\n\r\nI    CD  * \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n_J  WtO  \u003e \r\n\u003c  OIM  OJ.-w \r\n\r\nI-  aCIX  3  cm \r\n\r\no  \u003ct-  o  o \r\n\r\ni-  at     «u  \u003c¦» \r\n\r\n\u003c:os  r- \r\n\r\no  \u003cl \r\n\r\nu.  u \r\n\r\nZ  X  •-•  \u003c  -• \r\n?t  U  O \r\nUi  \u003e  — \r\n\r\njaro \r\nO  u.  u \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\nZO  t-UJ \r\n\r\n\r\nI     74, \r\n\r\nor \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n3'       O \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\n31  Ui  UJ \r\n\r\nX  r- \r\n«—,  I—  VI \r\n\r\ntJu,  in \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n\r\nVI \r\n\r\n\r\nto1 \r\nor \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n74. \r\nZ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nin  o \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ncm  o \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\u003eo  in \r\n\r\n\r\n0*  in \r\n\u003co  r- \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no  05 \r\n\r\nco  m \r\n\r\n\r\n¦*•  -o \r\n\r\n\r\nin  o \r\n\r\n•*\u003e  ro \r\n-Dr- \r\n\r\n\r\nvO  o \r\n\r\nm  eo \r\n\r\n\r\noo  eo \r\nm  o \r\n\u003eo  m \r\n\r\n\r\n03  **¦ \r\n\r\nCM  f- \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\neo \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\n•i  •  •\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nen  o  cm  m \r\n\r\n•j  •   • \r\nco  t»lo  o» \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nrsi  m  cm  ml \r\n\r\nC7\u003e  m|o  oo, \r\nCj\u003e  HM  ¦4-I \r\n\r\n\r\n^4l  (Ni \r\n\r\n\r\nc  ^o  c  «-• \r\n\r\n^  o«  ec  sti  po \r\n\r\no  CO  cm  «*¦'  \u003eo \r\n\r\ni-t  CM         CM  -O \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-J \r\na \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\nO  V  O       ! \r\n\r\nuj  y-  ec     ' \r\n»-  »-•  o \r\n\r\ntS)  uu  \u003c \r\nU.0£Om \r\n\r\na  iu      o \r\n\r\n\u003e  u.  ac1 \r\nl»J  i-i  c  T \r\n¥-  ZZ         UJ \r\n\r\n3  3UJO' \r\nI-       o \r\n\r\nM  in  uj  u., \r\n\r\nMlrt'UH \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nf  i \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c'_J  l/»' \r\n\r\no  o.tj  u:  o. \r\n\r\nft  OCIfl  \u003e  3 \r\n\r\nUi  ilfU  i!|  of \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM  \u003c0 \r\n\r\nm  f» \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no  f\u003e \r\n\r\nr \r\nop  tn \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n4\u003e \r\n\r\nCO  fO \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•-4  rM \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nr=juis\u003e \r\n-0  m \r\n\r\nCM  CM \r\n\r\n-^aJl'i, \r\n\u003cU  O \r\n\r\nSSJB \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nroim  o \r\n\r\n--  in \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no  o» \r\n\r\no\u003e  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n\u003er  ^\u003e \r\n\r\n¦4 \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\nr-  «o \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003c¦  m \r\n\r\nCM  CO \r\n\r\n\u0026\\  CO \r\n\r\n\u003cn \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nin  -4- \r\n\r\nco  o* \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nro  o \r\n\r\n•4 \r\n\r\nr+  CO \r\n\r\n•*¦ \r\n\r\nt*- \r\n\r\nCO  pg \r\n\r\n«4 \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\nro  im \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nfl\\  «o \r\n\r\nCM  CO \r\n\r\n«M-\u003c0 \r\n\r\n«M \r\n\r\n#0 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no  ^ \r\n\r\n\u003c0  eo \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n•O \r\n\r\nao \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003cD  CM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\neo  \u003c+ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM  CM \r\n\r\nr»  cm \r\n\r\nco  m \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n•O \r\n\r\nfO \r\n\r\nr»» \r\n\r\n7*    O \r\n\r\nCM  CO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no  c» \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\n09 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin  \u003co \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no  « \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm*   « \r\n\r\nCM  flO \r\n\r\ncm  eo \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nfO \r\n\r\no» \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nin  ^r \r\n\r\nco  r- \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\nCO  o \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-r \r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\n^4 \r\n\r\n-r  cm \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nco  ro \r\n\r\nCM  CO \r\n\r\n\u003cm  in \r\n\r\n•4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nc*\u003e \r\n\r\nCO  f- \r\n\r\n0\u003e  in \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\nNO  (M \r\n\r\nl\u003e-  OJ \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nfJ»C \r\n\r\n\u003c-\" \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM  r+ \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nf  CM \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\np*  in \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n0  m \r\n\r\n«4 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n74 \r\n\r\nCM.ec  -4- \r\n\r\nCM  O \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n^-ro \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n¦4- \r\n\r\nCO  w* \r\n\r\n«N \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM  CM \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n«0  CM \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\n*r  cm \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nfH \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n«*•  o» \r\n\r\n¦H  CO \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\no  mim  in \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n«M  CO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO'O  CM \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCM  CO \r\n\r\nO    O \r\n\r\n7-  4T \r\n\r\n-4- \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\no  —  \u003c•* \r\n\r\nro  \u003co \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nr-  r\u003e \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm  * \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\noir-  r- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr-  ~* \r\n\r\nC-  CO \r\n\r\nin  T* \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nmt \r\n\r\n-*¦ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n«*--r \r\n\r\nCO  o \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\neo  r- \r\n\r\ncm  ro \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n^* \r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\n—* \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nro  cm \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\nCM  CO \r\n\r\ncm  m \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM  CO \r\n\r\neo  o \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no  ^* \r\n\r\nr-  in \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nro  cm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\nr»  o \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\ncm  r- \r\n\r\n¦*  O \r\n\r\nCO  00 \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\neo- \r\n\r\n«*i\u003cm  r- \r\n\r\no»  m \r\n\r\nr-'O  \u003e0 \r\n\r\n4-  o \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n*¦  4- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-  ro \r\n\r\nf \r\n\r\n•-\u003e  in \r\n\r\n\u003co  f\u003e \r\n\r\nQt\u003e    00 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n¦s \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n»4  o  m \r\n\r\nCM  0» \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n00  CM \r\n\r\nm4 \r\n\r\n-4  ro \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nfO  CM \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\n\u003e*¦ \r\n\r\nco  \u003er \r\n\r\n-4  m \r\n\r\n74  0 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\n1 \r\nin  '\u003co  ^ \r\n\r\nCM  F- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n-i  \u003co \r\n\r\nco  o \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n-*••#¦ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\no;co  o \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n0  0 \r\n\r\n-*  f»- \r\n\r\nro  co \r\n\r\nrO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n•?  *  m  *  • \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•     »i   •    • \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•     • \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•i  »  » \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•  »-\u003c \r\n\r\n?  • \r\n\r\n*   • \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nCMIO  fMlf-  \u003eo \r\n\r\nIV \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\n00  CMICM  CM \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\no  - \r\n\r\n«4-  roto  co \r\n\r\nvn \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\nNO \r\n\r\nmt   m* \r\n\r\nCM   m* \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n0M        -| \r\n\r\n1    . \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\n«  co \r\n\r\n— • \r\n\r\n—4 \r\n\r\no\u003e  ** \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr+  \u003cM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n«-\u003c \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nF\u003e4 \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\nm*   m* \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n»-« \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n— *«o  CO \r\n\r\nO  f- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^- \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\na  «*• \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nr— \r\n\r\n•rr- \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n\u003c0  in \r\n\r\nt^O \r\n\r\nin  ** \r\n\r\nO   O \r\n\r\nin  in \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n+¦ \r\n\r\nCjVi-l  CM \r\n\r\nC0  \u003cD \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\na  o \r\n\r\nO  «4- \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO   ~4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr-  \u003eo \r\n\r\n\u003ca \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n0  \u003co \r\n\r\nO   O \r\n\r\nr-  •*» \r\n\r\n74 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n0?»i  «^  •-* \r\n\r\nr^    \u003cD \r\n\r\n**•     |0 \r\n\r\nV* \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM  — \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n7-t \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n7* \r\n\r\n74. \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nf* \r\n\r\n^  i \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n«o'  CO  CO \r\n\r\n**   O \r\n\r\n(D \r\n\r\nin  r- \r\n\r\nCM  ^ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nNO \r\n\r\nO  eo \r\n\r\n0»  74 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-CM \r\n\r\n-,* \r\n\r\nO     O \r\n\r\ne\u003e \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n**o  en \r\n\r\n•O   CM \r\n\r\nf\u003e \r\n\r\n»-C|\u003cf  o \r\n\r\n\u003c0 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nr»  ^\u003e \r\n\r\nCM  CO \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nCM  GO \r\n\r\nCO   \u003c0 \r\n\r\n«*¦  \u003co \r\n\r\n74 \r\n\r\n^i- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nf^  *¦*  i-4J  en  ^^ \r\ni \r\n\r\n|      I \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003ca \r\n\r\n0 \r\nm \r\n\r\n!                    1 \r\n\r\n\u003c0  CO   CO   (M   CO \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nr—  co  r*  ro \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e»¦  ro \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO  co \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-\u003er \r\n\r\nro  r» \r\n\r\nCO  ^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n74 \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n¦HlflOHCl \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\no»  m  \u003eo  r-  \u003eoj«D \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm  (O \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\nin  r—  o  m \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n0  0  in  •or-  \u003co \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n£\u003e \r\n\r\n^  co  o  a*  r-« \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n«o  r-  o-tn  r— ice \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-4    £ \r\n\r\nt^ \r\n\r\niNjiiri  ^  fM \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\nm%  m*  m  m  r—  r~ \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nN4  mmN \r\n\r\n\u003c*•  r~co  n\u003e  \u003eo \r\n\r\nr\u003e- \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\nCO   CM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ni««l  CO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nifiNHin \r\n\r\nCO    m* \r\n\r\n74 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\n, \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\n; \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\ni \r\n\r\n74 \r\n\r\ni \r\nj \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\nu\u003e \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n_ \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nlO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nor \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nuj: \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n_i     1 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nO! \r\n\r\nia \r\n\r\nUJ  -J \r\n\r\nh- \r\n\r\no  ui \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nUII \r\n\r\nUi                UJ \r\n\r\ne  o \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\nUJ  o \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n_J          Ui \r\n\r\no            — \r\n\r\nmo       u  uj \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n-J  Ui  Ui \r\n\r\n,       -J        O        UJ \r\n\r\nUJ                 _i \r\n\r\n-J        UI  o  o \r\n\r\nl_i   UJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nJJOU \r\n\r\nor,     a  ui  ui      o \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\nUJ  _J                  CI \r\n\r\n-1  Z  O  UJ  UJ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n— *  o \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no  -J  ui  a \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nUi  l_)  O  _J  UI  Ui \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nO  -1             u \r\n\r\nC    ^  W   _J   _J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nec  uj \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\nu  3  -J  uj \r\n\r\ni— i \r\n\r\nO             UJ    ml    O    — 1 \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\nuj  O \r\n\r\nUUJ  J  J  J \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nO  -i \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nO  -1  -» \r\n\r\nzz \r\n\r\nUI  K   _i  C.UJ  -J \r\n\r\n_' \r\n\r\n-JO                 L' \r\n\r\nt-  _i  r  c \r\n\r\n—I \r\n\r\n\u003c  -I \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n3T'          (\"J   ~i \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n-j  a  -j  ui-j  c \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n_i                iUh \r\n\r\n7(^Cuu \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\na  or  u  o \r\n\r\n\"S \r\n\r\nJmC             _.    UI \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n-3  u ;  ui  o  t \r\n\r\nIU \r\n\r\nCC  '1'  u \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\nZ  i_\u003e \r\n\r\n-  o      a \r\n\r\nC   ^'U  QT'C- \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nOhOUiH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•JJ   3         Ui  UJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nt.^ \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\nz  ?-  or \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n0  31     a  0  \u003c \r\n\r\nml \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n\u003c  x'  _i  in \r\n\r\n'J \r\n\r\n~  ::  \u003c  h  »- \r\n\r\n|  \u003c \r\n\r\n3   *• \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n3  z  a. or \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n-\u003eicx  -11        1— \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n4X \r\n\r\nOJ  H-  -J  -J \r\n\r\n—1 \r\n\r\nr—  h-  \u003e-«.\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nI  \u003e— \r\n\r\n,3  a \r\n\r\n»-* \r\n\r\n\"1  3  —  -3 \r\n\r\n„\"\" \r\n\r\ncr       O  ?  i  c \r\n\r\n74 \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nt—  CO  _j  ^i  s- \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nr\u003e  3  i\"  t-  h- \r\n\r\n\u003e— • \r\n\r\nr*^ \r\n\r\nU  - \r\n\r\n-» \r\n\r\n-i  \".•-• \r\n\r\n^, \r\n\r\n0  w  «  do  »: \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n\"*\"        O.  (-\u003e  - \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nc  a  or  \u003c/\u003e  uo \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nIt- \r\n\r\ni«t  i. \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\nuii     z\u003e.i: \r\n\r\n»-. \r\n\r\n*m    J    ^    -J,pH    O \r\n\r\n-\u003c. \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n1—  O  U.        -J \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\ni/ij  vi  o \r\n\r\nr\u003c \r\n\r\n^-»   ^ \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\nO'y:  -V3 \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n.T  -J  3        'Z  UI \r\n\r\n*J2 \r\n\r\n«/•  rr      ui  _j \r\n\r\nui'r  \u003c \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nj \r\n\r\n,w  =» \r\n\r\no  u      -\u003e \r\n\r\n3  \"4i-S  3'3  \u003cJ \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\nor \r\n\r\na  \u003c'  d  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c'  \u003c0'\u003cl- \r\n\r\n'U \r\n\r\n\"\u003cr \r\n\r\n•\u003c \r\n\r\n«'-- .»' \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n-» \u003ei     \u003c;-\u003e \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e-  n:  ^—  a  \u003e \r\n\r\n?1 \r\n\r\nN4l  t~*         1  Z   'O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n:\u003c  \u003e• \r\n\r\ni— \r\n\r\noc!3:  c  z \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nto'Z  \u003c/ll       Ui \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nr:  h-  i^.  ?: \r\n\r\n(J \r\n\r\nol  i*  x ;  z  - \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nT    7* \r\n\r\n-\"  ,  VI  p—  •  r? \r\n\r\n•71 \r\n\r\nC*  liJO'liiZ.i \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\n0. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  i^  3:  3  H- \r\n\r\nTt \r\n\r\nor.'  .-.£  h-  \u003c  o \r\n\r\n1— \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nZ'  T  \u003e  H \r\n\r\nZI \r\n\r\n\u003e-  z  a  z.a  0 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nu; \r\n\r\nit  \u003c:  i:  j  c: \r\n\r\nc: \r\n\r\no.  n  k  \u003e  _j \r\n\r\n\u003cA \r\n\r\n;  \u003e-i \r\n\r\n\u003ctr  c3 \r\n\r\n—i \r\n\r\n\u003cr*  3  -r,_J \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\na  «.£/.  ?p \r\n\r\nu)  C \r\n\r\nZ? \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nVI \r\n\r\nJ  \u003ei  3  o  'j \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\n•JJ'  u  u-  \u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\n:  a. \r\n\r\n;-n  _i \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u003c     X    J.\u003c \r\n\r\n3^ \r\n\r\n_J  \u003c  O   UJ \r\n\r\n\u003c    V- \r\n\r\n7*^ \r\n\r\nor \r\n\r\nl-l \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c  \u003cu  u. \r\n!         I \r\n\r\nO  O  C  ,TH  \u003e \r\n\r\n1            i \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nl\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nl3i  .0  U.'3 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n'JJ \r\n\r\nu,  0.0  ^ \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n=:  r \r\n\r\nJl \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1    r \r\n\r\n1 \r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni» \r\n\r\n-; \r\n\r\nr  32  r \r\n\r\n\r\nO        » \r\n\r\n\r\na        -J       \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n4*1  lil \r\n\r\n(vac \r\n\r\n\r\n53 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nu. \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nex \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n\r\nMX. \r\n\r\n**\u003c \r\nV\u003eOC \r\n\r\n«U \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\noe \r\n\r\n_i.O- \r\n\r\n\u003ct \r\n\r\n?*\u003e \r\n\r\n'     wxeo \r\n\r\nz \r\n\u003co \r\ni     z\u003eui \r\n\u003c^o \r\n\r\nULOC \r\n\r\n!   2s \r\n\r\n\\vr \r\n?-* \r\n\r\n53 \r\n\r\n3G-J \r\n\r\n\u003e-o \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n0-J \r\n\r\n\r\n«n \r\n\r\n\r\n*?- \r\n(VflC \r\n\r\n\u003c-•  a. \r\n\r\n\r\nis \r\n\r\nUJ  \u003c \r\n\r\nc£ \r\n\u003c»- \r\n\r\nOlZ \r\nUJ  oi \r\nQdO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\nIA \r\n\r\n\r\ne«1« \r\nv»z \r\n\r\nS5 \r\n\r\n\r\ni*L \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\nQ \r\n\r\n\r\nZi  — \r\nuilin \r\nX  o \r\n\r\n\r\nO. \r\nZ \r\nUl \r\n\r\n\r\nuj  *:  uj-^- \r\nX  Of  •\u003e*0 \r\n\r\n?— \r\n\r\n\r\n!         ! \r\np-  i  trtl  — \r\n\r\nZIH»P-cn \r\nIU  \u003c/)  zo \r\n\r\n3i«/\u003e      | \r\n*— i  «•» \r\n«/\u003e  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nml  i  ml-* \r\nn-  t— own* \r\n\r\nati-»  x  — \r\n\r\n\u003c.m  tr- \r\nee, \u003cz. \r\n\r\no;     \u003c; \r\n\r\ni  ! \r\n\r\n\r\nUl  3  \u003c  «  O \r\n\r\nJVIQO \r\nON'UK \r\nu  x.  u.  a. \r\n\r\nO    I \r\n\r\nae \r\n\r\n\r\nzc  l»i \r\n\r\n\r\nZ       O \r\nUJ \r\n\r\na      o \r\n\r\n\r\n3C \r\n\r\n9uuj \r\n\r\nX  1— \r\n\r\nM  U.  l/\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nol         •\"• \r\n(/I \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nz \r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nU%  lf\u003e \r\n\r\nm  p- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nBD \r\n\r\n.—  (NJ \r\n\r\no  m \r\n\r\nm  cr \r\n\r\na  m \r\n\r\nr»  \u003c¦•« \r\n\r\n•^ \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\n-^  o \r\n\r\nm  \u003co \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nM  O \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\u003e0 \r\n\r\n«»¦ \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\u003co  \u003e-i \r\n\r\nCO  m \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr~jrn  r» \r\n\r\nin  eo \r\n\r\n«o  ru1  c\u003e  «r \r\n\r\n«i-  o \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nen  fM \r\n\r\nm  \u003er  U«  cm  k*- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nn  \u003cn \r\n\r\n¦T \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nrn \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nrM \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nco  r» \r\n\r\n\u003ej-  in \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr~o  — • \r\n\r\no  \u003cr \r\n\r\nmKjH'NO \r\n\r\n;n \r\n\r\n\u003c— \r\n\r\nen  in \r\n\r\n\u003er  in  |cp  m  p- \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\no  0* \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nre \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n° \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\n«rf \r\n\r\np-  r» \r\n\r\nm  f \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\n»H  m  ^« \r\n\r\no  «r \r\n\r\nO  \u003cJm  0»  (\\JI(V  -\\i \r\n\r\nr\u003c- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm  ^ \r\n\r\nf0  CO  i(M  p-  *o \r\n\r\n¦o \r\n\r\nn  «o \r\n\r\nB\u003e \r\n\r\n•c \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM- \r\n\r\n00  CM \r\n\r\nIX  o \r\n\r\n«*¦ \r\n\r\nC!l  \u003c0  00 \r\n\r\n»r  r- \r\n\r\nn  \\0'  ff\u003e  Oi  co  (n \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nO^ \r\n\r\nin  \u003c-\u003e \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\n\u003eo  ¦*¦ \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\n¦^ \r\n\r\n^  — \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n¦J- \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\nO  0\" \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nrj \r\n\r\n(*\u003e|           rH \r\n\r\ncsi  en \r\n\r\n—  -£\u003e \r\n\r\n^4  (M \r\n\r\nCM  -4- \r\n\r\nM* \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nt*\\  f* \r\n\r\n»-\u003c \r\n\r\n-h \r\n\r\n¦-I \r\n\r\np\u003e4 \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n*   • \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nCM  CM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\nin \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nCO \r\nCM \r\n\r\np»  in \r\nin  cm \r\n\r\nmm \r\nm* \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n— \r\nm \r\n\r\n¦\u003e« \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cn  co \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\nJ5 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nt» \r\n\r\nm    » \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n«• \r\n\r\npm \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nr^\u003e\u003c- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n«*\" \r\n\r\n«-\u003c \r\n\r\nC\\* \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\n0* \r\n\r\nP-CM \r\n\r\nf* \r\n\r\n•w \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n»\u003c \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nO  CM \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\u003cn \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n«f  tn \r\n\r\nco  in \r\n\r\ni-(  O \r\n\r\n\u003e*¦ \r\n\r\njj \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr-t  in \r\n\r\nm  en \r\n\r\nsO \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\np-  co \r\n\r\n«r\u003e \r\n\r\n41 \r\n\r\n•J- \r\n\r\nhh^o \r\n\r\nO*  r-t \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nin      \u003cz\u003e \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n.0  \u003e*¦ \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-*¦  CD \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nen  o \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nt\u003e \r\n\r\nr-  \u003cm;  o»  r«-  «*¦  o* \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\ncm      *r  p- \r\n\r\ni—  «o \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\n•0 \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n•*¦ \r\n\r\niO \r\n\r\n•»  » \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nF \r\n\r\n•f  » \r\n\r\n»•\u003e»?•»   » \r\n\r\n»¦ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n»         ,  m \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\n»  •\u003e \r\n\r\n¦\u003e \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nmm  P- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nV\u003e  (M \r\n\r\nO  mi  CM  (\"HI  sT  CD \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦*• \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no      en \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nO  CO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n\u003c«  ««P \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncm  mi  in  r»i  rn  cm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^* \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n¦\u003e\u003c \r\n\r\nm  en \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n+ \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n«J- \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n-rr- \r\n\r\nrg \r\n\r\n*4 \r\n\r\nt-t \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n«M \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\u003e«h \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc\\ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCO  W3 \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e0 \r\n\r\nf»\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nJ~  08 \r\n\r\n«*• \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nco  ca'  «o  o;      o \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003cn \r\n\r\n-*  O* \r\n\r\nf* \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n(V \r\n\r\nO  CMl  CO  COj         CM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•\u003e  w \r\n\r\no. \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n»•«»•«       ?. \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\no»  m \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nlH \r\n\r\nO*  eo  in  r^      \u003co \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\no  \u003c¦ \r\n\r\n#M\u003c \r\n\r\n¦* \r\n\r\n«1 \r\n\r\ncm  in1          |       cm \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003c\u003e \r\n\r\nnn  o» \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\ns? \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n«* \r\n\r\n1* \r\n\r\ni   ; \r\n\r\ni    i \r\n\r\n•* \r\n\r\no\u003e  o \r\n\r\noo  r~ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^  -\u003c  r—  »n  \u003e* \r\n\r\n:          l \r\n\r\nH  f\u003c-  0*  9)  O  N \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003ef  CM \r\n\r\nen  «o \r\n\r\nia  \\n \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-\u003c  tn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n.*¦ \r\n\r\nsT \r\n\r\n— •  *j-  co  o \r\n\r\nV\u003e \r\n\r\no  ft  \u003cm  a  \u003cv \r\n\r\n«o  in  r—  in  in  r- \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\npj \r\n\r\nP-  P- \r\n\r\nm  \u003eJ-  m  \u003cm  in \r\n\r\nvC \r\n\r\nowe* \r\n\r\no«  CO \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n¦n \r\n\r\nen  p-  -fr  «n \r\n\r\no\u003c \r\n\r\n¦O  ^(0    !\u003e   — «   \u003eT \r\n\r\nr-  ~*  o  m  r-  \u003cr\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c?• \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nO  -* \r\n\r\n\u003c»•  m  -o  m  (m \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nco  evj  O \r\n\r\nCO    O \r\n\r\n•4- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\n!»•»»•\u003c \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no  m  \u003ej-  p-  i-i \r\n\r\n»•«*•»»»« \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\n»    »• \r\n\r\n•»»••»•»» \r\n\r\n»• \r\n\r\n••«»¦» \r\n\r\n»     «• \r\n\r\n¦k \r\n\r\n•• \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\np-  r*»  xv  m \r\n\r\n\u003c~\u003e \r\n\r\nO  -O  C  O  h-  v0 \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\nrf, \r\n\r\nm  p- \r\n\r\nCI  O  1*1  hf) \r\n\r\nXl \r\n\r\noroo\u003e \r\n\r\n»r  en \r\n\r\nr~ \r\n\r\nt\u003e \r\n\r\n— t \r\n\r\n¦¦a \r\n\r\n¦-•(ONC* \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\no»0'JJ'f*\u003etr\u003cOiriNi-(M^r~ \r\n\r\n/* s \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nes  p- \r\n\r\np»       m  \u003er  m \r\n\r\n-*r-iM \r\n\r\nm*   .^-1 \r\n\r\n^^ \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n¦r \r\n\r\n-*  CM.        \u003cn \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n(n       »-» ^^  \u003c\\ \r\n\r\n\u003e-\u003c  \u003c\\j  ^4  - .  rj  (\\i \r\n\r\nrn \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr+ \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\n— * \r\n\r\n-- \r\n\r\n.Nl \r\n\r\n? \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n!          i \r\nl         i \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ni \r\ni \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\n\u003er \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni     i \r\n\r\n!           ! \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n1           ; \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n¦ \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n!        1 \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nI          ! \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n\u003e• \r\n\r\n!            1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni       1 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n1       1 \r\n\r\nui \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\n;\u003cU       I \r\n\r\n-j \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na    i \r\n\r\n''«*       1 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nz     |\u003c \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n\u003cU \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nUj  : \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nX          M \r\n\r\n*   \". \r\n\r\nJ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nUI' \r\n\r\n-l \r\n\r\nO  : \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nyvo \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nijj   _j \r\n\r\n1- \r\n\r\nO  UI \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nUl  I \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nuj  h\u003e  ae \r\n\r\nUl               u \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\nUI  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nH*  M  O \r\n\r\no           - \r\n\r\nuj  u        uj  u. \r\n\r\nj      x'  e  o \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nUI   — 1  UI  UJ \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nUfl  UJ   \u003c \r\n\r\nUJ                  _ \r\n\r\nO  Ui \r\n\r\nU  J  JCUJ \r\n\r\na  kjj  uj  uj \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nU.CCUM \r\n\r\nUJ  j              C \r\n\r\n-J   Z  O   UJ  UJ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n?*  «J \r\n\r\nuj  a  -j  iu  o \r\n\r\n-I  UJ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO  uj        O \r\n\r\nO  -i              u \r\n\r\no  a.  uj  -i  _i \r\n\r\nj \r\n\r\nCC   UJ \r\n\r\nJUC  JUJ \r\n\r\n?-•  -o       uu \r\n\r\n-J  o \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003e  a.  a: \r\n\r\nUJ  C \r\n\r\nU   UJ    -J    _J    _J \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nO  -J \r\n\r\n-J           UJ    — 1   -J \r\n\r\n2faj  nC  _l \r\n\r\noua  j \r\n\r\nC  UJ \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\n_) \r\n\r\nUIhQO \r\n\r\n-J  U               Ui \r\n\r\nh  JC  J \r\n\r\n-j \r\n\r\n\u003c  -J \r\n\r\nc  at      a  -j \r\n\r\nU   -J \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n1—  2T         UJ \r\n\r\n-J               UJ  H \r\n\r\nri^ouu \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ni_\u003e  a  as  u  c \r\n\r\n— \u003e ; — •  —  a \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nD2'JJO \r\n\r\nO  Ui   '-J  LJ    \" \r\n\r\nUJ    i    i:j    (J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n2  l_J \r\n\r\nM  O          o \r\n\r\n\\n  z  uj \r\n\r\noc  G \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nK        O \r\n\r\n_j \r\n\r\nUHOWh \r\n\r\nO  UJ  2       •  UI  UJ \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n»-^ \r\n\r\nQ£   ?•  •-  ai \r\n\r\n5-kJ3 \r\n\r\na  uj \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\nt—   'X'    IU    UL \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  UJ  -J  v- \r\n\r\nuj  ~  r:  «t  i—  »— \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n3r  \"i \r\n\r\nO  X-iZ  O  or: \r\n\r\nh-  r  -» •« \r\n\r\n*-4    1 \r\n\r\n»— * \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n*-  P-  _J  C \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nUl  h-   _J   -1 \r\n\r\n_i  i—  t—  \u003e-i  \u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n1— \r\n\r\na  a \r\n\r\n¦-•  -\u003e  z\u003e  —  a \r\n\r\nn  ka;      n \r\n\r\n2.  aC \r\n\r\nU5 \r\n\r\nKM \r\n\r\n1- \r\n\r\ni- \r\n\r\nt/1  \u003c  _l \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n1—  00  _4  C  \u003e \r\n\r\nJD3\"\u003eI- \r\n\r\n\u003c-• \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n_ i  \u003e-\u003c \r\n\r\nz        ~\u003e  ~  —\u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCUJ« \r\n\r\nX  O \r\n\r\nft' \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nZP-\u003eC  \u003e- \r\n\r\n»- \r\n\r\n\u003c       o  o  a \r\n\r\nC  Cj  C   OC  \u003cfl  W \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1- \r\n\r\n\u003c  ~ \r\n\r\nD  ui;      X  r \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nM    ml     ~ \r\n\r\n-\u003e  i— \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc\u003c \r\n\r\nH- \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\ni-«  l/\u003e  O  1— \r\n\r\nH-  O  U         _ \r\n\r\numm'j \r\n\r\nc. \r\n\r\nrC  3 \r\n\r\n-»  o1^:  -j  x \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nZ  -J  3 \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n»-\u003c \r\n\r\nl/l  n      .  (/»  _ \r\n\r\niu '  X  \u003c \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\"\u003e \r\n\r\nC  UJ        1 \r\n\r\n3  •\"•  i\"\u003e \r\n\r\n^  X \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n.•J \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\u003c  «r  _j  «o \r\n\r\nO    \u003c    ^    -3 \r\n\r\n\u003c  «c  \u003cr  o'  •««•  »- \r\n\r\nL'J \r\n\r\n*r \r\n\r\n¦\u003c  f—  •—•  rr \r\n\r\n_/ \r\n\r\nr?  \u003e  ¦ \r\n\r\n\u003c  -\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nmm   )_¦   \u003c   QC \r\n\r\ntfl  !J  u  ti; \r\n\r\n\u003e-  x  i—  m  \u003e \r\n\r\nl-\u003c  »-^  t-i        '  i«   vO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003e \r\n\r\n»—  -vj'^;  o  r7! \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\non  's; \r\n\r\n01' \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nrr  \u003e-  •'  X \r\n\r\nijij  i'  x,  r*  ~ \r\n\r\n0L \r\n\r\nX  \"\" \r\n\r\n~    -  •'   .yl   ,_   r\u003e \r\n\r\nr\u003e \r\n\r\nrr  iy  3 \r\n\r\n•H  T. \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n0. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no:  cc  •-\u003e  \u003e \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\u003cti/)3Dr \r\n\r\na.  \u003ci   c£  h-^  «f  O \r\n\r\n1— \r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\n'\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  Z  Z  \u003e-  t- \r\n\r\nT. \r\n\r\n\u003e   7T.    C \r\n\r\nZ  O \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n1— \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nc  rs  o  \u003e-\" \r\n\r\nq \r\n\r\n'Q  t;  o  -j  c \r\n\r\n3  r  uj  o:  \u003e  _i \r\n\r\nv\\ \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n.-r  c: \r\n\r\n_l  -^  3  \u003c  _l \r\n\r\n•C \r\n\r\nO  H^y \r\n\r\n3  ,U \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCi \r\n\r\no~ \r\n\r\nui  lu;  uj  z \r\n\r\nO  O  31  3 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n_l  0£  3  u,  i_ \r\n\r\nui  u.  ¦  uj  a  \u003c  ¦«». \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\nDC \r\n\r\n0J  —1 \r\n\r\nf-    \u003c   QC    -I   \u003c \r\n\r\nV\" \r\n\r\n_J  \u003c  O \r\n\r\nuj  «r \r\n\r\n*-. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nor. \r\n\r\n?^ \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n\u003c   \u003c    -^1   CJ    U. \r\n\r\no  o  o  z^«/»  \u003e \r\n\r\n-t \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n«  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  C\\u0  UJ,Q \r\n\r\nul \r\n\r\nIU  o  p \r\n\r\nseijs: \r\n\r\nvz \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nU. \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1    1 \r\n\r\nl              ; \r\n\r\ni        | \r\n\r\n34 \r\n\r\ni     1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\ni  f ' \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n' \r\n\r\nc\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n'« \r\n\r\n\r\n•dec \r\n\r\nf-O \r\n\r\n4*oi \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\ntflOJ \r\n\r\nQ\u003e* \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nai \r\nu \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\u003cui \r\n\r\ni-r \r\n\r\nno \r\n\r\nl/IQ \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n•-•-J \r\n\r\nu\u003c \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\u003c\u003c* \r\n\r\nzo \r\n\r\nNIL \r\n\r\nLL \r\n\r\nV) \r\nI/IO \r\n\r\n••tN \r\n\r\n—  I— \r\n\r\n«/\u003e \r\n\r\nN.-1 \r\n\r\nZh \r\n\r\nLU\u003c \r\n\r\nIH \r\n\u003e-i/» \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO-IU \r\n\r\n-«:?- \r\n\r\nLU  O \r\nLU \r\n»-  -I \r\nZLU \r\nLUU\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nI— \r\n\r\n\r\n4-t- \r\n\r\nsa \r\n\r\nHtU \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n42 \r\n\r\nIU\u003c \r\n\r\na£ \r\n\r\n\u003cn \r\na*  j: \r\nlu  ai \r\nos  o \r\na»3 \r\n\r\n;  I- \r\n'  «/\u003e \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no»  Z \r\n\r\noj  Z \r\n\r\n\r\nl    : \r\n\r\n\r\nJH« \r\n\r\n\r\nXI  LU \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\n\r\nZCHii; \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\nz  o \r\na      \u003cJ \r\n\r\n\r\nx \r\n\r\n3ujui \r\n\r\nX  I- \r\n\r\nN  h-  L*» \r\n\r\nj       v \r\n\r\n¦4  U.  i^ \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\r\n2 \r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\n0\u003e  \u003cf\\ \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  o \r\n\r\no  4 \r\noo \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  m \r\nm \r\n«o  4 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nm  in \r\nm  cm \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\no  \u003cq  \u003cr  (*- \r\no\u003e  H4\u003e  o \r\n\r\ncm \r\n\r\n\r\nLP \r\n\r\n\r\n40 \r\n\r\n\r\nO  1*1 \r\n\r\n-4  1*1 \r\n\r\n\r\n1*1 \r\n\r\nST \r\n\r\n\r\nin  cm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  in \r\n\r\nr-  ^ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n\r\no»  m  gj  «*i \r\n•   »  •  « \r\n\r\nd  ci  o  i^( \r\n\r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n•    •    »    a \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nI  I \r\n\r\nm  4\u003e  o  en \r\n\r\nno       h \r\ncm  cm       N \r\n\r\n\r\no  —)  o  a \r\n\r\n¦*¦  IM  fsl  !•» \r\n\r\n«-*  0\"«  \u003cTj  «r \r\no  •**¦  cm  4\" \r\n\r\nN(M  CM \r\n\r\n\r\n00) \r\n(7 \r\n\r\n\r\nIT \r\n\r\nr \r\n4 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\n5  i \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\no  \u003e \r\n\r\nLU  H- \r\n\r\n*-  N \r\n\r\nLO \r\n\r\nu.  .at \r\n\r\nO    LU \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nUJ  •— \r\n\r\n»-  z \r\n\r\n3  x \r\n?- \r\n\r\n¦-1 1\u003c \r\n?-  »- \r\n\r\nl/\u003e  \u003c \r\nZ  H- \r\ni-  \u003c/» \r\n\r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\njj  \u003c \r\no  \u003en \r\n\r\nll.  ai \r\n\r\no  a \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\nai  a \r\no \r\nOJ  u» \r\n\r\n-i  a \r\n_j \r\no  \u003e» \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  «\u003c  _J  ^ \r\n\r\n?n  m  \u003c  ctf \r\n\r\nCM?  O  U \r\n\r\nc  f^  a  \u003e-» \r\n\r\nLU  UJ  LO  Z \r\n\r\no  o  z  x» \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\nh\u003e \r\n\r\nm  r- \r\n\r\n4-  4- \r\n\r\nt-  \u003cM \r\n\r\nao  m \r\n\r\nm  so \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nn  «»- \r\n\r\nMO \r\n\r\n(M  CM \r\n\r\nN4\" \r\n\r\n»*o \r\n\r\neo  *0 \r\n\r\nI. \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nA» \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e^ \r\n\r\n-\u003e  -4~ \r\n\r\n»-t  f\\j \r\n\r\n(M  rum  o \r\n\r\nrn  O \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nm  eo \r\n\r\nr*  r- \r\n\r\n\u003c0   CM \r\n\r\n4-  f \r\n\r\nCT«  f«- \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\n1*1 \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003eN \r\n\r\n+r \r\n\r\n4\" \r\n\r\n¦O  O \r\n\r\n•w\u003e  \u003en \r\n\r\n«n  in \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\n(M  t- \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\n«o  m \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\n•4  l\\» \r\n\r\n4*  in \r\n\r\n4-4- \r\n\r\ni^i \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nA \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•4- \r\n\r\nr»  r» \r\n\r\n\u003cm  ^ \r\n\r\n4-t-- \r\n\r\nn  m \r\n\r\n00  4* \r\n\r\n¦a \r\n\r\nf* \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nca  in \r\n\r\ni^O \r\n\r\ng)  eo \r\n\r\nwm  r- \r\n\r\nim  r^ \r\n\r\n.a \r\n\r\nr\u003e \r\n\r\n4\" \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nao \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\nm  \u003cm \r\n\r\n-N   (VJ \r\n\r\n4\"  0* \r\n\r\n^»-  o \r\n\r\n•a  a \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm  r- \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\no»  -* \r\n\r\nm  co \r\n\r\nnO  o \r\n\r\ni4*  m \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\n\u003co  \u003cc \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\nin  »r \r\n\r\nur»  m \r\n\r\nh«  r- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\nco  r- \r\n\r\nm  »n \r\n\r\n4\"  f\\J \r\n\r\n4-  «0 \r\n\r\n4-4- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n4\" \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n4* \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n»N \r\n\r\n•c* \r\n\r\nca  o» \r\n\r\nO  N \r\n\r\n(M  CO \r\n\r\nco  m \r\n\r\nf«-  00 \r\n\r\n4\" \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no  «f \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\nn  m \r\n\r\n\u003c0  eo \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\nr-  4* \r\n\r\n•-i \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nLf\\ \r\n\r\nt\u003e  CO \r\n\r\n\u003cVJ  •-« \r\n\r\nf»  Nir-  o \r\n\r\nm  c \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\no» \r\n\r\nm  r-\u003c \r\n\r\nr^  t-« \r\n\r\neg  O \r\n\r\nin  im \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr*-  cm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\ntf \r\n\r\n\\£\\    43 \r\n\r\nin  m \r\n\r\n4-r*- \r\n\r\nin  m \r\n\r\nrvj  r- \r\n\r\n4- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm  •\u003e \r\n\r\nGO  4* \r\n\r\nm  \u003co \r\n\r\nm  «si \r\n\r\n4\" \r\n\r\n4*  \u003eo \r\n\r\n*m \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n4- \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n•-o  ~r  irj \r\n\r\nQ*  4 \r\n\r\nifi  f»i(M  oin  h \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nLA \r\n\r\n4\"  \u003cC \r\n\r\ncrm \r\n\r\ngf  _4i^  r\u003e \r\n\r\nn  o  m  gj \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr*» \r\n\r\n4» \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nsrt  «*-  «*• \r\n\r\no  m \r\n\r\n0*  m,f—  ooi  O  »n \r\n\r\n4- \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nrm  v* \r\n\r\nin  m \r\n\r\n\u003co  inico  o\u003e \r\n\r\no»  f— \r\n\r\nCM  CO \r\n\r\nKO \r\n\r\n4\" \r\n\r\n4* \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n¦o  \u003co \r\n\r\nm  «n \r\n\r\n4\"  »n \r\n\r\nm  4- \r\n\r\nm  r- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nin  \u003co \r\n\r\no  \u003co \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\n4*  \u003cM \r\n\r\n4-  m \r\n\r\n4*4* \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nu0 \r\n\r\n*J \r\n\r\nrvj  4 \r\n\r\n4-«o \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\nn  o \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no»  o \r\n\r\no\u003e  o« \r\n\r\nin  o \r\n\r\n0*  W3 \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\n4-gs \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003ce \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nfNJ   \u003eJ1 \r\n\r\n(N4   ^ \r\n\r\nNQIfllfl \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n4\"  «- \r\n\r\nco  m \r\n\r\nin  so \r\n\r\nW3  — \r\n\r\nCO  ff» \r\n\r\n»*-.^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ns* \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\n•J- \r\n\r\nm  \u003co \r\n\r\nu\\  m \r\n\r\n*o  iniLn  tn \r\n\r\nn  f- \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\nin  4- \r\n\r\nm  4* \r\n\r\nm  jm \r\n\r\n4-  m \r\n\r\ntf\\  4\" \r\n\r\nCM  4\" \r\n\r\n4\" \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc=* \r\n\r\n«-4 \r\n\r\n(T \r\n\r\n\u003co  4\" \r\n\r\npg  r- \r\n\r\nCO  (VI \r\n\r\nn^) \r\n\r\nCO  c \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4\"  4- \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\nm  co \r\n\r\no  r- \r\n\r\na  o \r\n\r\nn  r*- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\no- \r\n\r\nNPNihO \r\n\r\nest  r—  oo  \u003cm,  f\\j  f«j \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nO     -H \r\n\r\n\u003cr  ro  o  m \r\n\r\nm  i^ \r\n\r\ncm  gj \r\n\r\nrN   — \u003c \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n*N \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nLin \r\n\r\nf— \r\n\r\n0» \r\n\r\n•m \r\n\r\n*-4  00 \r\n\r\n«N \r\n\r\n-* \r\n\r\nO*     «N \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\n-*  (SI \r\n\r\n0»  n \r\n\r\n(Vt \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\n•4. \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\n«-« \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n^* \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n\u003cfl \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\n4r  c*i \r\n\r\no  in \r\n\r\n4\"  «NJ \r\n\r\no  c \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•o  m \r\n\r\n«Mf- \r\n\r\nt-4-CW \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\n4-^ \r\n\r\nO  f- \r\n\r\ng\u003e  c \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n•    •    * \r\n\r\n•     a \r\n\r\n•   •»  »   » \r\n\r\n•   • \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•   \u003c \r\n\r\n»    • \r\n\r\n»     • \r\n\r\n\u003e   • \r\n\r\n»•   • \r\n\r\n»      • \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n(• \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nc  o  of  \u003co  r- \r\n\r\nO  fsfcco  \u003cC \r\n\r\no  c \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\n**F  CO \r\n\r\n00  --0 \r\n\r\np-  m \r\n\r\nCM  4\" \r\n\r\nN  4\" \r\n\r\n«o  t\u003e \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nll- \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no. \r\n\r\nm  mi \r\n\r\nm  o\u003e \r\n\r\nL, , \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\no\\  ^ \r\n\r\n(NJ \r\n\r\n4\" \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\nO  4\" \r\n\r\n4»n \r\n\r\nn  eg \r\n\r\nN   —4 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n4\"  «M \r\n\r\n4* \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nr-o \r\n\r\nm  4 \r\n\r\n0»  -* \r\n\r\n4   (M \r\n\r\nm  c \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO  o \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\n4\u003e   *m \r\n\r\n•o  in \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\nO  4* \r\n\r\nv4 \r\n\r\n4\" \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n4- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nNOB«fflH \r\n\r\no  o  r-  oi  in  r~ \r\n\r\n4- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncvi  m \r\n\r\nf*-4 \r\n\r\nr-  o\u003e \r\n\r\no  r* \r\n\r\nO   N \r\n\r\nm  eg \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrn \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\nr-  »n  \u003c\\t  \u003er  r- \r\n\r\nm  m  m  4-,  r—  r* \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\nr«-  (\\4 \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n-^ \r\n\r\nN   (M \r\n\r\nN    »4 \r\n\r\n^* \r\n\r\n4- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n-Q  \u003c**  fiy  oi  oo \r\n\r\n1         I \r\noo  ^  f*i  r\u003c\\  r*»  (*\" \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n4-  m \r\n\r\nmm \r\n\r\na  m \r\n\r\nO*  CD \r\n\r\n4^4- \r\n\r\nco  r* \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n4\" \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nHiflOnif \r\n\r\nh*  c*  tn  \u003co  ^  «£ \r\n\r\n«a \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\nrvt  in.  r*»  o  tn  o \r\n\r\noom-OhC \r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c-mO(J'« \r\n\r\n\u003cm  vC  r»  o  in  f* \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nN   CO \r\n\r\n\u003c•*  (VJ \r\n\r\nm  ^  fM  »r \r\n\r\nrt  Nffl   M   h \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n-n \r\n\r\n\u003c\u003e4  4\"  LTL  \u003c*\u003e  \u003cN \r\n\r\n4-  r—  m  \u003c\\t  (^  \u003c£ \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm  \u003cm \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n»n  m \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n(Ann  m,m \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\nFN \r\n\r\nm \r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•0 \r\n\r\ni             i \r\n1 \r\n•    ;              1 \r\n\r\n!    i \r\n\r\ni \r\ni \r\n1 \r\n\r\n\u003c-t \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\ni \r\n\r\n!       i \r\n\r\ni    i \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni        ; \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n1 \r\nj \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\nlui \r\n\r\nml \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\njo \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nat \r\n\r\n1  ui \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\nail \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n'-J \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n_j \r\n\r\n(31 \r\n\r\n!             !          C \r\n\r\nUJ  _l \r\n\r\nH- \r\n\r\nL»LU \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nan \r\n\r\nLU                   U \r\n\r\no  a \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nLU   O                 O \r\n\r\n-J,        Oi \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nLU  O          LU   U. \r\n\r\n=1 \r\n\r\nLU  — 1   LU  LU \r\n\r\n-J       o \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\nLU                - \r\n\r\n_J         LU   O   C \r\n\r\nU  UJ \r\n\r\nL)  J  JOXK \r\n\r\nO    LU   LU \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\nOI \r\n\r\nLU  -J                C \r\n\r\n— 1    Z    O    LU    LL \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n?-«  d \r\n\r\ntil  3  J  U  J  o \r\n\r\ntil    U   O    -J    LU \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nC3  -)                  \u003c- \r\n\r\nO  a:  lu  _J  «. \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCu   UJ \r\n\r\n_i  o. ' :  —i.  lu  \u003e- \r\n\r\nO         UuO \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\nOI \r\n\r\nLU  C \r\n\r\nu  w  J  j  . \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\na  _. \r\n\r\n—I        O  -J  -J  z \r\n\r\nlu  «:  _j  o  ui \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\nju            a \r\n\r\n?-  -J  C  C \r\n\r\n_1 \r\n\r\n\u003c  - \r\n\r\ncm1      dj: \r\n\r\n-j  a  -j  U'  _) \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\n_l            ujh \r\n\r\nZ   LO    Cl    U    L. \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nUOttUTI \r\n\r\n_J    N    O              _i \r\n\r\nL_\u003e \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCJ  U'    Lll    L5    «J \r\n\r\nLU   \u003cY.   UJ    LJ \r\n\r\n/-i \r\n\r\nz  u \r\n\r\n—  O      ,U \r\n\r\nozuita \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nU  h  O  W  K \r\n\r\no  aj  rr       \u003cxi  u \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n-j \r\n\r\nM« \r\n\r\nqhzmo:      \u003e \r\n\r\nu  3.     a  u \r\n\r\n•K \r\n\r\n-j \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n\u003c  'U   J  i/ \r\n\r\nwr^  \u003chh \r\n\r\n«e \r\n\r\n3C    j \r\n\r\nc  3  ;:  o  x  h \r\n\r\n\"\u003ei  r.;  Ni \r\n\r\nt^4 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nLU  H-   -J   -J \r\n\r\nJHH«   \u003c    * \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n?- \r\n\r\na  a \r\n\r\nm*  -\u003e  r\u003e  «  O  7 \r\n\r\ncc        O  Z  « \r\n\r\nL5 \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\nH- \r\n\r\nNW1JO    \u003e \r\n\r\n~i  n  n  c  j—  h \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-J     N. \r\n\r\n\"!        \"i  \"  \"-•  — \r\n\r\na  lui»n  3iO \r\n\r\n\"i \r\n\r\nL*) \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n«t        Q  U  u \r\n\r\nO   ^  3  «  i/»  (/ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n»- \r\n\r\n\u003c  X \r\n\r\nS\u003e  U/        D  .T  \u003c\"3 \r\n\r\nN    Jli'TN \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n1C \r\n\r\n?- \r\n\r\nt- \r\n\r\n?-  o  u       _ \r\n\r\nLJ   «/1  (/\u003e   O \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\nc  ~ \r\n\r\n-»  o  x:  -»  3  u \r\n\r\nZ  -Ji  3      i  Z \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n^  z     ^. \r\n\r\niur« \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n-5 \r\n\r\nno    j\"» \r\n\r\n3-:TSa \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nOI \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\n3  •\u003c  r\u003e  * \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c  \u003c  O    \u003c  h \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\nyj \r\n\r\n\u003c    f4    •—    5?             -J \r\n\r\n-»  \u003e        \u003cl\"» \r\n\r\nl3 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e  *  ?-  (13   3 \r\n\r\n—  -»  — ,      r\"  i/ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003e \r\n\r\n1-  t  -*  O  T    U \r\n\r\nLO'  J?    1/1! \r\n\r\nOJ \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\n;ii-  w  r \r\n\r\n'.i  ii  'j  x  ?:   \" \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nT     J* \r\n\r\n7  \"i'  H  K  O  3 \r\n\r\nO  IH.  C  \"Ji  .\"* \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nOL     ! \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n«\u003c  ^  a   —   H \r\n\r\nct  t  or  k  \u003c  C \r\n\r\n»- \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n'\u003c     *T \r\n\r\n\u003c  i\"  r   \u003e-\u003e-  i \r\n\r\n\u003e-  ZQ  T.  a \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nXI       ! \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nn  i:  ci  -j  -t \r\n\r\no  a  en  c*  \u003e  _ \r\n\r\n(-0 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n«  c: \r\n\r\n_i  •-»  r  \u003c  _i  \u003c \r\n\r\nC3  \u003e—.  QC  z;  u \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\na    j \r\n\r\n?\"» \r\n\r\n_\u003ec:  a  c  c \r\n\r\nL.J  -U  l_J   O    \u003c    \"J \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\nac \r\n\r\nLI)     -i \r\n\r\n^-   «*.   CJ    -J   \u003c   *-' \r\n\r\nmi    \u003c!  O   LU \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n*¦\u003e* \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\u003cx \r\n\r\n•^ \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n\u003ct  'i,  u  u. \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\no  \u003c.: \r\n\r\nO  Z  LO  3 \r\n\r\n~* \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n«*;  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  f\" \r\n\r\n,-  ej \r\n\r\ni  ^j \r\n\r\nLU    C, \r\n\r\nO  ii \r\n\r\na; \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\n*• \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nc^ \r\n\r\na \r\na. \r\nm \r\n\u003cmcc \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nu  oS \r\n\r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\n«n \r\n\r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\n!     3 \r\n\r\n\r\ncm \r\n\r\n\r\no.x \r\n\r\nuae \r\nuio \r\n\r\ntea \r\n\r\nec \r\n\r\naa. \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nMO \r\n-JUJ \r\n0.0 \r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\nzx \r\n\r\n3\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nii/» \r\n\r\nfief \r\n\r\n33 \r\n\r\nz\u003c \r\n\r\nQO \r\nHK \r\nWl \r\nUi \r\n\r\net \r\n\r\nI \r\nz \r\n\r\nQ \r\nZ \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nZ \r\nO \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\nz  z \r\n\r\no  •-• \r\n\r\n\u003e-\u003c \r\n\r\ni/i \r\n\r\nUI \r\nQC \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e•  Bh  »*¦ \r\noai  una \r\n-J  SJ      »-)  — \r\n\r\nQ.       |        -I, \r\n\r\nx     i     \u003c! \r\nuj     i \r\n\r\n\r\not  a. it-  Z;cn \r\n\u003c  l-4|  uj  o \r\n-J  X \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\no!o  «/\u003e  — \r\n\r\nZt—  Z!CM \r\n\u003c      UJ  o \r\n\r\nQ      H  — \r\n\r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n?-  I-  Z«* \r\n\r\nz     uio \r\n\r\n\u003c         M  — \r\n0£'        -J \r\n\r\n\r\nZOt-ui \r\n\r\n\r\ni     i \r\n\r\n!    3 \r\n\r\nz     a \r\n\r\no      o \r\n\r\n•-«      u_ \r\na \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n3'JJ  UJ \r\n\r\ni  X  H- \r\n\r\nH-  *-  \u003c/» \r\n\r\n•-J  u.  wi \r\n\r\ni  a    i \r\n\r\n1  s \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\u003cn \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\nsr \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n•6 \r\n0\u003e \r\n\u003cn \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nCM \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nao \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n:   g \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\n\r\nO' \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nSI \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCs \r\n\r\nIT \r\n\r\nu* \r\nIf \r\n\r\n\r\nIT \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n¦:; \r\n\r\n\r\n•  f*      4 \r\n\r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n-J \r\n\r\ni  ! \r\n\r\nX \r\nu  \u003e \r\n\r\nLU  H- \r\n\r\nh-  •-• \r\n\r\nl/» \r\n\r\nu.  a: \r\nC  UI \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nUJ   l-l \r\n\r\nI-  Z \r\n\r\nh-  • \r\n?i  l!J \r\nH-  H\" \r\n\u003c/»  »t \r\nZ  H \r\n\r\n\r\nS  ! \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nuj  \u003c \r\nO  \"-• \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nU.  a: \r\n\r\no  a \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\njj  u \r\na \r\n\r\n111  u. \r\n\r\n-I  a \r\n_J \r\na  \u003e• \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  4  _l  l/» \r\n\r\ni-i  »-i  \u003c  rt \r\n\r\n«J  'J  O  III \r\n\r\nC£.  01  ?«•  \u003e \r\n\r\nc  a  o  m \r\n\r\nUI  Ul  UJ  3 \r\n\r\nu  q  ^:  :\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nOi      m \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n¦ \r\n\r\n«n \r\n\r\n\r\ntri      ml \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\naa      -*      a \r\n\r\n\r\nca \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n(NJ \r\nON \r\n\r\n\u003cn \r\n\r\n\r\no  \u003c*¦ \r\n\r\n\r\n2. \r\n\r\nml \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\nUI  -J \r\nO  -J \r\n\r\nui  O \r\n-J  u \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\nO  UJ \r\n\r\nOh \r\n\r\ni    \u003c \r\n\r\nUJ  h- \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003e  o: \r\n\r\n\u003c  to \r\nO  V. \r\n\r\n_i  «: \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nui \r\n\r\n\r\nI-1 \r\n\r\nU! \r\n\r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n3  \u003c: \r\n\r\n3  »-¦ \r\n_j  s: \r\na  -i \r\n\r\no  u. \r\n\r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n!  UI \r\n\r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nUI  u \r\n\r\n\r\nO  UI \r\n\r\n»- \r\n\r\nZ  tt \r\n\r\nUJ  CJ  Ui \r\nOuj\u003e \r\niuIZ \r\n-J  I-  »- \r\n\r\nn  a  a \r\n\r\no  U)  l/\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c  «d  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\no* \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nm \r\nM \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nao \r\n\r\n\r\n¦o \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n•-a \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e0 \r\n\r\ni«o \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nf\\J \r\n\r\nm \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\nui  ui \r\n\r\nUI  O  0 \r\n\r\nO  UI  u \r\n\r\nUI   _l \r\n\r\n\r\nO  U  l\u003e \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\nnh  \u003c  4 \r\n\r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\no \r\nui \r\n\r\n\r\nq \r\n\r\n\r\nl\u003c \r\n\r\nOC \r\n\r\n:  3 \r\n\r\n\r\nu^  \u003c/  o    1 1 \r\n\r\n\r\no  a \r\n\r\na:  ct \r\na  a \r\n\r\nCJ  UI \r\n\r\no  a \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c*\u003e  x  t:  \u003c~ \r\n\r\n\r\n-I \r\n\r\n\r\nx  -4 \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nz  v\u003e \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c4 \r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n•-0  3 \r\n\r\n\r\n(.5 \r\nUI \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n;  a \r\n\r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n\r\nu:  _j \r\n\r\nujo  _i \r\n\r\nauo \r\n\r\nuj  JO \r\n_    _l \r\n\r\nH  O  PS \r\n\r\nu  a \r\n\r\nq  l-X \r\n\r\noc  rr \r\n\r\na  3 \r\n\r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nui \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\n2     I  O \r\n\r\n\r\nOf \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n\u003c    « \r\n\r\n\r\nLU \r\nC \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\nu \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\nu  _i  -i  n \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\no \r\n\r\noi \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\na  uj \r\n\r\n-j  a \r\n\r\n\"J      a \r\n\r\n\u003c  ^ \r\n\u003eJ  t—  oe; \r\n\r\n-) \r\n•\u003c  \u003c  z \r\n\r\nr;   _i  i-t \r\n\r\n-}?