{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1756","title":"Includes Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to all responses regarding its fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement, District Court motion for stay of judgment and order made pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 8.A of the Eighth Circuit Rules of Appellate Practice.","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":["2003-08-12/2003-08-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Includes Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to all responses regarding its fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement, District Court motion for stay of judgment and order made pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 8.A of the Eighth Circuit Rules of Appellate Practice."],"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/1756"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["158 page scan, typed"],"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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, letter order; District Court, memorandum; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) consolidated brief in support of its reply to all responses to its fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, two orders; District Court, corrected order; District Court, motion for stay of judgment and order made pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to Rule 8.A of the Eighth Circuit Rules of Apellate Practice; District Court, order; District Court, notice of appeal; Court of Appeals, emergency motion for espedited review and suspension of the rules pursuant to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Apellate Procedure and motion for emergency stay of judgment of the district court; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time to file fee petition; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, order of transcripts pursuant to Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; District Court, corporate disclosure statement; District Court, order    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    - BILL WILSON JUDGE To: Mr. Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 West Main UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRIC'r OF ARKANSAS 800W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 . LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201--3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 804-5149 August 12, 2003 BYFAX Jacksonville, Arkansas 72075 LETTER-ORDER RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, Case No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR- August 18th Hearing - Dear Mr. Bond: This is in response to your letter of yesterday, August 11 , 2003, regarding Mr. Fendley's conflicting schedule. I often reschedule hearing when they conflict with long standing vacation plans; and, on occasion, I have allowed a lav-,-yer to participate by telephone. In view of the crucial and immediate interests involved, I believe the hearing must be held as scheduled. Participation by telephone is a little unwieldy, and I do not think it would appropriate in this instance. cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Other counsel of record Original to Clerk Cordially, [;~~ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. - ---- --- - - - - -------- - - ----- - - -- BILL WILSON JUDGE TO: All Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 804-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 August 12, 2003 BYFAX MEMORANDUM RE: Knight lntervenors' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel Pending is the Knight Intervenors' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel. The Knight Intervenors assert that former cow1sel, Richard W. Roachell, has retired from the practice of law and requests to withdraw as their counsel. The Knight Intervenors have engaged Clayton Blackstock and Mark Burnette as counsel to replace Mr. Roachell. This issue will be addressed at the commencement of the hearing scheduled for 10:00 a.m., Monday, August 18, 2003. cc: The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray Original to Clerk Cordially, Y./~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT . V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN 01sr.:i,cT ARKANSAS Al 1r, 1 3 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: ______. .....,,o\"\"ep\"\"'c\"\"'L.\"E\"'R,,.K..,. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District may have until 12:00 p.m., noon, Friday, August 1S, 2003, to file a reply to the responses to its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief (Doc. No. 3760). The reply should be short (no more than five pages), and citations of authority are more desired than prose. This Order provides an opportunity to reply and is not a mandate. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13 th day of August 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 A~9(a) FRCF , ON ~-t ~-0;\\ B 3:\u0026gt;Q +:: ~ FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAI'fSAS  TO; Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Roachell John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Alm Marshall Mark Burnette Scott Smith Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson DATE: f. D. O'b Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 682-4249 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 There are )--pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. . Wilson, Jr. U.S. Dis1:rict Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604--5141 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL -DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 1 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOIHNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY and SUE ANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS PCSSD CONSOLIDATED BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS REPLY TO ALL RESPONSES TO ITS FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I. Ripeness Hardship would be occasioned to the PCSSD because it is required to pay for the detachment election even though most of its patrons are denied the right to vote. The current proceedings do not interfere with an on-going administrative action because the State Board has already ordered the election. Simply stated, the legislature should not have passed a statute which substantially affects the ability of the PCSSD to desegregate and which violates Section II.J of the Settlement Agreement. All matters currently pending \"flow from\" passage of the statute. 440824-v1 II. The Settlement Agreement While it is fundamentally true that the equal protection arguments presented have an independent constitutional footing, at the same time, \"but for\" the State's enactment of an unconstitutional statute and the State Board's activation of that statute, these claims would have no reason to arise. The situation presented is much the same as confronted the Court of Appeals in 1990. After first finding that the District Court should have approved the desegregation plans, it then went on to note that: \"If the plans had been approved, the question of appointment of a metropolitan supervisor would never have arisen, and the tri-district plan would neither had been written nor submitted. The order appointing a metropolitan supervisor and commanding the parties to comply with the tri-district plan therefore necessarily falls along with the order declining to approve the settlement plan submitted by the parties. 921 F.2d 1371 at 1388. Here, had the legislation never been passed, the equal protection claims would have never had occasion to arise. Accordingly, in this literal sense, all of the issues presented now flow from the Settlement Agreement. ,. m. Equal Protection The PCSSD adopts that certain memorandum brief filed by the individual school board directors on August 8, 2003. The Bollen intervenors have simply missed the point with their argument that the board members have \"no constitutional right to vote on detachment.\" Bollen Mem. Brief at 4. The Bollen intervenors have no constitutional right to vote on detachment, either. What both parties have, however, is a constitutional right to vote on equal terms with those living in the 440824-v1 2 relevant political jurisdiction. See Board of County Commissioners of Shelby County v. Burson, 121 F.3d 244, 247 (6th Cir. 1997) When a citizen can show that he lives in the relevant jurisdiction, there is a \"strong presumption\" of entitlement to vote in its elections. Id. Indeed, \"exclusion of such a citizen from the franchise is subject to strict scrutiny, and will be only be upheld upon a showing of a compelling state interest.\" Id. ( citing Kramer v. Union  Free School Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969)). Thus the question before the Court focuses on what is the \"relevant political jurisdiction,\" and it is both irrational and arbitrary to award that label to any jurisdiction other than the preexisting entity charged with the responsibility in question. For purposes of the local government's role in education, there is currently only one jurisdiction--Pulaski County-and only one set of voters whose desires and interests are \"relevant\" to the education of public school students not enrolled in the Little Rock or North Little Rock districts--voters in areas comprising the PCSSD. The appropriate \"jurisdiction\" is the existing school district, for its citizens have a signal and profound interest in the outcome of any election that could alter its boundaries, tax base, student enrollment, and property.\" Furthermore, the state legislature has embraced a definition of the \"relevant political jurisdiction\" that is based on school districts. Having for generations endowed local school districts with the control, taxing authority, voting mechanisms and other indicia of \"the relevant political jurisdiction\" for public education purposes, the legislature cannot turn on its heels by enacting a law that treats a city, or a neighborhood, or state representative district, or historic zoning district as the \"relevant political jurisdiction\" entitled to make its own public education choices free from the desires of the larger and authentic \"relevant political jurisdiction\" already in place. 440824-v1 3 Compounding the equal protection dilemma is the fact that the State wrote the statute in a way that it currently applies only to the PCSSD and no other school district. While it is true that the Waldron School District meets the \"square mile test\", only the PCSSD meets the enrollment test of a district between 15,000 and 20,000 students. The statute applies neither to the largest school district in the State, the Little Rock School District, nor any of the next 100 1argest districts in terms of enrollment. Thus, those patrons residing in the PCSSD in areas other than those proposed for detachment are the only voters disenfranchised statewide. The detachment effort is the legal equivalent of a divorce. However, the party \"moving out\" does not get to control the process in a divorce. Rather, both parties are accorded due process and equal protection of the law. However, in the case of this attempted divorce, the State has seen fit to allow the party moving out to control the process. This is unfair, denies equal protection and should be declared unconstitutional. 440824-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 '- By __ ~~\"\"t\"------=-------:-::,~~------- pecial s 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 15, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 440824-v1 5 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 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 ~end~ Chamberlin t)r, /:, Yd ,n C,,11f'ere,.'-~ (501 l 982-941 _ (j p. 2 / ,P',,1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. 1 . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTR:ICT _NO. 1, et al., Defendants. No. 4:82CV00866WRW Monday, August 18, 2003 Little. Rock, Arkansas 10:06 a.m. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY, and SUE ANN WHISKER, . Movants/1:ntervenors TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR . , UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: On Behalf of Little Rock School District: MR. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, Attorney at Law Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Regioris Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock ; Arkansas 72201-3493 On Behalf of Pulaski County Special School District : MR. M. SAMUEL JONES, II 1, . At t.orney at Law Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bui1ding -200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 El aine Hinson, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter [Continued] FILED EAsrMR~ g',f~1,g ~~sAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .Allr, l S 200l EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCl( DMSION .::MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK D~PCLERI( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For the reasons stated in the finding facts in conclusion with the law, given earlier today from the bench, aft~r hearing arguments of counsel, the Arkansas Dep:3rtmcnt of Education/State is directed to rescind the vote by which it approved an election in Jacksonville, Arkansas on September 16, 2003-whereby the citizens of that area would vote on the question of whether Jacksonville should be or would be a new district, separate in part fron1 the Pulaski County Special School District (which it is now a part). Additionally, the ADE/State is ordered to notify all affected county clerks and election officials that this rescission has taken place. The findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in court today are adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. Among other things, the facts and conclusions of law announ,~ed from the bench, the \"Bollen Intervenol'l!\"' Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 3766) and the Motion to Intervene by the PCSSD Board Members in their individual capacities (Doc. No. 3769) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 181h day of August, 2003 THIS 0OCUMENT ENTERED ON_ DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCt: WITH RULi= 513 AND~79(a) FRCP ON 8-l t-o~. BY S+l q d FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EA.STERN DISTRICT ARl(ANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Af Jr, t B EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 2003 LITTLE ROCK DMSION JA:-4ES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By. ______ --=,_- oeP Cl..eRI( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/.TJ'R PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is the Knight Intervenors' Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel (Doc. No. 3783). The Knight Intervenors assert that former counsel, Richard W. Roachell, has retired :\u0026amp;-.osn the practice of law and requests to withdraw as their counsel. The Knight Intervenors have engaged Clayton Blackstock and Mark Burnette as counsel to replace Mr. Roachell. The Knight Intervenors' motion was addressed at a hearing this morning, August 18,  2003, and was not objected to by any parties in this case. Therefore, the Knight Intervenors may substitute counsel. IT IS so ORDERED this u day of August, 2003. ~~ I I ~4 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON lJ~ DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE \\NITH RULE 58 ANOlQ_~9{aj FRCF oN re/ t (J{o 3 av~ ~,.,,;o - - ----- ------ - -- - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Al ltt I 9 2003 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COUR\"T\" EASTE~N OISfRICT ARKA.NSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION ~~;MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK DEP CLiaRK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER CORRECTED ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For the reasons stated in the finding facts and conclusions of the law, given earlier today - from the bench, after hearing arguments of counsel, the Arkansas Department of Education/ State Board of Education is directed to rescind the vote and order by which it approved an election in Jacksonville, Arkansas on September 16, 2003-whereby the citizens ,)fthat area would vote on the question of whether Jacksonville should be or would be a new distzict, separate and apart from the Pulaski County Special School District (of which it is now a part). Additionally, the ADE/State Board of Education is ordered to notify all affected county clerks and election officials that this rescission has taken place. The findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in court today are adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. Among other things, the findings of facts and conclusions of law announced from the bench, the \"Bollen Intervenors\"' Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 3766) and the Motion to Intervene by the PCSSD Board Members in their individual capacitks (Doc. No. 3769) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this l 9c1, day of August, 2003, nunc pro tune as of August 18'\\ 2003 . THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON OOCKEi SHEET IN COMPLIANCE W!Tli.RULE 58 AND/~ ~p ON ~- l 'i-0~ BY'-2-~=-~- u/WI? UltP ==- UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 DATE: \u0026lt;i' I~  o:\u0026gt; - There are \"3 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Offiai'of Judge Wm. R. w U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room Little Roel:, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 --- - - - - - - ---- - -  - - - - BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TulAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 l 982-9414 p.2 WILL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN August 19 , 2003 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9411 FAX: (501) 982-9414 VIA FAX 3~6-9442 Sam Jones Wright, L~ndsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP Suite 2200 200 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 RE: School Di strict Dear Sam: Attached is our Motion for Stay of Judgment. It is our understanding the judge is going to take this up in a 3:00 p.m. telephone conference. Wi th Warmest Regards, Wi ll Bond 'l'WB:tt cc: John Walker Via Fax@ 374-4186 Scott Smith Via Fax@ 682-4249 Christ opher Heller Via Fax@ 376-21 47 Mark Burnette Via Fax@ 375-94 10 St ephen Jones Via Fax@ 375-1027 Ann Marshall Via Fax@ 371-0lOC Ka r la Burnett Vi a Fax@ 340-8282 arpart choo.l\\\"\"\"' jone.aug. 1fl. 03 IN THE UNITED STA'l'ES . OIS'l'RICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARDNSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR J?UI.ASll COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL .DISTRICT NO. 1,  ET AL. MRS . LORENE JOSHUA , E'l' AL .  KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLI,.EN, JAMES BOLDEN, PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY ANO SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS/MOVANTS MOTION FOR .STAY OF JUDGMENT AND ORDER MADE PURSUANT TO RULE 62 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND TO RULE 8 . A : OF THE EIGB'l'B .C:IRCUIT ROLES OF APELLATE PRACTICE 1. The rules of the Eighth Circ~it require that the moving party request a stay of judgment from the District Court prio r to see king such relief from the Eighth Circui t Court. 2. Yesterday, this Court ente~ed an order in effect stopping an ' election that was to occ~r within the Northeast Pulaski County area on September 16, 2003. P~oposed Intervencrs/Mov~nts conterid that the Order was contrary to existing case law. Particularly, the Fifth Circuit has held that a District Court excee6ed its discretion when it enjoined the ability of a separate s~hool district to naintain its corporate existence and to pursue its organizational rights under state law that did not involve the independent operation p.3 of a desegrating school district. See Ross v. United States 583 F , 2 d 712 5th Cir . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . 3. Failure of this Court to stay its order and judgment until proposed Intervenors/Movants can seek relief from the Eighth Circuit would in essence prohibit an election taking place on September 16, 2003. This Court ordered the State Board of Education to rescind its order of election and to ~nform election officials of the fact that the order had been rescinded and that the election coulc ~ot go forward . . 4. There are certain ministerial acts that election officials must take to ensure that an electio~ could take place on September 16, 2003. Those acts include making absentee - ballots available, ensuring that certain publications are made in newspapers concerning the election, ensur~ng that election officials define which voters are allowed to vote in the detachment election and other duties. 5. As menticned, failure to st~y the order and judgment until relief can be sought from tha Eighth Circuit wo~ld in effect stop the September election. 6. Proposed Intervenors/Movants were denied intervention by this Court in the ace of case law which states that the threshold to intervention is minimal; they are being denied their right to vote pursuant to a statute passed by the duly elected representatives of the General Assembly of State of 2 p. .. - - ~-- . .. Arkansas; and they are being denied their right to organize a school district under state law by this Court. Failure to stay the Court's decision would prohibit an election from being held pursuant to what is a validly passed and enacted state statute. WHEREFORE, Intervenors/Movants request that the Court's order be stayed until relief can be sought frcm the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and for all other just and equitable relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully S~bmitted, BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERtIN Trial Lawyers 602 w. Main Jacksonville, AR ~076 Telephone (501) 2 9081 Telefax (501) - 414 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i, Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleaoing by United States Mail, addressed to such attorney or party with ,:_~ficier.t prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this --f::l..L'-d.ay of August, 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, . LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste~ 2300 ~ittle Rock, AR 72201-3699 S::::ott Smit:i State Department of Education #4 Capito],. Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Also Via f3x@ 376-9442 Also Via Fax@ 682-4249 3 p.5 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Ro~k , AR 72201 Also Via Fax@ 376-2147 John W. Walker P.A. Also Via Fax @ 37 4-4186 1723 S. Broadway\" Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark 3urnette Also Via Fax@ 3 75-9410 Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. ~hird Street Lit tle Rock, AR Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue ~ittle Rock, AR .72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Littl e Rock, AR 72201 By: 4 Al s o Via Fax@ 375-1027 Also Via Fax@ 371-0100 Also Via Neil Bar 93222 p.6 To: Ann Marshall Fax: 371-0100 Pharla= Ile: School District  Attachments:  Commentss BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN Trial Lawyers 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Telephone (501) 982-9081 Telefa\u0026gt;\u0026lt; (501) 982-9414 Prom: Will Bond Pa ... Including Con,..._.:~ fJ Date: August 19, 2003 The lnfannltlon contained In thl9 fax transmltal ls conlldenttal attorney-client privilaged information and is intended 90ltly for the use of ttle lnclvldual or entity nmnecl H N1Clplent. If this message Is ,-Mid by aomeone other than the Intended niclplant, you .. JIR)hiblled from anv dl.-ninMion, distribution cir copying of tnla ccmmunlcatlon aimept to the addrasH. If thla communication ha bNn received by you in error, or  you ani not aunt of itB intended dlltrl)utlon, plaaN notify the ~ced office at 1.a88-245-1!77. p. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT. ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN. MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WIDSKER ORDER AUG 19 2003 JAMES WM By:_  cCORMACK, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley, and Sue Ann Whisker, \"intervenors\"/ Movants, filed a Motion for Stay of Judgment and Order Made Pursuallt to Rule 62 of the - Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to Rule 8.A of the Eighth Circuit Rules of Appellate Practice (Doc. No. 3791). This motion is in response to :findings of facts, conclusions of law, and an Order of this Court (Doc. No. 3790) entered yesterday. Since the Movants' Request for Intervention was denied in yest,~rday's ruling, I have considerable doubt as to their standing to file the above-referenced motion-particularly since the Arkansas Department of Education/State Board of Education declin.ed to join the motion (although it did not specifically oppose the motion); but, be that~ it m.:iy, the motion is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this I 9m day of August, 2003. THJS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMF\u0026gt;l.lANCE 0:'~!{~:i,~ A~~=- TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson ----- Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 There are 2 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: P1-t ,;::i::;-? 16-------- Office of Judge Wm. ~son, Jr. U.S. Distric:t Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 4 ' \\ FlLeo .! c: \"\" .... u.s o,sr  ~ TERN D!slR1c;;_r couRT l~T ARKANSAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 0 2D03 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~AyMEs w. McCORv11cK LITTLE ROCK DIVISION  . . 1,..._ , CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4 :82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRI CT NO . 1 , ET AL . MRS . LORENE JOSHUA , ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT , ET AL . GREG BOLLEN , JAMES BOLDEN, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHI SKER INTERVENORS/MOVANTS NOTICE OF APPEAL Proposed Intervenors/Movants hereby appeal the decisions made by the District Court in the above-referenced case on August 19 , 2003 with judgment being filed on August 19, 2003. This appeal is hereby taken to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The proposed Intervenors/Movants appeal the denial of their intervention and appeal the District Court ' s ultimate decision granting Pulaski County Special District ' s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement . Proposed Intervenors/Movants will be submitting a motion for expedited review and for emergency relief with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals . Respectful ly Submitted, BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN Trial Lawyers 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Telephone (501)982 - 9081 k. Bar #95245 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I , Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail, addressed to  such attorney or party with/,7':;i;ficient prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this -#1-'-day of August , 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings , LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday , Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock , AR 72201 Also Via Fax@ 376-9442 Also Via Fax@ 682-4249 Also Via Fax@ 376-2147 John W. Walker P.A . Also Via Fax@ 374-4186 1723 S . Broadway Little Rock , AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Also Via Fax@ 375-1940 Mitchell , Blackstock , Barnes , Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock , AR Mr . Stephen Jones Jack , Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock , AR 72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Also Via Fax@ 375-1027 2 Ann Marshall Also Via Fax@ 371-0100 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 By: @ 340-8282 Wil AR Bar 95145 separate school district .pleadings . federal\\motion for appeal.aug.19.03 3 WILL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN PRESS BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL L AWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 August 20 , 2003 Michael~ . Gans , Clerk Eighth ircuit Court of Appeals . 24 . 32 Thomas F. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse 111 10th Street St Louis , MO 63101 14) 244 - 2400 RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2003 DESEGR OFFICE OF EG4fLQ!MdQN/1'(JMW8-9411  FAX (50\"1j~M\u0026gt;-9414 RE : Motion for Expedited Review and Stay o f Order of District Court Dear Mr . Gans : Enclosed along with this letter are a copy of our file marked Notice of Appeal , a certified copy of docket entries , and a copy of the order of the District Court from which we are appealing . Also enclosed are the original and five COQies of our Motion for Ex edited Review and Stay of: t-he... Di tr ict Gou_rt dB . If you could please file-mark these pleadings and return a file-marked copy to us in the self- addressed , stamped envelope enclosed , your help would be greatly appreciated. One of the exhibits to the motion is a transcript of the proceedings. As I mentioned to you on the telephone , the transcript was not to be completed until August 21 , 2003 . We intend to fax the transcript to you so that you will have it in the record. By copy of involved of our TWB : tt Enclosure ( s ) this letter , I am informing other counsel forwarding these documents to you . I\\ With(; 1 ]mes):_ Regards , ///,_~/ ~i J[d uvc \\ Michael E. Gans August 20 , 2003 Page Two cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P.A . Mark Burnette Stephen Jones/ Ann Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger f. , ?Jh j ~ ldt f+-~~ P c.J~scv,v,'lf.:. 5 1:il-+- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOAJNG PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS (APPELLEES) . DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS/MOV ANTS (APPELLANTS) EMERGENCY MOTION FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW AND SUSPENSION OF THE RULES PURSUANT TO RULE 2 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE AND MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY OF JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT Come the proposed Intervenors/Movants (appellants), and for their request for expedited review of their appeal and for a stay of the District Court's Order state: 1. On August 20, 2003, proposed Intervenors/Movants, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley, and Sue Ann Whisker, filed a Notice of Appeal in the above-referenced case. 2. The proposed Intervenors/Movants represented a group of individuals living and residing in approximately the northeast portion of Pulaski County, - Arkansas who sought to form a new school district by detachment pursuant to Ark. ' J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT ,. OF TIME TO FILE FEE PETITION The PCSSD for its motion, states: RE/~IYPi AUG 2 5 2003 ) OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORfNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. On August 18, 2003, this Court announced its decision from the Bench granting the PCSSD's motion to enforce Settlement Agreement and for allied relief. A final order was entered on August 19, 2003. 2. Since that time, the putative intervenors have begun the prosecution of a notice of appeal and have requested a stay from the Court of Appeals as well as expedited processing of their appeal. 3. The PCSSD believes that the Court of Appeals will deal with these issues on some kind of expedited basis and that it would promote judicial economy to await the Court of Appeals' ruling on a stay before presenting any motion for attorneys' fees and costs in this Court. 443086-v1  J 4. The PCSSD thus requests an enlargement of time until and including twenty (20) days after the Court of Appeals issues its ruling on the putative appellants' request for a stay before finalizing and filing any motion for attorneys' fees and costs. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court enlarging its time until and including twenty (20) days after The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issues it ruling upon the pending stay request, and for all proper relief. 443086-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 22, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. John W. Walker John.W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Ileller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, ArkanSas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 443086-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITUE ROCK DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:8lCV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHA UEY AND SUE ANN WIIlSKER ORDER FILED U S DISTRICT COURT EASTE;RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 2 5 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLE By: CEP CL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is PCCSb's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File :Fee Petition (Doc. No. 3797). If any party has an objection to this extension, that party, or parties, should file a response within three days of the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED uN DOCKET SHEET lN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AN~ FRCf- ON R-~~ ...o~ BY Q..) 111 !!Lfl{;J~ ~ATESDISTRICTGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. . TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Nwnber: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591  682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 DATE: __\u0026lt;3 _Z_~_-_17_\"J - There are Z-pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: ~~?\"?-tr~ Office of Judge Wm. R. w n, Jr. U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, R 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5l41 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Education JoNell caldwell, Chair Utt/a Rock Shelby HIiiman, Vice Chair Carlisle Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home calvln King Marianna Randy Lawson IIJJJJ.fonvllle W.,Jane Rebick little Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, LiJtle Rock, AR 72201-1071 August 28, 2003 501-682-4475 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 htlp:/ larkedu.staJe.ar.us RECEIVED AUG 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOmN  RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: 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 August 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ld:~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier ,, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for August 2003. Rg::z~ Scott Smith, #92251 Attorney, 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 Augu~ 2003, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~od~ ottSmith RECEIVED AUG 2c1 2003 OFFICE OF OESEGREGATIOH MONITORING Fl I s:: D --- ~-'= U.S. 01s\"rl:t1t'f COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUti 2 8 2003 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By_ --------,o=e=p-=c.,..,Le=R\"\"\"K IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT :tvIB.S. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KN1GHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion - for Extension of Time to submit a fee petition regarding PCSSD's Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement, state: 1. The Joshua Intervenors believe their counsel is entitled to a fee award. 2. Counsel, therefore, requests that the court allow undersigned counsel the same time it allows counsel for PCS SD to file such motion and supporting documentation and brief 3. Counsel incorporates by reference the motion and supporting documentation of the PCSSD in this matter. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an order granting Joshua's counsel such time that His Honor allows the PCSSD file its petition for fees, costs and other appropriate relief Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker Rickey Hicks John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) I do hereby state that a copy of the forego 0 motion has been served all counsel of record on this 28th day of August, 2003. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL . GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS/MOVANTS ORDER OF TRANSCRIPTS PURSUANT TO RULE 10 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE Appellants , Greg Bollen , James Bolden , Martha Whatley and - Sue Ann Whisker , have ordered from the court reporter a transcript of the entire proceeding which consists of one hearing and a telephone conference . Appellants have already made payment for the transcript . The entire transcript has been ordered . Respectfully Submitted , Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Trial Lawyers 602 West Main Street Jacksonville , AR 72076 Telephone (501) - 9081 Telefax (501) 8 - 414 By : W.1.l Bar 95145 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I , Will Bond , do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail , addressed to such attorney or party wit~~ujfj'ficient prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this ~ay of August , 2003: v  Mr . Sam Jones Wright , Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings , LLP 200 W. Capitol , Ste . 2300 \"Little Rock , AR 72201 - 3699 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock , AR 72201 Mr . Christopher Heller Friday , Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark , LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock , AR 72201 John W. Walker P .A. 1723 S . Broadway Little Rock , AR 72206 Mr . Mark Burnette Mitchell , Blackstock , Barnes , Wagoner , Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock , AR Mr . Stephen Jones Jack , Lyon \u0026amp; Jones , P .A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock , AR 72201 Telephone (501) 375 - 1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol , Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 2 - Ms . Karla Burnett Suite 400 , 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201 - 2610 By: 3 AR Bar 95145 WILL BOND BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 _.,A,- ugust 28 , 2003 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9411 FAX: (501) 982-9414 NEIL CHAMBERLIN / Mr. James W. Mc mack 402 ffice \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 Ca  ol Avenue Little R\u0026amp;ck , AR 72201 - 3325 RE : In the United States District Court , Eastern District of Arkansas , Little Rock Division , Little Rock School District v . Pulaski County Special School District no. 1 , et al. , Katherine Knight , et al ., Greg Bollen , et al ., Case No . 4 : 82CV00866 WRW/JTR Dear/~ . McCormack : Enclosed are an original and .two copies of an Order of Transcripts Pursuant to Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in the above- referenced case. Please fil e this pleading and return file-marked copies to me in the encl osed self- addressed , stamped envelope . Thank you for your attention to this TWB : ab Enclosure(s) cc: Elaine Hinson Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Chris Heller John Walker Mark Burnette Stephen Jones / Ann Marshall Karla Burnett Tim Gauger ( Regards , RECEIVED r::P 2  2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 03-3088 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DEFENDANTS (APPELLEES) DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER INTERVENORS/MOV ANTS (APPELLANTS) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Appellants, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker, are not a - corporate entity and do not have any parent corporation. Appellants file this statement to comply with Rule 26. l of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and 26. l A of the Eighth Circuit Rules. Respectfully Submitted, Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin Attorneys for Plaintiff 602 West Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Telephone (501) 982-9 1 Telefax (501) 982-941 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Will Bond, do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing pleading by United States Mail, addr;;\u0026gt;s;:911~uch attorney or party with sufficient prepaid postage to ensure first-class delivery this p..t aay of August, 2003: Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, LLP 200 W. Capitol, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Scott Smith State Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR.72201 Telephone (501)375-1122 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 - Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Ms. Karla Burnett Suite 400, 201 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Gauger Senior Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 By: 3 WI LL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN Michael E. Gans~ Clerk BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 August 28 , 2003 Eighth Circui Court of Appeals 24 . 329 s F. Eagleton U.S . Courthouse 111 S . Street St. Lo s , MO 63101 (314) 244 - 2400 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9411 FAX: (501) 982-9414 RECEIVED SEP 2 - 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE : United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit , Case No . 03 - 3088 Dear Mr . Gans : Enclosed are an original and five copies of a Corporate Disclosure Statement in the above- referenced case . Please file and return file - marked copies to me in the enclosed self-addressed , stamped envelope . Thank you for your attention to this matter . Regards , TWB : ab Enclosure(s) Michael E. Gans August 20 , 2003 Page Two cc: Greg Bollen Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher Heller John W. Walker P .A. Mark Burnette Stephen Jones Ann Marshall  Karla Burnett FILED US DISTRICT COURT EAST!:~,;. DISTRICT AF!KA~JSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 2 9 2003\" EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DMSION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK 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 By: DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3799) to submit a fee petition regarding PCSSD's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agree:ment. Joshua Intervenors' motion is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2003. UN!WuS~WJIJ!lti Wm. R. WILSON, JR. TO: DATE: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COlURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones Jolm Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall Mark Burnette Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson e-z..y.o-, Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Nwnber: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 There are Z. pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: ?\"\"'t:~~9~-- Office of Judge Wm. R. W~ U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_16923","title":"Chris Mercer interview","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Jacoway, Elizabeth"],"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":["Mercer, Chris"],"dc_date":["2003-08-11"],"dcterms_description":["Interview by Elizabeth Jacoway during research for her book, Turn Away Thy Son: Little Rock, the Crisis That Shocked the Nation. Topics include, his life, his involvement in the desegregation of Central High"],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"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":["Elizabeth Jacoway Little Rock Crisis collection (BC.MSS.10.48)","Central High Desegregation Crisis","Arkansas African Americans"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Civil rights workers","African Americans","Lawyers","Central High School (Little Rock, Ark.)--Riots, 1950-1960","Race relations"],"dcterms_title":["Chris Mercer interview"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p1532coll1/id/16923"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["files (digital files)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1750","title":"Includes memorandum of allowance for extension of time, responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD's response to Bollen intervenors, and notice of rejoinder.","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":["2003-08-11"],"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","School districts","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. State Board of Education","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Includes memorandum of allowance for extension of time, responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD's response to Bollen intervenors, and notice of rejoinder."],"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/1750"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["45 page scan, typed"],"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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, memorandum of allowance for extension of time; District Court, Knight intervenors' response to Pulaski County Special School Districts (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to dismiss Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, order; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to the Bollen intervenors' motion to intervene; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) memorandum in support of its response to the Bollen intervenors; motion to intervene; District Court, motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, the Bollen intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) statement of material facts related to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of the Bollen intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, the Bollen intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, notice of rejoinder    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    - ILL WILSON - JUDGe: To: All Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AAKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (S01) 804-5140 Facslrnlle (501) 804-5149 August 11, 2003 BYFAX RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING . RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR Mr. Steve Jones, counsel for the North Little Rock School District, called Matt Morgan, my new LRSD law clerk, regarding the deadline I imposed in the August 6, 2003 Order. _The Order required that responses to the Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief (Doc. No. 3760) and the Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. :,766) be filed no iater than 12:00 p.m., noon, today. Mr. Jones advises that be had been out of town since August 1, had just received notice of the order, and requested a one day extension to reply. Due to his circumstances, I have allowed Mr. Jones until 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 12, 2003 , to reply to. either of the pending motions. Cordially, c El~ Original to Clerk TO: FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Chris Heller Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Roachell John Walker Timothy Gauger Mark Hagemeier Ann Marshall :Mark Burnette Scott Smith Clay Fendley Will Bond Mike Wilson Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fa.x Number: 501-604 5149 376-2147 376-9442 375-1027 374-4187 682-2591 682-2591 371-0100 375-1940 682-4249 907-9798 982-9414 982-9414 DATE: 8  II -o ':;\u0026gt; There are ;2 pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this faGsirnile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R. Wi1501 U.S. Distri,;t Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morg1m, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 --- --- ------------ ~- - - ~ l , r;:.' .: ... ) _ _ w ~, l ~ ::. \"\\-:n t'.  .1 '- .  U.S. DI STRICT CCURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cou:~r EASTERN DiSTisiCT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS t( - /.:..-..:G i 1  \"L.\"~ ~J WESTERN DIVISION -: JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLEF-K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By_ ---~'T\"TT..,._.....,._.,,..... PLAIN I lllf CL~R--.- V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS AUG 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, ET AL. MOVANT/INTERVENORS KNIGHT INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE TO PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S \u0026lt;PCSSD'S) FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S (LRSD'S) MOTION TO DISMISS PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Knight Intervenors support PCSSD's motion in full, but put forward a different rationale I for why this Court must act to enjoin the State Board of Education now, rather than await the outcome of the election the State Board has ordered. A. The State Board Has Unilaterally Initiated an Alteration of the Settlement Agreement, and PCSSD's Desegregation Plan, Over Which It No Longer Has Discretionary Authority to Stop; It has Taken This Action In Clear Contravention of This Court's Authority and Obligation to Make Prior Approval of Any Such Proposed Alterations If the voters approve the plan to create a new district on September 16, 2003, the State Board \"shall order the creation of the new school district.\" A.C.A. 6-13-1505(a). To that extertt, the State defendant has taken its final discretionary administrative action on the issue of creation of a new school district, notwithstanding the outcome of the vote. The State Board's \"vote\" has been cast in favor of the creation of a new district whether that negatively impacts the ---- - ------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I desegregation of the Pulaski County districts or not. At this point, the question is not \"what - happens if the voters approve the plan,\" - the State Board will be bound to the creation of the new district automatically - but, \"whether the State Board has made an \"end run\" around the Court's authority to approve proposed alterations of the desegregation plans before the alteration is made.\" As discussed below, the State Board has adopted the detachment proponents position that this Court will make the necessary future adjustments to the settlement agreement and desegregation plans to accommodate the creation of a new district, despite its own statutory obligation, A. CA. 6-13-1504(b )(2)(A), to investigate the question of whether there will be any negative impact on the Pulaski County school districts' desegregation efforts and reject the proposal for an election if any negative impact exists. Unfortunately, if PCS SD awaits the statutorily required invocation of this Court's after-the-fact approval, see A.CA. 6-13- - 1505(b)(2), the analysis of those issues will c9me too late. The new district will be afait accompli: by statue, the State Board must create a new district if the voters approve. By statute, it is then the new district which petitions the Court for what will amount to absolution for its own creation. See A. CA. 6-13-1 SOS(b )(2). It is a fundamental tenet of this Court's jurisdiction over the settlement of this case that a party seeking an alteration ofthe settlement agreement must obtain the Court's prior approval. The State Board has not done so prior to passing on its discretionary authority to stop the creation of a new district. It has approved the proposed new district and forwarded it to the public for a vote. The very act of doing so denigrates the very existence of one of the parties to this litigation, accedes to the creation of a new entity over which the court must then assume jurisdiction, and thus, fundamentally, seeks to change the desegregation efforts of all three Pulaski County school districts. This Court should therefore stay the order of an election unless the Court concludes - that the State Board is entitled to approval of an alteration of the settlement agreement through creation of a new entity. 1 Toe Court should not await the dismemberment of one of the parties to the Settlement Agreement to consider whether unilateral acts initiated by one party to dismember another party violate the settlement agreement. B. The State Board Has Proceeded in Contravention of State Law By Abdicating its Role to Approve an Election Only If the Creation of the New District Does Not \"Hamper, Delay or in any Manner Negatively Affect Desegregation Efforts\" of PCSSD. The State Board's own inquiry into the critical questions of whether the creation of the proposed new district would negatively effect the settlement agreement, or desegregation generally, was limited to its statutorily required request for an attorney general opinion. The Attorney General's first opinion clearly only raised more questions which, it said, the Board must answer before it could make a legitimate factual determination of the desegregation questions / can me made. For the reasons set forth below, we cannot definitively opine as to whether the detachment would in fact negatively affect desegregation in any school district or negatively impact the effort of the State to assist any '.'affected\" school district in the desegregation of public schools in the State. Nonetheless, the proposed detachment raises serious questions with regard to potential negative impact on the ability of one or more of the schools districts in Pulaski County to comply with their court imposed obligations in the Pulaski County school desegregation litigation. For this reason, before it authorizes an election on the proposed detachment, the State Board of Education should carefully scrutinize the proposal, gathering whatever information, 1So far, the State Bord has not even filed such a Motion. Further, based upon the PCSSD's pending motion and the discussion below, Knight argues that the Movant's and the State Board will not be able to meet the standard of proof necessary to approve such a fundamental alteration of the Settlement Agreement and the other outstanding Orders of the Court which establish the contours of PCSSD's present desegregation plan. commentary or testimony it deems necessary (including input from the three school districts in Pulaski County), to ensure that it has properly exercised its responsibility to determine whether the creation of the new district would hamper . . . . Attorney General Opinion of June 4, 2003, (italics in original). After a review of some of the questions which would have to be answered to make these determinations, it repeatedly concluded that there was insufficient information before the Board to make the determination required by the statute. With this clearly equivocal opiPJon in hand, the State Board was not to be dissuaded. It insisted on clarification of the opinion from the Attorney General2 and responses from the detachment petitioners and others. The proponents offered a legal opinion by attorney Clay Fendley to compete with the Attorney General's opinion. But that opinion, again, invokes this Court's authority to cure all the harms that will be visited on the desegregation efforts in Pulaski County and violations of the Orders of this Court that will result from secession and appears to I concede that detriment to the desegregation plans are inevitable.3 Mr. Fendley's opinion is also defective as a basis for meeting the State Board's statutorily required review of the negative impact of the proposal because, as Mr. Fendley states, \"my analysis will be limited to two 2The Attorney General's second response still gave the State Board no basis for its approval. The Attorney General opined that before granting its approval, the State Board must be assured that \"the detached district and its students will be permitted to participate in all existing transfer programs under the various orders and agreements in the Pulaski County desegregation case.\" To do that, the Board would have had to seek this Court's prior approval for the participation of the newly created detached district in these programs. It has not pursued that assurance from this Court. 3 Among the plans Mr. Fendley has for this Court to solve all these new problems that are likely to occur are, \"ordering the new district to retain the PCSSD teachers currently employed at the detached schools,\" p. 8, and \"address [the anticipated] overcrowding at Sylvan Hills\" p. 7, by \"revis[ing] the attendance zones for all of PCSSD's high schools,\" p. 6, \"discontinue [Sylvan Hills] specialty programs,\" or even \"build add,itional classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School.\" - See PCSSD's Exhibit 17, Fendley Opinion Letter, at the indicated pages. areas,\" \"student assignment and faculty.\" Clearly, other considerations must be made. The detachment will necessarily result in the loss of teacher and support service personnel. Contractually, those losses to PCSSD will be in reverse order of seniority in each certification area, not by a teacher's current association with one school in the PCSSD or another. The teachers currently assigned to schools in the detachment area are still PCSSD employees; they may thus choose to exercise their right to remain in PCSSD where they have a negotiated contract and job security rather than resign for the unknown contract. Thus, the Court must consider \"what affect will the extensive redistribution of teachers within and without PCS SD do to the success of the desegregation efforts in place?\" \"What will that redistribution look like in terms of the experience of the teachers and racial makeup once the break-up occurs? Moreover, \"Does the Court have the authority to alter the plans in such a radical manner as will be required by the detachment being - forwarded?\" \"Can the Court even order the detachment area teachers to remain in their current school, even if it requires them to resign from the PCS SD and be re-employed by the new district?\" The answer to the last question appears to be a resounding \"No\" and therefore dispositive of the detachment question. \"A federal district court does have remedial authority in necessary cases, to modify or even abrogate [employment] agreements that perpetuate segregation or impede a desegregation plan. Such action however can be taken only 'after an evidentiary hearing and upon a finding that the change is essential to the desegregation remedy.'\" Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1997)(quoting LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1315 cert denied 488 U.S. 869 (1988). No one is even arguing that the proposed detachment is \"essential to the desegregation remedy,\" (clearly it is not), and therefore, the numerous other adjustments to the existing agreement and plans which this Court would be asked to take cannot be made by order of this Court. The Board agreed to assign these tasks to this Court rather than make an adequate inquiry into the issues itself. For these reasons, the time for this Court to act is now. The appropriate Order is to stay the election and put the burden of proof on the State to meet the requirements for altering the Settlement Agreement and PCSSD's desegregation plans, as the Board itself anticipates these must be altered. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors join PCSSD in respectfully requesting that the Court enjoin the election approved by the State Department of Education or enjoin the State Board from performing its ministerial duties under A. C.A. 6-13-1505( a) relative to the creation of a new district out of the PCSSD. Respectfully submitted, Clayton Blackstock Mark Burnette MITCHELL,BLACKSTOCK,BARNES WAGONER \u0026amp; IVERS 1010 West Third P. 0. Box 1510 Little kock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 By:2?7~~ Mark Burnette ABN # 88078 Certificate of Service A true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following by U.S. Mail, postage paid, on this jJ_.,IJ.,jay of~ ,.z4: , 2003: Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 20 Nottingham, #3 Little Rock, AR 72205 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn 412 South Eighteenth Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 Sharon Carden Streett Streett Law Offices P. 0. Box 250418 Little Rock, AR 72225-0418 I Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol , Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Mark Arnold Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General 's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense \u0026amp; Educ. Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 By: 72ld, ~ Mark Burnette BAR NO. 88078 RECEIVED AUG 1 2 2003 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 FIL.ED U.S. DISTR1'.::T COURT EASTEP.N 01sr:::1CT ARKANSAS AUG 1 l 2003 JAME~LERK By:7 ~~ PLAINTIFF  DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is Senior Assistant Attorney General Timothy G. Gauger's Request for Entry of Appearance (Doc. No. 3772) as additional counsel of record for the Arkansas Department of Education for the limited purpose of addressing the PCSSD's \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief.\" The Request for Entry of Appearance by Mr. Gauger for the above mentioned limited purpose is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of August, 2003 . UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED GN DOCKET SHE:ET IN COM.PLIANCE WIT~1RULffe 58 AND/OR79-) FRCP ON it II {_p3 BY ~ -7-r-'\"'-.::_.:..... _ WILL BOND NEIL CHAMBERLIN VIA AND BOND \u0026amp; CHAMBERLIN TRIAL LAWYERS 602 W. MAIN JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS 72076 August 11 , 2003 The onorable William R. Wilson , Jr. 60 W. Capitol , Room 423 ittle Rock , AR 72201 TELEPHONE: (501) 982-9411 FAX: (501 ) 982-9414 RECEIVED AUG 12 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE : Little Rock School District v . Pulaski County School District , et al ., United States District Court , Eastern District of Arkansas , Western Division , Case No . 4 : 82CV00866WRW - August 18th Hearing Dear Judge Wilson : One of the Intervenors ' counsel , Clay Fendley , has had a vacation scheduled for quite some time . He cannot move his vacation . The vacation conflicts with the August 18 th hearing date . Can Mr . Fendley be a part of the hearing via telephone or video conference? Any help with accommodating the Intervenors would be greatly appreciated . est Regards , TWB :tt Enclosure(s) cc : All Counsel school district detachment\\judge wilson.aug.11 .03 RECENEO r~ \"J - ~; -~ ) It\" :J !. !.':'\"\"' !  ~.:... . EA u.s. DISTR1cr CcuRT - . - STERN OISTR1CT AR MN SAS 2, 1uu1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~\\.