{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1319","title":"Proceedings: ''Hearing RE: Incentive Schools,'' Volume 10","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":["1992-07-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Hearing RE: Incentive Schools,'' Volume 10"],"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/1319"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["129 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_984","title":"''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992-07/1992-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Gifted persons"],"dcterms_title":["''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/984"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1526","title":"Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) Academic Support Program; District Court, reply to response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to Knight intervenors' motion to quash subpoena duces tecum","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":["1992-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","School employees","School administrators","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) Academic Support Program; District Court, reply to response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to Knight intervenors' motion to quash subpoena duces tecum"],"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/1526"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["5 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Intervenors, Knight"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1114","title":"Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1992-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas"],"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/1114"],"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\nCombined financial statements and supplemental information with independent auditors' reports by Thomas and Thomas, certified accountants\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nTHE LifflE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Financial Statements and Supplemental Information (With Independent Auditors' Reports Thereon) June 30, 1992 CEFmr lEO i\"VBI.IC ACCOIJNTA '\"'J ,. l THE LimE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Financial Statements and Supplemental Information (With Independent Auditors' Reports Thereon) June 30, 1992 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Table of Contents June 30, 1992 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - All Governmental Fund Types Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual - All Governmental Fund Types Notes to Combined Financial Statements SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES Combining Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures - Special Revenue Funds Revenues of Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as prescribed by Handbook II) Expenditures of Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as prescribed by Handbook II) Reconciliation of General and Debt Service Fund Balances - Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Handbook II Basis of Accounting Schedule of Long-Term Debt Reconciliation of Fund Equity - State Report and Financial Statements OTHER REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Independent Auditors' Report on Internal Control Structure Based on a Study and Evaluation Made as a Part of an Audit of the Basic Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the Additional Tests Required by 0MB Circular A-128 1 4 6 8 12 30 31 32 33 34 37 39 THE LiffiE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Table of Contents (Continued) June 30, 1992 Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance Based on an Audit of the Basic Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards 43 Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance with General Requirements Applicable to Federal Financial Assistance Programs 44 Independent Auditors' Report on Compliance with Specific Requirements Applicable to Major Federal Financial Assistance Programs 45 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs 47 Independent Auditors' Report on Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance 48 Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance 49 ~cvtd~ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Little Rock Office 201 E. Markham Suite 500  Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-2025  FAX (501) 375-8704 Texarkana Office: 701 Arkansas Blvd.  Texarkana, AA 75502 (501) 773-2168  FAX (501) n4-72 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District) as of, and for the year ended, June 30, 1992, as listed in the accompanying table of contents. The financial statements are the responsibility of the School District's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. As described more fully in Note l(F) of the combined financial statements, the School District does not record the valuation base of its property, buildings, and equipment at historical cost in the general fixed asset group of accounts as required by generally accepted accounting principles. In our opinion, except for the effect of the failure to record the general fixed asset account group at historical cost, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, the combined financial statements referred to in the first paragraph present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas as of June 30, 1992, and the results of its operations for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. 1 Members American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Private Compan,es Practice Section and S.E.C. Practice Sact,on The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Two Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an op1n1on on the combined financial statements taken as a whole. The supplemental information included at pages thirty through thirty-seven is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic combined financial statements. The information has been subjected to the procedures applied in the audit of the basic combined financial statements of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the combined financial statements taken as a whole. November 20, 1992 Little Rock, Arkansas 2 ~ ef ~ Certified Public Accountants COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 3 ASSETS AND AMOUNTS TO BE PROVIDED General Assets: Cash (Note 9) $ 2,198,349 Investments (Note 9) 7,967,389 Property taxes receivable (Note 2, 4 and 11) 2,789,594 Accrued interest and other receivables 156,799 Due from other governments (Notes 7 and 10) 8,471,471 Due from other funds 2,099,269 Inventories 445,366 Fixed assets (Notes 1 (Fl and 3) Prepaids and deferred charges 13,885 Total assets 24,142,122 Amounts to be provided for retirement of general long-term debt (Note 4) Total assets and amounts to be provided s 24,142,122 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups June 30, 1992 Fiduciary Governmental Fund TYJ!es Fund TYJ!e Account General Special Debt Capital Fixed Revenue Service Projects Agency Assets $ $ $ $ 119,128 $ l, 346,553 24,341,447 786,957 790,002 6,769 74,902 11,682 2,359,706 34,954 225,863 170,233 115,610 157,152,108 384,157 3,828,638 1,209,113 24,642,212 1,088,000 157,152,108 s 3,828,638 s 1,209,113 s 24,642,212 $___1_,_QJ38,000 s 157,152,108 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 4 GrOUJ:!S General Total Long-term (Memorandum Debt Only) $ $ 2,317,477 34,442,346 3,579,596 250,152 11,091,994 2,269,502 560,976 157,152,108 398,042 212,062,193 88,713,241 88,713,241 s 88,713,241 s 300,775,434 (Continued) LI'rrLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups (Continued) June 30, 1992 Fiduciary Governmental Fund Tvt\u0026gt;es Fund TYl!e Account Grou11s General General Total Special Debt Capital Fixed Long-Term (Memorandum LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY General Revenue Service Projects Agency Assets Debt Only} Liabilities: Bank overdrafts (Note 9) $ $ 437,665 $ $ 189,553 s $ s s 627,218 Accounts payable 4,007,998 127,338 489,281 6,320 4,630,937 Accrued payroll taxes and withholdings 3,534,812 3,534,812 Accrued interest payable 74,000 33,048 107,048 Retainage payable (Note 3) 154,195 154,195 Estimated claims liability (Note 13) 230,295 230,295 Deferred revenues 643,181 643,181 Due to school activity groups and other agencies (Note 8) 1,081,680 1,081,680 Due to other funds 170,233 2,099,269 2,269,502 Notes payable (Note 11) 13,815,000 13,815,000 Long-term debt payable (Note 4) 88,713,241 88,713,241 Total liabilities 21,832,338 1,208,184 33,048 2,932,298 1,088,000 88,713,241 115 I 807 I 109 Commitments and Contingencies (Notes 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 13) Fund Equity: Investment in general fixed assets (Notes l(f) and 3) 157,152,108 157,152,108 Fund Balance: Reserved for prepaids and deferred charges 13,885 384,157 398,042 Reserved for inventories 445,366 115,610 560,976 Unreserved: Board designated: Debt service 791,908 791,908 Capital projects 21,709,914 21,709,914 New Futures 245,834 245,834 Risk management (Note 13) 838,007 838,007 Food services and other 2,504,844 2,504,844 Undesignated 766,692 766,692 Total fund equity 2,309,784 2,620,454 1,176,065 21,709,914 157,152,108 184,968,325 Total liabilities and fund equity $ 24,142,122 $ 3,828,638 $ 1,209,113 $ 24,642,212 $ 1,088,000 $ 157,152,108 $ 88 I 713 I 241 $ 300,775,434 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 5 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance All Governmental Fund Types REVENUES Local Sources: Property taxes (Notes 2 and 11) Tuition Interest Food sales Food services and other Magnet schools funding (Note 10) Total local sources State Sources: Minimum foundation programs (Note 7) Desegregation settlement (Note 7) Magnet schools funding (Note 10) Handicapped children aid Vocational aid Transportation aid Compensatory education Other Total state sources Federal sources: Elementary and Secondary Education Act Vocational Education Act Food services Energy conservation Other Total federal sources Total revenues s Year Ended June 30, 1992 General 49,462,903 337,261 559,379 860,839 51,220,382 27,971,570 8,637,482 824,870 1,187,062 2,645,763 858,743 1,993,962 44,119,452 9 385 9 385 95,349,219 s Special Revenue 28,813 85,146 1,382,381 1,210,367 3,205,253 5,911,960 6,943,921 795 781 7,739,702 4,039,242 362,342 3,981,422 191,146 666,004 9,240,156 22 I 891,818 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 6 Debt Capital Service Projects s 14,379,338 s 59,717 864,251 34,727 123,462 14,562,517 898,978 14,562,517 898,978 s Total (Memorandum Only) 63,842,241 366,074 1,568,493 1,382,381 2,105,933 3,328,715 72,593,837 27,971,570 8,637,482 6,943,921 824,870 1,187,062 2,645,763 858,743 2,789,743 51,859,154 4,039,242 362,342 3,981,422 191,146 675,389 9,249,541 133,702,532 (Continued) THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance All Governmental Fund Types (Continued) EXPENDITURES Instructional services: Basic programs Exceptional child programs Vocational-technical programs Adult continuing education programs Compensatory education programs Other instructional programs Total instructional services Instructional support services Pupil transportation services Operation and maintenance of plant School administration General administration Capital outlay (Note 3) Principal retirement of long-term debt (Note 4) Interest charges (Notes 4 and 11) Fiscal agent's fees Debt issuance costs (Note 5) Food services Community services Indirect and other (Note 10) Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Contributed assets Proceeds of long-term debt (Note 4) Operating transfers in (Notes 2 and 10) Operating transfers out (Notes 2 and 10) Proceeds from refunding bonds (Notes 4 and 5) Payment to refunded bond escrow agent (Notes 4 and 5) Total other financing sources (uses) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other uses Fund equity, beginning of year Fund equity, end of year Year Ended June 30, 1992 General $ 43,242,212 5,347,249 4,829,699 30,596 2,537,077 1,326,910 57,313,743 9,854,068 5,685,460 9,516,578 5,992,218 6,384,798 4,023,313 429,104 123,344 1,202,394 32,450 100,557,470 (5,208,251) 71,478 6,709,905 6,743,250 (6,184,919) 7,339,714 2,131,463 178,321 $ 2,309,784 Special Revenue $ 8,994,938 576,253 1,089,353 793,166 3,144,831 207,537 14,806,078 1,736,879 1,055,206 1,315,748 763,400 5,897,064 298,553 618,612 26,491,540 (3,599,722) 3,738,667 3,738,667 138,945 2,481,509 $ 2,620,454 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 7 $ Debt Service 5,541,372 4,966,579 65,518 405,834 10,979,303 3,583,214 2,446,252 (6,388,642) 7,499,000 (7,265,000) (3,708,390) (125,176) 1,301,241 $ 1,176,065 s Capital Projects 6,904,569 408,450 7,313,019 (6,414,041) 15,433,600 40,067 (394,675) 15,078,992 8,664,951 l3 I 044 I 963 $ 21, 709 I 914 Total {Memorandum Only) $ 52,237,150 5,923,502 5,919,052 823,762 5,681,908 1,534,447 72,119,821 11,590,947 5,685,460 10,571,784 5,992,218 7,700,546 11,691,282 5,541,372 5,395,683 65,518 937,628 5,897,064 1,500,947 651,062 145,341,332 (11,638,800) 71,478 22,143,505 12,968,236 (12,968,236) 7,499,000 (7,265,000) 22,448,983 10,810,183 17,006,034 $ 27,816,217 REVENUES Local Sources: Property taxes (Notes 2 and 11) Tuition Interest Food sales Food services and other Magnet schools (Note 10) Total local sources State Sources: Minimum foundation programs (Note 7) Desegregation settlement (Note 7) Magnet schools funding (Note 10) Handicapped children ai d Vocational aid Transportation aid Compensatory education Other Total state sources Federal Sources: Elementary and Secondary Education Act Vocational Education Act Food service Energy conservation Other Total federal sources Total revenues THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual $ All Governmental Fund Types Year Ended June 30, 1992 General Fund Variance - Favorable Budget ,Actual (Unfavorable) 54,331,079 $ 49,462,903 $ (4,868,176) 300,000 337,261 37,261 700,000 559,379 (140,621) 814,936 860,839 45,903 56,146,015 51,220,382 (4,925,633) 28,118,907 27,971,570 (147,337) 8,637,482 8,637,482 629,752 824,870 195,118 1,174,485 1,187,062 12,577 2,983,190 2,645,763 (337,427) 874,311 858,743 (15 , 568) 2,022,134 1,993,962 (28,172) 44,440,261 44,119,452 (320,809) 668,744 9 385 (659,359) 668 744 9 385 (659,359) 101,255,020 95,349,219 (5,905,801) The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 8 S11ecial Revenue Funds Variance - Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) $ $ $ 28,000 28,813 813 62,240 85,146 22,906 2,216,066 1,382,381 (833,685) 628,568 1,210,367 581,799 3,149,037 3,205,253 56,216 6,083,911 5,911,960 (171,951) 6,887,705 6,943,921 56,216 115,538 795,781 680,243 7,003,243 7,739,702 736,459 4,111,426 4,039,242 (72,184) 344,945 362,342 17,397 3,656,587 3,981,422 324,835 191,146 191,146 753,316 666,004 (87,312) 8,866,274 9,240,156 373,882 21,953,428 22,891,818 938,390 (Continued) THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual All Governmental Fund Types (Continued) Year Ended June 30, 1992 General Fund S~ecial Revenue Funds Variance - Variance - Favorable Favorable Budget Actual (Unfavorable) Budget Actual ~Unfavorable) EXPENDITURES Instructional services $ 58,590,221 $ 57,313,743 $ 1,276,478 $ 14,304,440 $ 14,806,078 $ (501,638) Instructional support services 11,104,163 9,854,068 1,250,095 1,842,200 1,736,879 105,321 Pupil transportation services 5,794,189 5,685,460 108, 729 Operations and maintenance of plant 10,453,402 9,516,578 936,824 1,140,670 1,055,206 85,464 School administration 5,804,622 5,992,218 (187,596) General administration 6,688,708 6,384,798 303,910 1,211,821 1,315,748 (103,927) Capital outlay (Note 3) 890,963 4,023,313 (3,132,350) 712,375 763,400 (51,025) Principal retirement of long term debt (Note 4) Interest charges (Notes 4 and 11) 429,104 (429,104) Fiscal agent's fees Debt issuance costs 123,344 (123,344) Food service 8,229,194 5,897,064 2,332,130 Community services 900,750 1,202,394 (301,644) 467,626 298,553 169,073 Indirect and other (Note 10) 636,437 32,450 603,987 478,143 618,612 (140,469) Total expenditures 100,863,455 100,557,470 305,985 28,386,469 26,491,540 1,894,929 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 391,565 (5,208,251) (5,599,816) (6,433,041) (3,599,722) 2,833,319 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Contributed assets 71,478 71,478 Proceeds of long-term debt (Note 4) 4,500,000 6,709,905 2,209,905 Operating transfers in (Notes 2 and 10) 911,453 6,743,250 5,831,797 3,738,667 3,738,667 Operating transfers out (Notes 2 and 10) (6,407,083) (6,184,919) 222,164 Proceeds from refunding bonds (Notes 4 and 5) Payment to refunded escrow agent (Notes 4 and 5) Total other financing sources (uses) (995,630) 7,339,714 8,335,344 3,738,667 3,738,667 Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses (604,065) 2,131,463 s 2,735,528 (2,694,374) 138,945 s 2,833,319 Fund equity, beginning of year 634,842 178,321 2,725,577 2,481,509 Fund equity, end of year s 30,777 s 2,309,784 s 31,203 s 2,620,454 (Continued) The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 9 REVENUES Local sources: Property taxes (Notes 2 and 11) Tuition Interest Food sales Food services and other Magnet schools and other (Note 10) Total local sources State Sources: Minimum foundation programs (Note 7) Desegregation settlement (Note 7) Magnet schools funding (Note 10) Handicapped children aid Vocational aid Transportation aid Compensatory education Other Total state sources Federal Sources: Elementary and Secondary Education Act Vocational Education Act Food service Energy conservation Other Total federal sources Total revenues THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual All Governmental Fund Types (Continued) Year Ended June 30, 1992 $ 8,828,760 8,828,760 8,828,760 Debt Service Fund Actual $14,379,338 59,717 123,462 14,562,517 14,562,517 Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) $ 5,550,578 59,717 123,462 5,733,757 5,733,757 $ The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 10 Capital Projects Fund $ Actual 864,251 34,727 898,978 898,978 Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) $ 864,251 34,727 898,978 898,978 (Continued) EXPENDITURES Instructional services Instructional support services Pupil transportation services Operations and maintenance of plant School administration General administration Capital outlay (Note 3) Principal retirement of long-term debt (Note 4) Interest charges (Notes 4 and 11) Fiscal agents' fees Debt issuance cost (Note 5) Food service Community services Indirect and other (Note 10) Total expenditures Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Contributed assets Proceeds of long-term debt (Note 4) Operating transfers in (Notes 2 and 10) Operating transfers out (Notes 2 and 10) Proceeds from refunding bonds (Notes 4 and 5) THE LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual s All Governmental Fund Types (Continued) Year Ended June 30, 1992 3,457,525 5,254,171 6,500 8,718,196 110,564 Debt Service Fund s 5,541,372 4,966,579 65,518 405,834 10,979,303 3,583,214 Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) s (2,083,847) 287,592 (59,018) (405,834) (2,261,107) 3,472,650 s Payment to refunded escrow agent (Notes 4 and 5) ____ _ Total other financing sources (uses) 2,446,252 (6,388,642) 7,499,000 (7,265,000) (3,708,390) 2,446,252 (6,388,642) 7,499,000 (7,265,000) (3,708,390) Excess of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses Fund equity, beginning of year Fund equity, end of year s 110,564 110,564 (125,176) 1,301,241 $ 1,176,065 The accompanying notes are an integral part of this financial statement. 11 $ (235,740) Capital Projects Fund Budget 28,586,236 346,966 28,933,202 (28,933,202) 15,058,276 15,058,276 (13,874,926) 13,874,926 s 6,904,569 408,450 7,313,019 (6,414,041) 15,433,600 40,067 (394,675) 15,078,992 8,664,951 13,044,963 $ 21,709,914 Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable) $ 21,681,667 (61,484) 21,620,183 22,519,161 375,324 40,067 (394,675) 20,716 $ 22,539,877 THE Lli'l'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements June 30, 1992 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies The accounting policies of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District) conform to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) applicable to governmental units, except for the practice of recording various components of its general fixed assets at appraised values rather than at cost (Note l(F)). The following is a summary of the more significant accounting policies. (A) Fund Accounti.ng The accounts of the School District are organized on the basis of funds or groups of accounts, each of which is considered to be a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set of self-balancing accounts which comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues and expenditures. The following paragraphs describe the fund types and account groups used by the School District. Governmental Fund Types: - The General Fund is the primary operating fund of the School District. All general tax revenues and other revenues that are not allocated by law or contractual agreement to another fund are accounted for in this fund. The general operating expenditures, the fixed charges, and the capital improvement costs that are not paid through other funds are paid from this fund. The Special Revenue Funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources, other than major capital projects, requiring separate accounting because of legal or regulatory provisions or administrative action. The Debt Service Funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for the payment of principal, interest, and fees on long-term general obligation debt. - The Capital Projects Funds are used to account for financial resources segregated for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities. Fiduciary Fund Type: The Agency Fund is used to account for the funds of school activity groups and other agencies. The assets in this fund are held by the School District in a fiduciary capacity. 12 THE LimE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) (A) Fund Accounting (Continued) Account Groups: - The General Fixed Asset Account Group is established to account for the fixed assets of the School District. - The General Long-Term Debt Account Group is established to account for the long-term debt that is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the School District. (BJ Basis of Accounting The modified accrual basis of accounting is utilized by all funds. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become available and measurable. Expenditures are recognized in the accounting period in which the liability is incurred, if measurable, except for unmatured interest on general long-term debt which is recognized when the interest is due. Resources from special grants are generally recognized as revenues to the extent of expenditures made under the provisions of the grants. Significant funds received before the revenue recognition criteria have been met are reported as deferred revenue. (C) Budgetary Accounting Certain revenues and expenditures are budgeted in accordance with various legal .requirements which govern the School District's operations. The annual budget is submitted to the Arkansas State Department of Education (the State) for approval. Revisions by subsequent budget amendments, if any, are not submitted to the State. Budgeted revenues and expenditures were approved by the Board of Directors at their June 22, 1991 meeting. A final revision was adopted January 23, 1992. The budgets formally approved by the Board of Directors include the General Fund (salary, desegregation and other operating) and the Debt Service Fund, as required by the State (Handbook II), and certain construction and special revenue expenditures. The budgets of the School District utilized in its internal budgetary accounting systems and for financial reporting vary in some regards from those required by applicable state statutes to be formally approved by the Board of Directors. 13 THE Lli'rLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 1: SUD1111ary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) (CJ Budgetary Accounting (Continued) The budgets approved by the Board of Directors are utilized in the preparation of the Combined Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Budget and Actual. However, the approved budgets in some cases reflect beginning fund balance as revenue whereas these financial statements do not. In addition, certain budgeted items have been reclassified for financial statement presentation to facilitate comparison to the classifications required in reporting the related actual amounts. Such reclassifications relate primarily to operating transfers and proceeds of long-term debt. In addition, certain amounts (primarily property tax revenues and food service expenditures) are budgeted in accordance with accounting methods required by applicable state regulations with the related actual amounts being reflected in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. (DJ Investments Investments are stated at cost, which approximates market value. Investments consist of certificates of deposit, repurchase agreements, and treasury bills. (E) Inventories Inventories are stated at the lower of cost (first-in, first-out) or market (net realizable value). Inventories are recorded as expenditures when transferred to schools and departmental offices for utilization. (F) General Fixed Assets In the general fixed asset group of accounts, land is valued at historical cost. Certain other assets are stated at costs estimated by independent appraisers and by School District employees at various appraisal dates. Valuations of land improvements and buildings are intended to approximate fair market values at the latest appraisal dates (1965 and 1971, respectively)\nfurniture and fixtures are stated at appraisal values determined for insurance purposes in 1975. Additions since the date of the last appraisals are recorded at cost. The amount that such valuations vary from historical cost has not been determined. 14 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) (G) Property Taxes Property taxes are recognized and recorded as current period revenues in accordance with the provisions of Interpretation 3 of the National Council of Governmental Accounting's (NCGA) Statement 1, which states that such revenues should be recognized when they become \"measurable and available.\" The School District defines \"measurable and available\" to mean property tax collections received by the School District within sixty days after its year end. (HJ Interfrmd Transactions Quasi-external transactions are accounted for as revenues or expenditures. Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund, are recorded as expenditures in the reimbursing fund and as reductions of expenditures in the fund that is reimbursed. All other interfund transactions, except quasi-external transactions and reimbursements, are reported as transfers. Nonrecurring or nonroutine permanent transfers of equity are reported as residual equity transfers. All other interfund transfers are reported as operating transfers. (I) Accumulated Vacation and Sick Leave School District employees do not receive vacation pay as such. Certain employees receive additional compensation if they work more than their contracted days in any particular year. These employees are paid upon termination for any unpaid days accumulated in this manner. The School District's liability for this type of compensated absence is not considered material and, therefore, has not been recorded in the accompanying financial statements. Accumulated sick pay or personal leave days are not paid upon termination. Accordingly, the School District has not recorded a liability in the accompanying financial statements since payment is not probable and the amount of ultimate payment, if any, is not determinable. (J) Encumbrances Encumbrances for goods or purchased services are documented by purchase orders or contracts. Encumbrances outstanding at year end are not reported as expenditures for financial statement purposes as the related goods have not been received or the services performed. 15 THE LI'rrLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Continued) (K) Total Columns on Combined Statements Total columns on the combined statements are captioned \"memorandum only\" to indicate that they are presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in these columns do not present financial position, results of operations, or changes in fund equity in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. (L) Tax Exempt Status The School District is a tax exempt organization since its revenues are nontaxable under Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code. Note 2: Property Taxes Pulaski County, Arkansas (the County) levies a property tax each February on the assessed value listed as of January 1 of the prior year for all real and personal property located in the County. Assessed values are established by the County Assessor's office. All taxes are due from property holders on an installment basis by October 10. Taxes to be levied upon January 1, 1992 assessment values are as follows: Rea,l Estate Personal property Utilities Valuation (Millions) $1,100 379 68 $ 1,547 Millage General Debt Fund Service 34.0 34.0 35.6 9.9 9.9 10.1 Property tax revenues of the Debt Service Fund totaling approximately $6,349,000 (the excess of funds necessary to meet current debt service requirements) have been transferred to the General Fund during the year ended June 30, 1992 as provided for under the statutes of the State of Arkansas. 16 THE LI'.l'rLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 3: Fixed Assets The following is a summary of the major components of fixed assets of the School District: Balance Balance June 30, 1991 Additions Transfers June 30, 1992 Land s 2,861,085 s $ s 2,861,085 Land improvements 925,255 925,255 Buildings ll0,329,255 3,005,659 2,503,834 ll5,838,748 Furniture and equipment 28,841,397 4,595,568 33,436,965 Construction-in- progress 2,503,834 4,090,055 (2,503,834) 4,090,055 Totals s 145,460,826 s 11,691 c 282 s s 157,152,108 The School District has entered into contracts for the construction or renovation of various facilities as shown below. Retainage payable in relation to these contracts totaled approximately $154,000 at June 30, 1992. June 30, 1992 Balances Project Expended/ Co111R1itment Authorization Accrued Remaining Cloverdale Elementary and Junior High s 2,824,881 s 2,800,630 s 24,251 Forrest Heights Elementary 4,168,501 658,297 3,510,204 Other projects 1,114,369 631,128 483,241 s 8,107,751 s 4,090,055 s 4,017,696 The commitments shown above reflect only those balances for contracts that had been entered into as of June 30, 1992. The entire fund balance for the Capital Projects Fund is designated for renovations and additions to currently held fixed assets, as well as for acquisitions of new assets. 17 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 4: Long-Term Debt On September 24, 1990, the School District received $6,000,000 of desegregation loan proceeds from, and executed a promissory note to, the State of Arkansas. On March 10, 1992, the School District received an additional $4,500,000 of desegregation loan proceeds from the State of Arkansas (see Note 7). The principal of each note will bear interest beginning on the seventh anniversary of the date of the note at the rate of 3% per annum and is to be repaid in twenty equal annual installments beginning seven years after the execution of the loan. The notes are secured by liens in favor of the State on certain new and existing millages. Under terms of the desegregation settlement agreements, if at any time prior to December 31, 2000, the composite scores of the School District's black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and the School District are 90% or greater of the composite scores of the School District's white students (excluding special education students), any principal or interest payments previously paid on the desegregation loan will be repaid to the School District and any outstanding loan balances forgiven. A summary of all long-term debt transactions of the School District for the year ended June 30, 1992, is as follows: Balance at July 1, 1991 New debt issued: Construction school bonds - Capital Projects Fund Desegregation loan - General Fund Present value of capital lease obligations related to purchases of equipment and buses - General Fund Refunding school bonds (Note 5) - Debt Service Fund Total new debt issued Debt retired: School bonds principal payments Capital lease obligations Revolving loan Pulaski County, Arkansas Special School District (Note 7) Refunded school bonds (Note 5) Total debt retired Balance at June 30, 1992 18 $ 71,877,108 15,433,600 4,500,000 2,209,905 22,143,505 7,499,000 29,642,505 2,196,000 2,083,847 60,000 1,201,525 5,541,372 7,265,000 12,806,372 $ 88 I 713 I 241 - THE Lli'l'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 4: Long-Term Debt (Continued) Long-term debt at June 30, 1992 is comprised of the following: School bonds, construction and refunding issues Pulaski County Special School District (Note 7) Arkansas State Department of Education revolving loan Arkansas State Department of Education desegregation loans Capital lease obligations, secured by transportation, computer and other equipment Principal Balance $ 64,475,150 8,750,798 120,000 10,500,000 4,867,293 $ 88,713,241 Interest Rates 3.25% - 7.2% 4.2% - 10% 9% 3% 6.6% - 8.9% Maturities Semiannually\nthrough 2020 Semiannually\nthrough 2003 Semiannually\nthrough 1994 Annually\n1998-2018 Various\nthrough 1995 The annual requirements to amortize all principal balances of long-term debt outstanding at June 30, 1992 are as follows: Year Ending June 30 Alllount 1993 s 6,230,799 1994 5,138,449 1995 4,983,375 1996 4,206,277 1997 4, 243,878 Thereafter 63 . 