-  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  \"I \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nes \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nec \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\na  z \r\n\r\nMO\" \r\n\u003ei-  i: \r\n\r\n\u003c  _j  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nco  m \r\n\r\n•    » \r\n\r\nIM  N \r\n\r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\nco \r\nen \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\no  f»\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nUI: \r\nUK \r\n\r\n\r\nO  ui \r\no.  o \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\naC'  _i \r\nO  _J \r\n\r\n•-•  o \r\nru \r\n\r\n3: \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nU.1  « \r\n\r\n— l  z \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nlyoi  Z \r\n\r\nui  a \r\n\r\nz  a \r\n\r\n\u003ca \r\n\r\n\r\nui \r\n\r\nO  UI \r\nUI  o \r\n_j  ui  UI \r\n\r\n-J  c \r\nO  uj  _i \r\nU  _l  c \r\n-J  o \r\na::  a \r\nO  u \r\n\r\n\r\nz  « \r\n\r\n3.  o \r\n\r\n3:13 \r\n\u003c!-» \r\n\r\n.  ;;  »• \r\nzo \r\nz  u \r\n\r\nUll  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\no \r\n» \r\n\r\n\r\nfVJ \r\n\r\n\r\n•a \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nMS \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n-r \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nIt \r\n\r\nicn \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\nL3 \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\n0- \r\n\u003c-0 \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\ni  \u003c \r\nii^ \r\n\r\n\r\nr-o \r\n\r\n\r\np» \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cUI \r\n\r\noiv \r\n\r\n\r\n04 \r\n\r\nUL \r\n\r\n\r\nec \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n!\"» \r\nui \r\n04 \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nUI \r\nQ-t- \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nUfxJ \r\n\r\nHi \r\n\r\n\u003c•\u003c \r\n\r\nO  at \r\na \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\n«n|«/» \r\n\r\no* \r\n\r\nCo- \r\n\r\n«/\u003e \r\n\r\nvi \r\n\r\na \r\nui \r\n\r\nr- \r\nU \r\nUJ \r\n\r\n.-I \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\n4 \r\nr-l \r\n\r\n4Tr- \r\n\r\n«MOC \r\n\r\n1     va \r\n-4  a. \r\n\r\n\r\nis \r\n\r\ne«: \r\n\r\nQjZ \r\nUlUi \r\nCfiO \r\n\r\nSi \r\n\r\n\r\n\"a^ \r\n\r\n\r\ni \r\ni \r\n\r\n\r\no  ec  L \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c  \u003c  z \r\nae  :*  I     uj  i« \r\n\r\nUKiKH \r\n\r\na  a \r\n\r\nU.  04 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nae \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\na: \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n4* \r\n\r\nl \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ  0- \r\n0-Z \r\n\r\n04   UI \r\n\r\nI   04 \r\n\r\nSO. \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\nec \r\n\r\n*»- \r\nu  z \r\n\r\n\u003c  UI \r\n\r\n-I  04 \r\nto  a. \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nUI \r\nce \r\n\r\n\r\n-J  z  o \r\n\r\nsa \r\n\r\nui  a. \r\n\r\nU.  04 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\nUJ  o-1— \r\n\r\n-J  ZliTt \r\n\u003c  UJ.O \r\n\r\na.| \r\n\r\n041 \r\n\r\nol \r\n\r\noil \r\nae \r\n\r\n\r\ni  ado-  — \r\ni  u  x  xr \r\n\r\nWJI4T  _j  c \r\nUJI-J  _i  — \r\n\r\no'co  a \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\nu \r\nae \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nCl \r\nI \r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\noil \r\n\r\n£1 \r\n\r\n\r\nO  0!c0 \r\n\r\n\u003c  ec.o \r\n\r\n\r\nso  s \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nto  \u003c/»  \u003e( \r\n\r\n\u003c  a  04  or  — \r\nae'xc  \u003cvi \r\nO  \u003c0-  o  o \r\n\r\n•X  UJ  — \r\n\r\n\u003c:ac  t- \r\n¦  a\u003c \r\n\r\nU.O, \r\n\r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\n\r\ntu  u  oe  — \r\n\r\nI  o4\u003c  ,-\u003e \r\n\r\no-  Z  jj  o \r\nui  \u003e  — \r\n\r\n-J  e£  Q \r\nO  \u003c \r\nC  u.  u \r\n\r\nUI       I \r\n\r\ni        ! \r\n'•O  l-ui \r\n\r\n\r\nOl \r\n0O \r\n»      0 \r\nI      ui \r\n\r\na,     o \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0- \r\n\r\n31  ui  ui \r\n\r\nIX  Hi \r\n\r\n0-!0-  (/\u003e' \r\n\r\nI    \u003e•' \r\n\r\n04lU,   l/V \r\n\r\nO      i \r\n\r\n\u003e¦; \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\n\r\nJ/1! \r\n\r\nOf \r\nUi' \r\n\r\n\r\nz: \r\n\r\n3. \r\n\r\n\r\n9X  4* \r\n\r\nin  CO- \r\n\r\n\r\nCO CM \r\n00  cm \r\nm  o \r\n\r\n\r\n«•«  mico  w \r\n\r\n\r\n«**  00   4T \r\n\r\nM  \u003cA!«o \r\n\r\no  CO  i—  v \r\nm  »4 \r\n\r\n\r\nco  roico*  m \r\n\r\n\r\nm  o» \r\n\r\n03  09 \r\n\r\n\r\neo  4\u003e \r\n\r\nCM  \u003c-• \r\n\r\no»  *¦ \r\n\r\n04  «4 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003co  m \r\no  m \r\no  m \r\n\r\nM  «-) \r\n\r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\n43  r- \r\n\r\nv0    o4 \r\nCM  M \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cn  «m  f4i  tn \r\n»  •   •   • \r\n\r\n09  tfVxO  43 \r\n\r\ncoin*.  r4 \r\n\r\n\r\nro  pJp-  —  i \r\no»  (Mm  «-* \r\nox  cM;in  eo; \r\np-  mi»-i  O \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nO  *4\u003e0  Ol \r\n•*  «M.f\\4  o.. \r\n-4  O'OO  ^-* \r\n\r\nO  on  •\u003c•: \r\n\r\nMi        04 \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n*    !\u003c \r\n\r\nI  !o4 \r\nu  \u003e  o \r\nujhoc \r\n\r\no-  04  a \r\n\r\nWl   UJ    \u003c \r\n\r\nU.0COH \r\n\r\na  ui      u \r\n\r\n\u003e  a.  at \r\n\r\nU    04    O    C| \r\n\r\n0-  Z1       ui \r\n\r\nr»  o,ui  oi \r\no-      o     I \r\n\r\n04  UJ|UI   U.I \r\n\r\nHKJO: \r\n\r\n\u003cs\u003e  \u003c:_j \r\n\r\n3HO\u003el \r\nH  Ifl!  (J  H \r\n\r\n041 \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003cl  _l  vo1 \r\n\r\nMMl\u003c\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nC*  O.  O  Ml' \r\n\r\nct  c»;.o4  \u003e: \r\nCOIOmi \r\nui  CI'  ui  z \r\nO  «.•\u003e¦  Zl  o- \r\n\r\n\r\nrvi \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nrvj \r\n\r\n\r\n(Tl \r\n\r\n\r\n0* \r\n\r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\ncm \r\n\r\nc \r\nct: \r\n\r\n\r\n«#- \r\n\r\nCO   \u003cM \r\n\r\n»o  »-\u003c \r\n\r\n**•  to \r\n\r\nCO   43 \r\n\r\nr-  «o \r\n\r\n•c \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM  O \r\n\r\nm  r- \r\n\r\nO  CM \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nCJ\u003e \r\n\r\n0  p- \r\n\r\nr\u003e  *4 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nxl\" \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\n\u003e4  t^ \r\n\r\nO  CO \r\n\r\n•4-  \u003e\u003e \r\n\r\n-O    -4 \r\n\r\n-\u003c  «8- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nm  co \r\n\r\nPO \r\n\r\n»— \r\n\r\nin  p- \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nm  cm \r\n\r\nP-  xT \r\n\r\nru \r\n\r\n.n \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\no-  O \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\nt\u003e  O \r\n\r\nO  £\u003e \r\n\r\nCO   43 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0\" \r\n\r\n0«  43 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nC0  43 \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nm  43 \r\n\r\nP-  O \r\n\r\np-  O \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-41 \r\n\r\n«4 \r\n\r\nf* \r\n\r\nj-4    r4 \r\n\r\n~4 \r\n\r\n^4 \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\np4 \r\n\r\no  nj \r\n\r\n«n  *4 \r\n\r\nao  o \r\n\r\n0s  45 \r\n\r\neo  O \r\n\r\ne\u003e \r\n\r\n~4 \r\n\r\n-*¦  -4 \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nOP- \r\n\r\n'l- \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\nco  en \r\n\r\nrxi  in \r\n\r\nPO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n^}  CM \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\nO  00 \r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n0\"» \r\n\r\nP-  CO \r\n\r\nf\" \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n*rm \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\nCM  CO \r\n\r\n«r  ro \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003c0 \r\n\r\n\u003c£  o \r\n\r\n«4 \r\n\r\neg  o \r\n\r\n*4 \r\n\r\nco  co \r\n\r\n«*¦  ec \r\n\r\n^4 \r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nco  \u003er \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCO- 43 \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm  «o \r\n\r\n43  0 \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n^4 \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nr-  r- \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\nO  eo \r\n\r\nO  CM \r\n\r\n43  r- \r\n\r\n^4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin  »4 \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\n-J- \r\n\r\n—  m \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-4  -« \r\n\r\nin  ox \r\n\r\n0  in \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nf» \r\n\r\n\u003eo \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\nO  CO \r\n\r\n•4-  «r \r\n\r\nm  ro \r\n\r\n\u003cM  CO \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nO  o \r\n\r\nm  c\u003e \r\n\r\n43  O \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\u003er \r\n\r\n\u003er  p- \r\n\r\no«  cO \r\n\r\nO    -4 \r\n\r\nxT  0 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\n-\u003c  o \r\n\r\nO  \u003er \r\n\r\nm  «\u003c- \r\n\r\n— \u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n~*  0\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nco  eo  o \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\n43  m \r\n\r\nox \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•4 \r\n\r\n*4 \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\n•-4    *4 \r\n\r\nrH   -4 \r\n\r\nr4   r- \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\nr4) \r\n\r\n»4 \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\n\u003c-4    -4 \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n** \r\n\r\n44 \r\n\r\n\u003e*n \r\n\r\nCO    -41  \u003cM    CO \r\n\r\n^4  »n \r\n\r\nCM   00!  CO   f\u003e \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\n-i  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ns0l43  CO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n-O \r\n\r\nAJ  ~* \r\n\r\n43   PM \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nxl- \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no-  O \r\n\r\nm  \u003co \r\n\r\n\u003c0    -4 \r\n\r\n»-\u003c  o» \r\n\r\no  m \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO  CO \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no  m \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\na\u003e  p» \r\n\r\nO  P- \r\n\r\n-0 \r\n\r\nPO \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\n•0 \r\n\r\nin  ^~ \r\n\r\no\u003e  ol \r\n\r\n-• \r\n\r\nO   CO \r\n\r\n#4 \r\n\r\n\u003co  m \r\n\r\n-4    f\u003e4 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n— i \r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n\r\n0\u003e  CO \r\n\r\nf4 \r\n\r\n^4 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\no  c \r\n\r\nsO \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\nm  co \r\n\r\nO  P- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nOx \r\n\r\nPM \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nO \r\nr4 \r\n\r\nf\u003e \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\nmt  ¦£ \r\n\r\nf4   -4 \r\n\r\no-  CM \r\n\r\nO  m \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n\u003e*• \r\n\r\nsir  43 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCM  CO 'sf  00 \r\n\r\n0-4 \r\n\r\neo  0 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nPO \r\n\r\nm  *o \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\nO  00 \r\n\r\nco  «j-r«-  m \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM  CM \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\no- \r\n\r\n«r  p- \r\n\r\n\u003e«•  P- \r\n\r\np-  0 \r\n\r\ncm  in \r\n\r\n*M \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n0» \r\n\r\n-*¦ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n^3 \r\n\r\n\u003eo  CO \r\n\r\n^¦r- \r\n\r\no  o« \r\n\r\nco  cmo  r- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nf\u003e    \u003c\" \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\n•T \r\n\r\np-  %f \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n¦*¦  m \r\n\r\nm  m  in \r\n\r\n0X \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n4* \r\n\r\n•4 \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003co  \u003c*¦ \r\n\r\nnj  r- \r\n\r\nCO  (VI \r\n\r\n-4  «0 \r\n\r\neo  o \r\n\r\no- \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•*¦%!¦ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nm  eo \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nO  O \r\n\r\n-•\u003e \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nPO \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\n° \r\n\r\nr\u003ca,  o»  \u003cxii  o-  \u003cC \r\n\r\nnj  p-i  co  Mi  \u003cn  pj \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nO  — \r\n\r\n¦\u003e?¦  C0;O  PO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\ni\u003cM  43 \r\n\r\n•^    m» \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nP» \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\n»4 \r\n\r\n-4   CO \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n— 1 \r\n\r\nO   ~* \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n«4  CM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003c-4 \r\n\r\nnj \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\nT+ \r\n\r\n-* \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n44 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\neo  r»\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003co  e\u003e \r\n\r\n»m  m \r\n\r\nCO  ^1 \r\n\r\nm  \u003eo \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCO  O \r\n\r\nPO \r\n\r\nP-l \r\n\r\n43  P- \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\np-  m \r\n\r\n\u003eo  CO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n¦J\" \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n09 \r\n\r\nr»- \r\n\r\n*»»!•« \r\n\r\n•       »      \u003e       H     •       i \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•     • \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•   • \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\n•    • \r\n\r\n1    • \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no\u003e  ^*  m,  m  \u003eo \r\n\r\nco  co;  co  co:  o\u003e  cm \r\n\r\n«•« \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\n43  m \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\na*  o;p- \r\n\r\nP» \r\n\r\nrg  in \r\n\r\n43  Ox \r\n\r\n-^   O \r\n\r\nOx \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nm  0s \r\n\r\nCO   1-4 \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\nox  »r \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nco  in \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\"4*   -4 \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCM  -4 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n4\"  ro \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nxf \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\nO-  \u003cNJ \r\n\r\nCM  •? \r\n\r\nCO  o \r\n\r\ncm  r» \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0--4 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n-r- \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\nt\u003e    F4 \r\n\r\np-p- \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nOx \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nf\u003e'  m  o \r\n\r\n•4-  O \r\n\r\nco  cm  cm  cm\"  o  -a* \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nsr  r- \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n-4  in \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n~*  nT  CO  Cx  O \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nxT \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no-  m  ni \r\n\r\n\u003e*\"  r- \r\n\r\nCM  m  CM  CM  CM  •*• \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\ne\u003e \r\n\r\n¦4\"  fM \r\n\r\ni^ \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\nO  \u003e4\" \r\n\r\nPO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n%»¦  a\u003e  4;  \u003er \r\n\r\n-O \r\n\r\n1— \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nfjx \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nmj»H  f*  fsi  m \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nHIOH   HimiM \r\n\r\n!    ; \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\nCM  ^4 \r\n\r\n^4 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n1 \r\n1 \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\n!         1 \r\n\u003ej\u003e  po  co  rvj  * \r\n\r\ni     I \r\n\r\nco  \u003co  o~  m  r»»  m \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\n•*¦  PO \r\n\r\nPO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO  rO \r\n\r\n7\u003e \r\n\r\noe \r\n\r\nI \r\n^^\"o  P- \r\n\r\nPO \r\n\r\n«*- \r\n\r\nPO \r\n\r\nm* \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n••4  m  o  \u003e^  f\u003e \r\n\r\nr»  o*  m  -n  r»  43 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm  co \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm  r*  o  m \r\n\r\ncr \r\n\r\nO  O  \u003cn  43  P- \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nPM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n«\u003c-o  o  o  -• \r\n\r\ncm  40  r-  O  tn  r- \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-4  cc \r\n\r\n\\m% \r\n\r\n»M:in  -O  CM \r\n\r\n»*• \r\n\r\nm*    mi    fC\\    m    p— \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\npo \r\n\r\nru  %j-  in.  ro  nj \r\n\r\n«*¦  r»  co  evi  r«  o \r\n\r\no- \r\n\r\nso \r\nm \r\n\r\nPO  CM \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n-4  rO  CM \r\n\r\nm  cm  r-i  co  co \r\n\r\n1— 1 \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n¦O \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n-4 \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n_J \r\n-J \r\no \r\na \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n¦ \r\n\r\nJO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\n1  UI \r\n\r\noe \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n-j \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nuii \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\nOi \r\n\r\n! \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nUJ  _J \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nO  UI        ' \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUl| \r\n\r\nUI               U| \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\nUJ  O \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n_J'        UJi \r\n\r\no           - \r\n\r\nui  o       u:  ui \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nJ    UJ    11 \r\n\r\n_J        o \r\n\r\naJ \r\n\r\nUJ                 -J \r\n\r\n_j       uoc \r\n\r\n¦_)  UJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n_l  _l  'J5  UI \r\n\r\nne       Cuju \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\nUJ  -)              C \r\n\r\n-J  Z  O  Ui  u\u003e \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no-  O \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nO  JUJO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nUJ  0   O  — 1   UJ \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nO  -J               \u003cJ \r\n\r\nS    —   Ut  mi   mi \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCC  UJ \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nU  C  -1  UJ \r\n\r\no-\u003c \r\n\r\nUJ               UJ     ml     O \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nui  o     i \r\n\r\nUuJJ  J  J \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nO  -1 \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\nO  -\u003e  -I \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nUJ   Oi    _l    _J    IjJ \r\n\r\n_ 1 \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\n_J  \u003c  J                u \r\n\r\nh-  _i  a  c \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n\u003c  -1 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nX1       C  -1 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n_J    a     ml    O     — 1 \r\n\r\n\"_ \r\n\r\n_ 1 \r\n\r\n-J              '  UI  0- \r\n\r\nz  i/i  o  u  o \r\n\r\n-j \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nOnfUO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n-j  04  a      -j \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n3    yj    U!    li     \u003c \r\n\r\nu  ci  ijl»  o \r\n\r\n;— \r\n\r\nz  o \r\n\r\n04. a     u \r\n\r\nz.  \u003e?  u  e*  c \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nL\u003e  h  O  UI  H \r\n\r\nO   JI2         Oi  UJ \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n_j \r\n\r\nr\"M \r\n\r\noc \r\n\r\nr:  i-4  re \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n03      a  u \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n-j \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\n\u003c  UI  -J  l^ \r\n\r\nJJZZ«(t-t- \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n•x  -e. \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr .  r  a  •  c. \r\n\r\n0- \r\n\r\n~\u003e,c:  «-4i \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nJJ\u003e  1-    _!    ~i \r\n\r\n—i  o-  o-  —i  -?:  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n0- \r\n\r\na  o \r\n\r\nt— 4 \r\n\r\n-\u003er\u003e  —  a \r\n\r\nfy \r\n\r\noe      a  ^  cf. \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n»-4 \r\n\r\n0- \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nKiO  JC    \u003e \r\n\r\nJ??Jt-K \r\n\r\n\u003e-\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n_l     \u003e— \r\n\r\n\"» \r\n\r\n-\u003e  r1  \u003e-\u003e \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\nC  'U  «-•  z?  0 \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n•J \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003c       C  u\u003e  u. \r\n\r\nC  C  C  CC  ui  to \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n0- \r\n\r\n\u003c  \"2 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nui:      3  z \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n04  «J  VI  T;o4 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr\u003c \r\n\r\n1- \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n0-  O  UI         _ \r\n\r\nO  l/l  \u003c/»  O \r\n\r\nt  3 \r\n\r\n-j \r\n\r\nO'X  1  2 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nz  -1  3       r: \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nm:       w\u003e  _ \r\n\r\nj        'JJK \r\n\r\n«*¦    \u003c    \u003c    O  4t    0- \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n-\u003e \r\n\r\na  o       -i \r\n\r\nr:  \"4  -j  :r  3 \r\n\r\nc; \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nae \r\n\r\n1  O  \u003ct  3  \u003cJ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nM    M     T1 \r\n\r\n-j \r\n\r\n-\u003e  \u003e¦     \u003c  \"\u003e \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nvotHirs \r\n\r\n\u003e— ¦    \u003e— 1    i— ¦             ^    (/» \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n4C    \u003e- \r\n\r\nV- \r\n\r\no-:^:  C\u003cr. \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\nIO 1  Ti.  (/\u003e  1 \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\nZ1  0-  \u003cS\\  T. \r\n\r\n\u003cr  --%  \u003c.¦«  x  t  Ci \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nt  r \r\n\r\n,— \r\n\r\n-     IOK    j \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\npijurM'.- \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\n\"1\" \r\n\r\nCL \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003cS*  Z\u003e  -3  0- \r\n\r\nae  =:  c.  k-  \u003c  Ci \r\n\r\nH- \r\n\r\n-3 \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003cr \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n2  r:  \u003e-  o- \r\n\r\n2: \r\n\r\n\u003e-  z  .0  z  a \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nH^ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\naj  3:  w  -J  a \r\n\r\no  n  3  r^  \u003e  _j \r\n\r\nl/\u003e \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no:  \u003cr \r\n\r\n—i \r\n\r\n04,3  \u003c-i \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nr\u003e4  1/  ^  0 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr3 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n0-1 \r\n\r\njaDc: \r\n\r\nUJ  \u003e_!  iJJ  Cj  \u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n'JJ \r\n\r\noe \r\n\r\nX  — J \r\n\r\n1- \r\n\r\n\u003c'  n.  -J,\u003c \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n_J  \u003c!0    u\u003c \r\n\r\n~ \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\n¦^ \r\n\r\n¦¦4 \r\n\r\n4t  \u003c    \u003c  U    'X \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n*— ^ \r\n\r\nT \r\n\r\nu\u003c \r\n\r\nU.  OjO   Ni'X \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n-. \r\n\r\n37 \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\n~ \r\n\r\n-- \r\n\r\nr-o%i   ¦¦¦»\u003c¦    r  -,*.*,.¦' \r\n\r\n\r\nan \r\n«OIO \r\n\r\nNO. \r\n\r\nvuj \r\n%rae \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n\r\nat \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n'CC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•CK \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\np-i-X \r\n\r\nz\u003c \r\n«cui \r\n\r\nar \r\n\r\nUjO \r\n\r\n•  u. \r\n\r\n£a \r\nurui \r\no;h \r\n\r\nPo \r\n\r\nt/t.O. \r\n\r\njUJ \r\n\r\no. \r\n\r\n\u003e-a \r\na:  a: \r\n«c\u003c \r\n*::* \r\n\r\nz  \u003c \r\n\r\n3 \r\ni/r_j \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nH \r\nO \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n\r\nk \r\n\r\n\r\nim  of. \r\n—  \u0026 \r\n\r\nr*  UI \r\n\r\nis \r\n\r\nur\u003c \r\na; \r\n\r\n««H \r\nOJZ \r\n\r\nUJ.  Ui \r\nQCQ \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nirt-i \r\n« \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\u003c\u003c  tic \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nz \r\no \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n3 \r\nH \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\na \r\n\r\n3  H \r\n\r\n\r\n(Mm \r\n\r\nOJ  cr\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nas \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\na  o \r\n\r\nU.  UI \r\n\r\n\r\nHV1 \r\nz  z \r\n\r\nU)  UJ \r\n\r\na  ¦\"•!— \r\n\r\n\u003e-• \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e.CI \r\na  uj  o \r\n-i  a  — \r\na. \r\n\r\n\r\nI    C/»t-» \r\n\r\nof  Cj* \r\n\r\n-»  Xj  — \r\nQ  in \r\n\r\nO \r\nVI \r\n\r\n\r\n_J  1/W  — \r\n\r\n0:«- \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nm  -» \r\n\r\n¦© \r\n\r\nIM  IX \r\n\r\n\r\nIM  1*1 \r\n\r\nin  m \r\n\r\n\r\nz  jizu \u003e«r \r\n\r\n«C  43.1/1  M  a \r\nO  \u003c)\u003c\u003e•  — \r\nJXUOl \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ; \r\n\r\n5\"! \r\n\r\n\r\nIfflUJI'- \r\nZ  -J  t/wr«1 \r\n\r\n\u003c!eo  \u003c,o \r\nOt  \u003c  o .  — \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\not \r\n\r\n\r\nt/p-» \r\n\r\nKIM \r\nZO \r\n\r\n\u003c  — \r\n\r\na; \r\n\r\n\r\nz  x  m  «:  \u003c-• \r\n\r\nUJ  h-  JC  Uj  o \r\nZ  Ul  \u003e¦  — \r\n\r\n_i  a  \u003c \r\no  u-  u \r\no£        \u003c \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\nZ*OH \r\n\r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\nd \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\no \r\ni_j \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\n.«      C \r\n\r\n\r\nZ \r\nUJ  UJ \r\nX  K \r\nH\u003e  «/» \r\n\r\n\u003e• \r\nU.  m \r\n\r\na    i \r\n\r\n\r\n«/» \r\n\r\nCC \r\n\r\nixr \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nZ \r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c*\\  r— \r\non  o\u003e \r\n\r\nO*  fM \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nim  \u003c*i \r\no  m \r\noh  -« \r\n\r\n\r\nm  •» \r\n\r\n-HO \r\n\r\n\r\nni \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n^eo \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\nim  m \r\n\r\no  CO \r\n\r\n—  «r \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n-O \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nr- \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nas \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no  m \r\n\r\n«o  -4-ip*  r- \r\n\r\n\r\nm  co  -4*  r- \r\nm  eol\u003co  \u003eo \r\nmih-  im \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nim  p* \r\n\r\n\r\nrvi  o \r\no  cm \r\n\r\n¦4\"  IT. \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\n•O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no  r*  o»  o* \r\nm  Oioj  cm \r\n\r\n\r\nI  I \r\no  •-•'a  o \r\n\u003e*•  \u003cm  m  r-. \r\n\r\nr*  o-  CO  •*\" \r\nO  \"i  \u003cM  «^' \r\n\r\n\u003c^  IM         Nl \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nZ  '\u003c \r\nX  »-\u003e \r\nO  \u003e-  O  I \r\nUl  H-  QC \r\nH  »-•  O \r\ni/\u003e  VJ  \u003c \r\n\r\nu.  a:  a  — \r\n\r\nQU         O \r\n\r\n\u003e  u.  « \r\n\r\nt'J  hOOi \r\nh-  Z       ai \r\n\r\n»-        O \r\n\r\nMWUJU.I \r\n\r\nhi- jo; \r\n?r  t-'  a  \u003el \r\n\r\nim  m:u  HI \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003ci_i  mi \r\n•—  -*'\u003c  «i \r\nii  u?:o  \". \r\noi  ac:i-»  \u003e• \r\n\r\nUJ  UI'UI   7*.\\ \r\nO  OJS  3j \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nmlm  ol\u003cr  o \r\n\r\n\u003cri  -m  -«  \u003c\\4  ,-n \r\n\r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nfV»  »J-  CO  (Mr\\|  r- \r\n\r\noo  rj  im  imio  •# \r\nrs»  micM  imiim  \u003er \r\n\r\nw*  (*\u003e  rM  **!\u003c*\":  IM \r\n\r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\nr»  O  m  * \r\no  o\u003e  '»  «^ \r\n-«  im  «r  r* \r\n\r\n\r\nt0.(O  QSir-t  o\u003c \r\n\r\n»^io»  m  o  \u003cM \r\n\r\n•*  ^i  -\u003c  (\u003c\u003e  *« \r\n\r\n\r\n^|o\u003e\u003e  -4*  m  ^ \r\n\r\n«D,f\"  «M  «0  IM \r\n\r\n\r\noo:m  Mli-i  \u003eo \r\nt^i\u003e  mioo  \u003eo \r\n\r\n\r\nO  -o  (Mi -J-  \u003cn. \r\n^•O  OKM  O \r\n\r\n\r\nJ \r\n\r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\nOS  oieo  \u003c£ \r\n\r\n*H  0\u003e  CO \r\n\r\n4  mo  m \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\ncr\u003e  -^ \r\n\r\n\r\ni*\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n-O  IMlft  O \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003eo  ojr-  oif\u003ej  r» \r\nm  \u003cn!ro  cp»  r- \r\n\r\n\r\nim  co'm  -o  co  in \r\na3  mieo  r»m  co \r\nim  r\u003e4  im  foi-rm \r\n\r\n\r\nIM  O \r\n\r\n(Ml \r\n\r\n\r\nco  co  o \r\n\r\nCOIi-4  fl \r\n\r\n\r\nm  so  1*1  co  o  \u003co \r\n\u003e4*  m'M  coirsi  .*• \r\n\r\n\u003cM  OM  IMI-^  -4\" \r\n\r\n\r\nH(MH+9\u003e«5 \r\nfP  \u003cX5   \u003c0  1*1  0s  00 \r\n\r\n4  coim  \u003cf  co  o\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\n«orr»a}\u003cMc;eo\u003cor*  mt»  co \r\n\r\nHinO-'I'liMMfliOr-O \r\n^•iDOO'HM^h'Dl/l \r\n\r\niM^m««*iivi«rr-r\u003ci\u003cvjp-\u003eo \r\n\r\n\r\no. \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nor \r\n\r\n(3 \r\n\r\n\r\nrj \r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\r\nIP \r\n\r\n«*¦ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n¦o \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no» \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\n0* \r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no  —  r- \r\n\r\n\r\n•T  IM \r\nIM  ~+ \r\n\r\n\r\n1*1  m \r\n\r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\ni*i \r\nCh \r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\u0026 \r\no^ \r\n\r\n\r\ni  \u003c \r\nlO \r\n\r\n\r\no. \r\n\r\nz\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n!  oc \r\n\r\nlo \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  O \r\nfM  f*1 \r\n\r\nr-  im \r\n\r\n\r\nin  m  si-  -*^o  m \r\nr-  »mit-  o«  o  r~ \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nim  tn \r\n\r\n\r\nin  o \r\n\r\n\r\no  — \r\n\r\n-fh \r\n\u003c*1 \r\n\r\n\r\nHI  sO \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nIM  CO \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n«r  1*1 \r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\nin  m \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nfO \r\n\r\n~*   CO \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\noo \r\nin \r\n\r\nf«1  CM \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n(J \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n\r\nIS \r\n\r\n\r\n¦a \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\no \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n^:  u \r\n\r\n\r\n— I  •»•  K  OB \r\nMIADO  O \r\n\u0026¦  ¦*•  1*1  \u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e  p4  k  •* \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cr  co \r\n\r\n\r\nttni4\u003cr \r\n3  —  m  cm \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\n\r\nh3  00 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c\u003e  --  © \r\n\u003cM  \u003c*1  -O \r\n\r\n\r\n-i  im  p-t  \u003en \r\n\r\nM  CO  CO   ^0 \r\n\r\n\r\no  o  :\u003co  m  co  o» \r\n\r\nIM  IM  \u003cVI  0s  O*  -« \r\n\r\n\r\ni*i  r-  in  cm \r\n\r\n\r\n«J\"  0*  1*1  co  \u003co  f» \r\n\r\n*¦*  cm  iin  fi  m  \u003c-i \r\n\r\n\r\n«0  \u003c0  «M  O  1*1   «^ \r\nm  O  :CO  «*•  \u003cM  p^ \r\n\r\nJO  r*  .in  »^  «M  ** \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n1*1  o  o  in \r\nO  \u003er  \u003cP  *-• \r\n\r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\no  f*1 \r\n\r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n\r\nD  co  in  ©  o  -* \r\n\r\n\u003e•  nw  mim*i \r\n\r\nf\\J  r-t   HlH  IM \r\n\r\n\r\no\u003e  o»  r^  o  p^  in \r\nn0  o  co  \u003c0  ico  \u003co \r\n\r\n\r\ngs  0s  Mj*  O  {0s  \u003eo \r\n\u003cOt»p\u003c  \u003c  -o \r\n\r\n\r\nin  \u003ci«f  o  o  h \r\nr\\i  im  km  i-»  [in  •*• \r\n\r\n\r\n1*1  i*i  o  co  o*  oo  |^\"  \u003cf  co  r*  to  \u003ej* \r\niMtnr~oxnc^'ocir.  -or~\u003c£) \r\n\u003cMiMino(M\u003ef(— irtWim^h \r\nrg       iMfniM      in  nh  mm  h \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n'\u003c \r\nits \r\n\r\n!s \r\n\r\n,\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n•u \r\n\r\nO  Ul \r\nUJ  O \r\n\r\n-J  HI \r\n\r\n-J  -I \r\n\r\nU   -J \r\n\r\no  c \r\nu \r\n\r\nb  ar \r\n\r\n?-  o \r\n\r\nr\u003e  r: \r\n\r\n\"\u003e  ^3 \r\n\"1 \r\n\r\nZ\u003e  Ul! \r\nTJV \r\nO  o \r\n\u003c  —  ?- \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nUJ  o \r\n\r\n\r\nC3  -I \r\nU  O \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nec \r\n0,i! \r\n\r\n~  ° \r\n-\u003e  Z3 \r\n\r\n\r\no|ui \r\n\u003c—  f  J \r\n\r\n3»      .J \r\n\r\n\r\nDp \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  cc \r\n\r\n\r\nci  r- \r\n•—  i \r\n\r\n3-  I- \r\n«t  _l \r\n-J  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\nui! \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nn  iu \r\no  o \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\na.  _i \r\n\r\na  _i \r\n—  a \r\n\r\n2  O \r\n\r\n3  ! \r\n-\u003e  '3£ \r\n\r\nC \r\nUl  i— \r\n-J  ~ \r\n-I  3 \r\n\u003e-«  -\u003e \r\n\u003e{ \r\n\r\nuj   -) \r\n2  Q \r\n\r\n\u003c  C \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ! \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-J  . \r\n-I  o \r\n\r\na  ui \r\n\r\no  -J \r\n\r\n-j \r\na  »_) \r\n\r\nT   .Y. \r\n\r\n-•a \r\n~o \r\n\r\n\u003c  \"J \r\n7  6 \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\naJ \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\n\r\nv0 \r\n\r\nCjN \r\nCVJ \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\na \r\n-j \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\n«M  * \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n«r \r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n-•        !fM \r\n\r\n1*1       \u003co \r\n\r\n\r\nl\u003c \r\n\r\nIk \r\n\r\n\r\n|3 \r\n;  Q \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\nin \r\nin \r\n•o \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nm \r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\np* \r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\nico \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\na     o \r\n\r\n\u003cr        im \r\n\r\n;im     ;  ** \r\n\r\nO        ,  \u003cM \r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n:  p* \r\n\r\ni  oo \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCT^ \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\n.r- \r\n\r\n,1*1 \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n!  ^3 \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\n!\u003e \r\n\r\ni  -j \r\n,  \u003c \r\n\r\nI  u \r\nI  on \r\n\r\n\r\nts     iu. \r\n\r\n\r\nI  -.! \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\r\nX.UJ \r\n\r\n-\u003e  ft \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\no\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n•ft \r\not \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nIk \r\n\r\n\r\nos \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\nmUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nJO \r\n\r\n\r\ncr\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nz \r\no \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n\u003c  *-l \r\n\r\noc- \r\noi  o \r\no  o \r\n\r\n\r\nh  **  — \r\n00 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nZ \r\nUl \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n3 \r\nr- \r\n•ft \r\n\r\n\r\nC3  \u003c \r\n\r\n3  H- \r\n\r\n•ft  O \r\n\r\n\r\n•/\u003e \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nO  UlO \r\n\r\n-I  X \r\n\r\na. \r\nX \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nee  a.  ft \r\n\r\nX' \r\nO  t/1 \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nZ  in \r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nJl \r\n\r\n\r\nco  oo \r\n\r\nift  ft \r\no»  oo \r\nro  cr\u003e \r\nro  co \r\n\r\nft  **¦ \r\n\r\n\r\n03 \r\n(ft \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\u003cr \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nin  tft \r\n\r\nft  ft \r\n\r\nco  r» \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  r—»m  r» \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\nO  0* \r\nCM  CM \r\n\r\n\r\no  ft  o  o \r\n\r\nCO  \u003c*•  0»  »ft \r\n\r\no  ft  ft  o \r\nsft  a \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ. \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\na. \r\nai \r\n\r\nec \r\n\r\n\r\nX  u  •*¦ \r\n\r\n•ft  «-»o \r\n\r\nOi— \r\n\r\nO  at; \r\naii \r\n\r\nZ  «ft \r\n\r\n\r\nuj  x:— \r\n\r\njto  \u003c;o \r\n\r\n\u003c  Uj— \r\n\r\nO.M. \r\n\r\nuj     ! \r\n\r\naC \r\n\r\n\r\n:r_.i£. \r\n\r\n\r\n«fti-» \r\n\r\n?-  «M \r\nZO \r\n\r\n\u003c¦  — \r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\n(A \r\n\r\n\r\n«*  O  J  t^  -. \r\nOS   -J  UJ  Ml \r\n\r\n03:       a:  — \r\n\r\n\u003c  «\"  K  C \r\n\r\nas        O  O \r\n\r\nUl    CS    U.    UJ \r\n\u003e  Ui         H~ \r\n\r\n\u003c  o.       \u003c \r\n\r\nU; \r\n\r\nZOKUI \r\n\r\n\r\ntft       Oi \r\n\r\nz!     o \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\na\u003c     o \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n3'uu  uj \r\n\r\n1       \u003e' \r\n¦*\u003cu.  \u003cft: \r\n\r\nO       i \r\n\r\n\u003e»l \r\n\r\n\r\n•ft  o» \r\noa  co \r\na  «ft \r\n\r\n1-4   0\u003e \r\n\r\nft  (ft \r\nCo \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nift \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\n00  r- \r\nco  m \r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\ncm  o \r\n•ft \r\n\r\n\r\nIMOIAJ/ \r\nCO  CM**'  CO \r\n\r\nr-  eai-o  o» \r\nino\u003eMNl \r\n\r\nft  ift  0s  0O| \r\n\r\nu\u003e  03  «r  r»' \r\n\r\n\r\n00  HlN'iOl \r\nIft  Ift  I  CM  -«i \r\n\r\nm  co  «j^ t\u003ei \r\n\r\n.-«  «r  »T\"rnl \r\n\u003c\\»  —  ,f-  sM \r\n\r\nCM|00  «M \r\n\r\n\r\n-4-CMCO  09 \r\n\r\n(V)  CO   OJ   ~» \r\n\r\n^-rTM    ft \r\n\r\n\r\nIft  ft \r\n\r\n\r\nft.  ift, \r\n\r\n\r\ncm  -oif  mi \r\n\r\nM  miff   ftl \r\n\r\nNO'ONi \r\n0»  03   CM. \r\n\r\n¦*•  ft  co \r\n\r\n\r\nm  o  ft  ft: \r\n\r\nO  ro  Co  O \r\n\r\nCO   r\u003e-  Ml \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\na \r\n\r\n03 \r\nift \r\n\r\nIft \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr- \r\n¦0 \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n\r\nIft \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n•f \r\n(M \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nIft \r\n\r\n\r\n0 \r\nft \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr- \r\no \r\n(\"¦ \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nm \r\n01 \r\n\r\nCO \r\nM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nJ- \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nMl \r\n\r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nOf \r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003e• \r\n\r\nM»| \r\n\r\nZ: \r\n\r\n3. \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nO  1  1 \r\n\r\nZ  !\u003c \r\n\r\nX  mi  ! \r\n\r\nU  \u003e  O  ' \r\n\r\nwho: \r\n\r\n•ft   UJ   \u003c \r\nU.CCOM \r\n\r\na  uj  l5 \r\n\u003e  u.  as \r\nuj  m.  O  01 \r\nI-  Z \r\n3  3  'U \r\nI-        O \r\n\r\n\u003e—   ¦JU.UJ \r\n\r\n\r\nOh  O  no  O \r\nodIoo  evil—*  o \r\n(OIH  dllO  -o \r\n\r\nOlr-  oo  in  ,0 \r\n\r\n•MIO  f\u003e  «*¦  vT \r\nM  m«  CM \r\n\r\n\r\n«fl \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCOnN  O  d \r\nf\u003e-|fO  f-llft  C3 \r\n\r\nr- o  ^  o  sr \r\n\r\nHlflHO-J' \r\n\r\nco  ¦*}  oo:\u003er  r- \r\nm      »Mtfv  co \r\n\r\n\r\n00|fO  «MlP-  o \r\n\r\ntftio  r— r-  a \r\n\r\n03, a  CB'CJ*   \u003eJ\" \r\nCMlO  IftiO  f- \r\n\r\n\r\nO    M   («)   Mfl* \r\n\r\nen  10  r-  »ol(D \r\no  iftlo  r— 10  cf \r\nm  cvjifH  r—l»M  o \r\n»h  ^-iru  r-i\u003c-«  cr \r\n»Hir»  f*-io  \u003e*¦ \r\n\r\nCM  NH \r\n\r\n\r\nIft \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nco  co  o  co  h-  h \r\n\r\ntfl  f-;*  Mi\u003cM  C \r\n\r\n0\"-  O*1©*  CM!IM  CM \r\n\r\nIft  nQ'C*  ob  ro \r\n\r\n\u003c-•  OI»m  CM  CM  ^* \r\n\r\n\r\nOlO  Iftilft  Ift \r\n\r\nin|0  ooiro  cr« \r\n\r\nCMlO  OlH  O \r\n\r\nOi«r  ooico  m \r\n\r\nlft|        HICM  ¦*¦ \r\n\r\n\r\n•ft  cm  03  -o  4-tro \r\nt)hf*  in  c»  r\"\"iift \r\n\r\n\r\nroico  Miro  o« \r\n\r\nOX   Cft'rH  00 \r\n\r\n^  \u003cM  h:cm  O- \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nwa  hI«  o \r\n\r\nCM\u003e\u003c0  \u003c0'03  O \r\n\r\n-O  O  \u003cM'0   «J- \r\n\r\nir  O  ^r-\u003en \r\n¦to  cm  r*  o* \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  4-HO  «*• \r\n\r\nim.*o\u003eih  r— \r\na  cm  co. -4*  ift \r\n\r\n\r\n¦C  «Mlf-«  .*• \r\n•-•  OO  ift \r\n\r\n\r\nCO   -HltfX  o:ao   CM \r\n\r\n-O  O  XI  CO  CO  -o \r\n\r\nh»  co  co  CO  \u003c0 \r\nm»  eo:»^  co;ro  «t- \r\n\r\n\r\n0\u003e   -*'0%  NO  CO \r\n\r\no  a  no  \u003ef  o\u003e \r\n\r\nCO  H  tM  «-»,C\"\u003e  m \r\nCO  03  ^  «*\"'\u003cft  CO \r\nCM  f-  CO  ^         CO \r\n\r\n\r\n»J-  CM  03  0 1  CM  Ift \r\nIft  OVlO  0^  0*  \"O \r\n\r\n\r\n«m-co  ¦*¦-\u003c\u003c\u003e  ^m  o:m  riiM  m \r\n\r\n\r\nIft  ft  CM'f—  Ift \r\n\r\n\r\n^MMMS^^M^lCtrn \r\n\r\n\r\n¦Mil  Ift  CMi  tft  CO \r\n\r\neo  r»  \u003c-«  c  ro \r\n\r\nro  »m  co  tft  o \r\n\r\n0«0  CM,  0«   C\u003ei \r\n\r\nIft  O  \u003e-»  sT  CO \r\n\r\n\r\nIft  -O  Ift  O  O  co \r\n\r\n\r\nyO  00  r-  CO  .J-  CO  Ift \r\n\r\n\r\nco  si*  co  »ft  o  co  \u003er \r\n\r\n\r\nft  00 \r\n^-  co \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n\r\n¦o \r\n\r\nin \r\nift \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\nCO \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr- \r\nift \r\n\r\n4\" \r\n\r\n\r\nift \r\n\r\nift \r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nf\\4 \r\nft \r\n\r\n-r \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\niM \r\n\r\n\r\n•*¦  or~  ift  . \r\nr*-  oo  cm  \u003cm,co \r\n(M  -r-  o  ift  ift \r\n\r\nCO  CM  CO  Ift  ^i- \r\n\r\n\r\nM  O  O  P  O  ICIflO  Mil  (O  Ji \r\n\u003cJ»C»'0»Oft;^\"\\OCOCO(MO \r\n\r\niftiftm«r\u003comftift^fto \r\n\r\n\r\n'UJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n1  Oi \r\n\r\n\r\nt/\\  \u003c \r\n\r\nZ  V-'O \r\n\r\n•M    l/IIO \r\n\r\nI \r\n\u003c\u003c:_( \r\n\r\no  o!o \r\nos  oc::»m \r\nc  a \r\n\r\nUJ  JJ \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n\r\nUL. \r\n\r\n°l \r\n\u003e! \r\n\r\niu! \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\na  m \r\nui  z \r\na:  3 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\np \r\nc \r\n\r\nos \r\nUi \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n3: \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\non \r\nft \r\n\r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n¦4- \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nIft \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n«M \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n\\e\\ \r\n\r\n\r\nft  o» \r\n\r\nft  \u003cr\u003e \r\nft  ro \r\n\r\nf*  ift \r\n\r\nr—  f \r\n\r\nCM  ft \r\n\r\n\r\nCO   CM \r\nCO   Ift \r\n\r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n•ft  »J- \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nIft  m« \r\n\r\nIft \r\n\r\nCO  m« \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n^. \r\n\r\nIft  »*• \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCM  Ift \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nCD  »0 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nft  CO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM  m» \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n0* \r\nO \r\n\r\n•ft \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n4\" \r\n\r\nIft \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n\r\nO  CO \r\n\r\nift  \u003er \r\n\r\ni-H  iM \r\n\r\n•n  in \r\n\r\n3\u003e  CO \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nft  CO \r\n\r\nO  ro \r\n\r\nI -j-  eo \r\n\r\niO  -* \r\n\r\nco  «r \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n2 \r\nft \r\n\r\n\r\n'03 \r\n\r\n\\r- \r\n\r\n\r\n¦fo \r\niiri  h \r\n\r\nft  co \r\n\r\nsT  ro \r\n\r\nift  ¦*¦ \r\n\r\nCM. \r\n\r\n\r\nC  CO \r\n\r\nft  ft \r\nin  eo \r\n\r\nIft  \u003cM \r\n\r\nr-  o \r\nift  \u003e*¦ \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nIft \r\n\r\n-H   Ift \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nCM  CO \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\nin  \u003er \r\n\r\n'UJ \r\n\r\n\u003eo \r\n\r\nI'JJ \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n(_)  UJ \r\n\r\nM«  O \r\n\r\nCJ.  u. \r\n\r\nO  _J \r\n\r\n-I  \u003c  _J \r\n\r\n_j       !  c \r\n\r\n.\"¦     !         ;  :r  u \r\n\r\no        _J       -. \r\n\r\n\r\n|2 \r\n\r\n\r\n0. \r\n\r\niO \r\nas \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n¦  7*  cz \r\niO  O \r\n\r\n!_)   M \r\n\r\n;\u003c  7Z \r\n\r\n¦  m  T* \r\n'¦^  -J \r\n\r\n!\u003c  \u003e- \r\niX  ~ \r\n\r\n'\u003c  \u003c. \r\n\r\n1  or  co \r\n!«;  _i \r\n\r\n\r\no  in  r—  eo  |tm  »m \r\nr»  m  I  ft  ft  ro  ui \r\n\r\n«-« \u003er!ro  o  r\u003e  cr» \r\n\r\nift  CO  O  0s  J\u003e   CM \r\n\r\ncc  r~  ro  co  i-«  o \r\nft       m-  cm  rj \r\n\r\n\r\nn  cm  f\u003e  o  Ift  ro \r\n\r\n?  Ifl  f\u003e   HlTi   fl \r\n\r\n«•  co  ift  o\u003e  ft  m \r\n\r\n¦4  in  p  in  im  vT \r\n\r\nH    sf  Lfl    N    C3    M \r\n\r\nM  CO  Kl  CM  |TM  «ft \r\n\r\n\r\neo  -n \r\n\r\n\r\nco  ft  co  in  H  co \r\n\r\nco  \u003eri»M  Nhto \r\n\u003e4-  ift  rj\u003e  m  h-  ft \r\nro  C0|«M  r—o  co \r\n\r\nft     «fW    Ml \r\n\r\n\r\no  Minn  r»-ir\u003e \r\n\r\nO  »;«»•  O  O \r\n\r\nj«-  r— ir—  \"H  »n \r\n\r\nft  o  CO  IM \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  «f  ft  CMO  O \r\nIft  ft 'Ift  00  r-t  Ift \r\n\r\n(MQiHO-rj  o\u003e \r\nfM  ft  ro  *f  m  \u003c*• \r\nm»       ooOhH \r\n\r\n\r\nft      M) \r\n\r\nCM    M \r\n\r\n\r\nM  O  K  CO  Ift  ft \r\n\r\nft  co  yf  ift  ro  f» \r\n\r\nft  O*  CT\u003e  Ift  ho  03 \r\n\r\nft  ft  cj\u003e  ft  ro  o \r\n*¦  f»  in  in  ro  \u003er \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n!eo  ft  r-  O \r\n\r\nift  CO  \"ft   ^ \r\n\r\n«J*  co  »n  ft \r\n\r\nMl   O   CO \r\n\r\nift  r-fM  . \r\n\r\n\r\nH+oiOmo \r\n\u003er  ft'ao  »*\"*j\"  f\u003c \r\nin  o  ft  ft  -ft  CO \r\n7*  \\e\\ft  \u003c•  o*  ^*\" \r\nro  cost  mi \r\n\r\n\r\n1  L \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n¦r \r\n•r \r\nft \r\nta \r\n\r\n\r\nO  ift  *-Np\u003er» \r\n\r\nCO  D  f-  HI  CO \r\n\r\nm  r-  cr»  »J*  in  co \r\n\r\nco  ft  «*¦  rj\u003e  eo \r\n\r\nCM  r*  CM  CM \r\n\r\n\r\nft  eo  o»  o*  ro  o \r\n\r\no^moo \r\n\r\nO  ro  p-  ft  ft  ft \r\nm  ft  ft  rH  rvi  r~- \r\n4-  ft  ift  r-  r*  O \r\n\r\n\r\n«OHOHr- \r\no  cm  co  ft  mi  \u003er \r\nn  co  0  \u003e*¦  \"4-  'ft \r\no\u003e  »m  ft  o»  cr-  ft \r\n\r\nIO  CO  CM  CM  fM  CM \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n4- \r\n\r\n\r\ntft \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1*1 \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n\r\n(ft \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nIt\" \r\nr- \r\nro \r\no \r\n4— \r\n\r\n\r\ni«r \r\no \r\n,r- \r\nro \r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n•o \r\nft \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n»*• \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nico \r\nIft \r\n\r\n\r\nIft \r\nft \r\n\r\n\u003er \r\n\r\nCM \r\nft \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nn \r\nft \r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nr\\j \r\nIro \r\n\r\niO \r\n\r\n10s \r\n\r\n\r\niO  CM \r\n\r\n!»H  |lft \r\n\r\ni-  !««• \r\n\r\n!ft  |CJ\u003e \r\n\r\nIft  Ift \r\n\r\nCO  Jm4 \r\n\r\nM»  ift \r\n\r\n\r\nft  O  CO  O  IN  CM  tft \r\n\r\n!\"-  00  ft  P\"  0\u003e   ft  I \r\n\r\nift     P»     ft     M«    'ft     O \r\n\r\n!M  \u003e*¦  O  cm  ro  ft \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\n\r\n^  CO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003eH \r\nft \r\nft \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n¦s \r\n\r\n\u003c\u003e \r\nIft \r\n\r\n.03- \r\n\r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n\r\nNT \r\n\r\n3- \r\n,1ft \r\nIft \r\n\r\n1*1 \r\n\r\n\r\nIco \r\n10 \r\n\r\n!lft \r\n\r\n,co \r\na \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n^^•rO^^MCD  h-Mi\u003criftr\u003e  mi| \r\neoftliftOAjo\u003eoft\u003cr.rC' \r\nr~omroinrof-\u003cM\u003c7»rMft \r\n\r\nc^oOiCMOr—OpftOCMioft  rMjco \r\n\r\no^iftcop-r-iftUicMror-ft  co \r\n\r\nSf  CM  pMl  ft  ft  M  (M I \r\n\r\n\r\nroiftcMineor-iftO»cMift«-»iftL \r\nOft'S'CMft^OOCMini'-^ift \r\nft4-\u003erir.  ft^fn\"*-^-*-^^ \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-*• \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nl- \r\n\r\n,\u003c*\u003e \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\njw \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\naj \r\n\r\nO  ui      ' \r\n\r\nUl  o \r\n\r\nJ   JJUJ \r\n\r\nJJuai \r\n\r\nQ  JUO \r\n\r\ni_»  o  _ 1  UJ \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nos' \r\n\r\nO  OS  O  O \r\nft  C         o \r\n\r\nZ     -I    OS' \r\n\r\nZ3.~  O   \"S \r\nDmO \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n\r\n-J  z\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\no!-jj \r\n\r\nMi   lO \r\n\r\nZ  UJ \r\n\r\n\r\nZ5   UJ \r\n\r\n-\u003e  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c     Ml \r\n\r\nm-  es \r\n\r\n\r\n1-  \u003c \r\n\r\n•K  CI \r\n\r\n\r\n~  Z \r\n\r\na     .-» \r\n\r\n«-«  7*' \r\n3  o  v \r\ni^  1-  \u003cr \r\n;:  \u003e-  t- \r\n3  \u003c._j \r\nOS  _jt\u003c \r\nS£i  UO \r\n\r\n\r\nM- \r\n\r\nZ  OS \r\n\r\n3  la \r\n\r\nCD  \\ft \r\nU \r\n\r\n\r\nuj! \r\no \r\n\r\nijj  UJ \r\nO  _J  UJ \r\niu  jo \r\nJCiU \r\n-  o  _. \r\nO  -I \r\ni_\u003e  «  o \r\na  o \r\n\r\n\u003c-_\u003c    M.   , \r\n\r\nO  Za: \r\n\r\nM.  3  o \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\n_j  r: \r\n\r\n\r\nTO \r\n'       \u003c  -3 \r\n\r\n\"r  ift  ! \r\n\r\n\r\n'-'J  C^  U.'  1^7 \r\n\r\nr  o  r:  a \r\n\r\nM\u003c  |QS    z  0 \r\n\r\n\u003c  O  ui;\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n— 1 \r\n\r\n^     1 \r\n\r\n_J \r\n\r\n-I \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\na      ! \r\n\r\n•j \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n1— » \r\n\r\n11      1 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nMl \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n¦JJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n_) \r\n\r\n77 \r\n\r\n=3 \r\n\r\na \r\n1/1 \r\n\r\n\r\n10 \r\ncs \r\n\r\n\r\nITS \r\n\r\n¦\u003e \r\n\r\nI' J \r\n,1/1 \r\n\r\n\r\nU. \r\n\r\n\r\neC \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nOk \r\n\r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\n\u003ciui \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\nec \r\n\r\nQ \r\nIk \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n:a \r\nui \r\n\r\nOt- \r\n\r\np*\u003c. \r\n«u \r\n\r\n_»x \r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\nPP\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003cae \r\n\r\nZO \r\nl       p*U» \r\n\r\n;      ^O \r\n\r\np~UI \r\n\r\nI       Zl- \r\n\r\np-ttl \r\n\r\nuJ«a \r\n3h \r\n\r\ni2 \r\n\u003e-UJ \r\n\r\n\u003ccu \r\n\r\n3C«-« \r\n\r\nXU \r\n3UI \r\nviae \r\n\r\n\r\n»/i \r\n\r\nr- \r\nz \r\n\r\nU, \r\n\r\npp \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n•-« \r\nu \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\n\r\n-J   UJ \r\n\r\n\u003c  »-l \r\ncc \r\n\r\nec  a \r\na  u \r\nu. \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nui \r\n\r\n\r\nH-    I    ?-.— \r\n\r\n\r\nv\u003e  S  5J \r\n\r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\n\r\n«?  — \r\n\r\n\r\n!         I \r\n\r\nz  x  \u003e¦»\u003c.¦*• \r\n\r\nX       ai  \u003e  — \r\njc:q \r\ni -j  o  \u003c \r\na  u.  u \r\n\r\nor     .\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nZO  r-ttl \r\n\r\nI  i \r\n\r\n\r\nr*ac \r\n\r\n*S.O \r\n\r\np*a. \r\n\r\n\r\ne*i\u003c \r\n-co \r\n«^z \r\noez \r\n«  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nz! \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\ni—       u. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n¦jj  Ui \r\n\r\n6« \r\n\r\n;^:*- \r\n\r\nU#\u003c \r\n\r\n?-  r-  «/» \r\n\r\nec \r\n\r\n3- \r\n\r\n\u003c?- \r\n\r\npj \r\n\r\nU.  «/» \r\n\r\n\u0026.Z \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nuj  at \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n3- \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nVI \r\n\r\np* \r\n\r\nh- \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\nvt \r\n\r\net- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n.1 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n•\u003c~L \r\n\r\n\r\neo  m-t  cm  «0 \r\n\r\n\r\n«1-  03 \r\n\r\n\r\n-o  *r \r\n\r\n\r\ncm  n \r\n\u003cM  \u003co \r\n\r\np*\u003c4- \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c*t \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n«n  «rio  -o \r\n(*i  *i«r  o \r\n(*i  «n \r\n\r\n(M  (V \r\n\r\n\r\n(v \r\n\r\n\r\nm  -«  o  m \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n\r\n(*i  lUhW \r\nnm\u003eo  \u003cc \r\nc*  04.  eg  cm \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  r-*o\u003e  ««i \r\n\r\no\u003e  «o  r*  \u003cs \r\n\r\n\r\ncm  w  m  mi \r\n^so;^  ml \r\n\r\nen,  ^1      *s\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nm  o*(«o  p» \r\nm  Oi0\u003e  h«t \r\n\r\nen  «M0»  nil \r\npp mi      Oi \r\n\r\n\r\no  hio  oi \r\n¦4-  CAM  r»\u003c \r\nft  o»-ee  ¦*• \r\nO  cd*\u003cm  ¦*¦: \r\n\r\np*   \u003cM\u003e  (Mi \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nz  \u003c  I \r\nX  '**  ! \r\nu  \u003e-o     I \r\n\r\nuj  *-  ac      ¦ \r\nr-  pp  O \r\nV)UJ\u003c \r\n\r\nu,  ec  O  p* \r\n\r\na  u\u003e     o \r\n\r\n\u003e  u-  ot \r\n\r\nh-  Z      ui, \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nU\u003e  UJ \r\n\r\n\r\nUI  \u003c  -I \r\nZ  h-\u003c  C \r\n\r\nHVt(J \r\n\r\n\r\n4  JW \r\n\r\n\r\nPP   M \r\n\r\n\u003c  CC \r\n\r\no  a  u  ijj \r\n\r\na  a;  \u003e—  \u003e• \r\n\r\no  q \r\n\r\nC    ft \r\n\r\nUJ  UJ \r\n\r\nUI  Z \r\n\r\no  a \r\n\r\nX  3 \r\n\r\n\u003cZ5 \r\n\u003c*1 \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nff) \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\na? \r\n\r\n\r\n;n \r\n\r\n\r\nWO \r\n\r\n\r\nru \r\n\r\n\r\n0»  *M \r\n\r\nr-  O \r\n\r\n\r\nO  eg \r\nfvl  3 \r\nOJ  Oi \r\n\r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\n«oir—  oit»  ¦*• \r\nf«-  •»*  fsi  4-  r» \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nOf \r\n\r\n\r\n°4 \r\nC \r\n\r\nCu \r\n\r\n\r\n^  m  \u003co  «n \r\n\r\n\r\noca \r\nco  m \r\n\r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\n(MM \r\n\r\nooi  in \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\nm'eo \r\n\r\nni|m \r\n\r\n4\"  CO \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\ncr\u003e  o  •4- \r\n\r\n1M  \u003c-? \r\n\r\n\r\n»o  f\"»  50  (J*  r*- \r\nr»vr«i  in,  c* \r\n\r\n«» ^.       Mm \r\n\r\n\r\n*o  «^|in  o  *o  m \r\nm  oo'o  ch1^  no \r\n\r\no  oi^  ohn  o \r\n\r\nH   niH  H   M   H \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c*\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nr«\u003e  nj  co  «m!0»  nj \r\nO  C0|in  OirM  — • \r\n\r\n(**  (vi  m  \u003c«¦  \u003cm  \u003c0 \r\n\r\n\r\n«vi  in  r-  ni  «f \r\n\r\no\u003e      *  *¦  o \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\n\r\nm  o  \u003cm  fn\u003er  ¦$• \r\n\r\n\r\nii \r\n\r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n\r\nC   O  -+  CM  CO  O \r\n\r\no»  t*-  r*-  -»'\u003cvi  o \r\n^  ini^  mir-  co \r\n\r\n\r\n1*1  r~io  Oiqo  \u003eo \r\nm  \u003e4-  :\u003e*•  \u003cr  \u003cm  o \r\nr-  •^r»«o:in  o« \r\n\r\n(Mi  M \r\n\r\n\r\n!*•  O1-^  (J»i\u003cM  ^ \r\n\r\n\u003co  of\"  eo  cth- \r\n\r\nO    «l-?4    0»,\u003cM    ^»• \r\n\r\n,  I \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003co.  (*i  com  eo  co  «or»  «iM\u003ci  in \r\nr*m  o  -*  (f\\\\t*-  o»  m  o  r*  -o  «o \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nsO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n«r  co  o  o*  —• \r\n\r\nl\\(^tfl  ON \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUI \r\nUI  _l \r\nO  -I \r\nUI  O \r\n-i  u \r\n\r\n-I \r\nc  ui \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nUI  I- \r\n\r\n\u003ci \r\n\r\nI—  .3 \r\n\r\n•  o \r\n\r\n\u003e-  3i \r\n\r\nIT  ?- \r\n\r\n«r.  t^ \r\n-i  a: \r\n\r\n\r\ncm  -or-  o  m  i— jco- \r\n•*•  r-  m  cm  r»  «o  h\" \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nun \r\n\r\n-2 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ  I \r\nlO  \u003e \r\nUI        I \r\n\r\n\r\nLU    O \r\n(j\u003e  U) \r\n\r\n\r\n-J.  c \r\nl_\u003e \r\n\r\n•A \r\n\r\n?-  OJ \r\n\r\nJ  -J \r\n\r\n\r\nUl  -I \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nUI  o \r\n\r\n\r\nO  Ci. \r\nO  \"J \r\n\r\nI- \r\n\r\nZ  IA \r\n\r\na:  a- \r\n\r\na'  S \r\n\r\nt.  r \r\n?- 1- \r\n\r\nCi.'O \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nUJ \r\nU-IO \r\n\r\n\r\na:,  or. \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nUI   UJ \r\n\r\n\r\nUI  UI \r\n\r\nUI  o  o \r\nU  UI  UJ \r\nUI   _J  _J \r\n\r\n-J  -J  -I \r\n\r\n-IOC \r\n\r\nc  o  u \r\nu \r\n\r\nui  uj \r\n\r\n\u003c  y-  *- \r\n«  \u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n'Jhl- \r\nOC  00  Ul \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nUI  X  \u003c \r\n\r\nus1  \u003c  y- \r\n\r\nt.  .  t  r \r\n\r\n!-.\u003c  C \r\nIT   \u003e  _J \r\n\r\nC   \u003c   •«. \r\n\r\n\r\n40 \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\n•4- \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\nCM \r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nin \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n-a \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n¦o \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n|«0 \r\n\r\n\r\nI  (M \r\n\r\n\r\n|\u003e0 \r\nCM \r\n\r\n1 1*1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n,m \r\n\r\n\r\ni\u003c \r\n•c \r\n\r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n\r\n•o  o \r\n\r\nCO  \u003c-* \r\n\r\n\r\nr-+Ncnr-\u003co \r\n•4J  —  r~  ¦*¦  t*i  —* \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n«o  0- \r\n\r\n\r\ni*-  in \r\nr—  m \r\n\r\n\r\nIP*  c*i \r\n\r\n\r\nO  CO \r\n\r\n\r\nim  o \r\n\r\n\r\n(M  f^ \r\n\r\n|CM  CO \r\n\r\n!\u003e0    O \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c*-cn \r\nin  i*i \r\n\r\n*4   QC \r\nCTCM \r\n\r\n\r\n'UI \r\nO \r\n\r\nIS \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nM  O \r\n?  c«1 \r\n\r\n\r\n0\u003e  ml\u003c4*  p-kO  03 \r\n\r\no  p\u003cr-  cj»p  o \r\n\r\n\r\n4  08  ^   Hffl \r\n\r\n(si  ««\u003ein \r\n\r\n\r\n0  9\u003e  O  \u003cOhO \r\n\r\nhNHOO \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n!*1  CM  t*  4\"  P\u003c  O \r\n\r\no*  o  r*»  cm  o  cm \r\n\r\n(VJ    ^    -4   »-.    (*\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n-t  —i  ^3  sj- \r\nru  co  h-  «0 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003eo  «o  'o  o  :\u003co  «o \r\n\r\nh-  («•  ,•*•  cm  ^-  ft \r\n\r\nCM  — «  ft  ft  (M \r\n\r\n\r\neo  eo  c*»  in  jf \r\n\r\nmoooNM \r\n\r\n\r\ncm  o»  r-  r—  p- \r\n\r\no  h  ,h  in  o \r\n^}  p^  in  cnim \r\n\r\n\r\nmin'ONo  in \r\nft  cm  1 4\"  m  \u003er  «j- \r\n1—  p\u003c  in  en  ,fo  —I \r\n\r\n\r\nc*i  d  'O  c*i  o  ec \r\ncm  m  h-  o  m  o \r\nft  cm  m  o  cm  -r \r\n\r\n(M        jp*  (*1  CM \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nI  I \r\n\r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nO  UI \r\nUi  O \r\nUI \r\n\r\n\r\nUI \r\nO \r\nUi \r\n\r\n\r\nIM  (M  jp4  0* \r\n\r\no\u003cr)rico \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nIM  f* \r\n\r\nin       |in \r\np*       O \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\no  m \r\n\r\n\r\nL \r\n\r\n\r\ncm  eo  m  O \r\n\r\nh  |»  fO  N  ;ro  o \r\n\r\nPU  -M   p4  mt  iCM  (\u003c1 \r\n\r\n\r\nm  co  »n  f-  io  eo \r\n\r\nco  ^¦\"fH  9\u003ern \r\nrn  in  icn  (M  (O  in \r\n\r\n\r\nONWNffllfl \r\n\r\nin  \u003cm  cm  \u003co  in \r\n\r\n\r\no  c  in  \u003co  r-  *o \r\nh  h  m  m  f*  h \r\nm  cm  p-i  c*i  co  «-* \r\n\r\n\r\n^n \r\n\r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003eo \r\n\r\n\u003ei- \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nUUJOJ  J \r\n\r\n\r\na.  iu \r\nO  -I \r\n\r\n•  \u003c  -J \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n.z  u \r\n\r\nI— I \r\n\r\n;c  c \r\n\r\n_j  — \r\n\r\n«  z \r\n\r\ncri  3 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\nCC  rQ \r\n\r\n0J  -I \r\n\r\n\u003c  «t \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n•j  u  C \r\n\r\n-i  o \r\nc  ct: \r\n\r\nu»  o  a: \r\n\r\n?-  a \r\n\r\nQ£  Z  ft \r\n\r\n\r\n3  ui: \r\no  u \r\n\r\nH-  *? \r\n7-  -\u003c.ui \r\n\r\n\u003c  Z  Z \r\n\r\np-  \u003c :os \r\n\r\n\u003c  ca  .j \r\n\r\n\r\no  UJ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\na:. \r\n\r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\n\r\nC  -J \r\nU  3 \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\n\u003e-¦  o \r\n\r\n\r\n-I  3 \r\n\"J \r\nZ \r\n\r\no  *. \r\n\r\nr-  a \r\n\r\n\u003e-  r- \r\n\r\n\u003c  _J \r\n\r\n-J  \u003c \r\n\r\nU  (_) \r\n\r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n2  o \r\n\r\nZ   \u003e- \r\n\r\n\r\nui! \r\n\r\nOi \r\nUi  I \r\n\r\n-I'  UI \r\n\r\n_J  o \r\n\r\na  ui  ui \r\n\r\nO   (J  —I \r\n\r\nU  -I \r\n\r\na:  _i  a \r\n\r\n¦J   JU \r\n—t  O \r\n\r\n-«_}\u003c*• \r\n\r\nO  i  o \r\n\r\n-\u003e  J\u003c  ft \r\n\r\no  z \r\n\r\nUI     t-4  O \r\n\r\n-I  z  -j \r\n\r\n-I  n \r\n\r\nH  -1  3\" \r\n\r\n\u003e  \u003c \r\n\r\n1/17  io \r\n\r\n\"i  O  o\u003c \r\n\r\nz  a  z \r\n\r\nrt  Z \r\n\r\n\u003c  O  ui \r\n\r\n•3,o  i; \r\n\r\n\r\nO  ft \r\n\r\n\r\nui \r\n\r\nUI   UI \r\n\r\nO  -I \r\nUi   -I \r\n\r\n-I  c \r\n-I  o \r\n\r\nu  \u003c \r\n\r\npp \r\n\r\nae  o \r\n\r\no  w \r\n\r\n\r\n-3 \r\nL'J \r\n\r\nZ    _l \r\n\r\no  c \r\no  o \r\n\r\n\u003c  p-\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nJJ \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nc\u003e \r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n,1*1 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\n|p* \r\n\r\n\r\na. \r\n3 \r\nC \r\nDC \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\no\u003e \r\n\r\npi \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nrsi \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nNT \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nI  in \r\n\r\ni(*i \r\n\r\n\r\n!0* \r\nm \r\n\r\nr- \r\nim \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n*o \r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc*1 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\np-\u003c \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nx3 \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n0^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n!