\\G l EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK Off\\Ct Of Ql\\\\ll\\i WESTERN DIVISION By: , , n~itGRtG~1\\0\" ~Qll\\1 c..EP CLER. rnTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, ET AL. DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOVANT/INTERVENORS MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL Come the Knight Intervenors, by and through their undersigned counsel, and for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. The Knight Intervenor's former counsel, Richard W. Roachell, has retired from the practice of law, and therefore requests to withdraw as counsel for the Knight Intervenors. 2. Intervenors have engaged Clayton Blackstock and Mark Burnette, MITCHELL, BLACKSTOCK, BARNES, WAGONER, IVERS, \u0026amp; SNEDDON, PLLC, 1010 West Third Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201, (501) 378-7870, as counsel to replace Mr. Roachell in this matter. 3. Intervenors request that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark Burnette. WHEREFORE, Knight Intervenors respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Clayton Blackstock and Mark Burnette be substituted as their counsel of record. Respectfully submitted, Clayton Blackstock Mark Burnette MITCHELL, BLACKSTOCK, BARNES WAGONER \u0026amp; IVERS 1010 West Third P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 By: Z?lrklhta~K Mark Burnette ABN # 88078 Certificate of Service A true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following by U.S. Mail, postage paid, on this -/ /--11ciay of ~'!,Av ,'.\u0026gt;-: , 2003: Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 20 Nottingham, #3 Little Rock, AR 72205 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn 412 South Eighteenth Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol A venue Little Rock, AR 72201 Sharon Carden Streett Streett Law Offices P. 0. Box 250418 Little Rock, AR 72225-0418 I Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol , Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Mark Arnold Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Norman J. Chachkin NAAC.? Legai Defense \u0026amp; Educ. Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 By: 2nw.JP~ Mark Burnette BAR NO. 88078 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S. RATHER, JR . 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 Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST . COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS I.UDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock; Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 - 3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376- 9442 www . wlj.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R . LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER Writer 's Direct Dial No . 501 -2 12 - 1273 mjoncs@wlj .com August 11, 2003 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX . JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C . TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D . WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING  Lict:OSt:dtopn,cdcebefrx'elbt:Ulill:ltlSate:1 h1t:at aod Tn::tDUt Ol6ce RECEIVED AUG 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOffiNG Enclosed are courtesy copies of PCSSD's response to the \"Bollen lntervenors\" Motion to Intervene, and memorandum in support. The original have been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: 440028-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ~ Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) All Counsel of Record (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Ray Simon (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Scott Smith (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Will Bond (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Mike Wilson (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Timothy Gauger (via hand delivery) Mr. Mark Burnett (via U.S. Mail) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY and SUE ANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS PCSSD RESPONSE TO THE \"BOLLEN INTERVENORS\" MOTION TO INTERVENE PCSSD for its response, states: 1. Admit that the movants seek to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). 2. Generally admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 but deny that the movants' \"interest\" is sufficiently unique to warrant intervention and states that the interest set forth parallel those of the Arkansas Board of Education which is already a party to this matter. 3. Admits that a new district cannot be created without an election but reiterates its position that the constitutional scheme pursued by the movants is both unconstitutional and violative of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 4. Denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 4. S. Admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 5. 6. Admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 439522-v1 WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the motion be denied and for all proper relief. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 Jones III (7 or Pulaski oun Special trict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August)!_, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 439522-v1 2 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895  Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 439522-v1 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 1 2 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY and SUE ANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS PCSSD MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS RESPONSE TO THE \"BOLLEN INTERVENORS\" MOTION TO INTERVENE The State has now filed its response to the PCSSD Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief. The PCSSD movants, which include certain Board members in both their official and individual capacities, believe that the response of the State demonstrates that the State will adequately and properly represent the interests of the \"Bollen Intervenors\" on all issues presented in this action. Interestingly, however, the upshot of the Bollen Intervenors claims to intervene demonstrate that this matter must be ripe for adjudication; otherwise, they could not currently assert, with any logical force, a compelling need to intervene now. Accordingly, the PCSSD movants submit that the force and vigor of the Bollen Intervenors' position re-enforces the notion that the issues presented by the PCSSD movants 440038-v1 - are ripe for consideration and for the best interest of all of the parties to this case, and those interested in the outcome of these issues, these matters should be adjudicated now rather than at some distant point in the future. Stated another way, if the \"disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicants' ability to protect [its] interest\", then there must be legitimate and cogent reasons why the intervention is being sought now rather than after the election. The intervenors cannot have it both ways. Accordingly, their motion to intervene is a legal statement that the Court should adjudicate the issues now rather than later. 440038-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 nty Special 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August LL, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 440038-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 M. ~ es III : 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHf, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER MOTION TO DISMISS RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker (hereinafter the \"Bollen Intervenors\") for their Motion to Dismiss the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement state: 1. The Bollen Intervenors seek to create a new school district in northeast Pulaski County by detaching territory from the PCSSD through the process set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 through 1505 (Michie Supp. 2002). In accord with that process,1 the State Board 1The election will be the fourth step in the process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6- 13-1501 through 1505. The Bollen Intervenors initiated the process by commissioning an independent feasibility study. Next, they gathered petition signatures and submitted them to the State Board of Education, along with additional information required by statute. Third, on July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the petition, found it complied with the detachment statute and voted to order an election. Page 1 of 4 of Education on July 16, 20032 ordered an election to be held September 16, 2003 so that voters residing in the proposed new school district may vote on whether to detach from the PCSSD. If a majority of voters favor detachment, the State Board of Education will order the creation of the new district. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1505(a). 2. In its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the PCSSD argues that detachment will violate the Court's Consent Decree arising out of the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement and asks this Court to order the State Board of Education to rescind its July 16, 2003 order and to stop the September 16, 2003 election on detachment. 3. Also in the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, individual PCSSD board members claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,r 9. 4. This Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because their claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. 2Although the hearing was July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education did not actually issue its order until July 16, 2003. Page2 of 4 WHEREFORE, the Bollen Intervenors pray that the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement be dismissed; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982'.'9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for the Bollen Intervenors BY: t!: c. 9-w1ll V[\u0026lt; ~ ~ C. Fendley.Jr. Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-34 72 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaz.a 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - I. Ripeness. This Court must presume that it lacks jurisdiction \"unless 'the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.\"' Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534,546 (1986) (quoting King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U.S. 225,226 (1887)). \"It is the responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court's remedial powers.\" Bender, supra, at 546, n. 8 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 517-518 (1975)). The PCSSD fails to allege facts demonstrating that its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is ripe for adjudication. \"The basic rationale of the ripeness doctrine is 'to prevent the courts, through avoidance Page I of 6 of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effect felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.\"' National Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Conner, 323 F.3d 684,692 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Califano y. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)). Consistent with this rationale, \"courts deciding whether a dispute is ripe should consider (1) the hardship to the plaintiff caused by delayed review; (2) the extent to which judicial intervention would interfere with administrative action; and (3) whether the court would benefit from further factual development.\" Id. Each of the three factors weighs in favor of a finding that the PCSSD's motion is not ripe. First, the PCSSD will suffer no hardship by delaying review until after the September 16, 2003 election. The detachment statute requires this Court's approval before detachment may actually take place. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(b)(2). Consequently, the PCSSD will not suffer any harm before this Court has an opportunity to resolve the issues raised in its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Next, this Court granting the relief sought by the PCSSD would substantially interfere with administrative action taken by the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education ordered an election based on its finding that the Bollen Intervenors satisfied the requirements of the detachment statute. The PCSSD's request that the State Board of Education be directed to rescind its order would, if granted, directly interfere with the State Board of Education's action taken pursuant to state law. Page 2 of 6 Finally, this Court could benefit from further factual development, in that the Court needs to wait and see whether the voters approve detachment. If they do not, the PCSSD's motion will be rendered moot. It is well-settled that \"[a] claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon 'contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.\"' Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)(quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)). The PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is not ripe for adjudication because the alleged harm is contingent upon voter approval of detachment in the September 16, 2003 election ordered by the State Board of Education. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion, and it should be dismissed. n. Individual Board Member Claims. The PCSSD may argue that a live controversy exists based on the constitutional claims made by individual PCSSD board members. In their individual capacities, they claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,i 9. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide these claims as a part of the present case for two reasons. First, this Court's remedial authority is limited to interpretation and enforcement1 of its Consent Decree. Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). In that case, this Court (the Honorable Susan Webber Wright) enjoined a strike by the PCSSD's teachers. The teachers 1Enforcement includes modification of the Consent Decree based on changed factual circumstances. See Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 367,388 (1992). Page 3 of 6 appealed, and the Eighth Circuit noted that the Consent Decree does not address the teachers' right to strike and reversed holding, \"The jurisdiction of the District Court to enforce [the Consent Decree] does not include the authority to resolve other disputes among the parties or to adjust their legal rights and responsibilities arising from other sources.\" Id. Similarly, the individual board members' constitutional claims have nothing to do with the Consent Decree. They allege that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because they cannot vote in the detachment election. The Consent Decree simply does not address who should be permitted to vote in a detachment election. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to address the constitutional claims being asserted by the individual board members. Second, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the constitutional claims of the board members because they are not parties to this case in their individual capacities. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 543-44 (1986)(individual school board member sued in his official capacity lacks standing to appeal grant of declaratory judgment against school district); Doe v. Claiborne County, Tenn., 103 F.3d 495, 511 (6th Cir. 1996) (individual school board members cannot act under of color of state law as required for liability under  1983 ); Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-620 (establishing the power and duties of school boards). To pursue their individual claims, the board members must file a separate case. m. Conclusion .. In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is Page4 of 6 contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because the claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Motion to Fourth Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for the Bollen Intervenors Page 5 of 6 ------ - - -- - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-34 72 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 ~hnC.. F en~dley,J~r. ,~ Page 6 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION L!TI1..,E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER THE BOLLEN INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO RECE\\\\JED AUG 11 1003 Off\\CE Of OESEGREG~i\\ON MONliORlltG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS RELATED TO THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The Bollen Intervenors hereby respond in turn to each numbered paragraph of the PCSSD's Statement of Material Facts related to the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. The Bollen Intervenors believe that the boundary adjustment occurred June 19, 1986 and that it involved 14 schools, but are without sufficient information to admit or deny whether it caused the PCS SD to lost one-third of its tax base. 4. Admitted. Page 1 of 6 - - 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. 12. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the State's attorney and Senator Howell were reported by the Arkansas Gazette to have made the alleged statements. 13. Admitted. 14. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the Arkansas Democrat reported as alleged. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted. 20. Admitted. 21. Admitted. 22. Admitted. 23. Admitted. 24. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the General Assembly enacted Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501, et~- They deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 24. Page 2 of 6 25. The Bollen Intervenors admit that an initial feasibility study was completed on or about November 21, 2002. They deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 25. 26. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the initial feasibility study examined three alternatives for detachment and recommended alternative one be selected. They deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 26. 27. The Bollen Intervenors admit that an addendum dated February 25, 2003 completed and added to the November 21, 2002 feasibility study. They deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 27. 28. The Bollen Intervenors admit that a petition drive was commenced after the completion of the February 25, 2003 addendum and admit that subsequently the petition drive was concluded and petitions were delivered to the Arkansas Department of Education on May 19, 2003. 29. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the legislature approved an amendment to Ark. Code Ann. 6-13- 1501, et seq. adding a criterium allowing detachment from school districts which encompass a total area of seven hundred square miles or more. They deny all remaining allegations in 29 and affirmatively assert that there is at least one other school district in excess of seven hundred square miles. 30. Admitted. 31. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the Attorney General's office rendered its first opinion letter on June 4, 2003. The letter speaks for itself, and they deny the allegations contained in this paragraph to the extent inconsistent therewith. 32. The Bollen Intervenors admit that the State Board of Education conducted a Page 3 of 6 hearing on or about June 9, 2003. That hearing was recorded and is being transcribed, and the transcript will speak for itself. They deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 32. 33. The Bollen Intervenors admit that supplemental materials were provided to the State Board of Education and to the Attorney General's office on or about June 27, 2003. They deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 33. 34. The Bollen Intervenors admit that on or about July 11, 2003 the Attorney General issued an opinion concerning the issue of detachment and the effect of detachment on desegregation. They state that the Attorney General's opinion speaks for itself. They deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 34. 35. Admitted. 36. Admitted. 37. Admitted. 38. Admitted. 39. Admitted. Page 4 of 6 Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants BY 7Jb. {!__ '}f2J_pA{, ~. ;c. Fendley, Jr. Page 5 of 6 ., 4 ' .... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 3 23 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 IN THE UNIIBD STAIBS DISTRICT COURT EASIBRN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESIBRN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE BOLLEN INIBRVENORS RESPONSE TO RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INIBRVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I. The Consent Decree. A. Interpretation of Consent Decrees. \"[C]onsent decrees bear some of the earmarks of judgments entered after litigation. At the same time, because their terms are arrived at through mutual agreement of the parties, consent decrees also closely resemble contracts.\" Int'! Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 4 78 U.S. 501, 519 (1986). For purposes of interpretation and enforcement, judicially approved consent decrees are generally treated like contracts, United States v. City of Fort Smith, 760 F.2d 231, 233-34 (8th Cir. 1985), and fundamental principles of contract interpretation under state law govern their interpretation. United States v. City of Northlake, 942 F.2d 1164, 1167 (7th Cir. 1991 ). Even so, \"[t]he interpretation of a consent decree should be a practical enterprise, Page 1 of 14 influenced, perhaps, by technical rules of construction, but not controlled by them.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 60 F.3d 435, 436 (8th Cir. 1995). B. Section II. J. The PCS SD argues that Section II. J. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement prohibits detachment of territory from the PCSSD to create a new school district. Section II. J. provides: The State, Joshua and the LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. 1989 Settlement Agreement, p. 9. The PCSSD contends that, by recognizing the PCSSD as an \"independent, sovereign desegregating school district[],\" the parties intended to prohibit \"any new usurpation of [the PCSSD' s] territory, facilities and assets . ... \" PCSSD Brief, p. 2. Apparently believing that Section II. J. is ambiguous, the PCSSD purports to provide the Court with extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent. See City ofNorthlake, 942 F.2d atl 167. In fact, the PCS SD provides the Court a series of newspaper articles and letters, none of which directly address the parties' intent. Rather, they show that various persons in the media and Legislature speculated that Section II. J. could preclude future consolidation of the three Pulaski County school districts, and if so, thought that was a bad idea. See, ~. PCSSD Exhibit 6 (indicating that Section II. J. \"could become an impediment to a countywide consolidation in the future, and if so it is an unfortunate provision.\"). This speculation is inadmissible hearsay and should not be considered by the Court. See Fed. R. Evid. 801 and 802. Moreover, even assuming the speculation was correct, it would only prove that Section II. J. was intended to prevent consolidation of the three Pulaski County school districts. It does not establish that Page 2 of 14 Section Il. J. was intended to prohibit \"any new usurpation of [the PCSSD' s) territory, facilities and assets ... ,\" as alleged by the PCSSD. The only evidence of intent the Bollen Intervenors have been able to locate to date1 comes from hearings before the Court's Special Master, Aubrey McCutcheon, during which the parties explained to Special Master McCutcheon the provisions of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. In an April 19, 1989 hearing, McCutcheon described his understanding of Section Il. J. as follows: I am also recommending to the court with respect to the settlement that the language in the settlement not be treated as imposing an absolute restriction on the consideration of any particular type of school, whether it be magnet, interdistrict school, consolidation, anything else. That the language in the settlement agreement that refers to the sovereignty and independence of the districts be considered just that, language which acknowledges the current status, but does not in any way infringe on the court's jurisdiction to determine whether or not there ought to be a merger of certain Junctions for the purpose of being more cost effective and more desegregative and a wiser use of the spending of the money. $120 million is a lot of money, and we ought to see to it that it is spent wisely and carefully, along with any other monies that are spent by the school districts as a part of their implementation of the desegregation responsibilities. See Exhibit 1 attached hereto, p. 22-23 (emphasis supplied). Special Master McCutcheon's interpretation is consistent with the plain language of Section II. J. Section II. J. was written in the present tense. It would have been easy to include language specifically prohibiting future consolidation or any other usurpation of the PCSSD's power, territory or assets, but no such language was included. Regardless of what was meant by \"sovereign, independent school district[),\" Section II. J. was unambiguously limited to the present and did not address future usurpations of the power, territory or assets of the PCSSD. Therefore, Section II. J. does not prohibit, 14 years later, the detachment of territory from the 1If the Court agrees with PCSSD that Section II. J. is ambiguous, the Bollen Intervenors respectfully request a reasonable amount of time to conduct discovery on this issue. Page 3 of 14 PCSSD to create a new school district. C. Section II. L. The PCSSD' s argument that detachment violates Section II. L. of the 1989 Settlement Agreement is answered in the discussion of the alleged negative impact on desegregation in Section III of this brief. II. Egual Protection. A. Introduction. Tue individual PCSSD board members argue that the detachment statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because it provides that only those \"residing in the territory to be detached shall be entitled to vote in the election\" on detachment. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(3). Their argument fails because they have no constitutional right to vote on detachment. See Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 201 U.S. 161, 178 (1907). Since no constitutional right is at stake, the question before this Court is whether the detachment statute is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. Holt Civic Club v. City of Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60, 70 (1978)(applying rational basis review to a State statute granting authority to a cities over nonresidents who were unable to vote in city elections); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428,433 (1992)(setting forth the standard for challenges to election laws generally). The detachment statute should be upheld because it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective -- encouraging community support for education. Tue detachment statute encourages community support for education by providing small communities in large school districts a mechanism for assuming control of their schools. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-13- 1501 (a)(l ). Tue election required by the detachment statute serves this objective by testing the Page 4 of 14 community's support for detachment. B. No Substantive Constitutional Right at Stake. The individual PCS SD board members have no constitutional right to vote on detachment. School districts are political subdivisions of the State of Arkansas, and the State of Arkansas has discretion to decide the \"nwnber, nature and duration of powers\" conferred upon school districts and ''the territory over which they shall be exercised.\" Id. at 178. See Sailors v. Bd. of Educ. of County of Kent, 387 U.S. 105 (1967) (applying Hunter to school districts). In exercising this discretion, the State of Arkansas \"at its pleasure may modify or withdraw all such powers, may take without compensation such property, hold it itself, or vest it in other agencies, expand or contract the territorial area, unite the whole or a part of it . .. \" Hunter, 201 U. S. at 178 ( emphasis supplied). Moreover, \"all this may be done, conditionally or unconditionally, with or without the consent of the citizens, or even against their protest.\" Id. (emphasis supplied). In this case, the State of Arkansas conditioned detachment on an election in which a majority of voters favor detachment. See Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1504(3). It imposed a residence requirement consistent with the purpose of the election -- to confirm support for detachment in the territory to be detached. Given the purpose of the election, it would not make sense to allow persons to vote who reside outside the territory to be detached. It is beyond dispute ''that the States have the power to require that voters be bona fide residents of the relevant political subdivision.\" Dunn v. Blwnstein, 405 U.S. 330, 343-44 (1972). See Holt, 439 U.S. at 68-69 (\"[O]ur cases have uniformly recognized that a government unit may legitimately restrict the right to participate in its political processes to those who reside within its borders.\"); Page 5 of 14 Carrington v. Rash. 380 U.S. 89, 91 (1965)(\"Texas has unquestioned power to impose reasonable residence restrictions on the availability of the ballot.\"). C. Rational Basis Review. Since the individual PCSSD board member have no constitutional right to vote on detachment, the question before this Court is whether the detachment statute is rationally related to .a legitimate governmental objective. Holt, 439 U.S. at 70; Burdick, 504 U.S. at 433. In Hol!, persons residing in Holt. an unincorporated area adjoining Tuscaloosa, Alabama, sought a declaration that a state statute was unconstitutional because it allowed Tuscaloosa to exercise police powers in Holt. They argued that the extraterritorial exercise of police powers violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses because Holt residents were denied the right to vote in Tuscaloosa elections. Holt, 439 U.S. at 62-63. In determining the appropriate standard of review, the Supreme Court first distinguished cases such as Kramer v. Union Free School Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969). where the challenged statute \"denied the franchise to individuals who were physically resident within the boundaries of the govern.mental entity concerned.\" Id. at 68. It then recognized a State's power to impose reasonable residence requirements. Id. at 68- 69. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the State's power to impose reasonable residence requirements meant that the residents of Holt had no right to vote in Tuscaloosa elections. Id. at 70. Since there was no fundamental right at stake. it held that the statute in question was subject to rational basis review. Id. The Supreme Court went on to uphold the statute under that standard. Id. at 75. In Burdick, supra. the Supreme Court clarified the standard to be applied in a challenge to a state election law. That case involved a challenge to Hawaii's prohibition on write-in voting Page 6 of 14 based on the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Id. 504 U.S. at 430. The court first noted that not every burden on the right to vote must be subject to strict scrutiny. Id. at 432. It explained: Election laws will invariably impose some burden upon individual voters. Each provision of a code, \"whether it governs the registration and qualifications of voters, the selection and eligibility of candidates, or the voting process itself, inevitably affects -- at least to some degree -- the individual's right to vote and his right to associate with others for political ends.\" Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983). Consequently, to subject every voting regulation to strict scrutiny and to require that the regulation be narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest, as petitioner suggests, would tie the hands of States seeking to assure that elections are operated equitably and efficiently. See Brief for Petitioner 32-37. Accordingly, the mere fact that a State's system \"creates barriers .. . tending to limit the field of candidates from which voters might choose ... does not of itself compel close scrutiny.\" Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143 (1972); Anderson, supra, at 788; McDonald v. Board of Election Cornm'nrs of Chicago, 394 U.S. 802 (1969). Id. at 433-34. The court then addressed the question of when strict scrutiny would apply. It stated: A court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh \"the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate\" against \"the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule,\" taking into consideration \"the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiffs rights.\" Id., at 789; Tashjian, supra, at 213-214. Under this standard, the rigorousness of our inquiry into the propriety of a state election law depends upon the extent to which a challenged regulation burdens First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Thus, as we have recognized when those rights are subjected to \"severe\" restrictions, the regulation must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.\" Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. , (1992). But when a state election law provision imposes only \"reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions\" upon the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of voters, \"the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify\" the restrictions. Anderson, supra, at 788; see also id., at 788-789, n. 9. Id. at 434. The Court went on to uphold Hawaii's prohibition on write-in voting applying Page 7 of 14 rational basis review. Id. at 441. The detachment statute should likewise be upheld based on rational basis review. For example, the California Supreme Court addressed this identical situation in the context of county government in Bd. of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n, Bd. of Supervisors v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n, 13 Cal. Rptr. 2d 245, 838 P.2d 1198, 3 Cal. 4th 903 (1992). In that case, the California Supreme Court rejected an equal protection challenge to California Government Code 57103. That code provision allowed unincorporated areas of a county to incorporate into a city ( detach from the county) following an election among only residents of the proposed city (the territory to be detached). Id., 3 Cal 4th at 908. County residents residing outside the territory to be detached alleged that 57103 violated the Equal Protection Clause because, although they would be impacted by detachment, it denied them the right to vote on detachment. In determining the standard ofreview, the California Supreme Court applied the flexible test described in Burdick. Id. 3 Cal 4th at 914. It noted that county residents had no right to vote on detachment because counties \"are mere creatures of the state and exist only at the state's sufferance.\" Id. As a result, the court found that \"individual interests in voting are much attenuated by the state's plenary power to oversee and regulate the formation of its political subdivisions, and the same power entitles the state to identify as differing in degrees the interests of those who may vote under 57103 and those who may not.\" Id. The court concluded that \"the essence of this case is not the fundamental right to vote, but the state's plenary power to set the conditions under which its political subdivisions are created. For that reason, the impairment of the right to vote is insufficiently implicated to demand the application of strict scrutiny.\" Id. at Page 8 of 14 3 Cal. 4th at 918 (emphasis supplied). See Wit v. Berman, 306 F.3d 1256, 1259 (2nd Cir. 2002)(following Burdick and applying rational basis standard to a residence requirement). The court then looked to whether  57103 was rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. It concluded that 57103 was rationally related to its stated objective of encouraging orderly growth and development stating: The act accommodates competing local governmental and private interests ... The election merely asks the affected residents to confirm that they desire selfgovernment To deny the Legislature the authority to let the potentially incorporating territory's voters have the final say in the matter would be to lessen political participation, not increase it. We do not believe that result is required by our federal or state Constitutions. Id. 3 Cal. 4th at 923. Accordingly, the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of 57103. The detachment statute should likewise be upheld.2 The key case relied upon by the individual PCSSD Board members is Kramer v. Union - Free School Dist. No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969). They argue the strict scrutiny applies simply because the state decided to hold an election, and indeed, taken out of context, some language from Kramer appears to support their argument. See Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701 , 704 (citing Kramer, 395 U.S. at 629 n.11).3 However, the Supreme Court in Kramer explained 2The Florida Supreme Court reached the same result in a factually similar case. In City of Long Beach Resort v. Collins, 261 So.2d 498 (Fla. 1972), it rejected an equal protection challenge to Florida House Bill No. 5288 which permitted the consolidation of several municipalities and unincorporated areas upon a favorable vote in only the unincorporated areas. 261 So. 2d at 499. The Florida Supreme Court summarily rejected an equal protection challenge by noting that the municipalities were all created by acts of the Legislature and concluding, \"This was the prerogative of the Legislature which has life and death powers over municipalities which are created, modified and can be abolished by the Legislature.\" Id. 261 So. 2d at 500. 3Cipriano may be distinguished on the same grounds as Kramer. It also involved a statute that \"grant[ ed] the right to vote in a limited purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters and denie[d] it to others . . . \" 395 U.S. at 704. Decided the same day as Kramer, the court in Page 9 of 14 that strict scrutiny \"is not necessitated by the subject of the election; rather, it is required because some resident citizens are permitted to participate and some are not.\" 395 U.S. at 629 (emphasis supplied). Thus, while Kramer involved a state's discrimination against some bona fide residents of the relevant political subdivision, the present case involves the state's identification of the relevant political subdivision. See Dunn, 405 U.S. at 343-44. The Supreme Court in Kramer noted the difference stating: Appellant agrees that the State may impose reasonable citizenship, age, and residency requirements on the availability of the ballot. [citations omitted]. The sole issue in this case is whether the additional requirements of  2012 -requirements which prohibit some district residents who are otherwise qualified by age and citizenship from participating in district meetings and school board elections -- violate the Fourteenth Amendment's command that no State shall deny persons equal protection of the laws. Id. at 625-26 (emphasis by court). Therefore, Kramer involved a discriminatory residence requirement, whereas the detachment statute does not discriminate among residents. Kramer holds that discriminatory residence requirements are subject to strict scrutiny, and this is consistent with Burdick and Holt. The Supreme Court in Burdick stated that rational basis review only applied to \"reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.\" 504 U.S. at 434. The Supreme Court in Holt distinguished Kramer because it involved a discriminatory residence requirement. It stated, \"The challenged statute in [Kramer] denied the franchise to individuals who were physically resident within the geographic boundaries of the governmental entity concerned.\" Holt, 439 U.S. at 68. In this case, no residents of the territory to be detached are denied the right to vote -- nonresidents are denied Cipriano stated that strict scrutiny applied \"if a challenged statute grants the right to vote in a limited purpose election so some otherwise qualified voters and denies it to others.\" 395 U.S. at 704. Page 10 of 14 the right to vote. Accordingly, Kramer does not require strict scrutiny of the detachment statute. See Columbia River Gorge United v. Yeutter, 960 F.2d 110, 115 (9th Cir. 1992) (\"The equal protection clause, however, is not violated when a geographic area is singled out for different treatment. The Supreme Court has held that 'there is no rule that counties, as counties, must be treated alike; the Equal Protection Clause relates to equal protection of the laws between individuals rather than between areas.\"' ( quoting Griffm v. County School Bd. of Prince Edward County. 377 U.S. 218, 230 (1964)(intemal quotation omitted))). D. Conclusion. The individual PCSSD board members have no constitutional right to vote on detachment. Hunter, 201 U.S. at 178. As a result, the detachment statute must be upheld if its is rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. See Holt, 439 U.S. at 68-69; Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434. In this case, the State of Arkansas decided to conduct an election to test a community's support for detachment, and it logically limited the vote to those residing in the territory to be detached. This was a legitimate exercise of the State's power and should be upheld. Accordingly, the individual board members' equal protection claims should be dismissed. III. Impact on Desegregation. If the voters confirm their support for detachment in the September 16, 2003 election, the State Board of Education will order the creation of a new school district in Northeast Pulaski County and appoint a Board of Education for the district. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-l 3- 1505(b )(1 ). Before any transfer of power, property or territory to the new district, the newly appointed board must intervene in this case and agree to such orders as necessary to ensure no Page 11 of 14 negative impact on desegregation. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(b)(l). Thus, the detachment statute has a built in mechanism to ensure no negative impact on desegregation and does not violate Section IL L. of the Settlement Agreement. Once appointed by the State Board of Education, the Board of Directors of the new district cannot exercise any power over their schools unless and until authorized by this Court. See Wright v. Council of the City ofEmpori~ 407 U.S. 451 (1972). Even so, this Court does not have authority to grant the PCSSD the relief sought -- enjoining the September 16, 2003 election -- or to otherwise prevent the State Board of Education from creating the new district. See Ross v. Houston Ind. School Dist., 583 F.2d 712, 716 (5th Cir. 1978)(\"The district court exceeded the ambit of its discretion when it enjoined WISD's ability to maintain its corporate existence or to pursue those of its organizational rights under state law that do not involve the independent operation of a portion ofHISD as WISD.\"). Rather, when and if the time comes, the issue before this Court will be the \"proper role [of the new district] in the desegregation of the county system.\" Stout v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 466 F.2d 1213, 1214 (5th Cir. 1972). The proper role of the new district will be \"essentially a factual determination in any particular case.\" Wright, 407 U.S. at 470. The precise role that may be requested by the board of the new district cannot be determined at this time, since the board has yet to be appointed. As a result, it would be inappropriate at this time to propose solutions to the concerns raised by the PCSSD. At a minimum, however, the PCS SD and new district should be prepared for an orderly transfer of control upon the PCSSD being declared unitary. This means that the new district will need funding and personnel. It also means that the new district should assume control to the extent Page 12 of 14  practicable before the PCSSD becomes unitary. To the extent the Bollen Intervenors can speak for the future board of the new district, they want to express their sincere desire to work in good faith with the PCSSD and the other parties to reach an agreement in the best interest of all children in Pulaski County. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for the Bollen Intervenors BY:~ f_. 9--~, ~ oiu:c. Fendley, Jr . Page 13 of 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 7220 l Page 14 of 14 EXCERPT FROM TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC STATUS CONFERENCE April 19, 1989 (Docket No. 1179A) Special Master Aubrey Mccutcheon Speaking Pages 21-231 1These page numbers may not correlate with the actual transcript. They are based on a copy of the transcript that had been scanned and converted to a WordPerfect document. Bollen Intervenors Exhibit 1 to Response Brief is not the limit of their responsibility to implement a constitutional desegregation plan. So, there is no reason for me to recommend disapproval of the settlement, I am recommending its approval. I am recommending, however, that the state not be dismissed from the case until they have fulfilled all of their responsibilities under the settlement. I am further recommending to the U.S. District Court that even though the court re-dedicates the millage as requested by the parties in the settlement, that those re-dedications be conditional upon the parties fulfilling their obligations under the settlement and under any court orders that arc issued to alleviate the conditions of segregation that still exist. And the obvious reason for that is that we do not want to have the court re-dedicate the millage and have the general public have to pay more money to the schools, only to find out that the schools are not fulfilling their obligations under the desegregation orders of the court, and then the school districts go back to the public and have to ask for additional monies. So, we are recommending that the court 21 make the re-dedication of millages conditional upon the satisfaction by the districts of their obligations under the agreement, the settlement agreement, as well as the other court orders. I am also recommending to the court with respect to the settlement that the language in the settlement not be treated as imposing an absolute restriction on the consideration of any particular type of school, whether it be magnet, interdistrict school, consolidation, anything else. That the language in the settlement agreement that refers to the sovereignty and independence of the districts be considered just that, language which acknowledges the current status, but does not in any way infringe on the court's jurisdiction to determine whether or not there ought to be a merger of certain functions for the purpose of being more cost effective and more desegregative and a wiser use of the spending of the money. $120 million is a lot of money, and we ought to see to it that it is spent wisely and carefully, along with any other monies that are spent by the school districts as a part of their implementation of the desegregation 22 responsibilities. There has been a lot of talk about grandfathering. There has been a lot of talk about neighborhood schools. I don't know of any definition in a school desegregation case of neighborhood schools, and I don't find one in the plans that have been submitted. I do find much language, some of which I have referred to previously, indicating that we ought to seek stability, we ought to seek predictability and continuity of assignments, which means we ought to have feeder patterns, we ought to have attendance zones, we ought to make it possible for pupils to go to school together if they live on the same street, that ought to be possible. And one way it is possible is through a concept which I will be recommending regarding the pairing of certain schools and certain grade levels. But with respect to the grandfathering and the attendance zones and the neighborhood schools, I can tell you that the plans submitted by the Little Rock School District are in some portions incomprehensible on those three topics. In other sections, they are so inconsistent that 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER THE BOLLEN INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The Bollen Intervenors for their Response to the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement state: 1. As to paragraph 1, the Bollen Intervenors admit that the PCSSD's Board of Directors, in their official capacities, are parties to this action. The Bollen Intervenors deny that the PCS SD Board of Directors are parties to this case in their individual capacities, and their claims should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the Bollen Intervenors' Motion to Dismiss and the accompanying brief which are hereby incorporated by reference. The Bollen Intervenors affirmatively assert that the PCSSD lacks standing to assert the constitutional claims advanced by the individual PCSSD board members. 2. As to paragraph 2, the Bollen Intervenors' Response to the PCSSD's Statement of Page 1 of 6 Material Facts is hereby incorporated by reference. 3. The Bollen Intervenors admit the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the PCSSD's motion. 4. The Bollen Intervenors admit that this Court has continuing jurisdiction over the State of Arkansas to enforce compliance with the 1989 Settlement Agreement. They deny that the July 14, 2003 action of the State Board of Education violates any provision of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. 5. The Bollen Intervenors deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the PCSSD's motion. The Bollen Intervenors affirmatively assert that the Consent Decree should be modified, if necessary, to allow creation of a new school district in Northeast Pulaski County. 6. The Bollen Intervenors admit that, if voters approve detachment in the September 16, 2003 election, the Board of Directors for the new district must intervene in this case and \"obtain any and all court orders or other relief necessary to ensure that the detachment will not cause the state or any affected school district to be in violation of any orders of the court or consent orders or decrees entered into by the parties with regard to the desegregation plan.\" Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1505(b)(2). The Bollen Intervenors deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the PCSSD's motion. 7. Th.e Bollen Intervenors deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the PCSSD's motion. 8. As to paragraph 13, the Bollen Intervenors admit that detachment will marginally increase the percentage of African-American students in the remaining PCSSD. They deny that Page 2 of 6 detachment will \"artificially accelerate the evolution of the PCSSD to a majority black school district.\" 9. The Bollen Jntervenors admit that Newsweek recently recognized Mills University Studies High School as the twentieth \"best\" in the country. They deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the PCSSD's motion. 10. The Bollen Jntervenors deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the PCSSD's motion. They affirmatively assert that the new district will seek to retain teachers currently employed in schools slated for detachment and believe it is highly unlikely that all of the approximately 475 teachers will seek new positions in the remaining PCSSD. 11. The Bollen Intervenors deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the PCSSD's motion. 12. The Bollen Jntervenors admit that detachment will result in the PCSSD losing approximately 6500 students. They deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the PCSSD's motion. 13. The Bollen Jntervenors admit that the PCSSD's current population density per square mile is approximately 25 students per square mile. They admit that the feasibility study indicated that the population density of the new district would be 53 students per square mile. The Bollen Intervenors deny the remaining allegations containing in paragraph 21 of the PCSSD's motion. 14. The Bollen Intervenors state that the State Board of Education's July 16, 2003 order speaks for itself, and deny the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of the PCSSD's motion to the extent inconsistent therewith. They deny the remaining allegations contained in Page 3 of 6 paragraph 22 of the PCSSD's motion. The Bollen Intervenors affirmatively assert that the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement is the Consent Decree. This Court may modify the Consent Decree without the agreement of the parties under the circumstances described in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992). If approved by a majority of voters in the September 16, 2003 election, the creation of the new district will constitute changed factual circumstances justifying modification of the Consent Decree. 15. The Bollen Intervenors admit that this Court's jurisdiction is limited to monitoring and enforcing (including modifying as necessary) its Consent Decree. They deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 23 of the PCSSD's motion. 16. The Bollen Intervenors deny that a \"case or controversy'' exists at this time. They affirmatively assert that this case is not ripe for adjudication for the reasons set forth in their Motion to Dismiss and the accompanying brief, which are hereby incorporated by reference. 17. The Bollen lntervenors' memorandum brief accompanying this Response is hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the Bollen Intervenors pray that the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement be denied; that, if necessary, the Consent Decree be modified to accommodate the creation of the proposed new district by detachment from the PCS SD; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Page 4 of 6 Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for the Bollen Intervenors BYJhnC:. ~~-~fr Fendley, Jr. Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 11, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-34 72 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 3 23 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 e !. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 ., EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS t  WESTERN DIVISION :1l.:.::=: .  ------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2003 DESEGREaiWCE OF ON MONITOR/NQ NOTICE OF JOINDER The Joshua Intervenors for their notice of joinder, state: -- ----- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The Joshua Intervenors have reviewed the forth motion of the PCSSD to enforce settlement agreement, the statement of material facts and memorandum in support of motion. Premises considered, the Joshua Intervenors hereby give notice of their joinder within and adoption of these pleadings of the PCSSD dated July 24, 2003 . 439291 -v1 Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3758 FAX: (501) 374-4187 / ,,,,,.---. , /7:h_ ( I ,;,(;, : / / _? By ~ I/ - ' ~ W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 Attorney Joshua Intervenors d CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August /..L~o03, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. M. Samuel Jones III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 439291-v1 2 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 hn C Fendley, Jr. M~J~. Fe~dley, Jr. P.A. Jo Drive 51 Wingatke AR 72205 Little Roe , 439291-v1 3    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1751","title":"Includes responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD board members' motion to intervene in their individual capacities, and request for entry of appearance.","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":["2003-08-05/2003-08-08"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. State Board of Education","School board members"],"dcterms_title":["Includes responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion to enforce settlement agreement, PCSSD board members' motion to intervene in their individual capacities, and request for entry of appearance."],"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/1751"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["34 page scan, typed"],"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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, motion to intervene; District Court, motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to dismiss the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement; District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion to intervene; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) board members motion to intervene in their individual capacities; District Court, memorandum in support of motion to intervene; District Court, response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, request for entry of appearance    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     MOBILE: 501-350-2573 OFFICE: 501-907-9797 CLAY FENDLEY ATTORNEY AT LAW JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. P.A. 51 WINGATE DRIVE LITTLE ROCK., AR 72205 August 5, 2003 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol A venue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 HAND-DELIVERED RE: LRSD v. PCSSD NO. 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: 0 : ~ E-MAIL: fendley l@alltel.net FAX: 501-907-9798 RECEIVED AUG 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed please find a Motion to Intervene and accompanying brief which I, along with Mike Wilson and Will Bond, have filed today on behalf of Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker. The motion arises out of the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. It is our understanding that a hearing on the PCSSD's motion has been scheduled for August 18, 2003. We respectfully request that our intervention motion be considered at that hearing as well. 1bank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, cc: All counsel The Honorable J. Thomas Ray IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUEANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS MOTION TO INTERVENE Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker for their Motion to Intervene state: 1. The Movants move to intervene in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). 2. The Movants have an interest in this Court's resolution of the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. The Movants seek to create a new school district in northeast Pulaski County by detaching territory from the PCSSD through the process set forth in Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-1501 through 1505 (Michie Supp. 2002). In accord with that process,' 1The election will be the fourth step in the process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6- 13-1501 through 1505. The Movants initiated the process by commissioning an independent feasibility study. Next, they gathered petition signatures and submitted them to the State Board of Education, along with additional information required by statute. Third, on July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the petition, found it complied with the detachment statute and voted to order an election. Page 1 of 4 the State Board of Education on July 16, 20032 ordered an election to be held September 16, 2003 so that voters residing in the proposed new school district may vote on whether to detach from the PCSSD. If a majority of voters favor detachment, the State Board of Education will order the creation of the new district. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(a). In its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the PCSSD argues that detachment will violate the Court's Consent Decree arising out of the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement and asks the Court to order the State Board ofEducation to rescind its July 16, 2003 order and to stop the September 16, 2003 election on detachment. The Movants have an interest in seeing that the election go forward as a necessary part of the detachment process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13- 1501 through 1505. 3. If this Court grants the PCS SD the relief it seeks, it will as a practical matter - impair or impede the Movants' ability to establish an independent school district in northeast Pulaski County by the process established by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 through 1505. The new district cannot be created without the election that the PCSSD seeks to stop. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(a). 4. The Movants' interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties to this case. 5. The Movants' memorandum brief submitted in support of this motion is hereby incorporated by reference. 6. The Movants' proposed Motion to Dismiss the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to 2Although the hearing was July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education did not actually issue its order until July 16, 2003. Page 2 of 4 Enforce Settlement Agreement and the accompanying brief are attached hereto as Exhibit A and B, respectively. WHEREFORE, the Movants pray that they be granted leave to intervene and all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants B:Yiimc. ~t-~,~ Fendley, Jr. Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUE ANN WHISKER MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker (hereinafter the \"Bollen Intervenors\") for their Motion to Dismiss the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement state: 1. The Bollen Intervenors seek to create a new school district in northeast Pulaski County by detaching territory from the PCSSD through the process set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 through 1505 (Michie Supp. 2002). In accord with that process, 1 the State Board 1The election will be the fourth step in the process established by Ark. Code Ann. 6- 13-1501 through 1505. The Bollen Intervenors initiated the process by commissioning an independent feasibility study. Next, they gathered petition signatures and submitted them to the State Board of Education, along with additional information required by statute. 'Third, on July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the petition, found it complied with the detachment statute and voted to order an election. Page 1 of 4 Exhibit A of Education on July 16, 20032 ordered an election to be held September 16, 2003 so that voters residing in the proposed new school district may vote on whether to detach from the PCS SD. If a majority of voters favor detachment, the State Board of Education will order the creation of the new district. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(a). 2. In its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, the PCS SD argues that detachment will violate the Court's Consent Decree arising out of the parties' 1989 Settlement Agreement and asks this Court to order the State Board of Education to rescind its July 16, 2003 order and to stop the September 16, 2003 election on detachment. 3. Also in the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, individual PCSSD board members claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in - the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,r 9. 4. This Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because their claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. 2 Although the hearing was July 14, 2003, the State Board of Education did not actually issue its order until July 16, 2003. Page 2 of 4 WHEREFORE, the Bollen Intervenors pray that the PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement be dismissed; that they be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that they be awarded all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants Page 3 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon IO 10 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 4 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUEANN WHISKER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE PCSSD'S FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I. Ripeness. This Court must presume that it lacks jurisdiction \"unless 'the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.\"' Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 546 (1986) (quoting King Bridge Co. v. Otoe County, 120 U.S. 225,226 (1887)). \"It is the responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court's remedial powers.\" Bender, supra, at 546, n. 8 (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 517-518 (1975)). The PCSSD fails to allege facts demonstrating that its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is ripe for adjudication. \"The basic rationale of the ripeness doctrine is 'to prevent the courts, through avoidance Page I of 6 Exhibit B of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effect felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.'\" National Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Conner, 323 F.3d 684, 692 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977)). Consistent with this rationale, \"courts deciding whether a dispute is ripe should consider (1) the hardship to the plaintiff caused by delayed review; (2) the extent to which judicial intervention would interfere with administrative action; and (3) whether the court would benefit from further factual development.\" Id. Each of the three factors weighs in favor of a finding that the PCSSD's motion is not ripe. First. the PCSSD will suffer no hardship by delaying review until after the September 16. 2003 election. The detachment statute requires this Court's approval before detachment may actually take place. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505(b)(2). Consequently. the PCSSD will not suffer any harm before this Court has an opportunity to resolve the issues raised in its Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Next, this Court granting the relief sought by the PCSSD would substantially interfere with administrative action taken by the State Board of Education. The State Board of Education ordered an electio.n based on its finding that the Bollen Intervenors satisfied the requirements of the detachment statute. The PCSSD's request that the State Board of Education be directed to rescind its order would, if granted, directly interfere with the State Board of Education's action taken pursuant to state law. Page 2 of 6 Finally, this Court could benefit from further factual development, in that the Court needs to wait and see whether the voters approve detachment. If they do not, the PCSSD's motion will be rendered moot. It is well-settled that \"[a] claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon 'contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.\"' Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)(quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)). The PCSSD's Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement is not ripe for adjudication because the alleged harm is contingent upon voter approval of detachment in the September 16, 2003 election ordered by the State Board of Education. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion, and it should be dismissed. II. Individual Board Member Claims. The PCSSD may argue that a live controversy exists based on the constitutional claims made by individual PCSSD board members. In their individual capacities, they claim that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because only those residing in the territory to be detached will be permitted to vote in the September 16, 2003 election. See PCSSD's Motion, ,r 9. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide these claims as a part of the present case for two reasons. First, this Court's remedial authority is limited to interpretation and enforcement1 of its Consent Decree. Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). In that case, this Court (the Honorable Susan Webber Wright) enjoined a strike by the PCSSD's teachers. The teachers 1Enforcement includes modification of the Consent Decree based on changed factual circumstances. See Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,388 (1992). Page 3 of 6 appealed, and the Eighth Circuit noted that the Consent Decree does not address the teachers' right to strike and reversed holding, \"The jurisdiction of the District Court to enforce [the Consent Decree] does not include the authority to resolve other disputes among the parties or to adjust their legal rights and responsibilities arising from other sources.\" Id. Similarly, the individual board members' constitutional claims have nothing to do with the Consent Decree. They allege that the detachment statute denies them due process and equal protection because they cannot vote in the detachment election. The Consent Decree simply does not address who should be permitted to vote in a detachment election. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to address the constitutional claims being asserted by the individual board members. Second, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the constitutional claims of the board members because they are not parties to this case in their individual capacities. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 543-44 (1986)(individual school board member sued in his official capacity lacks standing to appeal grant of declaratory judgment against school district); Doe v. Claiborne County, Tenn., 103 F.3d 495, 511 ((5111 Cir. 1996) (individual school board members cannot act under of color of state law as required for liability under  1983 ); Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-620 (establishing the power and duties of school boards). To pursue their individual claims, the board members must file a separate case. ill. Conclusion. In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over both the PCSSD's claims based on the Consent Decree and the individual board members' claims based on the U.S. Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over the PCSSD's claims because the PCSSD's alleged harm (detachment) is Page 4 of 6 contingent upon a majority of voters approving detachment, and therefore, the PCSSD's claims are not ripe for adjudication. The Court has no jurisdiction over the individual board members' claims because the claims do not implicate the Consent Decree and because the board members, in their individual capacities, are not parties to this case. For these reasons, the PCSSD's Motion to Fourth Enforce Settlement Agreement should be dismissed. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Attorneys for Movants Page 5 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 6 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. GREG BOLLEN, JAMES BOLDEN, RECEIVED AUG 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MARTHA WHATLEY AND SUEANN WHISKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley and Sue Ann Whisker (hereinafter collective referred to as the \"Bollen Intervenors\") move to intervene in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) requires the Court to permit intervention where (1) the party seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action, (2) the party seeking intervention is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, and (3) the interest of the party seeking intervention is not adequately represented by existing parties. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Motion, the Bollen Intervenors satisfy each of these requirements and should be granted leave to intervene. It may be argued that the State of Arkansas adequately represents the interest of the Page 1 of 3 Bollen Intervenors in this case. However, the State cannot be expected to litigate this case with the same commitment to detachment as the Bollen Intervenors. Toe State's commitment will be tempered by other considerations, such as the financial impact on the State. The Bollen Intervenors, on the other hand, have expended an incredible amount of time and money to create the new district, and they want detachment as soon as possible so that they may take control of their childrens' educational future. \"The burden resting on intervenors to show that their interests are not adequately represented by existing parties is a 'minimal' one.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 738 F.2d 82, 84 (8th Cir. 1984). This burden is more than met in the present case. Respectfully Submitted, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley \u0026amp; Sue Ellen Whisker Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 (501) 982-9411 John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr. P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 907-9797 Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people via handdelivery on August 5, 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 3 of 3 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS A 11r,  6 2003 IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLER!\u0026lt; By:. _______ -===:-:::-= DEP CLER~ 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 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 25, 2003, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) filed a Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief (Doc. No. 3760). If any party wishes to file a response to this motion, it should do so by 12:00 p.m., noon, Monday, August 11 , 2003 . On August 5, 2003, Greg Bollen, James Bolden, Martha Whatley, and Sue Ann Whisker filed a Motion to Intervene (Doc. No. 3766). If any party wishes to respond to the \"Bollen Intervenors\"' (as they styled it) motion, this response should also be filed by 12:00 p.m., noon, Monday, August 11 , 2003. A hearing to address PCCSD's Motion to Enforce is schedule for 10:00 a.m., Monday, August 18, 2003. The Motion to Intervene by the \"Bollen Intervenors\" will also be addressed at this hearing. Lawyers for each party, including the Arkansas Department of Education, 1 are 1In an Order entered January 18, 1991 (Doc. No. 1418), Judge Wright dismissed the State/ADE as a party to this action \"pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.\" However, the Settlement Agreement expressly provides \"that the Court may retain jurisdiction to 7 6 8 directed to be present at the hearing no later than 9:30 a.m .. Each party must have at least one representative, other than its lawyers, present at the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of August, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wifil:ULE58AN~~C~ ON ~3 BY ... ~ address issues regarding implementation of the Plans.\" Attachments A, B, C, and D to the Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 1174). Solidifying this position, in an Order entered August 18, 1993 (Doc. No. 1947), Judge Wright emphasized that, while the State/ADE was no longer a formal party in this action, \"it is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the settlement agreement as well as the settlement plans.\" EDWARD L. WRIGHT ( 1903 -1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ISAAC A. SCOTT . JR. JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S. RATHER. JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C . DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER, JR. WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUD'Y SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3699 (501) 371 - 0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER Writer 's Direct Dial No. 501 -212-1273 mjoDes@wlj .com August 8, 2003 KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKBR RAY F. COX , JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R. WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D. WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING  UaasodMJJ11(11CdcebebrelbeUl1icdSIMO hfl:li ud Tndt!mvt O~ RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MOKITORIMG Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a courtesy copy of PCSSD' s Board Members Motion to Intervene In Their Individual Capacities, together with supporting memorandum brief. The originals have been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: 439660-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) All Counsel of Record (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Ray Simon (via U.S. Mail) Mr. Scott Smith (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Will Bond (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Mike Wilson (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) Mr. Timothy Gauger (via hand delivery) Mr. Mark Burnett (via U.S. Mail) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MILDRED TATUM, GWEN WILLIAMS, PAM ROBERTS, JEFF SHANEYFELT and DON BAKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS PCSSD BOARD MEMBERS MOTION TO INTERVENE IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES The following PCSSD Board Members, for their Motion to Intervene state: 1. Mildred Tatum, Gwen Williams, Pam Roberts, Jeff Shaneyfelt, and Don Baker, are duly elected members of the Board of Directors of the Pulaski County Special School District. They are also residents in different areas of the PCSSD and taxpayers contributing to the funding of the PCSSD. 2. In such capacity, these board members are defendants in this action in their official capacities. 3. In their proposed Motion to Intervene, certain individuals (the Bollen Intervenors) residing in the Jacksonville area assert that the claims of the foregoing board members relating to equal protection of the law must be brought in a separate action. 438898-v1 4. To cure any such technicality, these board members, who are already defendants in this action, seek to intervene for the limited but substantial purpose of enforcing their individual rights to equal protection guaranteed by the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. Specifically, these intervenors contend that they will be denied equal protection of the law as they are precluded by state law from voting in the \"detachment election\" scheduled for September 16, 2003, even though they are all registered voters in the PCSSD, taxpayers in the PCSSD, have or have had children or grandchildren in the PCSSD schools, and otherwise have a vested interest in the operation, governance and vitality of the PCSSD as a whole. 5. Such an intervention will foster principles of judicial economy since these board members are already parties to this action in their official capacities and allowing their limited - intervention to assert their individual rights will neither prolong this action nor contribute to any judicial inefficiencies. 6. Your individual directors therefore request permission to intervene in their individual capacities for the limited but substantial purpose of protecting their rights to equal protection as guaranteed by the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. 7. As part of their request for intervention, these individual school board members request permission to adopt that certain motion, statement of material facts and brief in support of motion all filed by the PCSSD on July 25, 2003 . 8. Further, these intervenors observe that they and those situated similarly to them are further being denied equal protection of the law since they are required to pay the expenses of the special election for detachment pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-118. Thus, both as 438898-v1 2 individual taxpayers and in their capacity as directors, your intervenors are required to pay for the expenses of an election in which they are denied the right to vote. WHEREFORE, Mildred Tatum, Gwen Williams, Pam Roberts, Jeff Shaneyfelt and Don Baker pray for an order of this Court allowing their limited intervention as described above and authorizing their adoption of the previous motion, statement of material facts and  brief all as filed by the PCSSD on July 25, 2003. 438898-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 1. 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 438898-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 4 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL -DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MILDRED TATUM, GWEN WILLIAMS, PAM ROBERTS, JEFF SHANEYFELT and DON BAKER MOV ANTS/INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE Mildred Tatum, Gwen Williams, Pam Roberts, Jeff Shaneyfelt and Don Baker adopt in their individual capacities the motion, statement of material facts and brief filed by the PCSSD on July 25, 2003. Equal Protection Considerations As the Supreme Court of the United States recently observed, federal courts presented with an appropriate controversy bear a duty to ensure that voting procedures adopted by a state \"are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate.\" Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 121 S. Ct. 525, 530 (2000). Furthermore, \"[b]ecause our democracy was founded on the principle that 'the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights,' our courts vehemently protect every citizen's right to vote, carefully and 439246-v1 meticulously scrutinizing any alleged infringement.\" Charfauros v. Board of Elections, 249 F.3d 941, 951 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 562 (1964)). The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment guarantees fundamental rights to every person, including the right to vote, and these rights may not be impaired for reasons that are arbitrary or discriminatory. Id. This freedom has been rooted in our justice system for at least . a century, for the Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote was a \"fundamental political right.\" Wick Yo v. Hop.kins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). Nor does the right to the franchise end with the mere right to cast a ballot; there is in addition a \"constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction.\" Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336 (1972). It is true that some restrictions on these rights have been permitted, but only when \"no discrimination is made between individuals\" in ways that violate the constitution. Carrington v. Rush, 380 U.S. 89, 91 (1965); when the state acts to disenfranchise, the limitations must be \"appropriately defined and uniformly applied.\" Dunn, 405 U.S. at 343. Imposition of Election Costs The rights of the intervenors to equal protection of the law are further compromised and vitiated by the operation of Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-118, which requires the school district to reimburse the County Board of Election Commissioners for the entire cost of any school election. Section (b) further states: At all annual or special elections, the board of directors of each district shall pay the expenses of the election out of the school fund. 439246-v1 2 Your intervenors submit that both in their role as individual taxpayers and patrons and in their official capacity as directors, they are denied the equal protection of the laws when they are denied the right to vote in an election the cost of which they must pay. Violation of Substantive Due Process Rights The immeasurable impact of the planned election on the individual Board members' . rights as voters also constitutes a violation of their right to substantive due process in matters that impinge on important rights. \"[A]n election is a denial of substantive due process if it is conducted in a manner that is fundamentally unfair.\" Bennett v. Yoshina, 140 F.3d 1218, 1226 (1998). Of course, there is a distinction between \"garden variety\" election irregularities and error that \"undermines the integrity of the vote.\" Id. The ultimate question is whether the election is fundamentally unfair . Id. and n.3 (citing as one example voter reliance on established procedures followed by a change in procedures that results in significant disenfranchisement). There is no precise definition of \"fundamentally unfair,\" but the Court is free to draw on precedent and the particular facts of the case to determine whether voters have been disenfranchised in a way that is arbitrary or capricious, and yet substantial. The Inconsistent Statutory Scheme Your intervenors further note that the companion statutory scheme to the detachment statutes does not deny equal protection of the laws. For instance, if consolidation of districts is proposed via an election, Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1404(a)(2) requires that: A majority of the qualified electors in the affected districts votes to approve consolidation of the affected districts into a resulting district or districts pursuant to a valid election.. . . Likewise, if a proposal to annex school districts via an election is presented, then Ark. - Code Ann.  6-13-1403(a)(2)(A) requires that: 439246-v1 3 A majority of the qualified electors in the affected district or districts vote to approve the annexation of an affected school district or districts to a receiving district or districts .... Thus, it is only under the circumstances of a \"detachment\" that the State has sought fit to restrict the grant of the franchise, a matter which your intervenors submit the State cannot properly do and comply with the equal protection clauses of the Arkansas and United States .Constitutions. Conclusion lntervenors pray that their motion to intervene be granted and for all proper relief. 439246-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 ..... ) Special 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August .e., 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via hand delivery on Mr. Timothy Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, 323 Center Street, Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. via facsimile and U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. John C. Fendley, Jr., P.A. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 and via U.S. Mail on the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon  Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 439246-v1 Mr. Mike Wilson Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 5 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark_A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us August 8, 2003 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the State's Request for Entry of Appearance and its Response to PCSSD'S \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement\" and for \"Allied Relief' which we filed today. MAH Enclosures cc: Mr. Scott Smith Very truly yours, ~.~. MARK A. HAGEM~ Assistant Attorney General IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOMITORlNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S \"FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT\" AND FOR \"ALLIED RELIEF\" The Arkansas Department of Education submits this response to the PCSSD's1 \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief.\" For the reasons discussed below, PCSSD's motion should be dismissed. The PCSSD seeks an order that would squelch an election in which voters residing in the Jacksonville area will have the opportunity to vote on whether a proposal to create a new school district in the area should proceed. The election in question was approved by the State Board of Education pursuant to state statutes that govern the creation of new school districts by \"detachment\" of territory from existing districts.2 Those statutes require an election as a step in the process by which such a school district might be created. Furthermore, those statutes contain provisions that guarantee that the creation of such a district will not come to final fruition if 1 The opening paragraph of the motion states that the motion is brought by the PCSSD, its Board, and certain members of its Board \"in both their official and individual capacities.\" In this response the ADE will refer to all of the purported movants collectively as the \"PCSSD\" unless the context requires otherwise. 2 PCSSD asserts -- erroneously -- in Footnote 2 of its Brief that the statutes governing the creation of school districts by detachment \"appl[y] by definition only to the PCSSD and to no other school district.\" Arkansas Act 1397 of 2003 (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A) amended Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1502(d) so that, in addition to school districts that now or in the future serve 15,000 to 20,000 students, the detachment process might also be invoked in school districts that now or in the future encompass an area of 700 square miles or more. Presently, in addition to the PCSSD, the Waldron School District in Scott County encompasses an area in excess of750 square miles. doing so will hamper or impede desegregation efforts of school districts (such as the PCSSD) that operate under court-ordered or court-approved desegregation plans. The PCSSD ignores the possibility that the voters of the Jacksonville area might reject the proposed detachment, an occurrence that would put an end to the detachment process. 3 Instead, the PCSSD filed the instant motion in this Court seeking an order \"directing the State Board of Education to rescind its order of July 16, 2003, and cancel its authorization for an election.\" Additionally, the PCSSD filed an action in state court, which is still pending, that seeks essentially the same relief. See Exhibit 21 to PCSSD's Motion. As is discussed below, the PCSSD's motion is premature at best and should be dismissed on ripeness grounds. Under the applicable state statutes, no district can be created by detachment unless and until electors residing in the territory of the proposed new district vote in favor of the proposed detachment. If the voters reject the proposed detachment on September 16, that will be the end of the matter -- the PCSSD's motion will become moot and this Court will not have to consider the various factual and legal matters presented in the PCSSD's motion. Alternatively, a vote for the proposed detachment by electors on September 16 will not end the matter either. Under this circumstance, an appointed board of the proposed new district would be required by state law to come to this Court and secure any and all orders necessary to ensure that the creation of the new district will not undermine the districts' desegregation efforts. If this new Board ultimately does not seek and successfully obtain all such orders, for whatever reason, the new district will also not come into being. While the day may come when this Court is squarely and concretely presented with a proposed \"detachment\" district to consider, that day has not yet arrived, and indeed, it may never arrive. Furthermore, if PCSSD prevails in its pending 3 The State, unlike the PCSSD, does not presuppose or assume how the matter will fare at the election. 2 state court action on the state-law grounds it has asserted there, the motion filed in this Court will become moot. As regards the PCSSD's request for \"allied relief' -- a claim that the detachment statutes violate due process and equal protection because certain electors who reside in the PCSSD are not, under the statutes, eligible to vote on the proposed detachment -- this Court lacks _jurisdiction to grant such relief as well. The claim for \"allied relief' does not involve an allegation of an alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement, and in any event none of the purported movants has standing to assert the \"allied relief' claim in the context of this case. A. The PCSSD's Motion is Not Ripe for Review and Should Be Dismissed As noted, the relief sought is an order directing the State Board to \"rescind\" its order authorizing an election on the question of detachment, which would have the effect of canceling the upcoming election. The basis for this requested relief is the PCSSD's claim that the ultimate creation of the school district cannot happen in such a manner as will not violate some provision of the Settlement Agreement and/or impede their desegregation efforts. The PCSSD's motion should be dismissed because it is not ripe. The detachment process is governed by state law, specifically Ark. Code Ann.  6-13- 1501 et seq. The statutory scheme sets up a multi-step process, and the election is but one necessary step. Section 6-13-1503(2) provides that the detachment process can be initiated, as it was here, by a petition presented to the State Board of Education. If the State Board believes that the petition meets the statutory requirements, the State Board may, as it did here, \"order an election on the proposition of detachment to be held at the next annual school election or general election.\" Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(b)(l). Such an election, however, does not end the process. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1505 further provides as follows: 3 6-13-1505. Creation of district. (a) If all the requirements of this subchapter are met and a majority of the votes are cast for the proposition, the State Board of Education shall order the creation of the new school district. (b)(l) At the time the order creating the district is made, the state board shall appoint a board of seven (7) members for the new district to serve until the next regular election of members, when a board of directors shall be elected in compliance with Arkansas law. (2) Following the entry of the order creating the new district and the appointment of a board of directors for the new district but prior to the transfer of any assets, territory, property, liabilities, duties, or responsibilities, any new district created by detachment from an existing district that is a party to any court-ordered desegregation plan shall petition the court having jurisdiction in the desegregation matter and obtain any and all court orders or other relief necessary to ensure that the detachment will not cause the state or any affected school district to be in violation of any orders of the court or any consent orders or decrees entered into by the parties with regard to the desegregation plan. - (Emphasis added). The statutory scheme therefore makes it clear that (a) if the voters reject the proposed detachment, the process comes to an end; and (b ), if the voters approve the proposed detachment, a district with an appointed Board will be created but that \"district\" will have no assets, territory, property liabilities, duties or responsibilities unless and until that Board successfully secures from this Court all orders necessary to ensure that the creation of the district will not cause the State or any other school district to be in violation of any orders, consent orders or decrees entered in this case. If the Board of the proposed detached district is not successful in that regard, the process ends as well. By seeking to quash the election before it occurs, the PCSSD has \"jumped the gun\" because before any new district can be created, and before the statutory process can go forward, the voters must approve the proposed detachment at an election. 4 \"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.\" Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375,377 (1994) (internal citations omitted). The \"ripeness\" doctrine, which flows both from the Article III \"case or controversy\" jurisdictional requirement and from prudential considerations, requires federal courts to determine whether a particular dispute is \"fit for judicial resolution\" and whether the parties would \"experience hardship if the court withheld consideration of the case's merits.\" American Canoe Assoc. v. E.P.A., 289 F.3d 509, 512 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Ohio Forestry Ass'n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 733 (1998)). Though it has been said that the ripeness doctrine is something of a \"cantaloupe,\" see Nebraska Public Power v. MidAmerican Energy, 234 F.3d 1032, 1038 (8th Cir. 2000), the Eighth Circuit has noted that the \"touchstone\" of a ripeness inquiry is \"whether the harm asserted has 'matured enough to warrant judicial intervention.\"' Vogel v. Foth and Van Dyke Associates, Inc., 266 F.3d 838, 840 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Paraquad, Inc. v. St. Louis Housing Authority, 259 F.3d 956, 958 (8th Cir. 2001)). The Eighth Circuit has also made it clear that \"a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.\" National Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Connor, 323 F.3d 684, 693 (8 th Cir. 2003). (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)). Here, the PCSSD seeks to derail the process under which a new school district might be created out of its existing territory. It is clear that such an \"injury,\" if any, to the PCSSD \"rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all,\" 5 namely, an election outcome favorable to detachment. While the PCSSD claims that the new district, if created, would harm its ability to comply with its desegregation obligations, it has not articulated any concrete harm that the election, by itself, will cause it to suffer. Unless and until at least the election is held and an outcome favorable to detachment occurs, PCSSD's claims are plainly not ripe for review, and they should be dismissed. B. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Request For \"Allied Relier' As regards the PCSSD' s request for \"allied relief,\" this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief and that part of the PCSSD's motion should be dismissed as well. The \"allied relief' claim does not purport to be brought to address any alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement, and as PCSSD candidly concedes in the brief in support of its motion, \"the current jurisdiction of the District Court is 'only' to enforce the Settlement Agreement.\" (See PCSSD Brief at p. 23).4 If the claims for \"allied relief' are to be brought at all, such claims would have to be presented in a new, separate lawsuit, not as a \"motion\" filed in this case. Indeed, tacitly conceding this point, the PCSSD has already purported to bring this same claim in the separate action it has initiated in state court. See Exhibit 21 to PCSSD's motion. Further, the PCSSD, its Board, and its Board members in their \"official\" capacities lack standing to assert the rights of electors residing within the district. The PCSSD and its Board are not \"voters\" (see Conway School District v. Wilhoit, 854 F.Supp. 1430 (E.D. Ark. 1994)) and, in their \"official capacities,\" the Board members' claims must be treated as if they are brought by the PCSSD Board and the District itself, if at all. The PCSSD's effort to sidestep this issue by purporting to bring the motion on behalf of certain board members in their \"individual\" 4See Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). Ironically, the Knight case involved an effort by the PCSSD to stretch the District Court's jurisdiction beyond its proper bounds after efforts in other forums to spare the PCSSD from dealing with a teachers' strike failed. 6 capacities is equally unavailing. Even if in some long-buried pleading in this case there is some reference to some particular member of the PCS SD Board as a party in an \"individual\" capacity, the course of proceedings in this case plainly demonstrates that the members of the PCSSD Board were parties in their \"official\" capacities only. No relief of any kind was ever awarded as against any Board member in his or her \"individual\" capacity. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534 543 (1986).5 The Board members have not moved to intervene in this action in their \"individual\" capacities so as to present their claim for \"allied relief,\" and there is no authority for such intervention in any event. For the foregoing reasons, the PCSSD's \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief' should be dismissed. 5 Indeed, if public school funds are being used by the PCSSD to, in part, pay for legal representation for board members for legal work that benefits the Board members personally, i.e., to pursue claims brought by Board members in their \"individual\" capacities to vindicate their personal rights under the due process or equal protection clauses, a serious question arises as to whether the PCSSD is improperly expending public school funds. See Ark. Constitution, Art. 14,  2 and 3. Ark. Code Ann. 6-13 -623 authorizes governing authorities of school districts to spend public school funds to employ legal counsel, but only to \"defend\" claims asserted against the governing authority \"or against any member thereof, by virtue of his actions in connection with his duties as such member.\" This statue would not appear to authorize the PCSSD board to employ legal counsel and use public school funds to initiate legal proceedings that purport to vindicate board members' personal rights in those members ' \"individual\" capacity. 7 Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General #95019 Senior Assistant Attome General MARK A. HAGEMEIER #94127 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on August _8_, 2003, a copy of the foregoing document was be served by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 8 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 . Mark A. Hagemeier 9 ...., 1 2 3 4 Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to the law as it existed prior to this session of the General Assembly. State of Arkansas 84th General Assembly Regular Session, 2003 Act 1397 of 2003 HOUSE BILL 2608 5 By: Representative Bond 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 For An Act To Be Entitled AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAWS PERTAINING TO CREATION OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT BY DETACHMENT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Subtitle AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAWS PERTAINING TO CREATION OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT BY DETACHMENT. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Arkansas Code 6-13-1502(d), concerning minimum area and 22 attendance requirements for creation of a school district by detachment, is 23 amended to read as follows: 24 (d) This subchapter shall apply only to school districts that in the 25 school year immediately preceding the detachment had an average daily 26 membership of at least fifteen thousand (15,000) students but not more than 27 twenty thousand (20,000) students, or the school district encompasses a total 28 area of seven hundred (700) square miles or more, now or in the future. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 SECTION 2. EMERGENCY CLAUSE. It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the Arkansas Constitution requires the State of Arkansas to provide a general, suitable, and efficient system of public education; that procedures to ensure a general, suitable, and efficient system of public education need to be in place prior to the beginning the 2003-2004 school year; and that this act is immediately necessary to allow school districts and the electors of those districts ... llllillllllllllllllllllllll~IIIIIII :\"! 'EXHIBIT 03081003KAS f.,. ,,, ~, l 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 - 36 As Engrossed: H4/2/03 HB2608 sufficient time to organize and plan to for a general, suitable, and efficient system of education in the district prior to the beginning of the 2003-2004 school year. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and this act being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on: (1) The date of its approval by the Governor; (2) If the bill is neither approved nor vetoed by the Governor, the expiration of the period of time during which the Governor may veto the bill; or (3) If the bill is vetoed by the Governor and the veto is overridden, the date the last house overrides the veto. Isl Bond APPROVED: 4/15/2003 2 03082003KAS1250.TW0018 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE RECEIVED AUG 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Senior Assistant Attorney General Timothy G. Gauger hereby requests that the Court enter his appearance as additional counsel of record for the Arkansas Department of Education for the limited purpose of this Court's consideration and disposition of the PCSSD's \"Fourth Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and for Allied Relief.\" Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Senior Assistant orney General MARK A. HAGEMEIER #94127 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on August .8.__, 2003, a copy of the foregoing document was be served by first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mike Wilson 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 John C. Fendley, Jr. 51 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Will Bond Bond \u0026amp; Chamberlin 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 7207 6 2    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1096","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","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":["2003-08"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"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/1096"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nRECEIVED AUG 2 7 2003 omtEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School Distri Board of Directors' Meetl August 2003 F.Y.I. Date: 9 -,,.17 -13 / Ann  Gene / Horace  Margie 0 Melissa / Polly  Linda Returnto: ~ n-c\n,,,~ r- rr...-.\n-r: Oz o\u0026gt; el~ m..,\noc -z\non o-\u0026lt; F~ C,1/) \u0026gt; F \"C~ C\"C a, 0 r-\no c\"i-\u0026lt; nl!! o::o\nr:m\nen zm o ..,.Cz\u0026gt; 1/) ~ 5z 1/) RECEIVED AUG 2 7 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting welcome Bae/el August 2003 (\")\"tl \u0026gt;\no r-mr-r...-. :-i::: Oz o\u0026gt;\no\no c--\u0026lt; m..,\ncc -z\no (\") o:::! r-0 r-z (\") C/) \u0026gt; F -,:,~ c-,:, a, 0 ~~ (\")~ 0\no !Cm !C (\") zm o C) .... z cri3 !XI 0z C/) (\") :::\n\u0026gt; p::\n mn z:::\nC/)\u0026gt; (\")--\u0026lt; i\n!CC/) m .~,, C. (\" \u0026lt;... 0(\" C/) - ~) \u0026gt; I. 11. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests REGULAR MEETING August28,2003 5:30 p.m. 111. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) C. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association D. Joshua lntervenors IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects E. Update: Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary School F. Internal Auditors Report G. Technology Update V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS: A. Minutes: Regular Meeting - July 24, 2003 Special Meeting - July 29, 2003 Special Meeting - August 14, 2003 B. Personnel Changes C. First Reading: Revision of Board Policy BCB - Prevention of Nepotism (\")-0 .\u0026gt; ::m0 ,- ,- ,- - ...\n3: Oz o\u0026gt;\no::O c-\u0026lt; m-n\ncc: -z\no\u0026lt;\"\u0026gt; o,--i\u0026lt;5 ,- z (\")CJ\u0026gt; F Regular Board Meeting August28,2003 Page2 VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Collaborative Grant Proposal with UALR B. 21 st Century Community Learning Centers Grant Proposal C. End of Course Test Results - Algebra I, Geometry and Literacy VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION: A. Adoption of Resolution on Elimination of Reduced Meals Category B. School-Based Dental Hub/ Clinic VIII. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION A. Athletic Events - Changes to Gate Prices IX. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Stephens, Inc. Bond Issue Bid B. Forest Heights Excess Property C. Request for Dedication Deed: Williams Magnet School D. Request for Dedication Deed: Wakefield Elementary School E. Second Reading - Revisions to Policy DGD: VISA Purchasing Card F. Donations of Property G. Approval of 2003-2004 Operating Budget H. Financial Report X. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions XI. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XII. ADJOURNMENT ,... C'\u0026gt; \"C \u0026gt;,.,. .....\n.\n.m,._c... -43: Oz o\u0026gt; ~ ~ m..,\ncc -Z\ncC'\u0026gt; o::i r-0 r-z C'\u0026gt; en \u0026gt; F I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER I ROLL CALL Ill. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. CITATIONS B. CITIZENS COMMENTS \\,,, , VII\"\\ 0. JOSHUA '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" DATE: August 28, 2003 TO: Boar f Directors FROM: onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman SUBJECT: August 2003 Construction Report-Bond Projects This has been a very busy summer with a lot of construction in our schools. In some cases, it has been frantic. I am happy to report that all of our schools opened on time and are fully functional. Even the cafeteria at Mabelvale Middle School was ready to serve food to the students in an air-conditioned room. The new elevator in Central High has been completed. For the first time, the physically handicap have access to most areas in the building. I am amazed at what was accomplished in a few weeks this summer. I would look at a building one day and it would look like a disaster. Several days later, I would look at the same building and the change for the better was unbelievable. This never would have happened without the cooperation and understanding of the principals. The Facility Services Department did an outstanding job of coordinating the work. The bids were taken for the replacement school at Wakefield Elementary on July 31 st - The low bidder's price was below the architect's construction cost estimate. The contract has been awarded to Bell Construction Company, and the groundbreaking ceremony was held this past Saturday, August 23' d  I hope you were able to attend. Mr. Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services, will give you a verbal update of plans for the renovation of Mitchell and Rightsell. Please call me at 447-1146 if you have any questions. 810 W Mark.ham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 !.I,,I m ~ zz ,m.. n :,:,c. z Cl m \"' :,, ~ m\n,:, il m:,,. 23r\n,:,\u0026gt; .... C: C =! 0\n,:, \"' p .... Pl :z:c 0 8 -\u0026lt; .C,,: C ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD AUGUST 28, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date 1--=,A--d--_m_in,---i-_st_ra_tio_n_ ____- -\"F-i_re_ al_a_rm_ $32,350 Aug-03 1--B,--a--_sel_in,--e--_ ______- =R-_en_o_v_ation _________ $953,520 Jul-04 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Dec-05 1-D-_u_n_bar_ _______ __,_R,__en_o_v_a_tion_/addition ' $6,161,950 Aug-04 1--J_. A. Fa_ir _______ __,_RI__oof_repairs I $391,871 I Aug-03 16 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music '1 J. A. Fair room addition ______ $3,155,640 Feb-04 Forest Park Replace window units w/central I-NAG!--- $485,258 I Aug-03 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $8,637,709 Jul-03 Mabelvale MS Renovation j $6,851,621 Dec-03 Mann Partial Replacement _____ $11,500,000 Dec-03 McClellan Classroom Addition I $2,155,622 Jul-04 Pulaski Hgts. Elem I RReennoovvaatt! I o 0 nn _____ ~ $$1 ,193,259 I Aug-04 Pulaski Hgts. MS -----,-,-------- _____ ~ 3,755,041 Aug-04 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Aug-04 Southwest New roof $690,000 Aug-03 Tech Ctr I Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Jun-04 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 Jul-04 -- ,_Willia_m_s ________ R_eno_v_ation I $2,106,4921 Jun-04 ,_Willia_m_s _______ -+I_P_ark_ing expansions I $183,717 1 Jun-04 Wilson 1 Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 Nov-03 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SUMMER/ FALL 2003 I I Est. Completion Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Jun-04 Parkview !Addition $2,121,226 Jun-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED Facility Name Project Description I I t:sr. 1..,omp1euon Cost Date Mitchell I Renovation I $750,000 1 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation , . Unknown Rightsell I Renovation -----+-----$-66- 0- ,-00-0-+----U- n- known VVilson Energy monitoring system installation Woodr-uf-f -------+I-P-ar-k-\"n'i.1,_0-addition - $193,777 Unknown Unknown BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description I I t:::st. comp1et1on Cost Date  Administrati-on- -----+Asbe-sto-s -ab-ate-me-nt- --------- $380,495 Mar-03 Adm in is tr- at io-n --- Administration Annex i\\ltemative Learning Ctr. Alternative Learning Ctr. Badgett __-:= _-:=_-=_~Badgett ~ ----- Bale Bale Bale Fresh air system-___ _ __ $_55,000 ___ Aug-03 Energy monitoring system installation - __ May-02 I Energy monitoring system installation ---.-- $15,160 Oct-01 Energy efficient lighting ___ ~ --$82,000 _,_l_-_-=--=--=--Dec-01 Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Jul-01 Fire alarm -=--=--=--=----=----_-_-_,.... . -_- --c-,,--,,-$-,.1...8,250 Aug-02 Classroom addition/renovation ' $2,244,524 Dec-02 --- Energy monitoring system Mar-02 al roof replacement + $269,587 Dec-01 HVAC --- + ~64,587 Aug-01 Facility Name Booker Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady Carver Carver Central Parking Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central/Quigley Central Central -Central -Cen-tral Central Cloverdale Elem. Cloverdale MS Cloverdale MS -Dodd Dodd Dodd Facilities Service Facility Services Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair J. A. Fair Forest Park Forest Park Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Fulbright Franklin Gibbs Gibbs Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Henderson Henderson Henderson CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD AUGUST 28, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Proiect Description I Cost I Est. Completion Date I Energy efficient lighting $170,295 I Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation : $23,710 Oct-01 Asbestos abatement I $10,900 I Feb-02  Fire alarm I $34,501 Mar-02 Energy efficient lighting I $80,593 Sep-02  Asbestos abatement $345,072 Aug-02 Energy monitoring system installation I $14,480 I May-01 Parking lot I $111,742 Aug-03 Student parking $174,000 Aug-03 Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair I $265,000 ' Aug-03 1Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Aug-03 Irrigation System $14,500 Aug-03 Purchase land for school Unknown , Dec-02 Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Dec-02 Ceiling and wall repair I $24,000 Oct-01 Fire Alarm System Design/Installation I $80,876 Aug-01 Front landing tile repair I $22,470 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Jul-01 , Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Jul-01 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Nov-02 Energy efficient lighting $90,665 I Aug-01 Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 , J-ul-0-1 Replace roof top HVAC $215,570 Aug-02 , Interior renovation $84,672 Mar-01 Fire alarm $12,000 Aug-03 HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 - Apr-02 Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Aug-01 Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 Aug-01 Energy efficient lighting $277,594 Apr-01 '. Press box $10,784 Nov-00 - Security cameras $12,500 Jun-01 I Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 I Jul-03 Irrigation System $14,000 Jul-03 Diagonal parking $111,742 I Aug-03 Energy efficient lighting $119,788 I May-01 1 Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Jun-01 Energy monitoring system installation I $11,950 Aug-01 'Replace rooftop HVAC units -- $107,835 I Aug-02 Parking lot $140,000 I Sep-02 Roof repairs -----+- $200,000 Oct-02 Renovation $2,511,736' Mar-03 Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Apr-01 Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Jul-01 Asbestos abatement I $168,222 Aug-01 I Energy efficient lighting I $42,931 I Jul-01 Energy efficient lighting $296,707 I Apr-01 Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Aug-01 I Intercom Feb-01 I Security cameras $10,600 Jun-01 1Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Jul-01 Roof replacement gym I $107,835 -- May-01 Asbestos abatement Phase I I $500,000 Auq-01 2 !ll \"D m ~ z z ,m-n ~ z G) m CJ) =z\" m-\u0026lt;\ntl~ mc3 ,\u0026gt;\ntl \u0026gt; -\u0026lt; C: 0 =I 0\ntl U\u0026gt; p m-\u0026lt; n :,: z 0,- 8 -\u0026lt; C: \"D 0 ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD AUGUST 28, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name I Project Description Cost Henderson !Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 I IRC I Energy efficient lighting I $109,136 Jefferson !Asbestos abatement $43,639 I Jefferson Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1,630,000 Laidlaw , Parking lot $269,588 Mabelvale Elem. Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Mabelvale Elem. Replace HVAC units $300,000 Mabelvale Elem. I Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Mabelvale Elem. Energy efficient lighting I $106,598 Mabelvale MS I Renovate bleachers $134,793 Mann 1 Asphalt walks The total $1.8 million Mann Walkway canopies is what has been Mann - !Boiler replacement used so far on the I Mann - I Fencing -- 1 projects listed Mann Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. ! McClellan 'Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 McClellan Security cameras $36,300 McClellan Energy efficient lighting $303,614 McClellan Stadium stands repair $235,000 ' McClellan Intercom $46,000 I McDermott 1 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 McDermott I Replace roof top HVAC units I $476,000 i -- - Meadowcliff !Fire alarm I $16,175 Meadowcliff - - Asbestos abatement $2s3,412 I Meadowcliff Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Metropolitan Replace cooling tower $37,203 I Metropolitan -- Replace shop vent system $20,000 Metropolitan - Energy monitoring system installation I $17,145 Mitchell Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Mitchell 'Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 --- - Mitchell Asbestos abatement - $13,000 Oakhurst HVAC renovation $237,237 --- IE nergy monitoring system installation $10,695 Otter Creek Otter Creek Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Otter Creek 1Asbestos abatement $10,000 -- Otter Creek Parking lot $138,029 --- -- - 4 O-tter Creek 6 classroom addition - --- ... $888,778 Otter Creek Parking Improvements ... $142,541 -- Parkview HVAC controls $210,000 f- -- Parkview Roof replacement $273,877 -- Parkview Exterior lights $10,784 -- Parkview HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 +-- - Parkview Locker replacement $120,000 Parkview Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Procurement - . Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 ----- - Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 I Move playground -- -- $17,000 - Pulaski Hgts. Elem - -- Rightsell Energy efficient lighting _.___ $84,898 -- Rockefeller Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Rockefeller Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Rockefeller Parking addition $111 ,742 Est. Completion Date Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 -Ju-l-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 - Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Aug-03 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Aug-03 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Auo-02 3 CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD AUGUST 28, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facilitv Name Project Description Cost Romine Asbestos abatement $10,000 I Romine Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 I SecurityfTransportation Bus cameras $22,500 Southwest Asbestos abatement $28,138 Southwest Energy efficient lighting $168,719 Southwest Drainage/ street widening $250,000 Student Assignment Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Center Phase 1 Renovation $275,000 Technology Upgrade Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data I Terry Energy efficient lighting $73,850 Terry ,Driveway \u0026amp; Parking I $83,484 Terry I Media Center addition $704,932 Wakefield Security cameras $8,000 Wakefield - , Energy efficient lighting I $74,776 Wakefield Demolition/Asbestos Abatement $200,000 Washington Security cameras $7,900 - Washington Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Watson Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Watson Asbestos abatement I $182,241 Watson Energy efficient lighting $106,868 Watson !Asbestos abatement $10,000 Watson Major renovation \u0026amp; addition I $800,000 Western Hiiis Asbestos abatement $191,946 Western Hills - Intercom $7,100 -Western Hills _ ~gy efficient lighting I $106,000 I -- Williams -- Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Woodruff Renovation $246,419 Est. Completion Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Aug-00 Jan-02 Aug-03 Aug-02 Aug-03 Dec-01 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Aug-03 Aua-02 4 .!.D, m ~ z z ,m- (\") ,::.c z Cl m CA ~ .... ~ ::c z 0  .c.:,: Cl ~ m TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: '.:-4.n Individual Approach to a World if Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 itt~ol District Board of Directors l ~~f Facility Services orris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools ~-Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary School Updates Pursuant to questions raised at the July Board of Directors Meeting, the following information is provided with regard to the most current status on Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary Schools. As of the start of the school year, we have concluded our annual maintenance-inspections and cleaning of the heating-ventilation units at Mitchell Elementary and will be starting Rightsell Elementary School in the very near future. While finding them in relative good order, we did succeed in completing some minor repairs that will improve the moisture problems. Relative humidity tests taken in early August at Mitchell Elementary School revealed that the relative humidity ranged between 68 to 72 percent. This is not optimum, and steps are being taken to lower that humidity. We intend to take additional tests and to include carbon-dioxide tests once school is in attendance. The results should be available within a week to ten days. With these tests we can further plan what necessary steps must be taken to improve the facilities. Based on previous tests that we have done during our studies of the schools, we have concluded that the schools are safe for staff and children. Once the staff and children are back in the schools, there will be an influx of beneficial fresh air that will further improve the situation but not to the extent that we should see once we complete our bond project. On 18 August, we formulated a plan that includes both short-term and intermediate steps to be taken in both of these fine old elementary schools. It also includes a revised maintenance schedule. Our goal is to bring Mitchell's and Rightsell 's air quality within acceptable industry-standards and to provide the best environment that we can for conducting school at these facilities. We are continuing our long-range planning for renovation projects at both of these facilities. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 A decision was made that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure the indoor-airquality standard at Mitchell Elementary School is met so that school can remain at that facility until the summer of 2004. It is our intention, at that time, to begin the major renovation-work at this school and to relocate these children to the old Badgett Elementary School in East Little Rock. Our intention is to do the work at Rightsell as soon as the plans and specifications can be completed in early Spring, at which time we will begin work on that facility immediately. DEC:cg Attachments .?.,' m :,:, ~ zz ,m- C') ~ z C) m Ul LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August 28, 2003 To: Board of Directors From: ~ Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - August This is the forty-sixth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two middle school and one elementary school to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board {AAB) a) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology a) Monitoring implementation of technology by participation in the technology committee(s). b) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. c) Participating with the Technology Committee. !D \"D m ~ zz m,.... (\") ~ z C, m CJ) p ..... Pl X z 0 ~ C:\ng ~ m Audit Report - August 2003 Page 2 of2 Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring payroll for compliance with internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. (New). Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August28,2003 To: Board of Directors From: Lucy Neal, Director, Technology and Media Services Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Through: Subject: Technology Update The following new technology activities have taken place in the last month:  The District was recently notified that the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) grant was funded in the amount of $506,553. This is a tri-district partnership grant that provides technology training for teachers in the three districts of Pulaski County. Projects include on-line training courses for teachers, as well as face-to-face classes. The grant also funds new computer labs for Woodruff and Dodd.  We are continuing to receive questions and provide answers to the organization that oversees E-Rate. We have been told that our applications are in final review at this time.  