910,463 s 88,713,241 Total interest payable in the future on debt outstanding at June 30, 1992, excluding amounts for the desegregation loan, is approximately $54.2 million. Interest on the desegregation loans, assuming twenty year amortizations beginning in 1998 and 1999, would approximate $3 million. 19 II 11 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 5: Advance Bond Refunding On May 27, 1992, the School District issued $7,499,000 in refunding bonds to advance refund $7,265,000 of outstanding 1987 construction bonds (\"refunded bonds\"). The net proceeds of approximately $7,269,000 (after payment of underwriting fees, insurance, and other issuance costs) were used to satisfy the trustee of the refunded bonds, which were called on June 1, 1992. As a result of the advance refunding, the School District reduced its total debt services payments over the next 15 years by approximately $587,000, which resulted in an economic gain (difference between the present values of the debt service payments on the old and new debt) of approximately $386,000. The balance of unamortized deferred bond issuance cost related to the 1987 bonds of approximately $179,000 was written off resulting in a loss for financial statement purposes in that amount. Note 6: Retirement Plans Most School District employees are required by law to be covered by the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System (ATRS) except for certain bus drivers, cafeteria workers and janitors, who are covered by the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System (APERS) . Effective July 1, 1991, all new employees of the School District, including part-time employees, must be members of the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Both systems are multiple-employer, cost-sharing public employee retirement systems which also provide death and disability benefits. Benefits for both systems are established by state statute. ATRS employees who retire under the system are entitled to a retirement benefit, payable monthly for life, equal to 1.95 percent of their final average salary for each contributory year of credited service and 1. 23 percent of their final average salary for each non-contributory year of credited service. APERS employees who retire are entitled to a retirement benefit, payable monthly for life, equal to 1.872 percent for contributory employees and 1.55 percent for non-contributing employees of average pay for each year of credited service, or a minimum of $150. Under both ATRS and APERS, benefits fully vest upon reaching 10 years of service. Employees electing early retirement receive reduced retirement benefits. 20 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 6: Retirement Plans (Continued) Contribution requirements are established by State statute for both systems. For the year ended June 30, 1992, employees covered by the system had the option to contribute a portion (generally 6%) of their salary. Federal funds of the School District were used to provide the matching contribution for all eligible ATRS employees who are paid through Federal programs, while the state provided the matching contribution for other ATRS employees. The School District provides for the matching for APERS employees. The payroll for employees covered by the ATRS for the year ended June 30, 1992, was approximately $85,000,000 and the payroll for employees covered by APERS for the same period was approximately $6,000,000. The School District's total payroll was approximately $91,000,000. For the year ended June 30, 1992, retirement and matching contributions for School District employees, and the related percentages of covered payroll, are as follows: $ In Thousands ATRS APERS Total Employee contributions $ 1,970 2.32% s 18 .30% $ 1,988 2.62% Matching Contributions: School District 230 3.83 230 3.83 State 9,634 11. 33 9,634 11. 33 Federal 417 ______,_j_2 417 ______,_j_2 $ 12,021 14.14% $ 248 4.13% $ 121269 18.27% The pension benefit obligation (PBO) is a standard disclosure measure of the present value of pension benefits, adjusted for the effects of projected salary increases and any step-rate benefits, estimated to be payable in the future as a result of employee service to date. The measure, which is the actuarial present value of credited projected benefits, is intended to help users assess each system's funding status on a going-concern basis, assess progress made in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due, and make certain comparisons. Neither ATRS or APERS make separate measurements of assets and PBO for individual employers, thus such information is not available as it relates to the School District. 21 THE LI'rfLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 6: Retirement Plans (Continued) The total PBO, net assets available for benefits and funded status at June 30, 1991, the date of the latest actuarial valuation, is as follows. In Thousands ATRS APERS Total Pension benefit obligation $ 2,543,856 $ 1,263,582 $ 3,807,438 Net assets available for benefits 2,434,314 11516,777 3,951,091 Unfunded (overfunded) pension benefit obligation $ 109,542 $ (253,195) $ (143,653) Ten year historical trend information showing each system's progress in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due is presented in each system's June 30, 1991 comprehensive annual financial report. Note 7: Desegregation and Related Funding Issues During 1982, the School District brought litigation to consolidate the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. This was an interdistrict school desegregation case involving complex federal litigation in both trial and appellate courts. In relation to the remedy issues of this litigation, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District entered into agreements, which were approved by the Courts, for the transfers of certain schools, buildings and related personal property between the districts. The Little Rock School District assumed approximately $14. 6 million in long-term debt (see Note 4) related to the properties transferred to them. The transfer of property also resulted in approximately $300 million in property assessment values being transferred to the Little Rock School District effective with the January 1, 1987 assessments. The litigation also resulted in the courts ordering the School District to initiate certain desegregation programs with the Arkansas Department of Education (the State) being liable for certain aspects of funding the programs. All major financial aspects of this litigation have been settled and accepted by the courts. 22 THE LlrrLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 7: Desegregation and Related Funding Issues (Continued) Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the Arkansas Department of Education agreed to pay the School District a total of $71 million, net of $2 million in legal fees awarded the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. This amount included approximately $57,130,000 for compensatory education and other desegregation programs and $13,870,000 for cash equivalent payments in lieu of formula guarantees. In addition, the State agreed to loan the School District up to $20 million between July 1, 1989 and July 1, 1999. The loan proceeds are to be used for desegregation purposes and are secured by liens in favor of the State on certain new and existing millages. As of June 30, 1992, $10,500,000 has been received in regard to the loan provisions of the agreement (see Note 4). During the year ended June 30, 1992, the School District recorded settlement proceeds of $8,637,482 in the general fund for compensatory education programs and other desegregation expenses. Included in this amount is a receivable of $4,889,954 due the School District on July 1, 1992 for reimbursement of desegregation expenditures made prior to year end. In addition, the School District received and recorded additional cash equivalent payments in lieu of Minimum Foundation Program Aid (HFPA) formula guarantees totaling $2,000,000 which are recorded as HFPA revenue in the general fund. Net amounts of future funding expected to be received under the above described agreements (excluding potential loan proceeds) at June 30, 1992 are as follows: MFPA Year Ending Desegregation Guarantees Total June 30, 1993 $ 8,926,606 $ 2,000,000 $ 10,926,606 June 30, 1994 8,094,112 2,000,000 10,094,112 June 30, 1995 6,042,591 2,000,000 8,042,591 June 30, 1996 3,829,942 1,870,114 5,700,056 Future years 683,125 683,125 Total $ 27,576,376 $ 7,870,114 $ 35,446,490 23 THE LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements {Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 8: Agency Funds As the School District serves only in a fiduciary capacity for the school activity funds and other agency funds, related transactions are not reflected in the combined statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance. A summary of transactions in these school activity and other agency funds during the year ended June 30, 1992, and the resulting change in amounts due to the school activity groups and other agencies, is as follows: Due to school activity groups and other agencies at June 30, 1991 Transactions during the year ended June 30, 1992: School activities and other agencies revenues Interest on investments School activities and other agencies expenditures Due to school activity groups and other agencies at June 30, 1992 Note 9: Cash and Investments s 1,008,865 3,587,373 37,043 {3,551,601) $ 1,081,680 Arkansas statutes authorize school districts to deposit their funds in any bank located in the State of Arkansas. In addition, they may invest in bonds of the United States of America, general obligation bonds of the State of Arkansas, and bank certificates of deposit or repurchase agreements from a bank or savings and loan that has pledged direct obligations of, or obligations which are fully guaranteed by, the United States of America. At June 30, 1992, the total \"carrying amount\" of deposits with financial institutions was $2,317,477 {exclusive of $627,218 reflected as bank overdrafts for financial statement purposes). The related \"bank balance\" was $3,596,590 and is categorized as follows: Amount insured by the FDIC Amount collateralized with securities held by the Federal Reserve Bank in the School District's name Uncollateralized Total bank balance 24 $ 151,884 1,300,000 2,144,706 $ 3,596,590 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 9: Cash and Investments (Continued) Investments of the School District (including Agency Funds) at June 30, 1992, are summarized below. Investments, which are all represented by specific identifiable investment securities, are classified as to credit risk by the three categories described as follows: Category l - Insured or registered, or securities held by the School District or its agent in the School District's name. Category 2 - Uninsured and unregistered, with securities held by the counterparty's trust department or agent in the School District's name. Category 3 - Uninsured and unregistered, with securities held by the counterparty, or by its trust department or agent, but not in the School District's name. Total Category Carrying l 2 3 Amount Certificates of deposit $ 150,000 $ 300,000 $ ..:. $ 450,000 Treasury bills 30,442,346 30,442,346 Repurchase agreements 3,550,000 3,550,000 $ 30,592,346 $ 300,000 $ 3,550,000 $ 34,442,346 Note 10: Maqnet School Funding As a part of its desegregation program (see Note 7), the Federal court directed the School District to participate in a \"Magnet School'' system and has vested control of these schools in a Magnet Review Committee (MRC). Six schools from the Little Rock School District are organized as a separate reporting group under the control of the MRC. During the year ended June 30, 1992, the approved funding level of these schools (\"the Magnets\") totaled $3,682 per average daily membership (ADM). The State contributes one half of the cost ($1,841 per ADM) with Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) sharing the balance of the cost. The State pays its portion of the NLRSD and PCSSD contributions directly to the respective districts for subsequent remission to the LRSD. 25 II II II II I I I I I I THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 10: Magnet School Funding (Continued) Average daily membership: LRSD NLRSD PCSSD Total ADM Contribution rate - local sources Total schools' contributions Less operating transfers from General Fund to Magnet Fund Total magnet revenue - local sources Total magnet revenue - state sources 2,304.2 508.0 959.6 3,771.8 $ 11841 $ 6,943,920 (31 7381667) $ 312051253 $ 6,9431921 The Little Rock School District accounts for the Magnet School's operating revenues and expenses within its Special Revenue Fund since these funds are restricted to the operations of the Magnets. The Little Rock School District's portion of the total costs consists of $3,738,667 recorded as an operating transfer from the General Fund with the balance of $503,365 being indirect administrative cost contributions. ' ~ In addition to the above discussed operating revenues, the School District is also reimbursed by the NLRSD and PCSSD for debt service payments for capital improvements to the Magnets. The total of such reimbursements (which are reflected in revenues of the Debt Service Fund) for the year ended June 30, 1992 are as follows: North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Total Note 11: Note Payable $ 34,954 881508 $ 1231462 On April 14, 1992, the School District issued $13,815,000 of tax and revenue anticipation promissory notes (TRANS). The TRANS were issued to provide moneys needed to meet the School District's anticipated operating cash flow needs. The principal, plus accrued interest at a rate of 4.125% per annum , is payable in full December 31, 1992. Security for the TRANS is a pledge of revenue of the School District for the year ended June 30, 1992. Total interest charges incurred on notes payable, including balances under previous TRANS, for the year ended June 30, 1992 were approximately $429,000. 26 THE LITrLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued) June 30, 1992 Note 12: Other Litigation and Contingencies At June 30, 1992, the School District is a defendant in various legal actions. Several actions involve claims by former employees asserting discriminatory hiring practices. The School District intends to vigorously contest these claims. Management and legal counsel are of the opinion that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is small and, thus, no provision has been made in the financial statements for any potential liabilities. During the year ended June 30, 1991, judgments were entered against the School District totaling approximately $580,000 to be paid to the District's former attorneys for services performed on behalf of the School District in the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The School District estimated and recorded a liability and related expenditure for $580,000 in the June 30, 1991 combined financial statements. The School District appealed the judgement and in January, 1992 the courts reduced the judgement to approximately $267,000 plus interest. This resulted in a change in accounting estimate of approximately $293,000 which is reflected as a reduction in legal expense for the year ended June 30, 1992. Note 13: Risk Management The School District is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts\ntheft of, damage to, and destruction of assets\nerrors and omissions\ninjuries to employees and students\nand natural disasters. Effective October 1, 1990, the School District established a Risk Management Fund within the General Fund to account for and finance its uninsured risks of loss. Under this program, the Risk Management Fund provides coverage up to a maximum of $100,000 for each property damage, general liability or other covered claim. The School District purchases commercial insurance for claims in excess of coverage provided by the Fund and for all other risks of loss. Settled claims did not exceed loss fund or other commercial coverage during the past two fiscal years. The claims liability of $230,295 recorded in the General Fund at June 30, 1992 is based on the requirements of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 10, which requires that a liability for claims be reported if information prior to the issuance of the financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The claims liability includes an amount for claims that have been incurred but not reported. 27 I II I 11 I THE LlrrrLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Notes to Combined Financial Statements (Continued} June 30, 1992 Note 13: Risk Management (Continued) Claims liability activity, by \"loss year,\" for the year ended June 30, 1992 is as follows: Loss Year 1990-1991 1991-1992 Total Claims liability, beginning of year $ 252,068 $ $ 252,068 Claims paid (183,516} (141,496} (325,012} Current year claims and changes in estimates (291885) 333,124 303,239 Claims liability, end of year $ 381667 $ 191,628 $ 2301295 28 - -- --- J 1, I II 11 II I I SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES 29 Schedule 1 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Combining Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures - Special Revenue Funds Year Ended June 30, 1992 Total Federal Food Other Magnet (Memorandum Programs Service Programs Schools Only) REVENUES Local assistance $ 28,813 $ 2,280,718 $ 397,176 $ 3,205,253 $ 5,911,960 State assistance 795,781 6,943,921 7,739,702 Federal financial assistance 5,258,734 3,981,422 9,240,156 Total revenues 5,287,547 6,262,140 1,192,957 10,149,174 22,891,818 EXPENDITURES Basic programs 1,750 103,650 8,889,538 8,994,938 Exceptional child programs 300,055 276,198 576,253 Vocational-technical programs 316,806 199,873 572,674 1,089,353 Adult continuing education programs 92,640 700,526 793,166 Compensatory education programs 3,119,617 19,881 5,333 3,144,831 Other instructional programs 13,349 12,286 181,902 207,537 Instructional support services 667,046 1,069,833 1,736,879 Operation and maintenance of plant 4,792 1,050,414 1,055,206 General administration 83,344 25,014 1,207,390 1,315,748 Capital outlay 274,348 322,154 35,704 131,194 763,400 Food services 5,897,064 5,897,064 Community services 298,553 298,553 Indirect and other 115 I 247 503,365 618,612 Total expenditures 5,287,547 6,219,218 i ,096,934 13,887,841 26,491,540 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 42,922 96,023 (3,738,667) (3,599,722) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Operating transfer in for LRSD portion of Magnet funding 3,738,667 3,738,667 Total other financing sources 3,738,667 3,738,667 Excess of revenues over expenditures and other financing uses $ $ 42,922 $ 96,023 $ 138,945 30 LI'ITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule 2 Rev.enues of Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as Prescribed by Handbook II) Year Ended June 30, 1992 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES Current taxes Delinquent taxes 40% pullback Excess treasurer's fee Depository interest Revenue in lieu of taxes Miscellaneous and rents Interest on investments Athletic receipts REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES County General Severance tax REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA Apportionment Vocational Handicapped children Early childhood Orphan children Transportation Compensatory education Incentive fund Adult education Desegregation settlement Desegregation loan REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES Total General and Debt Service Funds (Memorandum Only) Unadjusted Adjusted Handbook II Net Handbook II Budget Revenues Adjustments Revenues $ 38,196,979 $ 3,600,000 21,222,860 140,000 400,000 224,667 420,850 300,000 85,000 64,590,356 73,419 11,000 84 419 28,118,907 73,419 1,474,485 629,752 147,050 3,000 2,983,190 874,311 1,798,665 624,119 8,637,482 4, 500,000 49,864, 380 38,196,979 $ 4,250,186 21,081,833 140,858 241,476 224,667 458,044 356,198 100,857 65,051,098 73,419 15,350 88 769 27,264,460 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 8,637,482 21,422 21,422 265,884 4,500,000 ---- 48,670,684 ----=2=6-=-5,L..\n,8:....:8:....:4'- $ 38,196,979 4,250,186 21,081,833 140,858 241,476 224,667 458,044 377,620 100,857 65,072,520 73,419 15 350 88 769 27,264,460 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,645,763 858, 743 1,770,486 697, 589 8, 637,482 4,500,000 48, 936,568 Public Law 874 44,625 9,385 129,428 394,675 9,385 129, 428 2,800,860 2,9 39, 673 Transfer from federal grant 111,453 Transfer from bond account --~8~00~,~0~0-\"-0 956,078 533,488 2,406,185 2,406,185 Total revenues $115,495,233 $114,344,039 $ 2,693,491 $117,037,530 31 ..... LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Expenditures of Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds (Basis of Accounting as Prescribed by Handbook II) Year Ended June 30, 1992 Schedule 3 Total General and Debt Service Funds (Memorandum Only) Unadjusted Adjusted Handbook II Net Handbook II Budget Ext\u0026gt;enditures Adjustments Ex~enditures Certified salaries $ 56,475,397 $ 56,324,205 $ $ 56,324,205 Non-certified salaries 16,616,953 16,867,007 16,867,007 Employee benefits 9,247,100 8,992,742 152,964 9,145,706 Purchased services 10,240,766 9,036,188 280,823 9,317,0ll Supplies and materials 5,805,355 4,010,761 4.010,761 Capital outlay 3,709,961 3,959,731 226,109 4,185,840 Debt service 8,718,196 7,950,100 2,442,525 10,392,625 Other objects 4,786,843 5,402,198 (441,726) 4,960,472 Contingency 388,163 Total expenditures $ ll5,988,734 $ 112,542,932 $ 2,660,695 $ ll5,203,627 32 I I I I I I I I I ..... LITrLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule 4 Reconciliation of General and Debt Service Fund Balances - Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Handbook II Basis of Accounting June 30, 1992 Fund balances at June 30, 1991 - Handbook II Basis Handbook II revenues (Schedule 3) Handbook II expenditures (Schedule 4) Fund balances at June 30, 1992 - Handbook II Basis Adjustments to convert to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP): Property taxes - debt services Property taxes - general fund Special revenue fund adjustments Fund Balances at June 30, 1992 - GAAP Basis General fund Debt service fund Total 33 $ 990,117 s $ s 117,037,530 (115,203,627) 2,824,020 4,886,537 {4,209,896) {14,812) 3,485,849 2,309,784 1,176,065 3,485,849 i I I I School Bonds: THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Long-Term Debt June 30, 1992 $4,485,000 December, 1965 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1995\ninterest at 3.25% to 3.6% $2,051,000 June, 1973 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1993\ninterest at 4.7% to 5.0% $6,482,700 June, 1977 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1996\ninterest at 4.25% to 5.1% $6,134,565 March, 1979 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1999\ninterest at 5.4% to 6.0% $4,889,200 March, 1980 Surplus Revenue Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1994\ninterest at 5.75% to 6.0% $5,512,750 May, 1988 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2007\ninterest at 6.2% to 7.2% $3,371,000 June, 1988 Refunding School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 1999\ninterest at 5.6% to 6.6% $8,164,100 September, 1989 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2008\ninterest at 6.1% to 6.75% $17,197,450 September, 1990 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2020\ninterest at 6.25% to 7.2% $15,433,600 October, 1991 Construction School Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2020\ninterest at 6.1% to 7.0% $7,499,000 May, 1992 Refunding Bonds\npayable in annual installments through 2007\ninterest at 5.6% to 6.50% Total bonds 34 Schedule 5 $ 966,000 305,000 2,405,000 3,285,000 1,490,000 5,215,000 2,535,000 8,144,100 17,197,450 15,433,600 7,499,000 64,475,150 (Continued) THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS schedule of Long-Term Debt (Continued) June 30, 1992 Capital lease obligations: Lease payable in annual installments through September 1992, interest at 7.9% Lease payable in annual installments through October 1992, interest at 7.0% Lease payable in annual installments through April 1993\ninterest at 8.0% Lease payable in monthly installments through July 1993\ninterest at 7.8% Lease payable in semi-annual installments through July 1994\ninterest at 8.5% Lease payable in annual installments through February 1993\ninterest at 5.9% Lease payable in annual installments through April 1994\ninterest at 8.9% Lease payable in annual installments through October 1993\ninterest at 7.62% Lease payable in annual installments through October 1994\ninterest at 7.99% Lease payable in annual installments through March 1995\ninterest at 7.95% Lease payable in monthly installments through February 1994\ninterest at 7.42% Lease payable in monthly installments through July 1994\ninterest at 7.9% Lease payable in annual installments through July 1996\ninterest at 6.7% Lease pay.able in annual installments through July 1996\ninterest at 6.7% Lease payable in annual installments through July 1996, interest at 6.97% Total capital lease obligations 35 $ Schedule 5 (Continued} 24,105 6,698 20,852 58,783 450,471 1,007,820 29,917 100,038 903,651 71,085 62,123 66,226 981, 725 496,384 587,415 4,867,293 (Continued) Other: THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Long-Term Debt (Continued) June 30, 1992 Debt payable to the Pulaski County Special School District\npayable semi-annually through 2003\nvarying interest rates Revolving loan\npayable in semi-annual installments through January 1994 at 9% Desegregation loan\npayable in 20 annual installments beginning September, 1997\ninterest at 3% Desegregation loan\npayable in 20 annual installments beginning March, 1998\ninterest at 3% Total Long-Term Debt 36 Schedule 5 (Continued) $ 8,750,798 120,000 6,000,000 4,500,000 S 88,713,241 THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Reconciliation of Fund Equity - State Report and Financial Statements June 30, 1992 Governmental Fund Tvpes Fund equity per State Report*: Salary, Operating and Debt Service Funds $ 2,321,666 Building Funds 22,156,036 Federal Programs 607,079 Student Activity Fund 25,084,781 Current period adjustments, net: Handbook II - revenues and expenditures (413,325) Handbook II - fund equity 315,335 Other 18,647 Fund balances not included in State Report: Revolving Funds 373,726 Food Service Fund 2,246,728 KLRE-FM/KUAR-FM Cumulative effect of prior years differences 190,325 Fund equity per financial statements $ 27,816,217 Due to school activity groups and other agencies per financial statements Schedule 6 Fiduciary Fund rypes $ 802,950 802,950 181,915 96,815 $ 1,081,680 * Unaudited financial report issued to the Arkansas State Department of Education on August 28, 1992 37 OTHER REPORTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 38 ~and~ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Little Rock Office 201 E. Markham Suite 500  Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-2025  FAX (501) 375-8704 Texarkana Office: 701 Arkansas Blvd. Texarkana. AR 75502 1501) 773-2168  FAX 1501) 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE BASED ON A STUDY AND EVALUATION MADE AS A PART OF AN AUDIT OF THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVEllNHENT AUDITING STANDARDS AND THE ADDITIONAL TESTS REQUIRED BY 0MB CIRCULAR A-128 The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District), as of and for the year ended June 30, 1992, and have issued our report thereon dated November 20, 1992. We have also audited the School District's compliance with requirements applicable to major federal financial assistance programs and have issued our report thereon dated November 20, 1992. We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards\nGovernment Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States\nand Office of Management and Budget (OHB) Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and OHB Circular A-128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the combined financial statements are free of material misstatement and about whether the School District complied with laws and regulations, noncompliance with which would be material to a major federal financial assistance program. In planning and performing our audits for the year ended June 30, 1992, we considered the School District's internal control structure in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the combined financial statements and on its compliance with requirements applicable to major federal financial assistance programs and to report on the internal control structure in accordance with OHB Circular A-128, and not to provide assurance on the internal control structure. The management of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County , Arkansas is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of internal control structure polici es and procedures. The objectives of an internal control structure are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of combined financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that federal financial assistance programs are managed in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Because of inherent limitations in any internal 39 Members American Institute of Certified Public Accou ntants Private Companies Practice Section and S.E.C. Practice Section Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Two control structure, errors, irregularities, or instances of noncompliance may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of the structure to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate. For the purpose of this report, we have classified the significant internal control structure policies and procedures in the following categories: 1. Accounting Controls - Cash - Fund balances - Revenues/receivables - Payrolls - Cash receipts - Fixed assets - Expenditures/payables - Investments - Cash disbursements 2. Controls Used in Administering Federal Programs General Requirements: Specific Requirements: Political activity Davis-Bacon Act Civil rights Cash management Federal financial reports Allowable costs/cost principles Drug-free workplace act Administrative requirements Types of services Eligibility Matching, level of effort, or earmarking Reporting Special tests and provisions For all of the internal control structure categories listed above, we obtained an understanding of the design of relevant policies and procedures and determined whether they have been placed in operation, and we assessed control risk. During the year ended June 30, 1992, the School District expended 89% of its total federal financial assistance under major federal financial assistance programs. We performed tests of controls, as required by the 0MB circular A-128, to evaluate the effectiveness of the design and operation of internal control structure policies and procedures that we considered relevant to preventing or detecting material noncompliance with specific requirements, general requirements, and requirements governing claims for advances and reimbursements and amounts claimed or used for matching that are applicable to each of the School District's major federal financial assistance programs, which are identified in the accompanying schedule of federal financial assistance. Our procedures were less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on these internal control structure policies and procedures. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 40 The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Three We noted certain matters involving the internal control structure and its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control structure that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the School District's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the combined financial statements or to administer federal financial assistance programs in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. FIXED ASSETS The School District does not have a complete inventory or detail subsidiary ledger of all fixed assets which can be agreed or reconciled to total general fixed assets as reported in the combined financial statements. The School District's fixed asset tracking system should be expanded to include all of its assets and to provide for a complete periodic physical inventory count of capital assets. The inventory should be used to determine that all assets purchased are still in possession of the School District and that assets are being utilized in an effective and efficient manner. In addition, the \"Common Rule\" issued by the Office of Management and Budget outlines equipment management guidelines for property purchased with federal funds having a useful life of more than one year and an original acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. These guidelines require that a physical inventory of the property be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two years. INSURANCE PAYROLL WITIIlIOLDING Our review of the controls related to the payroll disbursements cycle revealed weakness in relation to the timely flow of information regarding notice of employee terminations from the personnel department to the payroll department. Due to the untimely exchange of information necessary to facilitate removal of terminated employees from insurance records and billings, premiums were inadvertently paid for persons who were no longer employees of the School District. We recommend that the School District implement procedures to facilitate a more timely exchange of information between departments to ensure accuracy of payroll records and the payment of billings for employee insurance premiums. 