— \r\n\r\nrO \r\n\r\n— i \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\u003ea \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nci \r\n\u003e• \r\n-j \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n'.I \r\n\r\npp \r\n\r\nI\"- \r\n\r\n\r\n*7  ar \r\n\r\n\r\nJ \r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\no \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nlO \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n-J \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n-J \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\u003c \r\nZ \r\nl-i \r\n\r\n\u003e; \r\n\r\no \r\na \r\n\r\nUJ! \r\n\r\nO.I \r\n\r\nI \r\nI \r\nI \r\n\r\nz \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nUl \r\nQ \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\nUJi \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\na! \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\na \r\ni \r\nu. \r\n\r\n-i \r\n\r\nUJ, \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\n.*  z  _i  ro \r\n\r\nr-  \u003c  \u003c|«H \r\n\r\no.     ac.— \r\n\r\nH-  UJ  UJ| \r\n\r\n\r\nI    UJ \r\n\r\nI     -J  (M \r\nI     \u003c \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\n-I  UJ \r\n\r\nU. \r\n\r\n\r\nOUJ|~ \r\n\r\n\r\nuj!-~ \r\n\r\n-JO \r\n\r\n\u003c  H \r\n\r\n—  XI  — \r\nO  UJ \r\n\r\nUJ  »-«  u. \r\n\r\nz \r\nI-  «\u003c \r\n\r\na. \r\n»-i  to \r\n\r\nMlU- \r\n\r\nX  X  -JO \r\nI   \u003c  o \r\n\r\nx  z  x;«- \r\no \r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\n-.  UJ  — \r\nUJ  -I  00 \r\nCtC  \u003c  O \r\n\r\n3  3C|~ \r\nO  »-  UJ \r\n*•*  -J  u. \r\nZ  3 \r\n\r\n\u003c  O \r\nQ.  ^UJ  «- \r\nto  Z  -J  t- \r\ni-4  »-4  -to \r\nX  O  X.*- \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n•a \r\n\r\nUJ  — \r\n\r\nU         _l  sO \r\n\r\n»-\u003c      \u003c  o \r\n\r\nU.         X   — \r\n\r\nHfiUJ \r\n\r\nUUJU.I \r\n\r\n\u003c  Q       I \r\nQ.Z \r\n\r\nX.  \u003c  UJ  -» \r\nZ  -J  -J  IA \r\n\r\n\u003c  to  \u003c;o \r\n\r\nl-i  •»!  X!-» \r\n\r\n\u003c! \r\n\r\n!  ui!- \r\n\r\no  \u003e  \u003c  o \r\n•-\u003c  x  — \r\n\r\nZ  r-  Uli \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c  u. \r\n\r\nM   Z \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nZ  Z  UJ  ~ \r\n\r\nat:  \u003c  o \r\n\r\nUl  \u003c        I \r\n\r\nSE  -J \r\n\r\ni         LU   ** \r\n-J  (M \r\n\r\n—  \u003c  o \r\n\r\nVJ  X  — \r\n\r\ni-i  UJ \r\n\r\nX.  z  u. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nu  a. \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\u003c  •-• \r\n\r\n-J   I    _J  -4 \r\nz  \u003c  o \r\n\r\nfflOZ- \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n(M \r\nMl \r\n\r\n\r\nJ \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\ncm \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nUV \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\nC \r\n\r\n*\u003e \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nsl- \r\nog \r\nO \r\n» \r\nO \r\ncm \r\nin \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n«r \r\nr- \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\n\r\n•0 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c/» \r\n\r\n\r\ngTVJ \r\n\r\n\r\npg \r\n\r\n\r\nQ. \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\nin  o \r\n\r\n!« \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n|CQ \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c\\i \r\n\r\n\r\n¦s \r\n\r\n\r\nU       I \r\n\r\n\r\nml \r\n\r\n\r\nI     - \r\n\r\n\r\nto  «-i \r\nin  oo \r\nto  o \r\n\r\n\r\n¦4- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n»| \r\n\r\n\r\npg \r\n\r\nm- \r\n\r\n\r\nro  o \r\n\r\no  ¦-\u003c; \r\n\r\n.  o^l \r\n\r\n»i \r\n\r\nCM \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nO  -i \r\n\r\n-o  r- \r\n;tn  .-« \r\n\r\n•0 \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\nr- \r\n\r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\noo  \u003co \r\n¦o \r\n\r\n\r\n00  CO  fO \r\n\r\noo      m  r- \r\n\r\nO  CM \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n¦4- \r\n\r\ni\\l \r\n\r\no \r\ncm \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\nOl \r\n\r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nz \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nUi,         W\u003e  I-  . \r\n\r\n,wi  a:  z \r\no-'o  \u003c  3 \r\n\r\nX.  -JO \r\n\r\n\u003e:  \u003c  -J;  u \r\n\r\n'X  O \r\n\r\n\u003e-'  \u003c  Ol  a: \r\nI        |a \r\n\r\nIhiui    • \r\n•U  Q.  z;rj \r\n\r\nX.'  KM(Z \r\n\r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nQ.  r- \r\n\u003c  in \r\no\u003e \r\nu.  •¦ \r\no  m \r\n\r\nat \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nX  I \r\n3.  I. \r\nZ  ^ \r\n\r\np-i \r\nZ \r\n3' \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n00  o» \r\n»-  '•rmj \r\nz   *  + \r\n\r\n\u003c  (Mir- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na.      (\\i \r\na \r\n\r\nO  CO!  O \r\n\r\n^-  m \r\no  m  o \r\n\r\nQ  H  (M \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nt\u003c0 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n.  CO  l/t \r\n\r\ni     •  O \r\n\r\n\u003c  QC \r\n\r\nI         \u003c^ \r\n\r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nz \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nOL \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no. \r\na. \r\n\r\no  r- \r\n\u003c*¦ \r\n\r\nu  in \r\n\r\no \r\na \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n•   ml \r\n\r\n\r\nco  z \r\n\r\nnj  \u003c \r\n•¦  ct \r\n\r\nin  o \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nnj  co \r\n\u003c \r\nX \r\nUl \r\n\r\ncd  a: \r\na* \r\n\r\noo  _j \r\n•\u003e  \u003c \r\n\r\no  z \r\n\r\n\u003co  o \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n•\u003c¦  Ol \r\n\r\n-*  m \r\n\r\n•\u003e! \r\n\r\n001 \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n\r\nm  o1 \r\n\r\ncd  m, \r\nm  r\u003ei! \r\n\r\n•»! \r\nmi \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u0026  o \r\n\r\nf\\i  o \r\n\r\n;PJ   Oi \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nO  iO  4*  ^ \r\nm  sj-  r\u003ej;  nj \r\nm       rvi  «*-i \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cV4 \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\nrvi, \r\n\r\n\r\n•J- \r\nin \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n\r\nm  o \r\nm \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\ni \r\n\r\nm  ^-t  \u003e—  co \r\n\r\nOZrfl \r\n?  \u003c \r\n\r\nrt    OS \r\n\r\n(O  o \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\ncmIo \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003eJ- \r\n\r\n\r\n-4- \r\no \r\n\r\n¦H \r\nl/\u003e \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nO   r£. \r\n\r\nin  3 \r\nr^j  u \r\n\r\n«\\l \r\n\r\n\r\nso \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no* \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003en \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no»  o \r\nro  m \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n•o \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n\\~*  -4-1 \r\n\r\n0  M \r\n\r\n;r\u003e4  r*\\ \r\n\r\n|        J, \r\n\r\n1  *! \r\n\r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  O \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n(O \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\nCO \r\nCO \r\n\r\nI    » \r\n\r\nI  to \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003eJ- \r\no \r\n\r\nCVI \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nft \r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\n1st \r\n'ao \r\n\r\n|~ \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nIN \r\n\r\n\r\nl«H \r\n\r\n«-l \r\n\r\n!\u003c? \r\n\r\nP \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nilO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\ni  » \r\nito \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nI* \r\nnj \r\n\r\n\r\nm      u\u003e \r\n\r\n^         CM \r\nPsl \r\n\r\n\r\nPJ \r\n\r\n\r\nnj \r\n\r\n\r\nui \r\n\r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCfC   IA    l/l \r\n\r\n\r\no.:        ,  \u003c \r\n\r\n0.  u \r\n\r\n3.       40.T. \r\n\r\ni/\u003e  \u003c/\u003e  cj:  \u003e  «/) \r\n»  o  \u003c    #  ci  -\u003c   • \r\n\r\nC'    tX   _J   i_.   l  •_ '  _l  o \r\n*C  _J         \u003c l-i \r\n\r\n35  a:      ^  a \r\n\r\n1  \u003c  O;        \u003c  a \r\n\r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n,  \u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nfO        o \r\n\r\n\u003eo      to \r\nr—  oo \r\n\r\nO  Z \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nnj  o  \u003c  o\u003e \r\neg  »l-  Z  o \r\n\r\n;\u003eOOh \r\n\r\n\r\ncm  3 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nPvl  Psl \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  CO \r\nfO  fOi \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ncc  -.' \r\n\r\n\u003c  _l \r\n3:  o \r\n\r\n\u003c  a \r\n\r\n\r\n•  CN  «: \r\n\r\nUJ   OJ  _i \r\n\r\n••f  _j \r\n\r\n\u003c  o \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n¦4- \r\n\r\n\r\nl\u003c  CO, \r\n\r\n,  m  m' \r\n\r\n\r\nl/T \r\n\r\ni— i  t/l \r\n\r\n» a \r\n\r\nu_  ci \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c; \r\n^  o \r\n\r\n00    OJ \r\n\r\n\u003e4-  X \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  _l \r\n\r\na:  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  • \r\n\r\n-J  X \r\n\r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\r\n,\u003cM \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\nM  \u003c \r\n\r\no  o- \r\n\r\n»  UJ \r\n\r\ncm  ac \r\n\r\ni      1 \r\n-*•  — \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\na  iA \r\n\r\n!  *?- \r\nnj  z \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nof \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nH  \u003c-•  z  t\\i \r\n\r\no  UJ  o \r\n\r\n••  \u003e— i   *  ui \r\n\r\n\u003ej-  o_  pg  d \r\n\r\ni-\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\nu  -J \r\n\r\nUJ  -I \r\n\r\na:       a \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e \r\na: \r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\n0. \r\n3 \r\nO     »¦ \r\nZ   r-l \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n*r \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nto  r-l  in \r\nco  «£  ,  \u003c4- \r\no*  »-« \r\n\r\n\r\nO  I \r\n(O \r\n\r\n\r\nM  O* \r\n\r\nv0  -\u003e    PJ \r\n\r\no       o  \u003c-• \r\n\r\n\r\nOs  vO         O \r\nO  0\u003e         Psl \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nPsl \r\n\r\n\r\nn1-   Hi         vO \r\n\r\nr-  r-i     h \r\n,ro  r-| \r\n?  i \r\nmi \r\n\r\n\r\nO  M \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n(O \r\n\r\n\r\nrsi \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCNi \r\n\r\n\r\no  in \r\n\r\nr- \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\n!  I \r\n\r\n\r\nI  i \r\n\r\n\r\nto  O \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\nZ  sO \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n¦si\" \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr- \r\n•-sj \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c    - \r\n\r\na£  oo \r\n\r\nO  co \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c ¦  ~4 \r\n\r\n\r\n,     ,«/\u003e  o        o \r\ntot  or\"  I—  \u003c/»  K \r\n\r\nZ  -\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\n\r\nOD; \r\n\r\nr-t \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c]  -J \r\n\r\n3  o \r\n\u003c   Q \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c   CO \r\n0\u003e  o \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n4r \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nQ \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nlU \r\n\r\noi \r\n3 \r\n,1 \r\n\r\n\r\n¦O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c•  o \r\nm  o \r\n\r\n•o        H  t7\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nO  00 \r\n\r\nco  m \r\n\r\nm  -4- \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n«0 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nto  o* , \r\n%r  vo \r\n\r\ni  *  i \r\n\u003cn  I \r\nco  I \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n(¦O \r\n\r\n\r\nhJ\" \r\nO \r\no \r\n\r\n¦o \r\n\r\n¦r \r\n\r\n\r\nio \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nLn \r\n\r\n\r\nrg  o  ; \r\nO \r\n\r\no ! \r\n\r\nto  I \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nZ  VI \r\n\r\n•  o \r\n\r\n•  \u003c \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no\u003e \r\nco  Z \r\n\r\n•    1-4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦O     -i \r\n\r\nr*  \u003c \r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nm  UJ \r\nOi  u. \r\n\r\n\u003c       9 \r\n\r\n_J  (M \r\n-J  • \r\nC  \u003c \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\na \r\n\r\nv*-  _i \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n(M  r- \r\n\r\n•»  z \r\n\r\nao  uj \r\n\r\nr-  x \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n^  O  i \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nvi-lm \r\n\r\n\r\ncr \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n\r\ni*n \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n^  in \r\n-4  m \r\n\r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\nI  I \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nI  I \r\n\r\n\r\nI  ! \r\n\r\n\r\nto  -4- \r\nuvo \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUl  o \r\n\r\nCC  IM \r\n\r\n3  -4- \r\nI/) \r\n\r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\n\r\ni      I \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nto  o  a.  o \r\n-4-  m  uj  o \r\n(O  cc \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nC?v \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\n¦JD \r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n*\u003e \r\n\r\nnj \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nF \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\n¦4- \r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\nSO \r\n\r\nI- \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n¦n \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nPsl \r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\nPsl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nao \r\n\r\n\r\n¦o \r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nPs| \r\n\r\nsO \r\n\r\n.  •\u003e \r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\u003c \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nO  I—  \"4-  Psl \r\n\r\nro  z  m  r- \r\n\r\nO  ui  (O  -4* \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\nor \r\na \r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\nIM \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  CO; \r\ntsj  f\\|l \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\u003c \r\nr- \r\n\r\nto  to \r\n\r\n•   O \r\n\r\nto  a: \r\n\r\nt  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  x \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nx \r\n•¦  to \r\n\r\nPsJ     \u003c \r\n\r\nCD   O \r\n\r\n¦4- \r\naC \r\nluj \r\nx \r\n\r\nt^i  j— \r\n\r\n.i  a \r\n\r\n\u003c  « \r\n\r\n_i  o \r\n\r\n_j  • \r\n\r\no  \u003c \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nPO  rg \r\n\r\n\u003eo  O \r\n\r\nsO \r\n\r\nI  •\" \r\nla \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nZ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e \r\nrri \r\nUi \r\n\r\no  to \r\nin  \u003es, \r\n\r\nm  x \r\n?  to \r\n\r\nr-l    \u003c \r\n\r\nr-  u \r\n\r\noi \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n,x \r\n\r\n\r\nro  ci.  -\u003c  to \r\n\r\nm  i-h  a: \r\n\r\no  \u003c \r\n\r\nui  -J \r\n\r\nat  -I \r\na \r\n\r\n_i  in  o \r\na.  o \r\n\r\n3  0\u003e  Z \r\n\r\n»  Q  \u003c \r\n\r\nlm  z  a \r\n\r\n3  -J \r\n\r\n\r\n!in \r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nsfl \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nn \r\n¦4\" \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\n-t    CO! \r\n\r\n1-4-  4-1 \r\n\r\n\r\n.to \r\n\r\ntoia: \r\n\r\n*A    ¦    -I \r\n\r\njc  a \r\n\u003c  a \r\n\r\n\r\nlTJ \r\n\r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\n\r\nto  Ci \r\n\r\no  \u003c \r\n\r\nO'.     -I \r\n\r\n.?.  a \r\n\r\n\u003c  a \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nto  O \r\n\r\n\r\nOi \r\n\r\n\r\nl/l \r\n\r\n\r\nOl\u003c      •   r- \r\n\r\n\r\ncc \r\n\r\n\r\n¦\u003c  CO \r\n\r\n,co  oo, \r\n\r\n\r\nDC \r\n\r\n-J  u \r\n\r\nz  a \r\n\r\nj \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n-1 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\n72 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\ntM \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n(N \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n-I \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n-J \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n\u003c; \r\n\r\nZ| \r\n\r\n£1 \r\n\r\n*=£  I \r\n\r\nJ?i \r\n\r\nii \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nZ \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nz^ \r\n\r\nLU \r\nQ \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nail \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nUJ: \r\n\r\ny| \r\n\u003c• \r\n\r\noil \r\na \r\n\r\nor! \r\n\u003cl \r\n-II \r\n\r\nui \r\niu| \r\nai \r\n\r\nill \r\n\r\n_i; \r\n\r\niu, \r\n\r\nvol \r\n\r\n\r\n«i \r\n(.) \r\n\r\nIi  o \r\n:g \r\nY \r\n\r\nLJ \r\n\r\nC1 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cl \r\n\r\nU'.l \r\ni \r\n\r\n\r\n_j  o  uji-. \r\n\u003c.  z  -t  m \r\n\r\ny-  \u003c  \u003c  •¦« \r\no:     Xi- \r\n\r\nt-    LU    UJ \r\n\r\n\r\nI  uj-» \r\n\r\nI    -I  (M \r\n\r\nI     \u003c*4 \r\n\r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n\r\nla  a)-* \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ  — \r\n\r\nmi    O \r\n\r\n\r\nO  LU \r\n\r\nUJHU.! \r\n\r\nOk         I \r\nHI   00 \r\n\r\nHlUt \r\n\r\nI  X  -J  o \r\nI   \u003c  o \r\n\r\nx  z  ar- \r\ncs \r\n\r\nz      I \r\n\r\n\r\nM   U|M \r\n\r\nUJ  _l  CO \r\n\r\no;  \u003c  o \r\n-\u003e  x  — \r\n\r\n«j  »-  ui. \r\n\r\nt-i  _•  u. \r\n\r\nZ  U       I \r\n\r\n\u003c  o \r\n\r\nQ.  V.  UJ  -» \r\n\r\nW2JI» \r\nHi  M  \u003c  O \r\n\r\nx  u  a:  ««• \r\nhi \r\no£ \r\n\r\nO       j \r\n\r\nUJ  — \r\nU        -J  \u003co \r\n\r\nhi       \u003c  o \r\n\r\nU.         X  — \r\n\r\nU  UJ  u.  I \r\n\r\n\u003c  Q \r\n\r\no.  z \r\n\r\n*N  \u003c  UI  ~ \r\n\r\nz  jjin \r\n\r\n\u003c  00  \u003c  o \r\n\r\nHI   HI  X  w \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n\u003c!  I \r\n\r\n\r\nUI  — \r\n\r\nCC  UI  _J  -4- \r\n\r\nO  \u003e  \u003c  O \r\n\r\nhi  X  — \r\n\r\nZ  h-  UI \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c  u_ \r\n\r\n*-\u003e  z \r\na \r\n\r\nzzuj« \r\n\r\n*:  \u003c  O \r\n\r\nLU   \u003c \r\nX  -J \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\nUI  «~ \r\n\r\n-J  CM \r\n\r\n—  \u003c  o \r\na  x  — \r\n\r\nr-\u003e  UI \r\n*C  Z  UL \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nVI \r\n\r\n\u003c  HI \r\n\r\nIlU« \r\n\r\n—It   — I  — • \r\n\r\nz  \u003c  o \r\n\r\nCD  O  X  — \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nUJ         Wh \r\n\r\n00  Qi  Z \r\n\r\nc  a  \u003c  2 \r\n\r\n«  _i  a \r\n\r\n\u003e•  «  _i  u \r\n\r\n1  Q \r\n\r\nH-  «*  Q  OS \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nI:h  LU      • \r\n\r\nuj  c  z  a \r\n\r\nX  ad  i-4  z \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nrsi \r\n\r\nHi \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nHi \r\n\r\n~* \r\n\r\nIA \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nHi \r\n\r\n*4\\ \r\n\r\nro \r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n*¦ \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n«»• \r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nC*»        Ol       \u003cM \r\n\r\n•Hi     \u003em     i*- \r\nI     » \r\n\r\n\r\nuv \r\n\r\nMl \r\n\r\n\r\n»n      o \r\n»i!     a \r\n\r\ni     o» \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nor \r\n\r\n\u003c  t/\u003e \r\n\r\n_i  ro  i- \r\n_j  co  z \r\n\r\nQh!U \r\n\r\na      i-i \r\n\r\nCL \r\n\r\na.       — \r\nf,       \u003c_\u003e \r\n\r\nX  LU \r\n\r\n00  CL \r\n\r\nor \r\n\r\n\u003c  o  -I \r\n\r\nJ-OQ. \r\n\r\na  ^  3 \r\n\r\nx      a \r\no      z \r\n\r\noo        3 \r\n\r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nHI \r\n\r\nx \r\n00 \r\na: \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n-J \r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e \r\na: \r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n\r\n.a \r\n\r\n00  H- \r\nQ  • \r\n0C  LCI \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003cl \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nor \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nhi  _i  o \r\nur»  _i  r- \r\n\r\nHon \r\na   •* \r\n«o \r\na.  «or \r\n\r\nS   1 \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\u003cz \r\n\r\nO  \u003c  Ml \r\n\r\nla  _j  tr\\ \r\n\r\nhi  a  o \r\n\r\nX     •\u003e! \r\n\r\noo  4- \r\n\r\n\r\n.    .n  oo \r\n\r\nO0  H-  fZ \r\n\r\nj—    •  *i \r\n\r\nZ  U  _l \r\n\r\n3  _J \r\na  o \r\nu      a \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\n\r\nLA \r\nfsl \r\n\r\n\r\nOVCM \r\nC»\u003e  CM \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cVI    f\\J \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n(M  ^4 \r\n\r\nco  oo \r\n\r\n\r\neo  hi      r-  oo \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  cm \r\nrsj  -o \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\nin \r\noo \r\n\r\n\r\n«o  «f \r\nr—  co \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n\r\nt-  O \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nH«IU\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nl« \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n*o| \r\n\r\nOi \r\na?  I \r\n\r\n\r\nHi    O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM! \r\n\r\n\r\n•I \r\n\r\n\r\nr\u003ej  ml \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n•O  fM \r\nHi  o \r\n\r\n\r\n03 \r\nO \r\nOO \r\n\r\n\r\nr*      hi      m \r\n\r\n\r\n00   O \r\n\r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nor-1     o  oo \r\no  o1     oo  m \r\n\r\n0«|         on \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\noo \r\n\r\n\r\nLft \r\n\r\n\r\nco  o \r\n\r\nM \r\nLT\u003e \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n\r\nfl \r\n\r\n\r\nrn \r\n\r\n\r\nV* \r\n\r\n\r\n!| \r\n\r\n\r\nSo \r\n\r\n(NJ \r\n\r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n0^ \r\n\r\n.00 \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n!\u003c?¦  ui \r\nm  x \r\no\u003e  \u003e- \r\n\r\nI  ° \r\n-i \r\na. \r\n\r\ni       3C| \r\nUI \r\n\r\n03  Z \r\nUJ \r\nQ \r\n\r\nH- \r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n0£ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\n1  I \r\n\r\n\u003e  (-  X  oo \r\n\r\nQ  Zl  \u003c  OO         OC \r\n\r\nornmiu  NHtfoooi-aj  \u003c \r\nl-oc-\u003e:s;r»c*or-o\u003ez'^-_i \r\noo  \u003c\\j  r-  \u003e  — i  hi  o       -oujo-i \r\n\r\nV*  ¦\u003e   •»  ol        +¦  cC         »hi|*o \r\n\r\niinlHi_J|        (MQ.         i-IO.!^lQ \r\n\r\nd      o  a.       \\e\\  'f  hi| \r\n\r\no      m  x,  \u003e  o \r\n\r\n2  UJ|  Q  LU \r\n\r\no  oi \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cl \r\n\r\n\r\n_j  \u003er  r-  \u003c \r\na  r-  (nj  z \r\n\r\nu  r-  r-  a \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\noc \r\na. \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  O \r\n\r\nI  HI \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\n00| \r\n\r\noo  zi \r\n•  o  \u003c    • \r\n\r\n\u003c  OC  _l  U3| \r\n\u003c  _J \r\n\r\n^  a \r\n\r\n\u003cQ \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\u003c:co \r\n%o  «o \r\n\r\n\r\no  eo  oo \r\n\r\n\\j»  m  \"v \r\n\r\nCO   '\u003c. \r\n\r\n-  a: \r\nla  a \r\n\r\n\u003cM  2 \r\n\r\nQC \r\n\r\n,l!J \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nHft  h- \r\n\r\n-o  a:  O \r\no  \u003c    * \r\n.\u003c  -J  (J \r\nC  -I \r\nJC  o \r\n\r\n\r\nHi     00 \r\n\r\n00    i-i \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\n-r \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n|     x \r\n\r\n-I  !«0  \u003e \r\no.  a  o \r\nr\u003e  r-  -j \r\n\r\n\r\n¦c \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nhi       tO       K \r\n\r\n\r\noo  c; \r\n\r\no  \u003c \r\n\r\nO?  _l \r\n\r\n\u003c  -I \r\n\r\nJt  o \r\n\r\n\u003c  Q \r\n\r\n\r\nrA \r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003er \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\nr- \r\n\r\n•4\" \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nHI \r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\nLU \r\nOL \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nz \r\na \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\nHI \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nI    o \r\n\r\n;    o \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n!  5 \r\n\r\nCI \r\n\r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nLU         O0 \r\n\r\nHI  Z \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\u003c  HI \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\noo  H \r\n\r\n»  :h»    t \r\n\r\na|z  ui \r\n\r\n:o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n\r\n•a  c0| \r\n\r\n\r\n(NJ   (Ml \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  CQ \r\nCO  CO \r\n\r\nim  rj \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n\r\noo, \r\n\r\n(V \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nC3 \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nllJ \r\ni— • \r\n-J \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\na \r\ni- \r\n\r\noo \r\nh- \r\nZ \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\u003c|oC \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\noo  «j- \r\n\r\nQ. \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\nl-  r- \r\n\r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\n\r\nCN \r\nCO \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nx \r\n\r\n'A \r\n\r\na: \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n'42 \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\u003e  • \r\n-I       o \r\na      _i  i \r\nx ;    a. \r\n\r\nO  ,       8C  i \r\n00  OO  LU  00 \r\n\r\n•  o    •  a \r\n\r\nUKOK \r\n\r\n-L  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c         \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n(NJ \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\nM \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nf? \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\nLO \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c7\u003e \r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n¦o \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nrO \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n¦o \r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n»1* \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n!  00 \r\n\r\noo  »*•  -J-  ?- \r\n\r\nzo  \u003eo  z \r\n\r\n\u003c  00  O0  CO  LU \r\n\r\nC    »  QC  *  HI \r\n\r\n_i  \u003eo  \u003c  o  a. \r\n\r\n\r\nQ \r\nZ \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\noo  O  I— \r\nQO  oi \r\n\r\na:  p-  a \r\n\r\n\u003c  ••  a. \r\n\r\n-X  \u003ct   LU \r\n\r\n\r\nJIMU \r\nO     »  UI \r\n\r\no  \u003e1-  or \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\nLU \r\nH \r\n\r\nce \r\no\u003c \r\n\r\n\\t  Ol \r\n\r\nUJ \r\nr- \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n-I \r\n\r\nr»  \u003c \r\n\r\nooi \r\n_j| \r\n\u003c! \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n° \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e-l \r\n\r\na: \r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n5l \r\n\r\nOl \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cr  _i\u003em \r\n•r  o.]h \r\n-O  3  ,0 \r\n•¦  Q \r\nO  Z \r\nCO   3 \r\n\r\n\r\n¦J     •\u003e  _l \r\n\r\n\u003c  CM   \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\na      a  oo \r\n\r\nh-  oo  i—  c: \r\n\r\n•  r j    •  -\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003cOC  f0  _l \r\n\r\n\u003c\u003c  -J \r\n\r\n?:  a \r\n\r\n\u003c  o \r\n\r\n\r\nif. \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nOO \r\n\r\nV- \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nD \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nQ    UJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003c  Z  _i  m \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nP-,\u003c  \u003c,H \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\no!     x— \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nUJ  to, \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\nJ  u. \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n,    r \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n»p-h \r\n\r\n«U)  U, \r\n\r\n1    UJ \r\n\r\n«r» \r\n\r\nfO \r\n\r\n,.«/» \r\n\r\n1     _l  \u003cM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n1     \u003c  ^ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nX  — \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\nL \r\n\r\n-J  UJ \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\ncr- \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003cr \r\n\r\n\u003eH \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\na  ui \r\n\r\n— \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\ni\u003c \r\n\r\ni     -J;** \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\"UI \r\n\r\ni»-  \u003c \\t* \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n(\u003e- \r\n\r\nx;~ \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n!! \r\n\r\nCO \r\nP4 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n«/\u003e \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n-»* \r\n\r\n*4 \r\n\r\nr     h \r\n\r\nJO \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nt       H \r\n\r\n\u003c  H \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\ni      3 \r\n\r\n—  X  ~ \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n1       H- \r\n\r\no  uj \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\nS   P \r\n\r\nUJ    H   U. \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\ni     vo \r\n\r\np-  \u003c \r\n\r\nt     Z \r\n\r\n6. \r\n\r\ni      i-i \r\n\r\nH  WO \r\n\r\nMllix \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n:     uj \r\n\r\nx  x  -j  o \r\n\r\nrvj \r\n\r\n1       p- \r\n\r\n1    \u003c  o \r\n¦x  Z  X  — \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n:     m \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n1       X \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n^r \r\n\r\nl       jS \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\" \r\n\r\n«* \r\n\r\n\u003e¦ \r\n\r\n.       -J \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n»        U) \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\n-.  UJ  — \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003e       \u003c \r\n\r\nUJ  J  00 \r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\n:     z \r\n\r\nor  \u003c  o \r\n\r\n)          H \r\n\r\nZ3  x  — \r\n\r\n?     x \r\n\r\nUp-  UJ| \r\n\r\n•     o \r\n\r\nMJIL \r\n\r\n1      o \r\n\r\nZ3       ! \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003c  a     i \r\n\r\n•     ex \r\n\r\nQ.  V.UJ  ¦  — \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nw.t  jr- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nh  h  \u003c  o \r\n\r\ni-i \r\n\r\n.      1 \r\n\r\nXlS  X  — \r\n\r\n\u003c      I \r\n\r\nI-l     ' \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n*¦    ! \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\na    | \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\ni      Z \r\n\r\nl\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUl!~» \r\n\r\n~4  «J \r\n\r\n»           H \r\n\r\nU       -1  -o \r\n\r\n(DH \r\n\r\n•       p- \r\n\r\nh       \u003c  o \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\n:     \u003c \r\n\r\nU         X  — \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n1      o \r\n\r\nHltlU \r\n\r\no. \r\n\r\n1         M \r\n\r\nUlUU. \r\n\r\n:\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003e         U. \r\n\r\n\u003c  cj \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\na.  z \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\n\u003e         H \r\n\r\n\u003eS,    \u003c    UJ    M \r\n\r\nvo  a \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nz  _j  _i  in \r\n\r\nr\u003cY \r\n\r\n\u003e      -z \r\n\r\n\u003c  CO   \u003c  O \r\n\r\n-i  ai \r\n\r\nUj \r\n\r\n•-H  M  z  «• \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nt/\u003e \r\n\r\n80 \r\n\r\n\u003cl       H \r\n\r\n\u003c; \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n:     o \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nc     h \r\n\r\nUJ  — \r\n\r\n\u003c0: \r\n\r\n¦       2* \r\n\r\n\u003cX  UJ  _J  \u003cr \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n»        X \r\n\r\no  \u003e  \u003c  o \r\n\r\nj  • \r\n\r\n*       r~ \r\n\r\ni-i  s:  — \r\n\r\n!m \r\n\r\n»          UJ \r\n\r\nZr-Ui1 \r\n\r\nj \r\n\r\n\u003e      v. \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c  ULI \r\n\r\nC      uj \r\n\r\nh  z \r\n\r\n| \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e• \r\n\r\ni     \u003c \r\n\r\nZ  Z  Ul  — \r\n\r\n-o  oi \r\n\r\nc     ex \r\n\r\nh  \u003c  _i  m \r\n\r\n'i  O \r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\n*:  \u003c  o \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003e        O \r\n\r\nor  to  x  — \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n:     uj \r\n\r\nUI  \u003c      , \r\n\r\n.p- \r\n\r\nC      a: \r\n\r\nX  -J \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n:     \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n:u \r\n\r\n4         _J \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\nt_\u003e \r\n\r\nUJI  — \r\n\r\nM! \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n_j  «M \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n-\u003c  o \r\n\r\nt/»  cr \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nox- \r\n\r\n»-   » \r\n\r\nu. \r\n\r\nH  UJ \r\n\r\nz  ir»i \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\n*  z  a. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n1      \u003c_\u003e  a. \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n1          */» \r\n\r\nJ \r\n\r\n1      \u003cM \r\n\r\nrx \r\n\r\nx  uj  -» \r\n\r\no.  m \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n_l      1       _l    H \r\n\r\n\u003c  r* \r\n\r\n¦4Z    — \r\n\r\nz  \u003c  o \r\n\r\nwo \r\n\r\n3h  ri \r\n\r\nco  a  x  ¦— \r\n\r\nu.    ? \r\n\r\n!?»-  ?: \r\n\r\n2 \r\n\r\no  n \r\n\r\nJl/l  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni          \"\"*     i \r\n\r\n^     i \r\n\r\n: \r\n\r\nUi \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\"1 \r\n\r\n=  Q \r\n\r\ni           co \r\n\r\nX      I \r\n\r\n3?  ri \r\n\r\nUJ          CA  \u003e-  . \r\n\r\nl3.    . \r\n\r\n\u003c    tj \r\n\r\n,^o:z \r\n\r\nz  w \r\n\r\nC          'J \r\n\r\no.  o  \u003c  o \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\nUlO     w \r\n\r\nfti  -J  o \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n•_    — ' \r\n\r\n\u003e•  «  _j  cj \r\n\r\nrx \r\n\r\nic  i \r\n\r\n,3t  Q \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nfl \r\n\r\n*»-\u003c \r\n\r\np™  \u003c  Q:  Qi \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nojvn  o \r\n\r\n1         ;u \r\n\r\nto  r\\j \r\n\r\n\u003eH  «, \r\n\r\n.       Xp-  UJ'    • \r\n\r\n¦4  V.  i/\" \r\n\r\niu,  a.  7:  o \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nfeci  u: \r\n\r\n3d  cc  \u003e-«\u003e  z \r\n\r\n!^\u003e  «  fv \r\n\r\n:    - \r\n\r\n•) \r\n\r\noo \r\no \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nO        Op-         Cf \r\n\r\nr-i      «o  o;     n \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\ni-i \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no* \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\n\u003cn \r\n\r\n\u003c\\i \r\n\r\n«\\J \r\n\r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n\r\nfNJ \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\no  03 \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nN \r\n\r\n\r\nNO \r\n\r\n\r\nvnlo \r\non  itrv \r\n\r\n\r\noo  Cf\u003e  i      O1'  r- \r\n\r\nr-  o      r-  m \r\n\r\n\r\no*  to \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nm  \u003cM  »—  in \r\n\r\no  o  z:  ~* \r\n\r\n\r\no  CO  i \r\n\r\nO  oo \r\n\r\n-*  (M \r\n\r\n•\u003e     •' \r\n\r\nnj  o \r\n\r\nr- \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\noo  f\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n«4- \r\n\r\n\r\ni-l  o \r\ni-4  r\u003c4 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nn  r- \r\n\r\n»    »' \r\n\r\n\u003c-4   OO  i \r\n\r\n»n \r\n\r\nml \r\n\r\neg  o- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\n1         1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\noo  m       ^* \r\nr-  m       m \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\nm       **  fsi \r\n\r\n\r\n(MO \r\n\r\n\r\n*C         O    — *  -J \r\n\r\ni-i      «o  o  i     m \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\na-- \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  \u003cNJ    \u003cOl \r\n\r\nOO  (O    00 \r\n\r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n\r\nr«  eo  i-i \r\n\r\nr-  chi  p- \r\n\r\nrg  rsii  eo \r\n\r\nI        »i  •• \r\n\r\nO1  r- \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n«n \r\n\r\n«4\" \r\n\r\n\r\nr- \r\nrg \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003e0 \r\n\r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n\r\niao  o  m  r—  oo!  »* \r\n^  o  \u003c\\i|»n  ^-i  mi  \u003e*• \r\np-  in        i-4  rg       ^  c*v \r\n\r\n\r\ntn      i     hi \r\n\r\n\r\n•-•00  -4-  CO \r\n\r\n«*\"   CM  O'.yf  CO    O \r\n\r\n\\n  p-       \u003cMi\u003eo      m  oo \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nm \r\nrg \r\n\r\n\r\nrsii \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n^  o \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n* \r\nfsl \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nm  oi \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nr-i  m \r\nin \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\ngj  o \r\n\r\nr-      oo  r-i \r\noo       |i-»  gji \r\n\r\n\r\nr- \r\n•o \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n? \r\no \r\ngr \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nhi     o \r\n0»l \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  (M       m \r\nOO  i-4        o \r\n\r\ng}\u003e      -- ' \r\n\r\n\r\noo \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\ngo  r-  \u003c)•!  •  \u003cJ* \r\no  o  t-4i  m \r\n^      h  oi     \u003e!¦ \r\n\r\n\r\n-O \r\nm \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\nCM \r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n\r\ncm  g\u003e:  in \r\nr-  r-i  h \r\nI       o       u% \r\n\r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n-*  o \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nm  m  \u003c  r-iifM \r\n\r\n\r\n«*¦  i- \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\nO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nsi- in \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n23,33 \r\nRANTS \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nL3 \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nl_\u003e \r\n\r\n_l \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nP-   \u003c \r\n\r\nZD \r\n\r\ncn \r\n\r\ng-  zz \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ng-  o \r\n\r\nUl \r\n\r\n»    1-4 \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ  \u003cM  O \r\n\r\nI  r-i    1-4 \r\n\r\nJ  P- \r\n\r\nQ.I  ;\u003c \r\n\r\nO-  u \r\n\r\no      tn  o . \r\n\r\n•  a  \u003c    •  a \r\n\r\nffl  a  j  u  i.. \r\n.  \u003c  -j,       \u003cl_j \r\n\r\nixoi     jeia \r\nl\u003c  Ol      \u003c  a \r\n\r\n\r\n:\u003c  CQ \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nin  ui \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n;\u003e \r\n\r\n.  ?* \r\ni/\u003e  oc , \r\ncc  a.  to \r\n\u003c     •  Ci \r\n\r\n-J         -c \r\n\r\n\r\n1/1 \r\n\r\nCO     t-4 \r\n\r\n\u003e0  X \r\n\r\noo  uj \r\n\r\n•¦  cc \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nbj \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nq: \r\n\r\nuj \r\n\r\no  \u003e \r\n\r\nm  \u003e-4 \r\n\r\nr-  \u003c \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no  z \r\n\r\nri  a \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n!  I \r\n\r\n\u003cM  in \r\np- \r\npg \r\n\r\nI       * \r\n\r\n-HI \r\n\r\n\r\n¦-4  O: \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM, \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\ng^ \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n51 \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\u003c0 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  CQi \r\n\r\nu^  «ni \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nto  z  . \r\n\r\nK  MW \r\n\r\n•t  »  Q \r\n\r\n_l  U.Ci \r\n-J        \u003c \r\n\r\na      -r \r\n\r\n\r\nto  3 \r\na£  r- \r\n*t     • \r\n\r\n-I  O \r\n\r\n-I \r\n\r\no \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\ni- \r\n\r\n\u003c£ \r\n\r\no  ac \r\n\r\nin  o \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n?  cc: \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\noo  m  r- \r\np\"OZ \r\n\r\nvj\"    UJ \r\n\r\n*»  1-4 \r\n\r\np-  a. \r\nm  t-4 \r\na \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nec \r\n\r\nm  o  j \r\nh  r-  o- \r\n\r\n*  o \r\n-h  z \r\n\r\n-4   Z) \r\n\r\n\r\nSI \r\n\r\ngM \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\ng? \r\n\r\n\r\noi \r\noi \r\n\r\n•\u003e\u003e \r\nH \r\n\r\nOi \r\n\r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n\r\noi \r\noo; \r\n\r\nm1 \r\n\r\nr- \r\nmi \r\n\r\n¦\u003e \r\n•*• \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\nO: \r\n\r\n•• \r\n\r\ng^ \r\nm \r\n\r\ntl \r\n\r\nCVJI \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n0*1 \r\n\r\nMl \r\n\r\n1-4' \r\n\"4\" \r\nr- \r\n\r\n•\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\nsri \r\n\r\nfM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nuj \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCL \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\n•oi \r\n\r\nODl \r\nm.  t.T \r\n\r\nnice: \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n•4\"  Z \r\n\r\nm  \u003c \r\ncc \r\n\r\no \r\n•o \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nm   • \r\n\r\n»  1-4 \r\n\r\nin  m \r\n\r\n\r\n¦\u003e \r\n\r\n00  OC \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\nin  o \r\n\r\n•\u003e  ui \r\n\r\ngr  p- \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003eo \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n»¦ \r\n\r\n(M \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nto  _J \r\n\r\n\u003cy,  d  \u003c \r\n\r\nOI  \u003c     * \r\noi  -'  X \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\nv0 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  ca \r\n\r\n,r»  r-i \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nCQ \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n•  *A  O \r\nto  CC  h- \r\nO  \u003c  t \r\np;  jm \r\n\r\n\u003c  .J \r\ny.  o: \r\n\r\n\u003c  01 \r\n\r\n\r\na  cm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nto1       00 \r\n\r\na-  I— \"  p- \r\nm  2:  o \r\n\r\n•»  \u003c   •\u003e \r\n\r\nr'CClfl \r\n\r\niu  ro \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nJ   * \r\n\r\n\u003c    HI \r\n\r\no  to\u003e. \r\n\r\nlyljp-  OSi \r\n\r\nK-l    •  \u003c. \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\ng- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\nin \r\n\r\n•1 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\no  oo  oo \r\nco  gj-  p- \r\ngs       ^00 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\nP- \r\n\r\ngr \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\np- \r\nm \r\n•» \r\no \r\n«*¦ \r\ngj \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\np- \r\n\r\n\r\ngj \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nc?\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nvT \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n» \r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\noo \r\n\r\n\r\ng)-  in \r\nco  00 \r\n\r\ncm  r-i \r\n\r\n«i \r\n\r\nCMi \r\n\r\ngf \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\ng^  m \r\n\r\nco  co \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n9\u003e  Ol \r\no  m \r\nh  gj \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\no  r- \r\no  H \r\n\r\nm  m \r\n\r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\ngj- \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nH  0 \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nmi \r\n\r\n-J \r\n\r\nto  in  g^ \r\no  gHp- \r\nZ  coir-  Z \r\n••  \u003c \r\n\r\nCM   O \r\n\r\n\r\nin  m \r\nco  ro \r\n\r\n\r\nc \r\no \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\ngj \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\ngD  o \r\nHim \r\ncm  ^ \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\ng- \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•» \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\np- \r\n0* \r\n\r\n\r\nrM \r\nCM \r\n\r\ngj \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nin \r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\ng- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n•¦ \r\n\r\n¦o \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\ngj \r\n\r\nQ3l  sf \r\n\r\nh  m \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM   O \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nZ \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\np- \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\n0  p-'co  rj \r\n3  gr  t\u003e  to \r\ngj  co  z \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\ng\u003e \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nco' \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n»i \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\nOl \r\n\r\nr-i \r\n\r\ngr \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\nv0 \r\n\r\nH   \u003ef \r\n\r\nco  co \r\n\r\ni  •¦  J \r\n\r\nH  co \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n'        IM \r\n\r\n\r\nH    CO \r\n\r\n00  co \r\nm  o \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM. \r\n\r\n\r\n00  ao \r\nH  gj \r\nO  00 \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\nCO   p- \r\n\r\nm  o \r\n\r\nh  g^- \r\n\r\n«\u003e    *• \r\n\r\nH    H \r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\nm  r- \r\n\r\n«M \r\n\r\n\r\no  m \r\n\r\nh  m \r\n\r\ngj; \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nHI \r\n\r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\ng\u003e  co \r\no \r\n\r\nri \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\u003c \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nCO    H \r\n\r\nao  m \r\nco  co \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nv0 \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ngj \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\na* \r\n\r\n\r\ngj  oo \r\ng\u003e  g» \r\n\r\np-  0\u003e \r\n\r\nt»    » \r\n\r\nH   O \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\ngj- \r\n\r\n\r\no  00 \r\ngj  gr \r\n\r\nh  r- \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\nCO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nm  gj \r\nsT  O \r\nro \r\n\r\ng- \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  p- \r\nO \r\nrO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\ngj  o \r\n\r\n0  o \r\ngj  cmi \r\n\r\n1  *  -», \r\n\r\nrM  r-i  1 \r\n\r\no\\ \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nCr  H \r\nO  03 \r\n\r\nh  rjs \r\n\r\n\r\neg \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nm  gj \r\ng^  h \r\n\r\ngj-  o \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nHO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nCM  O \r\n\r\no \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nop- \r\n\r\nh  r- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\npg \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nCM  O \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n\r\nH«4- \r\n\r\nCM  O* \r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\nZ1 \r\n\r\n\u003c( \r\no \r\n\r\nO  _J  P-  P- \r\n\r\ngj       \u003er  t\u003e \r\n\r\n¦i-H        p- \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\n1—1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\np- \r\n¦\u003c \r\n\r\nZ  to \r\n\r\n•  a \r\n\r\n\r\n43! \r\n\r\n\r\ni\u003c  en \r\n\r\no  CJ\u003e| \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\nCM  _l \r\n\r\ng\u003e-  \u003c \r\nee \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nV\u003e  LU \r\nfX  U \r\n\u003c     • \r\n\r\nHOC    JIM \r\n\r\n\r\nro  gj \r\n\r\ngj  r- \r\no \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nIU  (M1  CM \r\n\r\nec  o \r\n\r\n\r\n•0 \r\nm \r\n•1 \r\ncc \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nOl \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\no  \u003c \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nca \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\ntO    Qi \r\n\r\no  \u003c \r\na;  _l \r\n\r\n«t  _J \r\n\u003c  o \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  o \r\nz  o \r\na  g^ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\ntO    tOl  Di \r\n\r\n•  Ol  \u003c \r\n\r\nro  ct-l  -I \r\nt  \u003ci  -J \r\n\r\n\u003c  y-  cj \r\n\r\n\u003c  Q \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\nm  coi \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nUI \r\nO   Oi \r\n\r\nH    ^ \r\n\r\np-  o \r\n\r\n?  00 \r\nCO \r\n\r\ngj  ui \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\u003e \r\n¦—I \r\n.00  \u003c¦\u003c \r\nex  a. \r\n\u003cc  • \r\n_i  10 \r\n_i  • \r\na  \u003c \r\no. \r\n\r\n\r\nco  UJ  o \r\n\r\nH    3£  H \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nrx \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\nCOl  H  oi  CM  CO \r\n\r\ngr  co  h \r\n\r\nO  X  H  o \r\n\r\n»  to  » \r\n\r\nCM  \u003c  CM \r\n\r\nho  m \r\n\r\n\r\nCX \r\n\r\nIU' \r\n\r\nX \r\nan  )— \r\n\r\n'-01  rx  O \r\nOj  \u003c  • \r\ncxi  _i  g: \r\n\u003c  -i    • \r\n\r\n\r\na  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c3  O \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nto  rX \r\na  \u003c \r\n\r\nrX  -I \r\n\r\n\u003c  -i \r\n\r\n35  a \r\n\r\n\u003c  o \r\n\r\n\r\nCO       '  \u003c  03  \u003c)  PI  \u003c  CO \r\n\r\ngf      m  tn  aa  -o  r~  r- \r\n\r\n-J           r-i  r**  r-i  r-i  r-i  r^ \r\n\r\ni  ;  i  ' \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nJJ  u. \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nc \r\nn \r\n\r\n\r\nX. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n1) \r\n\r\n\u003e• \r\n\r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\nz \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nat \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nZ \r\n\r\na: \r\no \r\n\r\nQ \r\nUJ \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nUJ \r\nQ \r\n\r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nx \r\nt- \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\\ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nl \r\nu_ \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\na  ui \r\n\r\nz  Jh \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\nx \r\n\r\nJJ  UJ \r\n\r\n-J  U. \r\n\r\n\r\nI    UJ  — \r\n\r\nj     -i  \u003cM \r\n\r\nI  \u003c  »-« \r\nx  \u003e— \r\n\r\n-J  UJ \r\nIL \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nDUJ« \r\n\r\n\r\n•¦4  ro \r\n\r\nt-  a \r\n\r\n«o  o \r\n\r\ntij  o \r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\n¦-« \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\nz  a: \r\n\r\n,\u003c  u \r\n\r\n1'     CT \r\n\r\nto  — \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nO    | \r\n\r\n•-i \r\n\r\n*o  m \r\n\r\nVI  ivj \r\n\r\nin  \u003c \r\n\r\n*:  co \r\n\r\n«  « \r\n\r\nP\" \r\n\r\n!    ui  — ¦ \r\n\r\ndi  UJ  _i  -4- \r\n\r\no  \u003e  \u003c  o \r\n\r\nM   X   »» \r\n\r\nzhuj: \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c  UL \r\n\r\nM  Z \r\n\r\na ; \r\n\r\nZ  Z  UI  — \r\n\r\n?-«  \u003c  _j  ro \r\n\r\n*  \u003c  o \r\n\r\na:  \u003c/\u003e  x  — \r\n\r\nui  \u003c \r\n\r\nx  _i      , \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\nUJ- \r\n\r\n_J  (M \r\n\r\n'-»  \u003c  o \r\nOX  — \r\n\r\n1-4    UJ \r\n\r\n*:  z  u. \r\n\r\n,\u003c \r\nu  a. \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\u003c  •-\u003c \r\n\r\nIUI- \r\n\r\n— «   i   — *  — « \r\n\r\nz  \u003c  o \r\n\r\na  o  x  — \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\n\r\n.UJ  ,        cO  4- \r\n\r\ny\u003e  q:  z \r\n\r\na.  a  \u003c  r\u003e \r\n\r\nne  _i  o \r\n\r\n\u003e  \u003c  -j  u \r\n«  a \r\n\r\nl~!\u003c  0  OS \r\n\r\nI     p \r\n\r\nj«  W  ui '  • \r\n\r\nijj  a.  z  a \r\n\r\nIttHZ \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\nfM       r-i  «f \r\nm       00 \r\n\r\n»*¦         (O  r-l \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\n*  co       r-  00 \r\n\r\nXD  O  00 \r\n\r\nk*      m  ro \r\n\r\n\r\niro      hi* \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nw       o  m \r\nJO        -4  \\0 \r\n\r\n»      ;  •»  * \r\n*4      Mm \r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c0  CO        vO  o \r\n\r\nO  00    r-4 \r\n\r\n•4-        OO \r\n\r\n\r\n,ro      «¦*  10 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no» \r\n\r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n\r\nno  o  m \r\n\r\nit*  r-  o» \r\n\r\no  00  tn \r\n\r\n'  •\u003e  •\u003e  •\u003e \r\n\r\n#-«         r-l  -4\" \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n•- \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n—  '. \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n° \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n?  1 \r\n\r\nr* \r\n\r\n^4 \r\n\r\n\u003c-4 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\n«r \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\nf- \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nr» \r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nroj \r\n\r\n»• \r\n\r\n*l \r\n\r\n**• \r\n\r\n0*1 \r\n\r\n0» \r\n\r\n\u003c-4j \r\n\r\n»i \r\n\r\n\u003coj \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n£' \r\n\r\nvO  -Hi \r\n\r\n!       0\\ \r\n\r\n\r\nrO \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nro \r\nin \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\no \r\n»n. \r\n\r\n\r\nro; \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n?' \r\n\r\no1 \r\nr- \r\n\r\n« \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\no \r\n\u003co: \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nCO    rH \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ni-l \r\n\r\n«\u003c¦ \r\n\r\n¦4- \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n*\u003e \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nr\u003ei \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nr-l  O \r\n\r\nf-A \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n•C \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n«n  m \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\nIM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nfO \r\n\r\nh- \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n»• \r\n\r\n» i/» \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\n-0  z \r\n\r\n-H \r\n\r\n«r  \u003c \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n_i \r\n\r\n\u003e- \r\n\r\n\u003c  no \r\n\r\na.  o  oo|t—  m \r\n\r\nUJ   r4 \r\n\r\na:  \u003e*¦\u003c-\u003c  uj  \u003c*¦ \r\n\r\n\r\nO  ad \r\n\r\no  a \r\nm  o \r\n\r\n•\u003e  ui \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e \r\ncet \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nV.  CM \r\n\r\nX   \u003cM \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  o- \r\nmio \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nen \r\no \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nto  \u003cm \r\na:  m \r\n\u003c  m \r\n\r\n\r\na:       _i \r\na \r\n\r\n00  _J  ivj  O \r\nr-  a.  \u003c£\u003e \r\n\r\nkidoz \r\n\r\n••  Q     •\u003e  \u003c \r\n\r\nm.z  r-t  o \r\n\r\nO  3 \r\n\r\n\u003cNJ \r\n\r\n\r\n111! \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n•  a  \u003c    •  a \r\nno:  jmo: \r\n\r\n•  \u003c  -j    •  \u003c \r\nCO  3C  o  co  -x \r\n\r\n\u003c  0      \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  en \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  co \r\n,0  0 \r\n\r\n|(NJ   (VI \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c    -4 \r\n\r\nt- \r\n\r\nO  .in- \r\n\r\ni-  a: \r\n\r\n1-    •  \u003c \r\n\r\nz  a  _i \r\n\r\nD  -1 \r\n\r\nO  O \r\n\r\nO  Q! \r\n\r\n\r\n(NJ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM, \r\n\r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\nr- \r\n» \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\nO  1        CI  1        CO \r\n\r\n«mi     o:     p- \r\n\r\nCM|        4M|        O \r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n*• \r\nCO \r\n\r\nr- \r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nO       -4- \r\n\r\nCM  -4 \r\n\r\nr»      cm \r\n\r\n•».      •\u003e \r\n1-1        o» \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n\r\nO         CM         -O \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003c¦      \u003eo      o \r\n\r\n-4  O  U\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nCM         -4 \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\nO \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\non      o      »r \r\n\r\nHi       H         O \r\nI  3) \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\na. \r\n\u003e-• \r\n\r\nx \r\n\r\n1-4  .Oi \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n-J  n \r\n\r\n_l  o \r\nO  CO \r\nQ \r\n\r\n\r\nI—  00 \r\n\r\nz  r- \r\n\r\nIU  CM \r\n\r\n\r\na.       \u003e- \r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\nCC \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\n'1/1 \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\nF \r\n!wo \r\n\r\n\r\n_i  o \r\n\r\na.  o \r\n\r\nr\u003e  cm \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nH|a \r\n\r\n**|0 \r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n—i  in \r\n_J  «*• \r\nO  m \r\nQ \r\n\r\nCM \r\nQ.   «4- \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\nto \r\n\r\na: \r\n\u003c  -i \r\n\r\nQ  CO \r\n\r\nX    • \r\nt_)  IT.  I \r\n\r\n•n  \u003ej- \r\n\r\n\r\na      o      o  to \r\n\r\n1-  10  t-  (0  i-  or \r\n•  a    •  t-    •  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003citur:u  j \r\n\r\n\u003c  3       _j \r\n3:      O'     a \r\n\r\n\u003c  U1       Q \r\n\r\n\r\nP0 \r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\n(Mi \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nr-iCM \r\nr-'ro \r\nco  r» \r\n\r\n•\u003e  •\u003e \r\nm  r- \r\n\r\n!(M \r\n\r\nI  ? \r\n(O \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e0  CO \r\n\r\nm  r- \r\nco  r- \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\nH  \u003e*¦ \r\n\r\n»r  in \r\nro  r- \r\n\r\n»  #¦ \r\n\r\n(M  O \r\nO \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  cm \r\no  o \r\n\r\n(M  O \r\n\r\nL-l \r\n\r\n\r\nf-  CO \r\n\r\nin  cm \r\n»'  » \r\n\r\n-4  * \r\no \r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\nr4  f\\l \r\n\r\n\r\neo \r\n\r\n\r\ncm  in \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  cm \r\n1-4  o \r\n\r\n\r\nf»   CO \r\n\r\n\r\n««¦  co \r\nco \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nI  * \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\n(M  CM \r\nO \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\r\n(M   -4J \r\n\r\nin  m \r\nco  00 \r\n\r\n•\u003e  » \r\nCO  o* \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n1- \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nm  \u003eo  1 \r\n\r\nCM  IAi \r\n\r\nO*   f*  1 \r\n\r\n»l \r\n\r\n(O  o\\ \r\n•4- \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCM   CU \r\n\r\no  -o \r\n\r\n«J-  CO \r\nCO \r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  CO  I \r\n—  CM \r\n\r\n-4    O \r\n\r\nt\u003e      ?¦ \r\n\r\nfO  \u003e0  : \r\n(Mi \r\n\r\n\r\nco  m \r\nin  cm \r\n\r\nCO  CM \r\n\r\n\r\nro  r» \r\n\r\n(M! \r\n\r\n(Ml \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  -4 \r\n\r\n00  cm; \r\ncm \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cm  o \r\n\r\nSi \r\n\r\nco1 \r\n\r\n\r\na  z \r\n\r\nZ3  m  o  m \r\nK-  cm  ro  2: \r\nco  -d-  \u003c\\|  \u003e \r\n\u003e.  »    ?  O \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n-•1 \r\n\r\ntSA \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nTl \r\n\r\n\r\nro  in \r\nr-o \r\n\r\n\u003c-4  co \r\n\r\ni» \r\nrsi \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no  *o \r\nr-  (M \r\n\r\nr-l  CO \r\n\r\n\r\n4-  f\u003e \r\n\r\n-•      ro \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\r\n»o \r\n\r\n\r\nr\u003e  00 \r\n\r\nt-4  M3 \r\n\r\n»h  o \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n^4  ro \r\n1-4  o \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e4-  •«¦ \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\nO' \r\n\r\n.*¦ \r\n\r\n•4- \r\n\r\n•• \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm  00 \r\n\r\n-*  00 \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\ni-4j \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n(M  -O \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n\r\n•J- \r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n4- \r\n\r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\u003c  CO \r\n\r\n¦d-  a:  -4-  h-  \u003e- \r\n\r\nin  o  m  m  z \r\n\r\n\r\n0\u003e \r\n\r\np \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nr \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\n4 \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n?0 \r\n\r\nU   1= \r\n\r\nSO \r\n\r\n-4  CM \r\n\r\n•»         I* \r\n\r\n*-      in \r\no \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no      00 \r\n\r\n¦O  r-l \r\n\r\n3      ro \r\n\r\n!« \r\n\r\no \r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\n»       ro \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\n-\u003c      in \r\n\r\n?4- \r\n\r\no \r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\n5(C  -1 \r\n\r\nai \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\n«i-  o_ \r\n\r\nr*  \u003e \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\nr-  uj \r\n••  »-* \r\n\r\nCM  O. \r\n\r\n(M  ** \r\nc_) \r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\na: \r\n\r\nm3  \u003c \r\n\r\no  _i \r\n\r\no  _i \r\n\r\n?  a \r\n\r\nfM  Q \r\n\r\n\r\n_i  sf  r~ \r\nO  ro  cm \r\n\r\nOf-O \r\n\r\nI        •• \r\n\r\no      o \r\no \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n\r\n.0 \r\n\r\n¦UI \r\nU.  CO \r\n\r\n« a \r\n1  \u003c  etc \r\n\r\nj     5 \r\n\r\n1     \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nao \r\n\r\nro  ui \r\n(M  X \r\nm  \u003e \r\n»a \r\nr-  -1 \r\no  0. \r\n\r\n1-4  X \r\nUJ \r\n\r\nr-  H \r\no  z \r\n\r\n»  UJ \r\n\r\nro  a \r\n\r\nr*  =\u003e \r\nr»r- \r\n10 \r\nro \r\nm \r\n\r\no  • ; \r\n\r\n»\u003e ; \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ni  \u003e' \r\n\r\n•O  CC  ! \r\n\r\n0  a \r\n\u003eo  o \r\n\r\n»  Ui  ; \r\n0\u003e  r- \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n1  U \r\n\r\no \r\nto \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\n\r\nm \r\n1-4 \r\n*o \r\n\r\n\r\nn       ro       p- \r\n-4       ro \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nin      \u003eo \r\n\r\nro       -h \r\n\r\n\r\n0^0 \r\nro  o  \u003eo \r\nm      10 \r\n\r\n\r\n9» \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  rH \r\n\r\n\r\n^\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\npo \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\ntn \r\nrvi \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\ncm \r\n\r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nSI \r\n\r\n\r\nCO        'M         xj\"         CO  \u003e-4 \r\n\r\n\r\nH         (M \r\n\r\nU\\  f-4 \r\n\r\n\r\nz: \r\n\r\nUI \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nro  »-4 \r\n\r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\n\r\n¦-4  O \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  in  o  0  o  \u003er  j  in,  \u003e- \r\n\r\nz  \u003en  HSin\u003era.oQ \r\n\r\nOnTO^         rO!Dr-(_l \r\n\r\nr-  ^  r1  x \r\n\r\n•H  3        tu \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nfO \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n1-4 \r\n\r\nt- \r\n\r\nlO \r\n\r\n1/1 \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\noC \r\n\r\nt-4 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  ca \r\n\u003co  «o \r\n\r\nNN \r\n\r\n\r\no  ^ \r\n\r\n00  _i \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n¦co  j— \r\n\r\n10  a:  O \r\n\r\no  \u003c    • \r\n\r\nC\u003c  -J  u \r\n\r\n\u003c  _l \r\n\r\nX  o \r\n\r\n\u003c  Qi \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n.     co \r\n\r\nco  rf. \r\na  \u003c \r\n\r\nOi \r\n\r\n\u003c  _i \r\n^  a \r\n\r\n\u003c  a \r\n\r\n\r\n_l  O  P*  UJ   ^J \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCO  , \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nUI       z \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nJWMO \r\n\r\n\u003c  -4  j  ro \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1- \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nUI  :  CO \r\n\r\n1-4  Z \r\n\r\n-J  UJ \r\n\r\n\u003c  l-l \r\n\r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nz \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n10  r-  h»!o» \r\na. \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nLU \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\r\nIO  1 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  00 \r\n\r\nr\u003e-  r- \r\n\r\nCM  (M \r\n\r\n\r\n44^ \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  at \r\nco  \u003co \r\nrg \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\na \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c  . \r\n\r\no. \r\n\r\nCO  _J  CO \r\n\r\n1*:  co  c£ \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c  !