{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_249","title":"Bernd, Cloyde Mckinley \"Mac,\" Ph.D.","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1992/1994"],"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","School administrators","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["Bernd, Cloyde Mckinley \"Mac,\" Ph.D."],"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/249"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"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\nBernd was Superintendent of Little Rock School District from July 1992 to June 1993. Includes correspondence and newspaper clippings\nJune 6, 1992 Dear Mac: As promised, here (from my For-What-lts-Worth Department) is my old idea for pulling together areas that are too scattered and out of touch with each other in the LRSD. This is an oldie but still a goodie, 1 think. Take all, part, or none: my feelings wont be hurt in any case, honest. Very truly yours, P.S. Although 1 didnt do it at the time 1 dreamed this up, the personnel department, a.k.a. Human Resources, would fit into this arrangement very well. However, the folks presently in that department wouldnt do as the management of a Community Resources and Relations configuration. The present Human Resources staff doesnt often practice positive community relations and they dont understand that volunteers are really just unpaid staff.Department of Community Resources and Relations Encompassing the following programs or function areas: Volunteers in Public Schools Partners in Education PTA/PTO/PTSA/ liaisonship Parent education (programs that help parents help us, such as APPLE [Arkansas Parents: Partners in Learning Experiences], HIPPY [Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters], Parents as Teachers, etc. PAC (Chapter 1 Parent Advisory Council) Grants procurement (to provide research, development, technical assistance and oversight for grants procurement [federal, state, and private sector] in support of new or existing programs.) Special programs (to develop specialized programs involving creative use of community resources like NIKE [Neighbors Involved in Kids Education], You Miss School-You Miss Out, etc., and to provide liaisonship and facilitation for such school/community projects as New Futures, Cornerstone, etc.) Communications Department Federal Programs Materials Resource Center (to provide an organized, systematic means for promoting donation of surplus materials from the community-especially businesses~to the district. This MRC would be coordinated with the Supply Center and Instructional Resource Center.) The Department of Community Resources and Relations would bring more closely together those programs and activities which channel our communitys human, financial, and material resources into the district. This departments broad umbrella would cover and coordinate all manner of: volunteer programs and services parent involvement and education relationships with business and community organizations identification and development of new human, financial, and material resources development and support of model programs of community collaboration communications and public relations fill various community liaison rolesFRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL e. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ml DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON M. P.A. BARRY . COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D- TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ml. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S MOORE A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201*3493 TELEPHONE 601*376*2011 FAX NO. 601*376*2147 August 26, 1992 RECEIVED AUG 2 a Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Office of Des^^aSiCO WiMiWiXins Re\nLRSD Desegregation Issues Dear John: I am writing in regard to two letters which you mailed to Dr. desegregation Bernd on August 14, issues. Dr. Bernd 1992, I and DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL IM. P.A KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR.. P.A. CLYDE 'TAB' TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT 8. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. M. CHARLES GSCHWEND. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H . MOORE T. WESLEY HOLMES ANDREW T. TURNER SARAH J. HEFFLEY JOHN RAY WHITE counsel WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A. B.8.CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. V RITEN't DIRECT NO . (6011 370-3367 faxed and both of which raised I agree that all communications from counsel in LRSD v. PCSSD to the Little Rock School District concerning desegregation issues should be directed to me. Please direct all future communications to me. I learned today that you made direct contact with an LRSD administrator to request a list by race and gender of students who will participate in an Aerospace symposium on September 4, LRSD has not compiled such a list. _ 1992 . CJH/k cc: Dr. Mac Bernd Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Yours_ye: '/ Christopher Aleller Little Rock School District August 28, 1992 Mrs. Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Suite 510 ! Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann\nMrs. Kumpuris spoke with Mrs. Gulden this afternoon on my behalf concerning a situation and a proposed resolution. This letter is to ask your ratification of our solution. A white student by the name of Jasmine Elizabeth Cassel lives in the Little Rock School District at 3701 Boyd Street, which is in the Southwest Junior High School attendance zone. This address is a racially mixed neighborhood and the student lives on a street where a number of black students attend Fuller Jr. High in the Pulaski County Special School District on an M to M transfer. By mistake. Jasmine was enrolled in Fuller Jr. High and was accepted into the TAG program. The residency error was discovered and the parents were informed that the child, because she is white, could not be released from LRSD to a PCSSD school. student was extremely disappointed and upset, friend is black and attends Fuller Jr. High. Needless to say, the Jasmine's best Our office has conferred with Mr. Bobby Lester of the PCSSD, and we feel that we could resolve this matter on a win-win basis by assigning a willing Fuller Jr. High white student to the LRSD in exchange for Jasmine enrolling at Fuller, the racial balance of either district. This would not affect Mrs. Gulden and Ms. Powell conferred and gave our office verbal approval to assign Jasmine to Fuller. sensitivity to the plight of this young lady. appreciate their cc\nMr. Bobby Lester Ms. Marie Parker Ms. Melissa Gulden 810 West Markham Street  Sincerely, Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools APPROVED\nAnn Brown Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 I ) I s g J I I i JMEMORANDUM