41 The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Four * * * * * * A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control structure elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or irregularities in amounts that would be material in relation to the combined financial statements being audited or that noncompliance with laws and regulations that would be material to a federal financial assistance program may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. Our consideration of the internal control structure would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control structure that might be reportable conditions and, accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all reportable conditions that are also considered to be material weaknesses as defined above. However, we believe the reportable conditions described above are not material weaknesses. This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and State agencies. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. November 20, 1992 Little Rock, Arkansas 42 ~ {~o,oJ Certified Public Accountants !7/wma\u0026amp; tmd !7/wma\u0026amp; CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Little Rock Office 201 E. Markham Suite 500  Little Rock, AR 72201 15011 375-2025  FAX 15011375-8704 Texarkana Office: 701 Arkansas Blvd. Texarkana, AR 75502 15011773-2168  FAX 1501) 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE BASED ON AN AUDIT OF THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNHENT AUDITING STANDARDS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District), as of and for the year ended June 30, 1992, and have issued our report thereon dated November 20, 1992. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas is the responsibility of the School District's management. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of the School District's compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. However, the objective of our audit of the combined financial statements was not to provide an opinion on overall compliance with such provisions. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests indicate that, with respect to the items tested, The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas complied, in all material respects, with the provisions referred to in the preceding paragraph. With respect to items not tested, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the Scho\u0026lt;\n\u0026gt;l District had not complied, in all material respects, with those provisions. This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and state agencies. However this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. November 20, 1992 Little Rock, Arkansas Certified Public Accountants 43 Members American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Private Companies Practice Section and S.E.C. Practice Section ~@d~ CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS little Rock Office 201 E. Markham Su ite 500  Little Rock, AR 72201 1501) 375-2025  FAX 15011375-8704 Texarkana Office: 701 Arkansas Blvd. Texarkana, AR 75502 1501 ) 773-2168  FAX 1501) 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the financial statements of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District) as of and for the year ended June 30, 1992, and have issued our report thereon dated November 20, 1992. We have applied procedures to test the School District's compliance with the following requirements applicable to its federal financial assistance programs, which are identified in the Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance for the year ended June 30, 1992: Political activity Davis-Bacon Act Civil rights Cash management Federal financial reports - Allowable costs/cost principles - Drug-free Workplace Act - Administrative requirements Our procedures were limited to the applicable procedures described in the Office of Management and Budget's Compliance Supplement for Single Audits of State and Local Governments. Our procedures were substantially less in scope than an audit, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion on the School District's compliance with the requirements listed in the preceding paragraph. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. With respect to the items tested, the results of those procedures disclosed no material instances of noncompliance with the requirements listed in the second paragraph of this report. With respect to items not te sted, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the School District had not complied, in all material respects, with those requirements. However, the results of our procedures disclosed immaterial instances of noncompliance with those requirements, which are des cribed in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questi oned Costs . This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors , management, and all applicable Federal and state agencies. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. November 20, 1992 Little Rock, Arkansas ~o./U ,J_ ~a.A) Certified Pu' bli c Accountants Members American Institute of Certified Pu blic Accountants Private Companies Practice Section and S.E.C. Practice Section 44 f?bma\u0026amp;cmd f7bma\u0026amp; CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Little Rock Office 201 E. Markham Suite 500  Little Rock, AR 72201 (5011 375-2025  FAX (5011375-8704 Texarkana Office: 701 Arkansas Blvd. Texarkana, AA 75502 (5011773-2168  FAX (SQ\nJ 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO MAJOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District), as of and for the year ended June 30, 1992, and have issued our report thereon dated November 20, 1992. We also have audited the School District's compliance with the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed\neligibility\nmatching, level of effort, or earmarking\nreporting\nlevels of service\ncarryover of grant funds\nparent involvement\nprogram evaluations\nservices provided to children enrolled in private schools\ncommitment of funds\nand schoolwide projects that are applicable to each of its major federal assistance programs, which are identified in the accompanying schedule of federal financial assistance for the year ended June 30, 1992. The management of the School District is responsible for compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with those requirements based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance with those requirements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards\nGovernment Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States\nand 0MB Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and 0MB Circular A-128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the requirements referred to above occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the School District's compliance with those requirements. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas complied, in all material respects, with the requirements governing types of services allowed or unallowed\neligibility\nmatching, level of effort, or earmarking\nreporting\nlevels of service\ncarryover of grant funds\nparent involvement\nprogram evaluations\nservices provided to children enrolled in private schools\ncommitment of funds\nand schoolwide projects that are applicable to each of its major federal financial assistance programs for the year ended June 30, 1992. 45 Members American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Private Companies Practice Section and S.E C. Practice Section The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Page Two This report is intended for the information of the Board of Directors, management, and all applicable Federal and state agencies. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. November 20, 1992 Little Rock, Arkansas 46 ~~~~ Certified Public Accountants Program Various Federal Programs THE LITfLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs June 30, 1992 Findings/Noncompliance The \"Common Rule\" requires that detailed property records be maintained identifying pertinent information related to equipment purchased with federal funds. Also, a physical inventory of this equipment should be performed at least every two years and the results reconciled with the detailed records. The School District does not maintain detailed property records, nor has a physical inventory of the property been performed. Questioned Costs NIA There are no unresolved findings or questioned costs from prior audit periods. 47 !7lwma\u0026amp; and !7lwma\u0026amp; CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Little Rock Office 201 E. Markham  Suite 500  Little Rock, AR 72201 1501) 375-2025  FAX 1501) 375-8704 Texarkana Office: 701 Arkansas Blvd.  Texarkana, AR 75502 1501 ) 773-2168  FAX 1501 ) 774-7244 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE The Board of Directors The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas Little Rock, Arkansas We have audited the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the School District) as of and for the year ended June 30, 1992, and have issued our report thereon dated November 20, 1992. These combined financial statements are the responsibility of the School District's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these combined financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Audi ting Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and the provisions of Office of Management and Budget Circular A- 128, Audits of State and Local Governments. Those standards and 0MB Circular A- 128 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the combined financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the combined financial statements of The Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas taken as a whole. The accompanying Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance is presented for purposes of additional analys i s and is not a required part of the combined financial statements. The information in that schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the combined financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the combined financial statements taken as a whole. November 20, 1992 Little Rock, Arkansas 'Tfv~cw 1 ~a.Al Certified Public Accountants 48 Members American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Private Companies PracUce Section and S.E .C. Practice Section MAJOR PROGRAMS U.S. Department of Education Passed Through State Department of Education: CHAPTER I Compensatory Title VI-B Handicapped Vocational Education Act (Carl Perkins): 7/01/91 - 6/30/92 7/01/90 - 6/30/91 U.S. Department of Agriculture Passed Through State Department of Education: National School Lunch Program Passed Through State Department of Human Services: National School Lunch Program - Commodities Total Major Programs OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS U.S. Department of Education Passed Through State Department of Education: EESA TITLE II Public Law 874 ECIA CHAPTER II CHAPTER I Handicapped Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986 Adult Basic Education U.S. Department of Labor Passed Through State Department of Education: CETA/Vocational Job Training Partnership Act U.S. Department of Energy Passed Through Arkansas Energy Office: Institutional Conservation Program Institutional Conservation Program THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance Year Ended June 30, 1992 Federal CFDA Number 84.010 84.027 84.048 84.048 10.555 10.555 84.164A 84.041 84.151 84.009 . 84.186A 84.002 17.250 17.250 81.052 81.052 49 $ Program or Award Amount 3,500,025 653,866 344,945 372,269 N/A N/A 100,671 279,862 63,615 274,469 92,893 47,938 114,013 623 ,854 196,120 Federal Funds Revenues Recognized Expenditures $ 3,248,136 $ 3,248,136 517,152 517,152 271,574 271,574 90,768 90 768 4,127,630 4,127,630 3,492,855 3,492,855 466,875 466,875 3,959,730 3,959,730 8,087,360 8,087,360 57,122 57,122 9,385 9,385 223,948 223,948 50,007 50,007 216,333 216,333 92,893 92,893 649,688 649,688 47,233 47,233 66,547 66 547 113, 780 113,780 108,760 108,760 82,386 82,386 191,146 191,146 (Continued) THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance (Continued) Year Ended June 30, 1992 OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS (CONTINUED) U.S. Department of Agriculture Passed Through State Department of Education: Nutritional Education U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed Through State Department of Human Services: Child Care and Development Block Grant Developmental Disabilities Planning Council - Basic Support Grant Social Services Block Grant - Contract Social Services Block Grant - Vouchers Total Other Federal Programs Total Federal Financial Assistance Note: Medicaid reimbursements paid to providers are defined as contracts for services and not federal assistance\ntherefore, $128,263 of Medicaid reimbursements received during the year ended June 30, 1992 are not covered by the reporting requirements of 0MB Circular A-128. Federal CFDA Number 10.564 93.037 93.630 93.667 93.667 50 Program or Award Amount $ NIA NIA 3,500 44,475 NIA $ $ Federal Funds Revenues Recognized 21,692 29,165 1,750 4,442 22,255 57,612 1,033,918 9,121,278 Expenditures $ 21,692 29,165 1,750 4,442 22,255 57,612 1,033,918 $ 9,121,278\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1321","title":"Proceedings: ''Hearing RE: Incentive Schools,'' Volume 9","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":["1992-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Hearing RE: Incentive Schools,'' Volume 9"],"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/1321"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["209 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1238","title":"Oral deposition of Doyan Matthews","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":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["1992-06-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Court records","Educational law and legislation","School board members","Education--Finance","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Doyan Matthews"],"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/1238"],"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\nDeposition taken at Wright, Lindsey and Jennings, Little Rock, Arkansas\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n Case No.: LR-C-82-866 * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * et al. * Plaintiffs * vs. * * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. * * EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Defendants * * WESTERN DIVISION MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. * Intervenors * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. * Intervenors * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF DOYAN MATTHEWS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPEARANCES: MR. SAMUEL JONES, III, Esq., Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, 2000 Worthen Bank Building, 200 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 *** For the Plaintiffs*** MESSRS. JOHN w. WALKER \u0026amp; MARK BURNETTE, Esqs., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 *** For the Joshua Intervenors *** ALSO PRESENT: MR. BOBBY LESTER, superintendent * * * * * * * BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 372-5115  2 THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF DOYAN MATTHEWS, a witness produced at the request of the Intervenors, taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 25th day of June, 1992, before Jeff Bennett, CCR, LS #19, a Notary Public in and for White County, Arkansas, at Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, 2000 Worthen Bank Building, Little Rock, Arkansas, at 11:00 a.m. pursuant to the agreement hereinafter set forth. * * * * * * * * * * STIPULATIONS IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties through their respective counsel that the deposition of DOYAN MATTHEWS may be taken at the time and place for the purposes of discovery, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that all formalities with regard to the taking of said deposition are hereby waived including presentation, reading, subscription by the witness, notice of filing, filing, etc.\nand that all objections as to relevancy, materiality, and competency are expressly reserved, except as to form of questions, and may be raised if and when said deposition, or any part thereof, is so offered at the trial of this case. * * * * * * * * * * DOYAN MATTHEWS the witness hereinbefore named, being first duly cautioned and sworn, or affirmed, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as follows: BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 372-5115  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 - MR. JONES: Before we start I promised Mr. Roachell I'd make a statement on his behalf for the record. When John contacted me about these Monday, I think he would agree I immediately moved to accommodate him. And we've got all the ones he requested scheduled for today. Apparently, however, Mr. Richard Roachell, who represents the Knight Intervenors, did not get notified concerning the depositions. We called his office this morning to confirm that he understood that there would be a deposition at 11:00 instead of at 1:00, as I had previously understood the schedule. And he represented to us that it was his first notice that there were going to be any depositions of PCSSD Board members taken today. He told me he had to be in Shannon Hills all day where he acts as the prosecuting attorney, and would be there until approximately 7 o'clock tonight prosecuting cases. He asked me to note his objection, John, on the record. And he indicated to me he was going to reserve the right to I guess move to preclude the use of these depositions if he saw fit. I didn't talk to him, but I understand that Mr. Heller cannot be here. I don't know that that's all that important. But I think he wanted me to note on the record that he was not notified either. It's my understanding that someone will be here from Steve Jones' office, but that he cannot be here. MR. WALKER: Thank you. EXAMINATION BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 4 BY MR. WALKER: Q. A. Q. Mr. Matthews, what is your name? Doyan Matthews. Mr. Matthews, you're the immediate past President of the Board of Pulaski County? A. Q. Yes. The Board has taken certain action in the name of budget cuts for the forthcoming school term\nis that correct? A. Yes, sir, that's correct. Q. Can you tell me what is proposed for the next school year with respect to budget matters that differs from last year? A. Well, reorganization in the administration top level, the cabinet, Mr. Lester's cabinet, would be the elimination of two assistant superintendents, Mr. Billy Bowles and Mr. Ed Hogan, cutting several coordinators. MR. JONES: Refer to that list if you need to. Q. Now, can you tell me whether or not what was proposed was reduced to writing before it was voted upon? A. Q. A. I didn't see the list until the night we voted on it. Do you have a copy of that before you now? As far as the reorganization of the administration, I don't have a copy of that. MR. WALKER: Mr. Jones, do you have a copy of that? MR. JONES: I don't. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. ( 501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 ~ ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 A. There had been several Board members had encouraged Mr. Lester in personnel at various times, that the public figured we needed to make reorganization or cuts in administration in order to pass the millage. I was not one of those Board members. I compared what we spent. We spent $260 per student on administration cost. North Little Rock spends $280. Little Rock spends $480. I felt like we had made substantial cuts in administration prior to this. The reason I voted for it that night, if I had had more time I was not sure I would have voted for it. But Mr. Lester had told me prior to that meeting that afternoon that he had talked with his cabinet, they understood what had to be done. They supported it. Therefore I voted for it that night. Q. Mr. Matthews, can you tell me whether or not the Board acted on the initiative of itself, or on the initiative of the Superintendent of Schools in proposing a specific reorganization plan? MR. JONES: Let me object to the form of the question, because it just assumes those were the only two possible sources of the initiative. For instance, just by way of example -- MR. WALKER: I'll change it. MR. JONES: I want to go ahead and suggest to you what you need to plug in. If you'll review the minutes you'll see that a big part of the initiative came from PACT. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 6 A. Let me just say this. I can't speak for all Board members, but I can speak for myself. And I never told Bobby Lester to make a reorganization of administration. Now, whether other Board members did, I'm not sure. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) I'm only now concerned about what happened in formal Board meetings, rather than behind the scenes or in private conversation. Was there ever a Board directive to Mr. Lester to present an administrative reorganization plan that was voted on in public? A. There was talk. But I don't ever remember a directive from the Board. I just can't remember the Board directing him to do that. Q. A. Q. A. All right. But I do remember us talking about it. Now, was that talked about in public Board meetings? It was when we done the budget cuts and discussion in open Board meetings, yes, it has been discussed. Q. A. But there was never a Board directive? To my knowledge, no. MR. JONES: Are you talking about like a resolution saying Mr. Superintendent you shall? MR. WALKER: Or you're authorized or whatever. We'd like to have you present by a time certain. MR. JONES: You're not suggesting it required a resolution, are you? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 _ , 7 MR. WALKER: Sam, I'm trying to keep my deposition cost and my time. If you've got some objection, then just let's do them. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) Did the Board ever receive a written response to the suggestion that there should be administrative reorganization? A. Not to my recollection. I never received it. Q. So Mr. Lester's office never prepared a proposal for the Board's consideration for reorganization, that was presented to the Board before the night that the matter was voted upon? A. I don't remember myself getting a copy of that reorganization prior to that meeting. Like I say, I can only speak for myself. I'm not sure of the other Board members. Since I'm no longer President this year, my job is kind of demanding sometime, and I'm not as involved as some of the other Board members. Q. Now, with respect to what you know about this matter, do you recall what instructions were given to the administration as to the criteria to be utilized in any reorganization proposal? A. I don't remember any. Q. There were none? A. I don't remember. I'm not sure whether there were or there weren't. I don't remember. Q. When did the Board go on record as proposing reorganization, a formal vote? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. ( 501) 3 72-5115  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 A. The night we voted on the budget cuts and approved the reorganization is the only time that I know of. Q. Now, before you submitted it to the Board, did you all submit it to the Joshua Intervenors? A. Q. Not to my knowledge. Did you present it to PACT? 8 A. No. I don't think anybody seen it prior to the night of the meeting. Q. Do you know whether any PACT representative was involved in helping to formulate the plan? A. I certainly hope not. If there were I certainly don't know it. There shouldn't have been. Q. Who prepared or presented the reorganization plan to the Board on the night that it was voted on? A. Q. Mr. Lester. Did Mr. Lester make any comments about why he was presenting it? A. Just that there had been -- Board members are allowed, as Board members we can put anything on recommendation as far as budget cuts. And evidently, to the best I can remember, some Board members told Mr. Lester that we want to see a proposed reorganization of administration. And as I said, I was not one of those Board members. Q. A. Who were those Board members? Well, I'm not real sure because that list that we had that BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - 9 night of the draft, it didn't have who put what on the list. Q. But to your knowledge who were those Board members? A. Well, I know Ms. Tatum had talked about administration. And I remember her saying in public meetings that until there's some cuts right down here, that her community would never support a millage. I know McAlister voiced and said that there was -- I think pretty much all the Board members but maybe me and Dr. Cooley. And I don't remember if he ever Q. Well, budget cuts are one thing, and proposed reorganization is another? A. You're wanting to know who put the proposed organization from the Board? Q. Yes. A. I'm not sure. All I seen was when we voted on it that night there was the draft, the proposed. And when we went back into executive session there was some changes made. I can't really remember those changes exactly. Q. Did you all consider the budget cut proposals in executive session? A. No, just the part dealing with personnel. Q. Well, I mean, the whole thing dealt with personnel. So my question is, did you all consider the budget cuts in executive session? A. Well, I guess we did, because we talked about the personnel, that part of it. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - 10 Q. Now, you had not given notice to any of the people who may have been affected, that you were going to consider their personnel status in that executive session, did you? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Now, to this date have you given any persons who were adversely affected by the reorganization notice that they may appear before the Board to challenge their demotions? A. We have a grievance procedure. Q. My question though is, have you given any formal notice to these persons? A. No. Q. In other words Mr. Bowles has not been told, has not been formally advised in writing by certified mail, as far as you know, that his position is being changed, and that if he wishes to grieve it he must do so within a time certain? A. I think according to our policies, that any person that their job has been eliminated has to be notified by I think May the 1st. So I'm sure that was done. Q. Was it done by certified mail? A. I don't know. It should have been. Anybody, not just Mr. Bowles, but anybody's position that was eliminated should have been notified. Q  All r i g ht. A. To me, certain mail would be the best way. Q. But the Board had already participated, already considered BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 11 the personnel ramifications of the individual persons associated with the budget cuts? A. Well, when we consider budget cut, I don't look at personalities. Q. That's fine. In the executive meeting did you all consider personalities? A. No. Q. You did not? A. No. Q. So you went into executive session to discuss personnel matters, but you did not personnel, at least personalities, you only considered financial considerations? A. Financial considerations. Q. All right. Now, in the budget cut, executive session, were there minutes taken? A. No. Q. was a tape recorder running? A. No, not in executive session. Q. Do you ever have the tape running? A. No. Q. So there's no system of recording what goes on in the executive sessions? A. No. Sometimes Dr. Cooley takes notes, as far as Board Secretary, about who made a motion to approve or disapprove, and then we have to vote on it in open session, I believe is the way BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 12 it's always worked. Q. But you don't have a procedure for transcribing the proceedings within executive session? A. Q. No. That way nobody can ever know what went on in executive session\nis that right? A. Q. A. Q. Yes. Is that the purpose of having executive sessions? No, I wouldn't think so. Especially where you're not considering recommendations from the superintendent? A. Q. That's the way it's been done since I've been on the Board. Did anyone ever ask Mr. Lester to make an assessment, at least in the executive session, to make an assessment of the effect that some of these changes would have upon the operation of his administration? A. we talked about that. Because any time you add duties to people that are already what we consider loaded, it's going to be hard to handle. When you increase your workload it's a change. Q. was one of the purposes of the proposed reorganization to effect budget cuts? A. The only purpose of reorganization was for the purpose of saving the district money. Q. And how much money did you all direct be saved? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 13 A. I don't remember the exact figures from that night. Q. Before Mr. Lester began his effort, pursuant to the various notes and comments that had been made, or notations and comments that had been made here and there at Board meetings and otherwise, did the Board ever determine how much money it wanted to save? A. Well, each item on the budget cut list had a projected savings, so, yes. I think what we were looking at, we felt like this year in this school year maybe with $500,000 surplus, the next year we're looking at a 2 1/2 million dollar deficit if the millage had not have passed. The millage next year will bring in 1.4 million. So we were still looking at a pretty substantial. Q. My question, Mr. Matthews, is what was the anticipated or the projected amount of savings that you and the Board members directed Mr. Lester to work toward? A. I don't remember the exact figure. Q. was there a figure ever presented and adopted by the Board before Mr. Lester undertook his work? A. I can't remember that. Q. In other words nobody went to Mr. Lester to say, we want to save in administrative cuts $50,000, or $100,000, or $200,000? MR. JONES: Do you want him to look at this list, John, or do you just want to test his memory? MR. WALKER: No. I'm talking about before he did BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 14 it. A. The administration costs I don't think are on that list. MR. JONES: Yeah, they are. A. I don't remember the exact figures. Like I say, the directions didn't come from me. Q. I see. A. It did not come from me. Personally, if I had had more time to consider it. But I didn't see it until that night. So I went in and talked to Mr. Lester. He said his cabinet understood that there had to be cuts made. This was something that they had all looked at, and they felt like they could live with. That's fine, I'll support it. Q. Now, how much attention did the Board give to the desegregation plan when it contemplated the reorganization, formally, I'm just talking about formally? A. we talked a lot about it. Q. Formal action only, Mr. Matthews. Did the Board consider the desegregation plan in a formal way when it contemplated the reorganization? A. You mean as far as what kind of exact impact will this have on desegreg~tion? Q. You may take that. A. I don't remember that. Q. You did not as far as you know? A. Right. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 15 Q. Incidently, before you all voted on this matter, did you seek Mr. Jones' counsel? A. I didn't. Q. Did anybody ask the question on the night this was voted upon, what is counsel's view about this matter? A. I don't think Sam was even there that night. MR. JONES: I'll stipulate that I was not consulted. Q. Now, my understanding of the desegregation plan is that anything that may have desegregative impact had to be run first by the Office of Desegregation\nis that also yours? A. Yes. Q. Was this matter approved by the Office of Desegregation? A. No, not to my knowledge. Q. Do you understand the organizational structure that was approved in the desegregation plan? A. That night I d id . I had it before me . I studied it. I don't have it before me right now as far as Q. The one that was approved in the desegregation plan? A. You mean the original plan? Q. Yes. A. I understood that. Q. Do you understand that the present organizational structure is different from the organizational structure approved in the desegregation plan? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 16 A. Yes, I understand that. Q. Now, what is the difference? A. The primary difference is that we had an assistant superintendent in charge of desegregation. And that position has been eliminated, and now we have a Director of Desegregation, I think that's the title, which is Mr. Billy Bowles, and Eddie Collins has taken on part of those job duties. Q. Did anybody ever ask Mr. Lester if this was his proposal, and if he favored that? A. Yes. Q. Who asked him that? A. He said it was the cabinet's, something that they could live with. So I'm sure he talked to the cabinet in staff meeting. Q. Well, you understand that all administrators are going to say they can live with anything that a superintendent proposes. But my question is a little bit different. My question basically is, did Mr. Lester indicate that this was something that had the specific approval of the Office of Desegregation? A. I don't remember. Q. Before it was presented to the Board? A. I didn't ask him that. Q. Now, do you understand the role of the Assistant superintendent of Desegregation as it relates to the plan? A. He oversees the plan, to me. That's his title is to see BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 17 that the plan is carried out to the letter. Q. Do you recall Mr. Lester assuring the court that Mr. Bowles would be that person? A. Yes. MR. JONES: I'm going to have to object to the form of the question, because I don't think the record will bear that out. MR. WALKER: I'm asking about his recollection. Whether it does or doesn't. It's his recollection that's important now. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) Do you recall that assurance by Mr. Lester? A. Q. A. I wasn't in court. But you understood I understand, yeah, what you're saying, is that Mr. Bowles, that's his job is to carry out the desegregation plan. Q. And you understood Mr. Lester to commit that the Director of Desegregation would always carry the title or at least be in a position of oversight of all of the other persons other than himself? MR. JONES: Now you're talking about a position as opposed to a personality? A. Q. MR. WALKER: Position, yes. I assume that. (BY MR. WALKER) Now, how familiar are you with the entire BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plan? A. Well, I'm more familiar with the part that directs the areas that I represent, zone 3. But I have a pretty good understanding of the overall plan. Have you ever read the entire plan? ]8 Q. A. When, I first got on the Board, every time a plan would come out I'd sit down and try to read it. About the time I'd get through it, throw that one away, here's the new one. I've got stacks of plans that tall. (Indicating) So I can't sit and tell you that I've read every one of them. MR. JONES: The witness is indicating you're showing a stack about 3 feet tall. A. Right. Probably taller than that. We used to call them the March plan or the May plan, and we run out of months. Q. Is there any reason you didn't consult or no one thought to consult Mr. Jones before you undertook this action on this matter? A. Well, like I say, there was Board members that had a whole lot more input into this than I did. Q. A. Q. If you don't know, Mr. Matthews, simply say I don't know. Right, sure. I don't know. How much money will actually be saved by the proposed budget cuts? A. I don't have a figure right before me. I don't remember exactly. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 Q. Did you have any document A. I had it that night. 19 MR. WALKER: Do you have any such documents with you, Mr. Jones? MR. JONES: Well, we've got this list of possible cuts. I don't think there's any dispute that there was a target figure, John, the Board was working toward. 2 1/2 million. I think it's undisputed they were working toward a total savings of 2 1/2 million. Q. My question is, what was the amount of cuts that was supposed to come from the Office of Desegregation? A. I don't remember. All it says is administrative reorganization. Q. What was the budget for the Office of Desegregation? A. I don't remember that either. Q. What is the present budget of the Office of Desegregation? A. I'm not sure. Q. was that question asked at any time during your deliberations? A. No. You mean at the Board meeting when we voted on the cuts? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. Now, you all do try to allocate budgets to each department? A. Right. I can tell you what the overall budget is, but I BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 20 can't tell you what the budget is for support services exactly. Q. What is the intended use of the savings that you contemplated? A. Well, at some point in time -- my biggest concern -- Q. I'm just talking about the Board's now, I'm not talking about you personally. MR. JONES: He's already explained, unless the Board has articulated something he knows to be the Board's position, he can only speak for himself. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) I want to know if the Board has agreed upon an intended direct use of the anticipated savings? A. To keep us from bankruptcy. Q. To avoid bankruptcy? A. Right. Q. Now, this was done before the millage passed, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, is there any fear of bankruptcy at this time without the budget cuts? A. We feel looking at a projected deficit next year, the part that concerns me and several of the other Board members have voiced this, is that when the deseg money runs out 95-96, we're going to have to start belt tightening right now. Q. My question is, is there any fear for 1992 or for 1993 of bankruptcy? A. Not bankruptcy, but deficit spending. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 21 Q. Now, why was it necessary to affect the Office of Desegregation at all by budget cuts, since you only had maybe three people or four people related to it? A. I really don't know. That was just what was presented to the Board. And it was my knowledge that they all had input into the list, to the cuts. MR. JONES: Just so we're tracking, John. That was one item on a comprehensive list. And there were some items on there that the Board .declined to cut or did not reach and discuss\nis that fair to say? A. Right. And then there was some that we Q. May I see the list you're referring to? A. Sure. (A recess was had.) Q. I'm looking at a document which is entitled, \"PCSSD Budget Reduction Considerations, March 17, 1992.\" Can you draw my attention to the area where the Office of Desegregation is included? A. Item 12, administration reorganization. Q. All right. And the expected savings was to be $137,800? A. That's on the overall reorganization of administration. Q. Of administration? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, have you seen the analysis that the \"Democrat Gazette\" did on June 19, 1992? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 A. Q. A. 22 No. I show you Mr. Shameer's assessment. Yeah, I did see this. I'm sorry. \"Savings scant in two school demotions.\" Q. Now, since this came out, have you asked Mr. Lester, have you had occasion to ask Mr. Lester to respond to this? A. Q. this? A. Q. No, I have not. Do you agree that the savings are in fact very scant from Yes, I do. In other words none of these savings that were projected -MR. JONES: John, I guess for the record I need to object to you using an article from the newspaper. Maybe if I could glance at it. MR. WALKER: This is a deposition. It's not trial. MR. JONES: I understand. Let me just object, because in the first paragraph it makes it clear they're only talking about two assistant superintendents, and therefore does not address the entire administrative reorganization you've already asked the witness about. A. Personally I never have had a problem with reinstatement of the two assistant superintendents. Q. Did any of the Board members have a problem with that, as far as you know? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-51] 5  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 - 23 A. I do not know because I have not communicated with them on that. Q. Now, with respect to changing job descriptions of persons, like you're really talking about here Mr. Collins and Mr. Bowles. If Mr. Collins is going to take over the overall Office of Desegregation, would that not require some different duties for Mr. Collins than he had before? A. Certainly. Q. That means he'll have to be trained more? A. Yes. Q. That means that he'll have to make adjustments that are pretty difficult, such as becoming aware of various things that are not reduced to writing in the district over the last two or three years? A. I think all of our top administrators are very -- they're up on the desegregation plan. They all have a really good knowledge of it, and the goals of it, the time table of it. Not just Mr. Collins, Mr. Lester, Mr. Bowles, they all do. Q. Well, I guess you could say that they all are pretty much up on what each other does? A. Yes. But what you're saying is their exact duties? Q. Yes. A. I see what you're saying. Q. Now, are you saying that a novice could be brought in and perform the function of Assistant Superintendent for BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ]4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 Desegregation without training? A. I think if anybody could handle it, Mr. Collins is a top notch administrator, and in my opinion one of the finest. Q. We're not asking you to validate Mr. Collins or devalidate Mr. Bowles. A. I also think the same of Mr. Bowles. I think they're both very fine administrators. MR. JONES: Do you want to still ask him a hypothetical question about bringing a novice in? I'm not sure where that's going to take us. Q. If you really wanted to effect savings you could have terminated some people, couldn't you? A. Well, you don't terminate people. You terminate their position, but then they just bump down, and then the person at the bottom is the one that's terminated. Q. Fine. But you could have terminated a number of positions all together? A. Well, over years that's been done. Q. That's right. A. Sure has. Q. Now, in this situation, according to this article, there are no real substantial savings here. Mr. Lester's salary comes down less than 8 percent, and he voluntarily agreed to do that anyway. MR. JONES: Why don't you just get him to confirm BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 25 numbers instead of being subjective. MR. WALKER: All right. Thank you, Mr. Jones. I'm trying to be very brief. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) You have the article I've shown you? A. Yes.  Q. It is clear that Mr. Lester and these other persons had already agreed to take voluntary reductions, hadn't they? A. Right. Q. So if they're taking the voluntary reductions, are they also having their salaries decreased beyond the voluntary reductions? A. Well, Mr. Bowles would not qualify I don't think of the voluntary, because that was the assistant superintendent's. Q. Listen to my question. All of them you said have agreed or had agreed to voluntary reductions? A. Right. Q. Now, all of the directors had also agreed to voluntary reductions, hadn't they? A. I don't think all the directors had agreed. I don't think they had. Q. Well, how many people had not agreed in the administration, the top administration? A. The top, you're talking Q. The top 15 or 20 people. A. I don't really remember the names. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Q. But virtually all of them had agreed to reductions, hadn't they? A. Pretty close to all of them. Q. They had agreed on an 8 percent reduction, and that was the amount that you all asked them to take, wasn't it? A. They was the amount they offered to take. We didn't put a number on it. Q. Now, let me just ask you about Mr. Lester's salary. His salary in 1992 will be $83,653, it seems? A. Yes. Q. And that purports to be a $6,370 decrease? A. Right. Q. So that meant that he had a $90,000 salary? A. Yes. Q. 8 percent of $90,000 is $7,200? A. Yes. Q. This decrease is less than he had voluntarily agreed to take, isn't it? A. I hadn't put the figures on it. But yeah, if he's taking an 8 percent decrease. Maybe Mr. Shameer's math is not real good. Q. But I'm saying if his salary is $90,000, 8 percent of $90,000 is $7,200. MR. LESTER: Well, what we agreed to do, Mr. Walker, is to give back 8 percent of 13.05 percent raise we got. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - We didn't agree to take a 8 percent reduction in our total salary. And Mr. Matthews knows that. A. Yes. Q. 8 percent of the raise. 27 A. 13.25 percent raise that we gave administrators, that's what we're talking about. Q. The 13 percent raise A. They would still have a 5 percent from last year. Not this past year that just ended, but the one before. Q  So i f he had a r a i s e of - - A. You're comparing his salary this year, this school year that just ended the previous school year, right? Q. Yes. A. Then he's still going to have an increase. MR. JONES: Nobody stated it right yet. Instead of getting a 13 percent raise, he's only going to get a 5 percent raise. A. He's still going to be making 5 percent more than he made. MR. LESTER: You're taking 8 percent of our total salary, Mr. Walker. MR. BURNETTE: This isn't going to be a decrease at all in their salaries. MR. LESTER: Yes, it is. $6,300 decrease over the next year of what I made this year. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) What we have here then is a situation BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. ( 501) 372-5115  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 28 where you really haven't affected savings because everybody is going to make more this year than they made last year? MR. JONES: I'll object to the form of the question, because it's going to affect savings over the raise that everybody had otherwise been awarded that they could count on for the next year, and they voluntarily agreed to reduce that substantially. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) was there ever a Board vote on a specific motion about the raise reductions? A. we accepted the offer of the 8 percent. Q. Who made the offer? A. It was in the budget cuts. I don't know who put it in there. Q. was it ever -- A. I think there was a letter from the directors, some of the directors and the whole superintendent's cabinet saying that they would voluntarily take an 8 percent cut for '92 and '93 school year. Q. Will you acknowledge that at least for Mr. Altom, Collins, Miller, Bowles, Hogan, Stewart and Lester, their salaries will not be decreased from 1991-92 during 1992-93? MR. JONES: We'll stipulate to that. MR. LESTER: we received that full salary this year. We received it this year. We're going to make less next year than we did this year. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 29 MR. JONES: Let me withdraw my stipulation. I'm in error. A. It makes it looks like they're cheating, and they're not. MR. WALKER: It does make it seem that there is no agreement between a Board member, counsel and the superintendent about what happened. And I'm just trying to find out really what happened. Can we have a stipulation, Mr. Jones, that there is no agreement between the Board -- MR. JONES: No. MR. WALKER: That's fine. MR. JONES: I shouldn't have stuck my nose in it, because I don't know anything about it. MR. WALKER: I'm glad you did. Can we stipulate that you don't know anything about it? MR. JONES: We can stipulate that I don't know anything about it, and I just proved it. A. The cabinet is taking a pay decrease, the superintendent's cabinet. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) Well, how much of a pay decrease is the superintendent's cabinet taking, according to information that you have been provided? A. 8 percent less than they made this past school year. MR. LESTER: That's not right, Mr. Matthews. (Off-the-record.) A. Maybe I don't understand exactly. There's a lot of things BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 in school financing I don't understand. Q. I just want you to state what you understood, and you stated it. A. Okay. Could I clarify it a little bit? Q. Go ahead, to the best of your ability. 30 A. To the very best of my ability, at the beginning of last year, July 1 a year ago, we gave all of our top administrators a 13.04 raise. They draw that salary this whole year. Then next year they're going to draw 8 percent less. 8 percent, they voluntarily took an 8 percent cut, is the way I understand it. MR. LESTER: In the raise, not overall salary. A. In the raise. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) Let me just go with Mr. Matthews, because one of the things that I want to be able to show is that nobody knows what happened. And Mr. Matthews is now helping me to demonstrate that point. Now, isn't it your understanding that the voluntary salary reductions are set forth on line 18 of what we better call Exhibit 1 to this deposition? A. Line 18, voluntary salary reductions, estimated savings $35,078. (Deposition Exhibit 1 was marked.) Q. What are the estimated reductions from the reorganization of the top administrators? A. You're talking about the cabinet? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-51]5  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 - 31 Q. Yes. A. I don't know. I'm not sure. Q. Did you all ever ask that question at a Board meeting? A. I'm sure it was brought up, because it was broken down at some point in time. Q. Was it broken down in writing? A. I don't remember. We had so many budget cuts, projected budget cuts, it was reorganized. We could rank it any way we wanted. MR. WALKER: If it was done I'd like to request now, Mr. Jones, a copy of what the proposed savings to the cabinet members were, what the proposed savings which came from the reduction of the cabinet members pursuant to their raises was. MR. JONES: You mixed two different things. MR. WALKER: Let me restate it then. I would like to understand what the cost savings were from the reorganization which applied to the cabinet. MR. JONES: I don't have a better figure than what you've got on what you just marked as an exhibit. What I'm not clear about is if the reorganization extended beyond the cabinet. John, if you'll just put your questioD whet were the projected savings from the administrative reorganization, I will say that's the figure on that exhibit the Board had that night. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) Let me ask you this. Did you ever have a BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 position-by-position projection of savings? A. No. 32 Q. Did you ever ask whether or not such a document was ever prepared by the administration? A. Not to my recollection. Q. Now, you do understand that if they're going to make a projection of savings they have to do it on a position-by-position basis, don't they? A. Like I say, that's been too long ago for me to remember. Q. But in order for them to come up with a composite figure, they have to have a listing and a -- A. You have to have the total and they have to break it down. Q. But you never saw that document? A. I don't remember seeing it. Q. What is here, what is number 24, it says, \"RED. SUPT. CONT. by adding 2 percent?\" What does \"RED.\" stand for? A. Reduce, I guess. Reduce support staff contract by an additional 2 percent, and add that to number 18 above, which is \"Accept all voluntary salary reductions.\" Q. So you're going to reduce the superintendent's contract by adding 2 percent -- MR. JONES: Not the superintendent, the support staff. MR. WALKER: What is \"SUPT\" abbreviated for? MR. JONES: I'm sorry, that is superintendent. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 33 I've forgotten about that one. A. I'm sorry, I was thiriking support staff. It says, \"Reduce superintendent's contract by an additional 2 percent,\" that's right. Q. A. Q. A. All right. Then it says add to number 18 above. so we couldn't do that. So that didn't happen? We couldn't do it. He's under contract. A contract is signed. Q. So this is a reduction consideration which was proposed by Mr. Lester himself? A. No. MR. JONES: No. Q. Well, who proposed this document here? MR. JONES: That line item? MR. WALKER: No, the whole document. A. I could put stuff in there. Anybody could have. As far as who put that on there, I have no idea. MR. JONES: John, this was a master list typed up to reflect anybody and everybody's suggestions, Board members and whoever. Q. A. Q. A. Did you all vote on an overall document? What we do is take it line-by-line. So you all had a separate vote on each line? Yes. The year before I think we would take it like down BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 34 through line 17, and everything from 17 up was cut. This time we took it line-by-line. Q. A. Q. So I take it that you all voted down item 24? Well, we had no choice. But you did vote that down. were other items on this document A. We didn't take a vote on item 24. We said he's under contract. The contrcc t js si gned. Q. Well, all these other people were under contract, and their contracts were signed? A. Q. His is a three year contract, and theirs is year-to-year. But under state law a person's salary cannot be reduced from year-to-year, can it? A. Q. A. Q. A. It happened to me three years in a row. But I'm saying for teachers? Yeah. Non-superintendents? It's happening all over the state. Teachers' salaries are being froze. Their steps are being froze. If that's not a cut in salaries what is, especially with the step. Q. I'm talking about changing it or reducing it from what it was the previous year? A. Like cutting it 2 percent from the year before. Q. So you all couldn't have cut the teachers salaries except with their permission or consent? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 35 A. I suppose we could. They would sue us. The Board considers pretty much what they want to do financially, but you just got to bear the consequences. Q. So this document which is Exhibit 1 was never acted on and approved in its form as it's presented to -- A. Q. A. Q. As a whole? Yes. It never was. It never was. So do you have a document which reflects the budget reductions on an item-by-item basis that could be made available to the court right now? A. No, I don't have it with me. MR. JONES: To be fair, the minutes take them item-by-item. You can compare the votes taken in the minutes to what you got in your hand and you'll be there. Q. Have you ever seen a document prepared which lists everything? A. Q. A. Q. Everything that was cut? Yes. No. All right. And you've had since March 17 to do that, haven't you? A. Q. Yeah. If I had wanted it they would have gave it to me. That means it has not then been presented to us or to the court? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 A. Q. 36 I didn't present it to you. Okay. Now, you all have a general pattern or history, do you not, of having the supervisor of a particular division be the top paid person in that division? A. Well, all I know is that I've only been on the Board four years, and you're saying history\nto me, that goes way back. Q. During your four years isn't it true that the assistant superintendent for department A would usually be the highest person in that department? A. Should be. The supervisor, we've got teachers that make more per day than the principal they work for. Q. But that's in part due to the fact that you have a principal's salary schedule and a teacher's salary schedule? A. Q. Right. But in terms of the central office, those administrative positions have ranked -- A. I don't think that's necessarily so, because I think Mr. Fitzgerald makes more than Bobby Altom. I'm not sure. But I know it's real close. MR. JONES: We'd stipulate that's correct. A. Because Mr. Altom has not been with the district as long as Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Altom was hired in as an assistant superintendent, and Mr. Dennis Fitzgerald has came up through the ranks, therefore he's probably got 25 years with the district. I would go ahead and say that that's not always the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 37 case. Q. That's fine. Now, in terms of promoting the millage, did you have occasion to promote the millage? A. In my area I worked for the millage. Q. Do you remember anybody indicating that unless this millage passed the PCSSD would be absorbed by Little Rock? A. There was more rumors and stuff. Q. I'm not asking what happened. I'm just asking as far as a specific answer to that question. Do you remember promoting the millage on the basis that unless it passed PCSSD would be absorbed by Little Rock? A. That was one of the options that people heard. People would say, what will happen if the school district goes under. So, yes, that was discussed. Q. All right. Now, was the fact that Little Rock was majority black discussed? A. No. Q. Not by you? A. Not by me. Not by the people that I spoke with. Q. Have you sat in on any of the court proceedings regarding this case? A. Yes. Q. Are you aware that the 8th Circuit has repeatedly stated that finances or lack thereof have no bearing on the implementation of the desegregation plan? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 38 A. Well, I know what Mr. Reville when I met with him, yes, I have read that on the 8th Circuit's orders. It wasn't their place to finance it. Q. Were you aware that Judge Arnold in the hearing just held this last week indicated that finances would not be a basis for cutting back on the desegregation promises? A. Right, I understood that. Q. Have you by this reorganization plan caused all of the administrators to have more responsibilities than they formerly had? A. All the administrators? Q. Yes. A. I would say so. Q. Isn't that another way of cutting back on desegregation promises? A. It could be interpreted that way. Q. Now, when you take someone like Mr. Bowles and you give him far more responsibilities, but less status, is not that a cut back in the significance of the Office of Desegregation? A. In my opinion I didn't think so. We're still as committed to desegregation as we ever were. It may slow the process down a little bit. We're still committed to it. We have a plan. We're going to follow the plan. Our goal as a djstrict is to gain unitary status. Q. You say it may slow the process down a little bit. What do BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 39 you mean by that? A. Well, we wanted to gain unitary status in two to three years, it may take three to four years. Q. From now? A. Well, from the time when the plan was adopted. Q. Is it your understanding that you all were intending to apply for unitary status within three years? A. No. I'd like to see us do it. That's kind of unrealistic. But I'm just using that as an example. Q. Can you tell me why Superintendent Lester, during the time you're talking about saving money, recommended a salary increase for the wife of the Board member Mr. Goss? A. Q. A. Mr. Lester did not recommend that. Well, she got a salary increase, didn't she? That may have happened at the last Board meeting and I was not there. Q. What is her position? A. She's the facilitator of health services. She filed a grievance and came before the Board. I voted against it, granting her grievance. Q. Now, you understand that that's sort of an awkward thing when you have a Board member's wife corning before the Board, even though he doesn't participate? A. Q. Right. I kind of could see that. Now, what happened was that she gets a salary increase. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 -:i ..\n4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 Did ya'll give anybody else an increase this year other than her? A . I didn't vote for her salary increase. Q. I understand. But to your knowledge did anybody else get an increase? A. Q. No. Was Mr. Goss one of the persons promoting the reorganization? A. Q. He voted for it. I guess he promoted it. voting is one thing, but promoting is another. You voted for it also, and you didn't promote it? A. Q. Exactly. So to your information, based on hearsay or anything else, was Mr. Goss one of the A. Q. I would say yes. Would you say that Mr. Goss was one of the principal promoters of that, according to your information and understanding? A. Q. I'd say yeah. All right. Now, he promotes reorganization, and the sole beneficiary out of this whole thing is his wife? A. Q. That's what it looks like. All right. Have you ever been encouraged to pull in the reins on Mr. Bowles? A. No. Mr. Bowles is a fine man. He does a good job. I BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 ~ think the world of Billy Bowles. He's a top notch administrator. 41 Q. Now, you know the reorganization will result in virtually all of the black persons in the central staff at the director or assistant superintendent level being in the same department? MR. JONES: I object to the form of the question. The record won't bear that out. Q. Who are the black persons who before the reorganization had to your knowledge director status or assistant superintendent status? A. Mr. Collins is assistant superintendent. Mr. Bowles is assistant superintendent. Ruth Simmons Hertz was director of desegregation. Do you want assistant directors? Q. That's fine. A. Charles Green, assistant director of secondary ed. Q. Did Mr. Green not also have desegregation responsibilities? A. Yes. It's my understanding that all of our employees have desegregation responsibilities. Q. Do you not recall Mr. Lester representing to the court that Mr. Green was going to be afforded specific desegregation responsibility relating to the Office of Desegregation? A. I don't remember that exactly. I remember talk. But as far as the way it was presented to the court. Q. So Mr. Collins was in another department before this reorganization, wasn't he? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 42 A. Mr. Collins is assistant superintendent in charge of Pupil Personnel. Q. Pupil Personnel was one department headed by a black, and Desegregation was another department headed by a black person? A. Right. Q. And you combined those two departments? A. Yes. Q. Is there any particular reason that was given for combining the only two departments headed by black persons into one? A. We didn't look at it from a racial viewpoint. Q. Maybe you didn't. The desegregation plan says that you'll look at everything from a racial viewpoint, does it not? A. I don't remember the specifics as to how we discussed it. That makes it sound like we're going to stick these two blacks together here. Q. I'm not saying you intentionally did. That's obviously the effect. You didn't discuss it, did you? A. No. That night in personnel we discussed the effect that it was going to have on the black people in the administration. We did discuss that. I don't remember exactly what all was said. Q. I figured ya'll talked a little bit more than about personnel, about things that were not specific personnel problems. You all discussed the desegregation policy in executive committee, didn't you? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372- 5115  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 A. Q. A. 43 No. You just said it. we talked about the black people that were affected. There was more white people affected than there were black people. Q. But you did discuss that. And you didn't discuss it in the public Board meeting? A. Q. A, Q. A. Q. Yeah. Did you discuss it in the public Board meeting? I don't remember. Did you discuss it in the private session? I think, yeah, we did. That's fine. Incidently, did you ever ask Mr. Lester why he recommended a salary increase for Mrs. Goss? MR. JONES: Let me stop you, John. I don't know if I should object to the form of your question, because I don't know if the predicate is correct. It assumes that Mr. Lester did, and I don't know one way or another. Q. Let me ask you, you all don't act on specific cases involving salary increases or grievance resolutions unless it comes to you on recommendation from the Superintendent's Office, do you? A. Right. She filed a grievance. Mr. Lester turned her grievance down. She brought it to the School Board. We turned it down. I think they voted on it at the last meeting. She put it on there again. And I wasn't there, so I don't know. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 44 Q. I didn't understand that. You mean to say that she had a grievance? A. She filed a grievance. Q. She lost the grievance before Mr. Lester? A. And then she brought it to the School Board. Q. And then the Board turned her down? A. What the Board did was said that we realize that she was wanting us to do it right then. And you can't do something during the year. And what we basically said was we'll look at it for next year, on the next year's contract. I think the Board approved that. Q. Here's my question. At the time it was presented to the Board the first time it was rejected\nisn't that correct? A. As she presented it it was rejected. Q. so this was not action on a grievance, on a new grievance, this was a recommendation that had been made by Mr. Lester? A. Q. I was not there, so I don't know. That's fine. MR. WALKER: I'd like to request the paperwork regarding Mrs. Goss' circumstances be made available and capable of being used at trial. MR. JONES: I don't know that I can sit here and stipulate that it's relevant. MR. WALKER: We're not asking that it be stipulated for relevance. We just want to have it available so BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 45 that when we put Mr. Goss on the stand we can have it discussed. MR. JONES: I don't have any problem with that, John. I don't know if any part of that process implicates a personnel file that I might not be able to give you. To the extent that they are public records, and Mr. Lester could help me here, I think you're entitled to it. I just don't know because I've never looked at it. MR. WALKER: Well, we're going to be deposing Mr. Lester. So when Mr. Lester's testimony is given we'd like to have that file here, all the files relating to Mr. Goss and Mrs. Goss. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) Now, in the new reorganization in the revamped Office of Desegregation, except for the secretary all those persons will be black, won't they, and Pupil Personnel? A. All the people in Pupil Personnel? Q. Is there another Director of Pupil Personnel besides Mr. Coll ins? A. No. MR. JONES: You said all the people. Q. All the people at the director level or above will be of the black race? A. Right. Q. Do you have another department which is so heavily concentrated with black persons? A. Not to my knowledge. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 46 Q. What three administrators or four administrators -- well, was Mr. Lester responsible for redrawing the student assignment plan? MR. JONES: For what? Q. Are you familiar with the student assignment plans for this next year? MR. JONES: John, what does that have to do with the budget cuts? MR. WALKER: I'll explain it. A. Mr. Lester didn't draw the student assignment plan by himself. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) Who did? A. There was a bunch of people that had parts in that. Mr. Bowles primarily, he's the one I've always talked to about student assignment. Q. With respect to the budget reduction considerations, were there any cost savings effectuated by modifying the student assignment plan? A. The student assignment plans are not part of the budget cuts. MR. JONES: John, I've got to object to the whole form and premise of the question. MR. WALKER: All you have to do is object. There's no use making speeches on the record due to the time. MR. JONES: I'm going to explain my objection. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - 47 MR. WALKER: Sam, do it quickly. MR. JONES: I'm going to do it real quick. The court approved the student assignment plan, and the Board did not consider changing something MR. WALKER: You weren't there, Sam. They didn't consult you. MR. JONES: It's not on the list. A. We didn't even discuss student assignment plans and budget cuts. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) Well, any time you start talking about reducing, at least adding to teachers' responsibilities or cutting teachers, you're necessarily going to affect the student assignment plan, aren't you? A. Teachers, you're talking about cutting their salary? Q. If you're reducing the number of staff persons, if you're cutting out coordinators, for instance, you're talking about having an impact on the student assignment plan, aren't you? MR. JONES: The student assignment plan or the desegregation plan? MR. WALKER: The student assignment portion of the desegrEgation plan. MR. JONES: That question makes no sense to me. I'll object to it. MR. WALKER: If he doesn't understand it, he doesn't understand it. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 48 Q. (BY MR. WALKER) Is there enough money available to restore the budget cuts proposed? A. Not totally. Maybe some of them. Personally, like I say, I would like to see -- Q. A. I'm asking about money availability now? Not right now. Because next year we're still looking at a deficit. It depends. I asked Mr. Lester earlier, what kind of revenue are we going to end this year with. It's still kind of cloudy. We're not sure. Q. Well, you all are required to give the step increases to the teachers who have not maxed out, aren't you? A. Q. Right. So you must operate at a deficit if necessary, if that's the only way that you can provide those mandated increases? MR. JONES: I object to the form of the question. They're not permitted to operate -- A. The School Board members are held liable if we operate at a deficit. I had heard that you could not cut steps, a teacher's step. That maybe the Attorney General had ruled on that. But then I've been told that you can freeze the steps. A lot of the districts around the state right now are doing that for the next year. Q. Can you tell me whether or not you've reviewed the budget for the end of this school year to determine whether or not there were any savings in any particular areas? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC, (501) 372-5115  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 49 A. When we get our -- Q. Just listen to the question. I'm not asking you for anything other than to tell me whether you've reviewed the budget for the end of this school year to determine whether or not there will be any savings in any areas? A. No, I haven't yet. Q. All right. I notice here that you don't deal with budget cuts and things such as utilities. Have you checked to determine whether or not you were going to try to reduce utilities? A. We cut that last year as far as the overall. The whole lighting system in all of our school district is on computer. Q. My question is, did you give any attention to other things that are reoccurring costs? A. That's been cut in years past. Q. Well, can you tell me whether or not -- tell me when the last time that was done? A. We met a year ago January in our much publicized board retreat in Hot Springs. we tried to cut the overall operating expenses of the schools, which that was included. Keeping the schools closed as much as possible. Q. You proposed to cut out a number of coordinators, don't you? A. Right, that was on the budget cut list. Q. Is it now necessary to cut out those coordinators? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 50 A. Well, let me say this. When we see how much revenue we're going to end this school year with, and I could better answer that. Q. My question is, what was the anticipated financial savings by cutting out the coordinators? And I'll give you this. A. Well, if it's on here then you've already read it. Q. Show me where it is? MR. JONES: It's not in one line item, John. You have to combine two, I think. MR. WALKER: Mr. Jones, I just want him to tell me. A. Right, it's not a line item. Q. That's fine. Mr. Matthews, did the coordinators perform any particular desegregation function during 1991-92, to your knowledge? A. To my knowledge every employee of our district provided -Q. You cut back on seven coordinators? A. Yes, I think it is. Q. would not that have an adverse impact on desegregation, the ability of the district to fulfill its desegregation obligations? A. Possible. Q. Possibly? A. But what good is a desegregation plan if you're bankrupt. Q. Did you consider the desegregation aspect of the budget BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. ,(501) 372-5115  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 - cuts of the coordinators? A. Are you saying did we discuss that openly? Q. Yes. A. I do not remember. Q. Now, you also decided to cut or reduce a number of secretaries and other support staff, did you not? A. It seems like support staff gets hit pretty regular. 51 Q. Now, with respect to support staff, you're talking about bus drivers and people like that, are you not? A. You can't cut bus drivers. But, yeah, that's a support staff. Q. And this also will have an adverse impact upon desegregation, will it not? A. Everything we do in this school district is part of our desegregation, every employee has a part in it. Q. Has any Board member asked Mr. Lester to present an analysis of the desegregative impact of the budget cuts? A. I can only speak for myself. And I have not. As far as the other Board members, I cannot answer for them. Q. Now, you all remember the concerns that we had -for Fuller Junior High School, and you had people coming there and making proposals for various things at Fuller Junior High School, and you approved them? A. For the Futures Program. Q. Right. That was going to be desegregative? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 52 A. Yes. Q. And that's one of the times when you all allowed one of the Board members to go over to work at Fuller. What was her name? She left the Board and went to work, if I'm not mistaken, at Fuller. What was her name? She was on the Board when we had the Green case. A. You're talking about Cheryl Dunn. She didn't go to Fuller. She went to Mills. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. She didn't work at Fuller at all? To my knowledge she didn't. The Futures Program is a desegregation program, isn't it? It's a tool to desegregate. was the Futures Program diminished by $45,000? No, not to my knowledge. You all didn't vote on that? No. It says that here. Where? At the bottom. (Witness viewing document.) \"Tag-various schools,\" is that what you're talking about? Q. Look at Fuller Futures. A. \"Specialty, Fuller Futures, \"$27,270.\" We didn't approve that. It was on the list, but we didn't pass it. Everything on that list there was not passed. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 53 Q. Tell me the other things that were on the list that were not passed? Go down the list? A. Start at the top? Q. Just for the record, just indicate the item numbers that were not approved, only the item number? A. Item 2 was not approved. Q. Just number them? A. Number 4 I don't think was approved. I don't remember about 6. The 2 mile limit, we reinstated that. Item 7. Q. If you'd be kind enough to just list the ones that were not approved? MR. BURNETTE: was 7 approved or not approved? A. Both. We approved it, and then we reinstated it, because that's the 2 mile limit that says kids that live within 2 miles of the school have to get to school the best way they can. We're going to run the buses as we've always done. That's a big safety hazard. Item 13. Item 15, 17. Well, we approved 17. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. MR. JONES: Did you include 15? A. Yeah, I included 15, all out of district travel. MR. JONES: He asked you the ones that you did not cut. MR. WALKER: No. Did not approve. A. Did not approve. MR. JONES: Well, let's make sure we're tracking. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 54 Q. l(BY MR. WALKER) Let me go back. List only the i tern numbers which were not approved. And you said 2, 4, 13 -- A. Q. A. Q. we did not cut 2, 4. You did not cut? We did not cut. Listen to my question, Mr. Matthews. Only list the ones which were not approved, not the ones which were approved, the numbers? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Number 2. Okay. 4, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16. We cut all out of district travel. What number? That's number 15. We cut 16 by 50 percent. It was half approved? Yeah. Okay. Any others? 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 we didn't. We did 25. We didn't approve 26 or 27. Q. A. Q. So about half of the items were not approved? A bunch of them were not approved. Were there some others that were substituted and added to this list? A. Q. It would be on there. There would be an updated list. Did Mr. Lester indicate to you that it was necessary to have savings which were or at least seek to have savings which BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 55 were this deep, in other words a total of $7,766,000 or so? A. Mr. Lester didn't. The Board had more input into that. We had the list from the year before. Q. Did Mr. Lester make any separate recommendation of budget reductions that was different from what he was ordered or a i rec tea to a o? A. Q. No. Now, you didn't deal with the breakdown by category. Is it fair to say that everything on the bottom of this page was disapproved? A. No. We did not cut the specialty program at Fuller. Futures -- Q. A. You didn't cut -- We cut the coordinator. At the various schools we cut our Director of Athletics at central office. Q. A. So you all did what you call a line item veto? We went line-by-line. We could approve it or disapprove it by Board vote. Q. Mr. Matthews, who is the person who's most knowledgeable about these budget cuts? A. Q. A. Q. Dr . Stew a r t. Did Dr. Stewart sit in the executive sessions with ya'll? No, he did not. So when you all went into the executive session you did not have the most knowledgeable person in there with you to discuss BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 56 them? A. I don't recall calling him in there. I do not. Q. On the proposed budget reductions, did you suggest any of the items on Exhibit l? A. Maybe the 2 mile limit. We all kind of had that in mind. we talked about this the year before. Q. A. Q. A. Q. The 2 mile limit, you mean reducing Transportation, 2 mile limit. You were talking about reducing it? Cutting it out completely. We've since reinstated it. Did you relate in your budget cut proposals to that transportation which might affect desegregation? A. No, we didn't discuss the transportation from the deseg point of view when we was talking to the bus route and cutting the 2 mile limit. MR. WALKER: That's all I have. Thank you. 1(WHEREUPON, the above-entitled deposition was concluded at 12:40 p.m.) * * * * * * * * * * BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115 u, n oo ~I-': uC..,: w -..) ::c t\n'~ u, C I-' ::c ,_. I-: U1 1-! 2 G 1- !2 (  J N N N N NNl--'1--' u,~ W Nl--'0\\0CXl I-' I-' I-' -..) O'I U1  I-' I-' ~ w I-' N I-' I-' -..) PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET REDUCTION CONSIDERATIONS MARCH 17, 1992 ITEM ESTIMATED NO. ITEM SAVINGS ITEMS FROM REDUCTION LIST DATED JANUARY 29, 1991 J1 1 TRANSPORTATION - MECHANICS HELPERS $34,960 J 2 SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACTS - JR. HIGH $184,735 3 SECRETARY - INSTRUCTIONAL DIV. $57,000 4 TRANSPORTATION - LABORERS $15 ,750 I 5 COORD. SPEC. ED. / ED. EXAMINERS $46 ,000 ~ 6 SECRETARY - PLANT PLANNING $24,221 I 1 TRANSPORTATION -TWO MILE LIMIT Rei,,\ns +11-I-e- $100,000 8 MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES $106,424 9 SECONDARY INSTRUCTIONAL COORD. $172,397 10 ALPHA POSITIONS - FIVE DAY STUDENT LOAD $90,885 11 SECONDARY TAG POSITIONS $72,708 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 12 ADMIN. REORG. (ADD TO NO. 5 \u0026amp; 9 ABOVE) $137,800 13 ALL EXTRA CURR. ACTIVITIES (ADD TO NO. 2 ABOVE) $428,265 14 ALL TEACHERS FULL LOAD (ADD TO NO. 10 ABOVE) . $181 ,770 15 ALL OUT-OF-DISTRICT TRAVEL $109,600 16 CUT IN-DISTRICT TRAVEL BY 50% $83,250 17 FREEZE ALL SALARIES (NO STEPS) $550,000 18 ACCEPT /',LL VOL. S:\\L. REDUCTIONS $35,078 19 CUT PRINCIPAL'S/ ASSIST. PAIN. PER STUD. ALLOT. $36 ,887 20 FAMILY LIFE INSTRUCTORS $36,354 21 FOUR DAY WEEK $1 ,222,000 22 CLOSE SCHOOL EARLY '92 (5 DAYS) $1 ,500,000 23 CLOSE SCH. EARLY '92 (10 DAYS) (ADD TO NO. 22 ABV.) $1 ,500,000 24 RED. SUPT. CONT. BY ADD. 2% (ADD TO NO. 18 ABOVE) $1 ,593 25 ALL BD. OUT-OF-DISTRICT TRAVEL (INC. IN 15 ABOVE) $0 26 ALL CERT. SALARIES BY 2% $929,574 27 ALL SUPP. STAFF SALARIES BY 1% $108,788 ..\n\" EXHIBIT J 1- * BREAKDOWN BY CATEGORY PERIODS CATEGORY ' COST 9 SPECIAL TY - FULLER JR. $27,270 15 FUTURES PROG. - FULLER JR. $45,450 15 TAG - VARIOUS SCHOOLS $45,450 8 SPECIAL ED. COORD. - VARIOUS SCHOOLS $24,240 6 ATHLETIC COORD. - VARIOUS SCHOOLS $18,180 4 FOUR COURSE PREPS - VARIOUS SCHOOLS $12,120 2 SPEC. ED. LEARNING STRAT. $6 ,060 1 BAND .. $3 ,030 O'I U1 w r COMBINE:\\ SAVINGS $34,960 $219,695 $276,695 $292,445 $338,445 $362,666 $462,666 $569,090 $741,487 $832,372 $905,080 $1 ,042,880 $1 ,471 ,145 $1,652,915 $1 ,762,515 $1 ,845,765 $2,395,765 $2,430,843 $2,467,730 $2,504,084 $3,726,084 $5,226 ,084 $6,726 ,084 $6 ,727,677 $6,727,677 $7,657,251 $7,766,039 N I  t\u0026lt;J \u0026gt;\u0026lt; :i:: H tXl H t-3 I-' U1 -..)  STATE OF ARKANSAS} }ss. COUNTY OF WHITE } C E R T I F I C A T E RE: THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF DOYAN MATTHEWS: I, JEFF BENNETT, CCR, LS #19, a Notary Public in and 58 for White County, Arkansas do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption of the foregoing deposition are true\nand that the foregoing deposition was transcribed by me, or under my supervision, on the Cimarron III Computerized Transcription System from my machine shorthand notes taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto, the witness being first duly cautioned and sworn, or affirmed, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken\nand further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action. GIVEN UNDER MY day of June, 1992. JEFF BENNETT, #19, Notary Public County, Arkansas My commission expires 11-29-2000 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, I'NC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 372-5115 the 30th\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1223","title":"Oral deposition of Gene Goss","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":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["1992-06-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Court records","School board members","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Gene Goss"],"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/1223"],"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\nDeposition taken at Wright, Lindsey and Jennings, Little Rock, Arkansas\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n Case No.: LR-C-82-866 * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * et al. * Plaintiffs * vs. * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT * * EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Defendants * * WESTERN DIVISION MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. * Intervenors * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. * Intervenors * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF GENE GOSS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPEARANCES: MR. SAMUEL JONES, III, Esq., Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, 2000 Worthen Bank Building, 200 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 *** For the Plaintiffs*** MESSRS. JOHN w. WALKER \u0026amp; MARK BURNETTE, Esqs., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 *** For the Joshua Intervenors *** ALSO PRESENT: MR. BOBBY LESTER, Superintendent * * * * * * * BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 372-5115  2 THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF GENE GOSS, a witness produced at the request of the Intervenors, taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 25th day of June, 1992, before Jeff Bennett, CCR, LS #19, a Notary Public in and for White County, Arkansas, at Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, 2000 Worthen Bank Building, Little Rock, Arkansas, at 1:20 p.m. pursuant to the agreement hereinafter set forth. * * * * * * * * * * STIPULATIONS IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties through their respective counsel that the deposition of GENE GOSS may be taken at the time and place for the purposes of discovery, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that all formalities with regard to the taking of said deposition are hereby waived including presentation, reading, subscription by the witness, notice of filing, filing, etc.\nand that all objections as to relevancy, materiality, and competency are expressly reserved, except as to form of questions, and may be raised if and when said deposition, or any part thereof, is so offered at the trial of this case. * * * * * * * * * * GENE GOSS the witness hereinbefore named, being first duly cautioned and sworn, or affirmed, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as follows: BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 372-5115  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 3 MR. JONES: Before we start, I need to ask the reporter to make the same notations that I made in Mr. Doyan Matthews' deposition a part of this deposition. MR. WALKER: We'll for all the depositions note that Mr. Roachell and Mr. Heller alleged that they were not given notice, and reserve certain rights to object, if necessary.  MR. JONES: Okay. EXAMINATION BY MR. WALKER: Q. A. Q. Mr. Goss, how long have you been on the School Board? Two years. Did you initiate the effort to reduce the budget that has been approved by the Board recently? MR. JONES: That's an awfully broad question, John. MR. WALKER: Just object, if you will. A. I think that all Board members, among other people, were involved in initiating the budget cuts. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) Let me just ask that question differently. There was a recommendation for budget cuts in March of 1992 that was submitted to the Board by the superintendent of Schools. Can you tell me before that recommendation was submitted to the Board, if there had been a vote by the Board directing Mr. Lester to make such recommendations to the Board, would there BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 have been a formal vote before then? A. I think so. Q. You think so? 4 A. I know back even before I first came on the Board there was a Budget Cut Committee that went to great extremes in determining items to be cut. Q. Is it your recollection that there was a formal vote taken sometime shortly before March 17, 1992, which mandated that Mr. Lester submit what you may call budget reduction considerations to the Board for approval at a meeting on March 17, 1992? A. I assume we did. I don't recall exactly what day we may have told him, but I know in the period of time we did make suggestions. MR. WALKER: I would like to request, Mr. Jones, that we have access to the Board minutes for this year. MR. JONES: That's fine. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) I've taken Mr. Matthews' deposition, and he indicates that he was basically opposed to the administrative reorganization reductions, but he voted for them after certain assurances that the cabinet did not have any strong objection to them. He also indicated that you may have been a more active proponent of budget reduction considerations than himself and perhaps other Board members. would that be a fair characterization of your role? A. I guess I was probably one of the ones that felt that from BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 5 the reaction from the public in talking to people, that they felt that a cut in top administration be necessary before we would be able to approve a millage increase. Many of the people I talked to would vote for it. They felt this was something that needed to be done. Q. Did you ever seek to initiate a motion or Board resolution to require the reduction of top administrative salaries? A. I had suggested to Mr. Lester that we take a look at top administration and decide -- Q. I'm asking about a Board. Did you ever submit anything to the Board which you caused to be put to a vote, either in the form of a motion or resolution on that matter? A. On that particular matter I don't recall a resolution from the Board, no. Q. Okay. Now, did you keep minutes of your conversations or notes of your conversations with Mr. Lester regarding this matter? A. I don't have notes, no. Q. Do you know the dates on which you met with Mr. Lester regarding this matter? MR. JONES: When you say, \"this matter,\" on the administrative reorganization? Q. Administrative cost, cutting administrative salaries. Do you recall the dates on which you met with Mr. Lester? A. I don't recall the dates. Over a period of time though. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 Q. Did any other Board member ever visit with you and Mr. Lester at the same time regarding this matter? A. Q. In executive session. Other than in executive session? 6 A. I don't recall any meetings between other members and Mr. Lester, no. Q. Now, in executive session before this budget reduction consideration which is Exhibit 1, which you have before you, was developed, you did have occasion to discuss the millage and what it took to pass the millage? A. Q. A. Q. Yes. You did. This was in executive session? I'm sure we discussed it in executive session, yes. Now, did anybody else have as much of an interest in this matter as you did on the board? A. I'm sure they did, yes. Q. Did anybody seem to be as vocal about it in executive session, since there are no minutes of those meetings, as you did with respect to administrative salary reductions? A. Q. A. Q. Yes. Who were the other persons who were just as vocal? I would say Mr. Burgett probably was, yes. would it be fair to say that you two were the most active in this respect? A. Probably so. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - Q. Did you have occasion to discuss this on more than one occasion during executive sessions? A. Yes. 7 Q. How frequently would this be a matter of discussion or a subject of discussion during executive sessions before March 17, 1992? A. I don't recall, Mr. Walker. I'm sure any time we talk about budget cuts or financing, in some of those sessions I'm sure this aspect of it was discussed, yes. Q. When you were bringing the matter of budget cuts up for consideration in executive sessions, were you bringing them up in connection with any other subjects? A. In connection with any other subjects? Q. Any other subjects, yes, sir. Or was this a separate subject by itself? A. I think it was in connection with total budget cuts. Q. So you all had executive sessions to discuss total budget cuts? A. To discuss personnel, yes. Q. But you talked about personnel in a general way rather than a specific way\nisn't that correct, in the executive session? A. we did not talk about specific names. Q. Well, you never talked about specific names, did you, of the mechanic helpers, for instance, in executive sessions, but you considered the budget cut items regarding mechanic helpers BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 8 positions? A. Positions, yes. Q. Okay. And the same holds true for the laborers or for the supplemental contracts, you had full discussions of the budget cuts in executive session? A. I don't know whether I would say full discussion of the budget cuts. we talked about the need. Q. I see. Is it your understanding that you can have this kind of a discussion in executive session? A. About personnel, yes. Q. Well, is it your impression that you can talk about personnel in a general way in executive session, rather than with respect to particular individuals being affected? A. Yes, I think we can talk about the general personnel positions and the needs for those positions. Q. And you also feel that you can talk about administrative reorganization in executive session\nis that correct? A. I felt we could suggest to the superintendent that reorganization or that cuts in top administration needed to be made. Q. And did you all meet as a Board in executive session to talk about cutting administration or reorganizing the administration? A. Not for that specific purpose, no. Q. Maybe not for the specific purpose. But you all did BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - discuss that subject in executive session? A. I think we discussed it, yes. Q. was Mr. Lester present? A. Yes. 9 Q. What was Mr. Lester doing during the executive session if he's not a member of the Board? A. We were suggesting to him that this is one of the things we felt needed to be cut. Q. Did you all routinely meet in executive sessions to make recommendations to him as a Board about his administration and the way it ought to be operated? A. Not regularly, no. we do listen to his suggestions on adminstration though. Q. I see. In executive sessions? A. Yes. Q. I see. So it's your notion that you all can have general discussions of reorganization and any number of other things under the name of discussion of personnel matters in executive session? A. Dealing with personnel, yes. Q. So anything to which you attach a label of personnel you can go into executive session on it? A. Not anything, no. Q. But this you could? A. Matters regarding personnel, yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 Q. Why couldn't these discussions have taken place in the public? A. They did. 10 Q. Why could not they have taken place in the public before March 17, 1992? A. They do take place in public before that time. Starting back when we started the first cuts back two years ago when we had the committees, this was in public. Q. Are you saying that the discussions that took place in the executive committees or the executive sessions were different from the ones took place before the public? A. No. All these matters were discussed before the public, the budget cut committees and all down through the line for the last two or three years. Q. Tell me, since you were able to discuss them in the public, why was it necessary to have private meetings on them? A. It was not necessary. Q. It wasn't. But you had those meetings anyway, didn't you? A. Those were executive session meetings, and we did mention this. Q. All right. Now, is there any particular reason that you all don't keep minutes of your executive committee meetings? A. That I don't know. Q. I'd like for you to look at Exhibit 1, which you have before you, and ask if in your executive committee meetings or BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - 11 in your public meeting you discussed the desegregation impact of the proposed item number l? A. No. Q. You did not. Did you discuss the desegregation impact of proposed item number 2? A. I think we discussed the desegregation impact and the reaction, in. thinking of all these items as to how they would affect our desegregation plan. They were in the scope of this. And if there would be any adverse reaction from them. Q. would your answer be the same for all 27 items, that you discussed all of them from a desegregation perspective? A. I don't think we discussed each item item-by-item in relation to the desegregation plan, no. Q. You did discuss each item item-by-item with respect to other considerations, did you not? A. Financial. Q. When you discussed, for instance, the reduction in -- I take it you discussed the question of reduction in alpha positions\nis that correct, number 10? MR. JONES: I'll have to object to the form of the question. I don't think there were any positions reduced. Q. I'll just go ahead and change it. With respect to the alpha positions, what was being proposed there, to your knowledge? A. Regarding the alpha positions, I'm not sure we discussed BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 12 those in executive session particularly. Q. Well, what was supposed to happen with respect to the alpha positions, what does this mean? MR. JONES: By approving that what was going to be different? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. be? A. Q. A. Q. I 1m not sure. You 1re not sure? No. By approving item 1 what was going to be different? By approving item 1 what was going to be different? Yes. We 1d cut two mechanics helpers. Did you know what the race of the mechanic helpers would No. Did you ever consider it? I didn 1 t consider that, no. How did you determine that it would be two mechanics helpers? A. This is a recommendation of the administration. We asked them to submit to us a list of budget cuts. There 1 s also a committee that made a list of budget cuts over the last two years, suggestions. Q. I understand the process. I 1m just asking you to answer my question. With respect to the supplemental contracts, what was BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 13 supposed to happen in order to effectuate an estimated savings of $184,735? A. All the Junior High supplemental contracts for the Junior High athletics and so forth would be cut. Q. A. And what is a supplemental contract? That's a supplemental contract for the coaches, the cheerleaders and all those various people. Q. A. Did you consider the desegregation impact of that? Well, since it affects all students of both races, I didn't see where there would be any discrimination involved in that. Q. Do you know whether the desegregation plan commits to having a full range of programs and activities, and also a commitment to promote inter-racial cooperation and activities between black and white students? A. Q. I'm sure it does. By cutting out the supplemental contracts, do you not reduce the amount of non-class interaction between students? MR. JONES: John, I guess you can ask this question, but they didn't cut it. Q. A. Q. But that was the proposal, wasn't it? It was a proposal, yes. Now, with respect to the alpha positions, five day student load, what was proposed there? Q. MR. JONES: You just asked him that. (BY MR. WALKER) I'm sorry. was item number 7 approved as BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 a budget cut? A. Q. A. It was, but has since been rescinded. When was that rescinded? In our last meeting. When was the last meeting? June the 11th. 14 Q. A. Q. So since we filed our objection in this case, you all have changed item 7? A. We did that primarily for safety reasons. Q. I didn't ask the reasons. I'm just asking now whether you changed that? A. Q. Yes, we did. Now, how much of a cost did it take you to -- how much of a cost would it be to put that back in? A. Q. A. Q. I assume the $100,000 it shows on this list. Was that on the recommendation of the superintendent? Superintendent and Board members, yes. Well, I'm asking who initiated this recommendation at the Board meeting on June 11th? A. I had heard it mentioned by other Board members as well. I don't know which one mentioned it first. I do not know. Q. A. Q. was there a vote taken on it? Yes, it was. What was meant with respect to maintenance employees under number 8, what does that mean? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 15 A. Those are maintenance employees we felt we could get along without. Q. A. Q. A. Q. How many of them were there? Five. And what was the race of those persons? I do not know. Did you ask the superintendent what the desegregation impact of this proposal would be? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. No. And it was done, right? Yes. Wait a minute. Number 8, no, those were not cut. Not cut? No. So what was cut was number 5, coordinator, special education and education examiners? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Yes, sir. How many persons were cut? Two. Do you know the race of those persons? No, I don't. You never asked the question either? I don't recall asking that question, no. What was the role of the coordinator of special education and education examiner in the desegregation plan, as far as you recall? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 16 A. I don't recall. Q. But whatever it was you didn't consider it in voting to approve this particular provision, did you? A. We considered it, yes. I'm sure we considered all of them. Q. How could you consider it if you didn't know what the desegregation impact of this would be? A. we considered the desegregation impact of the total budget cuts, all these cuts that we had to make. Q. You considered each one of these items separately in your meeting of March 17, did you not? A. We voted on each one of them separately. Q. Now, did you consider each one from a desegregation perspective separately? A. We didn't discuss those from a desegregation standpoint at that point, no. Q. It's true that at your meeting on March 17 you didn't discuss these from a desegregation perspective at all, did you? A. Not specifically, as far as I recall. Q. Is there any particular reason why before you all rushed to vote on this matter you did not seek the advice of counsel? MR. JONES: I'm going to object to the form of the question, \"rushed to vote on.