Computer Information Services has recently installed a web-based reporting system that will make data more accessible to users in the District. Training on the new system will begin this fall.  Internet access to the District has been sporadic for the last two weeks due to problems on the state network. The District has also experienced serious e-mail problems during that time. An update on both of these problems will be provided at the August 28 board meeting. !JJ \"D m ~ zz ,m... (\") z~ C) m \"' TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 28, 2003 Board of Education Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Dr. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools Proposed Substitute Teacher Salary Schedule and Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the proposed change in the substitute teacher salary schedule and the following personnel changes at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with AC.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Teachers with an effective date of employment after August 18, 2003 are considered intern teachers. fl .... .um..,.\nc ~ C: mr- ~~ ~lJ\n! 0 .0, , (\") 0 C: '?' Personnel Changes Page 2 August 28, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS ANNUAL SALARY Proposed Revision in the Substitute Teacher Salary Schedule for 2003-04 Substitute teacher without a 4-year degree Substitute teacher with a 4-year degree $48.00 $53.00 Long Term Substitute teacher is 20 days or longer $85.50 * This rate of pay is to begin on the first day of the known long term assignment. * *(Individual must be degreed and have a teaching certification or have special skills/qualifications) Rationale: * This change makes the District compatible with neighboring districts. ** This change keeps the District in compliance with No Child Left Behind and Arkansas ACT 1623. Resignations/ferminations Certified Employees Alexander, Laquinda Elem II 1-2-01 3-04 Reason: Accepted Another 31242.00 RIGHTSELL 7-25-03 TCH925 Position Aryee, Jessica Elem III 8-9-00 1-05 29309.00 Reason: Leaving City STEPHE s 7-10-03 TCH925 Bailey, Rosalyn Health 8-21-73 6-21 53213.00 Reason: Retired HALL 6-2-03 TCH925 Benage, Duane German 7-18-94 6-13 44566.00 Reason: Contract Ended MANN 6-2-03 TCH925 Personnel Changes p Page 3 ... men August 28, 2003 ...\n,, men C: E~ :i:::m enz 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0. , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY n 0 C: 'f' ?\" Rls en:- o  Eo -\u0026lt;:I: Bierbaum, Kimberly Kindergarten 8-13-98 4-06 34637.00 oz z-en Om Reason: Accepted Another BOOKER 8-12-03 K925 :!:\n,, r-\u0026lt; Position Oc'5 zm .C..: en\n,, ::. Brannick, Sharon Elem ill 8-9-00 1-04 28588.00 0 z Reason: Personal KING 7-21-03 TCH925 Bull, Kathy Kindergarten 8-13-98 2-07 32978.00 p Reason: Leaving City WATSON 8-2-03 K925 Ill-\nO\n,, Childers, Robert English 8-7-02 4-03 31574.00 ~~ zo m\nz\nReason: None Given PUL. HGTS. MID. 7-1-03 TCH925 c30 ::!-o enc :!l:r-c'i Douglas, Martha Voe. Home Ee. 11-4-68 6-21 53213.00 -\u0026lt; Reason: Retired PUL. HGTS. MID. 6-9-03 TCHlO Faucette, Michael English 8-13-98 6-06 37419.00 Reason: Terminated CENTRAL 8-13-03 TCH925 ?\"~ C) - Gadberry, Sarah Social Studies 8-22-77 5-20 50788.00 ~~ z_.-\n\u0026lt;,, Reason: Retired CENTRAL 6-2-03 TCH925 ~~ 0 ... c3 ~ en\u0026gt; Garrett, Christopher Elem IV 8-7-02 1-04 28588.00 )\u0026gt; ,... ,-en -\u0026lt; Reason: Personal OTTERCREEK 7-28-03 TCH925 C: (') ,).\u0026gt;.. ~\n,, Hagood, Vicki 4 Yr Old 8-13-98 1-06 30630.00 Reason: Leaving City STEPHE s 8-8-03 4YROLD Hall, Timothy Civics 8-13-02 6-12 43545.00 !D ~ Reason: Accepted Another CENTRAL 6-15-03 TCHI0 = ..,n Position\n,,m oz c3 c! ~~ ,... C) ~ .z. . Personnel Changes Page 4 August 28, 2003 NAME Hancock, Melinda Reason: Accepted Another Position Headley, Debbie Reason: Health Holl, Maria Reason: Leaving City Hutson, Bryan Reason: Accepted Another Position James, Kenneth Reason: Accepted Another Position Lusk, Jennifer Reason: Returned to School Mackey,Anna Reason: Leaving City Manley, Rayleen Reason: Leaving City McClain, Carey Reason: Personal McClellan, Dale Reason: Leaving City POSITION SCHOOL Elem I CHICOT Voe. Music START DATE END DATE 8-7-02 8-1-03 10-22-02 CLOVERDALE MID. 6-2-03 ElemV 8-7-03 WILLIAMS 7-24-03 Physical Ed. 4-15-01 MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 Superintendent 5-3-01 SUPERINTEDENT 6-30-03 German I 9-12-90 PARKVIEW 6-2-03 English 8-21-00 CLOVERDALE MID. 8-4-03 ElemV 8-13-01 MEADOW CLIFF 8-5-03 English 9-9-98 WASHINGTON 8-1-03 Counselor 8-20-90 STEPHENS 8-1-03 SALARY CLASS 1-03 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 1-06 TCH925 1-13 TCH10 1-01 AUNC12 4-12 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 1-05 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 5-20 CNL925 ANNUAL SALARY 27567.00 31651.00 30630.00 37777.00 145054.00 40763.00 28588.00 29609.00 31651.00 50788.00 Personnel Changes .r.\u0026gt;. Page 5 m (../.) August 28, 2003 :,c m (/) C mr- ~ii_l 1'\n! Cl POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0. , NAME n SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY 0 C '?'\ni,, :,c\u0026lt; ~:= o,.. Moore, Shelley Elem II 8-12-99 1-08 32672.00 ~ Cl -I,!: oz Reason: Accepted Another ROMINE 7-8-03 TCH925 z -CJ) nm Position :!:::ic r- \u0026lt; Cl n zm .C..C /) Paglianite, Rebecca English 8-13-98 1-06 30630.00 :n =l Reason: None Given CENTRAL 7-17-03 TCH925 5 z Peevy, David Physical Science 7-22-99 1-04 28588.00 Reason: Accepted Another CENTRAL 7-17-03 TCHl0 r\u0026gt; Position ~ tD !I n:,c ~~ Perez, Brenda Adult Ed 7-1-99 6-11 42524.00 Z Cl mz ~0 Reason: None Given ADULT ED 6-2-03 TCH925 ::! \"C (/)0 :!: r- n Pickering, Judith English 8-24-87 5-20 50788.00 -\u0026lt; Reason: Retired FAIR 6-2-03 TCH925 Peterson, Kathy Applied Math 4-1-98 4-02 31064.00 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-3-03 TCH925\ni,,~ Petty, Cindy Elem IV 8-13-01 2-13 39104.00 C, - ~i:'\nReason: Accepted Another BALE 8-6-03 TCH925 z-\u0026lt; ... ::ic Position\ng ?5 0 ...\ng ~ (/) )\u0026gt; Phillips, Teressia Algebra I 8-7-02 3-02 29711.00 ,)\u0026gt;- r- (/) -e\u0026lt;n Reason: None Given CENTRAL 7-31-03 TCH925 ,)\u0026gt;- ~ :,c Pierce, Charlene Elem ill 8-12-96 2-11 37062.00 Reason: Retired STEPHENS 7-30-03 TCH925 Pusch, Lisa 4 Yr Old 8-13-97 1-08 32672.00 !l' ~ Reason: Leaving City FAIR.PARK 8-7-03 4YROLD !:l :\"C,c mn oz Saine, Nathasha Math 8-21-92 3-07 34305.00\ng ~ ~~ Reason: Leaving City CENTRAL 8-1-03 TCH925 ,- C, ~ .z. . Personnel Changes Page 6 August 28, 2003 NAME Sanders, Sharon Reason: Leaving City Sibell, Tracy Reason: Leaving City Singleton, Veronica Reason: Leaving City Tate, Katrina Reason: Personal Wofford, Charlene Reason: Leaving City POSITION SCHOOL Counselor START DATE END DATE 8-12-96 TERRY/FULBRIGHT7-25-03 Geometry 8-12-99 HALL 6-2-03 Clerical 8-23-01 CENTRAL 5-16-03 English 8-13-01 SOUTHWEST MID. 7-18-03 Elem I 8-7-02 FRANKLIN 8-1-03 Association Leave SALARY CLASS 4-08 CNL925 1-05 TCHl0 38-13 CLKl0 1-03 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 36679.00 29609.00 22656.00 27567.00 31651.00 Association Leave for Katherine Wright-Knight to be Little Rock Class Room Teacher Association President for the years of2003-3004 and 2004-2005. New Certified Employees Abernathy, Paula Elem I 8-18-03 1-14 38798.00 CHICOT TCH925 annual 37383.49 prorated AboulFettouh,Maha French 8-7-03 6-02 33846.00 MCCLELLAN TCH925 Personnel Changes 0 Page 7 .... m V...J. August 28, 2003 ::0 m VJ C mr- ~~ ~~ 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0, , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY C'\u0026gt; 0 C '!' .,,. ::o\u0026lt; ~:== o  !::o --\u0026lt;lC Andrews, Tracy English 8-7-03 1-03 27567.00 czSz -VJ C'\u0026gt;m HENDERSON TCH925 :!:::o r-\u0026lt; Oi\"5 zm C VJ Atkins, Ashley Elem II 8-7-03 4-01 30553.00 .... ::0 :::i FULBRIGHT TCH925 5 z Barlow, Heather Kindergarten 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 GEYER SPRINGS K925 0 ~ CD !I Blalock, Kellie Elem II 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 C'\u0026gt;:,o ~~ GEYER SPRINGS TCH925 zo mz\ng0 ::!-., Burns, Josiah Elem IV 8-7-03 1-06 30630.00 VJ 0 lC ,-- i\"5 KING TCH925 -\u0026lt; Boccarossa, Jennifer Elem IV 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 CHICOT TCH925 .,,.~ Cl- Breeze, Scott Boys PE 7-17-03 4-01 32940.00 ~~ .z...\" \"::o' MCCLELLAN TCHl0\n\u0026amp; ~ o\"\"' c3 ~ VJ  Bright, Trina English 8-7-03 4-07 35658.00 ,... ,... VJ -\u0026lt; MCCLELLAN TCH925 co ,... fl' ::0 Butler-Green, Rachel Biology 8-7-03 2-03 28894.00 MCCLELLAN TCH925 Carter, Fred Social Studies 7-17-03 1-11 38526.00 ?\" ~ HALL TCHI0 !I -.:,C'\u0026gt; :,om oz Clark, Molly Elem I 8-7-03 1-01 25546.00\ng ~ ~~ TERRY TCH925 ,-- Cl ~ .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 8 August 28, 2003 NAME Clary, Angelia Clegg, Pamela Cole, Elwood Coleman, Leah Corballis, Christopher Criss, Pamela Cox, Stacey Cunningham, Marian Dorsey, Mary Ernst, Melody POSITION SCHOOL Elem II MCDERMOTT Elem II ROMINE Counselor WATSON Elem Ill WAKEFIELD Elem Ill STEPHENS Special Ed CHICOT Speech WESTERN HILLS Elem IV MITCHELL English DUNBAR ElemV MITCHELL START DATE SALARY END DATE CLASS 8-7-03 1-01 TCH925 8-7-03 4-02 TCH925 8-7-03 4-12 CNL925 8-7-03 1-01 TCH925 8-8-03 1-01 TCH925 8-11-03 1-01 SPE925 8-7-03 62-12 SPE925 8-1-03 1-01 TCH925 8-7-03 1-10 TCH925 8-1-03 1-07 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 27056.00 40763.00 26526.00 26546.00 annual 25854.70 prorated 26546.00 annual 26269.48 prorated 45000.00 26546.00 34714.00 31651.00 Personnel Changes fl Page 9 .... m en August 28, 2003 .... ::0 emn C: mr- ~~ e==nmz 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL 0 -n NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY (') 0 C: ~ ?\u0026gt; ~s en:- i2  C: 0 .... == Featherston, Melissa Elem IV 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 czSz - en WILSON TCH925 Om :!:::o r-\u0026lt; Oi\"j zm c: en Fells, Kecia Counselor 8-7-03 5-15 45204.00 .... ::0 =l GIBBS CNL925 5z Finney, Jason Civics 8-7-03 4-05 33616.00 MANN TCH925 fl ~ al ~ Fletcher, Carmen Elem III 8-7-03 1-06 30630.00 (') ::0 ~~ WASHINGTON TCH925 zo m\nc30 Fowler, Terri Elem IV 8-7-03 1-01 26546.000 iiic3\ni::,- n BASELINE TCH925 -\u0026lt; Franks, Deedra Speech 8-7-03 62-12 45000.00 Special Ed. SPE925 French, Cathy Elem IV 8-7-03 6-16 47629.00 ?\u0026gt;'\n!= C) - ~ij'\nRIGHTSELL TCH925 z--\u0026lt; .... ::0 ~ ~ o\"\"' Giese, M'Lou Math 8-7-03 1-16 40839.00 \"C c5 oz en\u0026gt; MCCLELLAN TCH925 \u0026gt;,... ,... en -\u0026lt; C: (') ,\u0026gt;... !\" Glasgow, Jennifer Elem II 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 ::0 PUL. HGTS. ELEM. TCH925 Grayson, Lequieta Counselor 7-29-03 4-10 41746.00 CENTRAL CNLlO i:t' ~ Harris, Christopher \"C (') English 8-7-03 4-02 31064.00\no m oz CLOVERDALE MID. TCH925 c3 c! ~~ ,... C) ~ .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 10 August 28, 2003 NAME Harris, Veronica Hill, Renee Hughes, Timothy Jackson, Marlo Jackson, Susan Johnson, Carolyn Johnson, Doyle Jones, Elizabeth Jones, Katherine Kamanga, Kelli Kessler, Sabrina POSITION SCHOOL Writing SOUTHWEST Oral Com. HALL Spanish START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 CLOVERDALE MID. ElemV 8-7-03 MEADOW CLIFF Counselor 7-29-03 FAIR Data Processing 8-7-03 HENDERSON Counselor 7-29-03 PARK.VIEW Biology 8-7-03 FAIR Kindergarten 8-7-03 MEADOW CLIFF Special Ed 8-7-03 DODD Literacy Coach 7-21-03 MABELV ALE ELEM. SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 5-01 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 5-12 CNLl0 4-04 TCH925 4-18 CNLl0 1-02 TCH925 1-01 K925 1-03 SPE925 4-07 TCH!l ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 27056.00 31931.00 35658.00 45434.00 32595.00 50552.00 \"27056.00 26546.00 27567.00 42158.00 Personnel Changes ~ Page 11 .... m .C.J.'.) August 28, 2003 :,c m CJ') C: mr- ~~\ni::m \"'z 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0, , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY (\") 0 C: ~\n,,, :,c\u0026lt; ~ ?= o  King, Alisha Biology 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 ~o -\u0026lt;\nI: PARK.VIEW TCH925 c5z z  -CJ'\u0026gt; Om :!: :,c r-\u0026lt; Kirby, Adam Special Ed. 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 Oc'i zm .C..:. CJ') CENTRAL SPE925 :,c =l 0 z Kitzmiller, Rachel Science 8-7-03 4-02 31064.00 FOREST HGTS. TCH925 ~ Lee, Paula Special Ed. 8-7-03 1-03 27567.00 Ill~ PUL. HGTS. ELEM. SPE925 n:,c ~~ zo mz Leibig, Priscilla Elem IV 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 ~~ g~ GIBBS TCH925\ni::.- c'i -\u0026lt; Logan, Vickie Biology 8-7-03 6-17 48650.00 PARK.VIEW TCH925 Lollies, Princess Special Ed. 8-11-03 1-14 38798.00\n,,,~ STEPHENS SPE925 annual C:,- ~~ 37585.56 z--\u0026lt; .... :,0 prorated\ng g o~\"\"\n' CJ')  Mahomes, Cynthia Social Studies 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 )\u0026gt; .... r-CJ'\u0026gt; -\u0026lt; CENTRAL TCH925 C: (\") )..\u0026gt;.. ~ :,c Mann, Kristi Special Ed. 8-7-03 2-15 41146.00 ROCKEFELLER SPE925 Marshall, Wendy Special Ed. 8-7-03 1-08 32672.00 ?' ~ SOUTHWEST SPE925 !l -a (\") :,cm oz McAdoo, Charlie Business Ed. 8-7-03 1-01 27237.00 ~~ ~~ MCCLELLAN TCH950 .-c:, ~ .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 12 August 28, 2003 NAME McCann, Jason McGee, Keith Midkiff, Amanda Mistie, Helen Moreland, Hillary Morgan, Treva Moss,Amy Myrose, Robert Neeley, Ruth Obiagwu, Chukwuma POSITION SCHOOL Art CENTRAL Civics CENTRAL Kindergarten BOOKER English START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 7-17-03 8-15-03 8-7-03 CLOVERDALE MID. Elem III 8-7-03 KING ElemN 8-1-03 MABELV ALE ELEM Reading Recovery 8-7-03 BOOKER General Math 8-7-03 ALT. LRN. CTR. Elem. III 8-7-03 FULBRIGHT Physics 8-7-03 HALL SALARY CLASS 1-03 TCH925 4-05 TCHl0 1-01 K925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 6-06 TCH925 4-06 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-11 TCH925 6-04 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 27567.00 33616.00 26546.00 annual 25716.44 prorated 26546.00 26546.00 37419.00 34637.00 26546.00 35735.00 35377.00 Personnel Changes r\u0026gt; Page 13 ..... m \u0026lt;J) August 28, 2003 ..... ::c m \u0026lt;J) C mr- ~~ 1'l\n~ POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .00.. , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY (\") 0 C :' ?\" ~s en,... o\u0026gt; O'Conner, Jacqueline English 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 l: 0 _, lC FAIR TCH925 ozz\n=\nen :cm Peterson, Kathy Math 8-7-03 4-03 31574.00 5~ zm cen FAIR TCH925 ..... ::c =I 5z Pettis, Lashawn Elem IV 8-7-03 1-03 27567.00 ROMINE TCH925 Phillips, Amanda English 8-7-03 r\u0026gt; 1-05 29609.00 IXJ~ HALL TCH925 C\"l\nc ~~ zo mz Pittman, Laura ElemV 8-7-03 4-05 33616.00 i3 0 :::!-,, BOOKER TCH925 enc lC ,- n -\u0026lt; Post, Melinda ElemV 8-7-03 3-10 37368.00 MEADOW CLIFF TCH925 Redmond, Rhonda Elem IV 8-7-03 4-07 35658.00 ?\"~ BALE TCH925 C:,- ~~ z--4 _,\nc Redus, Junniest ElemV 8-7-03 1-09 33693.00\n:g ?S ~g CARVER TCH925 oz \u0026gt;en ,\u0026gt;- ,- en -\u0026lt; Register, Sandra Elem II 8-7-03 6-20 51713.00 en \u0026gt;,-!\"' TERRY TCH925 ::c Rogers, Pamela Kindergarten 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 PUL. HGTS. ELEM. K925 !I\u0026gt; Saderup, Rhonda 37700.00 ~ ELEM II 8-7-03 4-09 .., = (\") RIGHTSELL TCH925\ncm oz \u0026lt;3~ ~~ ,- c:, ~ .z... . Personnel Changes Page 14 August 28, 2003 NAME Sanders, Renata Scott, John Sheffield, Azizi Shollmier, Mary Smiley, Beverly Smith, Chenell Smith, Melinda Smith, Shannon Stallings, Carla Swanigan, Carrie Taylor, Jennifer POSITION SCHOOL Elem I WAKEFIELD Instrumental PARK.VIEW English CENTRAL Voe. Music DUNBAR Chemistry HALL Special Ed. CLOVERDALE EL. Special Ed. ROMINE Elem ill KING Health METROPOLITAN Elem I MITCHELL Elem I BASELINE START DATE SALARY END DATE CLASS 8-7-03 1-04 TCH925 8-7-03 1-03 TCH925 8-7-03 4-04 TCH925 8-7-03 4-08 TCH925 8-7-03 1-02 TCH925 8-7-03 62-5 SPE925 8-7-03 6-11 TCH925 8-7-03 4-01 TCH925 8-1-03 1-01 TCH950 8-1-03 1-02 TCH925 8-7-03 1-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 28588.00 27567.00 32595.00 36679.00 27056.00 36516.00 42524.00 30553.00 27237.00 27056.00 26546.00 Personnel Changes p Page 15 .... m .(./.). August 28, 2003\n:o m (/) C: mr- ~\n~~ C POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0., , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY (') 0 C: '?' '?\u0026gt; ~s (I):- Taylor, Michael ~ Social Studies 7-17-03 1-05 31922.00 C: C --\u0026lt; lC MCCLELLAN TCHl0 czSz O-cmn :E\n:o r-\u0026lt; Terry, Lashay Elem II 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 C('i zm C: (/) DODD TCH925 ....\n:o =l 5z Thomas, Natalie Elem III 8-7-03 1-06 30630.00 BRADY TCH925 p Thompson, Bruce American History 7-17-03 4-19 52169.39 ~ 0::, ~ FAIR TCHl0 C'l\n:o ~~ zc mz Tims, Neitasha ElemN 8-7-03 1-02 27056.00 ~P. ii:l~ ROMINE TCH925 lC r-c'i -\u0026lt; Tudor, Shu Chi Elem III 8-7-03 4-04 32595.00 GIBBS TCH925 Wage, Margery Kindergarten 8-7-03 4-01 30553.00 ?\"~ MEADOW CLIFF K925 Cl - z~--~\u0026lt; _,\n:o Washington, LaPara English 8-7-03 4-02 31064.00\ng ?i o\"\"' FAIR TCH925 o\"C zc5 cn   r-r- (/) -\u0026lt; West, Talisha 4 Yr Old 8-7-03 1-01 26546.00 C: (\") ~ r- FAIR.PARK 4YROLD\n:o White, Jerald Metal FA 7-29-03 1-04 28588.00 METRO. TCHI0 !\"' White, Jonas American History 26546.00 ~ 8-7-03 1-01 ~ -cC'l SOUTHWEST TCH925\nom oz\ng~ ~~ r- Cl .z~.. . Personnel Changes Page 16 August 28, 2003 NAME White, Susan Wicker, Amanda Williams, Frank Willies, Vora Wilson, Karen Wirzfeld, Katherine Williams, Alicia Wren, Beth Woods, Cobbs POSITION SCHOOL Special Ed. WASHINGTON ElemV WILLIAMS Math HENDERSON Elem I STEPHENS Counselor TERRY Elem V WESTERN HILLS Special Ed. STEPHENS Special Ed. BALE Elem I FRANKLIN START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-8-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 62-12 SPE925 1-03 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-06 TCH925 4-18 CNL925 1-05 TCH925 4-02 SPE925 1-02 SPE925 1-02 TCH925 Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Employees Avery, Frankie Reason: Leaving City Custodian SOUTHWEST 8-27-02 9-2-03 1-02 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 45000.00 27567.00 27056.00 30630.00 46889.00 29609.00 31064.00 27056.00 27056.00 13955.00 Personnel Changes p Page 17 .... m .C..f.) August 28, 2003\n,c m Cf) C: mr- ~ii:l :!:m u,z 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0., , NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY n 0 C: ':J\n,,,\n,c\u0026lt; ~ ?= o  ~o --\u0026lt;:!: Banks, Keith Instr. Aide 8-12-99 1-06 12798.00 c5z z -u, Om Reason: None Given STEPHENS 8-6-03 INA925 :!:\n,c r-\u0026lt; O(\"\nzm C: Cf) Barber, Mae Custodian 5-23-88 1-11 18844.00 ....\n,c =I Reason: Personal WESTERN HILLS 8-29-03 CUS12 0 z Cloud, William Custodian 8-29-91 4-11 30986.00 Reason: Retired CENTRAL 8-12-03 CUS12 p m1 Crowder, Cleda Clerical 8-10-87 39-20 28764.00 n\n,c ~ ~ Reason: Retired FAIR 6-4-03 CLK10 zo mz \u0026lt;30 :::!-c CflO Davey. Clarice Instr. Aide 2-10-03 1-03 11635.00 lC ,- n Reason: Accepted Another FAIR.PARK 7-25-03 INA925 -\u0026lt; Position Donald, Betty Instr. Aide 8-21-00 1-03 11635.00 Reason: Accepted Another BASELINE 7-21-03 INA185 ?\"\n5, Position C) - ~n~ z__-.\n-\n\u0026lt;,c Fentry, Kimberly Care 8-30-94 1-16 8.19 l~ 0 .... Reason: None Given CARE 5-30-03 CARE c3 ~ u,  ,... ,-u, -\u0026lt; Harris, Vivian Care 11-9-78 2-03 6.94 c:n ,... !\" Reason: None Given CARE 5-30-03 CARE\n,c Hope, Barbara Clerical 8-7-78 39-20 28764.00 Reason: Retired HALL 6-10-03 CLKl0 !Jl ~ Hunter, Laura Child Nutrition 1-11-02 3-09 8290.00 ~ -en Reason: Health MABELV ALE MID. 7-31-03 FSH550\n,cm oz c3 ~ 5'.,?::!! ,... C) ~ .z.. . Personnel Changes Page 18 August 28, 2003 NAME Marcrum, Janice Reason: Retired Neal, Shellie Reason: Retired Ollison, Yolanda Reason: None Given Porter, Jere! Reason: Terminated Pruitt, Robert POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition OTTERCREEK Child Nutrition WILSON Care CARE Custodian JEFFERSON Instr. Aide Reason: Returning To School GIBBS Robinson, Vickie Clerical Reason: Personal HALL Seaton, Timothy Security Officer Reason: Accepted Another MCCLELLAN Position Thompson, Jesse Child Nutrition Reason: Terminated FAIR.HIGH Turner, Kerrie Security Officer Reason: Accepted Another CENTRAL Position Turner, Romona Instr. Aide Reason: Accepted Another CENTRAL Position START DATE END DATE 12-6-89 8-4-03 8-24-87 8-4-03 4-1-03 5-30-03 9-13-99 7-23-03 9-03-02 5-30-03 8-13-98 5-30-03 9-28-00 8-1-03 2-14-03 7-23-03 10-1-02 8-11-03 10-8-02 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 5-15 FSH6 1-17 FSH5 1-05 CARE 1-05 CUS12 1-06 INA925 31-11 CLK925 36-14 SOFR9 1-01 FSH5 36-17 SOFR9 1-10 INA925 ANNUAL SALARY 9345.00 7840.00 6.68 15600.00 12798.00 17316.00 15390.00 7312.00 16831.00 14067.00 Personnel Changes .0.. Page 19 m .e.n. August 28, 2003 ::,0 emn C: ~~ ~m en z 0 POSITION START DATE SALARY ANNUAL .0. , n NAME SCHOOL END DATE CLASS SALARY 0 C: '?' ?\u0026gt; RI s en:- 0 \u0026gt; Wallace, Cesalie Nurse 8-9-00 1-07 31651.00 .~.. o ~ c5 z Reason: Accepted Another MABELV ALE MID. 8-1-03 NURSES z-nemn Position ~~ 0(\"\nzm .c.:. en Williams, Charles Child Nutrition 9-12-02 1-02 7340.00 ::,0 =I Reason: Terminated BRADY 7-23-03 FSH5 c5 z New Non-Certified Emi!lovees 0 ID~ n::,o ~~ Akins, Douglas Bus Driver 8-11-03 2-02 8378.00 zo mz ~P. TRANS. BUSDRV g~ ~ .... 0 -\u0026lt; Baker, Tamara Occ .. Ther. 8-7-03 60-6 35448.00 SPECIAL ED. AN925 Booth, Jesse Security Officer 8-11-03 36-16 16336.00 FAIR SOFR9 ?\u0026gt;~ G'l - Boykin, William Security Officer 8-11-03 36-16 16336.00 ~~ z-\u0026lt; -,::io FOREST HGTS. SOFR9\ng~ o\"\"' ~~ en\u0026gt; Brim, Allen Security Officer 8-11-03 36-10 13657.00 ,,..- ,... en -\u0026lt; ACC - METRO SOFR9 c: n ,\u0026gt;... !\" ::,0 Bunting, Abram Security Officer 8-11-03 36-16 16336.00 METRO SOFR9 Burnett, Toby Secretary 7-29-03 39-12 22656.00 ~ !:i WAKEFIELD CLKl0 !l -on :,om oz ~c! ~?.! ,-c, ~ ~ Personnel Changes Page 20 August 28, 2003 NAME Bush, Alicia Castleberry, James Collins, Mamie Dukes, Raynard Ellis, Virginia Goad, Gina Golston, Shawn Jones, Angela Manley, Eric Maxwell, Robin McNeil, Sonia POSITION SCHOOL Supervisor START DATE END DATE 7-28-03 CHILD NUTRITION Navy 7-1-03 PARK.VIEW Child Nutrition 8-12-03 ALC Security Officer 8-11-03 FAIR 0cc. Ther. 8-7-03 SPECIAL ED. 0cc. Ther. 8-7-03 SPECIAL ED. Security 8-11-03 SECURITY Security Officer 8-11-03 HALL Security Officer 8-11-03 MANN Bus Driver 8-11-03 TRANS Media Clerk 8-7-03 FRANKLIN SALARY CLASS 55-6 ADN12 65-01 AN12 1-01 FSH5 36-10 SOFR9 60-10 AN925 60-13 AN925 37-04 ANl0 36-10 SOFR9 36-14 SOFR9 3-01 BUSDRV 31-03 CLK925 ANNUAL SALARY 30528.00 annual 28329.98 prorated 35448.00 7392.00 13657.00 39936.00 43680.00 16800.00 13657.00 15390.00 9540.00 13632.00 Personnel Changes Page 21 August 28, 2003 POSITION START DATE NAME SCHOOL END DATE Merritt, Reginald Drug Abuse 7-16-03 PUPIL PERSONNEL Moore, Antonio Security Officer 8-11-03 MCCLELLAN Peach, Laura Secretary 7-29-03 CENTRAL Starks, M.T. Security Officer 8-11-03 ROMINE Sterley, Pamela Child Nutrition 8-12-03 WESTERN HILLS Thomas, Sandra Secretary 7-29-03 GIBBS Tucker, Jason Security Officer 8-11-03 WATSO Withers, Myrtle Clerical 7-22-03 VIPS SALARY ANNUAL CLASS SALARY 47-17 33396.00 AN11 36-10 13657.00 SOFR9 38-12 21984.00 CLKl0 36-11 14065.00 SOFR9 1-01 7392.00 FSH5 39-12 22656.00 CLKl0 36-10 13657.00 SOFR9 38-19 27912.00 CLK105 ,:') ..... m .u...,. ::\u0026gt;, m u, C: mr- ~i\nJ ~~ 0 .0,. ., C') 0 C: r' ?\" ~s u,,.... o\u0026gt; ~o --t:!C ozz n:c\"m'\n=~ 0(\"\nzm C: u, ..... ::\u0026gt;, =i 0z ,:') a,~ C'\u0026gt;::\u0026gt;, ~~ zo mz \u0026lt;30 ::! -0 u, 0 :!Cr- n -\u0026lt; ~~ C) - ~~ z--t --t::\u0026gt;J ~~ 0 ..... -oO oz u\u0026gt;, ,\u0026gt;- ,- u, -\u0026lt; C: C') \u0026gt;~ r- ::\u0026gt;, !ll !::i !l DATE: TO: FROM: RE: VWQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 August28,2003 Board of Education Morris L. Holmes, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent of Schools Revision of Board Policy BCB, Prevention of Nepotism, First Reading Pursuant to Board discussion at the agenda meeting, August 14, 2003, Board Policy BCB, Prevention of Nepotism, has been revised as directed and is attached. 0 .... m !!l\no m (J) C: m!:\n~~ ~~ 0 .0,. , (\") 0 C: '?\" LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: BCB PREVENTION OF NEPOTISM No person will be employed in the Little Rock School District in a position where he/she would be related, (whether by blood or marriage, including spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin), to his/her immediate supervisor. If an employee is transferred to a supervisor's position which would cause a violation of this policy, the subordinate employee will be transferred to a substantially equivalent position as soon as reasonably possible. Under no circumstance will a supervisor be allowed to evaluate the performance of one of his/her relatives. Revised: Adopted: January 28, 1999 Legal Reference: A.C.A. 6-24-105 Cross Reference: Board of Education Policy GBEA Date: To: From: Through: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 28, 2003 Board of Education Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent Collaborative Grant Proposal with UALR The University of Arkansas at Little Rock is preparing a grant proposal to the National Science Foundation that involves interactive virtual environments. The technology was recently added, for example, to theme park attractions at Universal Studios. The technology exploits a variety of techniques to integrate the virtual with the physical in a scalable, mixed reality environment. The UALR grant proposal will develop the technology for instructional uses. For example, a science teacher might have a virtual environment in which she is in the room with a virtual instructor and virtual students. She can interact with the instructor and the students as they perform a lab experiment. This episode can be a professional development experience for the teacher as she learns how to conduct the lab with her own students. Students can also benefit from a virtual environment in which materials and resources are available to them virtually that may be cost prohibitive for the school to actually have. Dr. Mary Good, Dean of the College of Information Science and Systems Engineering, and Dr. Angela Sewall, Dean of the College of Education, from UALR will give a short presentation to the Board about the possibilities for collaboration in this project. .,. ~s CJ),.- l2  c:C ... 3C \u0026lt;zSz n~ :r!:- \u0026lt;\"' C?\nzm C...: CJ) \"='I \u0026lt;5 % DATE: TO: \\V LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 August28,2003 Board of Education FROM: Morris Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Linda Austin/4 Director of Planning and Development RE: Grant Proposals: 21 st Century Community Learning Center Program Background Information The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) released the 2003-2004 21 st Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) grant competition for proposals. The grants are supported through the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The purpose of the 21 st CCLC program is to establish community learning centers that operate during out-of-school hours. Programs must provide students in high poverty schools with intensive academic enrichment opportunities along with other activities designed to complement the students' regular academic program. The District submitted two proposals, Woodruff Elementary and McClellan High School. Both schools elected to participate in the 21 st CCLC grant by virtue of the pressing academic and social needs of their students as well as their high numbers of free and reduced lunch eligible students (Woodruff: 85% and McClellan: 50%). The Woodruff 21 st CCLC program design offers a broad array of services, programs, and activities that are specifically designed to meet the needs of elementary school students. An example of some of the services to be delivered at Woodruff include: 1) a one-hour before school program, 2) a three-hour after-school program, 3) three 1-week intersession programs, 4) a visual and performing arts enrichment program, 5) a multitude of rich cultural activities, 6) an array of family services, and 7) a monthly Super Saturday program. To support and enrich grant implementation, Woodruff has established community partnerships with Wildwood Park, Twin City p .... m !!l\n,:, m U) C: ~~ ~~ 0 .0, , n 0 C: ':'\n,-~ \u0026gt;'\" .... U) ::en r-::c: ~o n l2 I!! U) \u0026gt;m o\n,:, ~~ u,m i5 U) z Bank, Capitol View Stifft Station Neighborhood Association, and State Farm Insurance. The McClellan 21 st CCLC program design offers a unique program geared for high school age students. Highlights of the program include a six-week credit recovery summer school program for 9th grade students, a two-week 9th grade transition summer program, a before and after school tutoring program, nine 2-hour parent/family sessions, and a drug and violence prevention program. Collaborative partnerships have been established with the UALR College of Information Science and Systems Engineering, Centers for Youth and Families, Professional Counseling Associates, ITT Technical Institute, and Southwest Regional Medical Center. The grants were submitted on July 11, 2003 in order to meet the July 11, 2003 submission deadline. Fiscal Impact The Year One request for Woodruff is $149,463. The total five-year award request for Woodruff is $538,067. The Year one request for McClellan is $148,241. The total five-year award request for McClellan is $533,668. The requested funds are primarily targeted for teachers stipends for out-ofschool tutoring programs, transportation, equipment and software as well as an evening snack for each participant. Local match is not required. Recommendation The staff requests approval for the submission of this grant. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August 28, 2003 To: From: Through: Re: Board of Directors -~ennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent End of Course Algebra 1, Geometry, and Literacy Results - Summary of End of Course Results for Algebra 1, Geometry, and Literacy - We are reporting the results of the End of Course (EOC) Algebra 1, Geometry, and Literacy Exams. Improvement in student achievement occurred in all three areas. Generally, subgroups of students in our district made similar or greater progress than the same subgroups at the state level. - The purpose of this report is to identify overall trends in student achievement, by subgroup and by school, on the EOC Algebra 1, Geometry and Literacy Exams. - Staff members will use the results to identify specific areas of strength and need in student learning in Algebra 1, Geometry and literacy so that curriculum, instruction, and professional development can be tailored to the needs of students in each school. Schools have received data about individual student performance on these exams, have an item analysis for each item on the exam, and will soon have the released items from each of the exams. This degree of detail will allow each school to be specific when identifying strengths and needs. -Expectations are that district staff and school-based staff will use the results of the EOC tests, including the item analyses and released items, to make adjustments in the mathematics and literacy programs that will lead to improved student achievement during the 2003-04 school year. -We recommend that each school thoroughly disaggregate the EOC data to provide the level of specificity needed to adjust day-to-day instruction so that this year's students continue or exceed the progress made by students that is reflected in the 2003 results. !.D., :c\nr::: en ~ emn en -0 ~ -0 m ~ -\u0026lt; .,,. ~s en,... o  l:o --\u0026lt;!C c5 z z ~~ F~ On zm .c...:. en ~ c5 z .,,.~ \u0026gt;,... __, en :c (\") ,-- :c !:!jO n~ !\u0026gt;!! men o\n,\n,\nr:::\u0026lt; cno enm o en z \u0026gt; .~.... ?\u0026lt; m CD -0 C: :c en ~z p, rn -en Zen ~~ gi s zn om CD en a On the EOC Algebra 1 Exam 30% of students were proficient or advanced in 2002-03 compared to 21 % in 2001-02. This improvement of 9% compares to a statewide improvement of 8%. Sixteen percent (16%) of African American students were proficient in 2002-03 compared to 11 % in 2001-02. Sixty percent (60%) of Caucasian students were proficient or advanced in 2002-03 compared to 44% in 2001-02. Hall, Cloverdale, Dunbar, and Mann all experienced growth of 20% or more from the previous year's administration. The schools with the highest overall scores were Dunbar and Pulaski Heights with 87% proficient or advanced and Forest Heights and Mann with 79% and 72% proficient or advanced respectively. The high school with the highest overall score was Hall with 32% proficient or advanced. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of the students were proficient or advanced on the EOC Geometry Exam in 2002-03 compared to 17% in 2001-02. This improvement of22% compared to a statewide improvement of 8%. A variable that most likely contributed to our large improvement was the re-sequence of math courses last year that placed Geometry after Algebra 2 instead of before Algebra 2. The change was made so that more ninth grade students could take advantage of Pre-AP Physics, which has an Algebra 2 co-requisite. The change created a one-year transition where about half as many students took Geometry. Seventeen percent (17%) of African American students were proficient or advanced in 2002-03 compared to 6% the year before. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Caucasian students were proficient or advanced in 2002-03 compared to 43% the year before. The school with the greatest improvement was Central, which increased from 27% to 67% proficient or advanced. Central also had the highest number of students who were proficient or advanced in geometry with 67%. The next highest was Hall with 32%. The percentage of students in Algebra 1 and Geometry in the below basic range decreased dramatically. In Algebra 1 the percent of students below basic dropped by 11 percentage points from 2001-02 to 2002-03. Cloverdale has the largest decrease in below basic with a drop of28%. Hall has the second largest decrease with 26%. Dunbar, Forest Heights, Mann, and Pulaski Heights had or were close to zero students in the below basic category. In Geometry the percent of students who were below basic dropped by 35 percentage points from 2001-02 to 2002-03. J. A. Fair had the largest improvement with a decrease of 61 % of students who were below basic. Central had the lowest overall percent of students in the below basic category with only 8%. In literacy the percent of students who scored proficient or advanced increased from 32% to 36% over a one-year period and from 17% to 36% over a two-year period. The increase last year of 4% is equal to the statewide increase of 4%. The two-year growth exceeded the state's growth over the same period by 6% (LRSD 19%, state 13%). All five high schools experienced growth in literacy achievement over the two-year period. Parkview had the most growth in literacy among the high schools 15% over a one-year period and 30% over a two-year period. The school-by-school results for each test will be provided to Board members under separate cover. TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHILD NUTRITION DEPARTMENT 1501 JONES STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 August 28, 2003 Board of Education Merlin M. McCoy, Director of Child Nutrition THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent RE: Adoption of Resolution on Elimination of Reduced Meals Category This is the year for the reauthorization of all Child Nutrition programs by the Congress of the United States. In a recent legislative session of American School Food Service Association on reauthorization, it was a unanimous decision to ask Congress to eliminate the reduced price status in school meals programs and provide free meals to all children with family incomes below 185 percent of poverty. One strategy for rallying support is to ask school boards to adopt a resolution in support of this change in the reauthorization bill. I would recommend that the LRSD join the thousands of school food service providers nationwide in support of this change in the law. Senator Elizabeth Dole has prepared the bill to submit to Congress in support of this request. I am including with this correspondence a resolution for your review and adoption. Thank you for your consideration and support. !\" \"Tl :,:: 3: en ~ m en e.,n, ::0 0., , m s\n,,,~ \u0026gt;,.... .... en :i::n r-:,:: ~8 0 r!\u0026gt;!! mcn 0::0 3:\u0026lt; gi~ 5 en z\n,,, en?\u0026lt;\nla, .,, C: :,:en ~% _CIJ rn -en Zcn nm ig ~ zomn a, en 6 RESOLUTION BOARD OF EDUCATION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FEDERAL CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS Whereas, the federal child nutrition programs, including the school lunch and breakfast programs, are important to the health and education of the children of Little Rock School District\nand Whereas, the child nutrition programs must be reauthorized by the Congress of the United States during the current fiscal year\nand Whereas, reduced price school meals are offered, in participating schools, to children with family income between 130 percent of the poverty line and 185 percent of the poverty line\nand Whereas, many families in the reduced price income category are finding it difficult to pay the reduced fee and, for some families, the fee is an insurmountable barrier to participation\nand Whereas, the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) provides free benefits to all participants with family income below 185 percent of poverty\nNOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Little Rock School District supports reauthorization of all federal child nutrition programs\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Little Rock School District urges the Congress of the United States to eliminate the reduced price school meals programs, and to provide free meals for all children with family incomes below 185 percent of poverty\nand BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this RESOLUTION shall be sent -to the Arkansas Congressional delegation in Washington, D.C. Judy Magness, President Larry Berkley, Secretary Adopted: August 28, 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: August 28, 2003 To: From: Through: Board of Education Margo Bushmiaer, Coordinator of Health Services Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent Administrative Services Morris L. Holmes, Ed. D. Interim Superintendent Re: School-Based Dental Hub / Clinic Pain related to dental decay is responsible for absenteeism and lack of concentration during class. Children with low socio-economic status are likely to have at least three more decayed or filled primary teeth than children from families with higher income levels. In collaboration with the Dental Health Action Team, we are presenting the proposal for \"Future Smiles: School-Based Dental Hub\" for your review. The dental hub/clinic, located at Wakefield Elementary School, will be for children at highest risk for dental problems. Dental Services will be coordinated by UALR Share America in partnership with twelve (12) agencies represented on the Dental Health Action Team and the Little Rock School District. These agencies have a three-year history of providing preventive services to our students. The attached proposal represents a five (5) year plan to implement these services beginning in August 2004. We recommend that the \"Future Smiles: School-Based Dental Hub / Clinic\" be approved as submitted. :e fl\n= 0 r-m \u0026gt;O 31:n \"'\u0026gt; ~g G} z Zo !!lm m ~~ ::c 0 0 r- 08/01/03 PROPOSAL FUTURE SMILES: SCHOOL-BASED DENTAL HUB - THE PROBLEM Tooth decay is the single most common chronic childhood disease 5 times more common than asthma 7 times more common than hay fever Nearly twice as many children with low Socio-economic status (SES) ages 2-9 years have at least three decayed or filled primary teeth than do children from families with higher income levels. *National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. (2001, Feb). A Plan to Eliminate Craniofacial, Oral, and Dental Health Disparities. BARRIERS IN ACCESS TO DENTAL HEAL TH SERVICES Lack of awareness of importance of oral health Lack of or insufficient dental insurance Lack of transportation Uncompensated time from work Limited income Maldistribution of dentists Dentist non-participation with Medicaid/ARKIDS First Low Medicaid program reimbursement rates for dental services \"One proven strategy for reaching children at high-risk for dental disease is\" providing oral and dental health services in school-based health centers ... supporting linkages with health care professionals and other dental partners in the community\" *Grant Makers in Health Issue Dialogue .. (2001, May). Filling the Gap: Strategies for Improving Oral Health. Issue Brief. HISTORY UALR Share America and the Office of Oral Health have collaborated for three years on projects to improve the oral health for children in underserved areas of Little Rock. To that end, Share America formed the Dental Health Action Team three years ago \"to work together to improve oral health outcomes and reduce disparities among children.\" The DHAT has provided dental screenings and referrals to more than 3000 children in Little Rock Public Schools and Head Start Programs each year. - I - 08/01/03 The screening data show that 58% of children have tooth decay, 28% have untreated decay, and an alanning 5% of those children screened had emergency dental needs. Unfortunately, less than 2% of the children had dental sealants, a proven primary preventive measure. Building on the screenings in 2001, a school-based program was established to provide dental sealants to more than one-hundred 2-3rd graders in the six partner schools and Head Start Programs working with UALR Share America (Bale, Wilson, Wakefield, Franklin, Stephens, and Chicot). Existing preventive services include annual dental screening and sealants. During the fall, students with a completed consent fonn are screened to identify tooth decay and any teeth that require sealants. During February \"National Children's Dental Health Month\", sealants are placed, with 4 stations set up in the schools and staffed by volunteer dental professionals. The process takes approximately 15-25 minutes using the light cured system.  Currently we have a 50-65% return rate for parental consent fonns. PROGRAM DESIGN: The Dental Health Action Team proposes to establish a \"school-based dental hub/clinic\" for the children at highest risk. School-based dental programs create immediate access to oral health care by taking the services to the populations in need. The hub, located at Wakefield Elementary School, would serve children enrolled in the Share America Program in six elementary schools. In addition to the services provided by the clinic, Share America will continue to utilize the mobile dental equipment to provide annual screenings and the sealant program in the six schools. The clinic would enhance the preventive oral health services currently offered and provide comprehensive oral health services for children. While the current Share America students will be the initial source of clients, we would anticipate serving other at-risk income populations such as Head Start clients and students eligible for the school free and reduced lunch program within the six schools. OBJECTIVES: Increase the proportion of children who use the oral health system each year. Increase the proportion of low-income children and adolescents who receive preventive dental services each year. Our ultimate goal is to provide crucial preventive services to 100% of those children at-risk in these elementary schools. Reduce the prevalence of children and adolescents with untreated dental decay. Reduce the proportion of children and adolescents who have dental caries in their primary or permanent teeth. Explore the possibility of expanding school-based dental hubs to other schools. *Based on objectives for the Nation in Healthy People 2010. Program Management:  Dental services will be coordinated by UALR Share America in partnership with the Dental Health Action Team and Little Rock School District.  A Memorandum of Agreement between the Little Rock School District and the DHAT will outline programs and operations and renewed annually.  A Steering Committee made up of representatives from each partner organization, parents and key individuals from the community at large will oversee the program. Member organizations include: UAMS, Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas, Arkansas Dept. of Health, Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, Arkansas Dept. of Education, Cooperative Extension, UALR, LRSD, Arkansas State Dental Association, St. Vincent Health System, - 2 - .!J.,l :c\nr:: en ~ m en en -0 ~ -0 m ~ ~p re r-m \u0026gt;C :r::n en\u0026gt; ~g G) z Zc:, !!Jm m ~~ :c 0 0 r-\n,-~ )\u0026gt; :__, en :c (\") r- :c !!Jo n~ !\u0026gt;!! en m c\n,:,\nr::\u0026lt; eenn \u0026lt;m'\u0026gt; 5 en z )\u0026gt;\n.,, ?\u0026lt;\n:l tD -0 C: :c en ~% p\u0026gt;~ -z eenn .n m\n,:, ~s zC\"\u0026gt; cm a, en i5 08/01/03 Arkansas Minority Health Commission, Pulaski County United Way, Arkansas Children's Hospital, and Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.  Six elementary school sites, serving approximately 2300 underserved school children, will participate in program benefits to include annual screenings, sealants and follow-up services through the clinic Operations:  Services will begin in the fall of 2004, assessed each year, and expanded over a five-year period as follows: Phase I (2004-2005) - Serve the emergency/immediate needs for students referred by screenings from all six partner schools and restorative needs for Wakefield Phase II (2005-2007) - Serve the restorative needs of children for all 6 schools Phase Ill (2007-2008) - Serve the comprehensive needs of all children in 6 schools and middle school students in Share America Youth Leadership Program  Hours of operation are 9-1 :30 Monday through Friday for ten months (September-May) and will follow the LRSD school schedule. During the summer months the clinic will target students attending Share America summer camps at Wakefield and Stephens Elementary.  DHA T will contract with a local hospital or organization to hire a full-time dentist. The first year staffing will include a full-time dentist and assistant with an effort to recruit bilingual staff. Staffing needs will be assessed annually.  Patient Eligibility: Uninsured with efforts to enroll in ArKids 1st. by working through LRSD nurses  Billing through clinic: Medicaid\nDentist must be Medicaid provider  Services: Phase I - Root Canal (prior authorization)\nfillings\nextractions, stainless steel crowns, and Nitrons Oxide. Services reassessed annually.  Forms, application and materials translated into Spanish  UALR Share America will transport Share America students from the other five schools.  Dentists, dental hygienists and dental hygiene students will continue to provide all preventive services including dental screenings and sealants on site in the six elementary schools.  UAMS dental hygiene students will continue to provide dental cleanings, fluoride, sealants, and x-rays at the UAMS clinic as needed. Share America will continue to provide transportation. Equipment: The following equipment is needed for startup:  Evacuation system (central vac)  Compressor  Autoclave  x-ray (split between two chairs) with processor and daylight loader  two patient chairs  four stools  two units  locked cabinets  bathroom - handicap accessible  counter top with sink  small refrigerator The DHAT will work with a dental supply company to compile a comprehensive list for equipment and supplies. -3 - 08/0 )/03 Partnership Support  The school district will assist with data collection and provide clinic space, utility and custodial services at no cost to the program.  UALR Share America will serve as the coordinating organization and provide transportation for children from the six school sites.  Parents and volunteers will work with clinic staff and individual school nurses and administrators.  County/State health and social service departments will assist with necessary permits, waivers, regulatory inspections, etc. for opening clinics in schools. Department of Human Services will assist with recruitment and enrollment of students who meet Medicaid eligibility and billing for Medicaid-eligible school children for dental treatments.  United Way will provide $100,000 of startup funding and assist with on-going fund raising through their annual campaign. United Way has included Future Smiles in the 2003- 2004 campaign materials  The Steering Committee will coordinate ongoing fundraising efforts to include the Annual United Way Campaign, Medicaid billing, and corporate partners. Law \u0026amp; Insurance: Clinic must meet regulations set by LRSD, OSHA, HIPAA, and Biohazard Removal/Infection Control Assessment  An annual evaluation will include an assessment of policies, procedures, services, staffing, and operations. The Steering Committee will coordinate the data collection and provide recommendations to the DHAT and LRSD.  Data collection will be both quantitative and qualitative and may include: 1. # of children served and services provided\ndemographics\ndental sealant retention rates\n# of children needing restorative care, and the# receiving care 2. Dental Screenings to determine decayed, missing, and filled (DMF) on primary and permanent teeth. 3. Dental Forms to determine frequency of dental visits and medical history. 4. Calculate the number of children served and type of services provided 5. Quantify the ability of the project to reduce cavities in high risk groups 6. Determine if school attendance is affected by \"healthier children\" 7. Demonstrate that providing dental services \"on-site\" can be an effective, efficient way to prevent cavities. 8. Annual Financial Report 9. Qualitative data will identify perceptions and attitudes of the parents and information about why (and why not) children received restorative care. The data collected will include: i. parent's understanding of and attitudes toward dental health before and after the education presentation and parents' opinions about barriers to receiving dental care Annual Operating Budget Start-up funding of up to $150,000 for the first year would provide the equipment, hire the professional staff necessary and provide a basis for on-going funding through Medicaid and AR KIDS first billing. Dentist @ 50% Dental Assistant @ 50% Start-up Equipment Materials/supplies $50,000 25,000 60,000 15,000 $150,000 - 4 - !I' \"Tl :c 3: (J) ~ m (J) (J) \"0 ~ \"0 m ~ ,\n,., ,~ :--\u0026lt; (J) :en ..... :c mo \"n\" '.o- ~ ~ o\no 3: \u0026lt; en n \u0026lt;J\u0026gt;m o(J) z ,. .~... ?\u0026lt; m CD \"0 C: :c (J) ~z '~ _(J) z\u0026lt;J\u0026gt; p~ gi :$ zC\"\u0026gt; om CD rJ\u0026gt; i5 '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 TO: Board of Directors FROM: 0,if\u0026amp;ohnny Johnson, Director of Athletics 1 'J-Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent - School Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Changes to Gate Prices at Athletic Events The Little Rock School District is proposing an increase in adult ticket prices for the upcoming 2003-04 athletic seasons. The increase is$ 1.00 over last year's price for adult tickets, with no increase in student ticket prices. All middle school events will be $3 for adults and $2 dollars for students. High school events will be $5 for adults and $3 for students. As a new feature this year, the LRSD proposes to offer a \"Super Pass\" that will enable the recipient to attend all middle and high school athletic events during the 2003-04 athletic seasons. One adult Super Pass will cost $85. One student Super Pass will cost $50. A family Super Pass can be purchased for $150, which will allow a family of up to five to attend all athletic events in the LRSD. Employee family passes can still be purchased for $10, which enables the immediate family members of a LRSD employee to attend all athletic events. Passes will be available for purchase at the Administration Business Office and the Athletic Department located in the former Garland School building. It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the 2003-04 athletic gate prices as submitted. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 \u0026gt; .~,, ::c: 3: \"' ~ m \"\"'' \"0 ~ \"0 m ~ -\u0026lt;\n,, ?\u0026lt; iri a, \"0 C: :CCI\u0026gt; ~z P' rn -\"' Zcn r\u0026gt; ~ ~~ zC\"\u0026gt; cm a,\"' i5 lvfi1 MW\ntrm~ f\\J. 'U w.. tJlwv J ~ t,. ~. tw\ntM)/.) ~ '54.n Individual Approach to a World ojKnowledge\" DATE: August 28, 2003 TO: Little Rock School District Board of Directors THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY~-M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer  Subject Bond Issue Bid by Stephens Inc.  Summary Changes to the regulations controlling bond issue bidding have created the opportunity for Stephens Inc. to bid on !2istrict bond sales\nthey are requesting approval to bid.  Objectives To increase the number of bids on the LRSD bond sales. Expected Outcomes The LRSD financial advisor will be allowed to bid on the District's bond sales, increasing the number of bidders.  Population/Location NI A Budget Amount/Source NIA Manager Donald M. Stewart, CFO  Duration Beginning with Board approval / ending with this bond sale. Long Range/Continuation No long range plans for this issue. Other Agencies Involved Arkansas State Securities Department  Expectations of District Needed Staff Comments Recommendation NIA IA one Stephens Inc. has requested permission from the District to submit a bid on the upcoming refunding bond sale. Mark McBryde has explained the changes in regulations and the process by which bids are taken in the attached letter. It is recommended that Stephens Inc. be allowed to submit a bid on the pending bond issue. 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 m o\n_, g i5 .. \"' :5~ ~Q ...,z \"o'c C3\u0026gt; (') ,\u0026gt;- ~Q :n 0 0 z ~ 5z en July 23, 2003 HAND DELIVERY Dr. Don Stewart Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Don: Stephens Inc. JUL 2 4 ::03 This letter will follow up Monday's conversation regarding the District's upcoming refunding bond sale. During our conversation we discussed the ability of Stephens Inc. to bid on this issue. Since this is a relatively new process, I wanted to explain the situation in detail. Since January, our firm has been concerned about the significant supply of Arkansas school bonds that will be offered for sale during 2003. We have made efforts to increase the salability of bonds by asking for input from firms that frequently bid these issues. As well, Stephens is attempting to increase marketability by dropping the conversion requirements on essentially all of these upcoming bond issues. Earlier this year, I met with the Arkansas Department of Education and Arkansas State Securities Department regarding the ability of Stephens Inc. to bid on school bond issues where we currently serve as fiscal agent. On April 25, 2003, the Securities Commissioner issued an order permitting Stephens to submit bids on Arkansas school bonds where the firm also serves as fiscal agent. Our ability to submit a bid on issues of this type will expire on December 31, 2003. The process of a fiscal agent submitting a bid on a school bond issue is new to this state. It is, however, done in numerous states throughout the nation. At Stephens, we believe our ability to bid will improve competition and be beneficial for all Arkansas school districts. Let me offer a recent financing that confirms our thoughts on this matter. Earlier today, Stephens was the successful bidder on bonds sold by Dumas School District. We represent Dumas as fiscal agent and the School Board had previously authorized Stephens to bid on this issue. By accepting the low bid from Stephens, the District's interest cost was reduced by $8,110.15. The procedure used in bidding these bonds is an electronic process where neither the bidder or the fiscal agent has knowledge of the bids prior to the sale. Complete confidentiality 1s maintained, so that Stephens is not able to view bids prior to the scheduled opening. Investment Bankers www .Stephens.com 111 Center Street P.O . Box 3507 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 501-374-4361 Fax 501-377-2666 Enclosed you will find a letter which the Board should consider at its next meeting. This letter is to acknowledge that Stephens may bid on the District's bond issue. I can tell you that it is our intention, with the District's consent, to submit a bid on your bonds. If the Board elects to allow Stephens to bid on the proposed refunding, please place the enclosed letter on the District's letterhead, have the President and Secretary sign, and return it in the envelope provided. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Mark McBryde .!X.,I :,:\ni:: V, ~ m V, V, \"D ~ \"D m ~ -\u0026lt; :E r\u0026gt; F C r-m  C ll::n V, \u0026gt; ~g ClZ Zc ~mm !ll!=:' :,: 8,... :\"' C 0 z ~ 5 z V, '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 Stephens Inc. P. 0. Box 3507 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Stephens Inc.: In connection with the District's pending bond issue, we acknowledge that your firm is serving as fiscal agent. Furthermore, we understand that the State Securities Commissioner has issued an order dated April 25, 2003, which will permit Stephens Inc. to also submit a bid when the District's bonds are offered for sale. In accordance with MSRB Rule 23, we understand that Stephens Inc. may bid on the District's bonds and we furthermore consent to this process. Sincerely, President Little Rock School Board Secretary Little Rock School Board 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 '~n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 TO: Litt! ock School District Board of Directors FROM: ~irector of Facility Services THROUGH: ~orris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools -y,o 1..1r. Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer TITLE/SUBJECT: Excessing of LRSD Property Short Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcome: Population/Location: Budget Amount/Source of Budget: Manager: Duration: Long Range/Continuation: Other Agencies Involved: Expectations of District: eeded Staff: Comments: Recommendations: To excess property with intent of sale. To dispose of property not necessary for LRSD operations. To sell property to private individual. Forest Heights Middle School, University and Evergreen Streets. NIA Director of Facility Services Permanent Sale NIA Private individual (buyer) TBD. To sell property. NIA See below. Approval by Board. In March of 1983, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors excessed the property immediately adjacent and to the west of Forest Heights Junior High School. Since that action, two parcels of the property have been sold. One was sold in 1985 to the American Cancer Society, Arkansas Division, and one in 1995 to the Williamson Family, Limited, partnership. Of the total property-excess in 1983, the northern one-third is still available for sale. The Little Rock School District Administration has received an inquiry as to whether this property is available for sale. The property is as described on the attached resolution. It is requested that Board of Directors approve this updated resolution for the sale of the property and allow the administration to proceed to have the property appraised and receive offers for its possible sale. DE:cg:boardforestheightsprop Anachment 810 \\Y/ Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 ~o \u0026gt;\n,:o mm :!lo ~o 0~ m,-omz 3: 0 mm Zm ~o :n 0 0 z ~ 0z (/) RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas, herein called \"District,\" is the owner of the following described lands located in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas: Northern most 1/2 of Lot 2, Forest Heights Middle School Property -- between University Avenue, Evergreen Street, the practice field and the grounds of Forest Heights Middle School, and the northern border of the southern 1/2 of lot 2. WHEREAS, said lands are hereby found to be surplus to the needs of the District and are, accordingly, no longer needed for school purposes and should be abandoned and sold\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas: 1. That the administration take the necessary measures to offer for sale the above described surplus lands which are no longer needed for school purposes. 2. That no offer be accepted except by resolution of this Board in a legal meeting. 3. That the proceeds, if any, from the sale of said lands be placed in the Building Fund of the District and will be used exclusively for either repairs or new construction of buildings or related facilities for school purposes of the District. President Secretary ADOPTED: _____ _ Date '54n Individual Approach to a World ef Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 TO: - FROM: --J~~~a.ton, Director of Facility Services THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent ~-Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Title/Subject: Right of way Dedication Deed: Williams Elementary School. Short Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcomes\nPopulation/Location: Budget Amount/ Source of Budget: Manager: Duration: Long Range/Continuation: Other Agencies Involved: Expectations of District: eeded Staff: Comments: Recommendations: Request by City of Little Rock for right of way adjacent to school. To grant to City property for a right of way. To meet City codes for public rights of way. Williams Elementary School. N/A Director of Facility Services Permanent transfer to City. /A City of little Rock Public Works . _, ~ Transfer required pursuant to construction. /A See below. Approval by Board. The City of Little Rock has requested that the Little Rock School District provide them with a right-of-way dedication deed for footage south of Evergreen Drive and adjacent to Williams Magnet School. This includes a 20-foot radial dedication at the comer of Evergreen and Bryant. Please see the attached Exhibits A and B. The purpose for the dedication is to allow the City to widen Evergreen, install sidewalks, and install and maintain public utilities. Assessment of the requested dedication indicates that granting it to the City would have no negative impact on the operation of Williams Magnet School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be permitted to grant this dedication deed to the City of Little Rock. DE:cg:boardwilliamsrightofway Attachment 81 0 \\X-'. 1arkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001\n.: .,, z \u0026gt;z (\"') ~ CJ) :n g z ~ 0z \"' CORPORATION DEDICATION DEED Know All Men By These Presents: That, Little Rock Public School District, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas and doing business under the laws of the State of Arkansas, for and in consideration of the benefits accruing to it and to the public generally, does hereby dedicate, give, and convey unto the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the purpose of a widening a public street, installing a public sidewalk, and installing and maintaining public utilities, and other public purposes, a strip of land owned by it, situated in Little Rock, Pulaski County, in the State of Arkansas, to-wit: EXHIBITS A and B To HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and unto its successors and assigns forever for the purpose of the public uses and benefit herein described, together with all and singular the tenements, appurtenances, and hereditaments thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Little Rock Public School District, a corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its Ex-officio, attested by its signature and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, all in accordance with and pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the said Little Rock Public School District on this ____ day of ______ , 2003. Corporate Seal Mark Milhollen, Ex-officio Date STATE OF ARKANSAS ) ) COUNTY OF PULASKI ) ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this ___ day of ______ , 2003, before me, a Notary Public, duly commissioned, qualified, and acting for said County and State, appeared in person the within-named Mark Milhollen being the Ex-officio Financial Secretary of the Little Rock School District, and who had been designated by Little Rock School District to execute the above instrument, to me personally well-known, who stated that he was the Ex-officio Financial Secretary for the said Little Rock School District and was duly authorized in his respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation and further stated and acknowledged that he had so signed, executed, and delivered said foregoing instrument for the consideration, uses, and purposes herein mentioned and set forth. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal as such Notary Public on this ____ day ______ , 2003. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ~..., 0\na, C: 8 ~ :n 8 z ~ 0z CJ) EXHIBIT A PREPARED: 7 /15/03 I Gcrnwoo1,G,,s 11 T -r Portion of cAdoo Lane closed I I 21 20 19 18 I J__I -L J__J 17 16 L 15 14 N 88 54'55' 1,/ 0.20' o S 0049,57, E -.-\"\",_1 -'-'----~-=-.::EVERGREEN _S_T_R--\"E=E_T ____ 24.89' ========J='r u=-=.N\":r'c 8'8\"'5\"'3\n,0\n-\n0:,-,' I,/~ = s 995300-\n-E ~=~= '07' E O' Description: Right-of-Woy Dedication 580.44' 580.50' N 33'48'31' E 35.51' NE COR., SE 1/ 4 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 SEC. 36, T-2-N, R-13-W Port of the NW1/4 SW1/4, Section 36, T-2-N, R-13-W, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the NE Corner of the SE1 / 4 NE1 / 4 NW1 / 4 SW1 / 4 of said Section 36\nthence N 88'54'55\" W, a distance of 59.43 feet to the SW Corner of Tract A, Glenwood Heights Addition filed for record in Plot Book 6, Page 7, said point being on the South Right-of-Woy line of Evergreen Street being the POINT OF BEGINNING\nthence N 88'54'55\" W along said Southerly Right-of-Woy line, o distance of 20.20 feet\nthence S 0049'57\" E along said Southerly Right-of-Woy line, a distance of 24.89 feet\nthence N 88'53'00\" W along said Southerly Right-of-Woy line, o distance of 580.44 feet\nthence S 00'03'07\" E, o distance of 5.00 feet\nthence S 88'53'00\" E, o distance of 580.50 feet\nthence N 33'48'31\" E, o distance of 35.51 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.073 Acres (3204 sq. ft.) more or less. 200 100 0 100 110674 on Oct. 11 part of Tract A' Heights Addition, al t of Glenwood 200 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 ,, 100' EXHIBIT B PREPARED: 7/15/03 17 T .. r GLENWOOD HEIGHTS 13 SUCCESS ADDITION 6 J A I I PorJlon of McAdoo I Lene closed by brdlnence #10674 on Oct. 14, 1957, being  pert jof Tract \"A\" of Plenwood Heigh s Addition, as ~ I I 15 5 \"' ~ Ll shown on pie t of lenwood Hei his. ~ EVERGREEN STREET NE COR., SE 1/4 NE 1/4 NW 1/4 SW 1/4 SEC. 36, T-2-N, R-13-W Description: Right-of-Woy Dedication Portion of McAdoo lane closed by ordinance 110674 on Oct. 14, 1957, shown hereon as part of Lot 12, Block 5 of Success Addition. 10 Port of Lots 1 \u0026amp; 12, Block 5, Success Addition filed for record in Plot Book 1, Page 128 and ports of the Alley and McAdoo Lone closed by Ordinance No. 10674 on Oct. 14, 1957, City of Little Rock, Puloski County, Arkansas being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the NE Corner of Lot 1, Success Addition\nthence S 000500\" E along the East line of said Lot 1, a distance of 29.98 feet\nthence along a curve to the left having a Radius of 20.00 feet, on Arc Length of 31.39 feet and a Chord bearing and distance of N 45\"03'00\" W, a distance of 28.27 feet\nthence S 89\"59'00\" W, a distance of 285.49 feet to the West line of said Lot 12 (being the centerline of McAdoo Lone closed by Ordinance No. 10674 on Oct. 14, 1957)\nthence N 0003'55\" W along the West line of said Lot 12, a distance of 10.00 feet to the existing South Right-of-Woy line of Evergreen Street\nthence N 89\"59'00\" E along said South Right-of-Woy line, a distance of 305.46 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.072 Acres (3140 sq. ft.) more or less. 200 100 0 100 1- UJ UJ a: 1- (/) S 000500 E 29.98' 200 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 \" 100' G:\\03-141\\Survev\\03141.dwQ\n,:: .., z \u0026gt;z (\"') \u0026gt;..... Cl) :!: C \u0026gt; \"m-mc :!lo ~o 0~ m,- 0 mz 3::: C mm Zm -\u0026lt;c\n:n 8 z ~ 5 z C/) '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" August 28, 2003 TO: FROM: aton, Director of Facility Services THROUGH: is L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent r. Donald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Title/Subject: Right of way Dedication Deed: Wakefield Elementary School. Short Summary: Objectives: Expected Outcomes: Population/Location: Budget Amount/ Source of Budget: Manager: Duration: Long Range/Continuation: Other Agencies Involved: Expectations of District: eeded Staff: Comments: Recommendations: Request by City of Little Rock for right of way adjacent to school. To grant to city property for a right of way. To meet city codes for public rights of way. Wakefield Elementary School. NIA Director of Facility Services Permanent transfer to City. NIA City of little Rock Public Works Transfer required pursuant to construction. IA See below. Approval by Board. The City of Little Rock has requested that the Little Rock School District provide them with a right-of-way dedication deed for a strip of land along the south side of Westminister Drive and adjacent to the Wakefield Elementary School site. This includes a 20-foot radial dedication at the southeast corner of Westminister and Lancaster. Please see Exhibit A, attached. The purpose for the dedication is to convey title to a sewer-main extension upon its completion and connection to Little Rock Wastewater Utility's main line. Assessment of the requested dedication indicates that granting it to the City would have no negative impact on the operation of Wakefield Elementary School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be pern1itted to grant this dedication deed to the City of Little Rock. DEC:cg:boardwakefieldcttyseY.er Attachment 810 \\Y/. 1arkham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.org 501-447-1000  fax: 501-447-1001 .0.., 0\na, C: 8 .m.... .?,=, z \u0026gt; % (\")\ne cn ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 cn z C\u0026gt; ~ ~ ~ en :\" 0 0 z ~ 5z cn CORPORATION DEDICATION DEED Know All Men By These Presents: That, Little Rock Public School District, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas and doing business under the laws of the State of Arkansas, for and in consideration of the benefits accruing to it and to the public generally, does hereby, dedicate, give and convey unto the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the purpose of a public street and the installation and maintenance of public utilities, and other public purposes, a strip of land owned by it, situated in Little Rock, Pulaski County, in the State of Arkansas, to-wit: EXHIBIT A To HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said City of Little Rock, Arkansas and unto its successors and assigns forever, for the purpose of the public uses and benefit herein described, together with all and singular the tenements, appurtenances and hereditaments thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Little Rock Public School District, a corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its Ex-officio, attested by its signature and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, all in accordance with and pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the said Little Rock Public School District on this ___ day of ______ , 20 __ . Corporate Seal STATE OF ARKANSAS ) ) COUNTY OF PULASKI ) ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this ___ day of ______ , 2003, before me, a Notary Public, duly commissioned, qualified, and acting for said County and State, appeared in person the within-named Mark D. Milhollen , being the Ex-officio Financial Secretary of Little Rock School District, who had been designated by Little Rock School District to execute the above instrument and who is to me personally well-known, and who stated that he was the Ex-officio Financial Secretary for the said Little Rock School District and was duly authorized in his respective capacity to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation and further stated and acknowledged that he had so signed, executed, and delivered said foregoing instrument for the consideration, uses, and purposes herein mentioned and set forth. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal as such Notary Public on this ____ day ______ , 2003. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:\n,: .., z \u0026gt;z n \u0026gt;,.... en :n 0 0 z ?\n0z en EXHIBIT A PART OF THE N1/2 SW1/4 SE1/4 OF SECTION 30, T-1-N, R-12-W, LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 49, WAKEFIELD VILLAGE NO. 3, SAID CORNER LYING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID N 1 /2 SW1 / 4 SE 1 / 4 AND THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LANCASTER ROAD\nTHENCE N03.03'19\"E ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 446.73 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING\nTHENCE CONTINUING N0303'19\"E, 24.76 FT. TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTMINISTER DRIVE\nTHENCE S8T37'01' E ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 553.50 FT. TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 36, WAKEFIELD VILLAGE NO. 2\nTHENCE SOJ 15'56\"W ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 36, 5.00 FT.\nTHENCE N8737'07\"W ALONG A LINE 5.00 FT. SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WESTMINISTER DRIVE, 533.72 FT.\nTHENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 20.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, A CHORD BEARING ANO DISTANCE OF S4743'06\"W, 28.12 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2,851 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS. (BEARINGS BASED ON ARKANSAS STATE PLANE COORDINATES - NORTH ZONE) r - ~---- 1 WAKEFIELD VILLA.GE PlAT BK. 6, PG. 7~ 1/0. 3 Memorandum Date: August 28, 2003 To: Little Rock School District Board of Directors From: Qt::D-7 Paradis, Director of Procurement \u0026amp; Materials Management Throug{~. Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools Re: Second Reading - Revisions to Policy DGD: VISA Purchasing Card (Pro-Card) Title Revisions to Policy DGD: Visa Purchasing Card (Pro-Card) Summary: The Board of Education approved on second reading Policy DGD at their regular meeting on February 27, 2003. During the implementation of the purchasing card program, it has come to our attention that the District can benefit from the use of the card in some cases where the purchase amount exceeds $1,000. An example would be to pay the District's utility bills with the card. Attached is a copy of the Policy approved in 02/03 along with recommended changes in bold print. Objective: Allow the Procurement Department the flexibility to use the purchasing card for purchases over $1,000 upon written approval of the District's Chief Financial Officer. Expected Outcomes: We anticipate a reduction in administrative costs plus an mcrease in the rebate offered by VISA for these purchases. Population/Location: All schools and departments Budget Amount/Source of Budget: There will be no cost for implementing this change. Manager: Darral Paradis, Director, Procurement and Materials Management 0 ~ 0 i CD C 8 -m-, :\"' C 0 z ~ 0 z en Duration: Change will take effect upon the approval of the Board and will continue as long as the purchasing card program is in use. Long Range: NI A Other Agencies Involved: None Expectations of District: Further streamline the District's purchasing process. Needed Staff: No additional staff required Comments: None Recommendation We request the Board of Education approve the proposed revision to Policy DGD: VISA Purchasing Card (Pro-Card) 2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: DGD PROCUREMENT VISA PURCHASING CARD (PRO-CARD) Schools and departments may apply to the Procurement Department for the issuance of Visa Purchasing Cards (Pro-Card) to authorized employees. The cards may be used for purchases of $1,000 and less within restricted limits established by the Procurement Department. All Pro-Cardholders must comply with the terms and conditions of the cardholder handbook and agreement approved by the Procurement Department. The card may also be used for purchases over $1,000 upon the recommendation of the Procurement Department and written approval of the Chief Financial Officer. The location Principal or Director will issue cards to approved individuals. ProCards are best assigned to individual staff members that make frequent, small dollar purchases. All charges are the liability of the District. Cross Reference: LRSD Pro-Card Handbook ,~.., g i a, c:: 8 m -t ~~ \u0026gt; :c ~ ,\n! O\no c::\noZ z C) 3\nU\u0026gt; m z -t :\"' 0 0 z ~ 0z U\u0026gt; LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DATE: TO: August 28, 2003 Board of Education FROM: ~arral Paradis, Director of Procurement and Materials Mgmt. THROUGH: Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Donations of Property Attached are requests to donate property to the Little Rock School District as follows: Schoo I/Department Booker Arts Magnet Elementary School Metropolitan Career and Technical Center Metropolitan Career and Technical Center GE microwave oven, valued at $75 .00, for use in the teacher's lounge 1994 issan Sentra XE, valued at $9,000.00, for instructional use in the Auto Tech Program 2000 Saturn LS2, valued at $14,919.26, for instructional use in the Auto Tech Program Donor Jeff and Cheryl Carson Nissan Motors General Motors Corporation It is recommended that these donation requests be approved in accordance with the policies of the Board. .?.=, z \u0026gt;z C\") ii! (J) To: From: Subject: Date: Mr. Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement av~ Cheryl A. Carson , Principal, Booker Arts Magnet School Donation of Property June 3, 2003 Jeff and Cheryl Carson, 4115 Ridge Road, North Little Rock, AR 72116, wish to donate a General Electric microwave oven valued at $75.00 for use in the Teacher's Lounge. The model number on the microwave oven is JE 2800 001 , and the serial number is TZ926001 S. I recommend that this donation be accepted in accordance with Little Rock School District policy. Thank you for your consideration of my recommendation . TO: FROM: Darral Paradis, Director of Procurement Michael Peters~rincipal Metropolitan Career \u0026amp; Technical Center DATE: August 6, 2003 SUBJECT: DONATIONS Please accept the following vehicles donated to Metropolitans Auto Technical Program. These vehicles are to be used only as instructional items and will not be license or driven: A. B. 1994 Nissan Sentra XE Color - Blue ( 4) door Valued: 9,000.00 Donator: Nissan Motors, Memphis Tenn. 2000 Saturn LS2 Color - Black cherry ( 4) door Valued: $14,919.26 Donator: General Motors Corporation, Ypsilanti, Mi We recommend that these donations be accepted in accordance with the policies, and procedures of the Little Rock School District. Metropolitan Career-Technical Center 7701 Scott Hamilton Drive  Little Rock, Arka nsas 72209  (501) 447-1200  Fax (501) 447-1201\n.: .., z z\u0026gt; (\") ~ Cl) DATE: TO: THROUGH: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET  LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 August 28, 2003 L~ Rock School District Board of Directors ~onald M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject 2003-2004 Operating Budget  Summary The proposed Operating Budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal year is presented for approval. ----- _. _ O_b....:j:c_ec_t_iv_e_s ______T_ o_irn_,p,_l_ement_a_n a_,p-\"p-_roved operating bud_g_e_t. _____  Expected Outcomes The District will operate under the approved budget.  Population/Location All schools and departments in the District.  Budget Amount/Source NIA  Manager Mark Milhollen  Duration July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004  Long Range/Continuation NIA  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District NIA Needed Staff NIA Comments See below.  Recommendatio-n ---~Ap~pro-val of the 2003-04 Operating Budget. The Board of Directors has received the proposed Operating Budget for the fiscal year 2003- 2004 under separate cover. It is recommended that the budget be approved as submitted. ?\u0026lt; n 5 U\u0026gt; z C\u0026gt; :x, m ~ ~ U\u0026gt; DATE: TO: THROUGH: Little Rock School District Financial Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1086 Fax: (501) 447-1158 August 28, 2003 Little Rock School District Board of Directors ~ M. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer Morris L. Holmes, Interim Superintendent PREPARED BY:~ark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services  Subject  Summary  Objectives  Expected Outcomes -~pulation/Locatio~ Financial Reports District funds are reported for the period ending July 31, 2003. To report the District's financial status monthly to the Board of Directors. The Board members will be informed of the District's current financial condition. ------------------ ---- NIA  Budget Amount/Source NI A  Manager Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services  Duration NIA  Long Range/Continuation Financial reports will be submitted monthly to the Board.  Other Agencies Involved None  Expectations of District NI A  Needed Staff NIA  Comments one  Recommendation Approval of the July 2003 financial reports. We recommend that the Board approve the financial reports as submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED RECEIPTS % DRAFT 2 RECEIPTS % 2002/03 07/31/02 COLLECTED 2003/04 07/31/03 COLLECTED REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 58,550,000 8,681,861 14.83% 57,547,800 9,574,108 16.64% DELINQUENT TAXES 8,000,000 317,592 3.97% 10,100,000 308,857 3.06% 40% PULLBACK 29,400,000 29,600,000 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 187,000 210,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 385,000 180,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 135,000 150,000 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 340,000 1,915 0.56% 380,000 3,923 1.03% INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 275,000 24,322 8.84% 200,000 19,729 9.86% ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 160,000 240,000 TOTAL 97,432,000 9,025,690 9.26% 98,607,800 9,906,617 10.05% REVENUE-COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 24,000 21 ,000 5,420 25.81% TOTAL 24,000 0 0.00% 21,000 5,420 25.81% REVENUE- STATE SOURCES EQUALIZATION FUNDING 54,867,630 53,226,139 REIMBURSEMENT STRS/HEAL TH 7,590,000 8,300,000 VOCATIONAL 1,340,000 10,000 0.75% 1,400,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,700,000 1,675,000 EARLY CHILDHOOD 273,358 68,340 25.00% 273,358 TRANSPORTATION 3,685,226 3,875,562 INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 3,265,000 3,900,000 ADULT EDUCATION 1,006,014 920,337 POVERTY INDEX FUNDS 658,607 560,545 EARLY LITERACY LEARNING 120,000 TAP PROGRAM 285,271 285,245 AT RISK FUNDING 650,000 360,000 TOTAL 75,441,106 78,340 0.10% 74,776,187 0 0.00% REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES TRANSFER FROM CAP PROJ FUND 620,000 770,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 1,126,233 1,350,000 TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND 1,664,438 1,632,430 TOTAL 3,410,671 0 0.00% 3,752,430 0 0.00% TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 176,307,777 9,104,030 5.16% 177,157,418 9,912,037 5.60% REVENUE - OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 25,152,981 13,371 0.05% 24,075,790 19,048 0.08% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 4,000,000 8,169 0.20% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 24,689,351 TOTAL 54,198,923 13,371 0.02% 52,765,141 27,217 0.05% TOTAL REVENUE 230,506,700 9,117,401 3.96% 229,922,559 9,939,253 4.32% LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2002 AND 2003 APPROVED EXPENDED % DRAFT 2 EXPENDED % 2002/03 07/31 /02 EXPENDED 2003/04 07/31 /03 EXPENDED EXPENSES SALARIES 100,865,586 1,452,954 1.44% 100,684,982 1,439,812 1.43% BENEFITS 24,838,361 641 ,866 2.58% 26,483,772 692,479 2.61% PURCHASED SERVICES 19,795,774 1,573,678 7.95% 19,719,297 1,454,502 7.38% MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES 8,347,098 231,783 2.78% 8,185,459 366,134 4.47% CAPITAL OUTLAY 1,616,991 737 0.05% 1,5.75,580 357 0.02% OTHER OBJECTS 8,508,680 41,167 0.48% 8,384,567 26,373 0.31% DEBT SERVICE 12,217,048 12,098,342 TOTAL EXPENSES OPERATING 176,189,538 3,942,185 2.24% 177,131,999 3,979,656 2.25% EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS 26,148,726 245,551 0.94% 26,056,193 526,781 2.02% DEDICATED M\u0026amp; 0 3,980,000 191,713 4.82% 4,000,000 225,249 5.63% MAGNET SCHOOLS 25,065,942 545,037 2.17% 24,689,351 113,654 0.46% TOTAL 55,194,668 982,300 1.78% 54,745,544 865,684 1.58% TOTAL EXPENSES 231,384,206 4,924,486 2.13% 231,877,543 4,845,340 2.09% INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (877,506) 4,192,915 (1 ,954,984) 5,093,912 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 1,645,440 1,645,440 3,558,580 3,558, 580 OPERATING 8,557,652 8,557,652 9,026,855 9,026,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL, MAGNET \u0026amp; OED M\u0026amp; 0 649,695 676,510 1,578,177 2,720,112 OPERATING 8,675,891 13,719,497 9,052,274 14,959,236 TOTAL 9,325,586 14,396,007 10,630,451 17,679,348 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2003 PROJECT BEG BALANCE INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES END BALANCE 07-01-03 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 2003-04 07-31-03 $6,200,000 BOND ISSUE FAIR 33,282.90 33,282.90 MCCLELLAN 77,519.02 77,519.02 CONTINGENCY 1,052,354.15 1,052,354.15 SUBTOTAL 1,163,156.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,163,156.07 $136,268,560 BOND ISSUES ADMINISTRATION 32,802.37 7,849.25 24,953.12 NEW WORK PROJECTS 18,652,764.76 1,143,207.09 10,485,398.03 7,024,159.64 SECURITY PROJECTS 42,273.97 42,273.97 LIGHTING PROJECTS 0.00 0.00 MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR 2,964,674.82 332,163.49 389,855.19 2,242,656.14 RENOVATION PROJECTS 33, 168,642.55 1,592,043.11 10,719,979.29 20,856,620.15 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES 2,335,019.24 127,353.49 535,927.73 1,671,738.02 SUBTOTAL 57,196,177.71 0.00 0.00 3,202,616.43 22,131,160.24 31,862,401.04 REVENUES PROCEEDS-PROPERTY SALE 444,618.31 444,618.31 DUNBAR PROJECT 5,266.71 5,266.71 PROCEEDS-BOND SALES 19,411,714.41 19,411,714.41 PROCEEDS-QZAB SALE 1,293,820.97 1,293,820.97 INTEREST STATE OF ARK 469,063.03 469,063.03 INTEREST 7,288,776.89 61,801.78 7,350,578.67 SUBTOTAL 28,913,260.32 61,801.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 28,975,062.10 GRAND TOTAL IIZ 2Z2 :i9~ 10 6l 110l ZII 2.W2 J 202 !il6 ~~ 22 1~1 160 2~ 62 000 619 21 PROJECT CATEGORIES ADMINISTRATION NEW WORK PROJECTS SECURITY PROJECTS LIGHTING PROJECTS MAINTENANCE \u0026amp; REPAIR RENOVATION PROJECTS TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES UNALLOCATED PROCEEDS TOTAL PROJECT ALLOCATIONS THRU 07-31-03 586,846.55 35,357,280.16 265,814.17 4,853,535.57 11,429,705.52 53,351,543.00 11,735,611 .78 20,705,535.38 138,285,872.13 lN3WNMnorov 'IIX SDNIMV3H 'IX LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE PROJECT HISTORY THRU THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2003 I EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE ' ENCUMBERED ! THRU 07-31-03 : THRU 07-31-03 1 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 I 889,772.32 : (485,325.77) 149,597.63 I I 7,849.25 443,467.00 4,589,606.29 11,671,442.11 I 1,143,207.09 I 10,485,398.03 : 113,930.47 109,609.73 ' 2,641,482.13 1,832,392.06 379,661 .38 i 791.385.63 I 3,455,350.67 1 I 4,218,294.40 I 332. 153.49 I 389,855.19 1 397,615.34 4,119,045.21 15,666,239.90 1,592,043.11 10,719,979.29 575,016.53 4,325,201 .40 4,500,374.61 ' 127,353.49 I 535,927.73 1 I I I I 5,852,669.42 18,708,823.32 35,822,666.30 I I 3,202,616.43 , 22,131 ,160.24 I I S\u0026gt;fllVW3ll DNISOl:l 'X ENDING ALLOCATION SUBTOTAL 07-31-03 561,893.43 1 24,953.12 28,333,120.52 7,024,159.64 223,540.20 42,273.97 4,853,535.57\n0.00 9,187,049.38 1 2,242,656.14 32,494,922.85 20,856,620.15 10,063,873.76 , I 1,671 ,738.02 20,705,535.38 85,717,935.71 j 52,567,936.42 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT - - SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS BY FUND - - - - - FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 2003 - - -- Fund Purchase Maturity Institution Interest Rate Type - _F'rincipal - Date Date - - - - Operating 06-09-03 12-08-03 Regions 1.090% Money Market -- _ ~0,000.00 Operating 07-19-03 01-19-04 Regions 0.945% lv!oney Market 20,000.00 - Operating 04-08-03 12-05-03 - Pulaski 1.290% Money Mark~ --~O ,Q00.00 Operating 07-23-03 TFN Bank of America 0.820% Repo Jl,225,000.00 - Operating 07-15-03 08-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.090% CD z.221,860.96 Operating (Payroll) 06-02-03 08-01-03 Bank of America 1.040% Treasury ~ills !.,5?5,264.8() - Operating (Payroll) 06-16-03 08-15-03 Bank of America 0.900% Treasury Bills 1,575,633.00 Total 18,447,758.76 Food Service 07-30-03 TFN Bank of America 0.860% Repo 1,350,000.00 Total - - 1,~50,000.00 Activity Fund 04-03-03 08-14-03 Bank of America 1.020% Tre~S~f)' Bills 801,966.49 - - Total 801,966.49 - - - - -- - Bond Account 03-10-03 09-08-03 Regions 1.190% CD - _ 100,000.90 - - Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Metropolitan 1.930% CD 1,000.~31.31 - - Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Bank of the Ozarks 2.250% CD 5, 116,?98.09 - 10-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks - Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 1.440% CD 10,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-29-03 01-29-04 Bancorp South 2.000% CD 2,()58,896.90 Capital Projects Fund 01-17-03 01-16-04 Superior 2.250% CD - _2 ,500,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 02-14-03 11-14-03 Superior 1.900% CD _11,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 08-16-04 USBANK 1.420% CD _11,()00,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 07-15-03 09-02-03 USBANK 1.130% CD 5,00(),000.00 Capital Projects Fund 01-22-03 01-16-04 Bank of America 1.240% Treasury Bills 5,299,646.43 Capital Projects Fund 05-15-03 05-14-04 Bank of the Ozarks 1.360% CD ~.000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 04-15-03 08-01-03 Bank of the Ozarks 1.370% CD 3,035,911.61 Capital Projects Fund 09-17-02 09-15-03 Bank of the Ozarks 2.200% CD 10,000,000.00 Capital Projects Fund 07-28-03 TFN Bank of America 0.880% Repo 8,000,000.00 Total 83,411,987.34 Deseg Plan Scholarship 06-11-03 12-04-03 Bank of America 0.920% Treasury Bills 664,995.48 Total _664,995.48 Rockefeller Scholarship : 06-24-03 01-15-04 Bank of America 0.760% Treasury Bi~s 250,909.40 Total '. 250,909.40\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":"geh_vhpohr_387","title":"Oral history interview of Roy J. Reynolds","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Belgium, 50.75, 4.5","Czech Republic, Elbe River, 50.0319222, 15.1943499","France, Carentan, 49.29476595, -1.25231194060659","France, Cherbourg, 49.6425343, -1.6249565","France, Île-de-France, Paris, 48.85341, 2.3488","France, Le Havre, 49.4938, 0.10767","France, Montebourg, 49.4882989, -1.380821","France, Sainte-Mère-Eglise, 49.4117704, -1.32682478113355","Germany, Bamberg, 49.8916044, 10.8868478","Germany, Elbe River, 52.4344639, 11.6813919","Netherlands, Rhine River, 51.97198, 5.91545","Taiwan, 23.69781, 120.960515","United Kingdom, England, Torquay, 50.4652392, -3.5211361","United States, Alabama, Dale County, Fort Rucker, 31.34282, -85.71538","United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","United States, Maryland, Anne Arundel County, Fort Meade, 39.10815, -76.74323","United States, Texas, Bell County, Killeen, Fort Hood, 31.13884585, -97.715048633985"],"dcterms_creator":["Kyle, Glen","Reynolds, Roy J., 1919-2008"],"dc_date":["2003-07-31"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Roy Reynolds describes his experiences in a tank battalion in Europe during World War II. He enlisted in the Army in 1936, motivated by economic reasons. He participated in the landing at Utah Beach in support of assault troops and describes that experience vividly, including the tremendous Naval bombardment and witnessing the collection of the dead. He recalls surrounding a battalion of Germans, seeing American troops march through Paris and being welcomed by the French with flowers. After the war, he found employment with the railroad, but was not satisfied and joined the National Guard. He was sent to Korea and became an advisor to Chiang Kai-shek.","Roy Reynolds was in the U.S. Army in Europe during World War II.","ROY J. REYNOLDS WWII Oral Histories Atlanta History Center [Tape 1, Side A] Interviewer: [tape noise]…Reynolds and he's gonna talk to us to day about his time in service. If you could, just for the record, could you please state your name and where you live? Reynolds: Roy J. Reynolds, 4720 Springdale Road, Austell, Georgia, 30106. Interviewer: Okay. And your birth date again please. Reynolds: Is September the eleventh, nineteen nineteen. Interviewer: Okay. We'll just get started. You told me that you enlisted in nineteen thirty-six. Reynolds: Yeah. Interviewer: Could you tell me why you decided to enlist at that time? Or what sort of motivations you had? Reynolds: Things were tough at that time and I decided to join the service to get some kind of employment. And so that was the main reason that…because I was home and I was…my father had been killed in an automobile wreck. So… Interviewer: What did the rest of your family think when you enlisted? Were they supportive? Reynolds: Yeah, they were really supportive. Yeah. Absolutely, yeah. Interviewer: What did you do from thirty-six to nineteen forty? What was your military specialty and where were you stationed? Things like that. Reynolds: I was at Fort George, [inaudible] Maryland and then World War Two started and I went to Camp Rucker, Alabama, and they formed the seven forty-six tank battalion. And we trained there and we went to Europe on the Queen Mary. And we trained in Europe also and we were with the assault troops on D-Day on Normandy. So we were practicing with the…just exactly what we would be facing when we got to Europe. And we were supposed to have…well we left Torquay and we were supposed to land on the fifth. But it was so rough that they decided that they would wait another day. Then on the sixth… Interviewer: What was your…what was going through your mind when they canceled the invasion for that day? Reynolds: Well, nothing. It was just another day. Another day of waiting to get off of that LST. So, we went across the channel and we were pulling a small boat…bandelors [phonetic] on them, I believe. The engineer…there was a lieutenant engineer with a couple of men and they were to blow up any obstacles on the beach so that we'd get our tanks in. So we turned the…but when we got there the Navy was bombarding the…everything with their guns and there was one particular ship that had rockets on it and it looked like there were just hundreds of them going off at one time. So we landed on the beach and you have to get off the beach. The beach is hot. People are dying, getting killed and so forth. So you have to get off the beach. So we got off the beach and they…we were fighting for St. Mere Eglise. We were supposed to relieve the paratroopers in St. Mere Eglise. The hundred and first and the eighty-second airborne division. We were fighting with, as supporting armor, for the fourth infantry division. Paratroopers with laying out…dropping…they were out of the trees, hanging out of the trees and everything else with their throats cut and everything else. And I asked this one paratrooper, I said, “What's this German soldier doing here?” He says, “Well I've shot him in the foot, so he can't run. He can't get away.” And then from St. Mere Eglise we were fighting for Moneyberg [phonetic] and they pulled us out of Moneyberg and shoved us into Cherbourg. We took Cherbourg and then…then they put us to their right in Kerintan [phonetic] with the eighty-third infantry division. And from there they had the breakthrough and we went into…we thought we were going into Paris, but they pulled us to the right and we went around Paris and they had some troops that had just come into from the States. They used them to parade in Paris. Let's see. We had lost so many people and tanks that I was the intelligence sergeant and they…I was put in as a tank commander and it seems like every night the Germans would surround the…the engineers were on the front line, plugging up the holes. And every morning we'd have to go with our tanks and go through the forest and relieve the engineers. Then we started through Belgium. We…we were fighting through Belgium and I had three tanks under my command and we were supporting the ninth recon outfit. We were way out in front of the division, like a sore thumb. And we ran into, at one time, we ran into about a battalion of Germans, who ran into some woods. We surrounded the woods with our tanks and armored cars and…so what the…they had with us. And we opened up the firing and just shot them as far as we could. I guess I shot a couple of boxes through the anti-aircraft gun and we stopped there and we went into the next town. They could hear us firing and they came…all came out, putting flowers all over the tanks and everything else. They were so glad to see us. And from there they sent me to C Company as the first sergeant. I stayed with C Company a couple of months, I guess, and then they transferred me to headquarters as a first sergeant of headquarters. We were the first separate tank unit across the Rhine River. Captain Asher K. Pay was killed on the Rhine River. [silence] And we went on up and…was on the Elbe River when we were waiting for the Russians to come down. And I went across the Elbe River and came back, because that was the territory that the Russians were supposed to occupy. Then after that they…they signed the armistice and so forth and they said that the ones with the highest points would be the first transferred back to the States. Well, my unit at that time had put over two hundred and seventy-seven days in combat and I was one of the first men to be sent back to the States. I rode a stretcher…from Battenberg, Germany, to Le Havre, France, [chuckles] and came back. I was discharged in New York. Interviewer: Hmm. Um, if it's all right, I'd like to go back and ask a couple of questions about what you've talked about so far. Go back to the very beginning. You were in service during Pearl Harbor. Do you remember where you were and what you were doing? Reynolds: Yeah. Yeah, I was in G Company, thirty-fourth in the regiment at Fort…at…Fort Mead, Maryland. Um-hmm. Interviewer: What did you and your fellow soldiers think about when you got the word? Reynolds: We knew that…that there was going to be a war and the captain, I forget his name now, but he cried. He knew how serious and the number of men that would die in a war. Interviewer: Before Pearl Harbor, did…were you all thinking with events the way they were in Europe that there was going to be a war, that you all would be involved in, that the United States would be involved in? Reynolds: A war in Europe? Interviewer: Yeah. Did you think that eventually the United States was going to have to get into it? Reynolds: No, we didn't at that time. Not until after Pearl Harbor. Yeah. Interviewer: While you were overseas, I know you went to England first to do some of the training. How much contact did you have with friends and family back home? I'm assuming it was just letters. Reynolds: That's all. That's all. Letters. Yeah. Interviewer: Were there a lot of letters? Reynolds: There was a few. Not too many. Yeah. Interviewer: The training that you received in Europe and in your time previous, starting in thirty-six, do you…do you feel that it prepared you for what came after the invasion? Do you think the training was good or did you have to learn most of it the hard way? Reynolds: The training was good, but you see…I was the intelligence sergeant and I wasn't in the tanks at that time. I was plotting on the maps and stuff like that as to the…what position we'd take and all that stuff. But I was prepared, like I say, they put me in as a tank commander and you learn right quick. Interviewer: When did they stick you in a tank? Was it before the invasion or after? Reynolds: It was after the invasion. Yeah. We'd lost so many men and tanks. We lost over forty medium tanks in combat. Interviewer: Just so I know, the tanks you're talking about, or they all Shermans? Reynolds: Yeah. Interviewer: All Shermans? Reynolds: Yeah. Well, some of them are light tanks, you know. With a seventy-five millimeter gun…we…we got…one company, A Company…right before the Rhine River, we got a company of seventy-six millimeter…tanks with seventy-six millimeter on it. They put…and they gave them all to A Company and they kept A Company in reserve. They didn't want to put them up on the line and lose them all. So they kept the…B Company and C Company with the seventy-five millimeter guns on the…and uh…the first time that I saw them I thought they were German tanks. [laughs] Interviewer: There's a…I know there's been a lot written about our tanks, the United States tanks versus the tanks the Germans had. Would you care to elaborate a little bit on…on your experiences relating to that? You know, just…soldier's view? Reynolds: Yeah. The seventy…the German tank could hit one of our tanks, it'd go in the front end and come out the back looking for another one. We had paint-remover tank guns. You hit the tank and it'd ricochet off. And you can imagine what was going through the minds of the tankers that had to use them. We said at that time, “If the Americans mothers knew [laughs] what we were fighting with they would storm Washington” [laughs]. Interviewer: How did you deal with that? Did you just overwhelm them with numbers? Reynolds: Superiority in numbers. That's the only reason that they beat the Germans is superiority in numbers. They were good fighters. They had the equipment. They were trained fighters. They would not give up. There at the right at Kerintan, we were fighting with the eighty-third infantry division and we were up against the sixth SS parachute outfit from Germany. And they would not surrender. You had to kill them. Interviewer: While we're on the topic of Germans, while you were in the war how did you feel about Germans? Were they just the enemy? Did you hate them? Did you…I mean, how did you feel towards them? Reynolds: I felt that any German that came out in front of us, if he was knee high on up, he was out there for one purpose and that's to hurt some doughboy or kill somebody. So if he's out there, we're gonna shoot ‘em. That's what I thought of them. Interviewer: Okay, good. About the D-Day landings. Could you tell me…in talking to some other veterans, it's amazing the breadth of emotion that can run through you. Can you tell me a little bit about what was going through your mind as the ships were approaching the shore? Reynolds: Well, I really didn't get engrossed in anything except just watching shells go off. We were in the boat and you just…you're not actually in the fighting. But when they let the ramps down on the boat and we got down, you could see the dead men lying down and then you knew that this was for keeps. This was not play. This was for keeps. They didn't pick anybody up for a few days after the war started. There was no grave registration people there. We moved in and then a few days later, they had picked up the dead. And these hedgerows are small. And I looked in one hedgerow and they had dead American soldiers lying like cord wood. They were six foot high and maybe fifty foot long and many, many of them like that. Interviewer: When…as you got further in from the beaches, did you find that life got easier or harder? Reynolds: You die a thousand deaths when you're in that situation that we were in. I ran into General Teddy Roosevelt and he says, “How are you getting along, son?” And I looked at him and I said, “Fine, General, fine.” I was scared to death. He died up there with the eighty-third infantry division. They were losing so many troops. I don't know if he died of a heart attack or if he died by shrapnel or something like that because he would go right up on the front with the troops. [Note: General Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., the oldest soldier and the only general who landed with the first wave of the D-Day invasion, died of cardiac arrest on July 11, 1944, and was buried in St. Mere Eglise three days later. Doug Wead, All the Presidents' Children.] Interviewer: As the war went on and you got closer and you said you got…were at Remaugen [phonetic] and you took your…with the battalion you went across everything, you got to the Elbe and the armistice was signed. How did you feel when you got the word that Germany had surrendered? Reynolds: Great. Great. Yeah. Well, we knew the war was over when we reached the Elbe River cause we had stopped there and there was nothing going on. We'd defeated the Germans and we were just waiting on the Russians to come down. We knew that the war was over. Interviewer: What did you think about the Russians at that time? Reynolds: We didn't think much of them. Interviewer: Why not, if I may ask? Reynolds: I really don't know. They…I don't know. They had a lot of battles that…but I have no idea. We didn't care too much for the Russians. Interviewer: Was there ever a time in Europe that your unit specifically or you yourself personally ever suffered from a lack of supplies? Reynolds: No. No. Interviewer: So you always had everything that you all needed. How about…we're talking about our different enemies and allies, did you ever have any interaction with the British? Reynolds: No. No. Uh-uh. Interviewer: Okay. When the war ended you were very elated, went back home. When you got home, did you find it difficult to re-integrate into society? Reynolds: Yes. Interviewer: Could you tell me a little bit about why and how and what kind of job you got afterwards, if you did get anything or something like that? Reynolds: I started to work for the railroad and I didn't care for that. So I re-enlisted in the Army and I was advisor for the National Guard. And during the Korean War, I received a direct appointment as a second lieutenant and then I was with the first armored division in Fort Hood, Texas, during the Korean War…I mean at the start of the Korean War. Then they sent me to Chiang Kai-shek as an advisor at the armored school from fifty-one to fifty-three. Then I came back to the States and was assigned to Fort Rucker, Alabama, and I was in a tank company. And the G-4 of the regiment…or the battalion…division called me and wanted me to come up and see him, so I did. And he wanted me to go down and look at the procurement office because they were losing their procurement officer and he wanted to sign me down as the procurement officer. So I came back and I told him, I says, “I still don't want it. I would not like to be a procurement officer.” So he called me up another day a little later and asked me to go down and take another look. So I did and he came back and I said, “Well, I still don't want it”. He said, “Well, you've got the job”. So I was the procurement officer at Fort Rucker, the Army aviation school, from fifty-three to fifty-six. Then I went to Europe and they found out I was in procurement so they signed me as the procurement officer at Stuttgart, Germany, and I stayed there until fifty-nine when I came back to the States. Interviewer: Did uh…during your time in China were you [inaudible] directly to Chiang Kai-shek or just his… Reynolds: I was…we were in Formosa. China…China had kicked Chiang Kai-shek out of China. And we were the first American troops sent back to Chiang Kai-shek since that happened. And that's about all I know about that, other than the fact that I was there from fifty-one to fifty-three. Interviewer: Why did you join the Army as opposed to any of the other branches of service? Reynolds: I really couldn't tell you cause there just happened to be a recruiter there, I guess, that was looking for warm bodies at that time. Interviewer: Let me ask you a little bit about again the years after the war. How often after you got home did you think about your time in the service in Europe? Reynolds: Every day. Interviewer: Good, bad? Reynolds: I couldn't talk about it for a long time. It didn't crack…cracks me up. Interviewer: Well, what made you generous enough to talk to us today? Reynolds: Well, I think that I'm getting over the things that I went through and so…because it was so…it was so hard on you mentally that…it's had to describe. Interviewer: The United States did pay an awful price in World War Two. In your opinion, was it worth it? Reynolds: Yes, it sure was. Yeah. Because Hitler was…he would have really…he was a tyrant. He was…and Stalin was no better. So I think that Hitler was…he was a madman. Interviewer: Did uh…why is it important that we remember today what your generation did during World War Two? Reynolds: Well, just to remember the sacrifices that were made, the individuals who were involved. That we still have a great country, one of the largest and greatest countries in the world, that the world has ever known. I don't know. It's…it's hard to describe just exactly how you do feel and what had come out of the sacrifice that the people have made in World War Two. [Tape 1, Side B] Interviewer: There's no doubt in my mind and I'm sure yours that's it important that we do remember this sort of thing. What do you think is the best was we can maintain the memory of those sacrifices? Reynolds: I guess by talking to people and recording it and re…maintaining the weapons and things that they had at that time. But…I don't think that we should forget the great sacrifices that those people have made and we should…at the holidays that are…you know, the holidays that they have for Armistice Days and stuff like… Interviewer: Memorial Day. Reynolds: Yeah. That…those are the days that they can remember the sacrifices that were made by the people that were in the different wars. Interviewer: What about you personally? For you personally, was it worth what you had to give up and did it make you a different person, a better person? Reynolds: Oh absolutely, yeah. I would hate to do it again, but if it came to it I would. I would defend this country in any war that was declared by the President of the United States. Interviewer: Is there anything that we haven't talked about that you want to talk about or would like to mention? Reynolds: No. No. No, the glider planes that came in there in Normandy, I went up and looked at…inside a few of the gliders and the men had never even unbuckled their safety belts. The Germans had gone up one side and down the other with their burp [phonetic] guns and killed every one of them. That's…I guess that's about the extent of the…of it, really. It's hard to describe just what you went through. Interviewer: I can only imagine. I can only imagine. I have only one more question to ask. This is sort of another retrospective. With recent talk and controversies about this subject, dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. How did you feel about that at the time and has your opinion of it changed? Reynolds: I felt great. It shortened the war and saved a lot of men's lives and I felt great. Interviewer: Good. All right. Well, so unless you have anything to add, I think we'll wrap it up. Reynolds: Good. Interviewer: And I'd like to thank you very much for coming out. Reynolds: [chuckles] Okay. Interviewer: All right. [end of tape]"],"dc_format":["video/quicktime"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project oral history recordings","Veterans History Project collection, MSS 1010, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dcterms_subject":["Depressions--1929--Georgia","World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","Landing craft--United States","Torpedoes--Bangalore torpedoes","Sherman tank","Pay, Asher Knight, 1917-1945","Roosevelt, Theodore, 1887-1944","Chiang, Kai-shek, 1887-1975","United States. Army. Tank Battalion, 746th","United States. Army. Airborne Division, 101st","United States. Army. Airborne Division, 82nd","United States. Army. Infantry Division, 83rd","United States. Army. Armored Division, 1st","Queen Elizabeth (ship)"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Roy J. Reynolds"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/387"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["video recordings (physical artifacts)","mini-dv"],"dcterms_extent":["39:53"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_323","title":"Oral history interview of Lewis S. Conn","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["France, Saint-Lô, 49.1157004, -1.0906637","Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia, Cologne District, Städteregion Aachen, Aachen, 50.77664, 6.08342","Netherlands, Rhine River, 51.97198, 5.91545","United Kingdom, England, London, 51.50853, -0.12574","United Kingdom, Wales, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Pontypridd, 51.6021, -3.34211","United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","United States, Georgia, Chattahoochee County, Fort Benning, 32.35237, -84.96882","United States, Georgia, Coweta County, 33.35346, -84.76337","United States, Georgia, Meriwether County, 33.04066, -84.68831","United States, Texas, Bell County, Killeen, Fort Hood, 31.13884585, -97.715048633985"],"dcterms_creator":["Bruckner, William Joseph","Conn, Lewis S., 1922-2010"],"dc_date":["2003-07-16"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Lewis Conn recalls his childhood during the Depression in Georgia, as well as his service in the United States Army in Europe during World War II. He was assigned to a tank unit and describes what it was like serving in a segregated army. Of particular interest are his recollections about German prisoners of war attending military base movie theatres that black soldiers were not permitted to enter. He describes the day to day operations of his tank unit and recalls burning German paper money in order to keep warm. He comments on the role he and his fellow soldiers played in changing American society.","Lewis Conn served in the United States Army in Europe during World War II."],"dc_format":["video/quicktime"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project oral history recordings","Veterans History Project collection, MSS 1010, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dcterms_subject":["World War, 1939-1945--Participation, African American","World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","World War, 1939-1945--Campaigns--Ardennes","Depressions--1929--Georgia","Tiger (Tank)","Lightning (Fighter plane)","Patton, George S. (George Smith), 1885-1945","United States. Army. Army, 3rd","United States. Army. Tank Battalion (Light), 784","Queen Mary (Steamship)","Hitler-Jugend","Siegfried Line","Hitler Youth","soup kitchens","Screaming Mimi","P-38 (Fighter plane)"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of Lewis S. Conn"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/323"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["video recordings (physical artifacts)","mini-dv"],"dcterms_extent":["1:31:19"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1758","title":"Brief regarding Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), response to petition to de-annex territory from PCSSD, motion to enforce settlement agreement, motion and support for allied relief, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report.","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":["2003-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Elementary schools","Harris Elementary School (North Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Finance","School integration","School enrollment","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","Magnet schools","Teachers"],"dcterms_title":["Brief regarding Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), response to petition to de-annex territory from PCSSD, motion to enforce settlement agreement, motion and support for allied relief, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and Office of Desegregation Management report."],"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/1758"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["57 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eBefore the Arkansas State Board of Education, brief of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) in re: petition to de-annex territory from the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD); District Court, fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, memorandum brief in support of fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief; District Court, statement of material facts; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, notice of hearing; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Update on the Redesign of Harris Elementary School and the Rezoning of Schools in the Sherwood Area of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.     I P. 03 RECEIVED BEFORE THE ARKANSAS STATE :SOARD OF EDUCATION JUL 1 O 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN RE: PETITION TO DE-ANNEX TERRITORY FROM THE PCSSD BRIBf OF TiiE PCSSD Introduction Prior to tl1e hearing held on June 9, 2003, the PCSSD submjtted its \"Analysis\" of how the detachment, if approved, would negatively impact desegregation not only in the PCSSD but in tllc LRSD and the NLRSD as well. For -lbe _convenience of the Board another ~PY is included as Exhibit 1. The PCSSD asked ti1at 1hat document be made-part of the record and its cssenLial conclusions will only be briefly reiterated here . Although the PCS SD believes that its previously submitted Analysis is more than ample reason to deny Lhe petition for detachment, there is an even more fundamental reason why it should be turned down. SifI!Ply stated, the 1989 Settlement Agreement with the State, to which this -Board is a signatory i precJudes such a usurpation of the District's sovereignty and independence. 428241-vl The Settlement Agreement Provision Section II J of_the 1989 comprehensive Settlement Agreement states in its entirety: The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts -operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and chat this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation .activities with the LRSD and others. [emphasis added] ----- - -- -- -- ~ Thi, language, whiCh remain, operative, was notsome idle boileiplaie.or filler. Indeed, as we will explain .further, it was not part of the original agreement between the State, LRSD and Joshua but was only negotiated after.the State had first reached .agreement with the LRSD and then turned its attention toward securing agreement from the PCSSD and the NLRSD. Further, thcr.e was a real and immediate specter of consolidation which prompted this _] negotiated language which, whHe it survived the legislative and judicial approval process, came I under attack from many legislators, commentators and in editorials. Indeed, for those who did not personally participate in or who do not clearly recall this historic process, a brief chronology might be useful. 1982 1985 1985 Late 1988 January 12, 1989 January 31, 1989 4?.8244-vl Not So Ancient History The LRSD sues the State, the PCSSD and the NLRSD successfully seeking consolidation of the three districts in Pulaski County. 9Zl F.2d 1371@ 1376. The Court of Appeals rejects consolidation but orders that the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD be adjusted. 921 F .2d 1371 @ 1377. This boundary adjusLinent caused PCSSD to lose sixteen schools and over one-third of its tax base_ Initial setLlerncntdiscussions are commenced among the State, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1376 . . Senator Jerry Jewell introduces Senate Bill 39 to consolidate the Little Rock, North Little Rock.and _P.ulaski County Special School District schools. Exhibit 2. The State Board, LRSD and Joshua Intervenors reach a proposed seulcment. The State's attorney reports that \"meetings to obtain-t11e agreement of the otl1er _parties are underway today between attorneys and representatives of the State Boar\u0026lt;l, PCSSD aml NLRSD.\" Exhibit 3. 2 i -I vUI.. I February 14, 1989 March 1989 March 3, 1989 March 7, 1989 March 11, 1989 March U, 1989 March 16, 1989 428244-vl The State hires t.lie national law furn of Hogan \u0026amp; Hartson which specialized in school desegregation to advise it concerning desegregation. Exhibit 4. Counsel .for the LRSD delivers a draft of Proposed Settlement Agreement to the State's attorney. This draft does not contain a Section II J. Exhibit 5. The settlement is agreed to by all of the parties. The final version contains Section 11 J. Exhibit 6. It is submined to the legislature for funding. In an editorial discussing the settlement, the. Arkansas Gazette note~: that: \"A key-provision is that the Little Rock, North Little Rock- and Pulaski County School Districts recognize that they remain  independent, sovereign desegregating' districts. This could -becon,e an impediment to a countywide consolidation in the future, and if so it is an unfortunate pr.ovision.\" Exhibit 7. The Atkansas Gazette reports that the county district's attorney told the county board that the settlement went through 27 revisions before being made publi~ because of the complexity of the issues. Exhibit 8. .In .explaining .the settlement to the Joint Budget Committee, the State's attorney noted that: \"This agreement. is so fragile that if it starts to unravel in any way, if there's any kind of modification to it, it'.s .going co fall apart and unravel in 100 djffcreht ways.\" In the same articfo, Senator Max Howell noted he djd not wanno vote Jor1he settlement if it meant forever prohibiting consolidation of the three county districts. \"I'm not antagonistic toward the dollars, but I am concerned that I .under.stand the small print.\" Exhibit 9. One starewide commentator, in characterizing Section II J, o.pined that: \"A brazen provision slipped into this settlement at the last minute guarantees there will be no consolidation of the school districts. Surprise!\" Exhibit 10. The Arkansas Senate approves the bill funding the settlement but .idds an amendmenr asking tbe Federal Courts to consider four changes in the seLtlcment including: \"Disapproval of language that would rctiin the autonomy of the three Pulaski County districts-.\" As Senator Max Howell stated: \"I would hope tbt: Court woulil be aware that we hl the Legislature feel the folks who caused this should not continue to be in control of the situation.\" Exhibit 11. 3  I l '  II March 18, 1989 March 24, 1989 March 31, 1989 December 11, 1989 December 12, 1990. The press reported that: \"Legislators have expressed concern that the provision would forever bar the State from merging the three districts, ancl the State Education Department's attorney told them Monday that McCutcheon (the _special Master) apparently shared that concern. n Exhibit 11. Press reports described II J as one of.the \"key\" provisions of the settlement. Exhibit 12. Mr. Herschel Friday writes the attorneys for the parties noting that: \"During the debate which preceded the v.ote to fund the settlement in this case, l was repeatedly questioned on whether changes requested by the legislature could be made in the settlement. A copy of the requested changes is enclosed for your ready reference. I agreed to follow through to see that the legislative requests were auly considered by .the .parties and to use my best efforts in this regard. . .. Will you please discuss these requests with your clients so that we can meet in the near future and address these matters .\" Exhibit 13. A copy of the requested changes, which included Section II J, is attached~ Exhibit 14 . Counsel for the AEA informs.Mr. Friday that they object to removing a.ny of the items from the settlement agreement. Exhibit 15. The District Court purports to approve the settlement agreement but only after imposing certain modifications. 726 F.Supp. 1544, 1549. The Court of Appeals reverses the District Court, ruling that the Settlement Agreement should hav.e been .approved as written by the parties. 