Date: September 10, 1992 From: Melissa Guldin To: Subject: Ann Brown LRSD Transportation of M-to-M Students I am concerned about the persistent problems associated with the LRSD transportation of M to M students to PCSSD. As we have discussed previously, M-to-M students are continually delivered late to County schools. In some instances, students are arriving as much as an hour late. This has been a long term problem and I received complaints regarding this issue last year, but it seems much more severe now. I realize we encouraged the PCSSD administration to deal directly with LRSD to expedite a resolution, but this does not seem to be working. I called BiUy Bowles this morning to inquire if any progress had been made in resolving the transportation problems. He stated that he had spoken regularly to Mr. Armstrong in the transportation department, but problems were still numerous. Students are regularly delivered late to Crystal Hill, Robinson Elementary, Robinson Junior High, Robinson Senior High, Oak Grove, and Sylvan HiUs Junior High. There may be problems at other schools with M-to-M students also. These schools were given to me by Mr. Bowles as those he remembered with the greatest problems. He did not refer to his records for a detailed list. I also continue to be concerned about the LRSD students participating tn the Baker extended day program. I do not believe their transportation problems have been resolved either. The success of all three districts desegregation plans depends upon voluntary student movement. This movement is accomplished through M-to-M transfers. How can the districts meet their goals if students are discouraged from seeking transfers due to an inferior transportation system? While I understand the complexity of the transportation system, students should not have to pay the price for an administrative snafu. The daily late arrivals at school are a bigger problem than the slight irritation and inconvenience caused by any tardy student. By continually arriving late, the M-to-M students are missing learning time and they are bound to feel like outsiders. A conscientious student trapped on a habitually late bus must feel so frustrated and powerless. In the past the LRSD relied on cabs to deliver many students. I understand that an effort has been initiated to greatly reduce or eliminate cab transport. This is perfectly acceptable as long as students are being transported to the proper school in a timely fashion. That is not happening. There seems to be some indication that routes are either too long or too poorly organized to assure that students arrive on time. If additional bus route are needed to accomplish this goal, they should be added immediately. The relationship between an effective transportation department and successful desegregation is clear\nmore attention must be given to making the system work for kids.MEMORANDUM Date: September 16, 1992 From: To: Subject: Melissa Ann Incentive School Enrollment As you requested, Bob and I have been trying to acquire the current incentive school enrollment lists that will determine the number of incentive school children reassigned for the 1992-93 school year. While I have been working on this for quite some time, there is little progress to report. A chronology of the quest follows: 7/30/92 - 1 sent the attached letter to Marie Parker requesting information. Approximately three weeks later -1 placed a reminder call to Marie. She indicated she would get right on the matter and determine the reason for delay. 9/1/92 - The computer list of 1991-92 incentive school enrollment and the preliminary assignments for 1992-93 was received. This information was generated by the Hewlitt Packard (HP) system and indicated that all students were reassigned to the same schools in 1992-93 as the previous year. No new registration information had been entered. 9/10/92 - Bob called Becky Rather in the student assignment office to inquire about usable lists. After several attempts, he spoke with her and was informed that Julie Weidower had requested the earlier information and Bob was directed to speak to her. Julie was not in the office that afternoon, so he left a request to speak to her on the following Monday (9/14/92). 9/14/92 - When Bob reached Julie, she indicated that while she had ordered the earlier enrollment information for ODM, it was really Sue Pedersons job and Bob should speak to her. Bob left a message for Sue to call. 9/15/92 - Sue Pederson returned Bobs call and indicated that it would be a problem to furnish the information we requested. The original printouts furnished to ODM were generated by the old HP system and now all records have been converted to the new software. To follow this up Bob Morgan placed two calls to the LRSDs Bob Connelly trying to determine the capacity their system had to generate the desired student assignmentinformation. During the first call, Connelly stated that the problem arose because the data processing people had used the old software for student promotion before transferring that information to the new software. The new software was used for the subsequent assignments. As a result, the information regarding each childs 1991-92 school assignment is not currently recorded with this years information. Connelly indicated that the 1991-92 assignment information would be added in about a month or so. After this initial conversation, Morgan called Connelly again to suggest that student ID numbers used as a bridge between the two software systems, allowing generation of the desired data. Morgan did not succeed in persuading Connelly to undertake this task. This has been a rather frustrating process. It has taken quite awhile to receive information and we still do not have the data we need. The assignment fate of children attending the incentive schools during 1991-92 remains unclear. There is continued concern that students may have been too strongly encouraged to leave incentive schools simply to reduce class sizes to the 20 limit. It is already so late in the school year that any student changes would be disruptive, but neither children nor their parents should feel pressured to make school assignment for a districts convenience. Please let Bob or me know if we should pursue the matter further.To: Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent for Equity From: Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Subject: Incentive School Enrollment Date: July 30, 1992 The May 1, 1992 court order regarding proposed modifications to the desegregation plan dealt at great length with the issue of class size in the seven incentive schools. In that order students who attended the incentive schools during the 1991-92 school year were allowed to remain at their current school until they move on to junior high or voluntarily transfer to a new school. The order also states that no new student may enroll at any incentive school if his/ her enrollment would cause the class size to exceed the ordered limits. An exception to the class size limit is permitted if the new students enrollment would improve racial balance. In order to effectively monitor compliance with the May order, I need some information from your office. The first item required is a list, by school, of all students who attended each incentive school during the 1991-92 school year. There is no need for the assignment office to prepare a special report\na copy of your computer printout listing student names would be fine. Please forward the 1991-92 data to ODM by August 10, 1992. The same information will be needed for the 1992-93 school year as soon as it is available. Thank you again for the opportunity to sit in on the student assignment appeals review. I now have a much better understanding of the appeals process. I hope your first week with the Little Rock School district has been a good one and I look forward to working with you.