\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\ncl \r\nOi \r\n\u003c  \u003e- \r\n\r\n-j      a \r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\r\nQ. \r\nX \r\n\r\n\r\nco  co  UJ  :co \r\n\r\n•  Q     •  |G \r\n\r\nCJ  re   a  C. \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\np*        CM \r\n\r\nro      ro \r\n\r\n\r\nrO \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n!   • \r\n\r\n•n \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\r\nM\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n«M \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦o \r\n\r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n\r\n(M \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003eJ- \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\ntorn \r\nzo \r\n\r\n\u003c  co \r\nO  •¦ \r\n-1  \u003cu \r\n\r\n\r\nCO   -4 \r\n\r\na  ro \r\n\r\na:  ro \r\n\r\n\u003c  *\u003e \r\n\r\n^:  in \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n«*¦        \u003cM \r\n\r\n•J\u003e        i«0 \r\n\r\n•r      i(M \r\n\r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\n\r\nf-      pi \r\n\r\n\r\nTO \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003co \r\n\r\nim      r» \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c4» \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n«4*        (O \r\n*         » \r\n\r\ntM         CO \r\n\r\nCM         I \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\"\u003cM \r\n\r\n*o \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nh-vo \r\n\r\n•  a \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nHi \r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n\r\nF \r\n\r\nSO \r\n\r\n\r\n.-O \r\n-*¦ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\np-i \r\nm \r\n\r\n\u003eo \r\nJ\u003e \r\nm \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nco \r\nr- \r\n\r\n•\u003e \r\nin \r\n\r\n\r\n«o \r\n\r\nO  r- \r\n\r\no  z \r\n\r\ncOlvO  UJ \r\n\r\neel  ••  m \r\n\r\n\u003c;^o. \r\n\r\n_i  m  \u003e-4 : \r\n-It*  Ui \r\nO  1  *  uj  1 \r\n\r\nQ  :in  QC! \r\n\r\ni  1 \r\n\r\n»-  CM   _J \r\n\r\noi  r-  o. \r\na  -f  o \r\n\r\nQ.'  »•  Q \r\n\r\nuj  -o  z \r\n\r\nCCllM  3 \r\n\r\nk\u003e \r\n-j!  »  _ii \r\n\u003c|ro  \u003c! \r\n\r\nI-I  r- \r\nOj'/\u003e  O \r\nl-loi  H \r\n\r\n•  |\u003c     • \r\n\r\ncn  i_i  o \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nin \r\n•0 \r\n\r\n» \r\n\r\n\u003cM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nrsi \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•» \r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n1 \r\n10 \r\n\r\n\r\na \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003eo \r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\na \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nro \r\n\r\n\r\nSTUDENT  RETENTION \r\nIntroduction \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  recognized  the  need  to  provide  access  to \r\nmarginally  prepared  students  as  early  as  1957.  In  that  year  they \r\nauthorized  institutions  to  conduct  Summer  On-Trial  Programs.  These \r\nprograms  permitted  marginally  prepared  students  to  try  regular \r\ncourse  work  during  the  summer  and,  if  successful,  enroll  in  the \r\nregular  program. \r\n\r\nThis  program  provided  an  opportunity  and  the  results  led  to \r\nseveral  conclusions.  Poorly  prepared  students  could  not  succeed \r\nin  regular  courses  due  to  their  lack  of  prerequisite  preparation. \r\nThey  needed  a  lower  level  instruction  than  that  provided  in  regular \r\ncourses. \r\n\r\nThese  students  also  needed  special  support  services  such  as \r\ndiagnostic  testing,  extra  counseling,  and  tutoring.  More  important- \r\nly, it  became  apparent  that  three  months  was  not  adequate  time  to \r\nremediate  their  deficiencies. \r\n\r\nDuring  the  1960 's  most  institutions  developed  some  form  of \r\nremedial  program  that  incorporated  elements  designed  to  most \r\neffectively  assist  students  in  overcoming  academic  deficiencies. \r\nIn  the  1967  Summer  Quarter  several  institutions  conducted  an  experi- \r\nmental program  called  Summer  Program  for  Educational  Enrichment  and \r\nDevelopment.  Special  instruction,  counseling,  and  tutoring  were  pro- \r\nvided and  the  results  indicated  these  special  services  improved  achieve- \r\nment. Once  again  it  was  indicated  that  one  quarter  was  not  sufficient \r\ntime  for  most  students. \r\n\r\n\r\n45 \r\n\r\n\r\nIncorporating  all  that  had  been  learned  from  previous  experiments \r\nand  with  special  funds  provided  by  the  Regents,  two  experimental  programs \r\nwere  established  at  Savannah  State  College  and  South  Georgia  in  1969. \r\nThe  purpose  of  these  year  long  programs  was  to  continue  the  search  to \r\nfind  better  ways  to  provide  remediation  to  academically  deficient  students. \r\nAll  during  this  time  special  meetings  of  System  personnel  were  held  to \r\ndiscuss  the\" best  policies,  procedures,  and  methods.  Several  other \r\nInstitutions  developed  special  programs  under  federal  grants  for  this \r\npurpose.  Other  institutions  expanded  their  long-term  efforts.  All  of \r\nthese  programs  made  use  of  experimental  results  both  in  the  System  and \r\nthroughout  the  nation. \r\n\r\nDuring  the  summer  of  1972  a  special  committee  of  the  University \r\nSystem  was  established  to  consider  the  problem  from  the  System  point \r\nof  view.  A  number  of  recommendations  as  to  policy,  procedure,  and  method \r\nwere  developed.  Especially,  it  was  recommended  that  this  work  be  carried \r\non  by  special  departments  in  each  of  the  institutions,  with  the  head  of \r\nthe  department  responsible  to  his  chief  academic  officer.  The  presidents \r\nwere  instructed  orally  to  begin  to  make  plans  for  this  development  in  the \r\nfall  of  1972,  and  a  written  memorandum  to  that  effect  went  out  on \r\nFebruary  22,  1973.  All  institutions  now  ha've  special  departments  for  this \r\nwork. \r\n\r\nIt  was  during  this  time  that  faculty  workshops  were  started  for \r\nthose  working  in  developmental  programs.  These  have  been  continued \r\nand  have  become  increasingly  beneficial. \r\n\r\nIn  1974  additional  policies  concerning  basic  skills  work  were \r\nformally  adopted  by  the  Board  and  the  programs  were  futher  strengthened \r\nin  all  institutions  in  the  System. \r\n\r\nIt  was  at  this  time  that  the  term  \"Special  Studies\"  was  selected  to \r\ndescribe  the  developmental  efforts  of  the  University  System.  Also  *?¦ \r\n\r\n46 \r\n\r\n\r\n1974,  the  Academic  Committee  on  Special  Studies  was  officially  estab- \r\nlished to  study  and  recommend  policies  and  procedures  concerning  this \r\nacademic  area. \r\nAcademic  Reasons  for  Special  Studies \r\n\r\nThe  substantial  growth  of  the  University  System  of  Georgia  during \r\nthe  1960's  and  early  1970 * s  marked  the  beginning  enrollment  of  a  large \r\nnumber  of  poorly  prepared  college  students.  From  the  period  1960  to \r\n1976,  the  System  grew  from  approximately  30,000  students  to  nearly \r\n125,000  students. \r\n\r\nThe  growth  in  University  System  enrollment  has  been  based  in  large \r\npart  on  the  fact  that  each  year  during  the  last  decade  larger  proportions \r\nof  the  high  school  graduation  classes  have  gone  to  college.  The  best \r\navailable  estimates  indicate  that  this  percentage  had  increased  from \r\nabout  22%  in  1960  to  41%  in  1970  to  44%  in  1974. \r\n\r\nThis  widening  of  the  base  of  students  has  brought  into  college \r\nvery  large  numbers  of  young  people  unprepared  in  the  academic  funda- \r\nmentals. The  extent  of  the  problem  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  in \r\n1972-73,  12.1  percent  of  entering  students  of  the  University  System \r\nscored  less  than  650  on  the  Scholastic  Aptitude  Test  (SAT).  Some  18.5 \r\npercent  scored  less  than  700  and  26.2  percent  less  than  750.  While \r\nthese  scores  are  not  an  exclusive  measure  of  academic  ability,  they \r\ndid  indicate  the  possibility  that  from  twelve  to  twenty-six  percent  of \r\nthe  students  who  entered  in  1972-73  were  not  sufficiently  grounded  in \r\nthe  academic  fundamentals  to  properly  begin  college  work. \r\n\r\nToday  the  figures  are  even  more  alarming.  In  1975-76,  26.4  percent \r\nof  entering  students  scored  below  650  composite  on  the  SAT,  and  44.5 \r\npercent  scored  below  750  on  the  SAT  (Of  course,  some  of  the  increase  in \r\n\r\n\r\n47 \r\n\r\n\r\npoorly  prepared  students  can  be  accounted  for  by  the  \"greater  access\" \r\nobjective  of  Special  Studies.)  On  the  other  hand,  however,  a  substantial \r\nportion  is  the  result  of  the  state  and  national  trend  of  poor  academic \r\npreparation  of  high  school  graduates. \r\n\r\nIn  order  to  counter  the  impact  of  this  declining  academic  achievement, \r\nthe  University  System  of  Georgia  has  and  continues  to  act  to  provide \r\neffective  compensatory  education  to  students  needing  special  assistance. \r\n\r\nWhile  Special  Studies  does  not  pretend  to  resolve  all  problems \r\nrelated  to  the  poor  academic  achievement  of  college  students,  nor  of \r\ndesegregation  of  colleges,  the  question  of  special  compensatory  activities \r\nspeak  directly  to  the  heart  of  the  problem  of  increasing  minority  student \r\nenrollment.  Many  minority  students  come  from  cultural  and  educational \r\nbackgrounds  which  were  not  conducive  to  strong  academic  development. \r\nIt  is  essential  that  appropriate  programs  be  provided  for  such  students \r\nif  they  are  to  have  reasonable  expectations  of  success  in  college  level \r\nwork.  Evidence  to  date  clearly  indicates  that  programs  of  compensatory \r\nstudies  of  the  type  provided  by  the  University  System  create  an  avenue \r\nto  college  level  activity  for  many  previously  poorly  prepared  students  of \r\nall  races. \r\n\r\nThus,  the  Board  of  Regents  has  committed  itself  to  the  implementation \r\nof  a  comprehensive  academic  program  at  each  institution  designed  to \r\nincrease  the  access,  retention  and  success  of  students.  This  action  is \r\nbased  on  the  belief  that  the  question  of  special  developmental  activities \r\ngoes  directly  to  the  heart  of  the  problem  of  increasing  minority  student \r\nparticipation  in  college  programs,  and  that  only  three  real  options \r\nexisted*  These  options  were:  1)  to  continue  the  revolving  door, \r\n2)  to  raise  admissions  standards  so  high  as  to  exclude  or  3)  to  provide \r\nopportunity  and  assistance  through  Special  Studies. \r\n\r\n48 \r\n\r\n\r\nSpecial  Studies  Program  Components \r\n\r\nStudents  assigned  to  the  program  of  Special  Studies  pursue \r\ndevelopmental  programs  of  study  in  the  areas  of  English,  reading  or \r\nmathematics.  The  English  instruction  includes  several  levels \r\nproviding  instruction  in  grammar,  spelling,  word  usage,  sentence \r\nand  paragraph  structure  and,  when  needed,  speech.  The  reading \r\ninstruction  includes  levels  of  instruction  in  vocabulary,  compre- \r\nhension and  speed.  Mathematics  instruction  includes  levels  of \r\ninstruction  in  arithmetic  computation  skills  and  elementary  algebra, \r\n\r\nThe  program  also  includes,  either  through  an  organized  course \r\nor  in  individual  and  group  counseling  sessions,  an  orientation  to \r\ncollege  life,  study  skills,  personal  relations,  and  vocational \r\nand  academic  counseling.  As  much  as  possible,  an  individualized \r\napproach  is  used  making  extensive  use  of  laboratory  settings  and \r\nutilizing  extensive  instructional  media.  No  college  level  credit \r\nis  earned  by  Special  Studies  activities,  however,  \"institutional \r\ncredit\"  is  awarded.  A  student  admitted  to  the  Special  Studies \r\ncategory  is  not  permitted  to  take  credit  courses  which  require \r\nthe  content  of  the  Special  Studies  Program  as  a  prerequisite. \r\n\r\nA  student's  progress  is  assessed  periodically  throughout  the \r\nyear.  He  may  exit  the  Special  Studies  Program  at  any  time  he  exhib- \r\nits predetermined  levels  of  satisfactory  performance.  A  student \r\nfailing  to  satisfactorily  exit  the  program  within  one  year  may \r\nbe  asked  to  withdraw.  Procedures  for  exiting  Special  Studies  pro- \r\ngrams are  standardized  throughout  the  University  System. \r\n\r\nStaffing  is  the  most  important  element  in  a  Special  Studies \r\nProgram.  The  Program  includes  several  types  of  staff:  a  director; \r\nEnglish,  Math,  and  Reading  instructors;  counselors;  and  tutors. \r\n\r\n49 \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  faculty  who  work  with  the  Special  Studies  Program  has  been \r\nrecruited  for  their  sensitivity  to  student  needs,  competency  in  the \r\nselected  field,  flexibility  and  openness  to  new  and  different  teaching \r\ntechniques  which  benefit  those  participating.  Such  a  staff  is  above \r\nminimizing  the  intelligence  or  background  of  the  students  they  serve. \r\nTo  deal  successfully  with  these  students,  the  faculty  develop  and \r\nexamine  case  histories  to  learn  about  each  individual  and  problems \r\nwhich  might  cause  the  learning  deficiency. \r\n\r\nEffective  counseling  is  an  integral  part  of  the  Special  Studies \r\nPrograms.  Counselors  are  concerned  about  the  students'  educational \r\nand  vocational  aspirations  as  well  as  personal  problems  and  seek  out \r\nthese  students  to  investigate  their  needs.  Educational,  vocational \r\nand  personal  counseling  is  incorporated  as  an  integral  part  of  the \r\nprogram  of  Special  Studies  activities.  The  CGP  provides  useful \r\ndemographic  data  that  may  be  used  in  counseling. \r\n\r\nThe  programs  provide  tutoring  services  to  supplement  instruction. \r\nThese  services  are  provided  by  graduate  students  when  available,  other \r\nmature  students,  faculty,  and  interested  community  members.  Again, \r\nthey  are  required  to  be  empathetic  to  the  needs  of  Special  Studies \r\nstudents. \r\n\r\nTo  insure  success,  the  director  and  staff  assist  the  administration \r\nand  faculty  in  accepting  the  Special  Studies  participants  and  their \r\nrelated  activities  as  an  integral  part  of  the  total  collegiate  structure \r\nThis  helps  the  student  develop  a  basis  for  belonging  and  prevents  him \r\nfrom  feeling  disassociated  from  the  college. \r\n\r\nThe  Special  Studies  department  has  a  staff  with  an  interest  in \r\nand  dedication  to  the  Program  and  its  students.  There  is  sufficient \r\nfull-time  staff  to  provide  the  minimum  program  needed  for  the  full  year \r\nwith  additional  staff  being  drawn  from  the  other  college  departments  as \r\n\r\n50 \r\n\r\n\r\nneeded  to  meet  additional  needs. \r\n\r\nThe  basic  objective  of  these  efforts  is  to  expand  opportunities  for \r\npoorly  prepared  students. \r\n\r\nThe  director  has  staffing,  budgeting,  and  policy-making  responsibility \r\nand  authority  commensurate  with  other  institutional  departments.  Addition- \r\nally, the  director  has  a  knowledge  of  the  total  academic  programs,  appre- \r\nciation for  the  relationship  of  thisprogram  to  the  entity,  and  empathy \r\nand  understanding  for  students  enrolled  in  the  program.  He  will  report \r\ndirectly  to  the  institutions'  chief  academic  officer  who  in  turn  is  respon- \r\nsible to  the  president  of  the  institution.  The  president  of  each  institution \r\nin  the  University  System  is  responsible  to  The  Board  of  Regents  through \r\nthe  Chancellor  for  all  aspects  of  the  institutions'  operations. \r\n\r\nPolicies  of  the  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  System  relative \r\nto  the  Special  Studies  Program  are  summerized  as  follows: \r\n\r\n1.  The  Special  Studies  program  shall  be  implemented  throughout \r\nthe  University  System  no  later  than  the  Fall  Quarter  of  1974. \r\n\r\n2.  Any  entering  freshmen  scoring  650  or  below  on  the  SAT  shall  be \r\ngiven  additional  tests  to  determine  skill  deficiencies  which \r\nmight  require  participation  in  the  Special  Studies  Program. \r\n\r\n3.  Institutions  may  specify  higher  standards  and  additional  re- \r\nquirements for  Special  Studies  participants. \r\n\r\n4.  Further  testing  shall  initially  include,  but  not  be  limited  to, \r\nthe  test  and/or  Basic  Skills  Examiniation. \r\n\r\nComparative  Guidance  and  Placement \r\n\r\n5.  Courses  in  this  program  shall  include  English,  reading,  and \r\nmathematics. \r\n\r\n6.  Students  shall  be  required  only  to  enter  the  course  related  to \r\ntheir  individual  deficiency. \r\n\r\n7.  Students  shall  not  be  permitted  to  take  credit  courses  which \r\nrequire  the  content  of  the  Special  Studies  courses  as  a \r\nprerequisite. \r\n\r\n8.  No  degree  credit  shall  be  earned  in  this  program,  but  institu- \r\ntional credit  will  be  awarded. \r\n\r\n**9.  Students  may  exit  this  program  at  any  time  they  exhibit  pre- \r\n\r\n\r\n51 \r\n\r\n\r\ndetermined  levels  of  satisfactory  performance  on  the  post-test. \r\n\r\n10.  Students  who  fail  to  satisfactorily  exit  the  program  within \r\none  year  may  be  asked  to  withdraw. \r\n\r\n11.  Policies  prescribed  for  this  program  are  not  to  interfere \r\nwith  the  individual  institution's  admission  practices  beyond \r\nthe  University  System  minimum  standard.  ^ \r\n\r\n12.  Each  Special  Studies  Program  shall  be  organized  as  an  academic \r\ndepartment,  with  the  chairman  reporting  to  the  chief  academic \r\nofficer  of  the  institution. \r\n\r\nTesting  in  Special  Studies \r\n\r\nThe  fundamental  step  is  the  tentative  identification  of  poorly \r\nprepared  students  prior  to  their  admission  to  the  college.  All  pros- \r\npective students  with  a  combined  Scholastic  Aptitude  Test  score  of \r\n650  or  less  are  notified  they  will  be  required  to  take  further  tests. \r\nThis  score  was  selected  due  to  the  System's  experience  indicating \r\nthat  students  below  this  level  had  little  chance  of  success  in  college. \r\nInstitutions  may  set  higher  standards  than  the  650  SAT  score.  The \r\nComparative  Guidance  and  Placement  Program  of  the  College  Entrance \r\nExamination  Board  has  been  used  for  the  purpose  of  specific  placement \r\neither  in  developmental  course  within  the  program  of  Special  Studies \r\nor  in  regular  college  level  work.  Thus  a  student  scoring  low  on  the \r\nSAT  is  given  an  opportunity  to  take  an  achievement  test  in  the  basic \r\nareas  of  reading,  English  and  math  which  may  more  accurately  indicate \r\nthe  student's  achievement  level. \r\n\r\nThe  minimum  exit  scores  for  the  System  are  standard  scores  of \r\n42  (23  percentile)  on  the  CGP  math  section,  43  (23  percentile)  on  the \r\nCGP  reading  section,  and  44  (26  percentile)  on  the  CGP  sentences  section \r\n\r\n\r\n**  Students  must  also  pass  course  objectives  before  exiting  the \r\nSpecial  Studies  course. \r\n\r\n\r\n52 \r\n\r\n\r\nEach  institution  is  free  to  set  any  higher  standard  which  it  believes \r\nto  be  desirable.  These  cutoff  scores  were  chosen  based  on  studies  by \r\nEducational -Testing  Service  equating  CGP  and  SAT  scores  scales.  The \r\nScores  corresponding  as  closely  as  possible  to  the  SAT  total  score  of. \r\n650  were  chosen  to  minimize  student  classification  errors  due  to  error \r\nof  measurement  in  the  test. \r\n\r\nIn  1975,  the  Academic  Committee  on  Special  Studies  identified  a \r\nnumber  of  weaknesses  in  the  CGP  test  and  recommended  the  System  develop \r\nits  own  instrument  for  this  purpose.  This  recommendation  was  approved \r\nby  the  Advisory  Council  and  such  an  instrument  was  developed.  The \r\nUniversity  System  of  Georgia  Basic  Skills  Examination  was  developed \r\nutilizing  System  personnel  in  Reading,  English,  Mathematics.  Each  test \r\nitem  was  approved  by  these  personnel  with  the  test  then  being  pilot \r\ntested  and  validated  in  institutions  in  the  Systems,  again  the  cutoff \r\nscores  were  equated  to  previous  cutoff  scores  to  minimize  student \r\nclassification  errors.  The  new  tests  are  now  being  put  into  use. \r\n\r\nSpecial  Studies  Evaluation \r\n\r\nInstitutions  submit  data  quarterly  on  the  number  of  students  in \r\ntheir  Special  Studies  program  and  the  resources  utilized  by  the  Program. \r\nIn  addition  they  submit  an  annual  report  that  includes  comprehensive \r\ninformation  about  students,  faculty,  curriculum,  support  services  and \r\nan  evaluation  of  their  Special  Studies  Program. \r\n\r\nAfter  review  of  these  reports,  the  Vice  Chancellor  informs  the \r\ninstitutional  presidents  of  items  needing  attention  for  the  improve- \r\nment of  these  programs.  In  addition,  the  University  System  Advisory \r\nCouncil  Academic  Committee  on  Special  Studies  meets  at  least  twice \r\nannually  to  consider  the  progress  of  these  programs  and  offer  recommen- \r\ndations on  how  they  might  be  made  more  effective.  An  annual  workshop \r\n\r\n\r\n53 \r\n\r\n\r\nfor  Special  Studies  faculty  and  personnel  is  conducted  to  improve  their \r\nskills  and  to  share  information. \r\n\r\nSpecial  Studies  departments  have  designed  plans  for  evaluating \r\nprogram  effectiveness.  The  following  are  some  methods  which  are  used: \r\n\r\n1)  Standardized  and  locally  prepared  tests  are  used  to  measure \r\neducational  growth. \r\n\r\n2)  Experimental  research  studies  are  designed  to  compare  various \r\ntesting  devices. \r\n\r\n3)  Some  measures  of  affective  growth  and  development  are  used. \r\n\r\n4)  Student  retention  in  school  is  being  measured  for  at  least \r\na  two  year  period. \r\n\r\n5)  Measures  of  academic  success  after  Special  Studies  are  being \r\ntaken. \r\n\r\n6)  Follow-up  services  are  provided  to  assist  students  in  the \r\ntransition  from  special  courses  to  regular  college  level \r\nacademic  work. \r\n\r\n7)  Students  are  asked  to  evaluate  teaching  methodologies, \r\nmaterials  and  basic  program  formats. \r\n\r\nIn  order  to  further  measure  the  effectiveness  of  the  Special  Studies \r\n\r\nprogram,  answers  to  the  following  questions  are  being  investigated: \r\n\r\n1)  How  do  students  perform  while  in  Special  Studies  Classes? \r\n\r\n2)  How  many  students  exit  Special  Studies  at  the  close  of  each \r\ngrade  reporting  period? \r\n\r\n3)  How  many  students  complete  their  final  Special  Studies \r\nwork  each  quarter? \r\n\r\n4)  How  long  do  students  remain  in  Special  Studies? \r\n\r\n5)  How  many  students  remain  in  college? \r\n\r\n6)  How  well  do  students  perform  in  college  level  coursework? \r\n\r\n7)  How  many  students  successful  complete  the  Regents'  Test \r\n(Language  Skills  Examination)  requirement? \r\n\r\n8)  And,  how  many  students  graduate? \r\n\r\n\r\n54 \r\n\r\n\r\nA  PLAN  FOR  THE  FURTHER  DESEGREGATION \r\nOF  FORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\n\r\n\r\nBOARD  OF  REGENTS  OF  THE \r\nUNIVERSITY  SYSTEM  OF  GEORGIA \r\n\r\n\r\nFEBRUARY,  1975 \r\n\r\n\r\n55 \r\n\r\n\r\nINTRODUCTION \r\n\r\nThe  Panel,  appointed  by  order  of  the  court  dated  November  27,  1973,  has \r\npresented  the  court  with  a  report  dated  May  23,  1974.   This  Report,  which \r\nhad  the  specific  objective  of  providing  a  plan  for  the  desegregation  of \r\nFort  Valley  State  College,  is  believed  to  represent  an  effective  point  of \r\ndeparture  in  the  further  efforts  of  the  Board  of  Regents  directed  toward \r\nthe  continued  desegregation  of  this  institution.   However,  it  should  be \r\nnoted  that  the  Panel  Report  is  quite  broad  in  its  recommendations  neces- \r\nsitating the  specification  of  actions  to  be  undertaken  by  the  Board  in \r\nresponse  to  each  recommendation.  Also,  selected  points  presented  in  the \r\nReport  require  clarification  and  or  correction.        , \r\n\r\nThis  document  is  intended  to  present  the  Board  of  Regents'  strong \r\nendorsement  of  the  majority  of  the  broad  basic  concepts  of  the  Panel  Report \r\nand  to  provide  a  detailed  specification  of  the  actions  which  will  be  taken \r\nin  keeping  with  the  Report  recommendations.   For  clarity,  numbers  for  this \r\ndocument  correspond  to  those  employed  in  the  \"Summary  of  Recommendations\" \r\nin  the  Panel  Report. \r\n\r\n\r\n56 \r\n\r\n\r\nRECOMMENDATION  1 \r\n\r\n\r\nRECOMMENDATION  6 \r\n\r\n\r\nRECOMMENDATION  9 \r\n\r\n\r\nInstitutional  Role  and  Purpose \r\n\r\nThe  Land  Grant  Nature  of  Fort  Valley  State  College \r\n\r\nInstitutional  Role  and  Scope  Study \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  concurs  with  the  Panel's  finding  that  it  would \r\nbe  helpful  to  identify  at  Fort  Valley  State  College  one  or  more  academic \r\nprograms  of  an  exceptional  nature  that  bear  promise  of  a  high  level  of \r\nacceptance  by  students  of  all  races.   It  is  in  this  context  that  a  refined \r\nidentification  of  unique  role  and  scope  characteristics  of  Fort  Valley \r\nState  College  is  one  of  the  objectives  to  be  pursued  through  implementa- \r\ntion of  A  Plan  for  the  Further  Desegregation  of  the  University  System  of \r\nGeorgia,  which  was  submitted  to  the  Office  of  Civil  Rights  of  the \r\nDepartment  of  Health,  Education  and  Welfare  on  June  1,  1974.   A  copy  of  this \r\nPlan,  which  was  subsequently  accepted  by  HEW  on  June  21,  1974,  is  appended. \r\nAction  under  this  Plan  will  entail  a  detailed  comparison  by  a  System-wide \r\nTask  Force  of  the  resources  available  to  Fort  Valley  State  College  with \r\nthose  provided  to  other  senior  colleges  within  the  University  System  of \r\nGeorgia.   Parameters  to  be  included  are  physical  facilities,  institutional \r\nper  capita  allocations  and  expenditures,  amount  and  availability  of  student \r\nfinancial  aid,  degree  programs,  library  holdings,  and  faculty  character- \r\nistics.  This  resource  analysis  will  be  followed  by  an  institutional  role \r\nand  scope  study.   This  individual  institutional  study  is  scheduled  to  be \r\ncompleted  by  December,  1975.   The  correlation  of  results  with  those  of  other \r\nsenior  colleges  is  scheduled  to  be  completed  by  June,  1976.   Details  of  these \r\nresource  analyses  and  role  and  scope  studies  are  presented  in  Part  B, \r\n\r\n\r\n57 \r\n\r\n\r\nSection  I  and  Part  B,  Section  III  of  the  Plan  submitted  to  HEW. \r\n\r\nIn  addition  to  the  University  System  supported  role  and  scope  study  at \r\nFort  Valley  State  College,  additional  outside  assistance  will  be  provided \r\nto  the  institution  in  non-academic  management  and  operational  areas.   The \r\nprovision  of  this  assistance,  which  will  be  on  an  identified  need  basis, \r\nwill  be  coordinated  by  the  Associate  Vice  Chancellor. \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  has  identified,  in  the  context  of  unique  insti- \r\ntutional role  and  scope  characteristics,  two  Fort  Valley  State  College \r\nprogram  areas  that  are  of  major  importance  in  the  development  of  academic \r\nactivities  of  an  exceptional  nature.   Specific  details  illustrating  the \r\nrelationship  to  the  Panel's  recommendations  of  current  and  projected \r\nactivities  in  these  program  areas  are  presented  below. \r\n1.  The  Program  in  Agriculture  f \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  strongly  supports  the  Panel's  finding \r\nthat  the  land  grant  nature  of  Fort  Valley  State  College  provides \r\nan  opportunity  for  the  development  of  quality  programs  of  an \r\nessentially  unique  nature.   The  Board  commits  itself  to  the \r\ndevelopment  of  specialized  agricultural  activities  of  an  excep- \r\ntional nature  which  will  hold  promise  of  an  attendant  high  level \r\nof  acceptance  by  students  of  all  races. \r\n\r\nExpansion  and  improvement  of  the  Fort  Valley  State  College \r\nagricultural  program  will  be  accomplished  in  several  ways.  As \r\nsuggested  by  the  Panel,  the  thrust  will  logically  be  threefold, \r\nincluding  the  broad  areas  of  teaching,  research,  and  extension. \r\nThe  Board  of  Regents,  recognizing  that  strong  professional \r\nleadership  will  be  required,  has  initiated  a  search  for  a  new \r\ndirector  for  the  overall  agricultural  activities  at  Fort  Valley \r\n\r\n58 \r\n\r\n\r\nState  College.   The  selection  process  is  proceeding  in  accordance \r\nwith  Fort.Valley  State  College's  Affirmative  Action  Plan.   The \r\nindividual  to  be  selected  must  hold  the  Ph.D.  degree,  have  a \r\nstrong  scientific  professional  reputation,  and  have  demonstrated \r\nadministrative  competence.   This  position  is  of  key  importance \r\nto  the  realization  of  the  total  agricultural  potential  of  Fort \r\nValley  State  College. \r\n\r\nA  singular  feature  in  the  strengthening  of  the  agricultural \r\nacademic  program  at  Fort  Valley  State  College  is  the  commitment \r\nof  the  Board  of  Regents  to  the  development  of  a  two-year  animal \r\ntechnician  (veterinary  assistant)  program  in  cooperation  with  the \r\ncollege  of  Veterinary  Medicine  of  the  University  of  Georgia.   This \r\nprogram,  which  has  been  informally  discussed  with  responsible \r\nrepresentatives  of  the  State  Veterinary  Medical  Association,  has \r\nas  its  objective  the  development  and  implementation  of  a  comprehen- \r\nsive training  program  to  provide  animal  technicians  for  the  South- \r\neastern United  States  job  pool.   Principle  users  of  this  market \r\nwill  be  1.   private  veterinary  practitioners;  2.   governmental \r\nagencies  (federal  and  state);  3.   private  industry;  4.   educational \r\ninstitutions . \r\n\r\nThe  animal  technician  program  at  Fort  Valley  State  College \r\nwill  be  developed  under  the  guidance  of  the  Associate  Dean  of \r\nVeterinary  Medicine  of  the  University  of  Georgia,  and  a  veteri- \r\nnarian working  in  support  of  the  program  will  be  joint  staffed \r\nwith  the  University.   The  Fort  Valley  State  College  program  would \r\npredominantly  serve  students  from  middle  and  northern  Georgia. \r\n\r\n\r\n59 \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  Abraham  Baldwin  Agricultural  College,  serving  Southern  Georgia, \r\ncurrently  provides  the  only  such  program  of  this  type  in  Alabama, \r\nGeorgia,  north  Florida,  South  Carolina  or  Tennessee,  to  twenty- \r\nfive  students  enrolled  in  its  initial  class.   These  students  are \r\nall  of  the  white  race  whereas  black  students  comprise  approximately \r\nseven  percent  of  the  total  student  body.   Program  acceptance  is \r\nbased  on  a  projected  2.0  grade  point  average  supported  by  in- \r\ndividual interviews.   Graduates  will  be  licensed  to  work  under \r\nthe  direct  supervision  of  a  specific  veterinarian.   Manpower  need \r\nprojections  indicate  that  current  needs  cannot  be  met  for \r\napproximately  twenty  years  with  the  current  production  of  persons \r\nin  this  specialty.   The  initiation  of  this  program  is  therefore  in \r\nline  with  Fort  Valley  State  College's  goal  of  developing  career \r\nprograms  in  areas  of  clearly  identified  need.  Also,  the  housing \r\nof  an  animal  technician  program  at  Fort  Valley  State  College  is \r\nconsistent  with  the  college's  role  of  offering  a  wide  variety  of \r\nagricultural  related  courses  and  majors. \r\n\r\nThe  characteristics  of  the  planned  Fort  Valley  State  College \r\nanimal  technician  program  are  conveyed  by  the  tentative  curriculum \r\noutline  given  in  Figure  1.  An  essential  feature  of  the  course  of \r\nstudy  is  the  one  quarter  of  clinical  experience  in  the  Veterinary \r\nMedical  Teaching  Hospital  at  the  University  of  Georgia. \r\n\r\nThe  Fort  Valley  State  College  animal  technician  program  would \r\nhave  a  first  year  enrollment  of  twenty-five  students  in  the  Fall \r\nof  1976  with  a  subsequent  entering  class  size  of  fifty  students \r\nand  total  enrollment  of  approximately  one  hundred  students. \r\nAn  operating  budget  of  approximately  one  hundred  to  one  hundred \r\nand  twenty- five  thousand  dollais  would  be  provided  in  support  of \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n5S \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n(u \r\n\r\n25 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nEi \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ\u003e \r\n\r\n(-: \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nh3 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n!S \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nI-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n60 -H \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\nO     CO \r\n\r\nc. \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ni-\u003c    03 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no  u \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•H    cd \r\n\r\ni-l \r\n\r\n¦U \r\n\r\nCO    P* \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\no3 \r\n\r\nSn \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\n\u003e, \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nJC   ^ \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nPw \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nX) \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\n\u003e* \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\nI— 1 \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\ni3     MH \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nr— I \r\n\r\nOS \r\n\r\n\u003em-i \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n4-) \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nE    O \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\nO    -u \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\nO1 \r\n\r\n4J     nj \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nco    £ \r\n\r\n•i-l \r\n\r\ncj \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\u003e¦, \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nC    (I) \r\n\r\n.— I \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nMb \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\nr! \r\n\r\nJ5 \r\n\r\n\u003c    ffi \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\ntU \r\n\r\nhJ \r\n\r\nPM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•            • \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nCO     CO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nJ-f   J-l \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\n1-1 \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nSi   Si \r\n\r\nx \r\n\r\nja \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nx \r\n\r\nm  co  cm  co \r\n\r\n\r\ni     i     i     i \r\n\r\nco  \u003cj-  m  o \r\no  o  o  .-i \r\n\r\n\r\npL|    pLt    fU    P-l \r\n\r\nH   H   H  H \r\n\r\n\u003c  \u003c   \u003c  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nLO \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCO    W \r\nhJ   P-\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nnj \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n(U \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003e, \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nI— 1 \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n¦m \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nrM \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ni— i \r\n\r\nPd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni—l \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCIS \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nV4 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nf-» \r\n\r\n•U \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\u003e, \r\n\r\n\u003e^ \r\n\r\n•I-l \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nt— 1 \r\n\r\nMb \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nx \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nr3 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n52 \r\n\r\n(U \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nPM \r\n\r\nPU \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nP4 \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nP \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n5-4 \r\n\r\n5-4 \r\n\r\nsi \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nJ3 \r\n\r\n\u003c— \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nx. \r\n\r\n\u003cJ- \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nrM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nrM \r\n\r\nCM|C0 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nrM \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nr- 1 \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCNi \r\n\r\nC\\l \r\n\r\nl— 1 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nPh \r\n\r\nP-l \r\n\r\nP-. \r\n\r\nPh \r\n\r\n5H \r\n\r\nPL, \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nE-i \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nPd \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003cC \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nP-l \r\n\r\nPu \r\n\r\n\u003cC \r\n\r\n\u003e, \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n\u003cU \r\n\r\nr\u003elr-l \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\n5-4 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\nC/) \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n^B \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nIW \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nJ2 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n1) \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\n\u003cD \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nrQ \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n»N \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nX) \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\na, \r\n\r\nex \r\n\r\n\u003es \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\ni— I \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nn3 \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\n•r-( \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCT3 \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nV-i \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n^3 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\npq \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003cy \r\n\r\n•^ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\n'4-1 \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nMb \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nMb \r\n\r\n\u003cU \r\n\r\nMb \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n.3 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nP-l \r\n\r\npq \r\n\r\nJ5 \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\nPh \r\n\r\nc/\u003e \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nh \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n5-4 \r\n\r\n5-4 \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n5j \r\n\r\nrC \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nxi \r\n\r\nJ2 \r\n\r\nSi \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\ncolco \r\n\r\n|r-\u003c \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\ni— 1 \r\n\r\nPL, \r\n\r\nrX) \r\n\r\nPli \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nrJ \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nM-J \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\na) \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n5-i \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u003cU \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nCd \r\n\r\n4-) \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\na) \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nr3 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nJC3 \r\n\r\no- \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\na) \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni—i \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n4-) \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nx: \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr£ \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\ni—l \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n?N \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003e, \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nXI \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\np-l \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nUJ \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\nw3 \r\n\r\nr^    M \r\n\r\n\"X\u003e \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nrM \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u003e. \r\n\r\nO     CO \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\npi \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nr-l      CJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c: \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO    -H \r\n\r\na) \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\nr3 \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n•H     C \r\n\r\na\u003e \r\n\r\nr3 \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nO1 \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nTj    \"H \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\n\u003e% \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n03    r-l \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nx: \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nPi  o \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n£ \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO      CO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\n\u003e-i     5-1 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n5-1 \r\n\r\nSi \r\n\r\nJC   X \r\n\r\nrC \r\n\r\nx; \r\n\r\nXI \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCNI    CM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nen \r\n\r\nrMjO \r\n|CM \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1        1 \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\ni \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nr*»  cjn \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no  o \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n«d- \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\n\u003c: \r\n^\u003e \r\nol \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\r\np^    p4    PL|    H    [M \r\n\r\nH   H   H   co  ;rf    W \r\n\r\n\u003c\u003c\u003c      JSP4 \r\n\r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nrM \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4-^ \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•M \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\ni-i \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nfu \r\n\r\n61 \r\n\r\n\r\na  staff  consisting  of  one  veterinarian,  one  medical  technologist, \r\none  veterinary  assistant,  one  laboratory  assistant,  an  animal \r\ncaretaker,  and  a  secretary.   First  year  start  up  operating  costs \r\nwould  be  approximately  fifty  thousand  dollars.  Additional \r\nprogram  personnel  needs  would  be  met  through  the  strengthening \r\nof  biological  and  physical  science  activities  in  the  existing \r\ndepartments  of  the  institution. \r\n\r\nAt  present  Fort  Valley  State  College  has  no  veterinary \r\nmedical  facilities  of  any  type.   The  Board  of  Regents  will  there- \r\nfore provide  a  simulated  veterinary  hospital  specifically  adapted \r\nfor  instructional  use.   The  total  cost  of  this  approximately \r\n5,000  square  feet  of  specialized  space  is  estimated  to  be  $250,000, \r\nFunds  will  be  requested  from  the  legislature  for  this  purpose. \r\n\r\nNew  two-year  agricultural  programs  of  both  the  terminal \r\nand  core  (transfer)  variety  will  be  developed  to  provide  addition- \r\nal academic  strength  and  career  options  at  Fort  Valley  State \r\nCollege.   These  programs,  which  will  be  in  the  broad  areas  of \r\nagri-science  technology  and  agri-business  technology  will  be \r\nidentified  at  such  time  as  the  new  director  has  been  employed. \r\nProgram  development  will  be  accomplished  during  the  1975-76 \r\nacademic  year  with  initial  program  offerings  in  the  fall  of  1976. \r\nPreliminary  estimates  based  on  experience  gained  at  Abraham \r\nBaldwin  Agricultural  College  leads  to  an  enrollment  projection \r\nof  one  hundred  fifty  to  two  hundred  students  in  these  new  two- \r\nyear  programs  at  the  end  of  a  three-year  developmental  period. \r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  will  provide  from  a  combination  of  existing \r\n\r\n\r\n62 \r\n\r\n\r\ninstitutional  and  additional  resources,  those  funds  required  for \r\nthe  support  of  these  new  programs.   It  is  estimated  that  expendi- \r\ntures approximating  three  hundred  thousand  dollars  per  year  will \r\nbe  required  with  approximately  eleven  faculty  personnel.   It \r\nshould  be  noted  that  these  new  activities  can  be  expected  to \r\ndraw  upon  existing  resources  to  the  extent  consistent  with  the \r\norderly  and  equitable  redistribution  of  such  resources  required \r\n,by  changing  enrollment  patterns  at  Fort  Valley  State  College. \r\n\r\nCurrent  agricultural  research  programs  at  Fort  Valley  State \r\nCollege  are  conducted  at  a  level  of  approximately  $500,000  per \r\nyear.   These  activities  will  be  restructured  as  an  \"Associate \r\nResearch  Center\"  working  in  cooperation  with  the  University  of \r\nGeorgia.   Research  project  selection  will  be  coordinated  with \r\nthe  research  projects  of  the  University  of  Georgia  through  a \r\ncommittee  composed  jointly  of  Fort  Valley  State  College  and \r\nUniversity  of  Georgia  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  personnel. \r\nAll  program  proposals,  project  progress  reports  and  related \r\nresearch  activities  will  be  cleared  by  this  committee.   Research \r\nproject  definition  will  be  based  upon  but  not  necessarily  re- \r\nstricted to  the  agricultural  and  societal  needs  of  the  region \r\nserved  by  Fort  Valley  State  College.   University  of  Georgia  pro- \r\njects will  be  correlated  with  those  of  Fort  Valley  State  College \r\nfor  the  purpose  of  avoiding  unnecessary  duplication. \r\n\r\nProgress  has  been  realized  in  the  implementation  of  the \r\nBoard  of  Regents  commitment  to  the  improvement  of  Fort  Valley \r\nState  College  extension  activities.   Specifically,  a  permanent \r\n\r\n\r\n63 \r\n\r\n\r\nhead  of  the  extension  activities  has  been  named.   This  individual \r\nalso  serves  as  an  assistant  director  of  extension  activities \r\nconducted\" under  the  auspices  of  the  University  of  Georgia.   This \r\nreporting  line  assures  coordination  of  the  total  extension  pro- \r\ngram within  the  state.   Two  black  and  one  white  assistants  have \r\nbeen  provided  in  support  of  the  Fort  Valley  State  College  pro- \r\ngram.  This  strengthened  organizational  structure  is  particularly \r\nsignificant  since  it  generally  is  recognized  that  an  effective \r\nextension  program  serves  as  a  key  element  in  the  development  of \r\nstrong  ties  between  an  institution  and  its  constituency. \r\n2.   The  Master  of  Science  Degree  Program  (Education  and  Guidance  and \r\nCounseling) \r\n\r\nThis  degree  is  offered  at  Fort  Valley  State  College  by  both \r\nthe  college  and  the  University  of  Georgia.   Specifically,  Fort \r\nValley  State  College  provides  graduate  instruction  in  the  area \r\nof  elementary  education  and  counseling  and  guidance.   The \r\nUniversity  of  Georgia  maintains  a  resident  center  on  the  Fort \r\nValley  State  College  campus  through  which  the  University  provides \r\ninstruction  in  the  areas  of  early  childhood  education  and  special \r\neducation.   (The  University  of  Georgia  also  offers  a  Specialist \r\nin  Education-Elementary  program.)   Under  the  resident  center \r\nconcept,  the  University  of  Georgia  maintains  total  academic \r\nresponsibility  for  its  programs  with  appropriate  personnel  and \r\nother  resources  of  Fort  Valley  State  College  being  utilized  in \r\nthe  conduct  of  the  programs.   It  is  anticipated  that  this  arrange- \r\nment will  continue  to  strengthen  the  faculty  and  programs  of \r\n\r\n\r\n64 \r\n\r\n\r\nFort  Valley  State  College. \r\n\r\nThis  cooperative  effort  in  graduate  teacher  education  has \r\nmajor  implications  for  the  further  desegregation  efforts  at  Fort \r\nValley  State  College.   The  Master  of  Education  degree  is  fast \r\nbecoming  a  prerequisite  for  continued  certification  for  all \r\npublic  school  teachers.   Typically  in-service  teachers  enroll \r\npart-time  in  the  nearest  college  or  university.   It  is  noted  that \r\nas  of  June  30,  1974,  Fort  Valley's  home  and  contiguous  counties \r\nhad  2,837  public  school  teachers  of  whom  approximately  1,996  held \r\nless  than  the  master's  degree.   Fort  Valley  State  College  and \r\nthe  University  of  Georgia  will  undertake  a  joint  recruitment \r\neffort  directed  toward  qualified  members  of  this  group  with  one \r\nspecific  objective  being  an  increase  in  the  number  of  white \r\nteachers  who  participate  in  both  the  University  of  Georgia  resi- \r\ndent center  programs  and  the  Fort  Valley  State  College  programs. \r\nEach  superintendent  in  the  area  will  be  jointly  contacted  by  a \r\nrepresentative  of  the  two  institutions  for  the  purpose  of  explain- \r\ning the  total  range  of  in-service  teacher  training  opportunities \r\nprovided  at  Fort  Valley  State  College.   Direct  contact  with \r\nindividual  teachers  will  be  established  through  the  mailing  of \r\ncomplete  program  information.   Cooperative  arrangements  will  be \r\nestablished  through  the  local  CESA  unit  and  area  teacher  education \r\nservice  to  ensure  the  delivery  of  appropriate  programs  designed \r\nto  meet  the  total  in-service  teacher  education  needs  of  the  area. \r\n\r\n\r\n65 \r\n\r\n\r\nRECOMMENDATION  2:   Institutional  Governance \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  Fort  Valley  State  College  Foundation,  Inc.  founded  in  1972, \r\noperates  in  a  manner  not  unlike  that  of  similar  foundations  in  exist- \r\nence at  most  of  the  University  System  institutions.   These  groups,  meet- \r\ning regularly,  are  kept  informed  of  the  activities,  problems,  and  plans \r\nof  the  institutions;  and  they  discuss  these  matters  with  the  President \r\nand  his  colleagues.   Resource  development  also  constitutes  a  major \r\nactivity. \r\n\r\nPresent  membership  of  The  Fort  Valley  State  College  Foundation,  Inc. \r\nis  composed  of  those  individuals  listed  in  Figure  2.   It  will  be  noted \r\nthat  this  foundation  structure  is  consistent  with  the  Panel's  recommen- \r\ndation that  a  viable  and  visible  role  of  assistance  be  provided  to  the \r\ncollege  and  the  Board  of  Regents  by  a  broadly  based  group  of  the  college's \r\nconstituents. \r\n\r\n\r\n66 \r\n\r\n\r\nFIGURE  2 \r\n\r\n\r\nTHE  FORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE  FOUNDATION,  IMC. \r\n\r\n\r\nBoard  of  Directors \r\n\r\n\r\nOffices  held  and  Expiration  dates \r\n\r\n\r\nMr.  William  H.  Alexander  (1976) \r\n\r\nAttorney  at  Law \r\n\r\nCitizens  Trust  Bank  Bldg. \r\n\r\n75  Piedmont  Avenue,  N.  E. \r\n\r\nAtlanta,  Ga.  30303 \r\n\r\nDr.  W.  W.  E.  Blanchet  (1977) \r\n\r\n110  Lamar  Street \r\n\r\nFort  Valley,  Ga.  31030 \r\n\r\nDr.  Charles  E.  Brown  (1977) \r\nHubbard  Hospital \r\nMeharry  Medical  College \r\nNashville,  Tenn.  37203 \r\n\r\nMr.  Matthew  Conyers  (1977) \r\n105  Mildred  Lane \r\nThoraasville,  Ga.  31792 \r\n\r\nMr.  Thomas  Del ton  (1977) \r\n\r\nS.  Macon  Street \r\n\r\nFort  Valley,  Ga.  31030 \r\n\r\nMr.  Maulvin  Engram  (1977) \r\n138  Mitchell  Street \r\nMontezuma,  Ga.  31063 \r\n\r\nMr.  Charlie  Fincher  (1977) \r\n\r\nMarketing  Manager \r\n\r\nIBM  Corporation \r\n\r\n2365  Stemmons  Freeway \r\n\r\nDallas,  Texas  75207 \r\n\r\nDr.  Anne  R.  Gayles  (1977) \r\nBox  437 \r\n\r\nFlorida  A  \u0026  M  University \r\nTallahassee,  Fl.  32307 \r\n\r\nMr.  Ira  Hicks  (1977) \r\n\r\nP.  0.  Box  546 \r\n\r\nFort  Valley  State  College \r\n\r\nFort  Valley,  Ga.  31030 \r\n\r\n\r\nMr.  Oscar  Howard  (1976) \r\n\r\nPresident \r\n\r\nHoward's  Catering  Service \r\n\r\n3302  4th  Avenue,  South \r\n\r\nMinneapolis,  Minn.  55408 \r\n\r\nMr.  William  Hutchings  (1977) \r\n\r\nVice  President \r\n\r\nHutchings  Funeral  Home,  Inc. \r\n\r\nP.  0.  Box  4443 \r\n\r\nMacon,  Ga.  31208 \r\n\r\nMr.  George  Koonce,  Jr.  (1977) \r\n\r\nPresident \r\n\r\nFVSC  National  Alumni  Assn. \r\n\r\n14651  S.  W.  94th  Avenue \r\n\r\nMiami,  Fl  33158 \r\n\r\nMr.  Joseph  P.  Luce  (1976) \r\n\r\nVice  President \r\n\r\nBlue  Bird  Body  Company \r\n\r\nP.  0.  Box  937 \r\n\r\nFort  Valley,  Ga.  31030 \r\n\r\nMr.  Ralph  P.  Malone \r\nExecutive  Director \r\nFVSC  Foundation,  Inc. \r\nP.  0.  Vox  416 \r\nFort  Valley  State  College \r\nFort  Valley,  Ga.  31030 \r\n\r\nMiss  Frances  N.  Martin  (1976) \r\nSecretary,  FVSC  Foundation,  Inc \r\n2756  Veltre  PI. ,  S.  W. \r\nAtlanta,  Ga.  30311 \r\n\r\nMr.  Cleon  E.  Moore  (1976) \r\n\r\nTreasurer,  FVSC  Foundation,  Inc \r\n\r\nPresident \r\n\r\nThe  Citizens  Bank \r\n\r\nP.  0.  Box  872 \r\n\r\nFort  Valley,  Ga.  31030 \r\n\r\n\r\n67 \r\n\r\n\r\nFIGURE   2    (CONTINUED) \r\n\r\n\r\nBoard  of  Directors \r\nPage  2 \r\n\r\nDr.  Cleveland  Pettigrew \r\n\r\n\r\nFVSC \r\n\r\n\r\nFoundation,  Inc \r\n\r\n\r\nVice  Chairman, \r\n\r\nPresident \r\n\r\nFort  Valley  State  College \r\n\r\nGeneral  Delivery \r\n\r\nFort  Valley  State  College \r\n\r\nFort  Valley,  Ga.  31030 \r\n\r\nMr.  Robert  Savage  (1976) \r\nChairman,  FVSC  Foundation,  Inc. \r\nProgram  Director,  WMAZ-TV \r\nP.  0.  Box  5008 \r\nMacon,  Ga.  31208 \r\n\r\n\r\nMrs.  Gwendolyn  Smith  (1976) \r\n5901  Bakers  Ferry  Road,  S.  W, \r\nAtlanta,  Ga.  31331 \r\n\r\nMr.  William  J.  Wilson  (1977) \r\n\r\nMagnolia  Farms \r\n\r\nFort  Valley,  Ga.  31030 \r\n\r\n\r\nEx  Officio  Members \r\n\r\n\r\nMiss  Brenda  E.  Choates \r\nP.  0.  Box  703 \r\nFort  Valley  State  College \r\nFort  Valley,  Ga.  31030 \r\n\r\nMrs.  Dollie  D.  Horton \r\nP.  0.  Box  271 \r\nFort  Valley  State  College \r\nFort  Valley,  Ga.  31030 \r\n\r\nMr.  Clifford  N.  Ponder \r\nP.  0.  Box  322 \r\nFort  Valley  State  College \r\nFort  Valley,  Ga.  31030 \r\n\r\n\r\n68 \r\n\r\n\r\nRECOMMENDATION  3:   Student  Exchange \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  acting  through  Fort  Valley  State  College  will \r\nundertake  to  secure  funds  from  foundation  or  other  non-state  sources  as \r\ninducement  for  resident  student  voluntary  exchange  on  a  quarter  basis. \r\n\r\nGrant  applications  will  be  submitted  to  no  fewer  than  three  major \r\nfoundations  on  or  before  May  31,  1975  requesting  support  for  a  student \r\nexchange  program  between  Fort  Valley  State  College  and  sister  University \r\nSystem  institutions.   It  is  projected  that  250  white  resident  students \r\nwould  be  involved  in  such  an  exchange  within  nine  months  of  the  date  of \r\nreceipt  of  a  supporting  grant  award. \r\n\r\nIt  is  believed  that  a  proposal  pairing  two  institutions  for  a  joint \r\ngrant  offers  greatest  opportunity  for  success.   However,  students  at  all \r\nUniversity  System  institutions  will  be  encouraged  to  participate  volun- \r\ntarily. \r\n\r\n\r\n69 \r\n\r\n\r\nRECOMMENDATION  4:    Faculty  Exchange \r\nRECOMMENDATION  5:   Administrative  Exchange \r\n\r\nModifications  in  the  racial  composition  of  the  faculty  and  staff \r\nof  Fort  Valley  State  College  are  and  will  continue  to  result  primarily \r\nfrom  an  even  handed  application  of  the  principles  of  affirmative  action. \r\nAffirmative  action  is  a  series  of  steps  to  remedy  disparate  staffing \r\nand  recruitment  patterns  caused  by  past  discrimination  and  to  prevent \r\nemployment  discrimination  in  the  future.  All  employment  at  Fort  Valley \r\nState  College  will  be  handled  on  an  institutional  basis  in  accord  with \r\nthe  affirmative  action  plan  developed  by  the  institution  and  submitted \r\nthrough  the  Regents'  Office  to  the  Office  for  Civil  Rights  of  the \r\nDepartment  of  Health,  Education  and  Welfare.   The  recruitment  policies \r\nnow  followed  are  also  consistent  with  those  described  in  Part  A,  Section \r\nIV-D  and  Part  B,  Section  VII  of  the  previously  referenced  document \r\nentitled  A  Plan  for  the  Further  Desegregation  of  the  University  System  of \r\nGeorgia.   Under  these  procedures,  the  Chancellor's  office  will  undertake \r\nto  insure  that  at  Fort  Valley  State  College,  in  each  instance  when  faculty \r\nand  staff  vacancies  occur,  that  a  full  search  is  made  including  whites \r\nfor  persons  to  fill  these  vacancies.   The  effectiveness  of  these  proce- \r\ndures is  reflected  by  the  September,  1974  appointment  of  a  best  qualified \r\nwhite  person  as  registrar  of  Fort  Valley  State  College  from  a  final  group \r\nof  one  black  and  two  white  candidates.   Principal  white  appointees  of  the \r\nlast  eighteen  month  period  are  given  in  Figure  3.   The  increasing  white \r\npresence  on  the  faculty  is  also  conveyed  by  the  fact  that  the  current \r\nfaculty  racial  composition  is  69  percent  black,  24  percent  white,  and \r\n\r\n\r\n70 \r\n\r\n\r\nFIGURE  3 \r\n\r\n\r\nTABLE  OF  KEY  APPOINTMENTS  OF  WHITE  INDIVIDUALS \r\n\r\nDURING  THE  EIGHTEEN  MONTH  PERIOD \r\n\r\nENDING  DECEMBER  31,    1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nNAME \r\n\r\n\r\nDr.  Thomas  M.  Barrett \r\n\r\n\r\nMr.  Edward  T.  Graening \r\nMs.  Catherine  Bromley \r\n\r\n\r\nMr.  James  Jackson \r\n\r\n\r\nMr.  Louis  B.  Adams,  Jr. \r\n\r\n\r\nMs.  Esther  H.  Sheppard \r\nDr.  Allan  N.  Sheppard \r\n\r\n\r\nMr.  Robert  Laczi \r\n\r\n\r\nMs.  Mildred  Bricker  Grant \r\n\r\n\r\nMr.  Lloyd  Daniel  Archer \r\n\r\n\r\nDr.  Donald  L.  Adams \r\n\r\n\r\nMs.  Kathleen  Shukair \r\n\r\n\r\nMr.  Thomas  M.  Sheehan \r\n\r\n\r\nPOSITION \r\n\r\n\r\nAssociate  Dean  of  Faculty \r\n\r\nCollege  Registrar \r\n\r\nCollege  Head  Nurse \r\n\r\nCollege  Recruiter \r\n\r\nDirector  of  Computer  Center \r\n(This  man  is  being  phased  into \r\nthis  position  on  a  three-year \r\nbasis.   On  July  1,  1975,  he \r\nwill  be  full  time.) \r\n\r\nTest  Readiness  Career  Counselor \r\n\r\n\r\nCo-Director  of  Special  Studies \r\nProgram \r\n\r\nInstitutional  Media  Developer \r\n\r\nAssistant  Librarian \r\n\r\nInstructor  of  Education  and  Head \r\nof  AVA  Program \r\n\r\nAssociate  Professor  and  Head  of \r\nDepartment  of  Psychology \r\n\r\nAssistant  Professor  and  Coordi- \r\nnator of  Department  of  Art \r\n(Head  of  Department  of  Art, \r\nMs.  Jane  Tallman,  who  was  white, \r\nresigned.   Ms.  Shukair,  who  was \r\nin  the  department,  was  appointed \r\nas  head.) \r\n\r\nAssistant  Professor  of  Government \r\nand  Coordinator  of  Criminal \r\nJustice  Program \r\n\r\n\r\nDATE  OF \r\nAPPOINTMENT \r\n\r\n7/  1/73 \r\n\r\n9/15/74 \r\n\r\n10/21/74 \r\n\r\n9/  1/73 \r\n\r\n7/  1/73 \r\n\r\n\r\n8/  1/74 \r\n\r\n7/  1/73 \r\n7/  1/73 \r\n1/  /74 \r\n\r\n9/  1/74 \r\n\r\n9/  1/73 \r\n\r\n\r\nOne  data  processor  and \r\neleven  secretaries \r\n\r\n\r\n9/  1/74 \r\n\r\n\r\n9/  1/74 \r\n\r\n\r\nVarious \r\n\r\n\r\n71 \r\n\r\n\r\n7  percent  \"other  race.\"  Of  21  recent  appointees,  12  were  white  persons \r\nand  nine  were  black  persons.  Faculty  members  holding  the  doctorate  in- \r\ncreased from  32  percent  to  44  percent  during  the  past  year. \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  commits  itself  to  the  establishment  of  an \r\nApplicant  Clearinghouse  at  the  University  of  Georgia  in  support  of  the \r\nFort  Valley  State  College  affirmative  action  program  as  well  as  those \r\nof  all  sister  institutions.  Applications  will  be  received  directly \r\nfrom  individuals  and  from  institutions  within  and  without  the  University \r\nSystem.   Institutions  in  the  University  System  will  deposit  into  the \r\nApplicant  Clearinghouse  copies  of  all  applications  and  resumes  received \r\nfrom  all  sources.   The  applications  will  be  cross-referenced  four  ways: \r\nby  alphabet,  discipline,  race,  and  sex.   The  Clearinghouse  will  be  main- \r\ntained  to  provide  immediate  information  on  prospective  minority  and \r\nwomen  candidates  for  faculty  and  staff  positions.   The  requirement  for \r\ndeposit  of  applications  and  resumes  by  institutions,  in  addition  to \r\nthose  received  from  other  sources,  will  be  expected  to  expand  the \r\nClearinghouse  to  the  point  where  applicant  information  should  be  made \r\navailable  by  computerized  reports.   Fort  Valley  State  College  and  sister \r\ninstitutions  will  be  required  to  make  reasonable  effort  to  identify  both \r\nsuitable  minority  and  majority  race  applicants  for  each  faculty  and \r\nstaff  opening.   In  the  event  suitable  applicants  are  not  so  identified, \r\nthe  institution  will  be  required  to  consult  the  Applicant  Clearinghouse \r\nin  a  further  effort  to  identify  such  applicants.   