\" I don't think anybody was eager to do this. Q. I'll change the question. Did you discuss these budget considerations with your lawyer, Mr. Jones, before March 17, BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 1992? A. Q. I did not specifically, no. Did the Board ask his opinion or his office's opinion regarding these budget considerations in light of the desegregation case that is pending? Well, we had been -Did you? Over a period of time -- 17 A. Q. A. Q. I'm asking about these specific ones now, Mr. Goss. Did you all consult him about these particular budget reduction considerations? A. Not as far as I know. Q. I see. Did you all consult the Joshua Intervenors before voting on these budget considerations on March 17, 1992? A. Q. A. Q. No. Is there any particular reason you did not do so? No. Are you aware that your plan calls upon you all, if you're going to be modifying the desegregation plan in any way, to discuss it with us first, are you aware of that? A. Q. I'm aware of that. Now, if you change or propose to change the administrative operation of the Office of Desegregation and the shift personnel, does not that have at least the appearance of having a desegregation impact? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 1(501) 372-5115  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 A. Q. Not necessarily. If you change the person who has had the primary 18 responsibility for desegregation for the last three years and reorder his job duties, is not that a change in the desegregation plan, especially since the job duties had been previously approved by the court? MR. JONES: John, you've mixed a couple of concepts. Could you break them out? Q. Are you aware that the job definition of the Office of Desegregation had already been submitted to and approved by the court? A. Q. Right, yes. Did you all understand that by changing the responsibilities and titles of the persons associated with the Office of Desegregation, you were modifying the submission that had been submitted to the court regarding the Office of Desegregation? A. Not necessarily. As long as the job is being done, I think that's the primary thing, not the title or the person in the position. I think the responsibility can still be handled by a different title perhaps. Q. Did you understand that you were in effect effectuating a personnel change when you did this? A, Q. A personnel change? Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - 19 A. We're effecting a title change, yes, sir. Q. All that you intended was a title change: is that correct? A. A title change with a reduction in salary. Q. Okay. Now, are you aware that the plan of desegregation says that the assistant superintendent for desegregation is responsible for planning, directing, controlling and monitoring the overall desegregation plan of the district? A. Yes. Q. Is the assistant superintendent of the same standing in the hierarchy of the administration of the district as a director? A. No. Q. So by affecting a change from assistant superintendent to director, have you not effectively diminished the status of the office? MR. JONES: I object to the form of that question. There's still going to be an assistant superintendent for desegregation. A. very true. A different person. Q. Well, I had asked you earlier if you had not affected a personnel change by that action, and you indicated that you had not, you had just downgraded the position and reduced the salary: that's what I understood? A. Well, we redesignated positions and titles. Q. so you've added more responsibility to Mr. Collins? A. Probably, yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 1(501) 372-5115  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 Q. A. Q. And you've taken responsibility from Mr. Bowles? I'm not sure we have, no. 20 Well, did you all consider that in a public Board meeting? First of all, did you have a discussion of that matter in a public Board meeting? A. I don't recall a specific discussion of those. We may have. Q. What is the experience of Mr. Eddie Collins in the capacity of the Office of Desegregation? A. I'm not familiar with that. We relied on the recommendation of the superintendent. Based on his personnel file of these two individuals in making this recommendation to us, we approved it. Q. Did you consider the fact that you were in effect combining two departments, the only two departments which were headed by black persons into one? A. Well, we still have those two positions. Q. My question is did you consider that in effect by reducing the number of departments you had, you took the two black persons who were the assistant superintendents and put them into the same department? A. Q. We also made another superintendent director, Did you all do that consciously, or were you just following the recommendations of Mr. Lester? A. Well, we asked him to make recommendations to us to make BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 21 reductions in the top administration. And after he made those recommendations we accepted them and approved them. Q. Did you suggest to him at any time that he combine, you personally, suggest to Mr. Lester that he combine the Office of Pupil Personnel and the Office of Desegregation? A. No. Q. Did you ever suggest to him that Mr. Bowles should be reduced in status? A. Never. Q. Now, before you sought to combine those two departments, did you read the desegregation plan with respect to the Office of Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation? A. I read it, yes. Q. Did you do it right before you -A. Not immediately, no. Q. When you say that the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation will continue to work closely with division and department heads in developing and meeting realistic goals and objectives representing the district's desegregation plan, do you not mean, do you not contemplate by that that you are referring to Mr. Bowles? MR. JONES: I'm going to object to the form of the question. The whole premise goes against the record previously made in this case. They shouldn't consider personalities. There are jobs and descriptions. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 1(501) 372-5115  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 22 MR. WALKER: Just state your objection. MR. JONES: That's not sufficient. I'm entitled to explain my objection on the record. MR. WALKER: Well, you may do so if you wish. I'm just asking that you simply object, because you will have the right to object before the judge if the question is raised, and you can state it for the record there. MR. JONES: Well, for all I know you may seek to introduce these depositions. Therefore I want my objection explained. Q. {BY MR. WALKER) When you say the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation will continue, you're saying that the position will continue to work closely with the division and department heads in developing and meeting realistic goals? A. Yes, and we still have that position. Q. It is true that Mr. Eddie Collins will have to be trained in order to perform some of the duties that Mr. Bowles had already been performing\nisn't that correct? A. That's possible he may need some additional training. Q. Now, you had Mr. Bowles and his office attend workshops and other training programs over the years at great cost, have you not? A. I assume he has, yes. Q. Would you say that that training had some beneficial effect upon their ability to function in the jobs that they had? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 23 A. I would assume. Otherwise there would be no point in sending him. Q. Why would you then adopt a new plan which is going to require that Mr. Collins now go and get the same kind of training that Mr. Bowles already has, and what would be the cost of it? A. I don't know. The changes are made primarily for financial reasons Q. It was for financial reasons? A. Right. Q. If it was for financial reasons, the workshops and the other training would be costly, won't it? A. Q. A. Q. I assume so, yes. Do you know how much those costs are? No, I don't. Can you show me where in the budget cuts you're dealing with the concept of -- well, you deal with the concept of out of district travel, do you not? A. Yes, we do. Q. Which means that if some of this training is going to occur out of the district, the travel budget has been reduced substantially, so that the capacity for this man to get the training is reduced, isn't it? A. Out of district it has, yes. MR. JONES: This all assumes he needs any BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 24 training, right? Q. would you not assume that a new person taking over this function would have to have at least the same kind of orientation and training experience as a person who formerly occupied it? A. I assume they worked in the office together for a period of years. I would assume he's competent to handle that job or he wouldn't be in it. Q. I'm not going to question it. But do you recall when we were in court, maybe you weren't there, but we were in court and we looked at the contribution to the desegregation plan of Mr. Collins, and it was a copy of something from another district, and no individual original work product? MR. JONES: Wait a minute. You're isolating -MR. WALKER: I'm just asking him if he remembers that. He can answer yes or no. Whether it's relevant -- MR. JONES: I recall one component of it. A. I don't recall that particular incident, no, I don't. Q. All right. Incidently, you cut Mr. Ed Hogan too, did you not, in salary? A. Right. Q. Were you told that the reason for that cut was that Mr. Hogan was not certified? A. Q. No. What was the reason for the cut? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 25 A. The fact he was not certified probably was mentioned. We asked for some cuts to be made in administration, based on public reaction and need to pass a millage, and these were recommended to us and we accepted them. Q. So that the cut of Mr. Hogan was not due to his lack of certification? A. Not necessarily, as far as I know. It had no relation to these other two people. Q. Did he have lack of certification? A. I've been told he's not certified, yes. Q. Who told you that? A. Mr. Lester, I believe. Q. He did? A. Yes. Q. Is it not true that you know yourself that he is certified as an administrator? A. I've not seen his personnel record, no. Q. I see. Were you one person who recommended the significant reduction of Mr. Hogan's salary? MR. JONES: I've got to object to the form of the question, John, because positions were changed and carry a different salary. I think that's two different things. I don't think anybody set out to reduce anybody's salary. Q. Did you have a salary before you at the time you considered these reductions, did you have a proposal which set forth the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 26 amount of money for each position at the administrative level? A. The amount of money at each position. We knew what all the administrators made, yes. Q. You knew what they made. My question is, did you have a document which purported to be salary by position? A. Under the new administration? Q. Under the reorganization. A. I don't recall the salary. I know the line of new reorganization, the structure of it, and the fact that the director would be a director, yes. Q. You know you had a salary schedule before March 17, 1992? A. Right. Q. Now, Mr. Hogan was paid pursuant to that salary schedule, wasn't he? A. True. Q. Did you all develop a new salary schedule before the decision was made to reduce Mr. Hogan? A. Not as far as I know. I think the determination given to us on the salary was at a later time. Q. I see. Now, I draw your attention to the four day week. I take it that you all did not approve that? A. No. As I understand it it's illegal in the State of Arkansas. Q. Who told you that? A. Gosh, I've been hearing that. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 1(501) 372-5115  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 27 Q. You didn't ask Mr. Jones for a legal opinion on that, did you? A. No. I think when the committee started two years ago this was mentioned, and it was said at that time it was not legal in the State of Arkansas. Q. I understand that you may hear that it's not legal, but you have never asked for a formal opinion from your counsel? A. Q. A. Q. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A, Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. I haven't personally, no. And the Board hasn't while you've been on the Board? No, not as far as I know. Now, according to my notes the four day week was approved? MR. JONES: That's not right. Was item 1 approved? Item 1, no. Item 2, was it approved? No. 3? Yes. 4? No. 5? Yes. 6? Yes. 7? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 A. 2 Q, 3 A. 4 Q. 5 A. 6 Q. 7 A. 8 Q. 9 A. 10 Q. 11 A. 12 Q. 13 A. 14 Q. 15 A. 16 Q. 17 A. 18 Q. 19 A. 20 Q. 21 A. 22 Q. 23 A. 24 Q. 25 A. Yes, 8? No. 9? Yes. 10? Yes. 11? Yes. 12? No. 13? No. 14? Yes. 15? Yes. 16? No. 17? Yes. 18? Yes. 19? Yes. but later Well, 12, rescinded. yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115 28  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 Q. A, Q. A. 207 No. 217 No. 227 29 Q. A. I think originally voted to close 5 days early, but later rescinded that. Q. 237 A. No. Q. 247 A. No. Q. 257 A. Yes. Q. 267 A. Yes. Q. 277 A. Yes. MR. JONES: Wait a minute. Let's go back to 26 and 27. MR. WALKER: I'm asking for his answers, not corrected answers by Mr. Lester or you. MR. JONES: If you just want to play a game about it, John. It's a real confusing process. MR. WALKER: I want to show the court that there is confusion, and that these Board members don't really know BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ]4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 what happened. You can clear it up, Mr. Jones, when you have a chance. MR. JONES: If you want to wait I'll clear it up then. MR. WALKER: I'd rather wait. I'd like for the record to show that there are some problems. Q. 1(BY MR. WALKER) Going down by category. Specialty Fuller, was that approved, number 9? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. No. Futures Program, Fuller? No. Tag? Yes. Special ed coordinator? Yes. Athletic coordinator? Yes. Four course preps? Yes. Special ed learning strategy? Yes. Band? Yes. Did anybody have a specific discussion about the desegregation impact of special ed learning strategies? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 A. Special ea learning strategies? Q. Yes. 31 A. I don't recall specific discussion of that particular one in relation to desegregation. Q. Did you discuss TAG, various schools? A. we discuss TAG, various schools, yes. Q. From a desegregation perspective? A. Yes. Q. Does this mean that TAG was continued in certain schools and cut out in others? A. I'm not sure. MR. JONES: John, this has to do with allocating and reallocating periods, not eliminating things. MR. WALKER: Sam, let me continue. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) And if a cost is involved of savings, that means that something is being changed, doesn't it? A. Yes. Q. Does this mean that you are changing -- what are you changing, tell me what you're changing, in TAG what was changed? A. I can't tell you that, no. Q. What was changed at Fuller Futures Program? A. We decided to retain that program. Q. What was being proposed? A. It was on the cut list. Q. So everything down here is on the cut list, isn't it? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 32 A. Everything on this, plus a number of other items were on the cut list originally. Q. So these are cut list items. That's fine. What do you mean by cut list items? A. Q. A. Q. These are items we considered cutting. You were going to cut 15 periods of TAG, right? No. Yes. That was on consideration, yes. And you were going to cut 8 special ed coordinators\nis that right? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Yes. Could you cut 8 special coordinators for a cost of $24,000? I assume. Or is that 8 periods of -- 8 periods. All right. What does that mean, does that mean that you're cutting the pay of the coordinators, or does it mean -- what does that mean? A. Q. A. Q. I don't know. Fine. 8 periods. If you don't know that's fine, Mr. Goss. I want you to say that. If you're going to cut 6 periods of athletic coordinators at various schools, what does that mean? Q. MR. JONES: I object to the form of the question. Do you know what that means? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 33 A. I know we cut 6 periods of athletic coordinators. I don't know which ones or where. Q. A. Q. Does that mean that those persons had their salaries cut? Yes. Does that mean their extra pay was cut, or their basic pay, or what does it mean, do you know? A. I would assume it means that there were some cuts in their hours and in their duties. Q. A. Q. Which meant in their pay? In their pay. With respect to the pay decrease that Mr. Lester agreed to take, what is your understanding of his 8 percent pay reduction, how did that work? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. 8 percent points of his increase. Of the increase? Of the increase. Now, you all increased his salary by 13 percent? 13.4, I believe. And when you increased his salary, did you get the court's approval? A. Q. A. Q. No. Is there any reason you didn't ask for court approval? No. Did you consult us, the Joshua Intervenors, in the matter or any other party? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 34 A. No. Q. Have you all as a Board this year taken any other actions that had desegregative or may have had desegregative impact during the course of the year? I don't mean 1992-93, which is to come, but during 1991-92 did you all take any Board actions that may have had some impact upon the desegregation plan? MR. JONES: I object to the question. It's too broad and unfair to ask a witness have you ever at any time during the year. Q. During the year did the Board direct the administrators to ever initiate any conversation with the Joshua Intervenors on any subject? A. Did we direct the administration? Q. Yes. A. Not specifically, as far as I know. Q. Now, it is true that a number of persons have been cut from their positions, I think that at least at the administrative level there are at least 12\nis that correct? A. I think so, yes. Q. How many of those persons are of the black race? A. I don't know. Q. So you all never considered the racial impact of those cuts? A. We did not consider race in making the cuts, no. Q. My question is, after you made the cuts did you consider BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 35 the racial impact of them? A. No. Q. I see. Mr. Goss, I'm concerned. Did all people in the district this year at the administrative level or at the specialty level take pay cuts? A. Q. All people at -- All persons at the administrative level or at the specialty level at the administration take pay cuts? MR. JONES: Are we talking voluntary or involuntary? A. Q. A. MR. WALKER: Either or both. The top seven took a voluntary cut, yes. Just the top seven? I believe that's true. The top seven took a voluntary pay cut, yes. Q. A. Q. Was that on the request of Mr. Lester or the Board? It was voluntary. I understand. Are you sure it was just limited to seven people? A. Q. As far as I know it was. You say it was seven. Are there not more than seven people in the cabinet? A. Q. Not in top administration, as far as I'm concerned. Tell me, which persons were the ones that were requested by Mr. Lester to take pay cuts in the cabinet of the top seven? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 1(501) 372-5115  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 36 MR. JONES: He never said Mr. Lester requested. Q. A. Q. Did you all request anybody to take those cuts? No, they were voluntary. I understand they were voluntary. But somebody had to initiated it. Do you know who initiated it, Mr. Goss? A. Q. No, I don't know who initiated it. Didn't you suggest to the people that they ought to take voluntary cuts? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. No, sir. Do you know anybody who did? No, sir, I don't. What are the seven positions of the persons? superintendent and six assistant superintendents. Is it your position that none of the directors were requested or took the 8 percent pay cuts? A. Q. No. So that anybody who is not an assistant superintendent would not be obliged to undertake or undergo the pay cut? A. Q. I assume, yes. Now, what is the position that your wife holds in the district? A. Q. A. Q. She's facilitator of health services. Is that an administrative position? It's a school nurse. Does she operate out of the central office? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. ( 501) 372-5115  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 A. Yes, she does. Q. Whom does she report to? A. Eddie Collins. Q. Has her title been affected in any way by the reorganization? 37 A. It was affected four years ago when she took that position. Q. Listen to my question. We're talking about this proposed reorganization now. For this year was her position affec~ed in any way by the reorganization? A. No. The reorganization was top administration. Q. Well, you had coordinators who were cut, did you not? A. That's not what I call reorganization. The reorganization I'm thinking of is the six assistant superintendents. This is the reorganization I thought we were discussing. Q. we're discussing budget reductions. Now, you had at least six or seven coordinators reduced in status, didn't you, that you changed, you removed six or seven coordinators, right? A. Right. Q. Now, was your wife reduced in status? A. No. Q. Were there any other nurses of comparable status to your wife in the district? A. There are two other nurses, well, three actually. One is a relatively new special position. Q. Were any of those nurses adversely affected in any way by BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. ( 501) 3 72-5115  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 38 the reorganization? A. No. Q. Did any of those nurses in effect this year get a pay increase? A. They all got a pay increase, yes. Q. During the time that you were saying that you wanted to have budget cuts? A. No. The pay increase was 5 percent. All support staff got that pay increase. Q. Did any of those four nurses get a pay increase greater than the 5 percent? A. Q. A. Q. No. Did your wife not get a greater one? No. Is it not true that your wife filed a grievance which was denied by Mr. Lester several years ago? MR. JONES: I'm going to object for the record. I don't see what the relevancy is of that. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Not several years ago. When was that denied? She filed a grievance within the last year. Did Mr. Lester deny that grievance? That's right. Did that please you? That's not my -- I don't think this is something that I BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 39 need to discuss. MR. JONES: I'm going to object. MR. WALKER: You may object. But I'm saying I'm still entitled to ask that question, because it goes to the question that may be A. I would like to explain. Her title changed four years ago. There were additional responsibilities at that time. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) I'm not asking about that at all. A. I'm explaining that to you though. Q. I understand that there was a history. But I'm saying now, as of this year there was action taken by Mr. Lester in the early part of the year on a grievance. He denied the grievance? A. That's right. Q. And it went to the Board for action. And you recused yourself from consideration? A. That's true. Q. And at that time the Board did not reverse Mr. Lester, did it? A. No. Q. Now, did your wife file a subsequent grievance? A. Yes, because they upgraded her position but did not give her a subsequent increase in salary because of the financial status. Q. Who upgraded her position? A. The Board voted to upgrade her position. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 Q. A. Q. A. Q. was that on recommendation of Mr. Lester? I don't think so. 40 So the Board took it on itself to upgrade her position? Right. And then the Board took it on itself to give her a pay increase\nis that correct? A. we did, yes. MR. WALKER: I have no more questions. EXAMINATION BY MR. JONES: Q. I need to clear up some things. Go back to Exhibit 1. Go back with me to items 26 and 27. What action did the Board take on 26 and 27? A. Q. A. We did not approve those. Did I say we approved them? Yes, you did. I wanted to clear that up. No, we did not approve 26 and 27. MR. JONES: That's all I have. RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. WALKER: Q. Can you tell me how much money was actually saved or would actually be saved, to your knowledge, by the budget cuts which were approved? A. Q. A. By the budget cuts which were approved? How much will be saved? I don't remember the exact amount. Somewhere around BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. ( 501) 372-5115  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 41 $3,000,000 though. Q. Do you have a listing of the ones which were approved and the anticipated savings? A. I don't have those with me, no. Q. Is there a listing somewhere? A. Yes, there's a listing. Q. And you have seen it, you've seen that listing? A. The listing of all the budget cuts we made? Q. Which were approved, and the savings that will be expected? A. Anticipated savings, yes. MR. WALKER: Mr. Jones, I'd like to have a copy of that. MR. JONES: I'll have to get one. Q. what is the intended direct use of the savings, to your knowledge at this time? A. To allow the district to continue to operate for the next year or two. Q. So it will go into the general budget? I'm asking specifically. A. Yes. Q. How much of this do you plan specifically to devote to desegregation of the $3,000,000? A. Specifically? MR. JONES: John, he just explained to you -- A. It's all part of the total plan of saving the district, to BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 42 have a school district that white children and black children can attend. Q. My question is, have you in terms of budget allocations for the savings you're talking about, determined that it will go to administrative cost, or will it go to teachers salaries, or will it go for programs associated for desegregation, or will it go for transportation\nhave you seen a breakdown, is my question, of where the savings will be applied? MR. JONES: John, I've got to object to the form of the question, because it assumes there's going to be any money to apply anywhere. MR. WALKER: Well, he said that there would be a savings of $3,000,000. Q. ,(BY MR. WALKER) And my question is, where will that money go now that you expect these savings? A. It will be in the operating budget, total operating budget at the school. Q. But it won't be allocated by way of budget line items to any particular items? A. Oh, we'll have a budget for next year, and the total amount of money we have available will be designated for that. Q. A. Q. A. So ya'll don't have a budget yet for next year? For next year? Yes. I very well may have. I don't know. I don't know at this BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. '(501) 372-5115  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 43 point. Q. Well, if you have one for next year, can you tell me where you put the anticipated $3,000,000 in savings? A. Q. A. Q. A. In that budget. Where? In the total operating budget. So you cannot indicate where it will be? I cannot give you a specific amount of each item on that budget, Mr. Walker. Q. Did any Board member ask this question before that Board member voted upon the budget reorganization? A. Ask which question? Q. The one that I just asked, where will the money be applied specifically, where will the savings be applied? A. The savings will allow us to operate next year. Otherwise we would not have a school district next year. Q. As I understand it, if you save a dollar, in terms of a budget, you over here gain a dollar, and you expect to spend a dollar over here, you got to put it somewhere. Did you all make a judgment of where those $3,000,000 would be applied on the right hand? A. Q. No. We didn't apply each item to a specific point, no. So you cannot say now that for the $3,000,000 that you are saving, that any of it in any particular amount will be devoted to, for instance, remediation of achievement disparities between BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 44 black and white students? A. I think you'd say that a certain portion of it would go to transportation, to administration, teachers salaries, for all these things in the school district. But specifically for an item I don't think we have that. Q. Can you tell me what document I can look at to see where these savings are going to be applied? A. Q. A. I can't tell you that, no. Have you ever seen that document? A document showing each item the $3,000,000 savings will be applied to? Q. A. Yes. No. MR. WALKER: Thank you. 1(WHEREUPON, the above-entitled deposition was concluded at 2:10 p.m.) * * * * * * * * * * * * BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  STATE OF ARKANSAS} }ss. COUNTY OF WHITE } C E R T I F I C A T E RE: THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF GENE GOSS: I, JEFF BENNETT, CCR, LS #19, a Notary Public in and 45 for White County, Arkansas do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption of the foregoing deposition are true\nand that the foregoing deposition was transcribed by me, or under my supervision, on the Cimarron III Computerized Transcription System from my machine shorthand notes taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto, the witness being first duly cautioned and sworn, or affirmed, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken\nand further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE day of June, 1992. JEFF BENNETT, CCR, #19, Notary Public County, Arkansas My commission expires 11-29-2000 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 372-5115 0th\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1240","title":"Oral deposition of Mildred C. Tatum","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":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["1992-06-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","Court records","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Mildred C. Tatum"],"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/1240"],"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\nDeposition taken at Wright, Lindsey and Jennings, Little Rock, Arkansas\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n Case No.: LR-C-82-866 * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * et al. * Plaintiffs * ~- * * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. * * EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Defendants * * WESTERN DIVISION MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. * Intervenors * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. * Intervenors * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF MILDRED C. TATUM * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPEARANCES: MR. SAMUEL JONES, III, Esq., Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, 2000 Worthen Bank Building, 200 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 *** For the Plaintiffs*** MESSRS. JOHN w. WALKER \u0026amp; MARK BURNETTE, Esqs., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 *** For the Joshua Intervenors *** ALSO PRESENT: MR. BOBBY LESTER, Superintendent * * * * * * * BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 372-5115 2 THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF MILDRED C. TATUM, a witness produced at the request of the Intervenors, taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 25th day of June, 1992, before Jeff Bennett, CCR, LS #19, a Notary Public in and for White County, Arkansas, at Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, 2000 Worthen Bank Building, Little Rock, Arkansas, at 3:45 p.m. pursuant to the agreement hereinafter set forth. * * * * * * * * * * STIPULATIONS IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties through their respective counsel that the deposition of MILDRED C. TATUM may be taken at the ti~e and place for the purposes of discovery, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that all formalities with regard to the taking of said deposition are hereby waived including presentation, reading, subscription by the witness, notice of filing, filing, etc.~ and that all objections as to rele~ancy, materiality, and competency are expressly reserved, except as to form of questions, and may be raised if and when said deposition, or any part thereof, is so offered at the trial of this case. * * * * * * * * * * MILDRED C, TATUM the witness hereinbefore named, being first duly cautioned and sworn, or affirmed, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as follows: BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 372-5115  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 - 3 MR. JONES: I'll make the same notations in this deposition that I did in Mr. Matthews'. MR. WALKER: All right. EXAMINATION BY MR. WALKER: Q. Ms. Tatum, would you state your name, please? A. Mrs. Mildred c. Tatum. Q. Ms. Tatum, are you aware of the proposed budget cuts that the Board enacted on March 17, 1992? A. Yes, I am. Q. Did you vote for those budget cuts? A. Yes, I did. Q. Before you voted for the budget cuts, did you all request Mr. Lester or anybody who represents the school district in an administrative capacity to set forth the desegregative impact of the budget cuts? A. I did not. Q. Did you at any time before enacting the budget cuts entertain a motion to obtain court approval for them? A. I did not. Q. Since the budget cuts have you made a motion to ask the court to approve the budget cuts? A. I have not. Q. You've not voted on such a motion? A. I have not. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. JONES: we have of course furnished the information to the court. 4 Q. I understand counsel has furnished it. But you all still haven't asked the court to approve it, have you? A, No. Q. All right. Do you recall discussing the budget cuts in executive session? A. Yes, we did. Q. Why were you all discussing these budget cuts in executive session, Ms. Tatum? A. There were some people involved, and that was part of personnel, one of them that we considered. Q. But you discussed the whole budget cut idea in executive committee meeting, didn't you? A. That's true, because the persons are involved that are one of the ones that were being cut. It was part of personnel. Q. The four day week, that doesn't involve specific personnel, does it? A. Q. you? A, Q. That's true. And you discussed that in the executive session, didn't Yes, we did. And the extra curricular activities did not have to do with specific personnel, did it, item number 13? A. Yes, it did. Because it had people that was a part of our BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 5 personnel. Q. Well, transportation costs aside from the salaries for the bus drivers, that did not involve personnel, did it? A. The 2 mile limit? Q. Yes, ma'am, number 7. A. No, not necessarily. Q. The truth of the matter is that you all had as a general subject the budget cuts in executive session\nisn't that true, Ms. Tatum? A. That's true. Q. So instead of having the discussion which led up to the meeting on March 17, 1992 in public, you all went into executive session to do it? MR. JONES: She never said they didn't have a public meeting about it. Q. Well, you did have public meetings where you entertained comments from people in the public about the budget cuts anticipated and things like that. But when you all sat down and argued back and forth about budget cuts, and talked about it, and told Mr. Lester what you wanted him to do, that was in executive session\nisn't that correct? A. You asked me two questions there together. When we made our discussion about the budget cuts, then we went into executive session. Break it down and do it one at a time? Q. You never came out of executive session and made a formal BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 motion directing Mr. Lester with respect to what he was to propose about budget cuts, did you? A. No. 6 Q. So all of this discussion about the budget cuts and what Mr. Lester was to propose took place in the executive committee, didn't it? A. Yes. Q. And you told him to look at in terms of budget reduction considerations not only staff, but programs, purchases and construction and everything else, didn't you? A. I can only speak for myself. I have not told him to look at any specific items that we did not cut. But the administration in itself brought this budget reduction to the Board, and the Board selected from that. And we went to session in -- we had a meeting in March. And we selected the ones we thought we could cut and the ones we could not cut. The administration brought this list to us. Q. Did you all have the benefit of the recommendations before March 17? A. Yes. If any Board member wanted to add anything they could add it to this list. Q. Did you all have this list and the backup data regarding this list before the meeting on March 17, 1992? A. Was that in Hot Springs? Q. I don't know where it was. Wherever this was, did you get BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - 7 the recommendations at the same time you all took action on the recommendations? A. No, we had time to study it. Q. How much time did you have? A. I'm thinking in terms of the first time we did the budget cut was at our retreat. Q. I'm talking about these that are in Exhibit l? A. No. The ones that you're talking about at this time the final budget cuts that we've taken recently. We always get our agenda package on a Friday. Q. And the meeting is on a Tuesday? A, Right. Q. So you all had the agenda package for three or four days before the meeting? A. Right. And they always say to us if there's any questions to call them. Q. I notice that a number of positions are cut out, like coordinators, educational examiners, laborers, alpha positions\nis that correct? A. Yes. Q. Before these positions were cut out, did Mr. Lester or any other administrator give you a writing setting forth the effect that this would have on the district's ability to implement the desegregation plan which was just recently approved by the court? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 .r.:\n, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 A. No. Q. To this date can you tell me what desegregative effect these budget reductions will have upon the desegregation plan? A. I really think that it's going to have a great impact upon the plan, because when we submitted to the court the coordinators, and in terms of Mr. Bowles' position, because he was our desegregation coordinator. That's the one I've been arguing about the most, because I don't feel at this time that to train someone else to do the job that Mr. Bowles has done for the last past 6 or 7 years is going to make our district effective as it has been in the past. Because Mr. Bowles has studied hard and he has tried to make sure that our district is on top. It is going to be a great impact on our school district. Q. Let me ask you with respect to Mr. Bowles. Have there been some Board members who have been disgruntled about the manner in which Mr. Bowles has carried out and the vigor with which he's carried out his responsibilities? A. They would not discuss it with me if they did. Q. Did the Board consider, to your knowledge, the objective qualifications of Mr. Bowles in comparison to the objective qualifications of Mr. Collins? A. I never seen anything in writing. Mr. Lester said he was going to look at that and make the decision. But that was not my argument. My point was that Mr. Bowles has worked with them. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 .i.::, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 And if there was not a need to go ahead and do the cuts, let's not do that at this time. Q. Was the reason for the cut, with respect to Mr. Bowles and Mr. Collins and the merger of their positions, the reason a financial savings? A. No, it's not. Q. was that the stated reason by Mr. Lester? A. If I can remember correctly, Mr. Lester said that the public wanted us to do something about the administrators here in the central office. And this is one of the ways that he was showing the public that we're doing something and alleviating some of the administrators. Q. So you cut out half of the black assistant superintendents. Mr. Ed Hogan wasn't an assistant superintendent, was he? A. To my knowledge he was. Q. One out of the four white assistant superintendents. And that's a way of doing it. Did the Board consider the fact that it looked like you were merging at least one black department and another department headed by a black so that you would have a department which would look more black than the rest of the departments in the district? A. I serve on a strange Board. Q. Explain that? A. Because normally whatever the superintendent recommends, and we are policy makers, we more or less go with whatever the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 10 recommendation is. Hopefully he's made the right decision in his recommendation. Q. You said that it's a strange Board. What do you mean by that? A. Because we don't ask questions about what our superintendent does. Q. You didn't ask any questions? A. No, I did. I talked to Mr. Lester about it. I said to him that I did not feel that Mr. Bowles' and Mr. Collins' merger was going to be effective for our district. He and I talked about it more than once. Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not it will have adverse desegregative impact? A. Yes, I do. Q. What is that opinion? A. They both are fine men. But Mr. Collins has a lot to learn. And we do not need a learning process at this time. Four or five years ago Mr. Lester, we was going to hope to get unitary status. And it has passed the five years. And to go back and get somebody now that needs to learn, it's not going to be productive for our district, as far as my point is. Q. Is it also going to be more costly through training programs and everything else? A. Yes, it is. Q. And will it be more difficult by the fact that you'll cut BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - 11 out the necessary out of district travel in this budget that it would take in order to get some of the training that Mr. Bowles has already received? A. I've been at odds with Mr. Lester for the last three days about the Board's out of district travel. We told the public out here when we did our millage that we were going to do math and science. And if we cut out of district travel, we will not be sending anybody to get into desegregative conference or anything else. Q. Is that right? A. Well, if you cut out of district travel that's everybody. I don't have a budget. But I talked to him. He said my budget is deleted. I can't go anyplace. So no one will be going anyplace. No desegregative conference. Q. So the desegregation conferences and the like have been effectively cut out of this budget? A. Everything is going to be cut. It says travel period. Q. That means then that the teachers will not be able to have supervisors who will be able to work with them as effectively because they will not be able to obtain the training necessary? A. That's true. MR. JONES: She just talked about out of district. Q. Out of district, yeah. A. That's true. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 12 Q. Now, within district do you have anybody who purports to be a desegregation expert other than Mr. Bowles? A. No. Q. so if Mr. Bowles is being changed from that position, then you don't have anybody to give the training, do you? A. That's true. Q. So this budget will have a great anti-desegregative effect? A. Yes. Q. I want you to tell me about how it was -- do you know whether or not any central administrative staff members got any raises during the 1991-92 school year? MR. JONES: During the year? Q. (BY MR. WALKER) During this present year. A. It was discussed in personnel that we give retroactive pay. That would be an administrator. Q. Who is that administrator? A. Gene Goss wife. Q. Now, she was in effect given a pay increase this year? A. She was given retroactive salary for some times that she had not got a raise up to this point. Q. Is this the same lady who had already lost a grievance on the same matter? A. She didn't lose it. Q. Didn't it come before the Board? A. It did. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. And did the Board vote to uphold Mr. Lester? No. It did not? No. Did the Board vote to reverse Mr. Lester? They voted to give her her steps. 13 Isn't it true that Mr. Lester the first of the year made a recommendation that her grievance be denied? A. Well, he gave it to the Board. The Board had a right to deny it or accept it. Q. The first time Mr. Lester, upon appeal by Mrs. Goss, denied her grievance\nisn't that correct? A. That did not get to the Board. They go to the superintendent first. Apparently he did. I don't get a copy of that. Q. A. Q. Then she appealled or grieved to the Board? Right. And at that point Mr. Lester's recommendation was that her grievance be denied\nisn't that correct? A. Apparently so. But I don't get that. Q. Isn't it true that the Board when it voted upon it, voted to uphold Mr. Lester at that particular time early in the year? A. Q. I don't know. I'm saying I don't recall. Isn't it true though that toward the end of the year right after the millage passed, that somehow or another Mrs. Goss got BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 14 a pay increase retroactive? A. Well, there wasn't enough people there to vote to give it to her. If she got it I'm very upset, because it would take a majority vote there for her to get it. And I did not vote for it. so therefore she was not supposed to get it until after the full Board come back, at least one more Board member. It wasn't but four of us there. And three people voted for it. She wasn't supposed to get it. If she got it that's wrong. And I hope she didn't get it. Because I didn't vote for it. It's a matter of waiting until the other Board members get here, but I didn't vote for it. Q. A. Q. A. Was this matter presented for a vote to you? Yes. And the vote was what, three to one? No. The way it was presented, it was presented back in executive session. And then you accept the recommendation of the administrators. we don't go through -- I told you we're a strange Board. We don't go through items. There's not some items that we could accept and some we could reject. They put them all in one. You accept the administration or you reject it. I differed with that, so I just voted no. Q. And there were only four Board members present? A. There were only four Board members present. Q. That meant that the vote then on Mrs. Goss was three to one? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 A. Q. 15 Right. And you're saying that it takes a majority of the Board in your understanding? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. In my understanding. And a majority of the Board did not pass upon that? No. Well, the majority present did. But it's your position that a majority of the Board itself? Right. Instead of a majority of those present? Because this was not an item on the agenda. It was not on the agenda? No, this was not an item on the agenda. Wonderful. Do you have your agenda that you all considered in executive session available? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. I don't have it with me. Do you have it at tome? Yes, I have it. I'd like to have a copy of that, if that's possible. The school has a copy also. Now, who presented that motion that it be approved, that she be given this retroactive pay? A. Q. A. Q. Mr. Lester. Did any Board member make the motion to approve it? No. Somebody had to make the motion, otherwise -- Mr. Lester BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 16 can't make the motion, can he? A. I said that we're very strange. We accept the recommendation of the administration. Q. A. Did somebody make a motion to approve the recommendation? There's no line item. Q. Was there a motion by any Board member to approve the recommendation of the superintendent? A. Q. A. Q. Yes, when you go back out in public. So did you all go back out in the public? Yes. And did somebody make a motion to approve the recommendation of the superintendent? A. Q. A. Yes. With respect to Mrs. Goss? No. They just said approve the recommendation of the administration. Her name was not brought up out in public. Q. A. Q. A. so the recommendations were not given to the public? Not her name. There were other names that were there? There were other recommendations. The principal for Sylvan Hills. There was something else we had on administrative position that needed a recommendation. Some teachers. We also have or the addendum minority teachers who had binding contracts with our district, anyone that has resigned or to that effect. Just a list of people. It's a complete package. If you haven't BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. ( 501) 3 72-5115  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 17 seen our agenda, that's what we get. Q. But the other names except for Mrs. Goss' were there, you got those before you got to the meeting? A. Q. Before executive session. And then when you got there he verbally told you that her name is being included on there? A. No, he didn't say that. I'm trying to think exactly. I may not be precise in how he said it. He said that you all voted to give her the steps. He felt it was right to go ahead and give her the retroactive salary. And I wanted to know how much it will cost. And we got somebody in to say Mr. Miller told us about how much it would cost. Q. A. Q. A. How much was that? It wasn't but about $1,500. It wasn't that much, $2,000. Per year? I didn't ask. I didn't want to do it, so I just went to the bathroom. Q. A. Was Mr. Goss in the meeting at the time? Mr. Goss was in the meeting at that time. But I felt that Mr. Goss was not there when we made the decision on her steps. Q. A. But he was there during all the other times? Mr. Lester told him he could stay if he wanted to. He just said he could stay if he wanted to. Q. So since this is executive session he could see how you all voted. Do you all have a policy which says that you must BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 18 exclude yourself relating to matters in which you may have a personal interest? A. He has recused himself in the beginning when we did the steps for her. Q. I'm saying from the dialogue involving this person, he was in there during that dialogue, wasn't he? A. He was in there during talking about this money the other night. He was not in there when we talked about her for the steps. In which I felt that she was entitled to her steps. I voted for her to have her steps. The only reason I did not vote for her money is because I felt that the whole Board needs to hear it. I don't want to ever make a decision without at least one or two more Board members there. Q. A. Especially involving a Board member's wife? Not necessarily a Board member's wife, but just the principal part of it. The other two had been there when we talked about the steps, and I felt like they needed to know about the money part. Q. So this was a recommendation beyond the steps, it included the steps, plus more? A. Q. A. Q. No, I thought you said it was retroactive pay? Yes, it would be. By retroactive pay did you mean that they were giving her pay that someone contended that she should have received the BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 previous years? A. Q. Yes. Did you afford all the teachers in the district an 19 opportunity to be told that if they too thought they were entitled to retroactive pay they could come before the district? A. Q. I don't know if he did or not. Well, you know what happened. Did the Board vote to give all people who felt that they had retroactive pay coming to them, that they could get it this way? A. That was not an item on our agenda. Q. Now that it's been handled that way, do you have any plans to let all teachers know that they can be treated like Mrs. Goss was treated if they have back pay considerations? A. I sure hope that Mr. Lester will let them have it. The Board has to vote to make sure that she gets her money. Q. The Board has already voted to do it according to Ms. Tucker and Mr. Goss? A. My understanding of the rules of the Board is the majority of the Board. But then I heard somebody say the other night the majority of the Board present. The majority of the Board present was three of four of us. And I voted no. So if she got it, well then good. Q. A. Q. There were five Board members present? There were four. That did not include Mr. Goss? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 A. Q. 20 Yes, it did. Wait a minute. Are you saying that there were only four Board members at the meeting? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. That's true. And three were absent? Yes. And the vote was? Three to one. Well, Mr. Goss didn't vote, did he? Yes, he did. MR. WALKER: I don't have anymore questions. (WHEREUPON, the above-entitled deposition was concluded at 4:15 p.m.) * * * * * * * * * * BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  STATE OF ARKANSAS} }ss. COUNTY OF WHITE } C E R T I F I C A T E RE: THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF MILDRED C, TATUM: I, JEFF BENNETT, CCR, LS #19, a Notary Public in and 21 for White County, Arkansas do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption of the foregoing deposition are true\nand that the foregoing deposition was transcribed by me, or under my supervision, on the Cimarron III Computerized Transcription System from my machine shorthand notes taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto, the witness being first duly cautioned and sworn, or affirmed, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken\nand further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action. GIVEN UNDER MY day of June, 1992. JEFF BENNETT, CCR #19, Notary Publi County, Arkansas My commission expires 11-29-2000 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 372-5115\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1230","title":"Oral deposition of Ruth White Tucker","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":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["1992-06-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Ruth White Tucker"],"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/1230"],"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\nDeposition taken at Wright, Lindsey and Jennings\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n Case No.: LR-C-82-866 * LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * et al. * Plaintiffs * vs. * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. * UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT * * EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Defendants * * WESTERN DIVISION MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. * Intervenors * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. * Intervenors * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF RUTH WHITE TUCKER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPEARANCES: MR. SAMUEL JONES, III, Esq., Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, 2000 Worthen Bank Building, 200 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 *** For the Plaintiffs*** MESSRS. JOHN w. WALKER \u0026amp; MARK BURNETTE, Esqs., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 *** For the Joshua Intervenors *** ALSO PRESENT: MR. BOBBY LESTER, Superintendent * * * * * * * BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 372-5115  2 - (Y) THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF RUTH WHITE TUCKER, a witness produced at the request of the Intervenors, taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on the 25th day of June, 1992, before Jeff Bennett, CCR, LS #19, a Notary Public in and for White County, Arkansas, at Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, 2000 Worthen Bank Building, Little Rock, Arkansas, at 2:30 p.m. pursuant to the agreement hereinafter set forth. * * * * * * * * * * STIPULATIONS IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties through their respective counsel that the deposition of RUTH WHITE TUCKER may be taken at the time and place for the purposes of discovery, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that all formalities with regard to the taking of said deposition are hereby waived including presentation, reading, subscription by the witness, notice of filing, filing, etc.\nand that all objections as to relevancy, materiality, and competency are expressly reserved, except as to form of questions, and may be raised if and when said deposition, or any part thereof, is so offered at the trial of this case. * * * * * * * * * * RUTH WHITE TUCKER the witness hereinbefore named, being first duly cautioned and sworn, or affirmed, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as follows: BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 ( 501) 372-5115  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 - 3 MR. JONES: The same observation I made on Mr. Matthews' deposition. MR. WALKER: All right. EXAMINATION BY MR. WALKER: Q. What is your name? A. Ruth White Tucker. Q. You're the President of the Board, Ms. Tucker? A. Yes, sir, as of right now I am. Q. I'm going to ask you a few questions, Ms. Tucker, about the proposed reorganization and budget cuts? A. Yes, sir. Q. Could you tell me whether or not the budget cut recommendations were made before the millage election? A. Which one? Q. The ones of March 17. A. Yes, sir. Q. Were they made with the anticipation that the millage would pass or would fail? A. Well, I anticipated it would pass. Now, maybe some of the others did not. But I felt like all along it was going to pass this year. Q. So these budget reductions that you voted upon on March 17 were passed or approved, in the cases where they were approved, with the notion in mind that you still with the millage increase BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372 - 5115  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 4 that you got would need some more money to operate the schools? A. Well, yes, sir. But my anticipation might not have been the same as the others were. But we had to be prepared in case. Just like you do at home. Q. Now, did you all have in mind how much more money you would be needing if the millage was approved, than you would be needing that if the millage failed? A. Restate that, sir? Q. Did you have a view that if the millage passed you would not need to make cuts as deep as if it failed? A. Q. Yes, sir. Did you ever have an idea or a writing which recommended or which suggested before the millage vote was taken how much you would need for operating cost with the millage passing, and with the millage failing? A. Dr. Stewart kept us aware of what -- Q. Did you ever get a writing in that respect? Is there anything in writing which said that if the millage passes, we'll still need this much money to be applied in this way? A. Q. I have to think a minute. That if the millage passes? Yes. If the millage passes we'll still need this much money to come from savings in the district or cuts in the district\ndid he ever reduce to writing such a proposition? A. I'm not certain about that. I don't recall. It seems that we did have. But I won't say that to be of certain. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - 5 Q. Now, did you ever have a writing from Dr. Stewart, or Mr. Lester, or anybody under Mr. Lester's direction which said that if the millage fails we'll need this amount to be applied in these ways? A. The total amount was estimated to be 2.5 million. Q. If the millage failed? A. Right. Q. And if the millage passed how much would you need? A. I believe still 2.5 million to have a contingency fund. Q. You wanted to have 2.5 million in a contingency fund MR. JONES: No. She said to help with a contingency fund. A. In order for us to have a contingency fund. Q. Did you say help with or have, Ms. Tucker? A. Well, help with. We had a little. Q. Now, your words earlier were have, were they not, to have a contingency fund? MR. JONES: But she never said they would have a contingency fund of 2 1/2 million. A. I didn't mean to intend to imply that we would have a contingency fund of 2.5 million. Q. Let me understand this. If the millage failed you needed 2 1/2 million dollars from savings of budget cuts to operate the district? A. Right. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 1501) 372-5115  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 6 Q. If the millage passed then how much would you need in order to operate the district at the same level, according to Dr. Stewart's information to you, before dealing with the contingency fund consideration? A. Q. I'm sorry, but I can't answer that. Was that question ever addressed to Dr. Stewart or to Mr. Lester? A. Q. I depend on Dr. Stewart to tell us what -- But my question was, was that question ever addressed to Mr. Lester or Dr. Stewart? I guess I need an answer to that. Did you all ever ask him that question? A. Q. A. How much we would need? Yes, in the event that the millage passed. No, because I believe that we agreed that we would have to have 2.5 million. Q. A. Q. Whether or not the millage passed? To operate and to have any kind of contingency fund at all. How much was your contingency fund at the end of the 1990-91 school year? A. I'm going to say -- at the end of 90-91? Q. Yes. That's the last school year, because this year is just now about to end in another few days. A. Q. I'm going to say $100,000. That's just merely a guess. Okay. Now, if the millage passed you would be able to operate the schools and still have $100,000 contingency fund, BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - / 7 couldn't you? MR. JONES: John, I object to the form of the question. You've leaped ahead a year. Q. I understand. Well, no, I haven't. Do you know what the amount of the contingency fund is right now, three days before the end of this 1991-92 school year? A. Not to be accurate. Q. Approximately what is it? A. I'm just going to have to say I don't know. Q. Is it more than $100,000? A. I'm going to have to say I don't know on that. Q. Have you discussed the subject with Mr. Lester? A. Not lately. Q. After the millage passed, did you have any discussion with Mr. Stewart about the contingency fund? A. No, I haven't. Q. Has Mr. Stewart appeared before the Board formally or informally with respect to the budget needs since the millage passed? A. I'm trying to remember. Yes. He has told us that we will be able to replace the maintenance and operation funds, the funds that we had taken out to start building Crystal Hill. Q. A. Q. How much was that? I'm not sure how much we had borrowed at that point. was it about $700,000 to $800,000? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 8 A. It had to be that much or more. Q. And that was taken from a contingency fund, wasn't it? A. No, it was taken from maintenance and operation. Q. From maintenance and operation? A. As I understand it, that's where we were taking it from. Which is certainly not the same as a contingency fund. It was earmarked for operating expenses for this year. Q. Well, that means then that you will have $700,000 to $800,000 more funds to operate this year than you had last year, won't it? A. No, sir. We have to take care of our current expenses. Q. Once you replaced that $700,000 to $800,000, that was sort of like a loan to yourself, wasn't it, you were loaning yourself money to build this school? A. We were borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Q. So now that you have paid Peter back, that means that you have that money available for discretionary uses as you did before? MR. JONES: That all assumes there was ever any extra money in that account. Q. Did you all operate at a deficit during the 90-91 school year? A. We hadn't gotten to that point, but we're getting close to it. Q. I guess we'll know by July 1st what the budget deficit is BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 9 in the district, won't we? MR. JONES: I don't thjnk the books close that early. Q. Don't you have trial balances, Ms. Tucker, which show you what the anticipated carryover is? A. We can get it, I'm sure, if we ask for it. MR. WALKER: I would like to have that, Mr. Jones, before the hearing. MR. JONES: I can't promise a good figure. I'll get you what we got. A. Q. It would only be a guestimate. That's fine. I'm sure that that guestimate won't be 100 percent off. Ms. Tucker, have you been presented any budget to show what use wjll be made of the 2 1/2 million dollars? Well, no, you said that the 2 1/2 million dollars is needed for the contingency fund\nis that correct? A. No, I didn't say that. Q. You said that without the millage you would need 2 1/2 million dollars to operate\nis that correct? A. To complete the year. Q. All right. Now that the millage has passed, Dr. Stewart has told you that you need this 2 1/2 milljon dollars to go in a contingency fund? A. No. To go in maintenance and operation. MR. JONES: That's not what she said. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 10 A. There is a distinct difference, Mr. Walker. Contingency means your savings, as far as I'm concerned. And if I'm wrong you correct me. But maintenance and operation, that is just like I pay out for my groceries and my shelter. Q. Let me understand this, Ms. Tucker. If this millage had passed, you would need 2 1/2 million dollars in order to pay for your maintenance and operation\nthat would come from savings. Now that the millage has passed, can you tell me what you have realized from the increased millage that can be devoted to -- A. we won't get but about 1.4 million of that in this next year. And all because of the 40 percent pullback. Q. Okay. That's a million-four. So that means then that you will have $1,100,000 available for something that you would not have had available had this millage not passed\nisn't that right? A. It's to continue programs and replace as many of the cuts as we could. We replaced the five days that we cut off the end of school year, had proposed to cut off the end of school year, which was 1.5 million dollars. Q. So what you all have done is, you have gone aheld and come up with a replacement budget now that the millage has passed, not a replacement budget, but a budget which takes into account some of the savings that you were going to effect through this reorganization plan? In other words, you're saving some money through reorganization, right? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - A. very little. We're saving some. Q. Approximately how much do you think you're saving? A. I don't know. MR. JONES: Can you look on that sheet? 11 A. I guess this combined savings. Some of these things we didn't cut. We were looking to cut $3,000,000 out. Q. But you didn't cut them out, did you, you didn't cut all those items out, did you? A. We did at first. And we've only reinstated two things. Q. What are they? A. Those are the five days that we cut off the end of school year and the 2 mile bus limit. Q. So that's $1,500,000? A. For that. Q. And the 2 mile bus limit? A. Is about $100,000, I believe. Q. That's $1,600,000. Can you tell me whether or not you all had any -- was this just an arbitrary judgmental kind of thing by the Board, or did you all have any criteria for determining the priorities of reinstatement of items onto the budget? A. Are you talking about the reinstatement of days and the 2 mile? Q. Yes, ma'am. Was this just arbitrary? A. No. When we cut those, those were two of the items that we had agreed on, that if they were priority items to reinstate. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 12 Q. I see. Now, did you all cut all certified salaries by 2 percent? A. No, we didn't. Q. Can you tell me which items go into your figure of $3,041,626? A. All of these here that were cut. Do you have a list of these? Q. Yes, ma'am, I do. MR. JONES: Ya'll are looking at the same thing, Ms. Tucker. A. We've cut number 3. We cut number 6. We cut number 7. We cut number 10. We cut number 11. We cut number 14 with the exception of 9 and 15 below. We cut number 15, Q. You cut number 15? A. All out of district travel. Q. Number 15 A. 15 and 25 actually were combined. Q. With the exception of what below, you said 9 and 15 below? A. 9 and 15. Q. Under the breakdown by category? A. Yes. Q. You're relating 9 and 15, meaning Specialty Fuller and Futures Program at Fuller? A. Yes, sir, we kept those. But all other teachers except these had to have only one planning period per day. We cut them BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 down to one planning period per day. Q. Where is that reflected? 13 A. It's reflected in the teachers teaching full load in 14, with the exception of 9 and 15, which was Fuller Futures Program. And we felt that was the success of that program. Q. Go on with the other items that you cut? A. 19. Q. Let me understand. You're giving me the items that you kept, or the ones that you cut? A. I'm giving you the ones we cut. I circled them in red. Q. Okay. You said 15, 19? A. 19. We cut 22. Now, these were the original cuts. Q. But 22 is reinstated? A. Right, reinstated. So was the 2 mile transportation. It was number 7. It was reinstated. 25 was combined with 15 above. All district travel, that meant district employees. And then the Board cut their own travel out, out of district travel. Q. All right. And those amounted to $3,041,626 according to my figures. Number 5, 9 and 12 were part of the reorganization plan. Q. 5, organization? A. 5, 9 and 12. Q. And number 5 purported to cut out a number of coordinators in special education? A. Yes. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 14 Q. And examiners. How many persons were to be cut out? A. That looks like about one, possibly two with the estimated savings. Q. And under the administrative reorganization was anybody to be cut? A. Pardon me? Q. Under number 12? No, let's go to 9. How many secondary instructional coordinators were to be cut? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. then I believe there was 6 originally. Are they reinstated? No, sir, not at this point. You say originally? Yes, sir. We said we'd keep math and science. Now, you said originally. Does that mean that cut some others? No, sir. And on number 12 were any persons cut? That was the total reorganization. you've since A. Q. A. Q. So that meant that you demoted a number of people and you reduced the salaries of everybody at certain levels? A. There was voluntary reductions there of 8 percentage points of the current year's salary on all the assistant superintendents. That was a voluntary reduction in the directors salaries. Q. In the directors? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  1 2 3 4 C ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 / 15 A. By 5 percent, I believe. Q. So that if a director got a raise of 13 percent, and that raise equated to say $3,000, then that person would be cut by 5 percent of $3,000 or $600. 5 percent of $3,000. MR. JONES: She said 5 percentage points. A. 5 percentage points. I don't have a calculator. Q. $3,000, 10 percent is $300, 5 percent would be $150. MR. JONES: She's talking about 5 percentage points out of 13 percentage points that was the raise. Q. All right. The raise was $3,000. Then the person would be expected to be cut by a little bit more than $1,000, about $1,200? A. Yes. Q. Now, you all directed or mandated that, or did you all solicit voluntary responses? A. They volunteered to do it. And we accepted their voluntary salary reductions. Q. Now, with respect to these coordinators, did you all consider the desegregation plan before you did it? A. Well, yes, I did. Q. Did the Board have a discussion about it? A, I don't recall a formal discussion. Q. With respect to the secondary instructional coordinators, did you consider the implications of this upon the desegregation plan before you voted upon it as a Board in public meeting? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - 16 A. I don't know that the group did. I know the individuals Q. Did you all ask Mr. Lester for his opinion about what the desegregation impact of this would be? A. I don't think that we felt that it would make that great an impact since other Q. I understand that you felt that way. But my question is, did you ask Mr. Lester to give his opinion about what the impact would be? A. I think we did. And I think he responded that other people were going to take up the slack. Q. Let me ask you, did you ask Mr. Bowles' office to tell you what the desegregation impact would be? A. I did not. Q. Did you all before you voted upon this seek the involvement of the court? A. In what way? Q. In any way. Were you aware, Ms. Tucker, that since you all have alleged that almost everything affects desegregation, that you could not change anything under those circumstances unless you had court approval? MR . JONES: I'll object to the form of the question. Q. Ya'll have taken the position in court, have you not, that it's very difficult to segregate desegregation expenses from BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - normal operating expenses, have you not, you've taken that position, haven't you? 17 A. I don't recall having taken that specific position. I know in court when Dr. Stewart was giving his testimony, our desegregation expenses as divided out by year seems to be right on the money. Q. Can you tell me how much money last year was devoted to desegregation expense? A. No, I can't. Q. Now, isn't it true though that you all have taken the position that almost everything that you do has desegregative implications? A. I do not know that we've taken the official position but Q. That's your position, isn't it, Ms. Tucker, personally, isn't it, that almost everything that you all do through the teachers, and through the programs of the districts, and through the administrative staff for which money is spent has some desegregation benefit or expectation? A. we hope to enhance it. Q. Now, is there any particular reason, since you were making these changes, that before you implemented them you did not get court approval? A. Not that I know of. Q. Is there any particular reason you did not get our input as parties in this case pursuant to the desegregation plan? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - 18 A. There's no reason that I know of. Q. Were you aware that you all have agreed that before you take any action to alter or modify the operative mechanism of the school system, that you all will discuss it with us first, before helping the Board formally vote on it? A. We don't feel that we modified it to such an extent that it would be necessary. Q. To such an extent. But when you cut out a number of coordinator and examiners, does not this diminish your ability to carry out the desegregation plan? A. Not necessarily. Q. Were you in court when the court got Mr. Jones to make a comment about certain things being put in the plan? You wouldn't put things in this plan that were not necessary, would you? In other words, if you got these coordinators of special ed and the education examiners, they are there for a purpose\nisn't that correct? A. That's right. So are these other positions. Q. By taking them out you therefore increase the burdens on other remaining staff members, don't you? A. Yes, sir. But that's been true of any cut we've ever made. Q. I understand. But when you do that you are burdening an already overburdened desegregation process, aren't you, because you're causing the people who are already overburdened to take on more responsibility for making the desegregation plan work? BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - 19 A. I don't consider those people anymore overburdened than I do teachers and people out in the field. Q. But you all have not cut any teachers, have you? A. Yes, I think there have been some teachers cut. Q. In the budget reduction considerations for March 17 can you show me where they are: look in there and tell me where the teachers are cut? A. I believe that in number 10 they would have been cut, alpha positions. Q. Number 10. Where else would some teachers have been cut? A. Now, I'm talking about classroom teachers. Q. We're talking about classroom teachers. I don't know any others. A. There could have been some in 11. I couldn't tell you how many. That's all that I see that I can say for certainty. Q. So how many teachers positions were actually cut by the reorganization plan? A. I'm going to say possibly six. Q. Possibly six. And how many coordinators were cut? A. Four. Q. That is secondary instructional coordinators were four: is that your position? A. We've kept math and science because of the strong emphasis on math and science that we're exercising. Q. Who made the judgment to keep math and science, the Board BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 20 or Mr. Lester? A. Q. All of us together. Who made the recommendation, since the Board only operates on the basis of recommendations from the superintendent, according to its preamble? As I understand your operative documents, the Board acts on the recommendations of the superintendent with respect to operative matters, and does not itself initiate administrative action\nis that correct? A. Q. A. Q. That's right. That's not the way you've been doing it, is it, Ms. Tucker? As far as I know. The alpha positions, what was the purpose of the alpha positions? A. Q. A. Q. Being cut? No. What did the people in the alpha positions do? Alpha is elementary talented and gifted. And as I understood it, the alpha positions were being used to promote desegregation? A. That's right. But what we asked them to do was to teach five full days instead of four. Q. You said you cut teachers, so you said the alpha positions were cut, four to six teachers. Now, were four to six -- A. That was four to six alpha and secondary TAG. I think there was only four, if I remember correctly. Q. Whatever the number. Whatever it was, you do understand BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. ,(501) 372-5115  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 21 that you all were trained to use the alpha type and TAG type positions to desegregate hard to desegregate schools, weren't you? A. That's right. Q. Now, this necessarily had desegregative effect, didn't it? A. No, sir, for this reason -- MR. JONES: Let her finish, John. MR. WALKER: She said no, sir. I want to ask the followup question. MR. JONES: She's entitled to explain her answer. MR. WALKER: Not on my deposition. MR. JONES: Yes, she is. She is absolutely entitled to. A. Let me explain to you what this entailed. That's what I'm trying to say. Up until this cut was made the alpha teachers taught in the classroom four days a week. The fifth day they went to the central office for inservice and preparation of materials and what have you. We asked them to teach a full five day load. Q. Does that mean that you have cut any positions, alpha positions? A. There might have been four. Q. Now, if you had four actual positions cut, and since the desegregation of hard to desegregate schools was being achieved through alpha and TAG positions, does not this reduce your BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (50)) 372-5115  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 22 ability to desegregate? If you have fewer teachers to relate to desegregation specifically, doesn't that mean that fewer pupils can be accommodated? A. No, sir. Q. You have to operate within certain pupil/teacher ratios, don't you? A. You have to understand that some of these alpha people you don't get the full picture unless you let me explain it to you. Some of these alpha teachers would go to school for a half a day, then they would have traveling time to another school. What we're asking them to do is to schedule their time so that they can spend that whole day at one school. Q. If they are terminated from the district, that means they don't have any time to spend at a particular school, doesn't it? If you terminate four teachers, Ms. Tucker, that's my question? A. Take up the slack, the ones that are left. Q. What you're saying then is that these teachers were performing unnecessary tasks in the first place? A. No, they were traveling. Some part of their time was taken up in traveling. Q. Ms. Tucker, you're saying that you had these teachers, these alpha teachers in the first place doing some things that were not essential, such as traveling from school to school or doing other things like coming to the central office\nin other words, you had these teachers performing work that was not BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 / 23 absolutely essential? A. Their supervisor thought it was essential, but we thought that we had to tighten our belt, and that they could perform the actual teaching that fifth day. Q. I see. so the Board initiated this action on its own, instead of waiting for the recommendation of Mr. Lester? A. This was on the original list from the year before. And I am not sure who put it on there. Q. Here's my point though. It is true that Mr. Lester did not recommend reduction of teachers who affect desegregation, isn't it, he didn't make a recommendation that the alpha teacher positions be reduced or the secondary TAG positions be reduced, did he, there was not any formal recommendation of his, was there? A. Not that I remember. Q. So that means that the Board did this on its own, doesn't it? A. we took each one of these. Q. Now, how can you be consistent as a Board when you're suppose to act on recommendations of the superintendent, but when you go ahead and take administrative action on your own as a Board\nhow is that consistent with your policy? A. I don't know how these got here. These were on the list from the year before. And we had agreed that we would take these up. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 24 Q. How many of the four teachers were black who were cut? A. I don't have any idea. I don't even know who they were. Q. Did you all consider the desegregative impact of that before you took the action? A. I don't think there was any adverse. Q. You cannot think -- let me ask you this. If you don't know what the numbers were, how can you arrive at the conclusion that there was no adversity? A. Because I think they'll be doing essentially the same teaching that they would heve done. Q. Ms. Tucker, I'm saying if you're cutting out four to six positions, let's assume it's six, if you're going to cut out six positions, and you're going to determine whether or not this has racial impact, must not you know how many of these teachers were black before you can arrive at the conclusion that there is no racial impact? Must not you at least ask the question? A. These people can bump one another. And we depend on Gary Miller to see that the affirmative action is taken care of. Q. So you all don't do that yourselves, you all don't oversee Gary Miller and you've gone ahead and taken certain actions which bypass Mr. Lester. In this situation you're saying that you didn't yourself, since you all have a responsibility for insuring desegregation, ask the question of what the desegregative impact is? A. I'm sure it was considered. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 25 Q. I'm sure you say it is. Now, with respect to these coordinators, how many of them were black, do you know? A. Q. A. Q. Frank Smith I think is the only one. And the others are all white? I believe that's right. Let me ask you, did Mr. Lester recommend that the School Board Member Goss' wife be promoted during the -- A. State that again? Q. Was Mrs. Goss promoted or given a title change and a pay increase during the 1991-92 school year? A. Q. A title change. She was given a title change. was she also given a pay increase? A. Q. we denied it at first. I know. Just listen to the question. During the 1991-92 school year was she given a pay increase? A. Q. A. Q. Last month. Now, was that on recommendation of Mr. Lester? Yes, sir. Mr. Lester came before you all and told you that he wanted her to be given a pay increase? A. It was a recommendation in personnel. Q. I see. Do you know any other teacher who this year was recommended for a pay increase or other administrator in central office who was recommended for a pay increase other than Mrs. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 Goss? A. This year? Q. Yes. A. Not that I know of. 26 Q. Now, before you've had other people who have had grievances that were submitted through Mr. Lester, have you not, which grievances were passed upon by Mr. Lester before being passed on to the Board, have you not? A. That's the sequence. Q. Mr. Lester denied her grievance, didn't he, initially some four years ago? A. Do you have Q. Before Mr. Goss became a School Board member Mr. Lester denied it? A. He denied it this year earlier. Q. Earlier this year. All right. You're not contending that four years ago you all had made a promise to Mrs. Goss, are you? A. I wasn't on the Board four years ago. Q. Well, this year Mr. Lester denied the grievance, and the Board voted to uphold Mr. Lester, didn't they? A. Right. Q. Now, do you know what caused Mr. Lester to come back later on after this grievance was denied, and recommend that she be given a pay increase right after the millage passed? A. No, I don't. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 Q. A. Did that seem strange to you? No, it doesn't, because she was doing extra duty. It 27 doesn't. Q. I thought all of these teachers now had to do extra duty after the budget cuts. Everybody, as I understand it, for the last year has had extra duty. Now, why should she get paid for her extra duty, and all the other teachers not get paid for theirs? A. They're not doing the extra duty this year. Q. Here's what you're saying. You're saying they're going to be doing it next year. What you're doing is causing all of these people\nMr. Bowles, Mr. Collins, all of these other people to have greater duties this year than they had last year -- this next year than they had last year, but you're not giving them extra pay, you're giving them less pay. So I would like to understand how on the one hand you can give the School Board member's wife more pay for extra duties this year, let's just say this year, and then next year give all of the non-School Board members more duties but less pay? A. Q. We're talking about separate years. Okay. I won't take advantage of you. I think that would be just too easy. would you like to think about your answer and try to enlarge it, because the concept is that you pay a person more money -- let me back up. Here she is because of extra duties getting more pay this year. Next year when other BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. ,(501) 372-5115  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 28 teachers will be having extra duties because of budget cuts, they won't get extra pay, they'll get less pay. A. That hadn't been negotiated yet. Q. Well, we do know that Mr. Lester is going to have more duties this year than he had last year, and he's going to get less pay. Why should he get less pay for more duties, while a School Board member's wife gets more pay for less duties, irrespective of the year? MR. JONES: She never said the lady was going to have less duties. A. She has had these duties all along. Q. For four years she's had them all along? A. I don't know about before I got on the Board. Q. For the last three years she has? A. She has been the Facilitator of Nursing. I don't know when that title change came about. Q. She was actually doing the work, and her grievance was that she was doing the work and not given the pay\nisn't that correct? A. Essentially. Q. And she didn't have the title either, did she? So Mr. Lester simply gave her the title this year? A. No, now wait just a minute. Mr. Lester I don't believe had one thing to do with that title change. I think she and Eddie Collins worked that out. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. 1(501) 372-5115 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 29 Q. Are you going to say that Mr. Collins has the power to change a title for an employee without going through Mr. Lester? A. He might have agreed to it. I do not know how the situation came about. But I do know that Mr. Collins had something to do, or that was my understanding, with the title change. I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to get me all up into a ball of yarn. So I'm trying to watch how you're phrasing things. Q. No, I'm not. I'm trying to get you to logically explain how when one person, who happens to be a Board member's wife, and who happens to be a Board member who was very active by his own admission in the budget reductions, how that person can get a pay increase, but nobody else does during a year, during a year when everybody has had some increases in job duties and expectations, and when during the next year it's proposed that a number of people have more job responsibilities than they already had, but they're going to get less pay. I'm trying to understand what's the logic in that, just what's the logic in it. Your explanation that it's another year is fine for me, because I'd like to present that one to Judge Wright and have her deal with it. But in order to be fair to you I want to give you a chance to see if you can come up with any other logic. And I'll be happy to start you off as my first witness and that be my first question. So I don't want to take advantage of you. MR. JONES: I'm going to object to anything at BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 30 trial about Mrs. Goss is irrelevant. MR. WALKER: I understand that. But we'll be trying to put it on to show that these Board members have hidden agendas, and that they treat their own much better than they do the regular staff. And this time Mr. Goss gets the preference when he steps out of the room, and Ms. Tucker and all the others go along with this. Then the next time if Ms. Tucker has a relative or somebody else has a concern, then their people be treated the same way. MR. JONES: I agree. You can ask them in a discovery deposition pretty much anything you want to to include the individual hiring decision. I'm just telling you if that's your strategy at trial I'm going to object to it. MR. WALKER: I understand you may object. But I think that the court would be very interested to hear that, especially since she's concerned about the Pulaski County budget. Q. (BY MR. WALKER) Now, I would like one more time, Ms. Tucker, to give you an opportunity so that the record will show I've done it at least three times. Do you have any other justification other than one thing happened one year and all this other is going to take place next year? A. I don't know what the thinking of the other Board members was. I was surprised when she brought it back up again. She more than likely was going to take it to court and sue us. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 31 Q. You all haven't been too concerned about resolving other matters in court. I don't know why you're going to resolve this to avoid court matters. We've got Raymond Green pending. We've got four or five other matters pending. Why are you going to try to resolve hers and not resolve the others? A. I think that's a horse of a different color. Q. It is a horse of a different color. I want that in the record. I will not ask anymore questions. That's the way I want the deposition to end. A. You just wait a minute. MR. WALKER: You can ask her. But I want the deposition to end with her saying that that's a horse of a different color. MR. JONES: would you like to explain your last answer? A. Yes, sir, I would. MR. JONES: Go right ahead. A. Because that is an expression I've used all my life. It's a family expression, and it has nothing to do with racial overtones. And let me tell you something. That I am certainly not as racially motivated against people of different races as you are. And I dare you to prove it. MR. WALKER: Ms. Tucker, I'm not on trial. But I want you to understand that I have Mr. Burnette here in the deposition with me. My staff is far more integrated than any BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 - 32 staff that you've ever been associated with. And all of my practices have been trying to bring people together rather than to separate them. A. You go back and check my record. MR. WALKER: I would like to do that. But for now, Ms. Tucker -- MR. JONES: Wait a minute. You're done. And I don't have anymore questions. MR. WALKER: On the basis of since she's still talking, I would like for her to continue. A. Do you not have expressions that have been handed down to you from generation to generation that are peculiar to your family and to your race? CONTINUING EXAMINATION BY MR. WALKER: Q. Give me some examples? A. I'm asking you. Q. I don't know. I don't really know. But horse of a different color when we're talking about Mr. Green and A. I had no intention of having racial overtones. And I can look you in the eye and tell you very certainly. Q. Ms. Tucker, there's no use being upset. A. I'm not upset. I want it for the record. Q. I want it for the record too. When you say it's a horse of a different color you were trying to avoid a lawsuit from Mrs. BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 33 Goss, who's the wife of a member of the Board who would have to sue her own husband, as over against having these other lawsuits and these other people who were affected A. You take it out of context. Q. You got other people out here who are potential lawsuits too, but you didn't concern yourself about them. Even if the coordinators, and you've got grievances pending on some of them, even if the coordinators are white, they are not being given the same treatment as Mrs. Goss, because you don't care about them filing a lawsuit. A. The coordinators have gotten their raises all along as the other people have. Q. You're saying that you're now trying to rectify something that should have been rectified two years or three years ago? A. Possibly. Q. Ms. Tucker, aren't you aware that you have a continuing contract law in Arkansas, and that when she worked for her salary in the 1991 year or the 1990 year she was paid in full. She didn't have a right to go back. And if she had a claim that she was going to make that she was being mistreated, she had to assert it within a certain time? You by doing this negated the necessity for her to go to court. She couldn't have possibly gone to court anyway because she was out of time. And you gave her benefits that the other teachers weren't given, if you were trying to do that. Are you taking the position -- BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  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 34 MR. JONES: Is there a question in all this? Q. That raises another interesting issue. Because she was mistreated three years ago or two years ago, in your opinion, are you taking the position that she alone is entitled to some remedy, while all the other teachers who may contend they were mistreated two or three years ago may not come to court? A. I don't feel that she was mistreated. What we do, we act as a Board. We don't act as individuals. And you don't know how my vote went on that. Q. How did it go? It's a matter of public record. A. I accepted the superintendent's recommendation, the same as I did before. Q. Have you ever voted against Mr. Lester on a recommendation regarding personnel that he's made? A. I have, but I can't tell you exactly what they were. MR. WALKER: Thank you. !(WHEREUPON, the above-entitled deposition was concluded at 3:30 p.m.) * * * * * * * * * * BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, INC. (501) 372-5115  STATE OF ARKANSAS} }ss. COUNTY OF WHITE } C E R T I F I C A T E RE: THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF RUTH WHITE WCKER: I, JEFF BENNETT, CCR, LS #19, a Notary Public in and 35 for White County, Arkansas do hereby certify that the facts stated by me in the caption of the foregoing deposition are true\nand that the foregoing deposition was transcribed by me, or under my supervision, on the Cimarron III Computerized Transcription System from my machine shorthand notes taken at the time and place set out on the caption hereto, the witness being first duly cautioned and sworn, or affirmed, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this deposition was taken\nand further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFIC day of June, 1992. JEFF BENNET, CC, #19, Notary County, Arkansa My commission expires 11-29-2000 BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING, ~INC. 201 East Sixth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 (501) 372-5115 the 30th\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"gsu_ggdp_5398","title":"Nan Pendergrast oral history interview, 1992 June 24","collection_id":"gsu_ggdp","collection_title":"Georgia Government Documentation Project","dcterms_contributor":["Nasstrom, Kathryn L."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Pendergrast, Nan, 1920-"],"dc_date":["1992-06-24"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Georgia State University Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Georgia Government Documentation Project","https://archivesspace.library.gsu.edu/repositories/2/resources/1508"],"dcterms_subject":["Segregation","Apportionment (Election law)","Race relations","Civil rights movements","Civil rights workers","American Friends Service Committee","Georgia. General Assembly. Committee on Schools","Young Women's Christian Association of the U.S.A.","League of Women Voters (U.S.)"],"dcterms_title":["Nan Pendergrast oral history interview, 1992 June 24"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Georgia State University. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ggdp/id/5398"],"dcterms_temporal":["1990/1999"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Pendergrast, Nan, Interviewed by Kathryn L. Nasstrom \u0026 Clifford Kuhn, 24 June 1992, P1992-11, Series J. Black and White Women in Atlanta Public Life, Georgia Government Documentation Project, Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library, Atlanta."],"dlg_local_right":["This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. In addition, no permission is required from the rights-holder(s) for educational uses. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s)."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 hour, 57 minutes, 41 seconds of audio spread over 4 sides of 2 tapes, and a 90 page transcript."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Frank, Leo, 1884-1915","Tuttle, Elbert P. (Elbert Parr), 1897-1996","Maddox, Lester, 1915-2003"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1557","title":"Court filings concerning Pulaski County Special School District budget and construction","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":["1992-06-19/1992-06-29"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School buildings","School facilities","School improvement programs","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Pulaski County Special School District budget and construction"],"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/1557"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["89 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"gsu_ajc_8285","title":"Reverand Joseph Lowery preaching his last sermon to his congregation, 1992","collection_id":"gsu_ajc","collection_title":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution Photographs","dcterms_contributor":["Spink, John, 1957-"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Atlanta Journal-Constitution"],"dc_date":["1992-06-14"],"dcterms_description":["Printed on assignment sheet: \"Story or idea: Last sermon of the Rev. Joseph Lowery, civil rights leader and longtime Methodist minister, at 11 a.m. service, preaching, being with congregation for last goodbye.\" Caption: \"Rev. Joseph Lowery emphasises 2 chronicles 7:14, the parting passage he wanted his congregation to hold onto as his final commision to them\""],"dc_format":["image/jp2"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Atlanta Journal-Constitution Photographic Archive;","Photographic Collections;"],"dcterms_subject":["Sermons, American","Preaching","African American clergy","Civil rights workers","Cascade United Methodist Church (Atlanta, Ga.)"],"dcterms_title":["Reverand Joseph Lowery preaching his last sermon to his congregation, 1992"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Georgia State University. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ajc/id/8285"],"dcterms_temporal":["1990/1999"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: AJCP582-25o, Atlanta Journal-Constitution Photographic Archives. Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library."],"dlg_local_right":["This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. In addition, no permission is required from the rights-holder(s) for educational uses. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s)."],"dcterms_medium":["color photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Lowery, Joseph E."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":670,"next_page":671,"prev_page":669,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":8028,"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}}]}}