\\0 'Z? BvA I Little Rock School District October 14, 1992 Q ocr I 5 I9S2 Office of Desegregalion Moniioring Mrs. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 201 East Markham Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District. Jim Smith, Bobby Lester, and I have discussed and agreed upon the need to have a short time to examine monitoring reports before they are released to the Court and to the media. We understand that your office has a need to give timely and accurate information to all parties. At the same time, it is necessary for us to notify our Boards and to develop appropriate responses for the media. In order for this to be accomplished, we would appreciate it if you would wait three days after giving us a monitoring report before filing it with the Court and releasing it to the media. We realize it will be important for us to maintain the confidentiality of this information during this three-day period, and we pledge to do so. We have enjoyed the support and consideration that your office has given us and feel that the waiting period we have requested in this letter will only reinforce our positive relationship. Although I am writing this letter, please feel free to contact any of the three superintendents regarding this issue. Sincerely, Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools cc: Mr. Bobby Lester Mr. James Smith J 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 October 16, 1992 Dr. Mac Bernd 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mac: Thank you for letting me know that Bobby Lester, James Smith, and you would like to have some time to examine ODM monitoring reports before the media receives them. I have discussed your request with Judge Wright, and we are agreeable to your having reasonable time to prepare public responses to ODM reports. Lets try the following approach to see how well it meets your need for advance notice and my need for fulfilling ODMs responsibilities to the court: I will give ODM reports to you and the other parties the morning of the day before the documents are filed with the court. Reports will not be filed until the afternoon of the following day. This schedule will give you almost two full days to review a report before having to deal with media inquiries. I will count on you, Bobby, and James to maintain your pledge for strictest confidentiality. If there should be a confidentiality breach at any time, 1 will no longer furnish advance copies of reports. In any case, my staff and I will continue our practice of reviewing preliminary ODM reports with your staff, a discussion that affords another type of advance notice. Please let me know how this arrangement works for you. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Little Rock School District RECEIV^^ February 5, 1993 FEB 1 1 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 201 East Markham Suite 510 Office of Desegrsgation Moi tnng Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I have appreciated your help and support as all of us work hard to improve the Little Rock School District. I also am concerned about carrying out the orders of the desegregation plan. Court with regard to Because of my concern about this issue, our would sincerely appreciate your sending me the instrumentation which you will be using for future monitoring activities. I am making this request so that the District can better follow the desegregation plan and maintain its focus on this vitally important issue. I would certainly appreciate receipt of these instruments as soon as possible so we may use them in conjunction with our own compliance efforts. I We have appreciated your past cooperation in this regard and apologize for any possible duplication, but we would like to have a complete set of past instruments as well complete file of all of these documents. so we may have a Sincerely, Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 February 17, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mac\nThank you for your letter of February 5, 1993, which 1 received on February 11, 1993. As you requested. Im enclosing copies of monitoring information 1 provided last fall. If you should need additional copies of any ODM monitoring reports, which 1 have routinely furnished all parties, please let me know. I share your concerns about the importance of the districts canying out the desegregation plan and related court orders. Thats why I place such emphasis upon communication and understanding, and why my staff and 1 spend a great deal of time trying to promote both those processes in the spirit of helpfulness and support. As a matter of fact, since last July when you became superintendent, my staff and 1 have had more than 30 meetings with your administrators to discuss ODMs monitoring. The implications of the December 30,1992 Court Order, which deals with the impact of the LRSD budget cuts, have been the subject of some of those discussions. Over the months, weve also covered many other topics, including ODM monitoring priorities, instruments, methods, and findings\nthe incentive schools\nearly childhood programs\nthe Biracial Committees\nthe McClellan magnet program\nincentive school staffing needs assessment\nthe alternative school\nthe Academic Support Program\nthe Four- Year-Old Longterm Plan\ncounseling ser\\'ices and state counseling standards\nthe budget process and budgeting cuts\nthe aerospace magnet school and grant\nand the King assignment zones and theme selection process. In addition to the many in-person meetings, there have been countless phone calls exchanged between members of my staff and yours about these same topics and many others. You are also well aware of the numerous conversations that Chris Heller and I have engaged in, as have you and 1.Page Two February 17, 1993 Moreover, to promote accuracy and to minimize the chance of \"surprises,\" we routinely review our written monitoring reports with district administrators before filing them with the Court and releasing them to the press and the public, judge Wright has also taken steps to ensure the best use of the time and resources of us all, issuing a scheduling order prior to hearings so the parties and counsel can fully prepare for the subjects to be covered. I also try to help you and your colleagues anticipate what to expect at hearings. Prior to the last hearing, 1 repeatedly emphasized to you, Chris, and others that the Court would have many hard questions about the status of the LRSD budgeting process and junior high capacities. 