Without  altering  any \r\nlegitimate  criteria  for  employment,  selection  decisions  would  be  made  so \r\nas  to  increase  the  desegregation  of  faculty  and  staff  at  each  institu- \r\ntion. \r\n\r\n\r\n72 \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  Applicant  Clearinghouse  will  also  serve  as  an  aid  to  faculty \r\nand  staff  who  may  choose  to  seek  relocation  within  the  University  System \r\neither  as  a  consequence  of  personal  professional  objectives  or  financial \r\nexigency. \r\n\r\nThe  initial  implementation  phase  of  the  Applicant  Clearinghouse  will \r\nbe  instituted  February  1,  1975  for  faculty  applicants.  Administrative \r\napplicants  will  be  incorporated  at  a  later  time  following  the  acquisition \r\nof  operating  experience. \r\n\r\nIt  should  be  noted  that  the  establishment  of  the  Applicant  Clearing- \r\nhouse does  not  represent  the  inauguration  of  System-wide  hiring  of  faculty \r\nand  administrators.   It  does  represent  the  commitment  of  the  Board  of \r\nRegents  to  the  development  of  an  important  resource  directed  toward  the \r\ncontinued  desegregation  of  faculty  and  staff.         , \r\n\r\n\r\n73 \r\n\r\n\r\nRECOMMENDATION  7:   Student  Financial  Aid \r\n\r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  agrees  with  the  Panel  that  the  provision  of \r\nadequate  financial  aid  is  an  important  factor  in  the  recruitment  and  re- \r\ntention of  students.   However,  it  must  be  noted  that  the  Panel  Report  with \r\nregard  to  financial  aid  available  to  Fort  Valley  State  College  students \r\ndoes  not  relate  to  total  aid  available  from  all  sources.   Figure  4  in- \r\ndicates that  during  the  1973-74  academic  year,  2,283  financial  aid  awards \r\nwere  made  to  1,683  students.  The  2,283  awards  amounted  to  $1,878,548. \r\nThe  cumulative  enrollment  for  the  1973-74  academic  year  at  Fort  Valley \r\nState  College  was  2,130  students.   The  1,683  students  receiving  financial \r\naid  represents  79  percent  of  the  cumulative  enrollment  of  2,130  students. \r\nIt  should  be  noted  that  many  additional  awards  from  independent  sources \r\nare  also  available  to  Fort  Valley  State  College  students  but  not \r\nchanneled  through  the  college.   These  would  include  Social  Security \r\nBenefits,  programs  afforded  to  the  employees  by  their  employers,  and \r\nspecial  gifts  from  civic  clubs,  churches,  etc.   It  is  reasonable  to \r\nestimate  that  85  to  90  percent  of  the  students  at  Fort  Valley  State \r\nCollege  receive  financial  aid  in  some  form.   It  is  anticipated  that  this \r\nhigh  level  of  financial  aid  will  be  maintained  and  that  additional  re- \r\nsources will  be  vigorously  sought. \r\n\r\nThe  \"Twin  Thrust\"  recruitment  program  at  Fort  Valley  State  College \r\nwill  be  continued  in  an  effort  to  increase  the  white  student  presence  on \r\nthe  campus.   Financial  aid  derived  from  private  sources  is  used  to  bring \r\npairs  of  students  (one  black  and  one  white)  to  the  institution.   The  re- \r\nsults obtained  thus  far  at  Fort  Valley  State  College  are  encouraging  with \r\n\r\n\r\n74 \r\n\r\n\r\nFIGURE  4 \r\n\r\n\r\nFORT  VALLEY  STATE  COLLEGE \r\nFinancial  Aid  Programs \r\n1973  -  1974 \r\n\r\n\r\nProgram \r\n\r\n\r\nNo.  of  Awards \r\n\r\n\r\nDollar  Amount \r\n\r\n\r\nBasic  Educational \r\n\r\nOpportunity  Grant  123 \r\n\r\nSupplemental  Educational \r\n\r\nOpportunity  Grant  320 \r\n\r\nPrivate  Sources  103 \r\n\r\nVocational  Rehabilitation  50 \r\n\r\nInstitutional  Scholarship/Grants  80 \r\n\r\nVeterans  Benefits  210 \r\n\r\nRegents  Scholarship  13 \r\n\r\nCollege  Work  Study  458 \r\n\r\nGraduate  Assistantships  35 \r\n\r\nNational  Direct  Student  Loan  266 \r\n\r\nState  Governmental  Loan  540 \r\n\r\nFederal  Insured  Loan  20 \r\n\r\nPickett  \u0026  Hatcher  65 \r\n\r\n\r\n$  44,248 \r\n\r\n$  151,276 \r\n\r\n$  41,100 \r\n\r\n$  14,350 \r\n\r\n$  35,800 \r\n\r\n$  483,000 \r\n\r\n$  5,750 \r\n\r\n$  230,000 \r\n\r\n$  52,500 \r\n\r\n$  79,024 \r\n\r\n$  648,000 \r\n\r\n$  33,000 \r\n\r\n$  60,500 \r\n\r\n\r\nTOTALS \r\n\r\n\r\n2,283 \r\n\r\n\r\n$1,878,548 \r\n\r\n\r\nNOTE:   2,283  Awards  made  to  1,683  students \r\n\r\n\r\nSource:   1973-74  Institutional  Report \r\nFort  Valley  State  College \r\n\r\n\r\n75 \r\n\r\n\r\n24  white  students  enrolled  as  a  direct  consequence  of  this  program  in \r\nSeptember  1973,   Of  that  original  number,  20  continued  into  the  new  term \r\nbeginning  January  1974.   Two  additional  white  freshman  students  entered \r\nin  January  1974,  giving  a  total  of  22  under  this  special  program  for  the \r\nterm.   The  coordination  of  this  program  by  the  Chancellor  and  his  staff \r\nwill  be  continued. \r\n\r\n\r\n76  ; \r\n\r\n} \r\n\r\n\r\n' \r\n\r\n\r\nRECOMMENDATION  8:   Campus  Physical  Environment \r\n\r\nThe  Board  of  Regents  agrees  with  the  Panel  in  its  observation  that \r\nthe  overall  physical  attractiveness  of  Fort  Valley  State  College  could \r\nbe  enhanced  through  the  elimination  of  the  partially  \"locked-in\"  feature \r\nalong  South  Macon  Street.   Initial  steps  in  a  formal  acquisition  plan \r\ndirected  toward  the  alleviation  of  this  problem  are  illustrated  in  Figure \r\n5.   The  shaded  areas  represent  property  purchased  by  the  Board  of  Regents \r\nwith  funds  available  prior  to  June  30,  1974.   Additional  properties  will \r\nbe  purchased  as  funds  become  available  until  such  time  as  all  property \r\nwithin  the  indicated  enclave  is  acquired.   A  budget  item  in  the  amount  of \r\n$225,500  has  been  included  in  the  FY  '75  supplemental  appropriation  re- \r\nquest in  support  of  this  activity.   These  funds,  if  provided  by  the \r\nlegislature,  would  be  expended  prior  to  June  30,  1975.   Subsequent  re- \r\nquests sufficient  to  purchase  the  entire  tract  illustrated  in  Figure  5 \r\nwill  be  made. \r\n\r\nThe  systematic  rehabilitation  of  selected  buildings  at  Fort  Valley \r\nState  College  is  an  established  objective  of  the  Board  of  Regents.   For \r\nexample,  the  rehabilitation  of  Davison  Hall  is  currently  funded  at  a  level \r\nof  approximately  $666,000  and  a  swimming  pool  renovation  project  of  approxi' \r\nmately  $49,000  is  in  progress.   Additional  renovation  needs  totaling \r\nseveral  million  dollars  include  the  old  academic  building  and  a  functional \r\nconversion  of  the  present  library  at  such  time  as  the  new  library  is \r\ncompleted.   The  Board  of  Regents  will  request  funds  for  these  and  other \r\nrehabilitation  needs  in  a  timely  manner. \r\n\r\nCampus  improvement  funds  in  the  amount  of  $50,000  have  been  requested \r\n\r\n\r\n77 \r\n\r\n\r\nRECOMMENDATION  10:   Special  Studies  Program \r\n\r\nThe  Special  Studies  Program  at  Fort  Valley  State  College  was  initiated \r\non  a  formal  basis  effective  September  1974.   The  program  operated  on  a  trial \r\nbasis  during  the  1973-74  academic  year  and  was  observed  by  the  panel  during \r\nthis  developmental  phase. \r\n\r\nPilot  efforts  were  directed  toward  the  identification,  selection,  and \r\norientation  of  personnel  requireu  to  meet  the  unique  demands  of  this  new \r\nprogram.   Special  workshops  and  seminars  were  held.   (Note:  The  success  of \r\nthese  workshops  and  seminars  was  evidenced  and  faculty  workshops  are  now \r\nconducted  each  quarter.)   Consultants  from  both  within  and  without  the \r\nUniversity  System  were  brought  to  the  campus  to  evaluate  the  Special  Studies \r\neffort.   In  addition  to  these  organizational  steps,  1,671  students  were \r\nenrolled  in  71  sections  of  developmental  mathematics  and  language  arts \r\ncourses.   This  represented  approximately  one-third  of  the  student  body  en- \r\nrolled on  a  non-duplicated  enrollment  basis. \r\n\r\nProjections  for  the  1974-75  academic  year  indicate  that  approximately \r\n600  students  will  participate  in  Developmental  English,  450  will  partici- \r\npate in  Developmental  Mathematics,  and  750  students  will  participate  in \r\nRegents'  Test  workshops.  Actual  enrollment  for  the  Fall  Quarter  1974,  was \r\n74  students  in  English,  292  students  in  Mathematics,  181  students  in  Reading, \r\nand  302  students  in  Regents'  Test  Workshop. \r\n\r\nThe  key  operational  administrative  authority  for  the  conduct  of  the \r\nSpecial  Studies  Program  resides  in  the  Associate  Dean  of  the  Faculty  who \r\nreports  through  the  Dean  of  the  Faculty  to  the  President  of  Fort  Valley \r\n\r\n\r\n79 \r\n\r\n\r\nState  College.  Th^  Fort  Valley  State  College  Special  Studies  Program  is \r\norganized  as  a  separate  department  and  operates  under  the  supervision  of \r\na  full-time  director  and  assistant  director.   The  faculty  consists  of \r\nseven  full-time  and  sixteen  part-time  persons.   The  total  faculty  and \r\nsupervisory  staff  effort  is  equivalent  to  a  minimum  of  six  and  one  half \r\nfull  time  persons.   Financial  support  is  derived  from  both  State  and \r\nFederal  sources. \r\n\r\n'The  chairmen  of  the  departments  of  English  and  Mathematics  have \r\norganized  their  instructional  programs  so  as  to  coordinate  them  with  the \r\nprogram  of  Special  Studies  since  the  Special  Studies  programs  draws  from \r\nboth  of  these  areas  to  support  staffing  needs  over  and  beyond  core  faculty \r\nprovided.   In  addition,  all  faculty  members  of  the  institution  are  called \r\nupon  to  provide  backup  support  for  the  Special  Studies  Program  through \r\ngreater  emphasis  upon  the  language  and  computational  skills  in  their \r\nregular  course  assignments. \r\n\r\nA  conservative  estimate  of  the  total  expenditures  at  Fort  Valley \r\nState  College  for  this  program  for  the  1974-75  academic  year  is  $225,000.00 \r\n\r\nThe  Director  of  Special  Studies  for  the  University  System  provides \r\nsupport  and  guidance  in  the  overall  development  and  management  of  the \r\nSpecial  Studies  Program  at  Fort  Valley  State  College  and  at  each  of  the \r\nother  University  System  institutions.  The  Board  of  Regents  is  totally \r\ncommitted  to  a  continuation  of  its  support  to  this  effort. \r\n\r\n\r\n80 \r\n\r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\n\r\n¦    •  • \r\n\r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM \r\nH \r\nW \r\n?4 \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nO \r\nM \r\nH \r\n\r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nJ\u003es \r\n\r\nr0 \r\n\r\n•o \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nVO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nr». \r\n\r\nr*. \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\ni-* \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n*\u003es. \r\n\r\n¦^. \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\"•¦^ \r\n\r\n**s» \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\ni-l \r\n\r\n\u003cT\\ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCO \r\nCtJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\nd \r\nd \r\n\r\nt-t \r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n«tf \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nr«- \r\n\r\nr\u003e. \r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\n4) \r\n\r\ncy \r\n\r\nr^ \r\n\r\nr*. \r\n\r\n-^ \r\n\r\n¦^ \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\n*»^. \r\n\r\n-«»» \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nPL, \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nO \r\nto \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nON \r\n\r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nvo \r\n\r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\nX, \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nO  rH \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n?J \r\n\r\nPQ \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n\r\n§ \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\nH \r\nO \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n8 \r\n\r\nP(5 \r\nP\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\no\\ \r\n\r\n•-\\ \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\n* \r\n\r\n\u003c3 \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nvO \r\n\r\nXl \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n•t-l \r\n\r\nn \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n4-» \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nu \r\no \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr*\u003e \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n/~N \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n^^ \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n4-) \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nAh \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\nPh \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nJ-I \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n•t-\u003c \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n*o \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nttf \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nnD \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nM-( \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\ntn \r\n\r\n\u003c*/ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n\u003e» \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\ni-\u003e \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\u003cJ3 \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003e» \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n4-J \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\nv-*- \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n¦u \r\n\r\n•r-t \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\nN— t \r\n\r\nPL) \r\n\r\n»4-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n¦^^ \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nJ^ \r\n\r\nPn \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nU-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nJ-I \r\n\r\n03 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n'O \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n-o \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\na, \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4-» \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nXI \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\n4-» \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\nJ-I \r\n\r\n\u003c^/ \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCL \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\ncO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003eCT \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n5 \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n\u003e\u003e£ \r\n\r\nID \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\ny-i \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nV\u003c \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nJ-I \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr-t \r\n\r\nj-i \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nJC \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\u003cU \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nrC \r\n\r\n/•\"N \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nt-l \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n\u003cJJ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nPh \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nPh \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ns: \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nVH \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n2i \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCJ-t \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\noO \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\u003cD \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nPM \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nj-j \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\n\u003e% \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\ntj \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ni— 1 \r\n\r\n9-i \r\n\r\nVW \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nrt \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nJ-I \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nXI \r\n\r\nN_^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nfe \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nJ-4 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nP-. \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nP-. \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n-H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nZ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nVM \r\n\r\n«JJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nr-4 \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n\u003e* \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nJH \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n\u003cy \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nPh \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\n1 \r\n\r\nP-. \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nTJ \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nx: \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\niJ \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n*o \r\n\r\nVH \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nT3 \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\u003cd \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nP£ \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nIW \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\ng \r\n\r\n\u003e% \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nJG \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n/\"\\ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n01 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nPm \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\nji \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nJ-I \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nc3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nim \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nj-i \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nJ2 \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\ny~i \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n^3 \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n4-» \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nJ-I \r\n\r\n•rH \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\nJ-i \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\ne \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nj-i \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nJ-I \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n¦H \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nC_\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nc_? \r\n\r\nP* \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nJ3 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nrO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nPi \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n. \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n- \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n•  ¦ \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n• \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\ni-i \r\n\r\n.    CM \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nQ \r\n\r\nrH \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n«* \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\n81 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c¦       i'. \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003c«.« \r\n\r\n\r\n,  3 \r\n\r\n\r\n'X \r\ns.T„ \r\n\r\n-3 \r\n\r\n\r\n.--¦\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nt \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\u003cu \r\nM \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nd \r\no \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n13 \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e^*w \r\n\r\n\u003eS\u003c4-i \r\n\r\nX  0 \r\n\r\nX\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nX    O \r\n\r\nX\u003e \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\na) \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n•O    \u003e\u003e \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n4j \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nXJ     \u003e•» \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nAJ \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n'J     4-J \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\n•r\u003c \r\n\r\n0)     J-\u003e \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n4J    -H \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nij \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nAJ     'r-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nAJ \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n4J    \u003c—\u003c \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n4J     I-l \r\n\r\n¦u \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H    •-( \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•H    «r-l \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n1-i \r\n\r\nB    X \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nJ-l \r\n\r\nb  xi \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n43 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nH      CO \r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nH    co \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\n\u003cU    rH \r\n\r\n(A \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nC)    i-l \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nO-  -H \r\n\r\nX\u003e \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCU  «H \r\n\r\nX\u003e \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nco \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\n\u003e-• \r\n\r\nCl \r\n\r\nrS \r\n\r\nC \r\n\r\nK \r\n\r\n0. \r\n\r\nco    \u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nx \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nto    \u003e \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nx \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\n\u003c:  cO \r\n\r\nIW \r\n\r\nAJ \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c    cfl \r\n\r\niw \r\n\r\naj \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n(0 \r\n\r\n\u003c$ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n^ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nP\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n2S \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\nja \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\nX\u003e \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\ncO \r\n\r\n1^. \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n*\u003e^ \r\n\r\nt-l \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nm \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\n4-\u003e \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nCTJ \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nS-! \r\n\r\n\u003c! \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\nX5 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\na. \r\nE \r\no \r\no \r\no \r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\r\nr- \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\n\r\nX\u003e \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nx \r\n\r\nx \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003ct \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n•l-l \r\n\r\nrv. \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n«-» \r\n\r\n\"^^ \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nVO \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\nB \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nv\u003e \r\n3J \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\na \r\no \r\n\r\n»H \r\n\r\ntO \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nv \r\n\u003cu \r\n\r\nps \r\n\r\n\r\nd \r\no \r\n\r\n\r\ncO \r\n\r\n6 \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nVi \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\niu \r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\n5S \r\n\r\nQJ \r\n\r\n0 \r\n\r\n6C \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nu. ; \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\n!-{ \r\n\r\nC. \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nr-\u003c \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nc; \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\np \r\no \r\n\r\nXi \r\n\r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCJ \r\nrO \r\n\r\n3 \r\n¦u \r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nx\u003e \r\n\r\nCO \r\nU \r\nCO \r\n\r\n•-•4 \r\n\r\n\r\nU \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\no \r\nJ-I \r\n\r\nX \r\nH \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nAJ \r\n4-J \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n1-1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\n01 \r\n\r\nc \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nu   d \r\n\r\n\r\nSO \r\n\r\n\r\n•^ \r\n\r\n\r\nCO    XJ \r\n\r\nu,  d \r\na  3 \r\n^    o \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCD \r\n\r\n~o \r\n3 \r\n4-» \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n\u0026 \r\n\r\no \r\nin \r\n\r\nCM \r\n\r\nU-i \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n61) \r\nd \r\ncct \r\nX \r\no \r\n\r\nw \r\n\r\nu \r\no \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nH \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n—I \r\n\r\nS \r\n\r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\n4J \r\n•H \r\n3 \r\nJ-i \r\no \r\nc; \r\n\r\nCii \r\n«W \r\n\r\nCH \r\nCO \r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\ncO \r\n\r\n\r\n0)  L^ \r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n•H  v3 \r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nco  \u003cr \r\n\r\n4J  CO \r\n\r\ncn  d \r\n\r\n•H  O \r\n\r\nd  -h \r\n\r\n•H  4-\u003e \r\n\r\nS  CO \r\n\r\n\u003c  d \r\n\r\n•  i \r\n\r\nP^  B \r\n\r\n4J  O \r\n\r\nr-l  O \r\n\r\n3  a \r\n\r\no  cm \r\n\r\nCO  v— ' \r\n\r\ns \r\n\r\nW  CO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nX  60 \r\n\r\nu\u003e  O \r\n\r\nfi  pm \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nCO  •-» \r\n\r\n4J  d \r\n\r\nV)  d) \r\n\r\nw  a \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n•A \r\n\r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\u003c4-l \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\n\r\n60 \r\nCU \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\nr-! \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0) \r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n4J \r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n\r\n5-4 \r\nO \r\n\r\nPn  d \r\n\r\n4J  !-\u003c \r\n\r\nd  P-. \r\na \r\n\r\nB  d \r\n\r\ncu  o \r\n\r\nrH  •;-! \r\n\r\nE  O \r\n\r\nH  \u003c \r\n\r\n\r\n(0 \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n33 \r\n60 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nJ-\u003c \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nCU \r\nr-4 \r\nCJ\u003e \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\nd \r\nco \r\no \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\nr-l \r\n\r\na, \r\ncu \r\n\u003cd \r\n\r\nCU \r\n4J \r\nCO \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\nr\u003e\u003e \r\n4-J \r\n•i-l \r\nCO \r\nr-f \r\n\r\n•D \r\n\r\n5\u003e \r\n•1-1 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\ncu \r\nB \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n£X \r\n\r\nE \r\nM \r\n\r\n\r\nCN \r\n\r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\nd \r\no \r\n•1-1 \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n3 \r\n\r\n\u003cd \r\n\r\nCU \r\nr\u003e \r\n\r\n•H \r\n4J \r\n\r\ntO \r\nE \r\nM \r\n•r-l \r\ncw \r\n\r\nC4-\u003c \r\n\r\n\u003c \r\nd \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n4J \r\n\r\nCO \r\nTJ \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n\r\nx\u003e \r\n\r\n•rl \r\n\r\n\u003c5 \r\n\r\nr-l \r\ncO \r\n\r\n•H \r\nO \r\n\r\nd \r\ncc \r\nd \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\nPti \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\ni» \r\n\r\n»^ \r\n4J \r\n\r\nin \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n*o \r\n\r\n•r-l \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\n\r\ncO \r\n•H \r\nO \r\n\r\nd \r\nco \r\nd \r\n\r\n•H \r\nPt4 \r\n\r\nT3 \r\nCU \r\nCO \r\n\r\ncO \r\nCO \r\n\r\nI \r\nX) \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nCU \r\n52 \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nX \r\na\u003e \r\nu \r\n\r\nE \r\no \r\nu \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\no    E \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\ncO \r\nU \r\n60 \r\nO \r\n\r\nM     CO \r\nP-t     \u003cu \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nr4 \r\n\r\n3 \r\nO \r\n\r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\n£  co \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\n\r\n3 \r\n5-i \r\nCJ \r\n\r\nO \r\nC4 \r\n\r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\n4-S \r\n\r\nCO \r\n\r\n\u003e \r\n\r\n•H \r\n\r\n!-( \r\nPm \r\n\r\n\r\nO \r\nU \r\n\r\n\r\nP*  Cm \r\n\r\n\r\n4-)    E \r\nco    O \r\n\r\n3       r-l \r\n\r\nU  U-l \r\nX \r\n\r\nH    W \r\nX\u003e \r\n\r\nd   d \r\n\r\n•H    3 \r\n\r\n£\"- \r\n\r\n=      ?\u003e. \r\n\r\nX \r\ncd \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\n0)    cu \r\n\r\nxi    cj \r\n\r\n•r-l     d \r\n\r\n\u003e     co \r\n\r\no   d \r\n\r\n:-   •~J- \r\n(^  In \r\n\r\n\r\nCSi \r\n\r\n\r\n00 \r\n\r\nd \r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\n4-1 \r\n\r\nCO \r\nXJ \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n0) \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\no \r\ncu \r\n\r\nPS \r\n\r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nd \r\nc\u003e \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\nO \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n•r4 \r\n\u003e \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n•H \r\nCO \r\n\r\n10 \r\n\r\n3 \r\nCu \r\nE \r\nct) \r\nCJ \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\u003e \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM \r\n\r\na. \r\n\r\nE \r\n\r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\ncu \r\n\r\nCU \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\n4J \r\nCO \r\n\r\na \r\no \r\no \r\n\r\nX \r\n\r\n4-i \r\n\r\n3 \r\nO \r\nCO \r\n\r\nd \r\no \r\n\r\n60 \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nT-l \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nM \r\nP4 \r\n\r\nrN \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\nr-l \r\nCU \r\n\r\na \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nu \r\n\r\nPVi \r\n\r\nCU \r\nCO \r\n\r\ncd \r\n\r\nX \r\nu \r\n\r\nr-l \r\n\r\n3 \r\n\r\na, \r\n\r\n\r\nco \r\nCJ \r\n•H \r\n4J \r\n•H \r\nr-4 \r\n•H \r\nO \r\n\r\nXJ \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\n4-1 \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\nCJ \r\n\r\nt-l \r\n\r\nV \r\n\r\nto \r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n4J \r\n\r\nI \r\n\r\nd \r\n\r\nCJ \r\nP5 \r\n\r\n\r\nIN \r\n\r\n\r\nft \r\n\r\n\r\nW \r\n\r\n\r\nrU \r\n\r\n82 \r\n\r\n\r\no \r\n\r\n\r\n"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_178","title":"Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) feasibility study, part one","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"],"dcterms_creator":["William Gordon Associates"],"dc_date":["2006-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) feasibility study, part one"],"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/178"],"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":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["183 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n.EARKdANSAuS DcEPARaTMEtNT ilOnfF Dr. T. Kenneth .James, Commissioner 4 State Capitol Mali  Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL September 12, 2006 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 423 U. S. Post Office and Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Judge Wilson: I am writing in follow-up to an earlier letter dated November 17, 2005, in which I advised the Court and the parties that the Arkansas Department of Education had contracted with Gordon and Associates to conduct a feasibility study as required by 26 of Act 2126 of the 85th General Assembly. I am enclosing a copy of the completed feasibility study for your information. Should you or any of the copied parties have any questions or comments, please contact my office at your convenience at 501-682-4227. Si,rely\n,0 ~~'4 General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education Enclosure cc: T. Kenneth James, Ed.D., Commissioner of Education Mark Hagemeier, Attorney General's Office Chris Heller, Attorney for Little Rock School District John Walker, Attorney for Joshua Intervenors Sam Jones, Attorney for Pulaski County Special School District Steve Jones, Attorney for North Little Rock School District Mark Burnette, Attorney for Knight Intervenors The Honorable Will Bond, State Representative Horace Smith, Office of Desegregation Monitoring- Pulaski County Special School District Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring- North Little Rock School District Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - Little Rock School District STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff  Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro  Dr. Calvin King, Marianna  Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton  MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock  Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer 1047629_1 Arkansas Feasibility Study A Report Submitted to Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner, Arkansas Department of Education By William Gordon Associates\nSaluda, North Carolina William M. Gordon Percy Bates David E. Bartz William R. Gordon Charles L. Patin, Jr. June 30, 2006 Contents Topics Page Executive Summary ................................................... A I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. Feasibility of Reorganizing the Three Pulaski. County School Districts: One School District North of the Arkansas River- Act 2126 of 2005,  26(1) ......................................... 6 A. Student Assignments ........................................ 7 B. Facilities .............................................. '. . . 11 C. Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. Classroom Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2. Building Level Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3. Central Administration ......... : ...................... 20 D. Transpo1iation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 III. Feasibility of Reorganizing the Three Pulaski County School Districts: Two School Districts North of the Arkansas River - Act 2126 of 2005,  26(2) ....................................... 22 A. The Reconfigured North Little Rock School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1. Student Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2. Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3. Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 a. Classroom Teachers ............................. 28 b. Building Level Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 c. Central Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4. Transpotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 B. New Jacksonville School District ............................. 35 1. Student Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2. Facilities ........................................... 37 3. Financial Considerations .............................. 39 4. Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 a. Classroom Teachers ............................. 41 b. Building Level Administrators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 1048408_1 c. Central Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 5. Transportation ....................................... 44 6. Governance ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 IV. Feasibility of ReC'rganizing the Three Pulaski County School Districts: One School District South of the Arkansas River -Act 2126 of 2005, 26(1) and (2) ................................. 45 A. Student Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 B. Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 C. Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 1. Classroom Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 2. Building Level Administrators .......................... 54 3. Central Administration ................................ 58 D. Transportation ............................................ 58 V. Effect of reorganization on Desegregation - Act 2126 of 2005, Section 26(3) .................................... 59 VI. Plan for Umtary Status for the Three Existing School Districts in Pulaski County to End the School Desegregation Litigation: Act 2126, Section 26( 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 A. The cutTent status of school desegregation in Pulaski County . . . . . . . 66 B. A limited analysis as to where the existing school districts stand on the road to unitary status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 1. Student Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 2. Faculty and Administrative Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3. Facilities ........................................... 71 \"4. Transportation ....................................... 71 5. Extra-curricular and student activities .................... 72 C. What is unitary system? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 VII. Unitary Status: How to End the School Desegregation Litigation in Pulaski County ................................................ 77 A. A post-unitary status three school district approach for ending the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County ............... 79 1048408_1 11 AD Feasibility Study .e B. A post-unitary status four school district approach for ending the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County ............... 81 C. Why a post-unitary three new school district approach is not feasible .............................................. 82 VIII. Recommendations and Conclusions: Ending the ongoing school desegregation litigation ............................................ 85 Conclusions ......... , ................................................ 91 Attachments 1048408_1 Brief Biographical Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Specific Language of Legislation Creating this Feasibility Study . . . . . . . . . . . B North Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . C Pulaski County Special School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 . . . . . . . . D North Little Rock\n:_,chooDl istrict Faculty Assignments 2005-06  ..... . ...... E Pulaski County Special School District Faculty Assignments 2005-06 ........ F North Little Rock School District Administrators 2005-06 ................ G Pulaski County Special School District Administrators 2005-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . H 'Little Rock School District Student Enrollment 2005-06 ................... I Building Capacities for Each of the Three Districts ....................... J Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments 2005-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K Little Rock School District Adminishators 2005-06 ...................... L \"School Desegregation Cases: The 'Good Faith' Requirement\" by Charles L. Patin, Jr. and William M. Gordon, 159 Ed. Law Rep. 407 (January 31, 2002) ............................. M Ill \"Achieving Unitary Status Under the Combined Standards of Dowell and Pitts\" by William M. Gordon and David E Bartz, 82 Ed. Law Rep. 283 (July 1, 1993) .................................. N Exhibits Schedule of Meetings Necessary in Conducting the Study ................. 1 Facilities Analysis - Pulaski County Special School District ................ 2 1048408_1 IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY William Gordon Associates was engaged to conduct a feasibility study for the Arkansas Department of Education. 1 The purpose of the study was to conduct an analysis to evaluate and determine the most feasible public school district structure that will best meet the educational needs of students in Pulaski County and to provide recommendations as to how the ongoing school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County might be ended. Specifically, we were asked to address the following: The possible consequence of the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing of school boundaries in Pulaski County to form one school district north of the Arkansas River and one school district south of the river.  The feasibility of eliminating the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing of school district boundaries in Pulaski County to form three school districts, including one school district south of the Arkansas River and two school districts north of the river with one comprised of the Jacksonville area. Whether the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District would further desegregation efforts of all of the school districts. Propose a plan to pursue the end of school desegregation in Pulaski County.  Meet with all relevant parties to the contract over the life of the project to coordinate the development, implementation, and management of the project. 'William Gordon Associates is comprised of Dr. William M. Gordon, Dr. Percy Bates, Dr. David E. Bartz, Mr. William R. Gordon, and Charles L. Patin, Jr., Esq. A brief biographical information as to each member of the team is found in Attachment A. 1052141_1 A Data were collected from a wide variety of sources within Pulaski County. Because results from the study would likely have broad impact throughout the county, every effort was made to gather information from people who might be affected by the study's recommendations. This was accomplished through a series of meetings with individuals, groups, receipt of recommendations from organizations, and a wide variety of stakeholders. A complete list of the meetings is attached to the report. The study commenced in November 2005, and was completed in June 2006. Team members made eight onsite trips to Pulaski County during this time period for interviews, meetings, and for the collection of information and data. Findings: One School District North of the Arkansas River. 1052141_1 The existing North Little Rock School District has 19 schools (20  buildings) and 9,580 students. The reconfiguration would add 26 schools and 13,677 students for a total enrollment of 23,256 students. The racial composition would go from 36.3% white, 58.8% black, and 4.9% other minorities students to 47.1 % white, 48.3% black, and 4.6% other minorities students. The existing North Little Rock School District employs 770 teachers. The addition of the 26 schools would require the employment of approximately 990 additional teachers for a total of 1,760 teachers. The racial composition of the teachers for the reconfigured school district would change modestly from the current 82.7% white, 16.2% black, and 1. 1 % other minorities teachers to 81.9% white, 17.4% black, and 1.2% other minorities teachers. B The existing North Little Rock School District employs 41 principals and assistant principals. The addition of the 26 schools would increase the number of principals and assistant principals in the reconfigured school district by 52 for a total of 91 with a racial composition of 51. 7% white and 48.3% black principals and assistant principals.  The reconfigured North Little Rock School District would require a central administration of approximately 58-66 central administrators.  The reconfigured North Little Rock School District bus fleet would increase from 89 to 163 buses. It also would acquire 2 additional bus compounds for a total of 3. This reconfiguration would involve combining four distinct communities (cities) into a single school district. While it would be possible to make such a reconfiguration, it would create a new school district that would be the second largest school district in the state of Arkansas. In our judgment, such a reconfigured school district would be difficult to manage due to both its geographic size and the lack of a commonality of interest among the communities that would constitute the reconfigured school district. The existing North Little Rock School District looks upon itself as a community school district with a strong identity with schools and the community it serves. Accordingly, in our judgment it would not seem prudent to reconfigure the school district to include all areas of Pulaski County north of the Arkansas River. 1052141_1 C 1052141_1 Two School District North of the Arkansas River. A Reconfigured North Little Rock School District -  The existing North Little Rock School District has 19 schools (20 buildings) and 9,580 students. The reconfiguration would add l3 schools and 6,763 students for a total enrollment of 16,343 students. The racial composition would go from 36.3% white, 58.8% black, and 4.9% other minorities students to 43.7% white, 51.7% black, and 4.6% other minorities students.  The existing North Little Rock School District employs 770 teachers. The addition of the l3 schools would require the employment of approximately 493 additional teachers for a total of 1,263 teachers. The racial composition of the teachers for the reconfigured school district would change modestly from the current 82.7% white, 16.2% black, and 1.1 % other minorities teachers to 82.6% white, 16.7% black, and .7% other minorities teachers.  The existing North Little Rock School District employs 41 principals and assistant principals. The addition of the 13 schools would increase the number of principals and assistant principals in the reconfigured school district by 27 for a total of 68 with a racial composition of 52.9% white and 4 7 .1 % black principals and assistant principals. The reconfigured North Little Rock School District would require an increase in central administrators of approximately 5-7 central administrators. The reconfigured North Little Rock School District bus fleet would increase from 89 to 159 buses. It also would acquire 1 additional bus compound located at Oak Grove. D Jacksonville School District - The Jacksonville School District would have 13 schools and a student enrollment of 6,914 of which 55.0% (3,806) would be white and 40.3% (2,786) black, and 4.7% (322) other minorities students.  Five of the 13 schools are rated as in need of extensive renovation or replacement.  The Jacksonville School District would require 497 teachers. If the teachers pre_sently assigned in the existing Pulaski County Special School District schools that would be transferred into the Jacksonville School District are employed by the new school district, the racial composition of the teachers would be 80.1 % (398) white,.19.9% (95) black, and .8% (4) other minorities teachers. Each school would have at least 2 black teachers if the current teaching assignments are continued by the new school district. The Jacksonville School District would have 26 principals and assistant principals, 13 white and 13 black if current building level administrative assignments are continued by the new school district.  The Jacksonville School District would be in need of a central administration consisting of 19 to 27 central administrators. Of the two options for reconfiguration of school districts no1ih of the Arkansas River, a reconfigured North Little Rock School District and a newly created Jacksonville School District present a more favorable arrangement and one that would be, in our judgment, more likely to address the educational needs of students attending schools north of the Arkansas River. A reconfigured North Little Rock School District would not be expanded beyond its ability to operate efficiently and would retain much of its community identity. Creation of 1052141_1 E - a Jacksonville School District would allow members of the greater Jacksonville community the opportunity to have their own school district. 1052141_1 One School District South of the Arkansas River. A Reconfigured Little Rock School District -  The existing Little Rock School District has 49 schools and 26,312 students. It is the largest school district in the state of Arkansas. As reconfigured, the Little Rock School District would add 10 schools and 4,650 students for a total of 30,962 students. The racial composition of the reconfigured school district would go from 24.0% white, 68.7% black, and 7.3% other minorities students to 28.1 % white, 65.0% black, and 6.9% other minorities students. The existing Little Rock School District employs 2,027 teachers. The addition of 10 schools would require the  employment of approximately 379 additional teachers. The racial composition of the reconfigured school district teachers would only modestly change. The existing Little Rock School District employs 96 principals and assistant principals. Adding 10 schools would increase the number of principals and assistant principals by 18 for a total of 114 building level administrators with a racial composition of 48.3% white and 51.7% black building administrators.  The increase in students and schools in the reconfigured Little Rock School District would require an insignificant increase, if any at all, to the existing central administration.  The reconfigured Little Rock School District's bus fleet would require an additional 160 buses for a total of 519. The reconfigured school district would also acquire an additional bus compound. F There is logic to expanding the Little Rock School District to include all areas of Pulaski County south of the Arkansas River. Unlike the area north of the river, Little Rock is the only city sc th of the Arkansas River. It is a rapidly expanding municipality. The reconfiguration envisioned in Act 2126 of 2005 would have a positive impact on desegregation. The Impact of the Reorganizations on the Ongoing School Desegregation Litigation: Because each of the existing school districts in Pulaski County remains under federal judicial supervision in the ongoing school desegregation litigation, any reconfiguration of these school districts would require an order from the federal district court. The existing school districts operate in part or whole under interrelated consent decrees. Pursuant to - controlling federal jurisprndence, a modification of a consent decree in institutional reform litigation, such as the ongoing school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County, may only be approved under certain conditions. We find that none of those circumstances appear to exist at this time. Absent the existence of circumstances conducive to modification of the existing consent decrees, the reorganizations outlined in Act 2126 are not legally feasible in the context of the ongoing school desegregation litigation. Other factors also are present that suggest that reorganization is not feasible at this time. Dissolution of the Pulaski County Special School District and the inclusion of its dismembered tenitory into either two or three new school districts would result in a requirement that the newly created school districts undertake completion of any unmet desegregative obligations of the dissolved school district. This, of course, would retard the 1052141_1 G - progress toward unitary status that has already been made by the existing Little Rock and North Little Rock schoo1 districts, and would be contrary to applicable federal jurisprudence relating to creation of new school districts. In addition, there is language in the interrelated consent decrees that suggests that the Pulaski County Special and North Little Rock school districts are entitled to remain in existence as independent and sovereign at least until such time as they have met their obligations under their consent decrees. For these reasons, we do not believe that it is feasible to reorganize the existing school districts in Pulaski County so as to reconfigure them into either two or three new school districts so long as they continue under federal judicial supervision in the ongoing school desegregation litigation. Unitary Status: The legislation \\.lnder which we were engaged did not require us to conduct an extensive and exhaustive desegregation audit of the kind required for litigation. Neve1iheless, we did collect considerable amounts of information and data so as to enable us to prepare this study. Based upon the information and data collected and our analysis of it, we are of the opinion that the three existing school districts have satisfied the desegregative obligations imposed by the constitution and appear to be in substantial compliance with the de:,egregation obligations contained in their consent decrees. It is for these reasons that we strongly suggest at this time that each of the existing school districts pursue unitary status and termination of federal judicial supervision. 1052141_1 H The Little Rock School District is rapidly approaching unitary status. Upon acceptance by the federal district court of an evaluation regarding its final desegregative . obligation, it will be posed to file a motion to end its involvement in the ongoing school desegregation litigation. The North Little Rock School District is in the process of preparing its case for unitary status and an end to its involvement in the litigation. The Pulaski County Special School Board is presently taking a different approach to unitary status. It has instructed its desegregation attorney to file a motion for partial unitary status. Even if successful, this approach would not end in whole the ongoing school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. We surmise that at least one reason for this approach is a fear on the part of the school board that full unitary status and an end to the school district's involvement in the litigation might result in the dissolution of the school distiict as contemplated in Act 2126. It is for this and other reasons that we recommend below that an assurance be given to the Pulaski County Special School District that should it pursue and be declared unitary, and should all federal judicial supervision be relinquished, the school distiict will continue to exist in some shape or form. Recommendations: We make the following recommendations: 1052141_1 Agreements to pursue full unitary status - Each of the three existing school districts must agree to seek full unitary status. This will require that each existing school district evaluate where it stands in terms of meeting, to the extent practicable, their obligations under their respective consent agreements and addressing an area or areas in which compliance has not been fully met. Such I 1052141_1 an evaluation will initially require input from each existing school district. To facilitate this input, the discussions among the state and school district attorneys should in.voJve participation by school system superinrendents and a representative of each school board. Efforts to engage the Joshua Intervenors - The Joshua Intervenors have sent two conflicting signals as to their position onending the school desegregation litigation. On the one hand, they have indicated an intention to interpose an objection to any effort by the three existing school districts to seek a declaration ofunitary status and an end to the school desegregation litigation. On the other hand, in response to a question posed by a member of the legislature during a committee meeting the Joshua Intervenm-s' attorney indicated some willingness to cooperate in ending the litigation in the event unspecified benefits derived from the litigation are retained once the litigation is ended. Accordingly, a good-faith effort should be made to engage the Joshua Intervenors to determine ,rhether it is feasible to accommodate their interests. If that course of action fails to bear fruit, preparations must be made for adversarial proceedings.  Decision as to whether experts should be retained - If adversarial proceedings are inevitable, a determination should be made as to whether school desegregation experts should be engaged to assist in presenting the cases to be put forward by the existing school districts. Experts, unlike fact witnesses, are in a position to offer opinion testimony to the court. If experts are to be utilized, they should be engaged as early as possible to allow adequate time in which to conduct a thorough desegregation audit and prepare for trial. Retention of the reconfigured Pulaski County Special School Dist1ict - In order to assure that the Pulaski County Special School District will seek full unitary status and an end to its pa1iicipation in the school desegregation litigation, there will need to be in place J 1052141_1 some mechanism to guarantee that in a post-unitary status setting the school district will continue in existence in some shape or form. Creation of a Jacksonville School District - Agreement must be reached on the creation of a Jacksonville School District. As among the governmental parties to the school desegregation litigation this will primarily involve the question of the boundaries of the new school district and a transitional period in which necessary steps will be taken to bring the new school district into full operational status. Phase-out of M-to-M transfers - Students enrolled in schools pursuant to majority-to-minority transfers as of the end of the school year in which the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County is ended should be permitted to complete their level of education studies. Students enrolled in elementary grades (K through 5) should be permitted to remain enrolled in their M-to-M elementary school through compl~tion of the fifth grade. The same would hold for middle school students and hi.gh school students. Retention of the stipulation magnet schools - We recommend that consideration be given to continuing the existing stipulation magnet schools in the Little Rock School District as county-wide magnet schools once the school desegregation litigation is ended. These schools offer expanded educational opportunities and should interject an element of diversity into the student population of the Little Rock School District that should be continued. Equality of educational opportunity- In order to promote an equal educational opportunity for all high school students, a concerted effort should be made to offer, in addition to state required courses, the same elective course offerings in all regular and comprehensive schools. A reasonable teacher/pupil ratio can be used to determine when a particular course will be taught in a K particular school. At the middle and elementary school levels, course offerings in art, music, and other areas customarily offered to younger students should be offered in all regular and comprehensive middle and elementary schools. Emphasis on school choice and targeted recruitment of students - In order to prepare students for life in a diverse world and workplace, emphasis should be placed on a targeted recruitment of students under the state's school choice law. Schools with limited levels of diversity (socio-economic, ethnic, and/or racial) should be encouraged to actively recruit school choice students in different communities in an effort to assure, to the extent practicable, as diverse a student population as possible. Student Discipline - Policies must be retained where pe1missible or new policies adopted to assure that student discipline is administered in a non-discriminatory manner without regard to sex, race, ethnic origin, sexual 01ientation, or mental or physical disability. Every effort should be made in the administration of student discipline to keep students in school. Phase-out of state funding - Agreement will be needed on a fomrnla for the phase-out of state funding for the three existing school districts and the new Jacksonville School Dist1ict. A five year decreasing formula should be adequate to assist the four post-unitary status school distticts in making the transition to self-sufficiency and ending the state's desegregation funding obligations. In order to implement certain of the above recommendations in a post-unitary status setting, enabling legislation will be necessary. We recommend that all necessary legislation be enacted prior to the filing of the unitary status motions and that the effect of such legislation be made contingent upon the entry of an order of the federal district court 1052141_1 L - declaring that each of the existing school districts is unitary, dissolution of all outstanding orders and injunctions, and termination offederaljudicial supervision over the affairs of the three existing school districts in Pulaski County. 1052141_1 The legislation should address the following areas: Creation of a Jacksonville School District and reconfiguration of the Pulaski County Special School District-Legislation in this area will need to address the following with respect to a new Jacksonville School District: (a) the boundaries of the new Jacksonville School District\n(b) the disposition of facilities, equipment, materials of instruction, movable property such as buses and other vehicles, and joint use of common facilities such as the transportation yard in the Jacksonville area\n( c) a transitional period prior to operation of the Jacksonville School District in which school board member election districts must be drawn, school board elections must be held and a school board seated, selection of a superintendent and employment of a school system staff (assistant superintendent(s), directors, coordinators, etc.), employment of teachers and support personnel and adoption of salary schedules, ( d) settlement and apportionment of any outstanding debt obligations of the Pulaski County Special School District, ( e) other necessary measures that must be in place prior to operational status of the Jacksonville School District. The legislation also will need to address similar issues with respect to the remaining portion of the Pulaski County School District. For example, if Arkansas law does not provide that the term of an elected official may not be shortened, new election districts for school board members and an election will be required during the period of transition. County-wide magnet schools - Legislation might be considered to establish the current stipulation magnet M schools as county-wide schools. The legislation would need to address the percentage of seats in these schools that would be assigned to students residing in the Little Rock, North Little Rock, Pulaski County Special, and Jacksonville school districts and preferences for such seats where an insufficient number of students from a school district fail to meet the seating allocation provided for a particular school district. (This envisions a totally race-neutral criteria based exclusively on the residence of the students' parents, custodial parent, or legal guardian.) Phase-out of state funding for M-to-M transfers -A five year phase-out of state funding should be more that sufficient to fund a phase-out of majority-to-minority transfers. At the high school level, funding would phaseout at the end of the fourth year. At the middle school level, grades six through eight, funding would be required for three years. At the elementary level, funding would phase-out in no more than five years. Our recommendations addressing the equality of educational opportunity, school choice and recrnitment, and student discipline may be implemented through a post-unitary status agreement among the parties and the adoption of implementing school board policies. Conclusions: 1052141_1 Our study, in its various sections, reaches the following conclusions: Based upon the limited scope of our analysis, the three existing school districts in Pulaski County appear to be unitary.  A Jacksonville School District should be created.  