971 F.2d 160 @ 164, 165. It should thus be clear that Section n J. was a key component of the settlement for which the PCSSD (as well as the NLRSO) separately negotiated. The reasons are clear, Not only was the PCSSD guarding against consolidation, but also any new usurpation of its territory. facilities and assets similar to the appropriation (albeit by judicial order) that occurred in the .early phases of the school case. While it is clear that many in the legislature 42$M4-vl 4  and those \"commentin_g on tbe scene\" opposed Section II J., the fact remains that it is an l integral part of the Settlement Agreement and retains full force and vitality today. In his June 4, 2003 letter, the Attorney General appropriately discussed the fact that while \"successor district\" language was included in the settlement agreement as respects the LRSD, it noted thar no such language is presented as regards the PCSSD or the NLRSD. As lhe Attorney General explained: All of this suggests that either (a) the parties simply did not anticipate that a \"successor\" district might be created from territory that was formerly within1he PCSSD, or (b) the parties specificaHy intended that there would not be any such \"successor\" district created under any circumstances, or that any successor district would not be a parcy to the Settlement Agreement. Subparagraph (b) of course is the correct outcome because of the presence of Section II J. On the san1e page and same footnote the Attorney General further noted that: Logic suggests, however, that a group of individual schools could not so easily extricate themselves from federal court supervision (and court-imposed obligations) in a desegregation case by merely \"detaching\" themselves from a schooJ district under supervision, at least not without the consem of all parties to the case and the Court overseeing the litigation. (Emphasis supplied). The Attorney General notes in his last footnote that: In this parcicular case, the parties with standing to object would be the Sr.ate it.o;clf, the three Pulaski County districts, and the 1osbua and Knight intervenors. The Potential For New Claims The principal motivation for the State to enter into and subsequently fund the Settlement Agreement was co minimize the dollar cost for its past constitutional violations and to obtain a release -of all claims for .all v.iolations which had occurred prior to execution of the Settlem~nt Agreement. While the State has been subjected to successful .claims by the school districts for 4282411-vl 5 ~ I I departures from the Settlement Agreement, it has, thus far, for over fourteen years, avoided a cbim or contention that .it has violated the constitution or enacted statutes which either prom~\u0026gt;tc segregation or hamper desegregation. 1 However, the statute at issue, by its own legislative language, sets up an interesting dynamic not otherwise present in ATkansas law. As counsel for the Pcpanment of Education and the Attorney General's office have repeatedly pointed out: \"the state board is proh~itcd by law from approving any petition fo1 detachment which hampers, delays or in any manner negative~y affects desegregation efforts of a school district or districts .in this state.\" Even if the Board makes a negative determination on this issue, it is virtually a foregone conclusion that one or another or more of the parties in the school case would contend in Federal Court that the detachment does \"hamper, delay or ... negatively affects  desegregation efforts ... \", would seek to hoist the State upon the petard of its own legislation, and, if successful, expose the State to new claims for millions of dollars, an exposure the S1ate avoic.Js if it .properly denies the petition. Indeed, it would appear that the legjsJature had the proscriptions of the Settlement Agreement in mind when it crafted this very narr.ow and rigorous test for detachment. The Settlement Agreement at page 10 states: \"The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the [Pulaski] I  Districts to desegregate.\" 1 After each legisl:llive session, die ADE invites the PCSSD, as well as the olher Pulaski disu-icrs, to identify aew lc!gislation which the district believes will hamper or negatively affecc its desegregation efforts. The PCSSD duly noted by }ell.er dated April 26, 2002, thaUt believed tile detachment scaruce at issue would negatively -:tffoct it; desegregation efforts. 4282'14-vl 6 Thus, those who might pursue a new claim, where none currently exists, would likely si.multancously argue that the Settlement Agreement itself has been breached, a claim that carries with it not only the potential for new money damages .but substantial legal fees as well. The petitioners are correct that the racial balance tests for the -PCS SD accommodate a growing. black enrollment. However, the racial balance test is only a fraction of the issue involved. By ultimately approving a new school district, the State- will have participated in a process that artificially accelerates the evolution of the PCCSD to a majority black school district. When all three districts become majority black, then the State will argue that its oblig~tion to fund M-to.:M payments will suddenly and abruptly end. (Indeed, a cynic.might wonder if there are those in authority who may have already figured this out.) lf and when this day comes, the financial consequenct;S to the three current districts in this county would be crippling. Thus, to lhc extent that the State endorses steps to hasten and accelerate this day, then perhaps a new round of claims against the Slate would logically follow. The black student population of the PCSSD has grown on average between one-half percent and one percent per year. By accelerating tlle process by 6.5 -percentage points (sec further analysis) in 1hc year of detachment, the State will have \"gained\" approximately 7 .5 years toward the day when M-to-M funding might end. (See 15 years enrollment trend.) The Detachment Statute Constitutes Impermissible Special Local Legislation The Arkansas Constimtion succinctly provides that: \"The legislature shall not pass any local or-special Act\". (Arkansas Constitution Amendment 14). 428244vl 7 I'   l As the staff of -the ADE can verify, this statute, by its tcnns, can_only apply to the _PCSSD. No ot:h,er school district in the State meets the quaJifying characteristics of the legislation. Further, there is no plausible .argument that the statute could ever apply to any other school district in Arkansas -in the future. -Bottom line: It was carefully crafted to apply only to the Jacksonville area, cannot apply elsewhere, and as such is impermissible special, local legislation which should not be enforced. Not-All Of The Pai1ies Have Been Consulted_ The Attorney General's letter ofJime 4, 2003 (hereafter-the June 4 letter), strongly urges the Board to seek input from the three school districts in Pulaski as well as Joshua and the Knight Intervenors before determining whether or not .creation of the new district would \"hamper, delay, or in any manner affect 'desegregation efforts of a school district or distrkts in the State.\" While tht'. PCSSD has supplied information to the Board, the -PCSSD is unaware that the Knight Intcrvenors have been solicited for their input. The Focus Of The Petitioner's New Submissions Is Much Too Nan-ow As .the June 4 lctter explains (and even Mr. Fendley's letter quotes the same language), dest:grcgation includes much more than racial balance from school to school. Accordingly, the Board should look nor only at student assignments, but to every facet of school operations including faculty, staff, transportation, extl'acurricular activities and facilities. (June 4 letter at page 2). While the submissions of the petitioners do touch upon student assignment, faculty and somewhat upon transportation, there is no mention of staff (which is also unionized in the PCSSD) or extracurricular activities. This omission alone is sufficient for this Board to 428244-vl 8 I   1 conclude that insufficient information concerning desegregation in the area of staff and extracurricular activities has been presented. While .the supplemental submissions address current enrollments by school, enrolhnents before and after M-to-M and magnet transfers and deployment .of staff at schools, (all under cenain assumptions about which we will write later), the submission is otherwise largely devoid of analysis and specificity, particularly as it relates to specific matters set forth in the PCSSD's \"Analysis\" previously submitted to this Board. '\\, for instance, there is scant mention of the three specialty schools. in th~ southeast portion of Pulaski County, all of which contain programs which were specifically designed for aml gained Court approval for .desegregation. The supplemental filings simply do not contest the PCSSD calculation that approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment  attended those schools last year. These students are necessary for the continued vitality of these programs, all of which feed to Mills Uniyersity Studies High School, recently recognized as the 201 !, \"best\" high school in the country. }lewsweek, May 2003. (Exhibit 16). Does this Board really want to play a role in undermining one of the most shining success stories in Arkansas .education? el 1 Included as Exhibit 17 is a memor11ndum from Davis Hendricks, the.District Director of Talented and Gifted Programs, prepared the day after the Board's June 9 hearing. The memorandum explains at least two things. First, it shows the extensive array of AP courses currently available at both JacksonviJle High School and North Pulaski High School. It also explains in some detail how the detachment would negatively impact the College Station, .Fuller and Mills progl'ams. 428244-vJ 9 - I  While the supplemental submissions do purport to Cl!lculate enrollment in the / \u0026lt;letachment.schools if M-to-M and magnet transfers ended, Lhey singularly do not provide any analysis as to what affect the lack of such transfers would have not only upon the finances of the PCSSD but upon the schools and finances affected in the NLRSD.and .theLRSD. Although the June 4 letter was necessarily fairly general in most respects, it was quite ~pecific as regards certain areas. As the Allorney General opined: (a]ny detachment of a significant amount of territory from the PCSSD could almost certainly be expected to have an \"impact\" on the -PCSSD's ability to comply with its desegregation plan and have an impact on the operation of the Settlement Agreement, including the Agreement's provisjons concerning M.:M students and the Magnet schoolsjh the LRSD. Teacher Deployment As to teacher deployment, the petitioners stake out thena1ve position that the Federal  District Court could simply order all the teachers to stay where they are. This assumption ignores the realities of teacher unions, teacher contracts and previous admonitions from the United States Court of Appeals. For instance, the PCSSD successfully enjoined an on-goinJ teacher strike fo .1996. The union appealed to the Federal Court of A.ppeals arguing that the union negotiated contract beLwccn lhc PCSSD and .the Teachers' Union was none of the District Court's business. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversed the District Court ~d explained to the parties that the role of the District Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which is silent as to the master contracts), but not to otherwise interfere with the rights of employees and organizations of employers. 112 F.3d 953 @ 955 . . Petitioners' position is completely silent regarding recognition of a new teacher organization for a new district . .Is this or js this not pan of their proposed calculus? As the.! 428244-vl 10 - - - - - --- -  PCSSD knows from prior difficult and n-ying circrunst\u0026gt;nccs, many teacliers prefer working in / a district which reco_gnizes a union. I I  e l J The PCSSD \"Analysis\" Revisited Petitioners claim u1at Exhibit 5 in their supplemental submission demonstrates that detachment will not have a negative impact upon the PCSSD. However, even though petitioners purport to have used data obtained from the PCSSD, the PCSSD cannot reconcik its data with chat presented by tne petitioncr.2 For instance, petitioners' Exhibit 5 predicts that the detached school district would have 3,345 elementary students of whom 34.1 % would bt! black. However, the PCSSD .calculates lhat the detached district would have 3,700 elementrtry srudents of wlmm only 32. 7% would be black. (Exhibit 18).. At the secondary level, the petitiom;:rs project 3,750 students of whom 36.6% would be black. While the total number calculated by the PCSSD is similar a.t 3,757, it calculates that ollly 32.4 % of those students would be black. (Exhibit 18). Since the petitioners calculate that the residual PCSSD would be 39 % black, there is a difference of six and one-half percentaie points. Also, while the petitioners project a .total .enrollment of 7,095 students, the PCSSD calculates that the new district would enrolt 7,457 srudents. (Exhibit 18), As for individual schools, the impact upon Clinton Elementary is profound. Detachmem would cause the loss of 124 sLudents and would push Clinton from 55 % black to 60% black. (Exhibit 18). It is required to be no more than 50% black. : The PCSSD once a.ga.iu 1ecommends that these discrepancies be .evaluated by the staff of the ADE. 4282M-vl 11 )  l' -! l e l I As we previously projected, 61 students would leave College-Station reducing its enrollment from 215 .to 159. (Exhibit 18) . This would artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972, the African-American percentage would increase from 39 % to 45 % and the building capacity of 925 would be grossly exceed~d- (Exhibit 18). Court Orders While the petitioners seek to cast doubt upon the over capacity reported for the Sylvan Hills schools, they are either unaware of the fact or.have neglected to inform the Board that as recently as March 25, 2003, the District CoUit noted that: Fur.ther, the Court is jnformed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no Ionger has tho capacity .to .accommodate all 6111 _grade M-to-M students who attended Clintou Interdistrict School through the 5111 grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Mawnelle. (Order, Exhibit 19, at page 2.) Accordingly, the PCSSD supplements its previous Analysis and reiterates its point that the displaced students, many of whom are black, who the petitioners submit can \"easily be accommodated at Sylvan Hills\" simply cannot be. Part of the detachment proposal flies in the face of another order entered by the District Court on January 28, 2003. In evaluating and approving the PCSSD plans for the redesign of Harris Elementary School, the Federal Court ruled that: 428244-vl African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato El~mentary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will.remain 75% Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, Exhibit 20 at page 2.) 12 \\ I  l Of course, the petitioners arc excluding the Brushy lsland students from Cato and are leaving them .to he assigned somewhere in the PCSSD. The petitioners say send them to Sylvan Hills but there is no room. The Court has .said they will not be reassigned to Harris. Where can they go? Another aspect of the Court's January order as respects Harris requires the PCSSD to vigorously recruit minority snidents (white) from north of the river for placement at Harris. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education was ordered to direct this \"intensification\" of.eff 01t. Of course, if most of the PCSSD nonh of the river is allowed to detach, it will render the PCSSD substantially unable to comply with this order. Sylvan Hills Petitioners make some rather astonishing suggestions regarding Sylvan Hills High School. At page 6 of counsel's letter, the following statements are made: Moreover, even assuming a real capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School, the District Court coo.ld address the problem in a number.of ways to avoid any negative affect on desegregation. One option may be to revise the attendance zones for all of PCSSD's high schools. The ODM reported that the PCSSD has .nor revised its attendance zones in \"many years\" and recommended that it do so. See ODM March 26, 2003, pp. 19 and 21. Another option may be to discontinue the school's specialty program that allows smdents residing outside the attendance zone to attend the school. This program was implemented to increase the African-American enrollment at the school at a tirnc when it was below the minimum of 20 percent. The African-American enrollment at the school in 2002-03 was 35 percent. This calls into question the continuing need for the program to increase African-American enrollment. A rhir4 option may be to build additional classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School. The PCSSD recently addcdnew classrooms at Robinson High.Sc;:hool to address overcrowding at that school. In short, a capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School can easily be addressed without negatively affecting desegregation. 428244-vl 13 i  l I I J, e l As to revisingattendancezones or disestablishing a specialty program, a cardinal rule in desegre_gation is \"if it ain't broke, don't fix ic\". Any effort to disestablish a successful program would .immediately be attacked by Joshua. Moreover, ifthe PCSSD is compelled Lo build .additional classrooms because of the efforts of the pelitioners and the actions of the State, who is going to pay for this construction? The petitioners? The State'? The upshot of petitioners' suggestions is that the \"suggestions\" prove that the detachment would have a negative impact on desegregation in the PCSSD. Further, they ignore the fact lhat .much of the increase in black enroilment at Sylvan Hills is M-to-M students from- the LRSD. To discontinue or ecn diminish the specialty program, affects not only the; PCSSD but the LRSD as well. F..nrollmcnt The foasibility study at page 1 predicts the new district would contain 5,700 students. Alternative IV predicts 6,578. The supplemental submissions (Exhibit 5) predicts the new district will contain approx.imately 7,500 students if transfers cease. The numbers keep growing and growing. While the feasibility study forecasts that the PCSSD would remain .the .second largest district in the State, it is clear that a comparison of petitioners' Exhibit5 to its \"district size\" exhibit would relegate the PCSSD to only the sixth largest district in the State with fewer tban 10,500 students. (Before the Pulaski County school desegregation case was filed, the PCSSD boasted an enrollment of almost 33;000 students and was by far the largest school district h1 the State.) 42.SZ44-vl 14  I e l l ! Such a dramatic reduction in enrollment will undoubtedly require a reduction in force not only among teachers and staff but within the Central Office as well. Such dislocations, heartache and ,car.eer affecting decisions will be unnecessary if this Board finds the petition to be invalid. Further, lhe feasibility study points outthatdensity ofstudents per square mile would improve from 25 in. the current PCSSD to approximately 53 students per square mile- in 'the new dislrict. While the feasibility study boasts that this will irnprnve transportation in the new district, it singularly fails to point out that the current density of 25 students per square mile logically and .necessarily becomes far less in the residual PCSSD. This sets up the real potential for more and longer bus rides, less efficiency and an undoubted ne_gative impact upon desegregation and the district's ability to stem enrollment declines and to attract more students . The Stipulations The M~to-M stipulation and the magnet schools stipulation are just that: Stipulated agreements among all of the parties. Therefore, as a threshold matter, it would seem that the specific written consent of Joshua, the Knight Intervenors, the Norl.h Little Rock School District, the J,irtle Rock School District, the State and the PCSSD would be required before tllese \"agreements\" cm1ld be made operative as to a detaching district. Indeed, as w~ know from the Eig_hth Circuit, a District Coun cannot impose agreements but can only -accept or reject them. 921 .F.2d 1371@ 1388. Further. both stipulations are part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. It seems log.ical that the Agreement would have to be renegotiated and rc--cxecuted by all of the parties to the case to include the new district. Query, would the re, negotiated agreement then have to be submitted to the next session of the legislature to 428244-vJ 15 . I  dctcnnine if !he legislature was Willing l-0 fund tl1i modified agreement? Again, as the Eighth Circuit has taught us, the District Court cannot impose an agreement upon the parties to this case unless they all consent. I  Federal-Court An emerging strategy of the petitioners seems to be to shift as muc~ of the process ar,d decision making as possible to the. Federal District Court often re-assuring this 'Board that the Federal Court can do whatever is necessary to 1mpose obligations, agreements and the like. We have previously explained that the District Court is not all powerful. It cannot, for instance, as we have explained, tell teachers where they are going to teach. It cannot create capacity in sehoolswhere11one exist. Indeed, the current jurisdiction of the District Court 'is \"only\" to enforce the -SettlemGnt Agreement (which it has done) and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans (which it. continues to do). The detachment statute is, in effect, an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. So far as the PCSSD knows, this effort is unprecedented. It is also highly suspect. However, to the extent that the petitioners ,can convince lhis Board that \"the Federal Court will fix it\", it can perhaps win the authorization for an election, presumably hay..c ,a successful election followed by a large street party and then show up onthe District Court's doorstep with a ten page laundry list of issue!i to be decided. This scenario is not likely to result in a very happy District Court judge. 428244-vl 16  I  I The PCSSD Would Have To Rezone In no shape, .form or fashion does the proposed detachment auempt to follow current Board member 'zoneboundarics. For instance, Zone 5,. from which Board Member Carol Burgett was elected last year, is largely eviscerated. The detachment would require the residual PCSSD. to constitute new zones some seven years in advance of the next census. Tliis would constitute an unnecessary and unwarranted ~xpense and disruption to the governance of the residual PCSSD. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, this Board should determine that the petition is invalid and decline to aulhorize an e1ection. 428244-vl Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, .Suite 2.300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376:..9442 -- By ----'-=;,.,,\u0026lt;e---.----:...=-r--f=--- cy Special School 17 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER , JR . ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS , JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN JOHN 0 . DAVIS JJJOY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj. com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY BRUCE R . LINDSEY JAMES R . VAN DOVER Writer's Direct Dial No . 501-212-1273 mjoncs@wlj .com July 25, 2003 R5ElYED JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX . JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A . PRYOR J. MARX DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R . LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLER . WILSON C . TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK 0 . WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING Lia::Dsi=d IO pn,cti be\u0026amp;-e tbe UDilt/ Suta hlt:DI ud Tndt:mvt Olfice Enclosed is a courtesy copy of PCSSD's fourth motion to enforce settlement agreement and for allied relief, together with supporting memorandum brief and statement of material facts . The originals have been filed and the parties served. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: d,(__ \\ Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Mr. Ray Simon Mr. Scott Smith Mr. Will Bond Mr. Timothy Gauger Mr. Mark Burnett IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V . NO. 4:82CV00866WRW . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED )-c1.,f \\\u0026lt;J JY7uv{_ JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FOURTH MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR ALLIED RELIEF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD for its fourth motion to enforce Settlement Agreement, states: 1. This motion is brought both by the PCSSD and its Board of Directors. The individual directors are named defendants in this action. For purposes of this motion, Directors, Mildred Tatum, Pam Roberts, Don Baker, Jeff Shaneyfeld and Gwen Williams, are moving in both their official and individual capacities because of the equal rights issues asserted herein. 2. This motion is accompanied by a lengthy Statement of Material Facts. The movant respectfully suggests that the reader first examine this Statement for a full and complete context for this motion. 3. On July 14, 2003, the Arkansas State Board of Education purportedly acting - pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1501 , et seq., voted to order an election on September 434830-v1 - 16, 2003, for the purpose of allowing voters in the greater Jacksonville area to consider approval of a ballot measure to detach certain territory from the PCSSD and form a new school district. The statute does not provide for a vote by those residing in other areas of the PCS SD. 4. The statutory scheme, as well as the election which the State has authorized, violates the 1989 Settlement Agreement in this case. This Court has continuing jurisdiction over the State via the Arkansas Department of Education to enforce compliance with the Settlement Agreement. 5. The actions described above violate Section II.J of the Settlement Agreement which states in its entirety: 6. The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. [emphasis added] The above-described actions also violate Section ILL of the Settlement Agreement which states in pertinent part that: The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. 7. As the PCSSD will demonstrate, the creation of a \"new\" district as agreed to by the State Board of Education will both \"substantially affect the ability of the district to desegregate\" and will violate Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(b)(2)(b) since the detachment would \"hamper, delay or in any manner negatively affect desegregation efforts\" of the PCSSD. 434830-v1 2 8. The detachment, if successful in the State-authorized scheme, would call upon this Court to recognize a \"new defendant\" in this 20 year old case while the case is in its remedial phase, liability having been long ago established and subsequently settled in the 1989 Settlement Agreement. This Court should not and cannot embark upon such a slippery slope. Unless or until this case ends, the parties have been established, their liability adjudicated, their differences compromised and settled and a new and different entity should not be introduced to this litigation in the remedial phase. 9. The statute is also unconstitutional because it denies due process and equal protection to those patrons in the PCSSD who do not reside in the area proposed in the petition for detachment and therefore are not allowed to exercise their constitutional right to vote upon the issue. Specifically, Directors Tatum, Williams, Roberts, Shaneyfeld and Baker and all others similarly situated are being denied the opportunity to vote upon the detachment question even though each represents a zone of patrons and voters who will be directly and negatively affected if the detachment is successful. Further, each of them will be negatively affected individually if the detachment proves successful. 10. Discreet provisions of orders of this Court would be violated if the detachment proved successful. For instance, this Court noted on March 25, 2003, that: 434830-v1 Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. (Order, Exhibit 22 to Statement of Material Facts, at page 2.) 3 However, if the detachment proved successful, several hundred students who currently attend Cato and other schools in the area proposed for detachment would, in the eyes of the petitioners, be reassigned to the several Sylvan Hills schools. Simply stated, there is no room for these students, many of whom are black and no feasible alternative exists for reassignment that does not involve a significant bus ride. 11. The detachment, if successful, would also negatively impact this Court's order of January 28, 2003, which stated in pertinent part that: African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato Elementary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will remain 75 % Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, Exhibit 23 to Statement of Material Facts, at page 2.) The detachment would leave the Brushy Island students in the residual PCSSD but would take Cato from the PCSSD. The petitioners propose that these students be reassigned to Sylvan Hills as well. However, there is simply no room for these mainly black students and they would face a long bus ride somewhere. 12. Sylvan Hills has proven to be a popular destination for M-to-M students from Little Rock. Obviously, the detachment would place all of the Sylvan Hills schools well over capacity. Since the M-to-M stipulation specifies that M-to-M students can only be accepted on a space available basis, it is likely that all current M-to-M students would have to be evicted from Sylvan Hills if the detachment proved successful. 13. The detachment would artificially accelerate the evolution of the PCS SD to a majority black school district, facilitating the State's inevitable argument that, at such a point, 434830-v1 4 - M-to-M funding should end. The State should not be permitted to effect such an artificial change in enrollment percentages. 14. Mills University Studies High School was recently recognized by Newsweekas the twentieth \"best\" high school in the country. This is a remarkable achievement for any Arkansas school. However, if the detachment proves successful, approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment would no longer qualify for transfer to College Station, Fuller Middle and Mills. These three schools are among the centerpieces of Plan 2000 and previous desegregation plans and this Court should not tolerate an action that would likely wreck these successful desegregation programs. 15. If successful, the detachment would work a substantial negative impact upon the current employee force in the PCS SD. The PCS SD calculates it would have to undergo a reduction in force of approximately 475 employees. Since seniority controls such a reduction, the PCSSD would be left with an artificially senior teacher corps and with an artificially imposed salary schedule that would be top heavy in the highest paid teachers. Such an outcome would work a substantial financial hardship upon the PCSSD and interfere with its ability to desegregate. 16. Such a reduction in force would also artificially make the residual PCSSD teacher force whiter than it currently is since the PCSSD has been aggressive the past several years in hiring young minority teachers. These would be the first to be laid off in a reduction in force. 17. If the detachment were successful, Clinton Elementary would lose 124 students and would move from being 55 % black to 60 % black. 434830-v1 5 18. College Station would lose 61 students reducing its enrollment from 215 students to 159. This would also artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. 19. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972. The building capacity is only 925. Even if they could be accommodated, this infusion of students would increase the enrollment from 39 % black to 45 % black. 20. The detachment, if successful, would reduce the student population in the PCSSD to only approximately 10,500 students. It would change it from the second largest district in the State to only the sixth largest district. With a reduction in enrollment of approximately 7,500 students, the PCSSD would be substantially reduced in its capability to send and receive M-to-M students and to send magnet students to the stipulation magnets. 21. The current student density per square mile in the PCSSD is 25 students per square mile. The detachers calculate that the new district would improve this density to 53 students per square mile in the new district. Logically, however, the current density of 25 students per square mile in the current PCSSD would be significantly reduced leading to longer and less efficient transportation of students in the residual PCSSD and likely imposing an artificial and unwarranted busing burden upon black students. 22. The State Board granted the petition and in its subsequent order for elections based its decision largely upon \"the petitioners' willingness to seek, accept, and comply fully with any and all additional orders and requirements that might be imposed by the Federal Court ... \". The PCSSD submits that that which petitioners seek is legally impossible, particularly as respects the agreements entered into in this case. For instance, the M-to-M 434830-v1 6 - stipulation, the magnet stipulation and the 1989 Settlement Agreement are just that. They are agreements entered among the current parties and this Court cannot \"impose\" those agreements upon a new entity. Rather, all of the parties would have to consent and presumably the legislature would have to concur. 23. As the Court of Appeals has explained, the current jurisdiction of this Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans. The detachment statute is an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. The PCSSD knows of no precedent for this effort. 24. This motion is brought now because the action of the State Board in authorizing the election has created a clear and current case or controversy. Since the effects of a detachment are palpable and provable, it is respectfully submitted that this Court should exercise its jurisdiction now to end an effort which violates the Settlement Agreement and would work a manifest injury upon the ability of the PCSSD to carry out its Court approved plans and obligations and would have significant adverse outcomes financially and enrollment wise upon the other parties to this case. WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should enter its order finding that the Settlement Agreement has been violated or that the detachment would work an impermissible negative affect upon the PCSSD's efforts to desegregate and comply with Court orders and agreements entered into with the other parties. For all of these reasons, this Court should enter its order directing the State Board of Education to rescind its order of July 16, 2003, and cancel its authorization for an election. 434830-v1 7 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 Att Sc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 25, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 434830-v1 8 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roach ell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main . Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 434830-v1 9 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF FOURTII MOTION TO ENFORCE SETILEMENT AGREEMENT AND FOR ALLIED RELIEF REf,1~0 JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Simply stated, the 1989 Settlement Agreement with the State, to which the State Board of Education is a signatory, precludes any such usurpation of the District's sovereignty and independence, as would result from the detachment the State recently authorized. It is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to insure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement as well as the settlement plans. (Order dated January 13, 1995, at page 2, Docket No. 2337). The Settlement Agreement Provision Section II J of the 1989 comprehensive Settlement Agreement states in its entirety: 435830-v1 The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. [emphasis added] This language, which remains operative, was not some idle boilerplate or filler. Indeed, as we will explain further, it was not part of the original agreement between the State, LRSD and Joshua but was only negotiated after the State bad first reached agreement with the LRSD and  then turned its attention toward securing agreement from the PCSSD and the NLRSD. (Exhibit 2). Further, there was then a real and immediate specter of consolidation which prompted this negotiated language which, while it survived the legislative and judicial approval process, came under attack from many legislators, commentators and in editorials. (Exhibits 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 14). It should thus be clear that Section II J. was a key component of the settlement for which the PCSSD (as well as the NLRSD) separately negotiated. The reasons are clear. Not only was the PCSSD guarding against consolidation, but also against any new usurpation of its territory, facilities and assets similar to the appropriation (albeit by judicial order) that occurred in the early phases of this case. Absent this promise by the State, it had no logical reason to join the settlement. Were it to be either consolidated or carved up into pieces, it would have no reason to settle. While it is clear that many in the legislature and those \"commenting on the scene\" opposed Section II J., the fact remains that it is an integral part of the Settlement Agreement and retains full force and vitality today. In his June 4, 2003 letter (Exhibit 16), generated as part of the proceedings before the State Board, the Attorney General appropriately discussed the fact that while \"successor district\" language was included in the settlement agreement as respects the LRSD, he noted 435830-v1 2 that no such language was presented as regards the PCS SD or the NLRSD. As the Attorney General explained: All of this suggests that either (a) the parties simply did not anticipate that a \"successor\" district might be created from territory that was formerly within the PCSSD, or (b) the parties specifically intended that there would not be any such \"successor\" district created under any circumstances, or that any successor district would not be a party to the Settlement Agreement. Subparagraph (b) of course is the correct analysis because of the presence of Section II J. On the same page and same footnote the Attorney General further noted that: Logic suggests, however, that a group of individual schools could not so easily extricate themselves from federal court supervision (and court-imposed obligations) in a desegregation case by merely \"detaching\" themselves from a school district under supervision, at least not without the consent of all parties to the case and the Court overseeing the litigation. (Emphasis supplied). The Attorney General notes in his last footnote that: In this particular case, the parties with standing to object would be the State itself, the three Pulaski County districts, and the Joshua and Knight intervenors. Section II L. The principal motivation for the State to enter into and subsequently fund the Settlement Agreement was to minimize the dollar cost for its past constitutional violations and to obtain a release of all claims for all violations which had occurred prior to execution of the Settlement Agreement. While the State has been subjected to successful claims by the school districts for departures from the Settlement Agreement, (Statement 1s 20, 21, 22 and 23) it has, thus far, for over fourteen years, avoided a claim or contention that it has violated the constitution or 435830-v1 3 enacted statutes which either promote segregation or hamper desegregation. 1 However, the statute at issue, by its own legislative language, sets up an interesting dynamic not otherwise present in Arkansas law. As counsel for the Department of Education and the Attorney General's office have repeatedly pointed out: \"the state board is prohibited by law from approving any petition for detachment which hampers, delays or in any manner negatively affects desegregation efforts of a school district or districts in this state.\" (Exhibit 16) Indeed, it would appear that the legislature had the proscriptions of the Settlement Agreement in mind when it crafted this very rigorous test for detachment. The Settlement Agreement at page 10 states: \"The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the [Pulaski] Districts to desegregate.\" By ultimately approving a new school district, the State will have participated in a process that artificially accelerates the evolution of the PCCSD to a majority black school district. When all three districts become majority black, then the State will argue that its obligation to fund M-to-M payments will suddenly and abruptly end. (Indeed, a cynic might wonder if there are those in authority who may have already figured this out.) If and when this day comes, the financial consequences to the three current districts in this county would be crippling. 1 After each legislative session, the ADE invites the PCSSD, as well as the other Pulaski districts, to identify new legislation which the district believes will hamper or negatively affect its desegregation efforts. The PCSSD duly noted by letter dated April 26, 2002, that it believed the detachment statute at issue would negatively affect its desegregation efforts. 435830-v1 4 This Court has consistently reiterated the proposition that: \"A party may not unilaterally change the implementation or language of an agreement or order without the prior approval of the Court and/or the consent of the parties.\" (Order dated January 13, 1995, at page 10, Docket No. 2337). The State of Arkansas needs to focus on its obligation in the settlement to give the Pulaski County school districts special consideration to enable these districts to meet their numerous and burdensome obligations under the settlement. The Court reminds the State of the Eighth Circuit's specific findings about the State's complicated and lengthy history of promotion of unconstitutional racial segregation which has led to this interminable litigation. The swiftest and surest way out of the federal court is to abide by the terms and spirit of this Settlement Agreement, and this includes following proper procedures for modification of the settlement. (Emphasis in the original) (Order dated January 13, 1995, at pages 16, 17, Docket No. 2337). The Equal Protection Claim Under the new detachment statute, when part of a school district attempts to detach itself from the school district, and become its own entity, a majority vote of only the voters in the area to be detached is permitted. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-1504(3)(C). This provision is clearly unconstitutional and denies equal protection of the laws to those voters remaining in the original school district who are not allowed to vote even though they will be materially affected by detachment. The United States Supreme Court has stated that if a state statute is challenged on the grounds that it grants the right to vote in a limited purpose election to some otherwise qualified voters, but denies it to others, then the court must be called upon to determine whether the exclusion from the election is necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Kramer v. 435830-v1 5 Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 633 (1969); Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 704 (1969). The Kramer court went further to point out, that when the State's sole justification for the statute is that the classification provides merely a reasonable basis upon which to determine which voters have a special interest in the outcome of the election, then the statute fails to meet the \"exacting standard of precision we require of statutes which selectively distribute the franchise .\" Kramer, 395 U.S. at 632. In determining whether there has been a violation of the equal protection clause, the court's attention should be focused on two inquiries: (1) whether there is a genuine difference in interests among the two groups that the State has created, and (2) if so, whether any resulting increase . in voting strength of one group over the other amounts to discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. Town of Lockport, N. Y. v. Citizens for Cmty. Action At - the Local Level, Inc., 430 U.S. 259, 268 (1976). In several cases the Supreme Court has allowed the electorate of a special-purpose unit of government to be apportioned to give more weight to a certain sector which is found to be most affected by the government unit's functions. Id. at 266. But, as Kramer points out, the classification of voters into \"interested\" and \"non-interested\" groups must be reasonably precise, and the State must have a compelling state interest that the statute, and its classification of voters, furthers. Kramer, 395 U.S. at 633. Several United State Supreme Court cases demonstrate these principles. For example, in Kramer the court found it was unconstitutional and a violation of equal protection to restrict the voting in a school board election to either those people who paid property taxes or rented homes, or to those people who had children enrolled in the schools. Id. The court applied 435830-v1 6 - heightened scrutiny, and reasoned that this distinction among voters was not necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Id. The court did not afford the usual presumption of constitutionality to this election statute. Presumptions of constitutionality for statutes are based on the premise that the state governments are structured to fairly represent people. Id. at 628. But, when the challenge to the statute is basically a challenge of the basic premise, the premise can no longer serve as the basis for presuming constitutionality. Id. Additionally, the court in Kramer pointed out that the statute defining who could vote in school board elections was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, because it was simultaneously too over inclusive both as well as too under inclusive. Id. at 632. The court stated that these election criteria excluded \"senior citizens and others living with children or relatives; military personnel, and others who live on tax exempt property; boarders and lodgers; parents who neither lease nor own qualifying property and whose children are too young to attend school; and parents who neither own nor lease property and whose children attend private school.\" Id. at 630. Further, the Supreme Court in Cipriano, decided that a Louisiana statute conferring the right to vote in bond issuance elections only to those people who paid property taxes was unconstitutional as denying equal protection. Cipriano, 395 U.S. at 704. Just as in Kramer, the Cipriano court pointed out that when the vote, in a special purpose election, is given to some people, but denied to others then the court must determine whether the exclusions are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Id. The Cipriano court also noted that it is unconstitutional to deny the vote to some people because of the way the members of that group might vote. Id. at 705. 435830-v1 7 Similar to the voting classifications drawn in Kramer and Cipriano, the Arkansas statute which only allows voters in the area to be detached to vote in the detachment proceedings, and denies the vote to those in the remaining area is unconstitutional, because the statute offends the notion of \"one person, one vote.\" By denying interested and affected voters the right to vote, the state is ultimately denying equal protection of the laws to those who are not allowed to vote in this school district election. This distinction of the voters does not further a compelling state interest, and is therefore unconstitutional.2 First, as indicated by the Kramer court, this statute should not be given a presumption of constitutionality because the challenge to the statute is to the basic premise that the laws are created by a fair process. Because the process is being challenged in this case, the usual presumption of constitutionality cannot be afforded. Therefore, in analyzing whether there has been an equal protection violation the court must focus on whether there is a genuine difference of interests among the two groups the state has created, and if so whether the resulting increase in voter strength in one of the groups amounts to discrimination under the Equal Protection clause. Since the Arkansas statute allows only those people residing in the area to be detached the vote, one gets no further than the first step under this analysis. There 2 Indeed, the principal interest being endorsed by the State in this instance is to apply detachment only to the PCSSD. As we noted in our State Court complaint (Exhibit 20), the detachment provision applies by definition only to the PCSSD and to no other school district. Thus, is not even dealing with \"special purpose elections\" Statewide but only to one that is limited to the PCSSD. Stated another way, to the extent that others in other school districts might wish detachment, there is no statutory provision available to them to seek it. The detachment statutes apply neither to the largest district in the State, middle sized districts or the smallest. It applies only to the PCSSD. 435830-v1 8 is no real and distinct difference, and certainly not a compelling difference, in the interests between those in the Jacksonville area and those remaining in the Pulaski County Special School District. The state must have a compelling reason or justification for distinguishing between those wanting to be detached and those who would remain from the original school district. It is not enough to say that distinguishing them in this manner is for purposes of determining who is interested or affected by the election and who is not. The residents of the PCSSD who do not seek to be detached have a real and palpable interest in the matter of the detachment, yet they are being denied the right to vote in the election. If Jacksonville were to detach, this would have a definite and immediate impact on the processes and operations of the other schools that would remain in the PCSSD. School funding, transportation and busing, teacher school assignments, and student assignments would most certainly be affected. The school district would have to immediately reconfigure its processes, resources and operations. Therefore, as a result of the sudden impact the detachment would have on the entire PCS SD, it is disingenuous to claim that those residing in the area that would remain the PCSSD are not interested or affected by this vote. Further, this distinction the State has made is not so precise as to satisfy the exacting standard set forth in Kramer. Just as in Kramer, this election statute is not narrowly tailored to achieving the goal of franchising those people interested or affected by the vote. The statute is over inclusive in the sense that it allows people in Jacksonville to vote that have, at best, a remote or indirect interest and are not affected by the school detachment election whatsoever. For example, a senior citizen residing in Jacksonville with no children, and no more children 435830-v1 9 expected in their lifetime are allowed to vote in this school detachment election. A single airman with no children living in base housing during a two year assignment may vote. On the other hand the statute is under inclusive because it denies the right to vote to those people in the PCSSD who do not live in the Jacksonville area and who would be severely affected by the outcome of the election, such as those people with children currently attending a school in the PCSSD particularly schools such as College Station, Fuller and Mills whose very programs are threatened by the detachment. This distinction is not made with the precision necessary to safeguard equal protection of the law. Negative Impact Upon Desegregation Although the June 4 letter of the Attorney General was necessarily fairly general in most respects, it was quite specific as regards certain areas. As the Attorney General opined: [a]ny detachment of a significant amount of territory from the 435830-v1 PCSSD could almost certainly be expected to have an \"impact\" on the PCSSD's ability to comply with its desegregation plan and have an impact on the operation of the Settlement Agreement, including the Agreement's provisions concerning M-M students and the Magnet schools in the LRSD. The Court of Appeals has previously succinctly explained the M-to-M arrangement: M-to-M students are peculiar to the districts that are parties to the Settlement Agreement. They are students who are of the majority race in their home districts, and who voluntarily transfer to .another Pulaski County district where they are of the minority race. The State, by way of a funding formula contained in the Settlement Agreement, compensates both the home district and the receiving district for each M-to-M student. The home, or sending, district receives one-half of the state aid that it would have received if the student had remained in the district, while the receiving, or host, district receives the full cots of educating the student. (United States Court of Appeals, No. 95-1481EA, Docket No. 2718, Opinion filed May 15, 1996). 10 The three specialty schools in the southeast portion of Pulaski County all contain programs which were specifically designed for and gained Court approval for desegregation. The PCSSD calculates that approximately 200 students from the area proposed for detachment attended those schools last year. These students are necessary for the continued vitality of these programs, all of which feed to Mills University Studies High School, recently recognized as the 20th \"best\" high school in the country. Newsweek, May 2003. Included as Exhibit 17 is a memorandum from Davis Hendricks, the District Director of Talented and Gifted Programs, prepared the day after the Board's June 9 hearing. The memorandum explains at least two things. First, it shows the extensive array of AP courses currently available at both Jacksonville High School and North Pulaski High School. It also explains in some detail how the detachment would negatively impact the College Station, Fuller and Mills programs. The PCS SD calculates that the detached district would have 3, 700 elementary students of whom only 32.7% would be black. At the secondary level, the PCSSD calculates an enrollment of 3,757 and that only 32.4% of those students would be black. Since the petitioners calculated that the residual PCSSD would be 39 % black, there is a difference of six and one-half percentage points. The PCSSD calculates that the new district would enroll 7,457 students. Individual Schools As for individual schools, the impact upon Clinton Elementary is profound. Detachment would cause the loss of 124 students and would push Clinton from 55 % black to 60 % black. It is required to be no more than 50 % black. 435830-v1 11 Clinton is an inter-district school. The Court of Appeals has specifically stated that one of the elements of the Settlement Agreement it considers to be crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved, is the operation of the agreed number of inter-district schools according to the agreed timetable. (Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F .2d 253,256 (8th Cir. 1991)). The PCSSD projects that 61 students would leave College Station reducing its enrollment from 215 to 159. This would artificially increase the black population at College Station from the current 55 % to 59 % black. The enrollment at Sylvan Hills Middle School would increase from 878 to 972, the African-American percentage would increase from 39% to 45 % and the building capacity of 925 would be grossly exceeded. Court Orders As recently as March 25, 2003, this Court noted that: Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. (Order, March 25, 2003) Accordingly, the PCSSD reiterates its point that the displaced students, many of whom are black, who the petitioners submit can \"easily be accommodated at Sylvan Hills\" simply cannot be. 435830-v1 12 Part of the detachment proposal flies in the face of another order entered by the District Court on January 28, 2003. In evaluating and approving the PCSSD plans for the redesign of Harris Elementary School, this Court ruled that: African American students from Brushy Island will not be reassigned to Harris but will continue to attend Cato Elementary. Cato Elementary student enrollment will remain 75 % Caucasian (white) and 25% African American (black). (Order, January 28, 2003). However, the petitioners are excluding the Brushy Island students from Cato and are leaving them to be assigned somewhere in the PCS SD. The petitioners say send them to Sylvan Hills but there is no room. The Court has said they will not be reassigned to Harris. Where can they go? Another aspect of the Court's January order as respects Harris requires the PCSSD to vigorously recruit minority students (white) from north of the river for placement at Harris. The Director of Equity and Multicultural Education was ordered to direct this \"intensification\" of effort. Of course, if most of the PCSSD north of the river is allowed to detach, it will render the PCSSD substantially unable to comply with this order. Sylvan Hills Petitioners make some rather astonishing suggestions regarding Sylvan Hills High School. At page 6 of counsel's letter (Exhibit 17), the following statements are made: 435830-v1 Moreover, even assuming a real capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School, the District Court could address the problem in a number of ways to avoid any negative affect on desegregation. One option may be to revise the attendance zones for all of PCSSD's high schools. The ODM reported that the PCSSD has not revised its attendance zones in \"many years\" and recommended that it do so. See ODM March 26, 2003, pp. 19 13 and 21. Another option may be to discontinue the school's specialty program that allows students residing outside the attendance zone to attend the school. This program was implemented to increase the African-American enrollment at the school at a time when it was below the minimum of 20 percent. The African-American enrollment at the school in 2002-03 was 35 percent. This calls into question the continuing need for the program to increase African-American enrollment. A third option may be to build additional classrooms at Sylvan Hills High School. The PCSSD recently added new classrooms at Robinson High School to address overcrowding at that school. In short, a capacity problem at Sylvan Hills High School can easily be addressed without negatively affecting desegregation. As to revising attendance zones or disestablishing a specialty program, a cardinal rule in desegregation is \"if it ain't broke, don't fix it\". Any effort to disestablish a successful program would immediately be attacked by Joshua. Moreover, if the PCS SD is compelled to build additional classrooms because of the - efforts of the petitioners and the actions of the State, who is going to pay for this construction? The petitioners? The State? The upshot of petitioners' suggestions is that the \"suggestions\" prove that the detachment would have a negative impact on desegregation in the PCSSD. Further, they ignore the fact that much of the increase in black enrollment at Sylvan Hills is M-to-M students from the LRSD. To discontinue or even diminish the specialty program, affects not only the PCSSD but the LRSD as well. Enrollment While the feasibility study forecasts that the PCSSD would remain the second largest district in the State, the PCSSD calculates it would be relegated to only the sixth largest district in the State with fewer than 10,500 students. (Before the Pulaski County school desegregation 435830-v1 14 case was filed, the PCSSD boasted an enrollment of almost 33,000 students and was by far the largest school district in the State.) Such a dramatic reduction in enrollment will undoubtedly require a reduction in force not only among teachers and staff but within the Central Office as well. Such dislocations, heartache and career affecting decisions are simply unnecessary. Further, the feasibility study (Exhibit 15 at page 39) points out that density of students per square mile would improve from 25 in the current PCSSD to approximately 53 students per square mile in the new district. While the feasibility study boasts that this will improve transportation in the new district, it singularly fails to point out that the current density of 25 students per square mile logically and necessarily becomes far less in the residual PCSSD. This sets up the real potential for more and longer bus rides, less efficiency and an undoubted negative impact upon desegregation and the district's ability to stem enrollment declines and to attract more students. Strong Precedent Supports The PCSSD Position Many unsuccessful efforts to detach from districts operating pursuant to desegregation orders litter the legal landscape in this jurisprudence. The latest appears to be Lee vs. Chambers County Board of Education, 849 F.Supp. 1474, (M.D.Ala. 1994). The case is an outgrowth of Lee vs. Macon County Board of Education, 267 F.Supp. 458 (M.D.Ala.) (threejudge court), aff'd sub nom. Wallace v. United States, 389 U.S. 215, 88 S.Ct. 415, 19 L.Ed.2d 422 (1967). In that case, a three-judge district court ordered Alabama's local school districts, including Chambers County and Lanett City, to disestablish their racially segregated - and discriminatory systems. 435830-v1 15 While the Lee case is procedurally and statutorily complicated, it does bear remarkable similarities to the case at bar. By 1990, the City of Valley, located within Chambers County, had become frustrated with the Chambers County Board of Education believing it had ignored requests to improve the schools in the City of Valley. Id. at 1478. The City of Valley attempted to form its own separate school district which was opposed by the county. Among the complaints of the City of Valley was that the county enrollment had been declining, that historically there had been a tension between the Valley area and the rest of the county, and that no new facilities had been built in the Valley area since the early 1980s. As part of its proposal to create its separate school system, Valley agreed to abide by any orders of the Court which orders are designed to assure that such a system will not impede the desegregation process in Chambers County. It also committed itself to operate a totally integrated system including utilizing existing attendance zones. Id. Valley considered at least three options for configuring the district but chose Option 1 because it would leave existing attendance zones intact, cause the least student disruption, allow children to attend schools they or their parents had historically attended and effect no changes in the remaining schools. Id. at 1485. Among the factors that were not considered by Valley was the affect upon children having special educational needs, the Court pointing out that these costs are not fully funded from State or Federal sources and that the local cost for these programs can be a substantial burden. 