1 also stressed that, since judge Wright does not engage in ex parte communication, she would likely pose questions on other topics related to her Orders of May, November, and December 1992. There is no secret or mystery about how ODM monitors. My staff and 1 frequently discuss our monitoring priorities, methods, and findings in both formal and informal meetings with district personnel. Also, 1 recap the ODM monitoring approach in the introductory section of each ODM report. As 1 stated in my October 15, 1992 letter, which listed ODMs 1992-93 monitoring priorities, our monitoring is based on the desegregation plans, court orders and directives, and any unforeseen events\" related to ODMs charge. A recent order is one of those unforeseen events to which ODM is now responding. As you know from the last court date, judge Wrights December 30, 1992 Order will be the subject of a hearing to be scheduled soon. To explain ODMs response to that Order and what you can expect at the hearing, 1 will briefly summarize information that has appeared in my previous letters, memos, and reports about ODMs monitoring approach: All our monitoring relates to the districts settlement agreements, court orders, the judges directives, and state requirements. The monitoring instruments (or guides\" as we call them) used in long term monitoring are based directly on desegregation plan and order language. The introduction to ODMs june 5,1992 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report details ODMs systematic approach to a long term monitoring project and the three main information sources we use: written information, interviews, and observation. In short term or \"status\" monitoring, which takes place within a short time period, we do not create a special monitoring instrument\ninstead, as explained in the introduction to the Octobers, 1992 McClellan Status Report, ODMs investigation is guided by plan provisions and court orders that pertain most directly to the subject being scrutinized. We also rely on the same three main information categories: written sources, interviews, and observation. (The distinction between a long term monitoring report and a short term status report is clearly defined in the McClellan report.) Given the short timeline we have for monitoring the December 30, 1992 Order, ODM is presently conducting a status type investigation, as we did with McClellan last fall, using the specific language of the Order, the desegregation plans, and state standards to guide our monitoring. Also because of the brief time period, instead of publishing a written report, we will present our findings during the hearing scheduled for that purpose.Page Three February 17, 1993 By analyzing the December 30, 1992 Order and reviewing our previous monitoring reports, you and your staff will be able to anticipate the focus of our current monitoring and how we are going about it. Heres an example that, while not exhaustive, illustrates how we are carrying out our present monitoring assignment: In the section of the Order entitled \"Counselor Positions and Elimination of the Pupil Personnel Department,\" the Court stated (on page 10) that \"if monitoring determines that the district is unable to provide the full range of required services, the Court may direct the district to restore u eliminated positions.' To monitor this part of the Order, we are looking at a variety of information that includes the requirements of the desegregation plans and state statutes\nreviewing documentation to determine the number and placement of counselors before and after the reductions\nexamining records to assess the extent of any caseload changes\nreviewing school records and interviewing counselors, principals, and other administrators to identify any changes in the number and types of counseling programs or services mandated by the plan and state standards, such as individual and group counseling, at-risk interventions, career development activities, test-taking assistance, etc. If you or your staff want to contact me or my associates for additional information about a particular aspect of our current monitoring, well be happy to answer any questions. Very truly yours, cAv Ann S. Brown Enc.Pat Lynch show, March 22, 1993 Mac: I miss Lynch at Large L: Whats going on in the district? re Judge Wrights comments.. How will district respond? Mac: As supt, it is my job to carry out plan and thats what 1 intend to do. The board is concerned about what was said. Will meet this Thursday. I believe SWW has said its possible we cant afford the plan, its a tremendous dilemma. L- She appointed a man who doesnt even live in LR [Mooney] to oversee the districts spending on deseg. What will he do? Mac: Were lucky because that amount of money is already in ODMs budget. He will help us develop the system so the Court can effectively monitor expenses. Ive talked with him and he has an excellent background in terms of the skills needed. This kind of a system is something we do need. We are trying to fix the car while driving it, so Mooney can work to help develop the budget system and the reporting system. Weve had a tremendous problem with our computer system. He will be able to work with that system. L: Is SWW trying to provoke the crisis that will cause the parties and settlement to say uncle? Mac: For me to comment would be a value judgement. It could be. We have a problem, we are charged with implementing the plan. Everyone can see the situation the district is in. One purpose of the hearing was to look at the effect of the cuts. Were looking at deficit of 5.6 million for 93-94. If we have to put back in former cuts, that will add that costs to next years deficit. L- How will the study group proposal fare? Mac: We will put some of those suggestions to the board. Some suggestions we couldnt put hard dollars to. Some suggestions will be politically unpopular, like closing of schools. In the end, I have to make the recommendations, some will come through and some not. L\nWere you surprised at stern tone of the committees recommendations? Mac: No, they appreciate the financial mess we are in. L What recommendations would you not put before the board. Mac: Cant answer it directly. What I plan on doing after consultation will be to put three or four alternatives before the board so they can choose most viable. Salary