In order to create a Jacksonville School District, the ongoing school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County must be ended and control of the existing school districts restored to state and local control. N 1052141_1 The school desegregation litigation can only be ended if each of the existing school districts moves for, and is successful, in obtaining unitary status, dissolution of all outstanding orders and injunctions of the federal district court, and termination of federal judicial supervision.  An incentive must be given to the Pulaski County School District that should it file a motion for full unitary status and relinquishment of all federal judicial supervision it will not, thereafter, be dissolved by the state of Arkansas.  The state of Arkansas must take a leadership role in bringing the existing school districts together to move for unitary status and an end to the ongoing school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. Every reasonable effort should be made to enlist the participation of the Joshua lntervenors into the process of seeking an end to the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County with a view, if possible, to a joint motion to end the litigation. 0  ARKANSAS FEASIBILITY STUDY I. Introduction William Gordon Associates, in response to a Request for Proposal issued by the Arkansas Department of Education pursuant to Act 2126 of 2005, Section 26, undertook a \"Feasibility Study to Determine if the Pulaski County Special School District Should Continue to Exist.\" The scope of the study was to specifically address and evaluate the follow: 1051802_1  The elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and the redrawing of school district boundaries in Pulaski County to form one school district north of the Arkansas River and one school district south of the Arkansas River.  The elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and the redrawing of school district boundaries in Pulaski County to fom1 three school districts including a Little Rock School District south of the Arkansas River, a North Little Rock School District north of the Arkansas River, and a Jacksonville School District north of the Arkansas River.  Whether the elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District under Option 1 or Option 2 would further desegregation efforts of the school districts and help all school districts in gaining unitary status and ending the school desegregation litigation.  To study and propose a plan to pursue the end of school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. 1 1See Attachment B: specific language creating this study. A bi-racial team consisting of four educators with extensive expertise in the area of school desegregation and a practicing attorney with experience in the area of school desegregation law began the study in November 2005. As we undertook this task, it was apparent that the study would involve two distinct areas. The first area was to examine and make recommendations with respect to the creation of either two or three school districts that would replace the existing school districts in Pulaski County and to determine whether creation of the new school districts would further desegregation efforts and, thus, help all of the school districts to gain unitary status and an end to the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. The second area was to devise a plan to end the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. In gathering data for the first area of the study ( addressed in Sections II through V relating to the creation of new school districts and their impact on desegregation), we met with a large number of individuals and groups from throughout the county, representatives of the Departments of Education and Justice, members of the Legislature of the State of Arkansas, representatives of the Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County Special school districts, members of teacher and school support staff organizations, business leaders, attorneys representing parties to the ongoing school desegregation litigation, and persons engaged in monitoring implementation of the outstanding consent decrees in the litigation. 2 The team endeavored to meet with all groups and individuals who expressed a desire to be 2See Exhibit I: listing of various meetings attended by one or more members of the study team. 1051802_1 2 - heard. Meetings also were scheduled by the team with persons we felt might be of assistance to us in gathering needed information for our analysis. These meetings enabled the team to gather a wide range of community input. In addition to these meetings, we collected data from each of the existing school districts in Pulaski County on student enrollments, faculty and administrative assignments, transportation, course offerings, school finances, pertinent studies completed by other agencies or groups, and reports prepared by the Arkansas Department of Education. Finally, we conducted a facilities analysis of each school in the Pulaski County Special School District 3 and toured throughout the county in an effort to familiarize ourselves with the various communities and their geographic locations in relation to each other. The second area of our study, addressed in Sections VI and VII, relates to a plan to end the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. To fully analyze this portion of the study, we were mindful that the existing school districts within Pulaski County remain under federal judicial supervision 4 and currently operate under consent decrees. 5 At this point in time, each of the school districts is at a different stage in achieving unitary status. The Little Rock School District is rapidly approaching unitary status and could be declared unitary once its evaluation for improving the achievement of black students is accepted by the federal 1051802_1 3See Exhibit 2: an evaluation of each of the Pulaski County Special School District's schools. 4Li1tle Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, No. LC-C-82-866. 5Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March 1989. 3 district court. The North Little Rock School District has achieved unitary status in the area of student assignments. Its school board recently instructed its attorney to file a motion for unitary status coverin_g all remaining facets of its operations and its consent decree obligations. Our review of the data collected, while not as extensive as the data that would be collected in connection with a formal desegregation audit in anticipation of adversarial proceedings, suggests that the North Little Rock School District has met all of its desegregation obligations and should be in a very good position to put forward its motion for unitary status and tennination of federal judicial supervision. The Pulaski County Special School District has not sought unitary status in connection with its current desegregation obligations under its consent decree. Recently, it instructed its - . - attorney to file a motion for partial unitary status on certain of its obligations. -Here, again, our review of the data collected, although not as exacting as a formal desegregation audit, suggests that if the school district were to file a motion for unitary status as to all of its obligations and relinquishment offederaljudicial supervision it could forcefully argue that it is in substantial compliance and has discharged its obligations to the extent practicable. The issue with respect to the Pulaski County School District is what incentive does it have to seek unitary status and an end to its involvement in the ongoing school desegregation litigation when faced with legislation addressing its possible dissolution. The federal district court has already rendered a decision preventing the Jacksonville community from breaking 1051802_1 4 - away to form its own school district. 6 In addition, the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement contains a \"recognition of autonomy\" clause that arguably safeguards the existence of the school district until such time as it has achieved unitary status with respect to all of its desegregation obligations. Under these circumstances the issue framed above can be restated as one of: \"Why should the Pulaski County Special School District seek to end its involvement in the ongoing school desegregation case so long as there exists the threat that upon doing so it will be dissolved?\" In Section VII of the study, we address what can be done to provide the Pulaski County Special School District with an incentive to move for unitary status and a complete termination of Federal judicial supervision, while at the same time showing that by doing so a new Jacksonville School District may become a reality. Finally, in Section VIII of the study we provide our recommendations, based upon our best judgment, as to what steps should be taken to end the school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County. 6Little Rock St.:hoolD istrict v. Pulaski County Special School District and Mova11ts/J11te111eGnorresg Bollen, et al., No. 4.82-CV-00866WRW (August 18, 2003). 1051802_ I 5 II. Feasibility of Reorganizing the Three Pulaski County School Districts: One School District North of the Arkansas River -- Act 2126 of 2005,  26(1)6 Act 2126 of 2005,  26(1), authorizing the feasibility study, required an evaluation of: The elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing of school district boundaries in Pulaski County to form one school district north of the Arkansas River and one school district south of the Arkansas River. 7 Even though Act 2126 does not specify that the North Little Rock School District be reconfigured to include the northern portion of Pulaski County, the most logical approach would be to expand the existing North Little Rock School District. The North Little Rock School District has an existing operating structure that is effective. It is the only operating school district, other than the Pulaski County Special School District, that is located north of the Arkansas River. Thus, this portion of the study analyzes the feasibility of dividing the Pulaski County Special School District at the Arkansas River. It is premised on reconfiguring the North Little Rock School District to include all of Pulaski County north of the Arkansas River. As reconfigured, a new school district would be created that would include the cities of North Little Rock, Sherwood, Maumelle and Jacksonville, together with the rural areas, the Little Rock Air Base, and Camp Robinson. 6 One school district south of the Arkansas River is discussed in Section IV of the study. 7Section 26( I) Request for Proposals for a \"Feasibility Study to Determine if Pulaski County Special School District Should Continue to Exist,\" issued by the State of Arkansas Department of Education, September 27,2005. 1043675-1 6 A. Student Assignments. The existing North Little Rock School District has 1 high school (with two campuses), 4 middle sc~!s, and 14 elementary schools. It has a student enrollment of 9,580, with a racial composition of 3,475 (36.3%) white, 5,629 (58.8%) black, and 475 (4.9%) other minorities. 8 Reconfiguring the North Little Rock School District to include all areas of Pulaski County north of the Arkansas River would add 26 schools and 13,677 students to the existing school district. Table 1 shows the student enrollments and racial composition of the existing Pulaski County Special School District's schools north of the Arkansas River that would be transferred to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. Table 1 Student Enrollment and Racial Composition of the 26 Schools That Would Be Transferred from the Pulaski County Special School District to the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on 2005-06 Student Enrollment Data Schools White Black Other Jacksonville High School 569 (50.4%) 522 (46.2%) 38 (3.4%) North Pulaski High School 525 (58.5%) 337 (37.6%) 35 (3.9%) Oak Grove High School 358 (57.1%) 245 (39.1%) 24 (3.8%) Sylvan Hills High School 548 (53.8%) 429 (42.1 %) 41 (4.1%) Total High Schools 2,000 (45.5%) 1,533 (42.8%) 138 (11.7%) Jacksonville Middle School 458 (51.3%) 402 (45.1%) 32 (3.6%) Maumelle Middle School 240 (53.7%) 187 (41.8%) 20 (4.5%) Northwood Middle School 398 (59.6%) 241 (36.1%) 29 (4.3%) Sylvan Hills Middle School 371 (52.0%) 302 (42.4%) 40 (5.6%) Total Middle Schools 1,467 (53.9%) 1,132 (41.6%) 121 (4.5%) Total 1129 897 627 1018 3,671 892 447 668 ill 2,720 8See Attachment C: the 2005-06 student enrollment and racial composition of the North Little Rock School District. 1043675-1 7 Schools White Black Other Total Adkins Elementary 110 (45.5%) 127 (52.5%) 5 (2.0%) 242 Arnold Drive Elementary 182 (61.7%) 90 (30.5%) 23 (7.8%) 295 Bayou Meto Elementary 389 (90.5%) 16 (3.7%) 25 (5.8%) 430 Cato Elementary 233 (66.8%) 100 (28.7%) 16 (4.5%) 349 Clinton Elementary 289 (43.0%) 346 (51.5%) 37 (5.5%) 672 Crystal Hill Elementary 403 (50.8%) 370 (46.6%) 21 (2.6%) 794 Dupree Elementary 161 (54.0%) 122 (40.9%) 15 (5.1%) 298 Harris Elementary 33 (12.4%) 231 (86.8%) 2 (.8%) 266 Jacksonville Elementary 209 (36.3%) 321 (55.8%) 45 (7.9%) 575 Oak Grove Elementary 208 (64.2%) 89 (27.5%) 27 (8.3%) 324 Oakbrooke Elementary 289 (66.7%) 123 (28.4%) 21 (4.9%) 433 Pine Forest Elementary 345 (67.4%) 151 (29.5%) 16 (3.1%) 512 Pinewood Elementary 221 (47.0%) 220 (46.8%) 29 (6.2%) 470 Scott Elementary 91 (69.5) 36 (27.5%) 4 (3.0%) 131 Sherwood Elementary 256 (63.8%) 135 (33.7%) 10 (2.5%) 401 Sylvan Hills Elementary 238 (56.0%) 172 (40.5%) 15 (3.5%) 425 Taylor Elementary 167 (44.2%) 204 (54.0%) 7 (1.8%) 378 Tolleson Elementary 184 (63.2%) 84 (28.9%) 23 (7.9%) ill Total Elementary Schools 4,008 (55.0%) 2,937 (40.3%) 341 (4.7%) 7,286 TOTAL ENROLLMENT 7,475 (54.7%) 5,602 (41.0%) 600 (4.3%) 13,677 It can be detem1ined from Table l that the racial composition of the students transfen-ed from the existing Pulaski County Special School District would be 54.7% white, 41.0% black, and 4.3% other minorities. Table 2 shows the enrollments by race for the reconfigured North Little Rock School District that includes all of the schools north of the Arkansas River. Table 2 Reconfigured North Little Rock School District to Include all of the Pulaski County Special School District's Schools North of the Arkansas River - Ilased on 2005-06 School Year Schools Jacksonville High School North Little Rock High (East) North Little Rock High (West) North Pulaski High School Oak Grove High School 1043675-1 ,vhitc 569 (50.4%) 587 (38.7%) 647 (44.0%) 525 (58.5%) 358 (57.1%) 8 Black 522 (46.2%) 867 (57.2%) 761 (51.8%) 337 (37.6%) 245 (39.1%) Other 38 (3.4%) 63 (4.1%) 61 (4.2%) 35 (3.9%) 24 (3.8%) Total 129 1517 1469 897 627 - Schools White Black Other Total North Pulaski High School 525 (58.5%) 337 (37.6%) 35 (3.9%) 897 Oak Grove High School 358 (57.1 %) 245 (39.1%) 24 (3.8%) 627 Sylvan Hills High School 548 (53.8%) 429 (42.1%) 41 (4.1%) 1018 Total High Schools 3,234 (48.6%) 3,161 (47.5%) 262 (3.9%) 6,657 Jacksonville Middle School 458 (51.3%) 402 (45.1%) 32 (3.6%) 892 Lakewood Middle School 433 (60.2%) 256 (35.6%) 30 (4.2%) 719 Maumelle Middle School 240 (53.7%) 187 (41.8%) 20 (4.5%) 447 Northwood Middle School 398 (59.6%) 241 (36.1%) 29 (4.3%) 668 Poplar Street Middle School 194 (31.4%) 394 (63.8%) 30 (4.8%) 618 Ridgeroad Middle School 103 (18.6%) 421 (76.0%) 30 (5.4%) 554 Rose City Middle School 34 (16.1%) 175 (82.9%) 2 (1.0%) 211 Sylvan Hills Middle School 371 (52.0%) 302 (42.4%) 40 (5.6%) ill Total Middle School 2,231 (46.3%) 2,378 (49.3%) 213 (4.4%) 4,822 Adkins Elementary 110 (45.5%) 127 (52.5%) 5 (2.0%) 242 Amboy Elementary 112 (32.0%) 222 (63.4%) 16 (4.6%) 350 Arnold Drive Elementary 182 (61.7%) 90 (30.5%) 23 (7.8%) 295 Bayou Melo Elemer,'.ary 389 (90.5%) 16 (3.7%) 25 (5.8%) 430 Belwood Elementary 26 (19.0%) 108 (78.8%) 3 (2.2%) 137 Boone Park Elemc.1tary 17(4.4%) 349 (90.9%) 18 (4.7%) 384 Cato Elementary 233 (66.8%) 100 (28.7%) 16 (4.5%) 349 Clinton Elementary 289 (43.0%) 346 (51.5%) 37 (5.5%) 672 Crestwood Elementar\n288 (75.0%) 88 (22.9%) 8 (2.1%) 384 Crystal Hill Elementary 403 (50.8%) 370 (46.6%) 21 (2.6%) 794 Dupree Elementary 161 (54.0%) 122 (40.9%) 15 (5.1%) 298 Glenview Elementary 25 (15.9%) 131 (83.4%) I (.7%) 157 Indian Hills Elementary 376 (70.4%) 139 (26.0%) 19 (3.6%) 534 Jacksonville Elementary 209 (36.3%) 325 (56.5%) 45 (7.2%) 575 Lakewood Elementary 259 (67.3%) 109 (28.3%) 17(4.4%) 385 Lynch Drive Elementary 41 (12.1%) 294 (87.0%) 3 (.9%) 338 Harris Elementary 33 (12.4%) 231 (86.8%) 2 (.8%) 266 Meadow Park Elementary 28 (14.4%) 158 (81.0%) 9(4.6%) 195 North Heights Elementary 67 (17.2%) 243 (62.5%) 79 (20.3%) 389 Oak Grove Elementary 208 (64.2%)  89 (27.5%) 27 (8.3%) 324 Oakbrooke Elementary 289 (66.7%) 123 (28.4%) 21 (4.9%) 433 Park Hill Elementary 123 (37.0%) 168 (50.6%) 41 (12.4%) 332 Pike View Elementary 91 (24.2%) 254 (67.6%) 31 (8.2%) 376 Pine Forest Elementary 345 (67.4%) 151 (29.5%) 16(3.1%) 512 Pinewood Elementary 221 (47.0%) 220 (46.8%) 29 (6.2%) 470 Redwood Pre-School 22 (10.3%) 180 (84.5%) 11 (5.2%) 213 Scott Elementary 91 (69.5%) 36 (27.5%) 4 (3.0%) 131 Seventh Street Elementary 2 (.6%) 312 (98.4%) 3(1.0%) 317 Sherwood Elementary 256 (63.8%) 135 (33.7%) 10 (2.5%) 401 - Sylvan Hills Elementary 238 (56.0%) 172 (40.5%) 15 (3.5%) 425 1043675-1 9 -  Taylor Elementary 167 (44.2%) 204 (54.0%) 7 (1.8%) 378 Tolleson Elementary 184 (63.2%) 84 (28.9%) 23 (7.9%) 291 Total Elementary Schools 5,485 (46.6%) 5,692 (48.3%) 600 (5.1%) 11,777 TOTAL ENROLLMENT 10,950 (47.1 %) 11,231 (48.3%) 1,075 (4.6%) 23,256 Reconfiguration of the North Little Rock School District to include all of the schools north of the Arkansas River would increase enrollment from 13,677 to 23,256 students. The racial composition of the reconfigured school district would be 47.1 % white, 48.3% black and 4.6% other minorities. Based on the 2005-06 enrollment data for the existing Pulaski County Special School District 9 and the 2005-06 enrollment data for the existing North Little Rock School District, 10 it can be determined that the racial composition of the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would increase in white enrollment from 36.3% to 47.1 % and decrease in black enrollment from 58.8% to 48.3%. The composition of the other rnino1ities would remain essentially the same. Thus, a reconfiguration of the North Little Rock District that would include the portion of the existing Pulaski County Special School District north of the Arkansas River may be viewed as having a positive desegregative impact. 9 See Attachment D: the 2005-06 student enrollment and racial composition of the Pulaski County Special School District. - 10 See Attachment C: the 2005-06 student enrollment and racial composition of the North Little Rock School District. 1043675-1 10 B. Facilities. The majority of the 14 facilities that comprise the existing North Little Rock School District were built in the 1950s and 1960s. According to school district personnel, these facilities have been well maintained and are in overall good condition. Reconfiguring the school district to include all of the schools north of the Arkansas River would involve the addition of 27 schools 11 comprised of 4 high schools, 5 middle schools, and 19 elementary schools. As a group, the buildings that would be added from the existing Pulaski County Special School District have not been maintained as well as the schools in the existing North Little Rock School District. 12 When evaluating the overall quality of the school buildings a rating scale of l to 5 was used for each school in the existing Pulaski County Special School District. A school rated as a Category l school is considered to be an excellent facility that is well maintained and is not in need of any significant remodeling or repair. Conversely, a school rated as a Category 5 school is a very poor facility that is in need of major renovation and/or repair and could, in many instances, be considered for closing and/or replacement. Table 3 shows the capacity, percent of capacity used, student enrollment, and rating category of each schoo'I that would be transfetTed from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. 11There could be some confusion as to the actual number of schools because the Jacksonville Middle School has been divided into a boys school and a girls school. The two facilities occupy the same site. 12 See Exhibit 2: an evaluation of each of the Pulaski County Special School District's schools. 1043675-1 11 - Table 3 The 27 Pulaski County Special School District Schools That Would Be Transferred to the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Schools Ca~acitv Capacity Enrollment Rating Used 2005-2006 Jacksonville High School 1360 83% 1129 5 North Pulaski High School 1050 85% 897 3 Oak Grove High School 1130 55% 627 5 Sylvan Hills High School 1120 91% 1018 4 Jacksonville Middle (Girls) 1970 45% 892 5 Jacksonville Middle (Boys) 5 Maumelle Middle School * 1360 33% 447 l Northwood Middle School 1030 65% 668 3 Sylvan Hills Middle School 1080 66% 713 5 Adkins Elementary 526 46% 242 2 Arnold Drive Elementary 453 65% 295 3 Bayou Meto Elementary 697 62% 430 3 Cato Elementary 800 44% 349 2 Clinton Elementary 840 80% 672- 1 Crystal Hill Elementary 870 91% 794 1 Dupree Elementary 498 60% 298 3 Hanis Elementary 906 29% 266 3 Jacksonville Elementary 850 68% 575 5 Oak Grove Elementary 626 52% 324 4 Oakbrooke Elementary 553 78% 433 3 Pine Forest Elementary 554 92% 512 l Pinewood Elementary 677 69% 470 2 Scott Elementary 294 45% 131 5 Sherwood Elementary 561 71% 401 3 Sylvan Hills Elementary 606 70% 425 3 Taylor Elementary 566 67% 378 2 Tolleson Elementary 561 52% 291 5 *Maumelle Middle School opened in 2005-06 housing 6th and th grade students. It will add 81 \" grade students for the 2006-07 school year. It should be noted in Table 3 that five of the nine secondary schools that would be added to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District are Category 5 schools and one is a Category 4 school. Category 5 secondary schools, especially high 104361\n.1 12 - schools, are far more costly to replace or renovate than elementary schools. The five Category 5 secondary schools identified in Table 3 -- Jacksonville High School, Oak Grove High School, Ja. onville Middle School (boys and girls), and Sylvan Hills Middle School -- should be considered for replacement. The elementary schools that would be added to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District are in much better condition than the secondary schools. However, three of the 17 elementary schools are Category 5 schools. Of the three, Jacksonville Elementary School should be considered for replacement. Scott Elementary School should be closed and its students reassigned. The third Category 5 elementary school, Tolleson Elementary School, will need significant remodeling or replacement if it is to continue in existence. Otherwise, it might be closed and its students reassigned to another school. Oak Grove Elementary School is a Category 4 school that will need extensive remodeling. Of the remainiDe l 3 elementary schools that would be transferred to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District, 3 are Category 1 schools, 4 are Category 2 schools, and 7 are Category 3 schools. Several of these schools will need remodeling and/or repair~ but as a group they are in good condition. C. Personnel. 1. Clas:::room Teachers. Transferring all of the existing Pulaski County Special School District's students living north of the Arkansas River to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District will require the employment of additional teachers. It is logical that those teachers who would like to transfer to the I 0-13675-1 13 - reconfigured North Little Rock School District from the existing Pulaski County Special School District should be allowed to do so. - The existing North Little Rock School District employs 770 teachers who are assigned to its 20 schools. 13 Reconfiguring the North Little Rock District by as many as 27 schools and 13,676 students may require as many as 990 additional classroom teachers for a total of 1,760. Table 4 identifies the teachers, by race and school, who are employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District. 14 Table 4 Teachers, by Race and School, Currently Employed in the 27 Schools That Would Be Transferred from the Pulaski County Special School District to the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on the 2005-06 Employment Data Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School 43 (71.7%) 17 (28.3%) 0 60 North Pulaski High School 56 (83.6%) 11 (16.4%) 0 67 Oak Grove High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Sylvan Hills High School 84 (86.6%) 13 (13.4%) Q 97 Total High Schools 229 (82.4%) 49 (17.6%) 0 278 Jacksonville Middle School (Girls) 39 (76.5%) 12 (23.5%) 0 51 Jacksonville Middle School (Boys) 35 (72.9%) 13 (27.1%) 0 48 Maumelle Middle School 15 (100%) 0 0 15 Northwood Middle School 41 (83.7%) 8 (16.3%) 0 49 Sylvan Hills Middle School 51 (83.6%) 10 {16.4%) Q fil Total Middle Schools 181 (80.8%) 43 (19.2%) 0 224 Adkins Elementary 17 (73.9%) 4(17.4%) 2 (8.7%) 23 Arnold Drive Elementary 19 (86.4%) 3 (13.6%) 0 22 Bayou Meto Elementary 24 (85.7%) 4 (14.3%) 0 28 Cato Elementary 18 (85.7%) 3 (14.3%) 0 21 Clinton Elementary 34 (75.6%) 11 (24.4%) 0 45 13See Attachment E: the total number of teachers, by race and school, employed by the North Little Rock School District for the 2005-06 school year. - 14See Attachment F: the total number of teachers, by race and school, employed by the Pulaski County Special School District for 2005-06. I 043675-1 14 - Schools White Black Other Total Crystal Hill Elementary 43 (82.7%) 9(17.3%) 0 52 Dupree Elementary 20 (87.0%) 2 (8.7%) l (4.3%) 23 Harris Elementary 11 (57.9%) 7 (36.8) l (5.3%) 19 Jacksonville Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) l (2.8%) 35 Oakbrooke Elementary 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) 0 24 Oak Grove Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 0 28 Pine Forest Elementary28 (84.8%) 5 (15.2%) 0 33 Pinewood Elementary 21 (84.0%) 4 (16.0%) 0 25 Scott Elementary 12 (92.3%) l (7.7%) 0 13 Shenvood Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Sylvan Hills Elementary 22 (84.6%) 4 (15.4%) 0 26 Taylor Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Tolleson Elementary 15 (78.9%) 4 (21.1%) _Q 12 Total Elementary Schools 394 (80.7%) 89 (18.2%) 5 (1.1%) 488 TOT AL TEACHERS 804 (81.2%) 181 (18.3%) 5 (.5%) 990 It can be determined from Table 4, with the exception of Maumelle Middle, Scott Elementary, and Dupree Elementary schools, that all of the schools that would be transferred have three or a minimum of at least 13% black faculty members. Table 5 shows the composition of the faculties of the schools that would comprise the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. Table 5 Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments to Include All of the Pulaski County Special School District North of the Arkansas River Based on 2005-06 Employment Data Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School North Little Rock High (East) North Little Rock High (West) North Pulaski High School Oak Grove High School Sylvan Hills High School Total High Schools Jacksonville Middle School (Girls) Jacksonville Middle School (Boys) 10-l3675-I 43 (71.7%) 76 (90.5%) 85 (82.5%) 56 (83.6%) 46 (85.2%) 84 (86.6%) 390 (83.9%) 39 (76.5%) 35 (72.9%) 15 17 (28.3%) 8 (9.5%) 18(17.5%) 11 (16.4%) 8 (14.8%) 13 (13.4%) 75 (16.1 %) 12 (23.5%) 13 (27.1%) 0 60 0 84 0 103 0 67 0 54 _Q 97 0 465 0 51 0 48 - Schools White Black Other Total Lakewood Middle School 39 (88.6%) 5 (11.4%) 0 44 Maumelle Middle School 15 (100%) 0 0 15 Northwood Middle School 41 (83.7%) 8 (16.3%) 0 49 Poplar Street Middle School 39 (81.3%) 7 (14.6%) 2 (4.1%) 48 Ridgeroad Middle School 35 (87.5%) 5 (12.5%) 0 40 Rose City Middle School 17 (60.7%) 11 (39.3%) 0 28 Sylvan Hills Middle School 51 {83.6%) 10 {16.4%) Q fil. Total Middle Schools 311 (81.0%) 71 (18.4%) 2 (.6%) 384 Amboy Elementary 24 (92.3%) l (3.8%) I (3.8%) 26 Adkins Elementary 17 (73.9%) 4 (17.4%) 2 (8.7%) 23 Arnold Drive Elementary 19 (86.4%) 3 (13.6%) 0 22 Bayou Meto Elementary 24 (85.7%) 4 (14.3%) 0 28 Belwood Elementary 15 (88.2%) 2 (I 1.8%) 0 17 Boone Park Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) l (2.8%) 35 Cato Elementary 18 (85.7%) 3 (14.3%) 0 21 Clinton Elementary 34 (75.6%) 11 (24.4%) 0 45 Crestwood Elementary 32 (80.0%) 8 (20.0%) 0 40 Crystal Hill Elementary 43 (82.7%) 9(17.3%) 0 52 Dupree Elementary 20 (87.0%) 2 (8.7%) I (4.3%) 23 Glenview Elementary 14 (82.4%) 3 (17.6%) 0 17 Hanis Elementary 11 (57.9%) 7 (36.8) 1 (5.3%) 19 - Indian Hills Elementary 33 (91.7%). 3 (8.3%) 0 36 Jacksonville Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.36(\u0026lt;,) l (2.8%) 35 Lakewood Elementary 24(100%) 0 0 24 Lynch Drive Elementary 25 (83.3%) 5 (16.7%) 0 30 Meadow Park Elementary 16(51.6%) 15 (48.4%) 0 31 North Heights Elementary 39 (62.9%) 19 (30.6%) 4 (6.5%) 62 Oakbrooke Elementary 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) 0 24 Oak Grove Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 0 28 Park Hill Elementary 28 (77.8%) 8 (22.2%) 0 36 Pike View Elementary 27 (96.4%) l (3.6%) 0 28 Pine Forest Elementary 28 (84.8%) 5 (15.2%) 0 33 Pinewood Elementary 21 (84.0%) 4 (16.0%) 0 25 Redwood Pre-School 13 (100%) 0 0 13 Scott Elementary 12 (92.3%) I (7.7%) 0 13 Seventh Street Elementary 27 (96.4%) l (3.6%) 0 28 Sherwood Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Sylvan Hills Elementary 22 (84.6%) 4 (15.4%) 0 26 Taylor Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Tolleson Elementary 15 {78.9%) 4 {21.1%) Q 12 Total Elementary Schools 740 (81.2%) 160 (17.6%) 11 (1.2%) 911 TOTAL TEACHERS 1,441 (81.9%) 306(17.4%) 13 (1.2%) 1,760 - 1043675-1 16 Even though the number of teachers needed would increase from 770 to 1,760, the racial composition of the teaching staff of the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would remain virtually unchanged. The racial composition of the teaching staff of the existing North Little Rock School District is 82.7% white, 16.2% black and 1.1 % other minorities. It can be determined from Table 5 that the racial composition of the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would be 81.9% white, 17.4% black and 1.2% other minorities. 2. Building Level Administrators. The existing North Little Rock School District has 41 principals and assistant principals 15 assigned to the school district's 20 schools. The 27 existing Pulaski County Special School District school buildings north of the Arkansas River have 52 principals and assistant principals. Table 6 shows the location of the building level administrators that are assigned to the 27 existing Pulaski County Special School District schools that would be transferred to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. Table 6 Building Level Administrators Assigned to the 27 Schools That Would Ile Transferred from the Pulaski County Special School District into the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on the 2005-06 Administrative Assignments Schools Jackson High School North Pulaski High School Oak Grove High School Sylvan Hills High School Total High Schools White 3 (75%) 1 (33.3%) (100%) 1 (33.3%} 7 (58.3%) Illack l 2 (66.7%) 0 2 (66.7%} 5 (41.3%) Other 0 0 0 Q 0 Total 4 3 2 l 12 15See Attachment G: listing of building level and central office administrators in the North Little Rock School District. 1043675-1 17 - Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville Middle School 2 (100%) 0 0 2 (Girls) Jacksonville Middle Sctmol 0 2 (100%) 0 2 (Boys) Maumelle Middle School 1 (50.0%) 1 (51.0%) 0 2 Northwood Middle School 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Sylvan Hills Middle School 0 3 (100%) Q l Total Middle Schools 4 (26.4%) 7 (63.6%) 0 11 Adkins Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Arnold Drive Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Bayou Meto Elementary 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Cato Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 I Clinton Elementary 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Crystal Hill Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Dupree Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 I Harris Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 I Jacksonville Elementary I (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Oakbrooke Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Oak Grove Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 I Pine Forest Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Pinewood Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Scott Elementary 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Sherwood Elementary 1 (50.0%) I (50.0%0 0 2 Sylvan Hills Elementary I (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Taylor Elementary I (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Tolleson Elementary I (100%) 0 Q l Total Elementary Schools 13 (44.8%) 16 (55.2%) 0 29 TOTAL SCHOOL 24 (46.2%) 27 (53.8%) 0 52 ADMINISTRATORS It can be determined from Table 6 that 22 of the 27 schools that would be transferred into the reconfigured North Little Rock School District have at least one black administrator. Three schools, with more than one white administrator, do not have a black administ alor. There are 8 schools without a white administrator, and 2 of these have more than one black administrator. 1043675-1 18 - Table 7 shows the building level administrators currently assigned to the 47 schools that would comprise the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. Table 7 Building Level Administrators Assigned to the Schools in the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on the 2005-06 Administrative Assignments Schools White Black Other Total Jackson High School 3 (100%) 0 0 3 North Little Rock High (East) 3 (60.0%) 2 (40.0%) 0 5 North Little Rock High (West) 2 (40.0%) 3 (60.0%) 0 5 North Pulaski High School 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Oak Grove High School 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Sylvan Hills High School 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) Q l Total High Schools 12 (54.5%) 10 (45.5%) 0 22 Jacksonville Middle School (Girls) 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Jacksonville Middle School (Boys) 0 2 (100%) 0 2 Lakewood Middle School 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 3 Maumelle Middle School 1 (50.0%) 1 (51.0%) 0 2 Northwood Middle School 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Poplar Street Middle School 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 3 Ridgeroad Middle School 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Rose City Middle School 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Sylvan Hills Middle School 0 3 (I 00%) Q l Total Middle Schools 10 (45.5%) 12 (54.5%) 0 22 Adkins Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Amboy Elementary 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Arnold Drive Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Bayou Meto Elementary 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Belwood Elementary 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Boone Park Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Cato Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Clinton Elementary 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Crestwood Elementary 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Crystal Hill Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Dupree Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 I Glenview Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Harris Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Indian Hills Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 - Jacksonville Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Lakewood Elementary 1 (100%) 0 0 1 1043675-1 19 Schools White Black Other Total Lynch Drive Elementary 1 (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Meadow Park Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 North Heights Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Oakbrooke Elementary 1 (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Oak Grove Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Pine Forest Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Park Hill Elementary I (100%) 0 0 1  Pike View Elementary 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Pinewood Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Seventh Street Elementary 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Scott Elementary 1 (l00%) 0 0 1 Sherwood Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%0 0 2 Sylvan Hills Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Taylor Elementary 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Tolleson Elementary 1 (100%) Q Q l Total Elementary Schools 25 (53.2%) 22 (46.8%) 0 47 TOTAL SCHOOL 47 (51.7%) 44 (48.3%) 0 91 ADMINISTRATORS It can be determined from Table 7 that the number of building level administrators in the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would increase from 52 to 91. Table 7 also shows that there would be an increase in the percentage of black building level administrators when compared with the existing percentage of black building level administrators in the Pulaski County Special School District. 3. Central Administration. Increasing the existing North Little Rock School District to 23,256 students, 41 school facilities, 1,760 teachers, and 91 building level administrators would require a totally different organizational structure for the reconfigured school district. The reconfigured school district would require additional central office facilities and a significantly larger central administrative staff. - The new school district would require, at a minimum, a central administration I 043675 I 20 - comparable in size to the existing Little Rock School District which consists of 58-66 central administrators -- a superintendent, 4-5 assistant or associate superintendents, a public affairs officer, a chief financial officer, 18-20 directors, 18-20 coordinators, and 15-18 specialists. Thus, the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would require an increase in central administrators of two to three times the present size. D. Transportation. The existing North Little Rock School District has a fleet of 89 buses. The fleet is located in a single compound within the municipal limits of the city of North Little Rock. The fleet has 39 buses that serve the school district's regular enrollment, 16 for special needs students, 22 for M-to-M transfer and magnet school students, and 12 that are held in reserve. The existing Pulaski County Special School District has 163 buses located north of the Arkansas River. This fleet is housed in two bus compounds, one located in Jacksonville and the other in Oak Grove. The Oak Grove compound does not have maintenance facilities. The Pulaski County Special School District fleet north of the river consists of 63 buses used for regular education students, 25 for special needs students, 18 for gifted and talented education students, 30 for M-to-M transfer and magnet school students, and 27 that are held in reserve. With the creation of a new North Little Rock School District there would be a need to transfer all of the buses and the two bus compounds from the existing Pulaski County Special School District north of the Arkansas River to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. 1043675-1 21 - III. Feasibility of Reorganizing the Three Pulaski County School Districts: Two School Districts North of the Arkansas River - Act 2126 of 2005,  26(2) 16 Act 2126 of 2005, 26(2), authorizing the feasibility study, required an evaluation of: \"The elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing of school district boundaries in Pulaski County to form three districts including a Little Rock District south of the Arkansas River, a North Little Rock School District north of the Arkansas River, and a Jacksonville School District north of the Arkansas River.\" 17 This portion of the study analyzes the feasibility of dividing the existing Pulaski County Special School District at the Arkansas River, reconfiguring the North Little Rock School District by making it larger, and creating a new school district in the Jacksonville community area. The reconfigured North Little Roc_k School District . . would be expanded beyond its present size by adding the comml!nities of Sherwood, Sylvan Hills, Oak Grove, Maumelle, and the rural areas west of the Jacksonville community. The new Jacksonville School District would include the city of Jacksonville, the Cato area, the Little Rock Air Base, and the rural area north of the city. Dissolution of the Pulaski County School District, together with an expansion of the North Little Rock School District and creation of a Jacksonville School District, would create two new school districts no1ih of the Arkansas River. 16 One district south of the river is discussed in the section immediately below. 17 Section 2.0 I, Item I., Request for Proposals for a \"Feasibility Study to Determine if Pulaski County Special School District Should Continue to Exist\" issued by the State of Arkansas Department of Education, September 27, 2005. 1043675-1 22 - A. The Reconfigured North Little Rock School District 1. Student Assignments. The existing North Little Rock School District has 1 high school (with 2 campuses), 4 middle schools, and 14 elementary schools. Reconfiguring the North Little Rock School District in a two school district reorganization north of the Arkansas River would add 13 schools comprised of 2 high schools, 2 middle schools, and 9 elementary schools. Table 8 identifies the 13 schools, and their enrollments, that would be transferred from the dissolved Pulaski County Special School District 18 to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. Table 8 Student Enrollment, by Race, of the 13 Schools That Would Be Transferred from the Pulaski County Special School District to the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on 2005-06 Student Enrollment Data Schools White Black Other Total Oak Grove Hi-gh School 358 (57.1%) 245 (39. l %) 24 (3.8%) 627 Sylvan Hills High School 548 (53.8%) 429 (42.1%) 41 (4.1%) 1018 Total High Schools 906 (55.1 %) 674 (41.0%) 65 (3.9%) 1,645 Maumelle Middle School 240 (53.7%) 187 (41.8%) 20 (4.5%) 447 Sylvan Hills Middle School 371 (52.0%) 302 (42.4%) 40 (5.6%) ill Total Middle Schools 611 (52.7%) 489 (42.2%) 60 (5.1%) 1,160 Clinton Elementary 289 (43.0%) 346 (51.5%) 37 (5.5%) 672 Crystal Hill Elementary 403 (50.8%) 370 (46.6%) 21 (2.6%) 794 Harris Elementary 33 (12.4%) 231 (86.8%) 2 (.8%) 266 Oak Grove Elementary 208 (64.2%) 89 (27.5%) 27 (8.3%) 324 Oakbrooke Elementary 289 (66.7%) 123 (28.4%) 21 (4.9%) 433 Pine Forest Elementary 345 (67.4%) 151 (29.5%) 16 (3.1%) 512 Scott Elementary 91 (69.5%) 36 (27.5%) 4 (3.0%) 131 Sherwood Elementary 256 (63.8%) 135 (33.7%) 10 (2.5%) 401 18See Attachment D: listing of the Pulaski County Special Schools District's schools and 2005-06 student enrollments. 10~)675-1 23 Sylvan Hills Elementary Total Elementary Schools TOTAL ENROLLMENT 238 (56.0%) 2,152 (54.4%) 3,669 (54.3%) 172 (40.5%) 15 (3.5%) 1,653 (41.8%) 278 (4.1%) 2,816 (41.6%). 278 (4.1 %) 425 3,958 6,763 Based on the 2005-06 enrollment data, the reconfigured North Little Rock School District student enrollment 19 would be expanded by 6,763 students from 9,580 to 16,343. The racial composition of the existing North Little Rock School District is 36.3% white, 58.8% black, and 4.9% other minorities. The racial composition of the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would have a slightly greater white enrollment and a slightly smaller black enrollment. Its enrollment would be 43.7% white, 51.7% black, and 4.6% other minorities. This may be viewed as having a positive desegregative impact. Listed in Table 9 are the student enrollments, by race, for the reconfigured No1ih Little Rock School District. Schools Table 9 Reconfigured North Little Rock School District (Less Areas for New Jacksonville School District) Based on Student Enrollment 2005-06 White Black North Little Rock High School (East) 587 (38.7%) 867 (57.2%) North Little Rock High School (West) 647 (44.0%) 761 (51.8%) Oak Grove High School 358(57.1%) 245 (39.1%) Sylvan Hills High School 548 (53.8%) 429 (42.1%) Other 63 (4.1%) 61 (4.2%) 24 (3.8%) 41 (4.1%) Total High Schools 2,140 (46.2%) 2,302 (49.7%) 189 (4.1 %) Total 1517 1469 627 1018 4,631 19See Attachment C: listing of the No1th Little Rock School District's schools and 2005-06 student enrollments. 1043675-1 24 - Schools White Black Other Total Lakewood Middle School 433 (60.2%) 256 (35.6%) 30 (4.2%) 719 Maumelle Middle School 240 (53.7%) 187 (41.8%) 20 (4.5%) 447 Poplar Street Middle School 194 (31.4%) 394 (63.8%) 30 (4.8%) 618 Ridgeroad Middle School (Charter) 103 (18.6%) 421 (76.0%) 30 (5.4%) 554 Rose City Middle School 34 (16.1%) 175 (82.9%) 2 (1.0%) 211 Sylvan Hills Middle School 371 (52.0%) 302 (42.4%) 40 (5.6%) m. Total Middle Schools 1,375 (42.2%) 1,735 (53.2%) 152 (4.6%) 3,262 Amboy Elementary 112 (32.0%) 222 (63.4%) 16 (4.6%) 350 Belwood Elementary 26 (19.0%) 108 (78.8%) 3 (2.2%) 137 Boone Park Elementary 17(4.4%) 349 (90.9%) 18 (4.7%) 384 Clinton Elementary 289 (43.0%) 346 (51.5%) 37 (5.5%) 672 Crestwood Elementary 288 (75.0%) 88 (22.9%) 8(2.1%) 384 Crystal Hill Elementary 403 (50.8%) 370 (46.6%) 21 (2.6%) 794 Glenview Elementary 25 (15.9%) 131 (83.4%) I (.7%) 157 Indian Hills Elementary 376 (70.4%) 139 (26.0%) 19(3.6%) 534 Lakewood Elementary 259 (67.3%) 109 (28.3%) 17(4.4%) 385 Lynch Drive Elementary 41 (12.1%) 294 (87.0%) 3 (.9%) 338 Harris Elementary 33 (12.4%) 231 (86.8%) 2 (.8%) 266 Meadow Park Elementary 28 (14.4%) 158 (81.0%) 9 (4.6%) 195 North Heights Elementary 67 (17.2%) 243 (62.5%) 79 (20.3%) 389 Oak Grove Elementary 208 (64.2%) 89 (27.5%) 27 (8.3%) 324 Oakbrooke Elementary 289 (66.7%) 123 (28.4%) 21 (4.9%) 433 Park Hill Elementary 123 (37.0%) 168 (50.6%) 41 (12.4%) 332 Pike View Elementary 91 (24.2%) 254 (67.6%) 31 (8.2%) 376 Pine Forest Elementary 345 (67.4%) 151 (29.5%) 16 (3.1%) 512 Redwood Pre-School 22 (10.3%) 180 ,(84.5%) 11 (5.2%) 213 Scott Elementary 91 (69.5%) 36 (27.5%) 4 (3.0%) 131 Seventh Street Elementary 2 (.6%) 312 (98.4%) 3 (1.0%) 317 Sherwood Elementary 256 (63.8%) 135 (33.7%) 10 (2.5%) 401 Sylvan Hills Elementary 238 (56.0%) 172 (40.5%) 15 (3.5%) 425 Total Elementary Schools 3,629 (43.0%) 4,408 (52.2%) 412 (4.8%) 8,449 TOT AL ENROLLMENT 7,144 (43.7%) 8,445 (51.7%) 753 (4.6%) 16,342 It can be determined from Table 9 that the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would have three high schools with over 1,000 students and one with 627 students. The reconfigured school district would be expanded by two middle schools, the new Maumelle Middle School and Sylvan Hills Middle School. There I 043675-1 25 would be nine additional elementary schools ranging in size from the 131 student Scott Elementary SC'hool to the 749 student Crystal Hill Elementary School. 2. Facilities. The school facilities that comprise the existing North Little Rock School District range in age from 82 years (Park Hill Elementary School built in 1924), to 36 years (Lynch Drive Elementary School constructed in 1970). Most of the school district's schools were built in the 1950s and 1960s. Table \\ 0 shows the capacity, amount of capacity used, student enrollment, and rating category for the 13 schools that would be transferred from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. Table 10 The 13 Pulaski County Special School District Schools That would be Transferred to the North Little Rock School District 20 Schools Capacity Capacity Enrollment Rating Used 2005-2006 Oak Grove High School 1130 55% 627 5 Sylvan Hills High School 1080 66% 713 4 Maumelle Middle School* 1360 33% 447 1 Sylvan Hills Middle School 1080 66% 713 5 Clinton Elementary 840 80% 672 1 Crystal Hills Elementary 870 91% 794 1 Harris Elementary 906 29% 266 3 Oak Grove Elementary 626 52% 324 4 Oakbrook Elementary 533 78% 433 3 Pine Forest Elementary 554 92% 512 1 Scott Elementary 294 45% 131 5 Sherwood Elementary 561 71% 401 3 Sylvan Hills Elementary 606 70% 425 3 *Maumelle Middle School is a new school that opened for the 2005-06 school year. 20See Exhibit 2: an evaluation of each of the Pulaski County Special School District facilities made by William Gordon \u0026amp; Associates. A school rated as Category 1 is a school evaluated as excellent and not in need of significant remodeling or repair. A Category 5 school is a very poor facility in need of major repair or replacement. 10436751 26 It can be determined from Table l O that three of the schools that would be transferred to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District are rated as Category 5 schools. Oak Grove High School, a Category 5 school, is in the worst condition. The school was constructed in 18 separate buildings consisting mostly of four classroom pods. The buildings are poorly designed and, for the most part, the classroom space is inadequate. This school needs to be replaced. The other two Category 5 buildings, Sylvan Hills Middle School and Scott Elementary School, should be considered for replacement. The Sylvan Hills Middle School has several buildings that have not been properly maintained and are in poor condition. Remodeling this 1955 school might be as expensive as rebuilding it. Scott - Elementary School would be located in the extreme eastern edge of the reconfigured North Little School District. The school is in poor condition with an enrollment of only 131 students. Although the school is somewhat remote, consideration should be given to closing it. At the other extreme, there are four Category l schools that would be transfened to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. The Maumelle Middle School is a new facility that opened for the Fall of 2005. It is an excellent 6th - 8th grade facility cunently housing 447 - 6th and ?111 grade students. The 8th grade, presently assigned to Oak Grove High School, will be assigned to Maumelle Middle School for the 2006-07 school year. The other Category l schools - Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary, and Pine Forest Elementary schools - are in very good condition. Clinton and Crystal Hills elementary schools were built in the 1990s t043675-1 27 and Pine Forest Elementary School was built in 1973. The remaining six buildings are Category 3 and Category 4 structures. The Category 4 schools are sound structures, but need significant remodeling. The Category 3 schools are older buildings that are sound structures, but need some remodeling as well. 3. Personnel. a. Classroom Teachers. Reconfiguring the- North Little Rock School District by an additional 13 school~ and 6,763 students would create a need for additional teachers. There are 493 teachers employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District 21 who are assigned to the 13 schools that would be transferred to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. The existing North Little Rock School District employs 770_ teachers in its 20 schools. 22 When adding 13 schools from the existing Puiaski County Special School District, the number of teachers needed in the new school district would be 1,263, an increase of 39.0%. Table 11 identifies the teachers, by race and school, presently employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District in the 13 schools identified for transfer. 21See Attachment F: the total number of teachers, by race, by school, employed by the Pulaski County Special School District. 22See Attachment E: the No1ih Little Rock School District's present 2005-06 teaching staff by race and school. 1043675-1 28 - - Table 11 Teachers, by Race, by School, Currently Employed in the 13 Schools that Would Be Transferred from the Pulaski County Special School District to the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on the 2005-06 Employment Data Schools White Black Other Total Oak Grove High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Sylvan Hills High School 84 (86.6%) 13 (13.4%) 0 97 Maumelle Middle School _ 15 (100%) 0 0 15 Sylvan Hills Middle School 51 (83.6%) 10 (16.4%) 0 61 Clinton Elementary 34 (75.6%) 11 (24.4%) 0 45 Crystal Hill Elementary 43 (82.7%) 9 (13.7%) 0 52 Harris Elementary 11 (57.9%) 7 (36.8) 1 (9.6%) 19 Oakbrooke Elementary 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) 0 24 Oak Grove Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 0 28 Pine Forest Elementary 28 (84.8%) 5 (15.2%) 0 33 Scott Elementary 12 (92.3%) 1 (7.7%) 0 13 Sherwood Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Sylvan Hills Elementary 22 (84.6%) 4 (15.4%) _Q 26 TOT AL TEACIIBRS 406 (82.4%) 86 (17.4%) 1 (.2%) 493 With the exception of Maumelle Middle School and Scott Elementary School, Table 11 shows that all of the schools being transferred have at least four black teachers comprising between 13.4% and 36.8% of each schools' faculty. Table 12 shows the composition of the reconfigured North Little Rock School Dist1ict teaching staff by school and race. I 043675-1 29 - Table 12 Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Facu.lty Assignments Based on 2005-06 Employment Data Schools White Black Other Total North Little Rock High (East) 76 (90.5%) 8 (9.5%) 0 84 North Little Rock High (West) 85 (82.5%) 18(17.5%) 0 103 Oak Grove High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Sylvan Hills High School 84 (86.6%) 13 (13.4%) _o_ 97 Total High Schools 291 (86.1 %) 47 (13.9%) 0 338 Lakewood Middle School 39 (88.6%) 5 (11.4%) 0 44 Maumelle Middle School 15 (100%) 0 0 15 Poplar Street Middle School 39 (81.3%) 7 (14.5%) 2 (4.2%) 48 Ridgeroad Middle School 35 (87.5%) 5 (12.5%) 0 40 Rose City Middle School 17 (60.7%) 11 (39.3%) 0 28 Sylvan Hills Middle School 51 (83.6%) 10 (16.4%) _o_ fil_ Total Middle Schools 196 (81.3%) 38 (16.8%) 2 (.8%) 236 Amboy Elementary 24 (93.5%) 1 (3.8%) 1 (3.8%) 26 Belwood Elementary 15 (88.2%) 2 (11.8%) 0 17 Boone Park Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) 1 (2.8%) 35 Clinton Elementary 34 (75.6%) 11 (24.4%) 0 45 Crestwood Elementary 32 (80.0%) 8 (20.0%) 0 40 Crystal Hill Elementary 43 (82.7%) 9 (13.7%) 0 52 Glenview Elementary 14 (82.4%) 3 (17.6%) 0 17 Harris Elementary 11 (57.9%) 7 (36.8%) l (9.6%) 19 Indian Hills Elementary 33 (91.7%) 3 (8.3%) 0 36 Lakewood Elementary 24 (100%) 0 0 24 Lynch Drive Elementary 25 (83.3%) 5 (16.7%) 0 30 Meadow Park Elementary 16(51.6%) 15 (48.4%) 0 31 North Heights Elementary 39 (62.9%) 19 (30.6%) 4 (6.5%) 62 Oakbrooke Elementary 19 (79.2%) 5 (20.8%) 0 24 Oak Grove Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 0 28 Park Hill Elementary 28 (77.8%) 8 (22.2%) 0 36 Pike View Elementary 27 (96.4%) 1 (3.6%) 0 28 Pine Forest Elementary 28 (84.8%) 5 (15.2%) 0 33 Redwood Pre-School 13 (100%) 0 0 13 Scott Elementary 12 (92.3%) 1 (7.7%) 0 13 Seventh Street Elementary 27 (96.4%) l (3.6%) 0 28 - 10436751 30 - Sherwood Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Sylvan Hills Elementary 22 (84.6%) 4 (15.4%) 0 26 Total Elementary Schools 556 (80.7%) 126 (18.3%) 7 (1.1%) 689 TOT AL TEACHERS 1,043 (82.6%) 211 (16.7%) 9 (.7%) 1,263 When Table 12 is compared with Table 11, it can be determined that there is virtually no change in the racial composition of teachers when the 13 existing Pulaski County Special School District schools' faculties are combined with the existing North Little Rock School District faculties. The racial composition shown in Table 11 for the 13 transferred schools is 82.4% (406) white, 17.4% (86) black, and .2% (1) other minority. The racial composition of the reconfigured North Little Rock School District shown in Table 12 is 82.6% (1,043) white, 16.7% (211) black, and .7% (7) other minorities. It should be noted that there are three schools -- the new Maumelle Middle School, Redwood Pre-School, and Lakewood Elementary School -- that are not assigned any black teachers. Four schools have only one black teacher. The remaining 26 schools each have a number of black teachers. b. Building Level Administrators. The existing North Little Rock School District presently has 41 principals and assistant principals. 23 Adding the 13 schools from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District increases the number of p1incipals and assistant principals 23See Attachment G: listing of central office and building level administrators by school employed by the North Little Rock School District for the 2005-06 school year. 10~3675-1 31 - by 27, from 41 to 68. Table 13 shows the building level administrators that are currently assigned to the 13 existing Pulaski County Special School District schools that would be transferred. - Table 13 Building Level Administrators Assigned to the 13 Schools that Would Be Transferred into the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on the 2005-06 Administrative Assignments Schools White Black Other Total Oak Grove High School 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Sylvan Hills High School 2 (50.0%) 2 (50.0%) 0 4 Maumelle Middle 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Sylvan Hills Middle 0 3 (100%) 0 3 Clinton 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Crystal Hill 1 (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Harris 0 I (100%) 0 1 Oakbrooke 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Oak Grove 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Pine Forest 1 (100%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Scott 1 (100%) 0 0 1 Sherwood 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Sylvan Hills 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) _Q I TOTAL SCHOOL 12 (44.4%) 15 (55.6%) 0 27 AD Mll\\TJSTRAT O RS Where more than one building level administrator is assigned to a school, at least one is white and one is black with the exceptions of Oak Grove High School and Sylvan Hills Middle School. In the three schools with only one building level administrator, one is white and two are black. Table 14 shows the building level administrators assigned to the schools in the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. 1043675-1 32 Table 14 Building Level Administrators Assigned to the Schools In the Reconfigured North Little Rock School District Based on the 2005-06 Administrative Assignments Schools White Black Other Total Agenta Academy 0 1 (100%) 0 1 North Little Rock-East 3 (60.0%) 2 (40.0% 0 5 North Little Rock-West 2 (40.0%) 3 (60.0%) 0 5 Oak Grove High Schoo1 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Sylvan Hills High School 2 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 1 Total High Schools 9 (52.9%) 8 (47.1 %) 0 17 Lakewood Middle School 2 (66.7%) I (33.3%) 0 3 Maumelle Middle School I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Poplar Street Middle School 2 (66.7%) I (33.3%) 0 3 Sylvan Hills Middle School 0 3 (100%) 0 3 Ridgeroad Middle School I (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Rose City Middle School I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 _1 Total l\\1iddle Schools 7 (43.8%) 9 (56.2%) 0 16 Amboy Elementary I (100%) 0 0 1 Belwood Elementary I (100%) 0 0 1 Boone Park Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Clinton Elementary 1 (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Crestwood Elementary I (100%) 0 0 1 Crystal Hill Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Glenview Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 1 Han-is Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 1 Indian Hills Elementary 1 (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Lakewood Elementary I (100%) 0 0 I Lynch Drive Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Meadow Park Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 I North Heights Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Oakbrooke Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Oak Grove Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 I Park Hill Elementary I (100%) 0 0 I Pike View Elementary I (100%) 0 0 1 Pine Forest Elementary 1 (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Redwood Pre-School I (100%) 0 0 1 Scott Elementary I (100%) 0 0 I - Seventh StTeet Elementary 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Sherwood Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 1043675-1 33 Sylvan Hills Elementary Total Elementary Schools TOT AL SCHOOL ADMINISTORS I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 20 (57.1 %) 15 (42.9%) 36 (52.9%) 32 (47.1 %) _Q_ 0 0 _2_ 35 68 The 13 schools added to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District would add 27 building level administrators for a total of 68 building level administrators with a racial composition of 52.9% (36) white and 47.1 % (32) black. c. Central Administration. 24 The existing North Little Rock School District currently employs 57 central administrators. They consist of a superintendent, deputy and assistant superintendents, a financial officer, a legislative affairs officer, together with directors, coordinators, and specialists. With the reconfiguration of the school district to include 33 school buildings and 16,343 students, there would be a need to expand central administration by approximately five to seven people comprised of directors, coordinators, and specialists. 4. Transportation. The existing North Little Rock School District has a fleet of 89 buses. It consists of 39 buses that serve the school district's regular enrollments, 16 for special needs students. There are also 22 buses for the Mto- M transfer and magnet school students. Twelve buses are held in reserve. The existing Pulaski County Special School District has 165 buses located north of the Arkansas River. There are two bus compounds, one located in the 24See Attachment H: listing of central office and building level administrators by school employed by the Pulaski County Special School District for the 2005-06 school year. 1043675-1 34 - Jacksonville area and the other at Oak Grove. The Oak Grove compound does not have maintenance facilities. There are 26 Pulaski County Special School District buses that deliver students to the 13 schools that would be transferred to the reconfigured North Little Rock School District. In addition, there are approximately 31 Pulaski County Special School District buses that transport special needs students, talented and gifted and Mto- M transfer and magnet students. With the creation of a new North Little Rock School District there would be a need to transfer approximately 70 buses from the existing Pulaski County -Special School District. The bus compound located at Oak Grove would also need to be transferred. B. New Jacksonville School District. One of the specific charges of this feasibility study is to examine the feasibility of redrawing district boundaries to create two school districts, an expanded North Little Rock School District and a Jacksonville School District, north of the Arkansas River. 25 Under this charge, the establishment of a reconfigured North Little Rock School District is examined immediately above. Jacksonville is a city with a population of approximately 30,000 persons. It is separated both geographically and commercially from the cities of Little Rock and North Little Rock. The existence of the Little Rock Air Force Base accounts for a 25Section 2.0 I, Item I., Request for Proposals for a \"Feasibility Study to Determine if Pulaski County Special School District Should Continue to Exist\" issued by the State of Arkansas Department of Education, September 27, 2005. 1043675-1 35 - substantial portion of the city's economic base. Within the Jacksonville community there is strong support for a separate school district. For many years the community, with the ass~stmce of the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce, has formulated committees that have been active in developing plans and soliciting support for a separate school district. Two feasibility studies were commissioned to determine the viability of a separate Jacksonville School District. 26 Proponents have been unable to establish a separate Jacksonville School District due to legal requirements imposed upon the existing Pulaski County Special School District in the ongoing school desegregation Ii tigation. 27  1. Student Assignments. The Jacksonville School District would have an enroH1,.1ent of 6,914 students and involve 13 schools: The students and facilities would be transferred from the existing Pulaski County Special School District. Table 15 lists the 13 schools that would be transferred to the new Jacksonville School District by race and enrollment. Table 15 New Jacksonville School District Based on 2005-06 Enrollments Schools Jacksonville High School North Pulaski High School Total High Schools White 569 (50.4%) 525 (58.5%) 1094 (54.0%) 522 (46.2%) 337 (37.6%) 859 (42.4%) 38 (3.4%) 35 (3.9%) 73 (3.6%) Total 1129 897 2026 26The studies were prepared by Educators Consulting Services, Inc., of Conway, Arkansas in July 1978 and November 2002. 21Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et al., No. LRC- 82-866. 1043675-1 36 - Jacksonville Middle Schvol 458 (51.3%) 402 (45.1%) 32 (3.6%) 892 Northwood Middle School 398 (59.6%) 241 (36.1%) 29 (4.3%) 668 Total Middle Schools 856 (54.9%) 643 (41.2%) 61 (3.9%) 1560 Adkins Elementary 110 (45.5%) 127 (52.5%) 5 (2.0%) 42 Arnold Drive Elementary 182 (61.7%) 90 (30.5%) 23 (7.8%) 95 Bayou Meto Elementary 389 (90.5%) 16 (3.7%) 25 (5.8%) 30 Cato Elementary 233 (66.8%) 100 (28.7%) 16 (4.5%) 49 Dupree Elementary 161 (54.0%) 122 (40.9%) 15 (5.1%) 298 Jacksonville Elementary 209 (36.3%) 321 (55.8%) 45 (7.9%) 575 Pinewood Elementary 221 (47.0%) 220 (46.8%) 29 (6.2%) 470 Taylor Elementary 167 (44.2%) 204 (54.0%) 7 (1.8%) 378 Tolleson Elementary 184 (63.2%) 84 (28.9%) 23 (7.9%) 291 Total Elementary Schools 1,856 (55.8%) 1,284 (38.6%) 188 (5.6%) 3,328 TOT AL ENROLLMENT 3,806 (55.0%) 2,786 (40.3%) 322 (4.7%) 6,914 Based on the 2005-06 enrollment data, the racial composition of the Jacksonville School ~istrict would be 55.0% white, 40.3% black, and 4.7% other minorities. This racial composition approximates the racial composition of the existing Pulaski County Special School District which is 53.7% white, 41.7% black, and 5.6% other minorities. 2. Facilities. There would be 2 high schools, 2 middle schools, and 9 elementary schools transferred from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the new Jacksonville School District. Each of these schools was visited and evaluated for this study. 28 Six schools were built between 1951 and 1957, four between 1962 and 1968, three between 1973 and 1976. 28See Exhibit 2: a school by school evaluation of each of the Pulaski Special School District's schools. I 0~3675-1 37 Table 16 lists the schools that would be transferred to the Jacksonville School District, their capacity, 2005-06 student enrollment, percent of capacity being utilized, and an evaluation of each facility. The evaluation scale used is the same Category 1 to Category 5 scale discussed earlier. A school rated as a Category 1 school is an excellent facility that is well maintained and is not in need of any significant remodeling or repair. A Category 5 school is a very poor facility that is in need of major renovation and repair and could be considered for closing or replacement. Table 16 Facility Ratings for the 13 Pulaski County Special School District Schools that Would Be Transferred to the New Jacksonville School District, including Capacity, Capacity Used, and Enrollments Based on 2005-06 Enrollment Data Schools Capacity Capacity Used Enrollment Rating (2005-06) Jacksonville High School 1360 83% 1129 5 North Pulaski High School 1050 85% 897 3 Jacksonville Md! School (Girls) 1970 45% 892 5 Jacksonville Md! School (Boys) 5 Northwood Middle School 1030 65% 668 3 Adkins Elementary 526 46% 242 2 Arnold Drive Elementary 453 65% 295 3 Bayou Meto Elementary 697 62% 430 Cato Elementary 800 44% 349 2 Dupree Elementary 498 60% 298 3 Jacksonville Elementary 850 68% 575 5 Pinewood Elementary 677 69% 470 2 Taylor Elementary 566 67% 378 2 Tolleson Elementary 291 52% 561 5 It can be noted from Table 16 that Jacksonville Middle School, and Adkins and Cato elementary schools are operating at less than 50% capacity. Five of the schools that would be transferred from the existing Pulaski County Special School District have been evaluated as Category 5 schools. Jacksonville High School, a Category 5 1043675-1 38 school, is a crowded and poorly designed building that should be replaced. It is in need of a new roof, upgraded wiring adequate to run computers and other technology, modifications to meet federal Americans With Disabilities Act requirements, updated technology, remodeled science laboratories, and remodeled restrooms. The Jacksonville Middle School consists of two Category 5 buildings. The original facility - the Jacksonville Junior High School -- was constructed in 1952. It is currently used as a boys' campus. The Jacksonville Middle School building, constructed in 1970, is currently used as a girls' campus. These facilities need to be replaced. There are two other Category 5 buildings, Jacksonville Elementary School built in 1963, and Tolleson Elementary School built in 1951, that are in very poor condition and cm,dd be replaced. 3. Financial Considerations. The Jacksonville School Dishict should receive sufficient operational funding through the state's school aid formula and local property taxes to operate effectively and efficiently. Because the largest portion of a school district's operating budget is personnel and associated costs, the extent to which the Jacksonville School District can keep these expenses reasonable is likely to impact its financial solvency. A review of the 2002 study conducted by ECS Planning and Management Services of Conway, Arkansas, entitled \"Feasibility Study for Forming an Independent School District in North East Pulaski County Detached from the Pulaski County Special School District,\" together with interviews with personnel from the Arkansas Department of Education and administrators in local 1043675-1 39 school districts knowledgeable of school finance, leads to the aforementioned conclusion. Personnel from the Pulaski County Assessor's Office indicate that residential housing being constructed on the Little Rock Air Force Base--which would be in the Jacksonville School District--is being built by a private contractor. Thus, property taxes will be collected for the residential units on the Little Rock Air Force Base as they are completed. It is our understanding that over the next seven years as many as 5,000 new or refurbished residential units will be placed on the property tax rolls of the county. Approximately two-thirds of this property tax would go to the local school district. The financial impact of the Little Rock Air Force Base on the Jacksonville School District, in addition to the property tax issue just discussed, would be approximately $4,500 per student according to information received from personnel with the Little Rock Air Force Base. This, of course, would be advantageous to the operational funding of the school district. However, personnel from the existing Pulaski County Special School District indicate that the actual money received from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Impact Aid Program for the 2005-06 school year was $287,633.77. While we do not know the actual number of students that these funds were based on, it does not appear that the Pulaski County Special School District received $4,500 for each student. Financial costs of replacing and refurbishing some of the schools that would be transfened from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the 1043675-1 40 Jacksonville School District may be a challenge. While the schools are presently functioning as educational facilities, certain of them are in need of replacement, others are in need of signifi t remodeling or repair, and others will require other improvements. The willingoess of the residents of the Jacksonville School District to pass a bond referendum to improve the facilities will determine the extent to which needed replacements, refurbishings, and improvements can be made. In meetings with citizen groups and others from or representing the city of Jacksonville, it was made clear that the city has utilized sales taxes to build certain municipal facilities. Assuming it is legal to use such a procedure for funding improvement of school buildings, this may be another avenue that the Jacksonville School District might utilize for facility needs. We are uncertain, however, as to whether Arkansas law pen11 its the use of funds of one political subdivision for the benefit of another political ,,\nubdivision or, if such inter-political subdivision funding is pem1itted as a cooperative endeavor, whether municipal tax dollars may be used to fund capital improvements for another political subdivision where portions of it are situated outside the municipality's corporate limits. 4. Personnel. a. Classroom Teachers. With the transfer of 6,914 students and 13 schools from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the new Jacksonville School District, there will be a need for 497 teachers in the new school district. Table 17 identifies the teachers, by school and race, employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District identified for transfer. I 043675-1 41 - - Table 17 Teachers, by Race, by School, Currently Employed in the 13 Schools that Would Be Transferred from Pulaski County Special School District to the New Jacksonville School District Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School 43 (71.7%) 17 (28.3%) 0 60 North Pulaski High School 56 (86.3%) 11 (16.4%) 0 67 Jacksonville Middle School (Girls) 39 (76.5%) 12 (23.5%) 0 51 Jacksonville Middle School (Boys) 35 (72.9%) 13(27.1%) 0 48 Northwood Middle School 41 (83.7%) 8 (16.3%) 0 49 Adkins Elementary 17 (73.9%) 4 (17.4%) 2 (8.7%) 23 Arnold Drive Elementary 19 (86.4%) 3 (13.6%) 0 22 Bayou Meto Elementary 24 (85.7%) 4 (14.3%) 0 28 Cato Elementary 18 (85.7%) 3 (14.3%) 0 21 Dupree Elementary 20 (87.0%) 2 (8.7%) 1 (4.3%) 23 Jacksonville Elementary 29 (82.9%) 5 (14.3%) 1 (2.8%) 35 Pinewood Elementary 21 (84.0%) 4 (16.0%) 0 25 Taylor Elementary 21 (80.8%) 5 (19.2%) 0 26 Tolleson Elementary 15 (78.9%) 4 (21.1%) 0 12 TOT AL TEACHERS 398 (80.1 %) 95 (19.1 %) 4 (.8%) 497 The racial composition of the faculties of the 13 schools (14 buildings) that would be transferred is 80.1 % (398) white, 19.1 % (95) black and .8% ( 4) other minorities. The racial composition of the existing Pulaski County Special School District faculties 29 is 80.2% white, 19.4% black and .4% other minorities. Thus, the faculty for the Jacksonville School District would mirror the faculty composition found in the existing Pulaski County Special School District. It also should be noted that all of the schools in the Jacksonville School District would have at least two black faculty members if existing faculty assignments are maintained. 29See Attachment F: the racial composition of the faculty assignments in the Pulaski County Special School District. I 043675-1 42 - b. Building Level Administrators. There are 26 building level administrators employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District 30 in the 13 schools that would comprise the Jacksonville School District. Table 18 shows the building level administrators who are presently assigned to the 13 schools. Table 18 Building Level Administrators Presently Assigned to the 13 Schools that Would Be Transferred to the New Jacksonville School District Based on 2005-06 Building Level Administrative Assignments Schools White Black Other Total Jacksonville High School 3 (75%) I (50%) 0 4 North Pulaski High School I (33.3%) 2 (66.7%) 0 3 Jacksonville Middle School (Girls) 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Jacksonville Middle School (Boys) 0 2 (100%) 0 2 Northwood Middle School I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Adkins Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 I Arnold Drive Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 I Bayou Meto Elementary 2 (100%) 0 0 2 Cato Elementary 0 1 (100%) 0 I Dupree Elementary 0 I (100%) 0 I Jacksonville Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Pinewood Elementary I (50.0%) I (50.0%) 0 2 Taylor Elementary I (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 2 Tolleson Elementary I (100%) 0 _o_ l TOTAL SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS 13 (50%) 13 (50%) 0 26 Assuming the present building level administrative structure remains in tact, the Jacksonville School District would require 26 principals and assistant p1incipals. c. Central Administration. The Jacksonville School District would need a central administration. Because the existing North Little Rock School District is only a little larger than the proposed Jacksonville School District, it 30 See Attachment H: listing of administrators currently employed by the Pulaski County Special School District. 1043675-1 43 can be projected that the central administrative staff will need to be approximately the same size. The ~-entral administrative personnel needed to administer the proposed new school district ~-..-:u mclude: a superintendent, 3 to 5 assistant superintendents or administrative directors, a chief financial officer, 4 to 6 directors, 2 to 4 supervisors, and 8 to 10 coordinators. There are competent central administrators and non-certificated staff currently employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District. This pool of professionals should be given the opportunity to seek employment with the Jacksonville School District. The Jacksonville School District would require between 550 and 600 non-certified support personnel. - 5. Transportation. Currently, 16 buses transport students to North Pulaski High School and 18 transport students to the Jacksonville high and middle schools. There are also 36 special needs and M-to-M transfer and magnet school buses that are used to transport students living in the proposed Jacksonville School District attendance area. With the creation of the Jacksonville School District and programs more localized to its schools, there is the possibility of eliminating the need for several of these buses. 6. Governance. The Jacksonville School District will reqmre special legislation for its creation and governance. Apportionment for the purpose of establishing school bo\n:ird election districts will be needed, together with an election for members to the school board. A transition period will be required prior to the commencement of the operations of the Jacksonville School District. 104)675-1 44 IV. Feasibility of Reorganizing the Three Pulaski County School Districts: One School District South of the Arkansas River - Act 2126 of 2005, 26(1) and ill In pertinent part, Act 2126 of 2005, Section 26( 1) and Section 26(2) authorizing the feasibility study, required an evaluation of: The elimination of the Pulaski County Special School District and redrawing of school district boundaries in Pulaski County to form three districts including a Little Rock District south of the Arkansas River .. 31 This requires an examination of the feasibility of dividing Pulaski County at the Arkansas River and reconfiguring the Little Rock School District to include all of the schools south of the river. Such a reconfiguration would create a new school district. The existing Little Rock School District is the largest school district in the state of Arkansas. It has 48 schools with an enrollment of 26,312 students. It\" is located primarily within the corporate limits of the city of Little Rock but its boundaries are not coterminus with those of the city. Unlike Pulaski County north of the Arkansas River where there are several small cities, Pulaski County south of the river has only one city, Little Rock, which is rapidly expanding through annexations. A. Student Assignments. The existing Little Rock School District has 5 high schools, 8 middle schools, 32 elementary schools and 3 alternative schools. Included within this number of 31Section 2.01 (I) and (2), Request for Proposals for a \"Feasibility Study to Determine if Pulaski County Special School District Should Continue to Exist\" issued by the State of Arkansas Department of Education, September 27, 2005. 1043675-1 45 - schools are 6 stipulated magnet schools 32 that are part of the settlement agreement in the ongoing school desegregation litigation. The racial composition of the existing Little Rock School District is 24.0% (6,316) white, 68.7% (18,086) black and 7.3% (1,910) other minorities students. Reconfiguring the Little Rock School District to include all of the existing Pulaski County Special School District schools south of the Arkansas River will add 10 schools and 4,650 students. Table 19 shows the student enrollment and racial composition of the 10 schools that would be transferred from the existing Pulaski County Special School District to the reconfigured Little Rock School District. Table 19 Student Enrollment and Racial Composition of the 10 Schools That Would be Transferred from the Pulaski County SchQol District to the Expanded Little Rock School District Based on 2005-06 Student Enrollment Data Schools White Black Other Total Mills High School 395 (40.6%) 554 (57.0%) 23 (2.4%) 972 Robinson High School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 Fuller Middle School 310 (40.9%) 406 (53.6%) 42 (5.5%) 758 Robinson Middle School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 Baker Elementary 254 (67.9%) 76 (20.3%) 44 (11.8%) 374 Bates Elementary 236 (44.6%) 266 (50.3%) 27 (5.1%) 529 College Station Elementary 92 (45.8%) 100 (49.8%) 9 (4.4%) 201 Landmark Elementary 139 (44.1%) 159 (50.5%) 17 (5.4%) 315 Lawson Elementary 219 (72.5%) 71 (23.5%) 12 (4.0%) 302 Robinson Elementary 236 (63.6%) 106 (28.6%) 29 (7.8%) ill TOT AL ENROLLMENT 2,375 (51.1%) 2,048 (44.0%) 227 (4.9%) 4,650 32 A stipulated magnet is a magnet school established by the federal district court as part of March 28, 1989 settlement agreement in the Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special Sc/zoo! District No. LR-C-82-866. 1043675-1 46 - It can be determined from Table 19 that the racial composition of the students transferred from the 10 existing Pulaski County Special School District schools would be 51.1 % white, 44.0% black and 4.9% other minorities. Table 20 shows the student enrollment of the reconfigured Little Rock School District when the existing Pulaski County Special School District's schools south of the Arkansas River are added. Table 20 Expanded Little Rock School District That Includes the 10 Pulaski County Special School District's Schools South of the Arkansas River Based on 2005-06 Student Enrollment Schools White Black Other Total Central High School 1033 (42.7%) 1273 (52.6%) 116 (4.7%) 2422 HaU High School 150 (10.8%) 1083 (78.0%) 155 (11.2%) 1388 J.A. Fair High School 127 (10.9%) 1006 (86.1 %) 36 (3.0%) 1169 McClellan High School 50 (5.8%) 779 (90.2%) 35 (4.0%) 864 Mills High School 395 (40.6%) 554 (57.0%) 23 (2.4%) 972 Parkview High School (Stipulated) 33 496 (43.9%) 559 (49.5%) 74 (6.6%) 1129 Robinson High School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 Accelerated Leaming (9-12) 18 (14.0%) 109 (84.5%) 2 (1.5%) 129 Alternative Leaming Center (H.S.) 5 (2.5%) 193 (96.5%) 2 (1.0%) 200 Total High Schools 2,521 (29.0%) 5,711 (65.7%) 455 (5.3%) 8,687 Cloverdale Middle School 27 (4.2%) 491 (77.2%) 118(18.6%) 636 Dunbar Middle School 218 (26.9%) 531 (65.5%) 62 (7.6%) 811 Forest Heights Middle School 121 (17.9%) 531 (78.6%) 24 (3.5%) 676 Fuller Middle School 310 (40.9%) 406 (53.6%) 42 (5.5%) 758 Henderson Middle School 65 (10.3%) 503 (79.8%) 62 (9.9%) 630 Mabel vale Middle School 77 (12.6%) 519 (84.7%) 17 (2.7%) 613 Mann Middle School (Stipulated) 365 (42.9%) 429 (50.5%) 56 (6.6%) 850 Pulaski Heights Middle School 307 (41.8%) 411 (56.0%) 16 (2.2%) 734 Robinson Middle School 247 (59.7%) 155 (37.4%) 12 (2.9%) 414 33 Stipulated refers to the stipulated magnets provided for in the settlement agreement. 1043675-1 47 - Southwest Middle School 19(4.1%) 419 (91.1%) 22 (4.8%) 460 Alternative Leaming Center 5 (5.7%) 80 (92.0%) 2 (2.3%) _n Total Middle Schools 1,761 (21.9%) 4,475 (71.2%) 433 (6.9%) 6,669 Baker Elementary 254 (67.9%) 76 (20.3%) 44 (11.8%) 374 Bale Elementary 23 (6.9%) 273 (81.7%) 38(11.4%) 334 Baseline Elementary 17 (5.7%) 219 (74.0%) 60 (20.3%) 296 Bates Elementary 236 (44.6%) 266 (50.3%) 27 (5.1%) 529 Booker Arts Elementary (Stipulated) 253 (41.7%) 324 (53.4%) 30 (4.9%) 607 Brady Elementary 40 (10.2%) 332 (84.3%) 22 (5.5%) 394 Carver Elementary (Stipulated) 211 (39.6%) 290 (54.4%) 32 (6.0%) 533 Chicot Elementary 34 (6.0%) 418 (74.1%) 112 (19.9%) 564 Cloverdale (Closed 10-24-05) 7 (6.2%) 85 (75.2%) 21 (18.6%) 113 College Station Elementary 92 (45.8%) 100 (49.8%) 9 (4.4%) 201 Dodd Elementary 8 (3.7%) 162 (74.7%) 47 (21.6%) 217 Fair Park Elementary 38 (29.2%) 86 (66.2%) 6 (4.6%) 130 Forest Park Elementary 309 (75.9%) 81 (19.9%) 17(4.2%) 407 Franklin Elementary 10 (2.3%) 427 (97.0%) 3 (.7%) 440 Fulbright Elementary 445 (70.3%) 152 (24.0%) 36 (5.7%) 633 Gayer Springs Elementary 15 (4.5%) 301 (90.4%) 17 (5.1%) 333 Gibbs Elementary (Stipulated) 117 (39.4%) 158 (53.2%) 22 (7.4%) 297 Jefferson Elementary 294 (66.5%). 142 (32.1%) 6 (1.4%) 442 Landmark Elementary 139 (44.1%) 159 (50.5%) 17 (5.4%) 315 Lawson Elementary 219 (72.5%1 71 (23.5%) 12 (4.0%) 302 Mabelvale Elementary 50 (14.8%) 257 (76.0%) 31 (9.2%) 338 McDermott Elementary 115 (25.1%) 296 (64.6%) 47 (10.3%) 458 Meadowcli ff Elementary 42 (11.6%) 289 (79.6%) 32 (8.8%) 363 M.L. King Elementary 187 (30.2%) 409 (66. l %) 23 (3.7%) 619 Otter Creek Elementary 154 (26.6%) 374 (64.5%) 52 (8.9%) 580 Pulaski Heights Elementary 167 (50.0%) 152 (45.5%) 15 (4.5%) 334 Rightsell Elementary 4 (2.2%) 178 (96.7%) 2(1.1%) 184 Robinson Elementary 236 (63.6%) 106 (28.6%) 29 (7.8%) 371 Rockefeller Elementary 107 (22.4%) 358 (75.1 %) 12 (2.5%) 477 Romine Elementary 28 (7.7%) 290 (79.5%) 47 (12.8%) 365 Stephens Elementary 11 (2.0%) 527 (96.3%) 9 (1.7%) 547 Terry Elementary 185 (28.2%) 375 (57.2%) 96 (14.6%) .656 Wakefield Elementary 20 (4.1%) 366 (74.5%) 105 (21.4%) 491 Washington 78 (12.1%) 516 (80.1%) 50 (7.8%) 644 Watson Elementary 7 (1.5%) 419 (91.5%) 32 (7.0%) 458 Western Hills Elementary 48 (16.8%) 220 (76.9%) 18 (6.3%) 286 Williams Elementary (Stipulated) 177 (38.5%) 233 (50.7%) 50 (10.8%) 460 I 043675-1 48 - Wilson Elementary 15 (5.4%) 242 (87.7%) 19(6.9%) 276 Woodruff Elementary 17 {7.1%) 219 {92.0%) 2 {.9%) 238 Total Elementary Schools 4,409 (28.3%) 9,948 (63.7%) 1,249 (8.0%) 15,606 TOT AL ENROLLMENT 34 8,691 (28.1 %) 20,134 (65.0%) 2,137 (6.9%) 30,962 The reconfigured Little Rock School District would have an enrollment of 30,962 with a racial composition of28.1% (8,691) white, 65.0% (20,134) black and 6.9% (2,137) other minorities. The reconfigured school district would have an increased white enrollment (28.1 %) and a decreased black enrollment (65.0%) from the existing Little Rock School District. The percentage of other minorities would decrease from 7.3% to 6.9%. Thus, inclusion of the existing Pulaski County Special School District's schools south of the Arkansas River into the reconfigured Little Rock School District can be viewed as having a positive desegregative impact. B. Facilities. Ten schools in the existing Pulaski County Special School District are located south of the Arkansas River. These facilities would be included as part of the reconfigured Little Rock School District. The schools transferred from the existing Pulaski County Special School District would include 2 high schools, 2 middle schools, and 6 elementary schools. Five of these schools were built in the 1950s with the oldest, Fuller Middle School, built in 1950. The newest school, Bates Elementary School, was built in 2000. 34See Attachment I: the 2005-2006 enrollment and racial composition of the Little Rock School District. I 043675-1 49 Table 21 shows the capacity, 35 capacity used, student enrollment, and rating category for each school. 36 Table 21 Facility Ratings for the 10 Pulaski County Special School District Schools That would be Transferred to the Little Rock School District Schools Capacity % Capacity Enrollment Rating Used 2005-2006 Robinson High School 770 88% 674 4 Mills High School 1130 86% 972 3 Fuller Middle School 1360 56% 758 4 Robinson Middle School 650 64% 414 5 Baker Elementary 428 87% 374 3 Bates Elementary 863 61% 529 1 College Station Elementary 439 46% 201 4 Landmark Elementary 711 44% 315 2 Lawson Elementary 372 81% 302 3 Robinson Elementary 544 68% 371 2 It can be noted in Table 21 that three of the four secondary schools are either Category 4 or Category 5 schools. Robinson Middle School, built in 1959, is a Category 5 school that should be considered for replacement. Robinson High School, built in 1980, is a Category 4 school. It has a new six classroom wing but the school is in need of additional classrooms and remodeling. Fuller Middle School was built in 19 53 and has had two additions consisting of 19 classrooms built in 1991 and 22 additional classrooms and a remodeled front constructed in 1993. Although the school has had recently built additional classrooms, it is still in need of significant District 3\nSee Attachment J: listing of the building capacities for each of the three school districts. 36See Exhibit 2: an evaluation of all of the schools in the Pulaski County Special School 50 - remodeling. Five of the ten schools are operating at less than two-thirds of their rated capacity, with two at less than 50% of their rated capacity. The reconfigured Little Rock School District will have nine elementary schools with fewer than 300 students. Three of the nine have enrollments of 201 or less -College Station Elementary School with 201 students, Fair Park Elementary School with 130 students, and Rightsell Elementary School with 184 students. These schools could be considered for closing with reassignment of students to contiguous schools or retained to provide additional capacity in the event resident students should return from school transfers outside the school district. C. Personnel. 1. Classroom Teachers. Transferring all of the Pulaski County Special School District's students and schools south of the Arkansas River to the reconfigured Little Rock School District would require the employment of additional classrooms teachers. The existing Pulaski County Special School District employs a qualified group of teachers and there is logic in allowing those teachers to be considered for employment in the reconfigured Little Rock School District. The existing Little Rock School District employs 2,027 teachers. 37 The addition of the Pulaski County Special School District schools south of the Arkansas River will require the employment of an additional 3 79 teachers. 37See Attachment K: the Lit1le Rock School District's 2005-06 teaching staff by race and school. 1043675-1 51 - Table 22 identifies the teachers, by school and race, employed by the existing Pulaski County Special School District in the 10 schools identified for transfer. Table 22 Teachers, by Race and School, Who are Currently Employed in the 10 Schools that Would Be Transferred from Pulaski County Special School District to the Expanded Little Rock School District Based on 2005-06 Employment Data Schools White Black Other Total Mills High School 58 (76.3%) 18 (23.7%) 0 76 Robinson High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 0 54 Fuller Middle School 36 (65.5%) 19 (34.5%) 0 55 Robinson Middle School 32 (84.2%) 6 (15.8%) 0 38 Baker Elementary 18 (78.3%) 5 (21.7%) 0 23 Bates Elementary 27 (67.5%) 13 (32.5%) 0 40 College Station Elementary 20 (74.1%) 7 (25.9%) 0 27 Landmark Elementary 20 (87.0%) 3 (13.0%) 0 23 Lawson Elementary 17 (85.0%) 3 (15.0%) 0 20 Robinson Elementary 20 (87.0%) 3 (13.0%) Q 23 TOT AL TEACHERS 294 (77.6%) 85 (22.4%) 0 379 It can be determined from Table 22 that the schools transfen-ed to the reconfigured Little Rock School District from the existing Pulaski County Special School District 38 have an overall black teacher composition of 22.4%, with not less than a 13 .0% black teacher assignment in each school. Table 23 shows the composition of the faculties of the schools m the reconfigured Little Rock School District. 38See Attachment F: the Pulaski County Special School District's 2005-06 teaching staff by race and school. 10~3675-1 52 - Table 23 Reconfigured Little Rock School District Faculty Assignments Based on 2005-06 Employment Data Schools White Black Total Central High School 103 (66.0%) 53 (34.0%) 156 Hall High School 66 (62.9%) 39 (37.1%) 105 J.A. Fair High School 57 (64.0%) 32 (36.0%) 89 McClellan High School 41(51.3%) 39 (48.7%) 80 Mills High School 58 (76.3%) 18 (23.7%) 76 Parkview High School 59 (69.4%) 26 (30.6%) 85 Robinson High School 46 (85.2%) 8 (14.8%) 54 Total High Schools 430 (66.7%) 215 (33.3%) 645 Cloverdale Middle School 23 (37.7%) 38 (62.3%) 61 Dunbar Middle School 35 (57.4%) 26 (42.6%) 61 Forest Heights Middle School 37 (57.8%) 27 (42.2%) 64 Fuller Middle School 36 (65.5%) 19 (34.5%) 55 - Henderson Middle School 32 (50.8%) 31 (49.2%) 63 Mann Middle School 33 (50.0%) 33 (50.0%.) 66 Mabelvale Middle School 43 (74.1%) 15 (25.9%) 58 Pulaski Heights Middle School 46 (78.0%) 13 (20.0%) 59 Southwest Middle School 16 (30.8%) 36 (69.2%) 52 Robinson Middle School 32 (84.2%) 6 (15.8%) 38 Total Middle Schools 333 (57.7%) 244 (42.3%) 577 Baker Elementary 18 (78.3%) 5 (21.7%) 23 Bale Elementary 20(71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 28 Baseline Elementary 10 (38.5%) 16 (61.5%) 26 Bates Elementary 27 (67.5%) 13 (32.5%) 40 Booker Arts Elementary 39 (70.9%) 16(29.1%) 55 Brady Elementary 16 (55.2%) 13 (44.8%) 29 Carver Elementary 29 (69.0%) 13(31.0%) 42 Chicot Elementary 33 (75.0%) 11 (25.0%) 44 College Station Elementary 20 (74.1 %) 7 (25.9%) 27 Dodd Elementary 20 (71.4%) 8 (28.6%) 28 Fair Park Elementary 4 (44.4%) 5 (55.6%) 9 Forest Park Elementary 23 (88.5%) 3 (11.5%) 26 Franklin Elementary 14 (36.8%) 24 (63.2%) 38 Fulbri\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\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eWilliam Gordon Associates\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1760","title":"Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to show cause hearing and witness summaries, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries and responses to Court orders, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2005-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","School districts","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Project management","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to show cause hearing and witness summaries, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries and responses to Court orders, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1760"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["17 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, order; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to the show cause hearing of Monday, November 7, 2005; District Court, Joshua's witness summaries; District Court, response to Court's October 31, 2005, order - Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order; District Court, Joshua's response to the court's order of November 8, 2005; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' reply to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the court's order of November 7, 2005; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW IJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED NOV - 3 2005 DE8EBREajV,b~ 8~NITORJNa PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD's Motion for Excused Absence (Doc. No. 3961) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_ support@ared.uscourts.gov - o:ared ecf@ared . uscourts.gov 91essage-Id:\u0026lt;5l2094@ared . uscourts . gov\u0026gt; Bee: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al \"Order\" Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U .S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 11/1/2005 at 10:47 AM CST and filed on 11/1/2005 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http : //ecf . ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3962 Copy the URL address from the line below into the l ocation bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared . uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?3962,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005244 Docket Text: ORDER re (3961] granting Request filed by Pulaski County Special School District for an excused absence . Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 11/1/05. (dac ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : Document description: Main Document ~ riginal filename: n/a ~ lectronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=ll /1/200 5] [FileNumber=512093-0] [5el74b586773ed0230654b2ff6782410ddaf90592349b8d34ebe9e8fb838193bb8219d5e7deb637 37eb5a09d3233276cfeb29684853d6c3748clfdl47bc9d63b]] 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com, John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, belecia .bledsoe@arkansasag . gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec . net; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw .net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net , scstreett@yahoo . com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmail.com _ :82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to : Clayton R . Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock , AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. a,9 Hudson Street 9:uite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P . A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P . Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn , P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 .,I - ,,. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED NOV 7 2005 Off\\CE Of DESEGREGAl\\OM MOMtlORlMG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' CORRECTED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOW CAUSE HEARING OF MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2005 The Court's Order of June 30, 2004 was explicit and understood by the parties. This is reflected by the fact that no party sought clarification or other action thereon. The LRSD officials appear to oppose the remedy set forth by the Court. It is reflected in their inactions and overt actions as well as set forth below. 1. LRSD's evaluation plan is based in large part upon student achievement data being assembled by the ADE in connection with the \"No Child Left Behind\" requirements which the Arkansas Department of Education is charged with overseeing. 2. In previous years, the ADE distributed student achievement data in one phase. Those data were normally made available to LRSD and similar districts by July 1 of each year. 3. The LRSD assembled an essentially new staff for the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (PRE) between September 2004 and November 2004. 4. The LRSD failed to understand the ADE's timing for the release of student achievement data to LRSD regarding the 2004-2005 results. 5. The ADE changed the process during the summer of 2004 in order to address additional grade levels, to establish new \"cut-off' scores for determining \"proficiency,\" and for other ADE purposes. 6. Between July 1, 2004 and December 1, 2004, ADE officials created committees to address new testing issues contemplated by the \"No Child Left Behind\" Act. 7. As of September 23, 2004, three months after the Court's June 30, 2004 Order, the District had not hired Dr. Steve Ross. See notes of Gene Jones, p. 2. Indeed, Dennis Glasgow, Acting Associate Superintendent, reported that sentiment was against using him because he was not an advocate for the LRSD. See G.J. Memo, p. 1. 8. On December 9, 2004 the ADE distributed a video document to LRSD school officials which notified the PRE that test data distribution from ADE would be delivered in two rather than one phase as had been done in the past. The second \"phase\" was to be distributed in the \"fall\" of 2005. The ADE was explicit in notifying the LRSD that Phase I data would not be sufficient to allow a determination of appropriate student placement on the benchmark examinations. Phase II data, due in the fall, would allow placement of students into one of four rating categories. A copy of the video is being delivered to the Court by the ADE. 9. LRSD should therefore have known in December 2004 that additional time was . necessary in order for it to comply with the time requirements of the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. 10. That the LRSD knew in December 2004 that additional time was necessary to meet the Court's October 1, 2005 deadline for filing the step 2 evaluations is reflected in the response - for documents to Mr. Phil Kaplan dated October 31, 2005. Therein, Mr. Gene Jones reflects that on December 16, 2004, ODM met with PRE staff and explained that the \"states benchmark tests will not be available in electronic format until September of each year. The group thought they should consult with the outside consultants before deciding how to proceed.\" 11. In February 2005, Mr. Heller wrote Mr. Walker to explain that he intended \"to ask the Court to extend the deadline for filing evaluations.\" See Ex. A, hereto. Heller attached letters from Dr. Stephen Ross and Mr. James Wohlleb at the time. Dr. Ross referenced past time experiences with ADE. Mr. Wohlleb expected the ADE data by mid-July. 12. The Wohlleb and Ross letters reflect that neither they nor PRE had an understanding that the ADE would be providing the data in two phases; and that the necessary electronic data needed for the step two evaluations would not be available until the fall (October) 2005. 13. Ross was not hired until February 1, 2005. Accordingly, he had no contact with the ADE before that and would not have knowledge about the actual dates that he could expect the electronic data necessary for his work. 14. On March 15, 2005, Mr. Heller informed ODM that LRSD would not be requesting an extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for the reason that LRSD expected to have the data by July 1, 2005. IfLRSD didn't get the data by July 1, then Mr. Heller indicated he would then ask for an extension of time from the Court. 15. Mr. Heller has indicated that he spoke with Joshua Counsel Walker in June or July, 2005 and that Mr. Walker announced opposition to delay. Response to the Court dated October 4, 2005. Mr. Heller took no further action regarding the matter. Opposition by counsel is not a sufficient basis to excuse the District's failure to promptly act. 16. Between March 2005 and September 29, 2005, the District reduced the PRE staff by - three people, all of whom had been previously reported to the Court as \"highly trained professional\" staff members. They have not been replaced. This is a further indication of the seriousness with which the LRSD addressed the Court Order. 17. Between June 30, 2004 and November 3, 2005, the only contact between Dr. Gail Potter, ADE Associate Director for Curriculum and Research and Dr. DeJarnette involved whether a non certified staff member could hold the position of testing coordinator. That occurred a few weeks ago. Neither Dr. DeJarnette, nor Mr. Heller, made any inquiry of whether the required data could be produced within the time frame approved by the Court. D.r. Potter indicated that it could have been produced although there were some costs associated with earlier production. 18. Dr. Potter further indicated that the LRSD had not met with her or her office staff regarding LRSD's compliance with the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. 19. According to Dr. Potter, the 2003 Legislature required the two phase process for production of Benchmark data. Mr. Heller, therefore, should have known in the fall of 2004 and the spring of2005 that the two phase process would change the time equation set forth by the Court. 20. The reasons proffered by the LRSD establish that they knew, and knew that they should have known, that the deadline of October 1, 2005 for plan compliance could not be met and they deliberately refused to promptly so inform the Court and seek delay. 21. The excuse for failure to seek early Court approval for compliance with its October 1, 2005 deadline is that the district's counsel was busy with another important case. The Court notes that the district counsel are several; that the District is represented by the States's largest law firm, and that other counsel are assigned to work on this case; and that when called upon to reply to the Show Cause Order herein, the District and its lead counsel took it seriously and. promptly complied. They hired not only outside counsel for Mr. Heller but for the District as well. That counsel filed the pleading for the District. The District could equally seriously have addressed the June 30, 2004 Order. Its refusal to do so is contemptuous. The action required was simple; the District's refusal to promptly request an extension oftime was wilful. Respectfully submitted, ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Facsimile) Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of November, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which shall send electronic notifications to all counsel associated with this case and by other means to counsel listed below. Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC IO IO West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ls/John W. Walker ..,,:;ui. vv1J..J..1Lvvv a.\"t. ii:vo:'i.J. - zrom to Pl/~ FRIDAY FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CL\\RK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 www.fridayfirm.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The infonnation in this facsimile transmittal is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. Fax To: Fax No: GeneJones 371Q100 Subject: JOSHUA'S WITNESS.SUMN!ARIES. Message: Date: 03 November 2005 5A 11 :08 Pages\"Sent: 5 . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW..JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLEROCKSCHOOLDISTRICT v. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAJNTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS THE JOSIIlJA INTERVENORS' REPLY TO THE DIRECTIVE OF THE COURT DA TED OCTOBER 31, 2005 The Court seeks as explanation for LRSD' s failure to promptly inform the Court that it needed an extension of time in which to meet the October 1, 2005requirements of the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. The burden is on the District to explain wh.y delay was not promptly sought. The active parties have submitted extensive lists of witnesses through whom the Court's limited concern would be addressed on November 7, 2005. Joshua acknowledges its initial witness list to have had a broader agenda than the issue to be addressed at the hearing. Accordingly Joshua reduces its witness list to the persons called by the defendants and to the following other persons with a summary of their anticipated testimony if they are not called by the LRSD: 1) Dr. Roy Brooks: his involvement in the process was minimal, not an agenda item for him or .the Board and he did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did impress upon him the significance or importance of the Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 2 of 4 time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1, 2004 and October 6, 2005 on other matters. 20 minutes 2) Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh: his involvement in the process was also minimal; not an agenda item for him or the Board and he, too, did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did not impress upon him the significance or importance of the time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1, 2004 and October 6, 2005 on other matters. 15 minutes 3) Dr. Olivine Roberts: (a) the interaction between herself, Dr. DeJarnette, the Joshua Intervenors, the State Department of Education, the PRE staff, the expert witnesses, Ors. Brooks and Hattabaugh and Mr. Chris Heller; (b) her minimal involvement in  the process; and, (c) her failw:e to ever meet and discuss any evaluation issue including the need for additional time.for compliance with Joshua.. the ODM or the State Department of Education. 45 minutes 4) Joy Springer: (a) will address Mr. Heller's contentions in his reply dated October 4, 2005. She will establish that Mr. Heller informed Joshua in February 2005 that the Benchmark results would not likely be prepared prior to September 2005; (b) that JWhen Mr. Heller appeared before the Eighth Circuit on April 12, 2005, he presented Dr. DeJamette and Dr. Brooks as he indicated that the district was complying with this Court's Order while appealing; ( c) Joshua's efforts to be involved in the process; (d) that LRSD and Mr. Heller knew long before September 29, 2005 that LRSD would not likely be able to meet the deadline; and (f) LRSD did nothing to advance receipt of the data from the processing sources. 30 minutes 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 3 of 4 5) Mr. Dennis Glasgow: he will address his efforts to prevent Dr. Steve Ross' further participation in the evaluation process, and his efforts to delay compliance activities. 30 minutes 6) Mr. Gene Jones: will addtess the knowledge of ODM regarding the process, the advice givei;i by ODM regarding extending the Court ordered time, and the response ofthe LRSD to that advice. 30 minutes Respectfully submitted. ls/John W. Walker: John W. Walker~ AR Bar.No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock. AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Facsimile) Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 uou; v~, ,.J.i.1 ~vv;.; \u0026lt;:1.. c. .1..i. : .i.v: vo - .i:rom - to Pb/ 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11J0212005 Page 4 of4 CERTIFICATE Q)f SERYJCE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of November, 2005, l electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which shall send electronic notifications to all counsel associated with this case and by other.means to counsel listed below. Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner; Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock. AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Cbachkin NA.'\\CP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, .Inc. 99 Hudson Street L Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger- Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center. Street Suite200 -Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn. Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn. P:A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ls/John w. Walker 4- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RESPONSE TO COURT'S OCTOBER 31. 2005 ORDER - LRSD'S WITNESS SUMMARIES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS In response to the Court's Order of October 31, 2005, LRSD submits the following summaries of the expected testimony of its witnesses. LRSD estimates that the direct examination of each witness will take thiliy minutes. LRSD does not expect to can Dr. Brooks a,; a witness, as the PRE witnesses who report to Dr. Brooks can provide the same information he would provide. l. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring l Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Jones is expected to testify that he had primary responsibility within the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor LRSD's implementation of the Court's June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy; that LRSD' s Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) was cooperative and helpful; that he had access to all relevant document,; and notice of all relevant meetings with the possible exception of a recent visit by Dr. Catterall which took place on October - 17, 2005; that LRSD hired qualified experts to perform the required Step 2 program evaluations; that OC:11~ V.)/.1..1./.GVVO a\"'t .1.1:01:.L::\u0026gt; - .from to p3/ 11 PRE worked diligently to support those experts in their work; that LRSD also hired experts to perform additional program evaluations not required by the Court's compliance remedy; that he provided regular reports to the Court concerning the status of LRSD' s compliance; that PRE, as far a.c; he knows, provided Joshua access to relevant documents and notice of relevant meetings concerning the Step 2 evaluations with the possible exception of a recent visit by. Dr. Catterall which took place on October 17, 2005; that LRSD changed the subject of one proposed Step 2 evaluation at the request of the Joshua intervenors; that the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 require data from the Arkansac; benchmark exams for their completion; that such data was not available in a form useful to LR.SD' s experts before October 1; that the reporting of Arkansas benchmarkresults is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education; that there is nothing LRSD could have done to ha,;ten the reporting of benchmark exam results; that in late 2004 and early 2005 LRSD considered seeking and extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for four Step 2 evaluations; and that by March, 2005 LRSD had decided to wait to see if the State supplied the test scores from the Spring 2005 testing in time for the District to meet the deadline; that LRSD notified him of that decision and that he notified the Court. 2. Dr. Karen DeJarnette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 3\u0026lt;Yh \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets LiUle Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Karen DeJarnette is expected to testify that she is director of PRE and has been since September 17, 2004; that implementing the compliance remedy has been PRE' s top priority during  the time she hac; been it,; director; that she and her staff at PRE have worked diligently to implement the compliance remedy; that LR.SD hired Dr. James S. Catterall, a qualified expert, to evaluate it,; 2 uou\u0026lt;. v~1.1.11 ..cuuo at: .1.L: o,: 4;j - trom - to p4/ ll \"I Year-Round Education (YRE) program; that LRSD hired Dr. Steve Ross. a qualified expert, to perform the Step 2 evaluations of SMART/fHRIVE, Compa'is Learning, and Reading Recovery; that Drs. Catterall and Ross were provided copies of the compliance remedy and that they each signed a Memorandum of -Understanding on February 1, 2005 agreeing to conduct the Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the compliance remedy; that they were actively involved in the design and planning of Step 2 evaluations beginning in 2004; that PRE worked cooperatively with ODM and Joshua, providing them access to documents and notice of meetings so that they would be constantly aware of LRSD' s progress in meeting the requirements of the compliance remedy; that, beginning in December 2004 through March 2005, LRSD considered the question of whether to seek an extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for submission of the Step 2 evaluations so that PRE and the LRSD Board of Directors would have more time to review the evaluations prior to their submission to the Court; that those discussions were predicated on the belief that benchmark exam resultc; would be available in July 2005; that during February or March, 2005, LRSD raised the question of additional time with the Joshua Intervenors and was told that Joshua would oppose any such request; that LRSD decided in March 2005 not to make a request for an extension of time and notified ODM of that decision; that the LRSD Superintendent and Board of Directors expected PRE to meet the requirement,; of the Compliance Remedy; that the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 required data from the Spring 2005 administration of the Arkansac; benchmark examinations; that in order to be useful to Ors. Catterall and Ross, that data must be in digital form; that the benchmark examination results were not available in digital form before October 1, 2005 although PRE had a good faith belief that they would be available in July 2005; that the reporting of Arkansa,; benchmark examination result'i is entirely within the control of the Arkansa'i 3 ot:;ui, v~1.1J.1:.cvvo a-c .1.1:::\u0026gt;tj : .L4 - rom - to p5/ll Department of Education; that there was nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the reporting of the necessary benchmark examination results; and that no one in PRE or anywhere within LRSD did anything for the purpose of avoiding or delaying compliance with the Compliance Remedy; that the requested extension of time wa,; made in good faith bac;ed on a belief that it is necessary to secure high quality evaluations in accordance with the Compliance Remedy; and that the delay will not reduce the usefulness of the evaluations to LRS_D - they will be used to make any indicated program changes for the 2006-07 school year, just as they would have been used had they been received on October 1, 2005. 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. 0. Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Dr. Catterall is expected to testify in accordance with his Affidavit which was previously filed in this case. Dr. Catterall will be available by telephone on November 7, 2005 at 310--455- 2720. 4. Dr. Steven M. Ross Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Dr. Ross is expected to testify that he was hired to perform three Step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year in accordance with the Court's June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy; that he has been hired to conduct three Step 2 evaluations for the 2005-06 school year in accordance with the 4 Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58 :36 - from - to pS/11 Court's June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy; that PRE has been cooperative and responsive in supporting his work and providing him any requested assistance; that 2004-05 final benchmark examination results (not raw data) in a usable digital format are necessary for him to complete the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005; that such information is not yet available; and that LRSD has done nothing to hinder or delay his efforts to perform Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the requirements of the June 30, 2004 Order. He will further testify that all of the field work necessary to accomplish the evaluations wa.,; completed in a timely manner and that he was waiting for the benchmark examinations so that the work of integrating these tests scores could complete the evaluations; that it was only the receipt of the exam results which prevented him from completing his a.-;signment. 5. Jim Wohlleb Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 3Qlh \u0026amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Jim Wohlleb is expected to testify that he began work for LRSD on October 1, 2004-as a statistical research specialist within the PRE Department. Beyond that, his testimony is expected to be substantially the same a,; that of Dr. Karen DeJarnette. 6. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 7220 I 5 Dr. Gayle Potter is expected to testify that she is Associate Director for Academic Standards and Assessment at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE); that she is the person within ADE primarily responsible for testing in general and the Arkansac; benchmark examinations in particular; that the benchmark examination results for the 2004-05 school year were originally expected to be releac;ed in July 2005; that on June 23, 2005 ADE issued an informational memo to Arkansas Superintendents notifying them that committees were \"working to reset the cut scores for each performance level of the Benchmark Exams\" and consequently the examination results would be issued in two phac;es; that Phac;e I would consist of cd' s containing raw score reportc; which would be shipped to districtc; no later than July 1, 2005; that \"assumptions about whether a student is proficient cannot be made based on raw scores\"; and that \"Phase II Reports placing students into new performance levels will be issued in the fall of 2005\"; that the digital benchmark data necessary for statistical analysis will be releac;ed in mid-November; that releac;e of the benchmark examination results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education and iL'i contractors; that LRSD has done nothing to delay the relea'ie of the results; and that there is nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the release of the digital data required by its experts to complete their Step 2 evaluations. 7. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller will testify that he filed a Motion to Extend Time on September 29, 2005 - ba'ied on a good faith belief, after rea'ionable inquiry, that the matters presented in that Motion were 6 ben~ 03/11/2005 at 11 : 59:25 - from - to p8/ll true; that he filed a response to the Court's September 30, 2005 Order on October 4, 2005 based on a good faith belief, after reasonable inquiry, that the matters presented in that response were true; that, having now had the oppo\\tunity to review hundreds of emails and other documents, he believes that the conversation with counsel for Joshua described at page 2 of \"LRSD's Response to Order\" probably occurred in February or March rather than June or July. The principal reamn for not filing LRSD' s Motion to Extend Time sooner than September 29, 2005 was counsel's intense involvement on behalf of LRSD in Lake View v. Huckabee; that matter was scheduled as follows: May 5, 2005 Arkansas Supreme Court issues Per Curiam Order scheduling oral argument on May 19, 2005; May 19, 2005 Oral Argument; June 9, 2005 Mandate recalled and Masters reappointed; July 8, 2005 Disclosure of witnesses and exhibits; June 28, 2005 Case conference with Masters; July 19, 2005 MUltiple daily depositions begin and continued for several weeks; July 26, 2005 Date of hearing as originally scheduled is rescheduled to begin on August 29, 2005 because parties cannot complete preparations; August 29 through September 9, 2005 Hearings; September 20, 2005 Post Hearing Briefs due. Counsel and PRE had anticipated that electronic data from the State of Arkansas would be available 7 bent 0~11112005 at 11:59:47 - from - to p9/11 in July and that the October 1, 2005 deadline could, therefore, be met. Counsel did receive an e-mail from Dr. DeJarnette on June 30, 2005 setting forth that the state benchmark scores could not be available in July. Counsel did not respond or react to that e-mail in a timely fa'ihion because of his involvement in the Lake View cac;e. Counsel did not recognize until September 2005 that the critical information would not be available, and it was then that the Motion to Extend Time was filed. Counsel will testify that it was an inadvertent but important omission on his part for which he accepts responsibility. Respectfully Submitted, Philip E. Kaplan (68026) :({aplan, Brewer, Maxey \u0026amp; Haralson P.A. 415 Main Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 372-0400 Pkaplan (q) kbmlaw. net Isl Philip E. Kaplan 8 .:::\u0026gt;t::Ul:. V;j/l.l./,UU::\u0026gt; at lZ:OO:OZ - from - to pl0/11 CERTWICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 3, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the foJJowing: mark..hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Philip E. Kaplan 9 ~eni u~111,~uuo at 11:56:33 - from to pl/ 11 FRIDAY FRIDA\\ ELDREUGE \u0026amp; CL\\RK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY P ARTNERSIIlP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-349-J www.fridayflnn.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The infonnation in this facsimile transmittal is legally privileged and confidential information intended onlv for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, dis1nbution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. Fax To: Fax No: GeneJones 3710100 Subject: Attached Response to October 31, 2005 Order Message: Date: 03 November 2005 5A 11 :55 Pages Sent: 11 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-1 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITI'LE ROCK DMSION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MR.C'') for approval - of the interdistrict magnet schools' final figures for the 2004-2005 school year and proposed budget for the 2005-2006 school year. The MR.C communicated the budget to the Court in a letter dated September 22, 2005 (attached). I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the :MR.C's final budget for the 2004-2005 school year and proposed 2005-2006 budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of November, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE , ,,. . \"' Case 4:82-cv-,Q0~66-WRVV.~TR ~ocumeJJt 3972-2 Filed 11/08/?005 Page 1 of 16 1V1agnet Kevzew Committee 1 ~ North M!1fn Street, Suite 101  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758--5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {EMmail} September 22, 2005 The Honorable William R Wilson, Jr. Judge, u. s. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rook, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: Rece,veo w SEP 2 8. 2005 U n,S. R! Wllson .6. .. o. Drstrtct J , Jr. Of Ar'\"-anUsadsg e On September 20, 2005, Mark Milholleo, CbiefFimmci.al Officer, Little Rock School District, provided the Magnet Review Cnnmrittee with the final figures for the 2004-05 budget, as well as the proposed budget for the 2005-06 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 1) and was furwarded to MRC members prior to their vote on Tuesday, September 20, 2005. The Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote of S--0, with the Joshua Intervenors representative absent, approved the final budget for the 2004-05 school year, as well as the proposed budget for 2005--06. Listed below is a recap of the budget information which is now being presented to the Cotnt for approval: 1. FINAL 2004-2005 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $27,964.934.00, is based on a per-pupil expenditme of $7,237.00, ca1culated from the three quarter average enrollment of 3,864.00 students. Actual attendance records of3,862.90 students set the final budget figure at $27,948,760.00, and the final budget's per pupil expenditure at $7,235.00, or $2.00 less per pupil than originally budgeted. Thii final 2004-05 document reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (salary, teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in July, 2004. Included in the Summary portion of the budget information are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State during this time period. \"Pursue thePossihilities of Magnet Scht\u0026gt;ofEnrollment~ ~ ~ I Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-ilTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 2 of 16 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. -2- September 22, 2005 2. PROPOSED 2005-2006 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS B~T The total proposed budget for the 2005--06 school year is $28,849,578.00, based on a proposed Average Daily Membership of3,862.90, which results in a perpupil expenditure of $7,468.00 and an increase of $233.00 over the 2004-05 actual rate. This proposed budget has taken into account increased salaries, fiinge ben~ insurance and teacher retirement. Included in the Summary portion of Draft 1 are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of both the 2004-2005 flnaliud budget in the amount of$27,948,760.00, with a per pupil expenditure of$7,23S.OO, as well as the proposed 2005-2006 budget, attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed~ mahttauring the quality of the Stq)ulation magnet !!Chools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of~ magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent .poS811\u0026gt;1e. , Sincerely, ~~~ Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments: Actual 2004-2005 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Pt-Qposed 2005-2006 Stipulation Magttet Schools Budget (Draft 1) cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring . J, .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 . . 6.0 $574,294 $574,594 $577,006 02 10.0 $700,207 $700.207 10.0 $704187 03 S allsts 40.0 $1,968 829 $1,994125 40.0 $2,060,208 04 Counselors 13.4 $750109 $711,567 13.4 $745,756 05 MedlaS 6.5 $351986 $335,378 6.5 $333386 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $132,463 $132409 3.0 $135929 07 Mu 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 7.6 $427,864 $433,041 7.6 $442,679 10 ucatfon 9.6 $457,289 $506 10.0 $621519 11 Glfled 5.4 $294,408 $291 ,443 5.4 $296,023 12 Classroom 194.3 $9,737,515 $10 114 194.3 $9,892,360 13 Substitutes 0.0 $268,000 $257,280 0.0 $293,000 14 Other-Kind arten 16.0 $761,295 $776 058 16.0 $729,204 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 311.7 $16,424.258 $16,827 3122 $16 831.258 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20.4 $608558 $602,689 20.4 $621 784 STAFF 16 Nurses 6.0 $277,088 $263,501 6.0 $273,520 17 CUstodlans 30.0 $598 78 $572,068 30.0 $572,556 18 nServlces 1.0 494 $52,231 1.0 $65 19 rofesslonals-Other 6.0 $211167 $213,521 6.0 $176869 20 Other--Aldes 23.8 $513183 $598,784 23.8 $490 064 21 F $5446,402 $6,029,813 .  $0 TOTAL SUPP 872 $7720170 $7332608 $7744958 TOT $24,144,426 $24159815  $24,576 18 PURCHASED 22 Utilities 590300 620,218 : 589,700 SERVICES 23 Travel 42800 42,698 , . 40,000 (30} 24 Maintenance reements $0 $0 $0 - 25 Other 267,352 251,864 285368 TOTAL 30 900 452 914,780 915,068 MATERIAI..S, 26 sOfl!ce $0 $39 $40 SUPPLIES 27 lassroom 588,910 582,488 811,870 (40) 28 46795 31 586 45,470 29 Other 23,300 27685 , ..~,: 24,273 TOTAL 40 659,005 641,798 881 ,653 CAPITAL 30 211,819 105 033 70315 OUTLAY 31 $0 $0 $0 50 32 Other $0 $488 $0 TOTAL 50 211,819 105,521 70,315 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 11 541 6,986 7,800 60 34 Other $0 $0 $0 TO 11,541 6,986 7,800 TOT 1782 817 1,669 085 1,874,836 TOT 25 927.243 25,828,900 26,451 052 TOT AL LINE ITEM ECO 2,037,691 2,119,860 :---- ,: $ 2,398,526 :__ \"if'. - till ~ t:in~~'st~f MAGBK06.xls.  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 4 of 16 .i,  ~ ;~-;~:~i,:l;jji w~9 ~ni '~Mt=;~~=M,iJWff 2 :~~~ 6 Jtc Stioends $35 557 $43 227 $29 600 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1 849,008 $1,935 360 $2.194.000 Vocational $32 800 $16,764 $32 800 Athletlcs $81 826 $86.423 $101 626 Gifted Proarams $500 $498 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $31.667 $32,000 Reading $500 $500 $500 ~~ $0 $0 w English $1.500 $1,431 $1 500 Soeclal Education $4,000 $3.990 $4 000 Curriculum $2 000 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $2.037,691 $2,119 860 $2,398 526 State of Arkansas $13,982467 $13,974041 LRSD $8,842,512 $8,958802 PCSSD $3,352998 $3336,095 NLRSD $1 786,959 $1,679 822 $1,733 20 Total Costs $27964934 $27948,760 $28,849 578 MAGBK06:xls, ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 5 of 16 . -:~ -::-:-:-:-::-:-:-:-:-:-; . . .: ...... ?~=:~::::::::~~::: if :: : - . 75 1.0 94,975 STAFF 02 Assl Ptin. 1.0 $ 70,337 70,337 1.0 $ 70,337 03 Specialists 7.0 $ 363,816 370,483 7.0 $ 364,972 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 116,229 87,048 2.0 $ 95,364 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 42,588 33,724 1.0 $ 43,n3 06 Art-PerfJProd. 3.0 $ 132,463 132,409 3.0 $ 135,929 07 Muslc 0.0 $0 0.0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 o.o 10 s I Education 2.0 $ 121,944 $ 121,944 2.0 $ 121,944 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 54,561 $ 54,561 1.0 $ 54,561 12 Classroom 30.6 $ 1,513,308 $ 1,630,112 30.6 $ 1,587,319 13 Substitutes o.o $ 45,000 $ 43,200 0.0 $ 45,000 14 Other-Kin arten 6.0 $ 238,380 $ 275,604 6.0 $ 222,523 TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 54.6 $2 793601 $2914396 54.6 $2836,697 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $ 48,344 42,964 2.0 $ 54,128 STAFF 16 Nurses 1 46,709 49476 1.0 $ 49476 17 Custodians 81 000 n;i:31 4.0 $ 82029 18 Information Services 10,918 8,707 0.2 $ 10,928 19 Para rofesslonals-other $0 0.0 20 Other-Aides 121.n3 $ 106,757 6.0 $ 112,330 21 F e Benefits 20 910,605 $ 828,983 .-.. - ..- $ 922,519 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY $1,225349 $1,114,104 13.2 $1,231 411 TOTAL {10-20) $4,018,950 $4,028,500 ~ . $4,068,108 PURC~ED 22 Utllltles 73,000 $ 68,886 -:-:.;::-~:;.::::::-:;~:-'-,:~-: $' 73,000 - SERVICES 23 Travel 5,000 $ 3,243 ...... ..... ; $ 5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 :~.::::::;:;;::;::::~;::;::::;:;::;~-: ..,.,,, , ... , ... ,,,' 25 Other 31,440 ,..:~.,,..-..,.: '' \u0026lt; $ 30650 TOTAL 30 $109,440 $106,650 MATERIALS, 26 Prln rs Office $0 .. SUPPLIES 27 R ular Classroom 90381 $ 104,328 $ 97,448 (40} 28 Media 9,500 $ 9,354 $ 11,000 29 Other 3,100 $ 3,989 $ 3,812 TOTAL 40 $102981 $117,671 ,:......, .... $112,260 CAPITAL 30 12.000 $ 4336 ,:,-~.y. -- $ 7000 ., ' OUTLAY 31 fr etc. $0 50 32 Other $0 TOTAL 50 $12000 $7,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 2,500 1 000 60 34 Other $0 TOT $2,500 $1 $1 000 TOTAL $226,921 $228,910 TOTAL $4.245,871 .8 $4 7,018 TOTAL LINE ITEM $308 060 0 '' $353,589 : ,  *-\"Atd\u0026amp;N%% .f. .. ::: 'f ~ :m wm .: B!6USN Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 6 of 16     . Aihletic,s $0 $0- $0 ' ' GJfted  , $1'63 $1~ RantServtcee $$,~ $6,060 . . .. $237 : . $229 . ~7 --- -  -- ..- ------ -  -  - - UQat!Qn:=- -=--=- ::-..:....=.: :....c...;._ .. - ~  ..=;.:_ :_:_~ - - : ' ---~-  - - . . . .. . . : ___ =._  .-. :   .... ~- --  -...=..:...-'.:...--- -~---. ---~~~-~::::.... '  - Tota!J.lne Items. t   Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 7 of 16 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED .SERVICES (30) 05 Med!aS 06 Art-PerfJProd. 12 Classroom 2 13 Substitutes 14 other-Kinde arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 15 Secretaries 16 Nurses 11 custodians 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 19 Para rofesslonals-Other 0.0 20 Other-Aides 4.4 $ 21 Fringe Beneflts{20) .~ i $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 12.6 TOTAL 10-20 ... ,. ....... . 22 Utflltles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other  TOTAL 30 MATERIALS, 26 ars Offu:e SUPPLIES t-2--7'-+===r;..;;C.,.:tass=roo\"'--m---- (40) 28 Media CAPITAL OUTlAY 50 29 Other 30 32 Other TOTAL 40 TOTAL 50 OTHER 60 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL LINE ITEM SECOND PA :,,.,,  ,,, . '.:'i $0 $0 $0 47,284 n.2sa 928 538 38,000 265,011 $2122,798 88,824 38127 76,000 10,918 $ $0 86,934 $ 716,338 $ $1,017,141 $3139, $0 10,000 $ 1,541 $ $0 1,541 $ $179 751 $3 319,690 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48,843 1.0 $ 74,295 1.4 1 022,752 21 .3 $ 36,480 0.0 $ 243055 5.0 $ $2,185 709 42.2 80,359 3.0 $ 40116 1.0 $ 70,190 4.0 $ 8,707 0.2 $ 0.0 154,392 4.4 $ 719,525 .... , . $ $1,073,289 $3,258998 53 791 12.6 89,431 ::: :-- 5,337 3903 : 98671 3,268 51,587 nno 937,752 38000 246,487 $2,088,601 82,152 41,328 75503 10,928 97,165 708,611 30 013 --- 95,513 nsoo 7,500 3125 88,125 8,500 8500 1,000 1,000 $193138 $3 297,427 $293,462 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 8 of 16 . e ... Athle.tlcs ..: .:- ::. - - . - xxxxxx - . -    - Totaf Une Items -  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 9 of 16 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICJ:S (30} MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTIAY 50 OTHER 60 04 Counselors 1 05 Medias 06 Art-PerfJProd. 12 Classroom 16 13 SUbstltutes 14 Other-Kind arten TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 31 15 Secretar!es 1 16 Nurses 1 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 20 Other-Aides 3.2 $ 21 Frln e Beneffts(20) ~ : $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 8.7 TOTAL 10-20 22 Utilltles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other 29 Other TOTAL 40 30 TOTAL 50 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LINE ITEMS - SECOND PA 10,918 $ $0 77,786 $ 528,767 $ $765,423 327983 33800 S 3000 $ $0 29140 $65,940 $0 50784 1,795 2,000 54,579 136,519 $0 $0 136,519 500 $0 500 $ $257536 $2,585521 93,472 $0 247,541 51.456 1 61 ,583 1 70,775 54561 817 347 26880 104,205 $1527,820 38,153 28357 64,868 8,707 $741,165 $2,268 986 : 29,733 13,451 1 68,322 54,561 728,828 28,000 105,715 $1,523,399 30736 34548 67,314 10,928 60,630 510,816 27900 $68,900 35800 2,500 1,953 40,253 16904 16,904 1,000 1,000 $127,057 $2 365,429 $179,105 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 . . Filed 11/08/2005 Page 10 of 16' .. : . ./\" '!:dl.acatlolil - . -_ff . . - . . , . . . .. . ... . ~:;;::::~::::_; ::_: ::;.::::_ ~ _ _ .:, ...- _- _ - _ --_i f_---,:,:-_-=-_--._ ...~ . ,~~=,-:=,c;:;,,.,:~----=~=\"1.:-::-- . .  . - - - -- -.  ... .__ . ---- - . - . .. . . . XXXXX)( _, . ---- - . -- -- ----: . __ ~- --- --- - - -- -- -------~-' l00000t   . .. - ' -~:. Total Une Items -_: _ $151.496 . . - $157918 $119105 - - - - ' .:. 'Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 11 of 16 70337 283,755 ors 1 75572 1 05 Media 1 54,443 54,388 1 06 M-\"Perf.JProd. 0.0 $0 .o 07 Music 0.0 $0 o.o 08 Fo 0.0 $0 o.o 09 0.0 $0 0.0 10 ducatlon 1.5 $ 54,633 $ 51091 1 75,776 11 2.0 $ 108 026 $ 108026 109,181 12 Classroom 21.0 $ 1010,387 $ 1009 996 21 1,015,873 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 30,000 $ 28,800 54,000 14 other-Klnd arten 3.0 $ 153,344 153195 154499 TOTA!. CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1934 678 $1,928 736 $1,987.218 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 77,568 $ 80878 86,520 STAFF 16 Nurses 1. 60086 $ 58864 1 58,864 17 Custodians 3. 68,278 $ 62,801 75,355 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 10,918 $ 8,707 10,928 19 Para[\u0026gt;tofesslonals-Other 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 4.8 $ 55,023 $' 60,1 59,654 21 F e Beneffts(20} ~ $: 650,230 $ 544,76 660,432 TOTA!. SUPPORT SALARY 12.5 $922,100 $951,752 TOTAL 1Q..20 $2856m $2,938970 PURCHASED 22 Ut!lltles 60,000 60000 - SERVICES 23 Travel 3000 2000 (30) 24 Maintenance reements $0 25 Other 24527 $ 28,205 OTAL 30 87527 $ 90,205 MATERIALS, 26 Office $0 SUPPLIES 27 room 73500 62,520 82,600 (40) 28 7,100 16 4 700 29 3,200 3,084 2,904 83800 65620  90,204 CAPITAL 30 4,300 33,234 ;' :  .. 6,911 OUTI.AY 31 Ir, etc. $0 50 32 Other $0 TOTA!. 50  4,300 6,911 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 1 500 1500 60 34 Other $0 TO 1,500 2,5 1,500 TOT $177,127 $178, $188,820 $3,033,904 $2,922,99 $3127,790 TOT AL LINE ITEM ~ $233,789 $237,34 ;:, B.'1:~' : 111.or :. Qt . ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 12 of 16 ' 2005--06 $2150 $0 $260055 $0 Athletf $0 $122 Plant $3793 $59 $0 178 !al Education 237 xxxxxx XXXXXlC Total Line Items $233,789 $237347 $267068  \u0026gt; I  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 13 of 16 as Medias 08 Art-PerfJProd. 07 09 12 Classroom 13 SUbstltutes 14 Other-Kinde arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY SUPPORT 15 Secretaries STAFF 16 Nurses PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY 50 OTHER 60 17 Custodians 18 Information Servfces 19 Paraprofesslonals-Other 20 Other-Aides 21 Frfn e Beneffls(20) .  .. TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY TOTAL 10-20 22 Ut!Utles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other TOTAL 30 26 rs Office 27 Classroom 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL 40 30 TOTAL 50 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PA ff:i@JtiS. ...,:. Ut:..Jr' .. 3.0 3.4 3.0 1.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 2.6 2.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 65.8 5.0 1.0 6.0 0.2 1.0 2.4 $172,922 $61583 $0 $0 $0 152,554 $85872 $0 $2,444329 $64,000 $0 $3401,755 $135,216 $40,000 $110000 $10,918 $25,000 $160107 $133,327 $2553,290 $61440 $3582,022 $140,551 $40 116 $107,978 $8,707 3.4 3.0 1.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 2.6 2.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 65.8 5.0 1.0 6.0 0.2 1.0 $174,168 $61 ,583 $167,562 $205 870 $2,562,745 $64,000 $3704,589 $144,132 $41 328 $109,965 $10,928 $78,162 $75,288 2.4 $75,615 $1,108,720 $1,057,353 '' :  :,,, $1,183,245 $60735 $259,735 $0 $129 600 $6,000 $6,000 $141,600 $26000 $0 $0 $26000 $3,000 $0 $281,814 $124,494 $5790 $6,960 $137,244 $44,358 $44,358 $630 $3,000 $630 $430 335 $464,047 $5,340,106 $5 476,062 $469 490 $4 70, 103 $15,000 $1000 $1,000 $511,469 $5 781,271 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 14 of 16  , - -- ' ' - - , - Attlleb Gffled ~ Edt,u:atfoll . ~ ' : - Gru~ .. , . -: . .-::...:....:: ,,..:....: )OQ0Q0( .c~-=~ - -  - .. TatalUnel!ems $470103 .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW,JTR. ~ Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 15 of 16 STAFF SUPPORT STAFF 05 MedlaS 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 12 Classroom 13 substitutes 14 other-Kind arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 15 Secretaries 16 Nurses 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 9.8 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 55.1 0.0 0.0 80.9 6.0 1.0 9.5 0.2 19 Para rofesslonals-Other 5.0 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) 20 Other-Aides 3.0 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 24.7 TOTAL 10-20 22 UtllHles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other TOTAL 30 MATERIALS, ~2;:.;:6;..+:,-Prl.;.;;n'-\"'cl=r;.;:;s..;:Offl=ce~--- - SUPPUES 27 R ular Classroom (40) 28 Media 29 other CAPITAL OUTLAY 50 32 Other TOTAL 50 OTHER 60 33 Dues and Fees 34 other $486,691 $514,050 $226 317 $224 976 $50 499 $50 499 $0 $0 $0 $275310 $60020 $0 $3043,074 $63000 $0 $4608,865 $221,944 $45,878 $198 000 $10,905 $186,167 $87,505 $1,531,743 $2,282,142 $6891 007 $168,000 $24,800 $272,933 $80863 $3080,766 $60,480 $4688,522 $219,785 $46,572 $188 995 $8,697 $213,521 $84,946 $2,157,859 $6 846,381 : : $181,796 : $15 972 :._ 4.0 9.8 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.5 0.0 56.1 0.0 0.0 82.4 8.0 1.0 9.5 0.2 5.0 3.0 $0 $94300 $287,100 $125,483 :-:~ - - - : ' $0 $180,145 $13,400 $5000 $198,545 $23,000 $0 $0 $23000 $2,500 $0 $2,500 $323,251 $39 $146,683 $9930 $6,967 $163 618 $19,837 $19837 $2701 JW% $105,050 $298904 $509,197 $230,123 $50499 $275117 $98,020 $3,059,843 $64,000 $4690 753 $ $10,915 $176,869 $84,670 $307522 $13,400 $6,980 $327942 $16,000 $16,000 $2,300 $511145 $509,406 $625 442 105.6 $7,402,152 $7,355.788 107.1 $7,582,118 62 259 \"'.'.' : . , .,,,::  . 296 Q!P.J.ii ~ 'YWM ,.Ml\\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Page 16 of 16 ~ . _ , - ', , v .;, .v.  . .,.-. 2004-05 2004-05 2005-08 ,500 $17,655 20750 $0 0 $0 Indirect $539n2 $556,534 $640,484 Vocational $18 513 $9,410 $18,611 Athletics $46,609 67851 $80 774 G rams $0 $0 $0 Plant $9,342 $9,106 $9,342 Read! $146 $144 $146 I $0 $0 $0 $438 $412 I Education $1168 $1147 Curriculum xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $621,488 $662,259 $n2,296 1,110.82 M. SAMUEL JONES, Ill DIRECT DIAL 501 688 881 2 11!: MAIL S.JONll!:S@MWSGW,COM LAW O FF IC ES MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1 800 LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 3525 TELEPHONE 501  6888800 FAX 5016888807 November 10, 2005 Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 600 W. Capitol Ave., Rm. 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. U.S .D.C. No. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson: RECEIVED NOV 1 4 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONR'ORING !541 4 PINNACLE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 500 ROGE\"R8, ARKAN BA  72758 81 31 TELE~HONII!: 479484 5650 FAX 479484 !5880 I have the Court's Order dated November 8, 2005, respecting the MRC budget. On behalf of the PCS SD let me please state that it has no objection to the proposed budget. MSJ:ao cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray Counsel of Record Office of Desegregation Monitoring Cordially yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. cf ~ones, III i. er Documents \"2-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 U.S. District Court Eastern Districf of Arkansas I \\J\"otice of Electronic Filing / fhe following transaltion was received ;om Jones, M. entered on 11/10/2005 at 4:20 PM :ST and filed on 11/10/2005 ' Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 .cument Number: 3974 Docket Text: IBSPONSE re [3972] Order, by Pulaski County Special School District. (Jones, M.) fhe following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stam-p: :sTAivlP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/10/2005] [FileNumber=520387-0 I [2b05c454b6626b279aaab8d9a110b52b6c7db27b72252a7882ceb0e89371e18c2ea )28d381e846109b4bd340956d9750d5a162780ela98686576276197543ee0]] t:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: \\.1ark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com,  Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, \\1ark Arnold. Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, .ecia.bledsoe@arkansasag.gov :hristopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net vi. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com ;tephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com )hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net ;baron Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com rohn W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; springer@gabrielmail.com l:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: ...,layton R. Blackstock ~chell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon, PLLC l O 10 West Third Street )ost Office Box 1510 ~ittle Rock, AR 72203-1510 -.J\" orman J. Chachkin -.J\"AACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educational Fund, Inc. }9 Hudson Street ;uite 1600 -.J\"ew York, NY 10013 timothy Gerard Gauger \\rkansas Attorney General's Office :atlett-Prien Tower Building ;23 Center Street ;uite 200 jttle Rock, AR 72201-2610 -'ames M. Llewellyn, Jr rhompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn,.P.A. . i aW South Eighteenth Street ~t Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 8ffice of Desegregation Monitor 8ne Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompso~ Thompson \u0026amp; Lleweltyn, P.A. i 12 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3976 Filed 11/11/2005 R!CftVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER NOV 14 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONA'OIDNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS For its response to the Court's November 8, 2005 Order regarding the Magnet Review Committee Budget, LRSD states that it has no objection to the budget and agrees that the budget should become effective immediately. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3976 Filed 11/11/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 11, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark. hagemeier@ ag. state. ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@ jlj .com johnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Black stock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller R:x Dat e/Time 5013744187 P.002  NO'v . 15. 2005 NOV J. ~ LOO~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW.JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO THE  COURT'S ORDER OE NOVEMBER 8, 2005 PIAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In response to the Court's Order of November 8, 2005, the Joshua Intervenors oppos~ the budget as presepted. I. There is no explanation for the increase in special education costs. 2. There is no e:xplanation for the substantial increase in the regular classroom material and supply costs. 3. There is no explanation for the material increase in the indirect costs. 4. To approve the budget as it is written by increasing costs will tend to favor students in racially balanced schools and disfavor students in majority black schools . This is so because double funding has materially been eliminated in the racially identifiable schools being closed (Mitchell and.Rightsell) and the district has engaged in budget cuts whi~h reduce services and - educational programs to the students who are enrolled in. o.onmagnet schools. Rx Date/ Time NOV-15-2005(TUE) 08:59 5013744187 \" NOV': f's. 2005 g : 30AM JOHN W WALKER P A NO. 163 L Wherefore, Joshua requests that the court set this matter for hearing. Respectfully submitted, Isl John W. Walker John W. WalkeJ;, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF sytsem on this 14th day of November, 2005. LsUohn Y{. Walker P. 003  Rx Date/Time NOV-1 5-2005CTUE) 08: 59 ~ NOV. 15.2005 9:29AM JOHN W WALKER PA 5013744187 N0 . 163 JOHN W WALKER, P.A .. Attorney at La.v 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: November 15, 2005 To: Donna Creer Fax: 758-5366 Re: MRC Budget Sender: John W. Walker P.l/3 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ _ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVERSHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVEALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL ''\u0026lt;(501) 374--3758\u0026gt;'1 The infonnation contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged qnd confidential infonnation intended only for tho use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. P. 001 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of s IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS The Little Rock School District (LRSD), for its response to the Court's bench  ruling of November 7, 2005, states: 1. The Court has directed LRSD to file \"a proposed order which would - outline how this one matter will be handled until. we get the final evaluations as LRSD has agreed to do.\" 2. Dr. Ross now has all of the data he needs to complete the Compass Leaming, SMART/TIIRIVE and Reading Recovery evaluations. Dr. Ross expects to be able to produce preHminary evaluations of those three programs by December 21, 2005 and ''final drafts\" by mid-February, 2006. See November 11, 2005 letter from Dr. Ross to Dr. DeJamette attached. as Exhibit A. 3. Dr. Catterall requires scale scores from the 2005 benchmark exams in order to complete his evaluation of Year-Round Education. LRSD expects that the  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 2 of 5 scale scores needed by Dr. Catterall will be available within the next seven days. If that can be done, Dr. Catterall expects to produce a draft report by December 31, 2005 and a final report not later than February 3, 2006. See November 9, 2005 letter from Catterall to DeJarnette, attached as Exhibit B. 4. LRSD has a regulation (IL-R) which applies to the review and completion of program evaluations. A copy ofregulati.on IL-R is attached~ Exhibit C. The LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) Department estimates that the requirements ofregulation IL-R can be met within the following amounts of time after a draft evaluation is received from an external consultant: a. The evaluation team meets with the evaluator to review the report and provide feedback - one week; b. The evaluator incorporates the feedback provided by the evaluation team and produces a \"near-final\" draft- one week; c. The stakeholders, including Joshua, ODM and the LRSD cabinet and Board review the near-final draft - 30 days; d. The LRSD Board discusses the report with the evaluator at the Board meeting immediately following completion of the 30 day review and approves the final evaluation report. 2  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 3 of 5 5. Given the time required by Drs. Ross and Catterall to complete their work, and for the review and approval process required by LR.SD regulation IL-R. LRSD proposes that the Court's Order concerning the completion of the 2004-05 Step 2 program evaluations contain the following language: a. LRSD will file with the Court and serve upon ODM and Joshua the preliminary evaluation reports for Compass Learning, SMART ffHRlVE and Reading Recovery as soon as LRSD receives those reports from Dr. Ross. LRSD expects to receive those reports by December 21, 2005. b. LRSD will file with the Court and serve upon ODM and Joshua the preliminary evaluation report concerning Year-Round Education as soon as it receives that report from Dr. Catterall. LRSD expects to receive that report no later than December 31, 2005. c. If LRSD learns th.at it will not receive any preliminary evaluation report from Dr. Ross or Dr. Catterall by the dates set forth above, it will immediately so inform the Court and the parties. d. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation repons discussed above, LRSD will review the evaluations and approve them in 3  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 4 of 5 accordance with the process set forth in LRSD regulation IL-R. Upon completion of that process, which is expected to result in Board approval of all four evaluations at the February 23, 2006 Board meeting, LRSD will file the final Step 2 evaluations with the Court and serve them upon ODM and Joshua. e. If it appears to LRSD that the final evaluation repo~s may be delayed for any reason, LRSD will so inform the Court and the parties. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order regarding the completion of the required four Step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year in accordance with the proposals set forth in thisResponse to Order. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christqpher Heller 4  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/1712005 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 17, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Oerk of the Court using the C.M/BC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ai,State.ar.us sjones@mwsr7.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol~ Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W, Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS November 11, 2005 Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 s. Pulaski little Rock. AR 77W6 Dear Dr. DeJamette: Center for Research in EdUC!ltfonal Policy A lermenee Center of exce11ence 32S ~Ing Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 Offlca: 901.678.2310 Toll-Free: 866,670.6147 Fex: 901.678.257 www mtrnPhlS.egu/s,p The spring 2005 benchmark scores have arrived for students in the three programs we are . evaluating for the Little Rock School District-Compass Leaming. SMARTITHRIVE. and Reading Recovery. While they do not include students' scale scores, the raw scores and perfonnance levels appear sufficient for our evaluations. In the nen few days. we will complete a review of the data files; assumina they are in usable form. we will then combine the benchmark scores with data collected during the past school year in preparation for our statistical analyses. Dr. Canen.11 and I agreed earlier that six weeks appears to be enough time for managing the data, analyzing the data, and writing our reports for your considaation. That means that the draft report will be ready for initial review during the Decemba holidays (target dau:: December 21. 2005) and our discussion of it will occur in January. ff there arc not extensive changes required. we plan to have the final drafts ready for you by mid-February. If we encounter any unanticipated problems or delays, we will notify you immediately on ~currence. Please contact me if you have any concerns or questions about this plan. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, PhD. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy I  Case 4:82-cv--00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 1 _u_N_IVE_R_s__m_ o_ F_c_A_LIF_o_R_N_IA_._L__os _A_ N_c_E_L_E_s____ _ --. . H:~~ ... k\u0026amp;O.CT  1M.V19  1ll\\llNC  I.OIMICll.11  a1vs-\u0026amp;  !AH DIieo  1AH Fl...0!800 ....,,_ - ~ - ~-- November 16, 2005 Karen DeJamett.e, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department tittle Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Utiie Rock. AR 77206-28'73 Dearl\u0026lt;aren: Onidua1c ScllOol off.duQl!on \u0026amp; Jnfornlion Studies r.o.Box951s,t LosAt1gdQ.CA 90095-1511 I understand that the 200S Benchmark iesults or studenfB participatf:ng in Year-Round P.ducatian have a:rlved at LRSD. They .include ~dents' raw scores and performance levels but not the 1eale scores. \u0026amp;cause of the need tQ link 2005 test scores with prior year test \u0026amp;cores a.s the only way to uses., progress in the YRE schools\u0026gt; I will need 2005 Benchmark scale scor~, l!1'\\d not taw test sco,:es to complete my analyses. As I stated earlier, the daia review, 8tatistical 8Nlyses, and composition of my draft :report will require about six week,. I still anticipate delivering a draft teport to you within 6 weeks of ~eivhig usable scale scares. A,suming these score, become available to m.e in the coming days, I would have a draft report to you by year'3 end and a final report to you not later than F~bruary 3, 2006. Sin\u0026amp;:erely, /\\~ 'Pt:dsor Vole~ (310) 8%$-S5'71 Pu: ($10)206-6293 l:;-m1il: jamucOgscla.11~la.cdu = EXHIBIT t Pi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to the staff fnvolved in the evaluation of pr0grams required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides funding for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations J Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved In its Board-approved Program EvaJuation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. {See Joint Committee on Standan:ls for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, T1 Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) There are four attributes of an evaluation:  UIIIH)' (U) - e'ialuatlons are lnfcrmatM, timely, and influential  Fauiblllty (F) - eveluations must be operable In the natural setting and must not consume more resourees then necessary  Propriety (?)  right:5 of Individuals must be protected  Accuracy (A)  evaluations should produce sound lnfOrmatlon Prospective, controlled, summative evaluations are at one end of a spectrum of actMties that review District operations. Other activities in this continuum include fonnative and less formal and rigorous evaluations, regular and occasional assessments, and fast or brief snapshots\". As rigor and fom,ality diminish along the range of reviews, fewer standards apply. Examples of how the standards apply are found following table, adapted from The Program Evaluation Standards, pages 18 and 19: Checklist for Applying the Standards The reader should interpret the information provided in this table with reference both to the Standards (cited above) and the peculiar circumstances of given program reviews. Double plus signs(++} indicate that standards are fully addressed. Single pluses(+) mean that the standard is a concern but not necessarily fully addressed, and zeros (0) point to standards not usually applicable. Not all summative evaluation will fully satisfy every standard, and o1her examples may observe more standards than indicated here. Note. however, that all reviews fully observe human rights and impartial reports, ,_~ ,xH-I - ,--. 1 1c Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 2 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR Fonna1lw Standard SUmmative lnfolmal Evaluation Procen evaluations Assessments {School Portia/las) Snaashots U1 Stakeholder Identification ++ ++ 0 0 U2 Evaluator Credibility ++ ++ + 0 U3 Information Scope \u0026amp; Selection ++ 0 + + U4 Values Identification ++ + ++ + us Report Clarity ++ ++ + + U6 Report Timeliness \u0026amp; Dissemination ++ + + 0 U7 Evaluation Impact ++ + + + F1 Practical Procedures ++ + + ++ F2 PolltJcal Viabillty ++ 0 0 0 F3 Cost Effectiveness ++ + + + P1 Service Orientation ++ ++ + + P2 Fonnal AQreements ++ + 0 0 P3 Rights of Human Subjects ++ ++ ++ ++ P4 Human Interaction ++ + 0 0 PS Complete \u0026amp; Fair Assessment ++ ++ + + P6 Disclosure of Findings ++ + + + P7 Conflict of Interest ++ 0 + 0 P8 Fiscal Responsibility ++ ++ 0 0 A1 Proaram Documentation ++ + + + A2 Context Analysis ++ + ++ + A3 Described Purposes and Procedures ++ ++ + + A4 Defensible Information Sources ++ + + ++ AS Valid Information ++ + + + A6 Reliable Information ++ + + + A7 Systematic Information ++ ++ + + AS Analysis of Quantitative Data ++ . ++ 0 + A9 Analysis of QualitatiVe Data ++ ++ + + A 1 o Justified Conclusions ++ + + + A 11 Impartial Reporting ++ ++ ++ ++ A 12 Meta-evaluation ++ 0 0 + 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 3 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department will recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensjve program evaluation. The recommendation will include a proposed budget. a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Will the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Will the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Will the program be significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Hany P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco. CA:. Jossey-Bass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent will recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agenda-with anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. 3. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agenda, the Director of PRE will establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team will include. at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated. a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation. and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required. then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation. the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing will be retained as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader will establish a calendar of regularfy scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: 3 I I I I I I I I I I I Case 4:82-cv~00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R A Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, induding a review of the Board's policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Director of PRE related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. 0. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students E. Generate a list of the data required to answer each research questlOn, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student perfonnance data should be included. {See Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) F. Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. G. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendent's Cabinet) to stakeholders. {See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSOC); Robby Champion (Fall 2002). \"Map Out Evaluation Goals.\" Journal of Staff Development. 78-79; Thomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press: Blaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Mproaches and Practical Guidelines; 153-169; Beverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry; Using Evaluation to Promote Stude!J! Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; and Joseph S. Wholey, Hany P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994}. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) 7. Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: 4 - - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 5 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL Of STRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R  to monitor the completion of assignments;  to collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data:  to pose any necessary new questions to be answered;  to review drafts and provide feedback to the writer;  to formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not beingsuccessful for the improvement of African-American achievement;  to assist in final proofreading; and  to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. 8. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Director of PRE at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Board'.s agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. 9. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet. 10. The program evaluation team will plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 11. The Director of PRE wilt prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information: A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifJcations. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. 5 --' NOV.18.  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 6 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR D. Grade-level desaiptions of the teachers who were Involved In the assessment process (e.g., all fourth~grade math teachers. all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 12. When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations 1o other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Director of PRE for approval. 13. Each program evaluation team will meet with the Director of PRE after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See \"Joellen Killion (2002).  Evaluate the Evaluation.N Assessing Impact Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford. OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) Approved: December 2004 6 NOV.18.2005 1:22PM JOHN W WALKER PA Date: To: Fax: Re: JOHN W WALKER, P.A. A.rtorney ar Lczy,; 1723 Broadway Litrle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374~4187 FAX TRANS:MISSION COVER SHEET rt/n/oo - . MPI,t f~f / ~ 1i-ria a 11 -o, oo Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE l _ ,(including cover sheet)] PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL   ''\u0026lt;(501) 374 .. 37S$\u0026gt;\" -- The information contained in tltis facsimile message is atmmey privileged and confidential information interui~d only for th.e usci of the individual or entity named above. ff the read.er of this message is nor the intended recipient, or me employee oi- ~ent responsible ro deliver it to the inten\u0026lt;1ed recipient, you are hereby notified that any dis3emimtion, disiribmion or copying of this communicirtion is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and rerurn tbe original message to us at.the above address via the TJ.S. Postal Seivice. Thruuc you. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1~ ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED NOY 2 8 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS I have changed my mind on the Rule 11 ruling made orally at the close of the November 7, 2005 hearing -- it is set aside and held for naught. As was mentioned at the hearing, LRSD will not pay any part of Mr. Kaplan's attorney's fees or expenses. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day ofNovember, 2005. /s/ Wm. R. Wilson.Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEC. 5. 2005 4 :18PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO . 409 P.2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW~JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 P::.igP. 1 ,:if 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DIS1R.ICT COURT .nA:s n::.KN Vl::STRl.CT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTIE ROCK SCHOOL DlSTRICT VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULAKSICOUNTYSPECIAL .~rwnnr nY\u0026lt;::'Tl)rr-r l:'T ,. r --------- .... ~'-\"\"_. , ...,.., ra..1.,1. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL. KATHER1NE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLJ.ThTTIFF IJ.t..t' .t..NLJANT~ INTER.VENO RS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS REPLY TO LRSD S RESPONSE TO THE COURT S ORDli'.\"A 01\" NQVJ,.1'-fflER \"!. 20~ Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, ieply to the LR.SD s response to the court s order as follows: 1. LRSD shall identify all members of the evaluation team and provide a written description for each of them of their respective roles and resp0Il3ibilities in the evaluation process. 2. LRSD shall identify the schools where each program being evaluated is being implemented. and it shall further set forth by school: (a) explain the current status of the program under evaluation; and (b) the number of students participating in each program by grade, race and gender. It shall also set forth budgetary information regarding each of the programs at each of the schools. DEC. 5.2005 4:18PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.409 P.3 Case 4:82~cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 3 3. LRSD should be required to set forth a schc~e of dates for the steps that each evaluator and others will take to canplete the assi~ent of each evaluator. Specific, separate schedules are reeded for each expert because information provi~ by LRSD regarding Dr. Ross does not appear to be congruent. Compare paragraph 2 at page 1 (re final draft in midFebruary) with paragraph S(d) at pages 3-4 (Board approval of all four evaluations at Fehn1:ny 23, 2006 meeting). 4. The Joshua Intervenors and the ODM shall be provided access to the staff members of PRE and t.o the experts without limitation and they shall be entitled to receive any writings regarding the evaluation process that are generated by any of the IRSD and expert witness participants. The participation and presence of LRSD counsel is neither required nor disallowed during such exchanges of infonnation. 5. Joshua proposes that item S(d) should read: Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports discussed above, LR.SD tl:cugh. PP~ *ulll w.~t witrJ. the; OD?v1 , Jv:;huii, wU i.hc. experts to .~~i-,;,; and \"owld,;1 ik: wwm1;ni.:i of foshua and ODM r~gardmg thi. iha.ft lcpUl~. Joshua awi ODM shall aiso have tile right to 5u.l.11uiL tucw.er comments up until the time of Board action. jos.ilua Shall have the right to appear before the school board prior to the board action regarding the reports. lt is expected that the board members shall engage m open dialogue regarding any concerns that are voiced by Joshua or ODM at any meeting which the board holds regarding the subject. 6. After the time of final approval of the evaluatiom, Joshua shall have the right to comment to LRSD regarding the use being made of the evaluations. LRSD shall promptly respond to any such comments or inquiry. 2 DEC. S.2005 4:18PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.409 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 Respectfully submitted, W John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. i 723 Hroadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Email address: inhnw11lkP.M1tty(n1ac!.cc\"' 22 Lvcust A ven.ue Lcxiugiun, MA 02421 iBl-862-1955 P. 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Response has been electronically fifod with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC S)Stem which will send.notifi~tfon !(I such filing !C ill counsel of record, ls/John W. Walker 3 DEC. 5.2005 Date: To: FQ)C: Re: 4: 17PM JOHN W WALKER PA Tn1-lhT TJ\"7 U\"'-\"..\u0026amp;.....Lt ,,. Attorney at Law ] 723 'RrMdway T.itrl~ x,,.,.1i, J,,.1,,,..,.~,.~ 7-,-,11~ - ~ - - -----,  ...,..M..., I MVV T:lepl,onc (50lj J74-37J8 Fw; (50lj ji4-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET December 5, 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 371-0100 --NO.409- P.1 . D A 1 . .ft. . Sender: John W. Walker YOU SHDrn,n RP.r'li'.rrn:. [ (fr:c!ud:ng CC\".,'~ .:h~ot}] PACE(S), INCLUDlNG T'.rilS COVER S.'f.!EET. IP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, ?LE.ASE CALL \"..;.(Svij 37-,.3758\u0026gt;:, The infonnation contained in this facsimile message is attomeyprivilegedand confidential infonnation intended wtly for the use of the imJMdllal or entity named above. If the reader of this message is l10t the intended r~~lp~ or we empioyee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you arc hereby notified ihit 'iw.} ~tion, w.stn\"bution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have ~i-.-::d :!ii, wwmunlcatiuii. iii error, piease immediate notify us by teiephone, and return the original message to ~ :.t :he =c: ~asi via .hu U .. S. Posual Sc,rvice. T'.nank you. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 PagRttE\\\\JED NO'J 2 8 100~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION Qff\\CEOf IDllG OESEGREGAl\\ON M0~\\10 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS For its Response to \"Joshua Intervenors Reply to LRSD' s Response to the Court's Order of November 7, 2005,\" the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct states: In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law. 2. On August 20, 2001, this Court directed counsel for the ioshua Intervenors, for the second time, \"to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case.\" Order, August 20, 2001 (attached). 3. Counsel for Joshua has violated the Court's August 20, 2001 Order and Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Consequently, on Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 4 November 18, 2005, counsel for LRSD wrote counsel for Joshua to make the following request: \"I request that you immediately cease communication with LRSD administrators about any matter in which you represent a person whose interests are potentially adverse to the Little Rock School District.\" Counsel for LRSD also addressed the question of Joshua's role as a monitor in this case: With respect to your representation of the Joshua Intervenors, I understand that the District Court expects Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD' s compliance obligations. As I have told you before, this monitoring should be done in a way that does not violate Rule 4.2. If you will identify Joshua's monitors, I will make sure that those people have appropriate access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfill the Court's expectations. Any communications from you concerning LRSD v. PCSSD, or any other matter in which you are representing a client, should be directed to me. November 18, 2005 letter from Heller to Walker (attached). 4. In compliance with the Court's November 7, 2005 bench ruling, the Joshua Intervenors filed today a Reply to LRSD' s pleading of November 17, 2005. In paragraph 4 of that Reply, Joshua proposes that the Court enter an order which contains the following language: The Joshua Intervenors and the ODM shall be provided access to the staff members of PRE and to the experts without limitation and they shall be entitled to receive any writings regarding the evaluation process that are generated 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 3 of 4 by any of the LRSD expert witness participants. The participation and presence of LRSD counsel is neither required nor disallowed during such exchanges of information. 5. Without telling the Court what they are doing, and without providing the Court the relevant information set forth above, the Joshua Intervenors are asking the Court to overturn its August 20,2001 Order and the requirements of Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Joshua seeks access to PRE staff members \"without limitation.\" Joshua requests that the \"presence of LRSD counsel\" not be required. The Court has already ruled on this issue, and Joshua should not be allowed to change that ruling, particularly without telling the Court what it is trying to do. 6. Many of the PRE staff are unavailable to help provide a further response to the pleading filed today by the Joshua Intervenors. LRSD expects that it will supplement this response upon their return after the holiday. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that any order issued by the Court concerning the completion of the evaluations required of LRSD not contain the language in paragraph 4 of the Reply filed by the Joshua Intervenors on November 23, 2005. 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 4 of 4 Respectfully submitted, UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-201 l Ls{ Christopher Heller CERTIEI.CATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 23, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Cleik. of the Court using the CMJEC. system. which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar. us fil_ones@mws~w.com ~ones@ilj.com i9hnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Judge J. Thomas Ray Gene Jones U.S. District Courthouse Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 7220 l ~/ Christopher Heller 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Case4:82\"-cv-=00666..-\\VRW JTR . ... Document 3982 Doetm ,ent a483 Filed 11/23/2005 Filed 0S/20t20Q1 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STA~DISTRICT COURT  ~~~SA8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG_ i O 2001 WESTERN DIVISION LITI'LEROCKSCHOOLDISTRIC1,  p~ vs. PULASKI COUN'IY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, etal., 'Defendants;        MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. et al.,  '   Intervenors, * . KATHERINE KNIGlIT, et al., Intervenoni.    ORDER  No. 4:82CV00866 SWW On August 17, 2001\u0026gt; the Cowt held a telephone conference in this matter toaddreS$ -several pending motions. For the. reasons stated at the telephone c:onference, the Court takes the following action on these motions: The Joshua Intervcnors' motion for pre1imimuy injunction [docket no. 3471] is hereby DENIED. Counsel fortbc-Joshua Intcrvenors aud Pulaski County Special School District have . .. . '. . indicated their intent to adibss., substance of the Josbualntcrvenors' related com:cted motion for relief from orders~ on April 27; 2000 and May9, 2001 by defendant Gary Smith  . . . '  [docket no. 3473] without_tbis Court's ~ce; therefore, the Court'directs the Joshua . . . Intcrvenors to inform the Cowt no later than October 17, 2001, whether it is necessary for the . . l Court to ruJe on tbia_motion or whed1c:r the moti~ should.be rcDl?ved from the Court's docket. Little Rock School bisuict's motion for protective order and.for' emergency hearing Court's considedion... (docket no. 3477] is bcrcl?YDF.NIED wrraour~ICE beaiuse itis not~ 11  !'for-th.e.--....._ ..._ , . EXHIBIT -.f ti: . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 2  Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3483 Filed 08/20/2001 Page 2 of 4 .., Little Rock School District's motion for conteUlpt [docket no. 3480} is hereby DENIED WITHOUTPREIUDICE. To cls.rify its previous Order, the Court.directs counsel for Joshua Jnterveuors to go through counsel for die Little Rock School District when seeking infomiation.  from the district or district officials and pcrso~ that is pertinent to the ca.e. and to infon:n . .. counsel for~ Little RO\u0026lt;ik School District prior w oontacting district officials and personnel  about matters not currently before the Court. Con. cerning 11 Baker Recruitment Plan [docket no. 3456]; the Pulaski C.o unty Special ' J School District js directed to filo mrJ supplemental.information no later than Tuesday, August 21, 2001, and the Joshua Interveno.rs arc directed to respond 10 any supplement within five days from the date the supplcmcnt is filed. . -,J.._ _ . . IT IS SO ORDERED nns i/Jl_DAY OF AUOUST, 2001 UNITED STATES DISTRlct COURT iHIS OQCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COM~UANCE Wl1lf RULE 58 ~DIOB.ll{I) FRCP ON 2\u0026lt; -a ,. . ol ,..av_..JA__~.. ---- 2: Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 1 of 2 .W\u0026amp;UCltU.H.tlJ~W(lnf1,..) MICIU.\u0026amp;\u0026amp;.LMQOALP-.4 IYIOKM. 111aMM1.JL P.4. WALTDll. UILJU.r.A. JAMES A. MJTil1\". I . A.. DV1N A. 0l.UI. f ,A. Pkl.DU.la.\u0026amp;. UUllY.P..A. WIU.UMA. WADOSU..,._.,,A.. OaG\\l I. CAVIL JL. P.A. ICOT'J' J. UJK:A\u0026amp;UL P.A. J4 .... C, CXAU.  .. P.\u0026gt;.. IDUlT t. UACK. a., f ,A. TIIOMAII, LIOOlff, P.A. /. I.UUOWW.f..t. JOIUI MWIT WATIGII. P.A. I.U,U C. 1.UU. I\u0026amp;.. f.A f4U1,\u0026amp;u,ria[AJ,(1D,P,A. KAllYA.1.IORT, P.A. u..a.av w. auau. 1.1,,.. ,con x. ruca;u. r.A. 4. WYCICU1' )llUlr. JL. I.A. 0UY IJ.roN WUI, J.A.. MMU IDWAUll,U,all, I.A. IIICIC.OA\u0026amp;D- P.\u0026gt;.. J4MU M. 100-'0II, f.l.. TOIILU, /OIIU. I .A. IAMU W. AXTON. P,4. MYID D. WJUOIC. P.A. J. SKltKlm IUIHU. n\u0026amp;. P,-', IIHU't JI. GOU. P.A. OO\u0026gt;IA\u0026amp;.D a. MCOJII. P.A. MVRa II. OILU. I .A. WJWAW t'MO.._., U.ffU, P.A. CAM.A OUHJrillU IPAillCOUL f.4. JOUl'KI, IUUf, 11.. P.A.. JOWAJfNC. aw.u,.1.A. lUZ.UlfM.0.IIIIMU\u0026amp;\u0026amp;AY,J, . .\\. .L 000ff0111D.LA.'WION. P.A. CIWlto,t\u0026amp;ll Hllll:1. P.Jt- KTfl' I, 0DmlY1 P.A. 1.4\\aA NIMUY IMU'11. P.A. 1'11104 K JOKNIOlt. P,A.. M\u0026gt;NA1 I, SHARL P.A. U.WU II, IMIT\u0026gt;L I .A. WU.LU.M ... GWPIN n\u0026amp;. P.A. CIJ'INl\u0026amp;O w. rt..UNanT. f . A. VIA Fax Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: LRSD Dear John: FRIDAY El.DREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A UMITliD I.IAIUTY PARTIIERSHIP www.fridayflrm.ec1n1 o4GO WEIT CAPITOL AVlNUI, :SUITE~ LITTLEROCIC, AIUCAHSA.s 722Cl1-M22 TELEl'NONli .at-371-2011 n.X501376-2U7 1421-TH 'UTIIALL DIIIV\u0026amp;, IUJTI 1U P4Ylffll/1WI, 4,._ 1270Mlt1 nu,HONI \u0026lt;IJ'I-M .. i011 ,,x '1Mtf~ltU November 18, 2005 'D,UIW.1..UUllfOTON.1,i,. I. IG\u0026lt;=XAIL J'JCIIJIXI. , ,,,_ M-UYIII L OIU.IIIU I. COLIW.UI WUTUOO\u0026amp;. /Lo P.\u0026gt;.. Jol.lJIOlll. C0alnrllL,1.A. iu.z.NM. OWIJll, P-A. IAIIINl, JmlDaDl,P.4. JWIICJI\u0026amp; TlllftLI.P.A. JOIIPH   MC'XAY. P..A, AW.umu.A, IPLUL P.\u0026gt;.. JAY f , fAYloOI, P,\u0026gt;.. .MAffnl ... lilTIII IJ:r All W, DUU ,OIIPIIG, IIICIIClU aona T, lMlT\u0026gt;I ).YAHA.~MA\u0026gt;l 1IIIOTIIY C. IZE1L T, MICll\u0026amp;Ull .. 101 XAUII L HAUU.7 l.u.AJI M. CDTTOH UJaTUI' $. IOWl,..,UIDS Au.Jlf G. a\u0026amp;Yil l.Ol01\u0026amp;Y WIT~ t.0UMCa JCf.\\YYAMK.GIIDflll JCJIDI J. llllll\u0026amp;ICII .uwm.+.CAPPI- IU\\IIN L IDOU 1.W4'TNIY11UMII.JI. -1111,nwo-.. IWI-Yll,loUIPl11-.. Wl.\u0026amp;1T U/411 C. IMffll ... -...wona, IITWILMAJ'4U DaC L CUUIJJII UIUGO'laa L OOX IATftaYN 4. laUl4mC1t J. ADAM'nU-1 \u0026amp;.WMl,.u,JJ.Y .. - WlWMIII.IClnOtl.P.I.. WIW'AM~n\u0026amp;\u0026amp;Y WIWAM L PATTON, lL ._T, U,UII.I.J.LP.~ CMIUttofN\u0026amp; MIU.la Ll?Tl.l ROC~ T\u0026amp;LH1-a11MI P.Altlt1- .. ,..,.,_.,, It has been reported to me that you have been communicating directly with Little Rocle School District Administrators during the course of your representation of various clients, including the Joshua Intervenors. You lmow that the Little Rock School District is represented by Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark. Your direct commllDication with our clients violates Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. I request that you immediately cease communication with LRSD administrators about any matter in which you represent a person whose interests are potentially adverse to the Little Rock School District With respect to yolU' representation of the Joshua Jntervcnors. I understand that the District Court expects Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD's compliance obligations. As I have told you before, this monitoring should be done in a way that does not violate Rule 4.2 If you will identify 1 oshua's monitors, I will make sure that those people have appropriate access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfil the Court's expectations. Any communications from you concerning LRSD v. PCSSD, or any other matter in which you arc representing a client, should be directed to me. CJH/bk Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 2 Mr. John Walker November 18, 2005 Page2 cc: Dr. Roy Brooks Dr. Karen DeJ amette Olivine Roberts IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTR1CT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFACEOf DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is LRSD's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3938). A hearing was held on November 7, 2005 to discuss, among other things, the merits of the motion. Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law made in the hearing, the motion is GRANTED. The following is directed: 1. LRSD has until 5 p.m., Friday, January 6, 2006, to file and serve the preliminary evaluation reports for Compass Learning, SMART/THRIVE, Year-Round Education, and Reading Recovery. 2. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports, Joshua will have fourteen (14) days to submit written comments to LRSD and PRE. Simultaneous copies must be sent to ODM and the Court. Before any Board action, Joshua will also have the opportunity to appear before the LRSD School Board to address their concerns, objections, or support regarding the evaluations. Joshua should promptly notify the LRSD school board if they intend to take - advantage of this opportunity. 3. lfLRSD learns that it will not receive a preliminary evaluation report from Dr. Ross or Dr. Catterall by the date set forth above, it will immediately inform the Court and the parties. 4. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports, LRSD will review the evaluations and approve them in accordance with the process set forth in LRSD regulation IL-R. After the completion of that process, which is expected to result in Board approval of all four evaluations at the February 23, 2006 Board meeting, LRSD will file the final Step 2 evaluations and serve them on ODM and Joshua. 5. IfLRSD learns that the final evaluation reports may be delayed for any reason, LR.SD must promptly inform the Court and the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITLE ROCK, ARKAJ\",SAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475  http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education November 30, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 151-0 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones  425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFFICE OF DESEQREQATIOH MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of November 2005 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair- Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle * Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the AD E's Project Management Tool for November 2005. Respectfully Submitted, co mith, General Counsel, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on November 30, 2005, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC'EIVED DEC l_-:- 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2005 sa'se'8'\"6'ii\".'tfi '\"1a/,j~iW?M iIa61\u0026amp;aFoaot\u0026gt;'Erri3:1r;?200 ~tat~fFo~n~d \"~ :rnr~$s700WJ~t~:12e=--=:.........-.=--==. ....... B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"}],"pages":{"current_page":24,"next_page":25,"prev_page":23,"total_pages":27,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":276,"total_count":319,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":5},{"value":"learning modules","hits":1},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":292},{"value":"Sound","hits":20},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":13},{"value":"StillImage","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":41},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":21},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":16},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":6},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":4},{"value":"Bell, Lorenzo, 1925-2001","hits":2},{"value":"Brown, Myers; Johnson, Ahnekii","hits":2},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":2},{"value":"William Gordon Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":254},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":210},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":166},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":127},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":105},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":88},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":74},{"value":"School integration","hits":65},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":64},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":64},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":52}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":6},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":3},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":7},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1},{"value":"Bell, Griffin B., 1918-2009","hits":1},{"value":"Borders, William Holmes, 1905-1993","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":2},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":2},{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":1},{"value":"Montgomery Bus Boycott","hits":1},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":263},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":257},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":249},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":233},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":9},{"value":"United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","hits":4},{"value":"United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":258},{"value":"Georgia","hits":15},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":10},{"value":"Alabama","hits":9},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":5},{"value":"","hits":4},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":3},{"value":"Florida","hits":3},{"value":"Illinois","hits":3},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":3},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"2000","hits":73},{"value":"1999","hits":69},{"value":"2001","hits":67},{"value":"2002","hits":65},{"value":"1996","hits":62},{"value":"1994","hits":58},{"value":"1995","hits":58},{"value":"1997","hits":55},{"value":"1992","hits":53},{"value":"1993","hits":53},{"value":"1998","hits":53},{"value":"2003","hits":46},{"value":"1991","hits":44},{"value":"2004","hits":43},{"value":"2006","hits":34},{"value":"2005","hits":32},{"value":"1990","hits":24},{"value":"1989","hits":19},{"value":"2007","hits":14},{"value":"2013","hits":14},{"value":"2008","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1980","hits":10},{"value":"2010","hits":10},{"value":"2012","hits":10},{"value":"2016","hits":10},{"value":"1983","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":9},{"value":"2009","hits":9},{"value":"2011","hits":9},{"value":"2015","hits":9},{"value":"2017","hits":9},{"value":"2018","hits":9},{"value":"1975","hits":8},{"value":"1978","hits":8},{"value":"1988","hits":8},{"value":"1967","hits":7},{"value":"1970","hits":7},{"value":"1974","hits":7},{"value":"1977","hits":7},{"value":"1979","hits":7},{"value":"1981","hits":7},{"value":"1982","hits":7},{"value":"1985","hits":7},{"value":"1986","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":6},{"value":"1962","hits":6},{"value":"1964","hits":6},{"value":"1965","hits":6},{"value":"1968","hits":6},{"value":"1971","hits":6},{"value":"1972","hits":6},{"value":"1973","hits":6},{"value":"1976","hits":6},{"value":"1987","hits":6},{"value":"2019","hits":6},{"value":"1959","hits":5},{"value":"1961","hits":5},{"value":"1966","hits":5},{"value":"1969","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"1945","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":4},{"value":"1951","hits":4},{"value":"1952","hits":4},{"value":"1953","hits":4},{"value":"1954","hits":4},{"value":"1955","hits":4},{"value":"1956","hits":4},{"value":"1957","hits":4},{"value":"1958","hits":4},{"value":"1963","hits":4},{"value":"2020","hits":4},{"value":"2021","hits":4},{"value":"1900","hits":3},{"value":"1901","hits":3},{"value":"1902","hits":3},{"value":"1903","hits":3},{"value":"1904","hits":3},{"value":"1905","hits":3},{"value":"1906","hits":3},{"value":"1907","hits":3},{"value":"1908","hits":3},{"value":"1909","hits":3},{"value":"1910","hits":3},{"value":"1911","hits":3},{"value":"1912","hits":3},{"value":"1913","hits":3},{"value":"1914","hits":3},{"value":"1915","hits":3},{"value":"1916","hits":3},{"value":"1917","hits":3},{"value":"1918","hits":3},{"value":"1919","hits":3},{"value":"1920","hits":3},{"value":"1921","hits":3},{"value":"1922","hits":3},{"value":"1923","hits":3},{"value":"1924","hits":3},{"value":"1925","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1860","max":"2033","count":1494,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":143},{"value":"filing","hits":63},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":18},{"value":"reports","hits":18},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":14},{"value":"transcripts","hits":13},{"value":"correspondence","hits":12},{"value":"sound recordings","hits":12},{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"photographs","hits":8},{"value":"web sites","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":263},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":31},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":10},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":6},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":4},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":255},{"value":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","hits":7},{"value":"Teaching with Historic Places","hits":6},{"value":"John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archives Collection","hits":4},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":3},{"value":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama History Education Materials","hits":2},{"value":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Clippings from Guilford College Publications","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Papers","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":257},{"value":"Atlanta History Center","hits":8},{"value":"University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)","hits":7},{"value":"United States. National Park Service","hits":6},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":2},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":2},{"value":"Guilford College. Library","hits":2},{"value":"Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance","hits":2},{"value":"John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum","hits":2},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":311},{"value":"Collection","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":312},{"value":"true","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}