435830-v1 16 We note that Jacksonville has performed no such analysis in this case either, even though the PCSSD facilities for children with multi handicapping conditions are all located in schools proposed for detachment. As the Court noted in Lee. (Id. at 1490) If the court permits the Valley district to operate, the Chambers County district would have to equip and operate special education programs now offered only at schools in the Valley area, such as the pre-school handicapped student program at Fairfax Elementary School and the gifted student program at Fairfax Elementary School. After a long discussion of the facts and the law, the Court finally came down to the issue of \"Practicability\". Beginning at page 1498, the Court explained that: (Id. at 1498) (Id. at 1498) 435830-v1 The court must also consider whether Valley's proposal introduces a level of complexity to the desegregation process in Chambers County that is so great that it will itself be an impediment to the speedy and effective elimination of the remaining vestiges of the dual school system. Valley takes the position that the ongoing desegregation process in the Chambers County school district will not be affected adversely by its establishment and independent operation as a separate system because any issues that may arise can be negotiated between the school systems, resolved by the State Superintendent of Education, or be determined by this court. Thus, at a time when Chambers County school authorities should be devoting their energies and attention to implementing the recent Orders of this court and to devising and implementing the comprehensive blueprint for final constitutional compliance as agreed by the parties and that is required by the 1993 Agreed Order, if operation of a Valley district were permitted, they would instead be enmeshed in negotiations, state administrative 17 (Id. at 1499) - (Id. at 1499) (Id. at 1500) proceedings, and possible further appearances before this court to resolve disputed matters. If the City of Valley is permitted to operate a separate and independent system, these efforts-and the progress of the Chambers County public schools toward unitary status-will become far more complex. For example, each teacher assignment decision presently is affected by current assignments throughout the existing Chambers County school district. To the extent that full constitutional compliance has not been attained-and it currently has not been attained at the time a separate Valley district begins operations, both school systems will share in the responsibility for achieving the original goal of having racially non-identifiable faculties among all of other schools that either operates. If the districts operate independently, however, ensuring the realization of this goal will inevitably cause friction and ultimately involve this court in a level of detailed supervision and administration of local schools that would be unwieldy and unwise. The court finds that the introduction of an independent decisionmaking body (a new school district) in the midst of the desegregation process in Chambers County will greatly complicate planning and implementation of measures necessary for constitutional compliance, will increase the potential for conflict, will be likely to involve this court in an unnecessarily detailed level of supervision and administration (thus displacing local control), and ultimately will impede the County's progress toward a unitary system from which all vestiges of past discrimination have been eliminated. In its conclusions of law, the Court appropriately traced the cases from the United States Supreme Court which culminate in the lead decision: 435830-v1 Over 20 years ago, the Supreme Court firmly established the test which must be applied in situations such as this: 18 435830-v1 We have today held that any attempt by state of local officials to carve out a new school district from an existing district that is in the process of dismantling a dual school system \"must be judged according to whether it hinders or furthers the process of school desegregation. If the proposal would impede the dismantling of a dual system, then a district court, in the exercise of its remedial discretion, may enjoin it from being carried out.\" United States v. Scottland Neck Bd. of Educ., 401 U.S. 484, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2214, 2217, 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972) (citing Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 401 U.S. 451 , 460, 92 S. Ct. 2196, 2202, 33 L.Ed.2d 51 (1972)). In Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, the city which wished to form and operate a splinter school district made much the same argument as that of Valley here: ... Emporia advances arguments that a separate system is necessary to achieve quality education for city residents, and that it is unfair in any event to force the city to continue to send its children to schools over which the city, because of the character of its arrangement with the county, has very little control. Id. at 467, 92 S.Ct. at 2205. The Supreme Court's answer to that argument must guide the court in its decision in the case at bar: The District Court, with its responsibility to provide an effective remedy for segregation in the entire city-county system could not property allow the city to make its part of that system more attractive where such a result would be accomplished at the expense of the children remaining in the county. Id. at 468, 92 S.Ct. at 2206. The year before, the Fifth Circuit had dealt with the issue of a splinter school district in a case involving Alabama splinters (Pleasant Grove, Vestavia, Midfield and Homewood) withdrawing from their parent (Jefferson County). Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Ed., 448 F .2d 403 (5th Cir., 1971 (\"Stout I\") [FN26] The court held: .. . [W]here the formulation of splinter school districts, albeit validly created under state law, have the effect of 19 435830-v1 thwarting the implementation of a unitary school system, the district court may not ... recognize their creation. Id. at 404 (footnote omitted). On remand, the district court ordered the splinter districts to accept a proper role in the desegregation of the county system. This was affirmed on appeal, Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 466 F2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1972) (\"Stout II\"), cert. denied, sub nom., Stripling v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 410 U.S. 928, 93 S.Ct. 1361, 35 L.Ed.2d 589 (1973), with the Fifth Circuit holding that legally created splinter school districts could be disregarded if their existence thwarted implementation of a unitary school system in the county as a whole. The court went on to say that courts should not remove local control indefinitely and that sovereignty should be returned to a splinter district when the splinter demonstrates \"by clear and convincing evidence\" that it is able and intends to comply with the court's orders concerning its role in the desegregation of the county school district. Id. at 1215. Valley argues that the latter holding in Stout II should cause this court to authorize it to operate a separate school system because it has pledged to the court that it would follow any order which the court might issue as to the role which the Valley district should play in assisting to complete desegregation of the schools in Chambers County. Valley also emphasizes its commitment to operate an integrated system, even hopefully a \"model\" system, within its new district for the benefit of children of all races. While the court accepts the sincerity of Valley's officer, accepts Valley's assurance that it intends to operate a fully integrated school system that would be eligible to be adjudged a unitary system if judged along, and accepts Valley's commitment that it has no intention to impede the progress of desegregation in the county system, this begs the real issue. As the Supreme Court has stated, \"[t]he existence of a permissible purpose cannot sustain any action that has an impermissible effect.\" Wright, 407 U.S. at 462, 92 S.Ct. at 2203. The issue here is not whether Valley could create a fully integrated unitary system for itself, or whether Valley is willing to accept a role in desegregating the county system. The basic issue before the court is whether a separate Valley system can be operated at this time, even accepting whatever role the court might assign it, in a way which does not impede the final dismantling of a dual school system in Chambers County. (Id. at 1500, 1501). 20 (Id. at 1502) (Id. at 1503) (Id. at 1503) The court has carefully considered Valley's proposals. Although it has expressed preferences, Valley has suggested several alternatives designed to address the various Green factors, all of which it is willing to accept. And, while the burden of proof is properly on Valley, the court has struggled with Valley's request that it \"mandate a desegregation plan that incorporates, recognizes and accommodates the existence of and in turn operation of a city school system by the Valley City Board of Education.\" (Brief in Support of Amended Petition to Intervene on Behalf of the Valley City Board of Education and the City of Valley, Alabama.). The court has concluded that it cannot be done at this time. What we must all seek -- the parties, the lawyers, and the court -is to finally remedy the constitutional violations created by the old state-imposed system of segregated schools to the end that the federal courts no longer have to supervise the operation of the public schools of Chambers County, not to adopt a patchwork approach which depends on continued court involvement to make it work. The facts in this case impel the court to the inevitable conclusion that this ultimate objective for the Chambers County schools would be impeded by the operation of a Valley school system at this time. Accordingly, the court will deny Valley's request to operate as a separate school district. Teacher Deployment As to teacher deployment, the petitioners stake out the naive position that the Federal District Court could simply order all the teachers to stay where they are. (Exhibit 17 at 8). This assumption ignores the realities of teacher unions, teacher contracts and previous admonitions from the United States Court of Appeals. For instance, the PCSSD successfully 435830-v1 21 enjoined an on-going teacher strike in 1996. The union appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals arguing that the union negotiated contract between the PCSSD and the Teachers' Union was none of the District Court's business. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversed the District Court and explained to the parties that the role of the District Court is to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which is silent as to the master contracts), but not to otherwise interfere with the rights of employees and organizations of employers. 112 F.3d 953@ 955. Petitioners' position is completely silent regarding recognition of a new teacher organization for a new district. Is this or is this not part of their proposed calculus? As the PCSSD knows from prior difficult and trying circumstances, many teachers prefer working in a district which recognizes a union. The Stipulations The M-to-M stipulation and the magnet schools stipulation are just that: Stipulated agreements among all of the parties. Therefore, as a threshold matter, it would seem that the specific written consent of Joshua, the Knight Intervenors, the North Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District, the State and the PCSSD would be required before these \"agreements\" could be made operative in a detaching district. Indeed, as we know from the Eighth Circuit, a District Court cannot impose agreements but can only accept or reject them. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1388. Further, both stipulations are part of the 1989 Settlement Agreement. It seems logical that the Agreement would have to be renegotiated and reexecuted by all of the parties to the case to include the new district. Query, would the renegotiated agreement then have to be submitted to the next session of the legislature to determine if the legislature was willing to fund this modified agreement? Again, as the Eighth 435830-v1 22 Circuit has taught us, the District Court cannot impose an agreement upon the parties to this case unless they all consent. The PCSSD Would Have To Rezone Zones 4 and 5 would be completely removed from the PCSSD. The detachment would require the residual PCSSD to constitute new zones some seven years in advance of the next census. This would constitute an unnecessary and unwarranted expense and disruption to the governance of the residual PCS SD. Time has yet to permit an analysis as to the effect such rezoning would have upon those protected by the Voting Rights Act if detachment was successful. Federal Court The strategy of the petitioners seems to be to shift as much of the process and decision - making as possible to the Federal District Court often re-assuring the State Board that the Federal Court can do whatever is necessary to impose obligations, agreements and the like. We have previously explained that the District Court is not all powerful. It cannot, for instance, as we have explained, tell teachers where they are going to teach. It cannot create capacity in schools where none exist. Indeed, the current jurisdiction of the District Court is \"only\" to enforce the Settlement Agreement (which it has done) and to monitor and enforce the desegregation plans (which it continues to do). The detachment statute is, in effect, an effort by a State to confer jurisdiction upon a Federal Court. So far as the PCSSD knows, this effort is unprecedented. It is also highly suspect. 435830-v1 23 However, petitioners successfully convinced the Board that \"the Federal Court will fix it\" , and won authorization for the election. Presuming a successful election followed by a large street party, the new district would then show up on the District Court's doorstep with a ten page laundry list of issues to be decided. This scenario is not calculated to advance the ultimate resolution of the case and should be ended now. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should determine that the statutes violate the Settlement Agreement, are an unconstitutional denial of equal protection, and will negatively impact desegregation and the ultimate resolution of this case. 435830-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By '-y)7 ' ?~ ~0~ M. _Srunuel Jones III (769 0) A-ifurneys 'or Pulaski c6un Special School strict 24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July ;25, 2003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway . Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 435830-v1 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 M.S~nesII( 25 .. I  II II II II II  I I I I I I I .. I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW  PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS History of the Settlement Agreement RE?L~D JUL 2 8 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS  INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. 1982. The LRSD sues the State, the PCSSD and the NLRSD successfully seeking consolidation of the three districts in Pulaski County. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1376. 2. 1985. The Court of Appeals rejects consolidation but orders that the boundary between LRSD and PCSSD be adjusted. 921 F.2d 1371@ 1377. 3. 1985. This boundary adjustment caused PCSSD to lose fourteen schools and over one-third of its tax base. 4. Late 1988. Initial settlement discussions are commenced among the State, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 921 F.2d 1371 @ 1376. 5. January 12, 1989. Senator Jerry Jewell introduces Senate Bill 39 to consolidate the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special School District schools . (Exhibit 1) 434696-v1 I   I 1:  .- 1  I I I I .. I I 6. January 31, 1989. The State Board, LRSD and Joshua Intervenors reach a proposed settlement. The State's attorney reports that \"meetings to obtain the agreement of the other parties are underway today between attorneys and representatives of the State Board, PCSSD and NLRSD.\" (Exhibit 2) 7. February 9, 1989. The State hires the national law firm of Hogan \u0026amp; Hartson which specialized in school desegregation to advise it concerning desegregation. (Exhibit 3) 8. February 14, 1989. Counsel for the LRSD delivers a draft of Proposed Settlement Agreement to the State's attorney. This draft does not contain a Section II J . (Exhibit 4) 9. March 1989. The settlement is agreed to by all of the parties. The final version contains Section II J. (Exhibit 5) It is submitted to the legislature for funding . 10. March 3, 1989. In an editorial discussing the settlement, the Arkansas Gazette notes that: \"A key provision is that the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts recognize that they remain 'independent, sovereign desegregating' districts. This could become an impediment to a countywide consolidation in the future, and if so it is an unfortunate provision.\" (Exhibit 6) 11. March 7, 1989. The Arkansas Gazette reports that the county district's attorney told the county board that the settlement went through 27 revisions before being made public because of the complexity of the issues. (Exhibit 7) 12. March 11, 1989. In explaining the settlement to the Joint Budget Committee, the State's attorney noted that: \"This agreement is so fragile that if it starts to unravel in any way, if there's any kind of modification to it, it's going to fall apart and unravel in 100 434696-v1 2 I   I I I  I I I I I I -~ I different ways.\" In the same article, Senator Max Howell noted he did not want to vote for the settlement if it meant forever prohibiting consolidation of the three county districts. \"I'm not antagonistic toward the dollars, but I am concerned that I understand the small print.\" (Exhibit 8) 13. March 12, 1989. One statewide commentator, in characterizing Section II J, opined that: \"A brazen provision slipped into this settlement at the last minute guarantees there will be no consolidation of the school districts. Surprise!\" (Exhibit 9) 14. March 16, 1989. The Arkansas Senate approves the bill funding the settlement but adds an amendment asking the Federal Courts to consider four changes in the settlement including: \"Disapproval of language that would retain the autonomy of the three Pulaski County districts.\" As Senator Max Howell stated: \"I would hope the Court would be aware that we in the Legislature feel the folks who caused this should not continue to be in control of the situation.\" (Exhibit 10) The press reported that: \"Legislators have expressed concern that the provision would forever bar the State from merging the three districts, and the State Education Department's attorney told them Monday that McCutcheon (the Special Master) apparently shared that concern.\" (Exhibit 10) 15. March 18, 1989. Press reports described II J as one of the \"key\" provisions of the settlement. (Exhibit 11) 16. March 24, 1989. Mr. Herschel Friday writes the attorneys for the parties noting that: \"During the debate which preceded the vote to fund the settlement in this case, I was repeatedly questioned on whether changes requested by the legislature could be made in the settlement. A copy of the requested changes is enclosed for your 434696-v1 3       I I I . I  I ready reference. I agreed to follow through to see that the legislative requests were duly considered by the parties and to use my best efforts in this regard. . . . Will you please discuss these requests with your clients so that we can meet in the near future and address these matters.\" (Exhibit 12) A copy of the requested changes, which included Section II J, is attached as (Exhibit 13) . 17. March 31, 1989. Counsel for the AEA informs Mr. Friday that they object to removing any of the items from the settlement agreement. (Exhibit 14) 18. December 11 , 1989. The District Court purports to approve the settlement agreement but only after imposing certain modifications. 726 F.Supp. 1544, 1549 . 19. December 12, 1990. The Court of Appeals reverses the District Court, ruling that the Settlement Agreement should have been approved as written by the parties. 971 F.2d 160@ 164, 165 . Previous Efforts To Enforce Violations Of The Settlement Agreement 20. At least three times during the decade of the 1990s, the Pulaski districts were forced to sue the State to enforce the Settlement Agreement. 21. On January 13, 1995, the District Court ruled that the State had violated the Settlement Agreement as respects Workers' Compensation payments due the three Pulaski districts. (Docket No. 2337). This order was affirmed on appeal. 22. On January 13, 1995, the District Court ruled that the State had violated the Settlement Agreement as respects \"loss funding\" for M-to-M students (Docket No. 2337) and the financial award was affirmed on appeal. 23. Later, the District Court rules that the State has violated the Settlement Agreement as respects reimbursement for teacher retirement and health insurance benefits due 434696-v1 4 I  I I I I I I II I  l _i I . I . I le I the three Pulaski districts. This matter was subsequently settled and the three districts continue to receive these payments to this day. The Detachment Effort 24. 2001. The General Assembly enacts ACA 6-13-1501, et seq. Representatives of the PCSSD testify against the measure. The statute permits detachment under specified circumstances but only for districts with an average membership of at least 15,000 students but not more than 20,000 students. The PCSSD is the only district in the State of Arkansas which fits this criterion. 25. November 21, 2002. A so-called feasibility study for forming an independent school district in Northeast Pulaski County detached from The Pulaski County Special School District is completed. (Exhibit 15) 26. The study examines three alternative areas for detachment and concludes at page 39 that Alternative I be selected. (Exhibit 15) 27. February 25, 2003. An \"Addendum\" to the feasibility study is completed and is inserted in the back of the November 21, 2002, study behind page 89, the concluding page of the November study. (Exhibit 15) 28. March, 2003. A petition drive is commenced, subsequently concluded and petitions are delivered on May 19, 2003, to the Arkansas Department of Education. 29. April 15, 2003. The Legislature approves an amendment to ACA 6-13-1501, et seq. adding a criterion allowing detachment from school districts which encompass a total area of 700 square miles or more. The Pulaski district, at 726 square miles, is the only district which meets this criterion. 434696-v1 5        ,      le I I 30. May 30, 2003 . Carolyn Staley certifies that the petition has sufficient signatures. 31. June 4, 2003. The Attorney General's office, as required by this statutory scheme, renders an opinion but states he is unable to clearly opine as to whether or not the statutory requirements have been met because of the lack of information in the feasibility study. (Exhibit 16) 32. June 9, 2003. The State Board of Education conducts a hearing on the detachment petition but delays action. It instructs the petitioners to \"answer the questions\" raised by the Attorney General and to submit that information to the Attorney General's office so that the Attorney General may issue a \"definitive\" opinion on the issue. 33 . June 27, 2003 . The petitioners deliver their supplemental materials to the State Board and to the Attorney General's office including an opinion from an attorney regarding the affects or lack thereof upon desegregation. (Exhibit 17) 34. July 11, 2003. The Attorney General issues a new opinion which, while still highly qualified in many respects, opines that the petition could be granted if certain findings are made. (Exhibit 18) 35. July 11, 2003 . The State Board of Education, in the afternoon, gives notice that it has scheduled a hearing to take up this matter again on July 14, 2003. 36. The PCSSD objects to the timing of the meeting and the lack of notice. (Exhibit 19) 37. July 14, 2003 . The State Board of Education conducts another hearing and votes unanimously to authorize an election on the detachment issue. 434696-v1 6 I le I I I I I I I -I I I I I I  I I 38. 39. July 16, 2003. The State Board issues its \"Order for Election\". (Exhibit 20) July 24, 2003 . The PCSSD files suit in Pulaski County Circuit Court arguing that the Detachment Statute is unconstitutional and that the petition is invalid. (Exhibit 21) 434696-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 7 I I I I I I I I - I I I I I I I  I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July J.(io03 , a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 434696-v1 8 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE II On July.2~003, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the  following :  II   I I I  I I Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Ray Simon Director of the Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1071 Mr. Will Bond 602 W. Main Jacksonville, AR 72076 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 434696-v1 8 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Edudation #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Raymond Simon Director State Board of Eaucation JoNell Caldwell, Chair Little Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Calvin King Marianna Randy Lawson Bentonville Ma~- Rebick u;7:'ffock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia REl, ... .-vED JUL 2 9 2003 OFFICE OF Arkansas D EGREGATIOH MONITORING Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 July 28, 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 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 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month ofJuly 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ia~ General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 2 9 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAlNTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for July 2003. Respectfully Submitted, ~ Attorney, 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 July __ , 2003, 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. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers \u0026amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 j.1aL~ Smit IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL OFFICE OF PLAINTIF~SEGREGATION MONITORING 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 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. Us_!:! 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 July 31 , 2003 l@b.!iiij1w:~b.~ffii:;~~ii!ir~B~Jli~f.~'2'-i9.ailii!li!l:ifYt.~t~d.\\ffi~ 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. - ---- - - I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of July 31, 2003 ~lt.\\i;ie~iil~i~tlll\u0026amp;.i:1ir\u0026amp;liifi4nif;.$.QJ~i\u0026gt;.O~;Iif.i~:.A:t.li;\\~I~.a:r~:i~:tj_fq,r.;;fX C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2003 ~1i~~~-~~91i::g91t~E~t~.td~.Yti9'0:;2.f~~I~;:~!J~.!\\~~'tr2.t\\.\"'E;~nfffri:ef1.9.f.~.6X:q?/.9~-w.~re D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of July 31, 2003 ~1'9\\1~ Bi~~{~!~flilj~;i~f \u0026amp;iliklr40g:9.?lti'.ai~c(a(::JlJH~::3.0}~'bo~.f.off.Y E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Little Rock Division Eastern District of Arkansas JUL 3 0 2003 NOTICE JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK .By: ______ __,,=~- DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff vs. Case No.: 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al, Defendant ******************************************************************* Type of Case: CIVIL ** ****** ***************************** *** *************************** TAKE NOTICE that a proceeding in this case has been set for the place, date and time set forth below: ******************************************************************* Place: U. S . Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR Ave., Room 431 72201 Date: MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 2003 Time: 10:00 A.M. *- **************************************************************** Type of Proceeding: MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT HEARING ******************************************************************* Presiding Judge : BILL WILSON ******************************************************************* Instructions: ******************************************************************* James W. McCormack, Clerk of Court r By: JOHNSON Deput c9 Counsel of Record Dated: 07/30/03 RECEIVED JUL 3 1 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Fit1: ~-- tAsr~1:it g\\SiR1cr P STR1cr A2!J~, '\"\"NSAs JUL 3 0 20u3 JAMES W By:  McCORMACK - , CLERK UPDATE ON THE REDESIGN OF HARRIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THEEPCLERi,; REZONING OF SCHOOLS IN THE SHERWOOD AREA OF THE Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT July 30, 2003 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Horace R. Smith Associate Monitor    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1083","title":"\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda","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":["2003-07"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","School board members","School boards","School improvement programs","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["\"Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting\" agenda"],"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/1083"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nREC::IVED JUL 2 3 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Agenda Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting July 2003 n~  ::O i= ~ ...\ni:: Oz o\u0026gt;\na::O c-\u0026lt; m-., ::a C: -z\nan o-\u0026lt; .- i5 r-z ncn ~ I. 11. 111. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS A. Call to Order B. Roll Call PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Welcome to Guests REGULAR MEETING July 24, 2003 5:30 p.m. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. Superintendent's Citations B. Partners in Education Program - New Partnerships Woodruff Elementary School - Janice Wilson Perfecting Community Development Corporation - Marchell Seawood Perfecting New Life Church - Rev. Kevin Allen C. Remarks from Citizens (persons who have signed up to speak) Please note: Speakers will not be allowed to make any disparaging or critical remarks about individuals or employees of the District. Critical comments or complaints are processed through the District's complaint procedures, which afford the individuals to whom comments or complaints are directed, the opportunity for response and due process. D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association E. Joshua lntervenors IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A. Remarks from Board Members B. Desegregation Update/ Student Assignment Report C. Budget Update D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Update: Mitchell \u0026amp; Rightsell E. Internal Auditors Report F. Technology Update G. Human Resources Report: Recruitment \u0026amp; Selection of New Teachers (\")~ :,,.\n:o ,r.-...~_ ... !I: Oz Q),,\n:o\n:o c-\u0026lt; m-n\n:o C: -z\n:on o,.... -c\u0026lt;5 ,....z (\") U\u0026gt; ~ Regular Board Meeting July 24, 2003 Page2 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MA TIERS: A. Minutes Regular Meeting - June 26, 2003 Special Meeting - July 2, 2003 B. Personnel Changes VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION: A. Grant Proposal: Advanced Placement Incentive Program B. Revised Strategic Plan C. Resolution: MSAP Grant D. 2002-03 SAT-9 Results VII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION: A. Request for Dedication Deed: Southwest Middle School B. Financial Report VIII. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION A. Proposal for Naming the Choral Music Department at Central High School IX. CLOSING REMARKS: Superintendent's Report: 1. Dates to Remember 2. Special Functions X. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS XI. ADJOURNMENT c-,-., \n:o ~ ~ ... i: Oz o\u0026gt;\n:o\n:o c-\u0026lt; m-..\n:o C: -z\non 0 ... ,-15 ,- z ncn ~ .., ~ m C C: ~ ~ m ill r\u0026gt; Cc-,\n.,=l ... p:\nj \u0026gt;_mz mu, ~8 !j!I c: m \u0026gt;Z.... en I. PRELIMINARY FUNCTIONS CA.LL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL Ill. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS PUBLIC COMMENTS A. CITATIONS B. PARTNERSHIPS C. CITIZENS COMMENTS 0. CTA / E. JOSHUA To: From: Through: Subject: Board of Directors Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 July 24, 2003 Debbie Milam, Director, ViPS/Partners in Education Don Stewart, Interim Superintendent Partners in Education Program: New partnerships The Little Rock School District Partners in Education program is designed to develop strong relationships between the community and our schools. The partnership process encourages businesses, community agencies and private organizations to join with individual schools to enhance and support educational programs. Each partnership utilizes the resources of both the school and the business for their mutual benefit. The following school and business have completed the requirements necessary to establish a partnership and are actively working together to accomplish their objectives. We recommend that the Board approve the following partnership: Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting Community Development Corporation Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting New Life Church XI \u0026gt; mc3 IX\u0026gt; XI o-. \u0026gt;~ XI c-, Oo EE mE Ee IXIZ mt\"i ill~ 0z u, Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting New Life/Westside Church have joined together in partnership to support the families and students of Woodruff Elementary School. Perfecting New Life/Westside Church commits to the following activities:  Recruit volunteers for tutoring both during school and after school  Recruit volunteers for mentoring  Participate in \"fix up\" days at Woodruff  Collect school supplies and uniforms for students at Woodruff Woodruff Elementary School commits to the following activities:  Making the school available for community events  Providing student performances and artwork  Collaborating on and promoting appropriate neighborhood projects  Referring families in need to the church for needed social services\n,:, \u0026gt; mc3 CD\n,:, o .... \u0026gt;$!!\n,:,C') Co :I:\nc m\nc\nc C: CD Z mc\"i ~~ 0z en C: -co.c ~C') .m. zo\nc en =l .... C')~ :CC') m--\u0026lt; !\n=iii ~ Rl ::c c3 gt~ I= Woodruff Elementary School and Perfecting New Life Community Development Corporation have joined together in partnership to support the families and students of Woodruff Elementary School. Perfecting New Life Community Development Corporation commits to the following activities:  Recruit volunteers for tutoring both during school and after school  Recruit volunteers for mentoring  Participate in \"fix up\" days at Woodruff  Sponsor a Community Day in the Woodruff neighborhood  Help Woodruff families with needed referrals to social service organizations  Collect school supplies and uniforms for students at Woodruff Woodruff Elementary School commits to the following activities:  Making the school available for community events  Providing student performances and artwork  Collaborating on and promoting appropriate neighborhood projects  Referring families in need to the CDC for needed social services\n,:, \u0026gt; mc3 a,\n,:, 0-4 \u0026gt;S!!\n,:,(\") Co ii::!:: m:1:: ii:: C: a,z ml'\n~~ 0z Cl) C: -co.c ~(\") .m. zo :=1I ::..\"..' (\")~ ::CC\") m-1 F o ,z\n,:,\n,c c:\nm :::c c3 ~~ F LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT DATE: July 24, 2003 TO: FROM: Board of Director~ Donald M. Stew~erim Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: Bill Goodman ~ SUBJECT: July 2003 Construction Report, Bond Projects I am pleased to report that bids will be taken July 23rd on the addition to Southwest Middle School. I will give you an update on the results of the bidding at the Board meeting. The interior renovation of Baseline Elementary project was bid July 10 1h  The contract has been awarded to the low bidder, and construction will start soon. The project will be completed in July 2004. The drawings for the replacement school at Wakefield Elementary have been completed, and the bids for the construction will be received on July 29 1h  The new building will be completed during the summer of 2004. In addition to the attached information, Doug Eaton, Director of Facility Services, will give an oral update at the Board meeting on the plan to renovate Mitchell and Rightsell. Please call me if you have any questions. My telephone number is 447-1146. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 ~ ::0 m c3 ~ ::r:: C: ~z ::0 m ~ C: ~ emn !X' \"D m ::0 ~z z ,m... !'\" .z... m ::o~ mc3,\u0026gt;...\no\u0026gt; .... C: C =1 0 ::0 en CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Fresh air system $55,000 Administration Fire alarm $32,350 Baseline Renovation $953,520 Carver Parking lot $111,742 Central Renovation - Interior $10,200,266 Central Parking Student parking $174,000 Central/Quigley Stadium light repair \u0026amp; electrical repair $265,000 Central/Quigley Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 Central/Quigley Irrigation System $14,500 Dunbar Renovation/addition $6,161,950 Facility Services Fire alarm $12,000 Forest Park Replace window units w/central HVAC $485,258 Hall Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $8,637,709 J. A. Fair Roof repairs $391,871 J. A. Fair Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 J. A. Fair Irrigation System $14,000 6 classroom addition \u0026amp; cafeteria/music J. A. Fair room addition $3,155,640 Forest Park Diagonal parking $111,742 Mabelvale MS Renovation $6,851,621 Mann Partial Replacement $11,500,000 McClellan Athletic Field Improvement $38,000 McClellan Irrigation System $14,750 McClellan Classroom Addition $2,155,622 Otter Creek Parking Improvements $142,541 Procurement Fire alarm $25,000 Pulaski Hgts. Elem Renovation $1,193,259 Pulaski Hgts. MS Renovation $3,755,041 Southwest Drainage/ street widening $250,000 Southwest New roof $690,000 Student Assignment Fire alarm $9,000 Tech Ctr/ Metro Renovation Addition/Renovation - Phase II $2,725,000 Williams Renovation $2,106,492 Williams Parking expansions $183,717 Wilson Parking Expansion $110,000 Wilson Renovation/expansion $1,263,876 BOND PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SUMMER/ FALL 2003 Facilitv Name Project Description Cost Brady Addition/renovation $973,621 Parkview Addition $2,121,226 Southwest Addition $2,000,000 Wakefield Rebuild $5,300,000 t::st. c.\nompIet1on Date Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-03 Dec-05 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Jul-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Feb-04 Aug-03 Dec-03 Dec-03 Jul-03 Jul-03 Jul-04 Aug-03 Jul-03 Aug-04 Aug-04 Aug-03 Aug-03 Jul-03 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jul-03 Nov-03 t::st. c.\nompletton Date Dec-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 Jun-04 BOND PROJECTS PLANNING STARTED CONST. DATE TO BE DETERMINED t:st. ~ompteuon Facility Name Project Description Cost Date Mitchell Renovation $750,000 Unknown Pulaski Hgts. MS Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Rightsell Renovation $660,000 Unknown Wilson Energy monitoring system installation Unknown Woodruff Parking addition $193,777 Unknown ~\n,:, m \"D 0 ~ ::c C: I: z\n,:, m g ill m V, !11\nl:l\n,:, is z z m I'\"' !'\" .z.... m\n,:,!l!l ~m,....\n,:,\u0026gt; ..... C: 0 a\n,:, V, =....\". Pl ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Facility Name Project Description Cost Administration Asbestos abatement $380,495 Administration Annex Energy monitoring system installation Alternative Learning Ctr. I Energy monitoring system installation $15,160 Alternative Learning Ctr. Energy efficient lighting I $82,QQQ I Badgett Partial asbestos abatement $237,237 Badgett Fire alarm $18,250 Bale Classroom addition/renovation $2,244,524 Bale Energy monitoring system I Bale Partial roof replacement I $269,587 Bale HVAC $664,587 Booker Energy efficient lighting $170,295 Booker Energy monitoring system installation $23,710 Booker Asbestos abatement I $10,900 Booker Fire alarm $34,501 Brady Energy efficient lighting $80,593 Brady Asbestos abatement $345,072 Carver Energy monitoring system installation $14,480 Central Purchase land for school Unknown Central Roof \u0026amp; exterior renovations $2,000,000 Central Ceiling and wall repair $24,000 Central Fire Alarm System Design/Installation $80,876 Central Front landing tile repair $22,470 Cloverdale Elem. Energy efficient lighting $132,678 Cloverdale MS Energy efficient lighting $189,743 Cloverdale MS Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $1,393,822 Dodd Energy efficient lighting $90,665 Dodd Asbestos abatement-ceiling tile $156,299 Dodd Replace roof top HV AC $215,570 Facilities Service Interior renovation $84,672 Fair Park HVAC renovation/fire alarm $315,956 Fair Park Energy efficient lighting $90,162 Fair Park Asbestos abatement-ceiling $59,310 J. A. Fair Energy efficient lighting $277,594 J. A. Fair Press box $10,784 J. A. Fair Security cameras $12,500 Forest Park Energy efficient lighting $119,788 Fulbright Energy efficient lighting $134,463 Fulbright Energy monitoring system installation $11,950 Fulbright Replace roof top HVAC units $107,835 Fulbright Parking lot $140,000 Fulbright Roof repairs $200,000 Franklin Renovation $2,511,736 Gibbs Energy efficient lighting $76,447 Gibbs Energy monitoring system installation $11,770 Hall Asbestos abatement $168,222 Hall Energy efficient lighting $42,931 Hall Energy efficient lighting $296,707 Hall Infrastructure improvements $93,657 Hall Intercom Hall Security cameras $10,600 Est. Completion Date Mar-03 May-02 Oct-01 Dec-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Mar-02 Dec-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Oct-01 Feb-02 Mar-02 Sep-02 Aug-02 May-01 Dec-02 Dec-02 Oct-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Nov-02 Aug-01 Jul-01 Aug-02 Mar-01 Apr-02 Aug-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Nov-00 Jun-01 May-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Oct-02 Mar-03 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Jul-01 Apr-01 Aug-01 Feb-01 Jun-01 p ~ m c3 ~ ::c C: ~ z ~ m ~ C: ~ m en ~ -\u0026lt; p:: ::c z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Facility Name Henderson Henderson Henderson Henderson IRC Jefferson Jefferson Laidlaw Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale MS Mann Mann Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Mitchell Mitchell Mitchell Oakhurst Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Parkview Procurement Pulaski Hgts. Elem Rightsell Rockefeller Rockefeller Rockefeller CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Description Cost Energy efficient lighting $193,679 Roof replacement gym $107,835 Asbestos abatement Phase I $500,000 Asbestos abatement Phase 2 $250,000 Energy efficient lighting $109,136 Asbestos abatement $43,639 Renovation \u0026amp; fire alarm $1 ,630,000 Parking lot $269,588 Energy monitoring system installation $12,150 Replace HVAC units $300,000 Asbestos Abatement $107,000 Energy efficient lighting $106,598 Renovate bleachers $134,793 Asphalt walks The total $1 .8 million Walkway canopies is what has been Boiler replacement used so far on the Fencing projects listed Partial demolition/portable classrooms completed for Mann. Security cameras $36,300 Energy efficient lighting $303,614 Stadium stands repair $235,000 Intercom $46,000 Energy efficient lighting $79,411 Replace roof top HVAC units $476,000 Fire alarm $16,175 Asbestos abatement $253,412 Engergy efficient lighting $88,297 Replace cooling tower $37,203 Replace shop vent system $20,000 Energy monitoring system installation $17,145 Energy efficient lighting $103,642 Energy monitoring system installation $16,695 Asbestos abatement $13,000 HVAC renovation $237,237 Energy monitoring system installation $10,695 Energy efficient lighting $81,828 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Parking lot $138,029 6 classroom addition $888,778 HVAC controls $210,000 Roof replacement $273,877 Exterior lights $10,784 HVAC renovation \u0026amp; 700 area controls $301,938 Locker replacement $120,000 Energy efficient lighting $315,000 Energy monitoring system installation $5,290 Move playground $17,000 Energy efficient lighting $84,898 Energy efficient lighting $137,004 Replace roof top HVAC $539,175 Parking addition $111,742 t:st. t.\nompletIon Date Jul-01 May-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Jul-02 Oct-01 Nov-02 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-02 Aug-01 Dec-01 Dec-01 Oct-01 Sep-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 May-01 Aug-01 Feb-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Jul-01 Aug-02 Dec-02 Dec-00 May-01 Aug-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 May-01 Apr-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Oct-02 Jun-02 Sep-01 Nov-00 Aug-01 Aug-01 Jun-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Apr-01 Mar-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 ~\nJl m ~ ~ ::c C: 'z=:\nJl m ~ C: ~ m \"' !'\" .z... m\nJl s! ~m,.\u0026gt;..\n,,\u0026gt; .... C: C =i i \"' :n .... m n ::c z: 0 8 -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Facility Name Romine Romine SecurityfTransportation Southwest Southwest Student Assignment Tech Center Phase 1 Technology Upgrade Terry Terry Terry Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Washington Washington Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Western Hills Western Hills Western Hills Williams Woodruff CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO THE BOARD JULY 24, 2003 BOND PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED Project Descriotion Cost Asbestos abatement $10,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $3,534,675 Bus cameras I $22,500 Asbestos abatement $28,138 1 Energy efficient lighting $168,719 l Energy monitoring system installation $4,830 1 Renovation $275,000 Upgrade phone system \u0026amp; data Energy efficient lighting I $73,850 , Driveway \u0026amp; Parking $83,484 Media Center addition $704,932 I Security cameras $8,000 Energy efficient lighting $74,776 Demolition/Asbestos Abatement - $200,000 Security cameras I $7,900 Energy efficient lighting $165,281 Energy monitoring system installation $8,530 Asbestos abatement I $182,241 Energy efficient lighting I $106,868 Asbestos abatement $10,000 Major renovation \u0026amp; addition $800,000 Asbestos abatement $191,946 Intercom $7,100 Energy efficient lighting $106,000 Energy efficient lighting $122,719 Renovation $246,419 Est. Completion Date Apr-02 Mar-03 Jun-01 Auo-00 Jan-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Nov-02 Feb-01 Aug-02 Sep-02 Jun-01 Feb-01 Nov-02 Jun-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Aug-01 Aug-02 Aug-02 Aug-02 Dec-01 Jul-01 Jun-01 Auo-02 ~ :,0 m i!! ~ ::c C: i z ~ ~ C: ~ m V, .!.II, m :,0 ~ z z ,m.. !\"' z m-:, o~ im!! ,\u0026gt;.. :,0,. -- 0C : a :,0 V, :,, P--l ::c z  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m MEMORANDUM I FACILITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJ: July 15, 2003 ool District Board of Directors Mitchell Elementary School and Rightsell Elementary School Projects We are just now beginning to plan our work on the Phase IV Bond Projects. By special request and circumstances we are beginning that process with Mitchell Elementary School and Rightsell Elementary School respectively. The bond projects at Mitchell and Rightsell Elementary Schools are relatively simple and entail classroom additions, restroom renovations, ADA adaptations, some landscape and sewer work, and some miscellaneous mechanical work, in addition to upgrading the buildings electrical capacity to sustain computer operations. In late 2002, we inspected both of these elementary schools. Environmental problems that we had been periodically correcting over a period of years, as they arose, seem to be getting more serious. As a result, we commissioned a study of both schools to determine what environmental projects might be necessary to make the schools a clean, habitable environment for their students, staff, and faculty. That study was completed at the end of calendar year 2002. In early 2003, we were able to detail the environmental scope and provide rough cost estimates for the price of these environmental upgrades. Most recently, we have hired an architectural firm, Morris and Associates, who are knowledgeable in both environmental and architectural work, to be our design firm on both of these schools. It is our intent to combine the bond projects that were approved under the millage bond vote, and the p ::c m ~ ::c C: ~z ::c m g i!=: rn !\"' .z.. m ::c~\nmg ,-\nc  ... C: C ~ 0 ::c u, :..n. Pl :z:c  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m environmental projects, which were a result of our study. Presently we are in the preliminary planning phases\nwe have met with the design architects and are beginning to detail the scientific scope of work. We will soon be meeting with the Campus Leadership Teams, principals, and staffs to receive their input regarding the bond projects. While a definitive schedule has not been established, it is our intent to do the design for these schools over the winter of 2003-2004, and hopefully have contracts advertised and ready for award in late spring 2004, so that we may begin work in the summer of that year for an estimated completion in the summer/fall of 2005. The environmental problems at both of these schools are primarily water and air quality related. We are capable of keeping up with any emergencies and can continue to provide a safe environment for the inhabitants of the school, however\nlong term solutions are deemed necessary at both of these fine old facilities. p\na m ~ :,: C: f\nz\na m l3 C: ~ m tJ\u0026gt; !\" ! m\na~\nmg ,. I'\"'\na\u0026gt; .... C: C =I 0\na tJ\u0026gt;\nn .... ~ :,: z  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Date: July 24, 2003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS To: Board of Directors From:@Sandy Becker, Internal Auditor Re: Audit Report - July This is the forty-fifth communication regarding status of the current year projects and reviews. Activity Funds a) Working with two middle school and one elementary school to resolve financial issues in their activity funds. b) Reviewing monthly financial information for all schools and assisting in resolving balance issues. c) Training school staff at schools on financial processes by request. Activities Advisory Board (AAB) a) Working with the new Activities Advisory Board to develop plans for the new school year and beyond. b) Assist the Activities Advisory Board in its mission to strengthen the effectiveness and viability of activities in the District. c) Working with the Activities Advisory Board to provide ways to assist the different Booster groups in our schools. Board Policy and Regulation a) Coordinating development of payroll guidelines with Financial Services as part of Financial Services Section of the District Operations Manual. Technology a) Monitoring implementation of technology by participation in the technology committee(s). b) Monitoring technology plans to determine how use of technology will improve and streamline the workflow for staff persons. c) Participating with the Technology Committee. !II iii ~ zz ,m- =...\". ~ :i: z 0  -\u0026lt; C: ~ m Audit Report - July 2003 Page 2 of2 Training a) Served as a trainer for financial portion of Nuts \u0026amp; Bolts, Bookkeeper \u0026amp; Secretaries Training, Security Guard Training, individual school in-service meetings, and others as needed. Working to facilitate best means to improve financial processes and increase accountability for resources. Training new bookkeepers on bookkeeping procedures as requested. b) Placed training material, smart worksheets, and other helpful items on the Teachers Lounge section of the Little Rock School District web page. c) Coordinated guidelines and aids to inform and assist new activity sponsors of specific tasks relating to each activity. Added new checklist for spirit sponsors and smart spreadsheet for fundraiser reconciliation. This information is now in the Teachers Lounge section of the District web page. Audit Area Sampling and Review of Financial Procedures Other a) Pulling samples of district expenditures to test for accuracy, accountability, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing district payroll processes for compliance, economy and efficiency, internal controls, and cost control. Working with Financial Services Payroll on internal control and processing issues. b) c) d) e) f) g) h) a) b) Working with Financial Services on internal controls and rules for payroll processes and implementation of a new interface system. Monitoring other selected risk areas for efficiency, cost effectiveness, and compliance with District policies. Reviewing grant programs. Working with Child Nutrition on implementation of streamlined information processing system with Information Services and Child Nutrition Staff. Working with Information Services on streamlining of data processes regarding SIS reporting. Monitoring cost reduction efforts in the District. Monitoring payroll for compliance with internal controls. Reviewing leave accountability system. (New). Provided technical assistance to school staff on grant writing. Served as co-chair of Strategic Team One - Financial Resources. Problem Resolution a) I have made myself available to help resolve financial issues, assist in improving processes, and help find solutions to questions that arise. Please let me know if you need further information. My telephone number is 501-447-1115. My e-mail is sandy.becker@lrsd.org. !..I.I, m ,a is z z p:! Current Projects:  New Network Little Rock School District Board of Directors Technology Update July 24, 2003 o All sites are now cut over to the new network. o Network training has begun. New training documents are now posted on the district web site.  Computers o Approximately 600 computers have been ordered for installation this summer. Computers have been installed at Hall, McClellan, Geyer Springs, and Franklin. Computers are scheduled to be installed this week at Central, Chicot, Parkview, and Rockefeller. Computers for Henderson will be installed August 4.  Training o Twenty-three LRSD teachers are enrolled in the UALR CyberTeacher program this summer. o Technology training will be provided during pre-school inservice week in using GradeQuick, Spectrum library system, and Safari media retrieval system. :\u0026lt; :a \u0026gt;0  C: !-IC z.... Zm ~ ~ Ch ::l m ~ .!X.,' m ~\"' zz m r- TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Education W Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools Screening interview procedures !.J,I, m ::0 z~ z p::! Human Resources Screening Interview Procedures July 2003 The Human Resources Department began the implementation of a revised teacher applicant screening process in the spring of 2003. The primary purpose for this process was to insure that Little Rock School District hires the best candidates for its teaching positions. Ways to accomplish this goal were to increase the applicant pool, to screen more candidates, and to involve more administrators in the process. The implementation of this process has several steps: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) Involvement of School Services last fall in a discussion about the process and their assistance this spring in identifying principals for the elementary screening interview teams. Involvement of Curriculum and Instruction last fall in helping to develop the Interview Handbook printed in March 2003. Involvement of Curriculum and Instruction as curriculum leaders from that division chaired the interview teams for subject area candidates at the secondary level. Each team developed its own questions whether it was elementary, math, science, social studies, English, business, or special education. In the screening interview process itself, candidates are required to do an impromptu writing sample from one of the various prompts developed. There is a rubric with which each candidate is scored. (This rubric is a modification of a previous rubric utilized in HR\nthe domains of PT AS have been included.) Information obtained from the interview, the writing sample, references on file, and other information from the application packet are utilized in arriving at a recommendation for each candidate. Mr. Robinson also conducts interviews, especially when an interview team is unavailable or if an out of town candidate is only in town for a few days. HR provides recommended candidates' names, phone numbers, certification/ licensure areas, degrees earned from colleges/universities, and samples of their responses regarding the teaching domains of PTAS from the interview in the information to the principals. Principals also have access to the applications room in our division where they may review applications for teachers, aides, and clerical applicants. A weekly computerized list of all certified applications is available for them to review in this room as well. Principals continue their interviews, selection, and recommendation for hiring through their appropriate supervisor in school services and then through the human resources department which forwards the names of those recommended for employment to the Board of Directors. !J:)\na ~ ~ 0 i !!l 0 s\nz Rationales for adding the screening step to the hiring process are: a) To offer a larger pool of candidates to our principals. b) To become more proactive in the interview process thus beginning the process earlier. c) To have a structured process that increases equity among our candidates by affording more interview opportunities. d) To provide principals with a viable list of candidates. e) To minimize any errors regarding certification/licensure or employability in hiring since all candidates must complete the initial paper screening through HR prior to being interviewed. f) HR views this as a service to the principals. As with any new process we have already discovered some procedures which through principals' input, we will be \"tweaking\" for next year. We believe that these ideas will make the process even smoother and enhance all components of the process. Some of those ideas are to: a) b) c) d) e) f) Have interview teams conduct screening interviews at the District's Job Fair. (We are also investigating the possibility of on-line research based screening interviews.) Include in the information provided to principals the number of years of teaching experience for each candidate. Include in the information provided to principals the grade levels the applicant has either been employed to teach or grades he/she student taught. Include both race and gender on the information provided to principals. Include all recommended candidates on one list. Communicate to candidates their need to submit their applications earlier and call for a screening interview. !.J,I, m :,0 !S zz I!! SUBJECT/ M/M *RECOM. LIST FOR HIRE Elementary A 1 1 B 2 1 Science/Math A 2 1 English A 1 1 B 0 0 Special Education A 0 0 B 0 0 Social Studies A 3 2 B 2 0 Business Education A 2 1 B 0 0 Total 13 7 INTERVIEW TEAM/ RECOMMEND HIRE DATA as of 7-18-03 M/F *RECOM. W/M *RECOM. W/F *RECOM. FOR HIRE FOR HIRE FOR HIRE 10 8 2 1 42 30 9 8 2 1 43 35 3 3 3 2 12 7 3 3 0 0 3 2 3 1 1 1 8 2 3 1 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 36 24 14 9 119 79 *Recommendation for hire total is based on vacancy documents or e-mailed recommendations for hire. 7/21/03 NVld :\u0026gt;1031VH1S 03SIA3\"tl a 1VSOdO\"tld1NVHOdV y \"S:JAS 1VNOl1:JO\"tl1SNI \"IA 13NNOS\"tl3d a S31nNIIII v S\"tl311Vlll 3NUOO\"tl \"/\\ TOTAL TOTAL# #APP. RECOM. HIRE 55 40 56 45 20 13 7 6 12 4 8 3 0 0 8 4 6 2 4 2 6 0 182 119 lNV\"tlO dVSIII :No11n10S3\"tl ::, TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Education ~Beverly Williams, Director, Human Resources Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools Personnel Changes I recommend the approval of the following personnel changes at the indicated positions, salaries and classifications. In accordance with AC.A. 6-17-1502, it is recommended that one additional year of probationary status is provided for all teachers who have been employed in a school district in this state for three (3) years. Personnel Changes Page 2 July 24, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Certified EmJ?IOl'.ees Barre, Frances 4 Yr. Old 8-19-91 5-19 Reason: Retired ClllCOT 7-1-03 4YROLD Batson, J eaneau Instr. Music 8-13-01 2-02 Reason: Accepted Another PARK.VIEW 6-24-03 TCH925 Position Blackwell, Willie AP Chemistry 8-13-97 6-11 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Bonds, Roselyn Elem II 8-1-02 1-02 Reason: Returning To School CLOV. ELEM. 8-2-03 TCH925 Brown, Yolonda Oral Comm. 1-21-03 1-01 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Butler-Green, Rachael Biology 8-24-93 2-02 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Chadwick, Ryan Art 8-21-00 6-04 Reason: Accepted Another MITCHELL 8-5-03 TCH925 Position Charles, Glenroy Math 1-21-03 6-12 Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN 6-2-03 TCH925 Davis, Mabel HomeEc. 8-24-87 2-17 Reason: Terminated CENTRAL 6-12-03 VOCl0 Dobbins, William English 12-17-02 4-12 Reason: Contract Ended PUL. HGTS. MID. 6-2-03 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 49288.00 28384.00 42524.00 27056.00 26546.00 28384.00 35377.00 43545.00 43667.00 40763.00 !=' 8.., .c.!., !\n:o men .,C....:.. en\n,,, OS m=- !\nI a, ~~ c-,:mZ j!:l men en~\n!I' en\n,,,\nS  z \"Cl~ C,\n:o z~ ~.... .... c5 \"CIZ ::O  or-\ng ~ enn \"f:!!I' !X'\n:o ~ Kl 0 e..n.. ~ m C, 0 ~ z Personnel Changes Page 3 July 24, 2003 NAME Finney, Jason Reason: Contract Ended Flynn, Laura Reason: Leaving City Gangluff, Tracey Reason: Leaving City Gay,Myla Reason: Accepted Another Position Glenn,Betty Reason: Retired Harris, Christopher Reason: Contract Ended Harrison, Lisa Reason: Personal Headley, Debbie Reason: Health Hopper, Beverly POSITION SCHOOL General Science MANN ElemV WILLIAMS Speech Pathology CLOY.MID. Science WASHINGTON ElemV CARVER English CLOY.MID. Elem III FULBRIGHT Voe. Music CLOY.MID. English Reason: Returning to School CENTRAL Jackson, Barbara Business Ed Reason: Contract Ended MCCLELLAN START DATE END DATE 7-1-02 6-2-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 9-21-02 7-8-03 8-12-99 8-1-03 8-24-72 8-1-03 11-1-02 6-2-03 8-9-00 6-13-03 10-22-02 6-2-03 8-20-90 8-5-03 1-13-03 6-3-03 SALARY CLASS 4-04 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 62-11 SPE925 4-09 TCH925 5-20 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 1-06 TCH925 1-07 TCH925 4-19 TCH925 1-13 TCH950 ANNUAL SALARY 32595.00 35658.00 43680.00 37700.00 50788.00 30553.00 30630.00 31651.00 48389.00 37777.00 !