freeze would provoke outcry. L- The committee seemed to protect the classroom. Reflective of the school district as a whole. Mac: LR has a lot of interest groups protective of their turf and the battle is focused on the district. There will be powerful and vocal interests concerned about the proposals. Basically, the committee wasnt politically sensitive. L: Whats the timeframe? Mac\nWill have to have it concluded by the end of April. Will have community sessions, plenty of sunshine on everything.Arkansas Democrat\"W(!5azcllc June 11, 1993 Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 received JUN I 4 1993 Dear Ann\nOffice of Desegregation Monitoring Here is the copy we have of Mac Bernd's employment contract, which I mentioned when we spoke over the tele-phone earlier today. Although it is full of a reporter's chicken scratch, I think our copy is still readable. As always, thanks for returning my call so promptly today and for your help during the court hearing earlier in the week. I appreciated it. Best, Danny Shameer CAPITOL AND SCOTT  P.O. BOX 2221  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203-2221  (501) 378-3400 z 11, EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN DR. CLOYDE M. BERND AND THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS This employment contract is made and entered into this twenty second day of May, 1992 by and between the Little Rock School District Board of Directors (hereinafter referred to as \"Board\"), and Dr. 11 Cloyde M. Bernd Superintendent\"). (hereinafter referred to as WHEREAS, the Board desires to provide the Little Rock School District Superintendent with a written employment contract in order to enhance administrative stability and continuity within the Little Rock School District, which the Board believes improves the quality of its overall educational program\nand, MuroPBc t * A f o Board and Superintendent believe that a written employment contract is necessary to specifically describe their relationship and to serve as the basis of effective communication between them as they fulfill their covenants and administrative functions in the operation of the educational program of the District\nNOW THEREFORE, the Board and Superintendent, for the consideration herein specified, agree as follows: 1. Term The Contract shall be from the starting date until June 30, 1995. It is mutually understood and agreed between the Board and Superintendent that in the absence of a written notice from one to the other of an intention not to renew this contract, such notice to be given by the parties hereto not sooner than October 31 and not later than December 31 of each calendar year, this Contract shall be automatically extended and kept in full force and effect subject to all its terms and conditions for a three year term commencing on the following July 1. Service of notice shall be by hand delivery or by certified mail, return receipt requested. Should the Superintendent be able to work for the Board prior to July 1, 1992, the Board shall pay fnr this wor]c nn p^g H-ph basis calculated from the Superintendent's annual salary. ^Tray.l_for the SuperintendenttQ accomplish this-work^shSll be 'the Board, /\"aridisshan hot count as the \"house hunting\" discussed in Paragraph 3b. below unless the Superintendent's spouse accompanies him on such trips. 2. Salary The Board shall pay the Superintendent an annual salary of $110,000.00 payable in equal monthly installments for the 1992-93 ioT iscal year.The Board will review the Superintendent's performance on a date between October 31 and December 31, 1992 and annually thereafter. This review will be conducted in Closed Session and will be accompanied by a statement in writing which specifically describes and evaluates the Superintendent's performance. The Superintendent may respond to the review in writing. attached to the written statement by the Board. Any written response will be Immediately following each annual performance review, the Board will establish an annual salary for the Superintendent. Tjie Superintendent will receive annual salary at least equal to the same perge^age rate as the rate granted to teachers in the Little Rock increases SchoolDistrict, so 16nq~as tJiT^_percentage does not exceed five (5_%) percent.' In no event shall the salary^be decreased from the prevxoOsyear's Superintendent. salary without the written consent of the 3. Benefits a. The Board shall pay one time actual relocation expenses for the superintendent to fslocAte from his^present' residence to the vicinity of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. Arrangement shall be made for the Board to pay said expenses directly to the vendors accomplishing the move. b. The Board shall pay actual expenses for trips for the Superintendent and his spouse. o house hunting i c. The Board shall pay for temporary housing for th\u0026amp; Superintendent, if necessary, with payment up to $600.00 per month for two (2) months. d. Because the Superintendent is on call for twenty-four (24) hours during his regular work days, the Board shall provide the Superintendent a. - new. mid size domestic automobile. equipped with a cellular tp.lpphnnp for hiq sole and, professional The Board will pay the operational, use. e. f. maintenance, telephone. and replacement costs of the automobile and years by the Board. This \"atlLoiiiubirlestiarH bs repTac^ every\" three The Board will also furnish a new A notebook computer to the Superintendent for work at his place of residence or other locations away from the District. The Superintendent agrees that the Board is authorized to make such deductions from his salary as may be authorized or required by applicable law, including, but not limited to, withholding and other applicable taxes and contributions to retirement plans. The Board agrees to give the Superintendent an expense allowance of $200.00 per month to coyer the cost of misc^laneous expenses incurred in the course of his duties.~ The Superintendent shall have twelve (12X-Workinq-dav\u0026amp;-of-\u0026amp;ick.. 2g- h. 1. j  leave annually. His beginning amount of sick leave will be sixty (60) days as of July 1, 1992 with accrual of-one (1) day per month of sick leave to begin immediately thereafter. If the Board funds a plan for payment to teachers for unused sick days, the Superintendent will be compensated at his per diem rate for the number of sick days for which he would be entitled to payment under the plan. The Superintendent shall have twenty (20) working days of vacation annually. each school fiscal year. These days shall be awSTded on July 1 of these vacation days, they shall be accrued. Should the Superintendent not use All accumulated unused vacation days shall be compensated at the per diem Superintendent's salary rate in effect at the time the Superintendent leaves the District. The Superintendent shall also be entitled to such holidays as are authorized by the Board for all administrative employees for the Little Rock School District. The Board agrees to maintain disability, medical. dental. vision, and term life insurance on and for the benefit of the Superintendent and medical, dental, and vision insurance on and for the t nf Superintendent's-wife arid dependent children. These benefits shall be a eas to the benefits provided to teachers in the Little Rock School District. In the event the Superintendent shall be disabled and unable to perform his duties under this Agreement by reason of sickness, accident. or other cause beyond his control, and such disability continues for more than thirty (30) days, the Board may appoint an Acting Superintendent to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the Superintendent under this Agreement. In the event the Superintendent shall be disabled and unable to perform his duties under this Agreement by reason of sickness, accident. or other cause beyond his control, and such disability continues for more than ninety (90) days, the Board may terminate this Agreement. In the event of termination due to disability, the Superintendent shall continue to receive the salary and benefits provided for in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Agreement for a period of six months from the date the Superintendent becomes disabled and also has exhausted all accrued sick leave and vacation. The Board's decision and determination as to the disability of the Superintendent shall be final and shall be based on the opinion of a properly licensed medical doctor or doctors. Upon execution of this Agreement by both parties, the Board shall exercise__its best efforts to ^obtainapo 1 icy of di_saBiTity insurance for_the benefit of the Superintendent exercise nbtain provTdihg for payments,._in the_eventofdisahility due to sickness or accidents, \u0026lt; commencing six (6) months after the 3 j I I si i ! I Ik. 1. Superintendent ^becomes disabled and continuing to age 65, which policy of~3isability insurance shall provide a monthly income of at' east Sxiperintendent's base sa forty-five percent (45%) of the ___ ,rv as piuvided in this Agreement,~ with Waiver of premium provisions. Board does not The represent or warrant that disability as defined by such policy shall be the same as disability as determined and defined by the Board. If the Board disability insurance policy, is successful it will pay in obtaining the a necessary premiums thereon to maintain said policy in force during the remaining term of this Agreement and any extension thereof. The parties hereto recognize that the terms and conditions of disability insurance policies vary and that the Board shall consult with the Superintendent before final selection of any such policy. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the obligations undertaken in this Paragraph shall be fully discharged if the Board obtains and maintains in force a policy of disability insurance containing terms and provisions consistent with those referred to under this Paragraph. Because the Superintendent has relocated from another State, and said relocation detrimentally affects the Superintendent's retirement, the Board agrees to furnish to the Superintendent aru^dditional $ 10, OOOTUO annually to BS placedin This Annuity plan is to be Sheltered Annuity (l.R.S. 403 B)~7 -aTax selected by the Superintendent. If the Superintendent leave's\"* the)-isti~rctbefor'e~servihg three ^contract years, he shall~\u0026gt; repay' the District the full amount of all pa^ymehts made If the Superintendent leaves rhe pursuant to this paragraph.' District after serving three full contract years but before serving four full contract years, he shall repay the District one-half of all_pavments made,.pursuant to tHTS\" paragraph. Tf the Superintendent leaves the District after serving four full contract years but before serving five full contract years, he shall repay the District one-quarter of all payments made pursuant to this paragraph. If the Superintendent leaves the District after five full years, the Superintendent shall have no obligation to repay any of the payments which have been made pursuant to this paragraph. If the Board terminates the Superintendent's contract before June 30, 1997, or decides not to extend the contract beyond that date, the Superintendenf^ shall have no obligation to repay any of the payments whicli.7 have been made pursuant to this paragraph. The Board encourages the continuing professional growth of the Superintendent through his participation in state and national conventions, seminars, or other functions intended for the purpose of increasing his knowledge and leadership ability. In addition to the expense allowance in paragraph 3(e) above, the Superintendent will keep abreast of developments in the field of education, and the Board agrees to pay his expenses , in attending meetings, seminars, workshops and other programs 4m. n. for this purpose. With the prior knowledge of the Board, the Superintendent may undertake consultative work, speaking engagements, writing, lecturing, or other professional duties and obligations\nsaid outside professional activities may be performed for consideration provided they do not interfere with or conflict with the Superintendent's performance of his duties under this Agreement. The Board shall pay the Superintendent's membership charges for the American Association of School Administrators and for the Arkansas Administrators Association. In addition, the Board shall pay the membership charges and associated expenses for one (1) service club. 4. Physical and Professional Conditions There shall be filed in the records of the Little Rock School district an official transcript of the Superintendent's college training, proof of his date of birth, and a current, valid teaching license of the highest grade attainable with college credits, which license the Superintendent shall be responsible for maintaining during the term of this Agreement. Because his current license is from another state, a reasonable amount of time will be given^Tor the Superintendent to obtain such license after beg~ihhih~g his~ duties on July 1, 1992. in accordance with law and the regulations of the Arkansas State Board of Health, the Superintendent shall file annually a certificate issued by a reflecting his condition of physical and mental health. licensed physician The Board shall bear the expense of the Superintendent's annual physical. 5. Related Employees The Superintendent represents to the Board that he is not related to any member of the Board within the degrees prohibited by the laws of the State of Arkansas. 