=' 8 N .0.. !\n:o m \",.C.-.':. \"' ~ ~s m:- ~a:, \"'C: o!!! C_:, mz i gi m\"' \"-\u0026lt;'u~, I:. \"' \u0026lt; ~:- ,-z .., !!l C\u0026gt;\n:o ~~ z-\u0026lt; .... c5 \"DZ ~ f'! c3 ~ ~,-~. !II\n:o ~ Kl 0 \"...'. ~ m C\u0026gt; .0.,  z Personnel Changes Page 4 July 24, 2003 NAME Jackson, Christy Reason: Accepted Another Position Jackson, Susan Reason: Contract Ended Jarrett, Veronica Reason: Leaving City Johnson, Carolyn Reason: Contract Ended Larkin, Donna Reason: Contract Ended Lawson-Lee, Lynda Reason: Leaving City Lyon, Harley Reason: None Given Martin, Catherine Reason: Contract Ended Mays, Romonda Reason: Position Eliminated McCoy, Eddie Reason: Personal Moore, Garrick Reason: Contract Ended POSITION SCHOOL Mathematic PARK.VIEW Counselor FAIR Kindergarten CLOY.ELEM. Business Ed. START DATE END DATE 8-15-94 7-3-03 3-3-03 6-9-03 8-12-99 7-16-03 9-16-93 MABELV ALE MID. 6-3-03 Computer Literature 8-19-91 MABELV ALE MID. 6-2-03 Spanish I 8-7-02 DUNBAR 7-2-03 Counselor 7-29-02 PARK.VIEW 6-12-03 French I 1-21-03 CENTRAL 6-2-03 Voe. Home Ee. 8-2-00 CENTRAL 6-2-03 Elem IV 3-3-97 MITCHELL 7-24-03 Economics 11-25-02 CLOY.MID. 6-2-03 SALARY CLASS 5-10 TCH925 5-12 CNLlO 2-05 K925 4-04 TCH950 6-15 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 6-12 CNLlO 4-01 TCH925 1-03 TCH950 6-21 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 40099.00 42141.00 30936.00 32595.00 46608.00 27056.00 43545.00 30553.00 27567.00 53213.00 30553.00 !=' 8 6\" ' \"' ~ co :,0 m \"C': !:\n\"' ?\" m~,.s.. i:\n, a, ~~ c-,:mZ ::z:\"' ~\"' m\"' \"....' ~\"' :I: \"' ?\"\ns \u0026gt;z -.:i!!l C\u0026gt; :,0 ~~ Z-1 .... i5 -.:iz :,O  or-el~ cnn '/?~ !Jl :,0 ~ ~ C !!l ~ m C\u0026gt; n s\nz Personnel Changes Page 5 July 24, 2003 NAME Neikirk, Matthew Reason: None Given Niswonger, Etta Reason: Accepted Another Position Ross, Thomas Reason: Accepted Another Position Tate, Katrina Reason: Personal Shepherd, Laura Reason: Leaving City Voegele, Crystal Reason: Accepted Another Position Washington, Lapara Reason: Contract Ended Wooten, Russell Reason: Leaving City Autrey, Debora POSITION SCHOOL Elem II FULBRIGHT Earth Science DUNBAR English FAIR English SOUTHWEST 4 Yr. Old GEYER SPRINGS English DUNBAR English FAIR Special Ed. START DATE END DATE 8-12-98 6-19-03 8-13-01 7-1-03 8-13-97 6-2-03 8-13-01 7-18-03 8-13-98 7-15-03 1-1-99 6-25-03 12-18-02 6-2-03 8-13-01 PUL. HGTS. ELEM. 6-24-03 New Certified Eml!lo:rees ElemV 8-7-03 BRADY SALARY CLASS 1-04 TCH925 1-04 TCH925 3-07 TCH925 1-03 TCH925 1-07 4YROLD 2-05 TCH925 4-01 TCH925 2-03 SPE925 1-07 TCH925 ANNUAL SALARY 28588.00 28588.00 34305.00 27567.00 31651.00 30936.00 30553.00 28894.00 31651.00 !=' 8 N b \".~..'. \"' ::0 m u, C: !:\nu,\na,, ::ils m,.. ~a, ~~ ~~ ::cu, m== uu,, u,\n!i .... u, IC. u,\ni,,\ns  z -0~ C)\nc z~ ~.... .... ~ -0 z\nc  0 ,-\ng ~ u, 0 ~!I' !II\nc ~ kl 0 ~ ~ m C) 0 -0 z Personnel Changes Page 6 July 24, 2003 NAME Ball, Bethany Beals, Yolanda Burnworth, Brandi Carlisle, Holly Collins, Kimberly Doolittle, Heidi Harder, Mariah Headley, Debbie Higginbotham, David Hill, Stephanie Holl, Maria Humphries, Laura POSITION SCHOOL Elem II CARVER ElemV BRADY Elem II FRANKLIN Elem I WILLIAMS Music FRANKLIN Elem II FRANKLIN Elem/Drama BOOKER Music BASELINE Music STEPHENS 4 Yr. Old CHICOT ElemV WILLIAMS Kindergarten RIGHTSELL START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 1-01 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 4-07 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-02 TCH925 1-08 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 1-01 4YROLD 1-06 TCH925 1-02 K925 ANNUAL SALARY 26546.00 26546.00 27056.00 27056.00 35658.00 26546.00 27056.00 32672.00 26546.00 26546.00 30630.00 27056.00 !:I 8,., .0. , ! \"m' \".,C.-.': \"'\n,,, ~s m,.... !=? a, ~~ c_.:.mZ i g: m\"' .\"..' r.',i, :I:  \"'\n,,,~ \u0026gt;z \"'D!!l C\u0026gt;\"' ~~ .z..- \u0026lt; ~ \"'DZ ,O\u0026gt; or-c3 ~ U,C') '1!,!I\u0026gt; !D \"~' i:l 0 !!l ~ m C\u0026gt; n \"'D ~ z Personnel Changes Page 7 July 24, 2003 NAME Johnston, Margaret Khoury, Cynthia Loyd, April Moore, Allison Spencer, Joel Thomas, Sommer Barnes, Barbara Busbea, Patricia POSITION SCHOOL Kindergarten MEADOW CLIFF Elem ill BRADY Elem II STEPHENS Counselor BRADY Elem IV CHICOT Elem I BOOKER START DATE END DATE 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-1-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 8-7-03 SALARY CLASS 1-02 K925 1-01 TCH925 4-06 TCH925 4-03 CNL925 1-02 TCH925 1-01 TCH925 Promotion Certified Employees Director 7-28-03 75-20 DIV. EXCEPT CHILD. ADC12 Coor. Reading 7-14-03 62-12 EARLY CHILD ADC12 ANNUAL SALARY 27056.00 26546.00 34637.00 31574.00 27056.00 26546.00 84240.00 1500.00 EDU 601.00 CAR 57144.00 annual 55315.00 prorated !==' 8.., .b., E co ::D m (/) C: !:j (/) ?- ~ ~ 9a, (/) C: o!!1 .c...: Zm :c (/) ~(/) m\"' .(../. )~ (/) I:. (/) .,.,.\u0026lt;... :,,.z .,,!!l C\u0026gt; ::D ~~ z--\u0026lt; .... \u0026lt;5\ng f\nor- ~~ (/)C') \",-\"\". ' !X' ::D ~ Kl C !!l ~ m C\u0026gt; .n,, \u0026gt; z Personnel Changes Page 8 July 24, 2003 NAME POSITION SCHOOL START DATE END DATE SALARY CLASS Resignationsfferminations Non-Certified Eml!lorees Allen, Carol Child Nutrition 9-14-01 1-03 Reason: None Given HALL 6-30-03 FSH5 Brown, William Maintenance 2-24-75 50-20 Reason: Retired FACILITY SERV. 6-30-03 AN12 Bryant, Dale Custodian 9-16-02 1-02 Reason: Personal GIBBS 7-10-03 CUS928 Carr, Susie Child Nutrition 4-13-87 5-16 Reason: Retired MITCHELL 6-30-03 FSH6 Cooper, Diedre Instr. Aide 8-24-00 1-03 Reason: Position Elim. PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-2-03 INA925 Deal, Keith Instr. Aide 9-28-00 1-03 Reason: Position Elim. PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-2-03 INA925 Feurig, Janet Occupational Therapy 8-9-00 60-15 Reason: Leaving City SPECIAL ED. 7-15-03 AN925 Goad, Lena Parent Coor. 1-22-03 1-02 Reason: Position Elim. BASELINE 6-4-03 INSTR. Gordon, Eura Child Nutrition 3-7-88 4-15 Reason: Retired MCCLELLAN 6-16-03 FSH575 Grant, Curtis Child Nutrition 8-28-02 1-02 Reason: Health METRO. 6-30-03 FSH5 ANNUAL SALARY 7368.00 39936.00 10737.00 9283.00 11635.00 11635.00 46368.00 11720.00 8854.00 7340.00 !=' 8.., .c.!.:,, E co\n%1 m u, C,..:. ..... u,\ni,, ~ :S m,... !=? a, ~~ c:Z -,m jg: mu, ~~ 1:!\" u,\ni,,\ns .,..._,~z C)\n%1 z~ ~..... ..... c5 -oz i3 ~ c3~ ,~...~. !D\n%1 ~ gi C .u...,. .~.... m C) .n.., \u0026gt; z Personnel Changes Page 9 July 24, 2003 NAME Johnson, Claude Reason: Health Merritt, Augusta Reason: None Given Merritt, Reginald Reason: Position Elim. Osborne, Linda Reason: Reduction In Force Smith. Jeny Reason: Position Elim. Renaud, Nan Reason: Retired Roberts, Kathleen Reason: Position Elim. Strong, Yolanda Reason: Position Elim. Tanner, Gail Reason: Position Elim. Vester, Courtney Reason: Personal Withers, Myrtle Reason: Position Elim. POSITION SCHOOL Clerical PUL .. HGTS. MID. Bookkeeper FACILITY SERV. Vio Specialist START DATE END DATE 9-27-95 6-2-03 8-20-02 7-15-03 10-8-98 PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-6-03 Nurse 1-24-03 HALL 6-2-03 Security Officer 8-21-00 SAFETY \u0026amp; SEC. 6-4-03 Data Processor 8-21-78 Comp. Info. Serv. 6-30-03 Instr. Aide 8-15-90 PUPILSERV. 6-2-03 Instr. Aide 8-11-93 PUPIL PERSONNEL 6-2-03 Clerical 8-9-82 VJPS 6-2-03 Clerical 1-9-90 VIPS 6-10-03 Clerical 10-30-00 VIPS 6-10-03 SALARY CLASS 39-14 CLKl0 49-08 AN12 41-20 ANl0 1-07 NURSES 37-20 ANlO 60-20 AN12 1-10 INA925 1-01 INA925 35-12 CLK925 40-08 CLKll 38-20 CLK105 ANNUAL SALARY 24048.00 27096.00 30528.00 31651.00 27096.00 53832.00 14067.00 10577.00 20100.00 20712.00 27912.00 !=' 8 c\"' \"\" ~... co\nl0 m C/l .,C.-.: C/l\n,,, ~~ !=?a, C/lc: o!!! ~~ jg: mU\u0026gt; C/l ~ ... C/l I:  C/l\n,,,\ns\n\u0026gt;z -0 ~ C)\nl0 ~:=s z--\u0026lt; ... c5 \"OZ ~~ ~~ C/lC') ~!\" !D\nl0 ~ kl C .C./.l ~ m C) n ~ z Personnel Changes Page 10 July 24, 2003 NAME Young, Nicole Reason: Leaving City Miles, Michael Stewart, Marlon POSITION SCHOOL Child Nutrition BASELINE START DATE END DATE 10-11-99 5-30-03 SALARY CLASS 1-05 FSH5 New Non-Certified Employees Team Leader FACILITY SERV. Custodian HALL 6-23-03 6-9-03 44-06 MAINT. 1-01 CUS12 ANNUAL SALARY 7424.00 21984.00 13399.00 DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: RE: Background LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 24, 2003 Board of Education - / Dr. Don Stewart, Interim Superintenden~ Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development ~~ Grant Proposal - Advanced Placement Incentive Program The U. S. Department of Education released a request for proposals for the Advanced Placement Incentive (API) Grant program. The purpose of the program is designed to increase the successful participation of low-income students in pre-advanced placement and advanced placement courses and tests. By supporting increased access to and participation in pre-advanced and advanced placement courses and tests, the program provides greater opportunities for low-income students to achieve to high standards in English, mathematics, science, and other core subjects. Two LRSD high schools, Hall and McClellan, were selected to participate in the API grant program based on their students' eligibility for free-or-reduced lunch (42% and 50% of their enrollments, respectively) and low rate of participation in Pre-AP and AP courses compared to other District high schools. The four highest-poverty (and low performing) LRSD middle schools (Cloverdale, Henderson, Mabelvale and Southwest) were also chosen to participate in the program. In 2002- 2003, 84% of Southwest students, 78% of Cloverdale, 68% of Mabelvale and 71% Henderson students were eligible for free or reduced lunch. The API proposal includes five broad goals that articulate the major \"systems improvements\" that will be brought about as a result of this initiative. The major goals include: Goal 1 - Leadership Development: To strengthen the abilities of school-based instructional leaders to provide support to classroom teachers in designing and delivering rigorous, high quality pre-AP and AP English, math and science classes. Goal 2 - Professional Development: To further develop the pedagogical skills and content knowledge of middle and high school teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses in English, math, and science achievement and performance. Goal 3 - Curriculum Development: To support the development and implementation of a Pre-AP and English language arts curriculum that prepares middle and high school students for success in English AP courses. Goal 4 - Student Support: To provide students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, with a full range of support services to increase their enrollment and success in PreAP and AP courses. 8 i \"\" E co\na m ~ !:\nu, .!.I,I z \u0026gt;z C, \u0026gt;.... u, Goal 5 - Parent Involvement: To enhance the awareness of middle and high school students' parents of the requirements of postsecondary education and the resources available to effectively plan for this goal. The professional development initiative will be supported by three lead teachers, (English, math, and science) who will work intensely with Pre-AP and AP teachers in the six target schools over the three-year period. Grant funds will be used to support teacher participation in both on-site and off-site training activities sponsored by The College Board, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock: Advanced Placement Teacher Development Center and AVID (Advanced Via Individual Determination). The LRSD will collaborate with Metis Associates, Inc. on the implementation of a rigorous research and evaluation plan to assess the effectiveness of project activities and their impact on the target population of participating middle and high school students, teachers and parents. The grant was submitted on July 3, 2003 in order to meet the July 3, 2003 submission deadline. Fiscal Impact The total three-year award request is $1,989,216. The requested funds are primarily targeted for the implementation of the intensive ongoing professional development plan and to establish partnerships with outside organizations with the expertise needed to support program implementation. Local match is not required. Recommendation The staff requests approval for the submission of this grant. .!.I,' z z\u0026gt; 0 \u0026gt;,... \"' DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: RE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 24, 2003 Board of Education Dr. Don Stewart, Interim Superintenden~ Linda Austin, Director of Planning and Development~ Revised Strategic Plan The Little Rock School District Strategic Plan was originally adopted in 1996 and updated in 1998. On January 27-29, 2003, a 30 member Strategic Planning Team composed of parents, community members, teachers, students, Board members, and school administrators came together to review and update the plan. The team arrived at consensus in identifying common beliefs, creating a mission for the school system, setting parameters and developing objectives and far-reaching strategies for accomplishing the mission. For each of the strategies identified by the Planning Team, an Action Team was formed to develop plans for implementation. On June 19-20, 2003, the Strategic Planning Team reconvened to receive the Action Team's recommended implementation plans and prepare the 2003-2008 draft strategic plan for submission to the Board of Education. The draft Little Rock School District Strategic Plan is submitted under separate cover. It is recommended that the Board approve the 2003-2008 Little Rock Strategic Plan. .!.l,' z \u0026gt; l\"5 ~ \"'\n,,, nS :z\n= \"'en \u0026lt;\"\u0026gt;n :Z::z: og ,~... \"...'. 1c::: :m\n,a lH~ om m\"' ~ Date: To: From: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Education Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent Re: Resolution The attached resolution is presented for the Board's review and adoption, to assure compliance with the federally funded MSAP grant as it relates to the District's receiving release from federal court supervision. The resolution pledges our commitment to improving educational opportunities for students attending Cloverdale and Mabelvale Middle Schools, and Fair and McClellan High Schools, and provides assurance that the achievement of Unitary Status will in no way jeopardize the original intent of the Grant. ?\u0026lt; (\") 5 Cl) z C) Rl f\n~ Cl) 8 .~.. ! U)\n,o m Cl) C: !:\nCl) .!D., z z\u0026gt; (\") \u0026gt; rC/) :,,,, nS :z:\n= \"\"'n\"' :Z::z: og s'\nr-r- Cl) 1:m C:\n,o ~~ om m\"'\n!l RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District has applied for continued funding of a grant for the Southwest Little Rock Magnet Schools (Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Fair and McClellan) for the 2003-04 school year\nand WHEREAS, the purpose of the grant is to improve educational opportunities and reduce racial isolation in those schools. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Little Rock School District Board of Education that any grant funds received for the Southwest Little Rock Magnet Schools will be used exclusively for the benefit of those schools and not for other purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands on behalf of the Little Rock School District Board of Education on this 24th day of July, 2003. Larry Berkley, Secretary Judy Magness, President .!,I,' ,z.. z 0 \u0026gt;..... \"'\n\u0026gt; o:S ::c\n= \"O'\"o' ::C::c 08 .~.... ...,..,. 11::m C\n,o ~~ om m\"'\n!I Date: To: From: Through: Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 24, 2003 Board of Directors Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintenden~ 2002-2003 SAT-9 Results We have received the results of the 2002-03 Stanford Achievement Tests, ninth edition, for grades 5, 7, and 10. District wide results show that students in grades five and seven improved on all subtests, while students in grade ten stayed at approximately the same level. Fifth grade students showed the most improvement by scoring nine percentile points higher than last year's fifth graders on the complete battery. Seventh grade students scored eight percentile points higher than last year's seventh graders, while tenth grade students scored two percentile points higher than last year's tenth graders. A review and report of these results will be provided at the July 24 board meeting. ?\u0026lt; m .3.1,:. 5\nm ::c ~ z~ C) en 1D' nS ::,:\n= en en On ::C::,: 08 ~ ..... ,.... en 31:.m c::\nJD ~~ cm men\n!l '54.n Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge\" July 24, 2003 TO: ~ittleR ock School District Board of Directors FROM: H.Eat~ Director of Facility Services THROUG nald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Request for Dedication Deed: Southwest Middle School The City of Little Rock has requested that the Little Rock School District grant a 20-footradius dedication deed for the installation and maintenance of public utilities on the southeast comer of 32nd and South Bryant Streets. See Exhibit A, attached. Assessment of this dedication indicates that it would have no negative impact on the operation of Southwest Middle School. It is recommended that the Little Rock School District Administration be permitted to enter into this agreement. DEC:cg Attachment 810 W. Markham  Little Rocle, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.k12.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 ,. ?\u0026lt; m I: ~  m m :::c ~\n,o z C') en ~::::c\nS= en en nn :::C:::c 08 ~ ... r- en 1:m C::\n,o ~~ om m Ul ~ CORPORATION DEDICATION DEED Know All Men By These Presents: That, Little Rock Public School District, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas and doing business under the laws of the State of Arkansas, for and in consideration of the benefits accruing to it and to the public generally, does hereby, dedicate, give and convey unto the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, for the purpose of a public street and the installation and maintenance of public utilities, and other public purposes, a strip of land owned by it, situated in Little Rock, Pulaski County, in the State of Arkansas, to-wit: EXHIBIT A To HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said City of Little Rock, Arkansas and unto its successors and assigns forever, for the purpose of the public uses and benefit herein described, together with all and singular the tenements, appurtenances and hereditaments thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Little Rock Public School District, a corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its Ex-officio, attested by its signature and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed, all in accordance with and pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Directors of the said Little Rock Public School District on this ___ day of ______ , 20 __ . Corporate Seal ?\u0026lt; m .!.I,:  ~ ::c ! cz! ! Cl en\n,\u0026gt; nS ::c\n= en en nn ::C::c 08 ~ .... r- en !l:m C:\no ~~ c,m men\n!I STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) COUNTY OF PULASKI) ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this __ day of ____ , 20 __ , before me, a Notary Public duly commissioned, qualified and acting for said County and State, appeared in person the within named ----------and ---------- being the Ex-officio Financial Secretary and ___________ respectively of Little Rock School District, and who had been designated by Little Rock School District to execute the above instrument, to me personally well-known, who stated that they were the Ex-officio Financial Secretary and for the said Little Rock School District, and were duly authorized in their respective capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged that they had so signed, executed and delivered said foregoing instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes herein mentioned and set forth. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal as such Notary Public on this __ day _____ , 20 _. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ?\u0026lt; m .3.1,:  m m ::c ~ ~ C) en .,.. nS ::c\n= en en no ::C::,: 08 ~ .... ,... en 31:m c::\n,\n, ~~ cmmen ~ EXHIBIT A 20' RADIAL R/ W DEDICATION PART OF THE SW1 / 4 NE1/4 OF SECTION 13, T-1-N, R-13-W, LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUND', ARKANSAS MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SW1/4 NE1 / 4, SECTION 13\nTHENCE S88\"23'E, 35.00 FT. TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SOUTH BRYANT STREET\nTHENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 1268.40 FT. TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF W. 32ND STREET AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING\nTHENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 20.00 FT.\nTHENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 20.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT TO A POINT ON THE SAID EAST LINE OF SOUTH BRYANT STREET\nTHENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE 20.00 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 86 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS. / -------......_ ' \\ -+-\u0026gt; ~ ~ !.- -+-\u0026gt; V) -+-\u0026gt; ~ 1j ~ !.- ~ ..c: -+-\u0026gt; ~ 0 V) i\n' ~ c:, (0 '- W. 32nd Street (60' R/ W) ~,..2..0.... _00_' _________________________ ~ ~O, 'f\u0026gt;o ~ ?\u0026lt; m I: ~ m :c ! i!! z C) Cl\u0026gt;\n,\u0026gt; nS :c\n= n\"'\"o' :c :c 08 ~ .... ,-Cl\u0026gt; Em c\na ~~ om m\"'\n!l DATE: TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 July 24, 2003 Board of Directors PREPARED BY: Donald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent of Schools ~Mark D. Milhollen, Manager Financial Services SUBJECT: Financial Reports The final stages of the financial report are still in process, and therefore, will not appear on the printed agenda for the month of July. However, should the reports be completed, they will be available at the meeting. ?\u0026lt; m I:: \"D 5 -m\u0026lt; m :c !\no z C') u, .,,. nS :c\n= u, u, nn :oc g:c ~ ... ,.. u, !::m C:\no ~~ cm mu, ~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Date: July 24, 2003 To: Boao~f dir ectors From: Mar acey, Assistant Superintendent Sec Sc.s Sadie Mitchell, J\\ssociate Superintendent _ s.o1 Services Through: ~nald M. Stewart, Interim Superintendent Re: Proposal for Naming the Choral Music Department at Central High School I am attaching a proposal for naming the choral music department at Central High School as the Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department. Nancy Rousseau, principal of Central High School, completed the nomination process as requested by students and members of the Central High School community. This action would serve as a monument to the superior reputation of Mr. Brack and for his twenty-seven years of service to the Central High School Music Department. As required by District policy FF:Naming of Facilities, you will also find attached a copy of a letter of acceptance for this honor from Mr. Brack. The administration recommends approval of this proposal. ?\u0026lt; m I: ~  m m ::r:: !\n!! z Cl \"' NAMING AND RENAMING FACILITIES I propose that the Choral Music Department (Designation of building and/or location) 1500 South Park Little Rock, AR 72202 (Address) be named for Robert L. Brack I. Biographical Data: Mr. Brack was born on June 8, 1944. II. The Nominee's significant contribution is: Uhile at Central, Mr. Brack was none less than superior in all performances \u0026amp; in all aspects of his teaching career. He has left a lasting impression on hun reds of students and the faculty \u0026amp; staff at Central High School. Ill. I believe the facility should be named for this person because: We feel that the naming of the ehoral Department in Mr. Brack's honor would be both a monument to him and a motivation to all future singers to live up to the standards that Mr. Brack set for them. The current choral music students would like the department to be names, \"The Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department\". 5-28-03 (Signature) (Date) This form should be submitted by persons nominating names for new facilities to the LRSD Board of Education for consideration according to Board policy FF. ?'\u0026lt; m .i,i,: 5 m-\u0026lt; m ::,: ~\no z C\u0026gt; Cl) PROPOSAL TO HONOR MR. ROBERT L. BRACK Little Rock Central High School Concert Choir and Madrigal Singers May 1, 2003 4ss,\ns \u0026amp;l,i,l' S.11/\\ ~ --~,t:- Fc,'7', .S- 'I,.(/r O , .,.~ltf'~ ~le,, ,\u0026gt;:, V~,_ ~~ \u0026lt;Oo\n, , To whom it may concern: ~r ot/Jl ' In view of the fact that Mr. Robert L. Brack, Choral Music Director at Cen~h High, will be completing his final year in the Little Rock School District this May, the choral music students under his direction would like to propose to have the choral music department at LR Central named in his honor. While at Central, Mr. Brack has never received anything less than superior in all performances and in all aspects of his teaching career. He has left a lasting impression on hundreds of students, all of the faculty he has worked with, and the excellent tradition that Central High has and will always live up to. The current choral music students feel that having this department named, \"The Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department\" would be both a monument to him and a motivation to all future singers to live up to the reputation that Mr. Brack left behind in his twenty-seven years of service to the school. We, the 2002-2003 choral music students thank you for this consideration. This proposal is very important to us and to Central High. Respectfully yours, ~~~~ ~ ~~ Kate Goodson and Tempest Williams LRCH Concert Choir and Madrigal Singers Members RECIUVD MAY I 02118 ?\u0026lt; m .i.i,:  m m ::,: ~ \"z' C') en Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent Little Rock School District Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Dr. Lacey and Board of Directors: 14217 Longtree Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 June 6, 2003 I have experienced so many great opportunities and successes at Central High School during my tenure as Choral Music Director. Being named \"Teacher of the Year\" by the Central High School faculty this year was a tremendous honor. It is the greatest honor when students recognize a teacher for providing quality instruction that makes a difference in their lives. I am overwhelmed by a sense of pride and with much gratitude that my students and principal, Nancy Rousseau desire to have the Choral Music Department officially named in my honor. Of all honors, this one has to be the greatest. It is with much gratitude, humility, pride, and dignity that I give my approval for the Choral Music Department at Central High School to be named in my honor: \"The Robert L. Brack Choral Music Department\". Thanks to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors for giving me the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of many students for the past thirty-four years. Sincerely, ~~h ?'\u0026lt; m .i.i,,:  mm ::c !j'\n! i Cl Cl)\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":"gsl_borm_borm2003-2004","title":"Minutes, Board of Regents, 2003-2004, July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004","collection_id":"gsl_borm","collection_title":"Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_date":["2003-07-01/2004-06-30"],"dcterms_description":["Meeting minutes and agendas of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Digitization of this collection is a project of the Georgia Public Library Service, a unit of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, in association with the University System. The project is supported with federal LSTA funds administered by the Institute of Museum and Library Services."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Atlanta, Ga. : Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005"],"dcterms_subject":["Education, Higher--United States--Administration","Universities and colleges","Schools","University System of Georgia. Board of Regents","Minutes (Records)","Agendas (Series)"],"dcterms_title":["Minutes, Board of Regents, 2003-2004, July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:gsl_borm_borm2003-2004"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/gsl_borm_borm2003-2004"],"dcterms_temporal":["2003-07-01/2004-06-30"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005. Office of Legal Affairs, Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["minute books"],"dcterms_extent":["746 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"geh_vhpohr_320","title":"Oral history interview of John Glustrom","collection_id":"geh_vhpohr","collection_title":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["France, Alsace, 48.33333, 7.43333","France, Cherbourg, 49.6425343, -1.6249565","France, Lorraine, 48.874423, 6.208093","Germany, Frankfurt am Main, 50.110922, 8.682127","Germany, Weimar, Buchenwald, 51.0195868, 11.2508336","United Kingdom, England, Salisbury Plain, 51.2486531, -1.89348305217729","United States, California, Inyo County, Death Valley, 36.44802, -116.86579","United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","United States, Nevada, Death Valley, 36.42404725, -116.914043672057"],"dcterms_creator":["Wallace, Fredrick C.","Glustrom, John, 1916-2008"],"dc_date":["2003-06-18"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, John Glustrom describes his experiences as an Army engineer during World War II. He recalls his training in Death Valley, California, and his responsibilities in England building barracks and hospitals. He describes the supply lines his unit created in Normandy after D-Day and a later encounter he had with General George Patton. Of particular interest are his memories of Buchenwald and the conditions he found there. He concludes the interview by reflecting on his work with the Civil Rights Movement in Atlanta, Georgia.","John Glustrom was an Army engineer during World War II.","FREDERICK WALLACE: Today is Wednesday, June 18, 2003. This is the beginning of an interview with Mr. John Glustrom. Mr. Glustrom is a Veteran of World War II and he saw service with the U.S. Army Engineers in England, France, and Germany during the periods from January 1941 to January 1946. The interview is being conducted at the Atlanta History Center in Atlanta, Georgia. My name is Frederick Wallace. I'm with AARP, and I am going to be the interviewer. Mr. Glustrom, as I briefed you earlier, this is your story. We want you to tell it in your own words. Take us from the day of your enlistment into the service, tell us why you enlisted, and your experience during your days in boot camp or basic training, and take us all the way through step by step until your date of separation. So, Mr. Glustrom, will you begin, please? JOHN GLUSTROM: Thank you. I have to say to begin with that there's a thread going through this narration, a thread of fortunate events that occurred in time to keep me living through the war. Many things have happened that just by a thread changed the course of my life and kept me going, though I was never wounded or injured except getting a bad case of poison ivy from going to sleep in the woods without light. Time after time very important events occurred through which I was kept alive because my service was advanced beyond a front line as it might be called and in front of the tanks many times without protection of armed troops. And with that, I'll go into the narration. I was drafted one year before Pearl Harbor. In fact, my bags were packed on the company street waiting for discharge when the Japanese took their terrible action in Pearl Harbor. And in the course of my initial time in the military I went through several units. One unit I was transferred out of was the field artillery, and that field artillery later I found went to Africa and suffered enormous casualties in Africa, but I was put into the engineers and my job was to help form and train the 333rd Engineering Regiment. FREDERICK WALLACE: Could I back you up for just a minute? JOHN GLUSTROM: Sure. FREDERICK WALLACE: Where did you go for basic training after you were enlisted? JOHN GLUSTROM: That was a -- FEMALE SPEAKER: In South Carolina. JOHN GLUSTROM: Notable point, I went to South Carolina, but I never had hardly any basic training and so I survived without it. FREDERICK WALLACE: Just a moment. Yes, go ahead. [RECORDING CUTS OFF TEMPORARILY] Okay. JOHN GLUSTROM: I was in the artillery, and as I said, I was transferred out. The reason I was transferred out was that I had gotten a real desirable job working through for a Regimental Colonel and he kept me out of basic training and kept me out of company duties in order to take over his headquarters. And by not having company duties I became sort of a bad element in the company, because everybody else was jealous. And so, one morning I was allowed to go to Atlanta. I had a weekend pass from South Carolina, Camp Claiborne and every weekend a permanent pass and it was the kind of pass that did not endear me to the Regiment, the men who were doing the dirty work to keep the Regiment going, taking care of the kitchen and the latrine. And so, one morning about five o'clock I came back from Atlanta with a load men, which I took with me and found I had been transferred. And I asked what happened to the Colonel and they said he had been sent to an officer's training course himself, and he could not longer prevent my being put out. And so, that was, as I said, one of the best things that happened because the artillery unit had tremendous casualties in Africa. And our casualties in the engineers were relatively light, but it did save my life. During the course of the time I spent in the artillery, which was well over a year I never got promoted past Private. And then when I got into the engineering outfit I began going through a series of promotions until I made Master Sergeant. As Master Sergeant I was somewhat my own boss, and I decided to stay as Master Sergeant until we were going to be sent overseas. And I got an opportunity to be made into Warrant Officer in the same Regiment at the same position I was doing this Master Sergeant. And my job was to see that the Regiment had food and clothing and ammunition and things that they needed when they needed it. And I made contact with all sorts of sources of supply. And an interesting thing happened in the engineers, another event for which I as very fortunate. We were sent to Death Valley for training. The purpose of it was in Death Valley to prepare for Africa service. And in Africa things were very, very uncertain and dangerous. The Rommel of the Germans was a very adept Commander. Any troops who opposed him had real problems. But our unit was sent to train in Death Valley and we were divided into a red army and a blue army. All the units were there training. FREDERICK WALLACE: And Death Valley, you mean Death Valley, California? JOHN GLUSTROM: In the United States. FEMALE SPEAKER: Yeah, that would be in California. JOHN GLUSTROM: California and New Mexico and Oregon, you know, and – it's an extensive dessert through many states. And we had – there, you know, the temperature was 110 or 115 during the day and it would go down near to freezing at night. And we always had to get into a sleeping bag and hope that a rattlesnake was not in there waiting for us. But they divided us into a red army and blue army and the blue army was my organization. And everything was going pretty well with us in the maneuvers until one night the red army people stormed into our headquarters and stole our battle plans, and from then on we were severely trounced in the maneuvers and the red army was sent to Africa. And as a result, I found out later on leave in Paris that the red army suffered over 80% casualties in Africa because they weren't really adept at anything but breaking and entering. And that, of course, I think was one of the things that saved my life. And when I was made an officer before going overseas that gave me a much better lifestyle and situation as an individual soldier for service in strange lands, and I was suddenly transformed from an enlisted man to an officer. In those days it was a very, very different role and lifestyle, and I had to learn to live the officer core, eat with them, sleep along side of them, and generally be one of them and have the officer's duties in additions to the duties I had as a Master Sergeant. The first place overseas we were sent was to England, and that was during the bombing raids. I don't know how many people realize, but England was almost bombed out of existence during World War II. And if they had been we would most likely have lost that war. I was there many times during the bombing raids. I once had a weekend leave to London and several bombing raids took place every night; two nights I was there. In fact, the people were so immune to the effects of the bombs that they would go outside their places where they were and look up to watch the lights of any aircraft fire and the planes dropping the bombs and there was black falling all over the streets, and they would stand foolishly and endanger their own lives from flack, which could easily kill them. The effects of the bombs really almost destroyed England as a fighting force, and it was during that time that America got into the Lend-Lease program and began to help supply England with equipment and keep them going, because Roosevelt, who was President then, had the foresight to realize what was happening with England and how badly we needed them. And then America got into the race to be the first to develop radar. We had one man here named John Lumus [phonetic] who formed a unit at his own expense with 500 physicists, and they had a location near New York City and New York State, and they developed a radar lab there. And all these physicists worked on various aspects of the radar production. FREDERICK WALLACE: Let me take you back for a moment. Where were you based in England and what was the mission of your unit? JOHN GLUSTROM: Our mission in England was to build barracks and hospitals for incoming American troops and expected casualties from American soldiers. [RECORDING CUTS OUT TEMPORARILY] The first place we were sent into England was the Salzburg plains, which is a large area in the central part of England. We never saw any towns during the day time. We would get there at night, and I got into town maybe twice during the several months. And then we went to – I got a weekend leave. I had to go to London to pick up some equipment – special equipment, and I got a weekend leave into London as a result of having to get that equipment. That's when I participated in these air raids. Now, it was a very funny feeling; I picked up a girl in London, took her out to dinner and an air raid came while we were eating dinner. And the waiter came and brought all the rest of the dinner and told us he was going down to the air raid shelter. We could stay and eat if we wanted to. [LAUGHTER] And so, we tried to stay there and eat and the bombs were dropping around us and it was a very funny feeling. Our stomachs seemed to have feathers from all the danger involved of staying there and eating this delicious food in the midst of a tremendous raid that might destroy us any second. That was a brush with death. I can still feel, to this day, the effects of sitting there and those bombs dropping all around. And then when we later on looked outside the door we saw civilian Londoners ignoring the flack and walking around the street looking up in the air like it was a giant performance for their benefit. We had the job of building these barracks and hospitals there. One of the phenomenon's that reoccurred in England at that time, in addition to sending us over to build these barracks and hospitals, they sent large numbers of American Generals and Colonels over to take over the arriving American troops. And until the troops arrived in England they had very little to do, so as a result, every two or three days one of them would be inspecting the American troops that were there. And we were there then. We got an inspection almost every day. It got so bad we couldn't do any work so we set aside Company B for inspections, and all Company B did was pick up their saw dust and pick up their scraps of wood and keep the place spotlessly clean so the Generals would have a good report on the inspection. And nothing else got inspected but Company B. And we had a shortage over there because the submarines were very busy sinking American supply ships and the German submarines were very deadly. And the American supply ships were going from American to England trying to avoid being sunk. In fact, when I came across the ocean it was on a converted banana boat that hauled bananas from South America to the United States, and they converted that boat to a troop ship and took my unit over in that fashion, and we were kind of crowded on that banana boat. The boats were heavily dependant on what radar we had for warning at that time, and later on we developed, through the genius of these physicists, a very, very thorough and advanced form of radar that was able to not only pinpoint weapons after we shot them but ping back that we had hit the target. And it was radar that saved England and saved us. I might say that later on in the war there was – it was plain that American planes would do a world of bombing in Germany, and for a while they bombed civilian areas with the idea of disrupting the German war effort. And they carried on terrible bombings in German towns. The worst one was in Dresden in Germany, and I think that anybody that saw the bombing that the Germans did in England would realize that what they received in return was what they really deserved to get because of the indiscriminant bombings they themselves carried on. And so, every time someone complains to me about Dresden and the bombing of civilians and 100,000 Germans being killed in the bombing, I have to think back to the hundreds of thousands of Britain's who were killed by German bombs and how many killed us. FREDERICK WALLACE: Were you stationed in Germany at the time? JOHN GLUSTROM: No, I wasn't stationed any where more than a few days except in England. But I'll get to my German eventually. On D-Day Plus 12 I went across on Normandy Beach and when I landed off of – [RECORDER CUTS OFF TEMPORARILY] – the equipment as I took across to France was a pocket chess set and I got to play chess while we were waiting around to move. You know, they say that the Army they also serve who sit and wait, and I did my share of waiting and sitting. And so, the pocket chess set came in handy. I had a friend, a dentist named Walter Grant that I used to play chess with and I had much fun with Walter Grant. He was what we used to call a cocksman, and he would go around picking up girls in every town wherever we stopped for a day or two. He was a magician. They called it a Presto Digit Toto [phonetic], and he used to do tricks making the little knife disappear or change colors, and he would stop a young girl on the street and show her the tricks and before long he had a whole gang of young girls following him, and other people, and he invariably would end up going with the girl to her apartment. While we were in this particular town he would spent it with companionship. He was well known for that purpose. A very nice fellow and I enjoyed many a adventure with him, although I didn't need any of his dentistry attention. Now, I did go into France and after having three years in the military except for the time in England, which was about six or eight months, and I spent two years counting England, France, and Germany, and I went over to Normandy D plus 12 and we went over in these little boats they called ducks and when we finally got to the shore line the front of the boat let down and we marched down that ramp into the water by waist deep and had to walk up the shore. And at that time, D plus 12, the Germans had been beaten back, so they were only firing artillery and not firing machine guns at us. And we had a job assigned to go clear the Sherbourg Harbor. Unfortunately, we had no transportation and Sherbourg Harbor had been filled with boats. We had to hike to Sherbourg, and we went all the way to hiking day and night to the limit of our endurance. There was no – at that time, no weapon vehicles to ride in, so we took forced marches night and day to get to Sherbourg. When we got there the Germans were still firing from high peaks in Sherbourg and we had to help clear the town of Germans. And then after it was clear we realized that we could not clear the harbor in time for use, and so therefore, they had to give up on the idea of using Sherbourg for a port of debarkation. And so, we stayed there at Normandy and used Normandy Beach as a port of debarkation for supplies. Not many people realize but Normandy and Utah Beaches were massive engineering feats that were built for the purpose of invading France and then Germany. And there was storm that came up during the first few days of invasion and destroyed one of those beaches, but the other one survived and served to supply the entire American effort in France. And not many people realize that that was a thread that the American troops in France was hanging by this very thin supply line through one of the temporary beaches that were set up for supply purposes. And every GI that landed in France landed in either Normandy or Utah Beach. Later on we went there and re-visited that beach and I was a made an honorary citizen of France of Normandy Beach. And there were people swimming at the beach where we had so much misery. And I can't believe to this day that women and children were there on that beach swimming when we visited. And so, we marched to Sherbourg a new organization was set up called the Third Army, and it was primarily tank core troops in our engineering unit. And our job with the tanks core was to get out ahead of them sometimes and repair damage bombed out roads and bridges so that the tanks could be supplied with food, ammunition, and gasoline, the heavy items. And we went through France and Germany, sometimes ahead of tanks and sometimes behind them but always looking for bomb damage to repair along the way. There was little, short freight trains, must have been 20 feet shorter than American freight trains, that served throughout France and Germany and they had little box cars. In fact, one of the box cars was used by General Eisenhower to haul his own private cow around so he would have fresh milk wherever we went. And while I was in England I ran into – I was at a British supply depot hunting for special supplies for equipment and all of the sudden a jeep drove up with a 1st Lieutenant and a Technical Sergeant and driver, a Corporal driver and they'd go into the supply depot and said if you got any lacquer -- and supply -- the British soldier there at the supply depot said, of course, “we have no lacquer, there's a war going on.” And the American says, “Well, we got orders to get lacquer for General Patton's helmet. He takes 18 coats on each helmet.” And there they were with these, in a period of short supplies, using gasoline and equipment and their own time to hunt for equipment for General Patton that he really didn't need. And later on, to show us how short supplies were, one of the inspectors came to our headquarters and he looked in our trashcans and he saw where someone had thrown away the core of an apple. He reached in the garbage can and pulled out this uneaten core of apple and he started eating it. And he said, “You should not be throwing things like this away in this shortage of equipment.” But when the officer wanted lacquer for his helmet he had the time and equipment and when Eisenhower wanted the cow he had the cow. This is a couple of interesting episodes before we landed in Omaha Beach. The first thing we saw on the shore following landing in Omaha Beach was where an American soldier – a paratrooper had been caught by the Germans and he was strung up by his feet and his throat was slit and he was left hanging there so we would see what would happen to us if the Germans caught us, to scare or frighten us, but all it did was – the word spread about it all over to every American soldier in France at that time that this was what the Germans did to the American troops. And it made us hate them with a vehement passion. It didn't not frighten us to that extent, because what happened happened to someone else, and it was not, to us, personal, but it got us very, very disturbed and angry. And our anger against the Germans lasted throughout the war. In fact, some American retired troops that had gotten out of the military and back and civilian life 40 and 60 years later can remember how deep that hatred was. From Sherbourg we went – we were attached to the third Army and started a march through France. And once I needed some special equipment and I had to go to – I got a weekend leave to go to Paris, and in Paris my reception was like that of a hero and France couldn't do enough for us. In fact, one man coming running up to me with a 20 year aged bottle of Cognac, the best alcohol I've ever drank was that bottle of Cognac 20 years old. And I got back from Paris and continued with our march through France – FREDERICK WALLACE: How did you get to Buchenwald? JOHN GLUSTROM: I'm coming to that because that was deep in Germany. FREDERICK WALLACE: Okay. JOHN GLUSTROM: And it's a good question. Am I taking too long? I'm getting close to end. The first place we went was to Alsace-Lorraine, which was a territory being kicked back and forth between the Germans and the French through history. And in Alsace-Lorraine, it's around the edge of Mines River, which is about 50 feet across at that place. And I went to Alsace-Lorraine and we spent the night there. The officers were quartered in with a French family or a German family. They were betwixt France and Germany so they weren't – didn't consider themselves French or German. We were supposed to take off to Germany at three o'clock in the morning. Well, it so happens that at three o'clock the Americans didn't invade across the river. They were afraid and missed their departure and about four o'clock General Patton came rushing up with his pearl revolver and his helmet with all the lacquer and every other word a cuss word. And he says, “What the hell is going on here? Why aren't you across the river?” And they said, “We're afraid, General; the Germans may be waiting right over there with machine guns pointing at us.” And so, he says, I'm going across and any of you yellow belly sons of so-so want to go with me come along. So he takes off his boots and his helmet and dives into the river and swims across in the darkness, and he gets across and when he left to swim across then all the troops were shamed in the fact they didn't go across it, and they started swimming across with him. And that's the way they crossed the Rhine River and they established there was no Germans waiting for us, and they established the beach head there. And then by two, three hours they had a bridge across the river and that served to get our equipment and tanks over. And the first town I went to with any major consequences was Frankfurt, Germany. And I had a unique experience in Frankfurt. Two soldiers and I had gone into look at various well-to-do houses and it was getting dark. The two soldiers left for the camp ground and I was there, and I came out on the town square in the dusk, and the first thing I saw was a group of imported laborers from east Europe who had surrounded a pretty German girl with blonde hair. They were pushing her back and forth in this circle and tearing her clothes off with the idea, undoubtedly, of gang raping her. I stepped up the circle of men and I yelled at the top of my voice and pulled out my revolver and started waving it and they released the girl and she darted off like a rabbit in a distant alley and the men dispersed who were abusing her. And I saved, in spited of my feeling against the Germans, I was still feeling that I needed to save this girl from being manhandled and brutalized. And so, I – FREDERICK WALLACE: I'm going to stop you here. [TAPE CUTS OUT] JOHN GLUSTROM: -- so that desire to protect a woman from being raped by this gang of laborers – the later laborers got -- the Germans had imported impressing them into duty while the Germans were fighting their soldiers and they served all the way through Germany to run the factory and produce military equipment for the German Army. And after Americans liberated Frankfurt or any other town they would be without their German masters and they would be free and they committed atrocities against the German people in repayment for what had committed against them, and so, there was a terrible situation there. It reminds me of what's happened in Iraq where the population, some of them, seem to be uprising right now at this time. Anyway, I went all the way through Germany until about 20 miles from Berlin and on the way I had to go through the Weimar Republic near the time of Weimar and I heard that that was a – [END SIDE A] [BEGINNING SIDE B] JOHN GLUSTROM: -- go see it. And so, in Buchenwald there was a – it turned out to be a concentration camp, one of the worst. FEMALE SPEAKER: I think you [Unintelligible] because I think it's important how you – [RECORDING CUTS OFF TEMPORARILY] JOHN GLUSTROM: Buchenwald existed but as a soldier I didn't have any information on it. In the first place I didn't believe that the Germans could be so ruthless and brutal as to carry on an extermination camp as part of their system, and very few Americans believed they could do something like that. But when I got there I saw what they did and all of the sudden I began to believe it, that this was actually being carried on and all this brutality. And so, we came there April 11th, 1945 and there was a group of inmates in a half circle at the gate to welcome us in. They had about a 12 foot chain link fence all around the camp. And later on the tanks came and knocked the fence and the gates down. One person in the group caught my attention. It was a 15-year-old boy – looked 15. He looked about 12 because he looked so small. And I later found out he was Ellie Weisell, the writer who had been in Buchenwald concentration camp at that time. As we approached the camp about a half mile away the odor was so horrible we almost had to turn around and didn't go to see it. And when we got to it my two companions defected out and decided not to go in. I went in to see what was going on. In the reception room they had all these lamps which the head of the camp had made out of human skin, tattooed skin as sort of introduction to this inhuman place. And then at the hospital, which the inmates took me to, it showed the inmates of the hospital in barracks; in a room about ten feet tall like this one. And the barracks were every two foot up the wall to the ceiling and there were sick people laying in all the bunks floor to ceiling and nobody took care of them and so many of them had diarrhea and dysentery and they would have their excrement all over the place, and that's what the smell came from. Then further up the hill was a concentration camp – further up the hill was a crematorium and the crematorium had trailer with dead bodies outside stacked up like cord wood waiting to be cremated. They cremated – killed about 60 prisoners a day. The rest of them they worked to death. And later on in Allswidge [phonetic] I visited and found they cremated in 2500 a day in Allswidge, so it was a grand scale of what they did in Buchenwald. But anyway, that was the highlight of my experience and by contrast to Buchenwald, the German people were rosy cheeked and well fed and looked real reasonably happy. Right with all this going on in the midst -- the staff of Buchenwald, each eight hour shift was taken into Weimar, which was the nearest town, and a new staff was brought in on those trucks to take their place. And everybody in the town knew and talked of these staff members and knew what was going on in Buchenwald. So the Germans were well aware of what was happening in their midst. FREDERICK WALLACE: Let me ask you, how did that affect your later life? JOHN GLUSTROM: Well, when I got out of the military I decided to try to keep that sort of thing from happening over in this country. And I got involved in January of 1946 into the Civil Rights movement in Atlanta, and I became President – Vice-President of the Urban League and I served as a volunteer with the Urban League for 20 years more or less. The service with the Urban League -- started out I was the only white and they had to get a white man. They took me probably as the lesser of the evils. So anyway, I served with them. And I also got involved in the Gate City Day Nursery Association. I served as an officer and Board Member. And that was a nursery association in all the housing projects. And I also served with the Georgia Council on Human Relations as an officer. And my wife and I started the ACLU Chapter here in Atlanta, and we – FEMALE SPEAKER: He integrated with help – [RECORDING CUTS OUT] JOHN GLUSTROM: -- leading a group of the most prominent black citizens in Atlanta. They got me to come with them as their spokesman to integrated the public library, and before we went a black student would have to go and stand at the desk by the library and went and hunted the book he wanted out of the stacks. And later on, as a result of our visit, they did finally integrate the library. Then of course, the business of integrating the police force was a little bit more risky and we did get that done. But as a result of the library visit the newspaper published my name, address, and phone number on the front page and we had crosses burned on our front lawn as a result of that. And in those days, to begin with there may have been five white people involved in the Civil Rights Movement and I was one of them and my wife was another. And we became deeply involved and really whenever I see someone like you I realize, indirectly, I had a hand in your development and you've had a hand in mine. FREDERICK WALLACE: So what would you like for the younger people of America today to know about what you experienced and how they can apply your experience to their lives? JOHN GLUSTROM: Well, one thing about this experience is that at times it was as bad as it could get and life is so fragile even for the best of us that you need to live as though every moment was going to be your last minute. FREDERICK WALLACE: Very good. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Glustrom. We appreciate you sharing your experience with us. FEMALE SPEAKER: I can tell you how I feel what it was. I think he was saved to marry me, and I would not have married him had he not had that experience. I came from Minneapolis. My parents were – their friends commiserated with them that I was going to live down south, and I said “oh, but he's different.” And my mother said oh – [END TAPE] [KS]"],"dc_format":["video/quicktime"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Veterans History Project oral history recordings","Veterans History Project collection, MSS 1010, Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dcterms_subject":["World War, 1939-1945--Personal narratives, American","Lend-lease operations (1941-1945)","World War, 1939-1945--Engineering and construction","Loomis, Alfred L. (Alfred Lee), 1887-1975","Wiesel, Elie, 1928-","Patton, George S. (George Smith), 1885-1945","Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969","United States. Army. Engineer Special Service Regiment, 333rd"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview of John Glustrom"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/VHPohr/id/320"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material is protected by copyright law. (Title 17, U.S. Code) Permission for use must be cleared through the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center. Licensing agreement may be required."],"dcterms_medium":["video recordings (physical artifacts)","hi-8"],"dcterms_extent":["1:00:58"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_pec_35840","title":"Farmville Elementary School (former), Farmville, Va., 2003","collection_id":"vrc_pec","collection_title":"Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools","dcterms_contributor":["Peeples, Edward H. (Edward Harden), 1935-","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives","VCU Libraries"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, 37.2243, -78.44108","United States, Virginia, Prince Edward County, Farmville, 37.3021, -78.39194"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2003-06-15"],"dcterms_description":["Former Farmville Elementary School for African Americans on S. Main St., Farmville, Va. It was also said to be the African American high school (first Robert R. Moton High School) prior to 1939.","37.2932921","-78.3954923","http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.2932921,%20-78.3954923","Prince Edward Recreation Center","Farmville Elementary School (Main Street); Robert R. Moton High School (Farmville); Mary E. Branch Elementary School #1","African Americans","elementary schools"],"dc_format":["image/tiff"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Edward H. Peeples Prince Edward County (Va.) Public Schools"],"dcterms_subject":["Elementary schools","Schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County--History--Pictorial works","African American schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County--History--Pictorial works","Elementary schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County--History--Pictorial works","African American elementary schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County--History--Pictorial works","Public schools--Virginia--Prince Edward County--History--Pictorial works","School buildings--Virginia--Prince Edward County--History--Pictorial works","Farmville Elementary School (Farmville, Va.: Main St.)","Recreation centers"],"dcterms_title":["Farmville Elementary School (former), Farmville, Va., 2003"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A35840"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["color negatives"],"dcterms_extent":["6 x 9 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":334,"next_page":335,"prev_page":333,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":3996,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}