6. Duties and Responsibilities The Superintendent shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Board. All powers and duties which may be delegated lawfully to the Superintendent are so delegated by the Board. These powers and duties are subject only to those powers vested exclusively in the Board under state and federal law. In addition, the Superintendent shall perfor-m such further duties as shall be assigned or required of him by the Board, provided however, such additional duties shall be in character and consistent with Superintendent of the district. the position Only the Board, of the in a legally 5 called meeting, may direct the Superintendent. The Superintendent will have complete freedom, subject to state and federal law, to organize. reorganize. and arrange the administrative and supervisory staff in a way which, in his judgment, best serves the Little Rock School District. This authority does not empower the Superintendent to increase the number of positions in his cabinet without Board approval. It is understood by the Board that the employees of the District report to the Superintendent in his capacity as chief executive officer of the Board and shall work under his direction. The responsibility for selection, placement, evaluation, and transfer of personnel shall be vested in the Superintendent. Board will not act on personnel matters except upon recommendation ~of the Superintendent.~ District. It is understood by the Board that its individuaX direct or command any of the employees of the It is also understood that the Superintendent as chief executive officgr~'dr~the Board, is the designated spokesperson for the District because he alone is empowered to carry out the Board's direction. Board members may express their individual views to the public and the press on matters of public concern, but the Superintendent will speak for the District. concern. The Board will not enter into district Superintendent. any binding agT-ftiainxrvbwithany union ^representing employees except upon recommendation of the 7. Board/Superintendent Relationships The Superintendent will work closely with the Board in developing a spirit of cooperation and teamwork in which the Board will accept responsibility for the formulation and adoption of policy and for taking action on matters which by law require Board action. It is agreed that the Board, individually and collectively, will refer promptly to the Superintendent, for study and recommendation, all criticism, complaints, and suggestions brought to their attention. 8. Discharge for Good and Just Cause The Superintendent may be discharged for good and just cause provided. however, that the Board does not arbitrarily or capriciously call for his dismissal and has given him reasonable time to correct the conditions which are the cause of the Board's concern. In the event the Board exercises such right, the Board shall follow the procedures provided by the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, as it may be amended, for nonprobationary teachers. In addition, notice of discharge for good and just cause shall be given in writing along with the specific reason or reasons therefor, and a copy of any and all documents upon which the claim of good and just cause is based. The Superintendent shall be 6entitled to a full, establish such cause and reasons. evidentiary hearing before the Board to If the Superintendent chooses to be accompanied by legal counsel at such hearing, the Board shall bear all fees and costs therein involved. Reasonable time shall be pemnitted for the Superintendent to prepare for the hearing. Such hearing shall be conducted in closed session unless specifically prohibited by State law or a public hearing is requested by the Superintendent. 9. Professional Liability The Board agrees that it shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the Superintendent from any and all demands, claims, suits, actions and legal proceedings brought against the Superintendent in his individual capacity. or in his official capacity as agent and employee of the Board, including costs and attorney fees, provided the matter arose while the Superintendent was acting within the scope of his employment and excluding criminal litigation and provided such liability coverage is within the authority of the Board to provide under state law. individual Board members be Except that, in no case, will considered personally liable for indemnifying the Superintendent against such demands. suits, actions and legal proceedings. claims. The requirements of this paragraph may be met by the purchase by the Board of a professional liability policy of insurance. 10. Public Record The parties hereto agree and understand that this Agreement shall become a part of the public record. 11. Waiver The failure of either party to insist upon performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any right granted hereunder or of the future performance of any such term or condition. but the obligations of either party with respect thereto shall continue in full force and effect. 12. Severability In case any provisions of the Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall be severable and shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereafter. 713. Entire Agreement This instrument contains the entire agreement of the parties. It may not be changed orally, but only by agreement in writing signed by both parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on May 21, 1992, at Little Rock, Arkansas. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD By: (Board President) By: (Board Member) By: (Board Member) By: (Board Member) By: (Board Member) By: (Board Member) By: (Board Member) Superintendent 8Arkansas Democrat 17 (gazette MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16. 1992 I Public invited to Bernd broadcast today -St .Superintendent Mac Bernd will present a live broadcast entitledBernd will TeS?i?i'VeSe'SS = by members of pubHc recen t \u0026lt; _____.., 5 puuiic at a recent series nr seven fnr,,.. luemDers ot the Dublir at a Z - taiocu budding at 810 W. Markham St. .he drSsTd tteSeV''' s administration repeat the major issues discussed at the are being ad-Arkansjvs Democrat /WitCiazcllc THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1992 B Bernd, board find all quiet on school front BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Ornrocai-Gazelle Eduralion Wtilet Lillie Hock School Board members and Superintendent Mac Bernd went Io where the action wa.s Wednesday, taking the enlire da,v Io visit classes in seven of Ihe disiricl.s schools. Though individual bojird member.s fre(|uenlly visit build ing.s or attend school functions on I heir own time, the tour Wednesday wa.s the first one . taken in recent years by a group of board members whi le school wa.s in session. What they generally found were (|uiel hallway.s and order- I.V classrooms where teachers were leaching and .studenl.s were learning, For example, at .Jefferson El- cnicnlary Scliool, second- graders were listening to a story. \"Annie and the Old One, a.s part of their studies aboul pil- grim.s and American Indians. Sixth graders in Becky Ham seys class were using calcula- lor.s to delcrmine how many item.s on ,a menu they could pur chase for under $3. Al McClellan Community High, I Ith-graflers were taking a standardized apliliide test spun sored by the armed forces, while 's two of Marolyn Ogden.s pupil. Ill l''air Park ICIeinenl.ary were improving llieir reading skills by reading aloud the story of \"Hairy Bear. Pupil.s throughout I''air Park were wearing hats in observance of \"Hats Off To Heading Hay. At Western IlilLs Elemenlary, the board members inspected renovated and new classroom.s and raved aboul the school's ap pearance. They checked on the business and communicalion.s magnet program at McClellan and found evidence that the program i.s indeed being implemented, though not all the com[)uter equipment for the student.s ha.s been installed. Al Terry, the board paused for lunch, eating the same macaroni dish, rolLs and pineapple chunk.s served to students. \"The roll.s were wonderful, board member O.G. .Jacovclli said. At Eoresl lleighl.s .lunior High. Ihe board member.s eyed with relief Ihe adjoining sleel structure that will evenlually become aboul 30 new classrooms. The new building will virtu- aIly replace Ihc existing school, whicli was not the besl-looking facililj' board members saw Wednesday. The new classroom.s could be opened in lime for school next fall. \"I havent seen anything shocking, board member Horsey Jackson said near the end of the lour, which started at Mitchell Elemenlary al 8:4.', a in. and ended at 3:15 p.m. at Forest Heights. The schools were orderly. .laekson said. Board ineinber.s diligentl.v checked the condition*\nof porlahle buildings at some of jhe schools, and asked aboul Ilie impact of lost counseling posi- tion.s thi.s year. The counselors rank.s were reduced as pari of a $10 niillion spending ctil this year. Bernd, who look a few 111111- Utes to read a story to some Fair Park students, ,said that he had asked school office worker.s about their use of the new, somewhat controversial, computer system thi.s year. Barbara Ball, school secretary at .Jefferson, said she has had no problems learning to keep enrollment and attendance records on the new system. She attended five clas.s ses- sioihs to ac\u0026lt;|nainl herself with the system and was beginning to use it to make purchases for the school, she said.2B  FRIDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1992   LR group to bolster Bernd pay  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Good schools mean industrial development. For that  reason Fifty for the Future Inc. is responding to a Little Rock School Board request for private funds to supplement Superintendent Mac Bernds\nsalary, the president of the organization said Thursday. We are an industrial development group.\" Sam Sowell said. We exist solely for i that purpose, and good\nschools mean good industrial development. The board of directors for Filly for the Future has agreed i to contribute $25,000 and to try to raise an additional $25,000 through voluntary contributions from their membership for Bernd. The organization will take out a second mortgage on Bernds home. According to the plan, if the superintendent keeps his job for five years, he will not have to repay the money to the organization. If he leaves, he will have to reimburse the organization for the funds when he sells his home. Bill Cravens, another member of Fifty for the Future, is making the arrangements for the mortgage agreement. Sowell, owner of International Graphics Inc., said Fifty for the Future is continuing to seek contributions from its members and that the money is beginning to come in. He declined to say how much has been raised. He said there was no reluctance by the board, which met for a regular meeting ' Thursday morning, to proceed with the effort despite some criticism of the plan from the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association and some media commentators. The financial request by some of the school board members came to light Monday during a radio talk show. The effort had not been publicized previously. School board members said they told Bernd when he was hired in May that they would try to supplement his salary' with private funds from the busines.s community, but I they could not guarantee the extra money. Bernds contract provides a $110,000 annual salary, plus an annual $10,000 annuity. If he stays in the district three years, he can keep half of the accumulated annuity funds. If he stay.s five years, he can keep the entire amount. The idea of private funds for public ofTicial.s is not new in Arkansas. , U.S. District Judge Henry\nWoods in 1989 made provisions for community organizations to supplement the salary of Eugene Reville, hired by Woods to be the metropolitan supervisor in the three Pulaski County districts. Woods set Revilles salary at $98,500 to be paid by the three school districts. He also said arrangements could be made with community organizations to prevent Reville from losing money as the result of moving from Buffalo, N.Y. In 1967, when the late Winthrop Rockefeller was governor of Arkansas, it was disclosed that he was person- ally supplementing the salaries of at least 13 state employees by more than $1,000 a year each. The late Joe Purcell, who was attorney general at the time, said in an opinion that it was improper for the governor to supplement the salaries to a point above the salary limits set by the Legislature for the positions. However, according to news accounts from the lime, the practice was not stopped. Rockefeller said it often took more money than the state was providing for a position to get top-night leadership.(l\u0026gt;azcttc p FRIDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1992 EDITORIALS w More light, please Private money and public business hats wrong with a group of civic-minded leaders inducing a promising school superintendent to stay on the job by trying to raise $50,000 in extra pay? Nothing we can think of except not mentioning the idea to the public. Which of course leaves the impression that there is something wrong with it. Actually, this deal sounds like an act of responsibility and generosity on the part of Fifty for the Future in Little Rock, where the school district has had seven superintendents in the past 10 years. It would be more than nice. It would be stabilizing, if somebody like Mac Bernd stayed on for at least five years. It would have been nicer if the school board had mentioned the idea proudly and openly at a press conference when Dr. Bernd first came to town  as if it were the public business it is. Then the board wouldnt have had to hold a press conference this week to explain it all and try to dispel the doubts that quiet deals always raise. Moral: There is nothing like secrecy, even the unintended sort, to rouse suspicion  and nothing like sunlight to chase away any shadows. The school board made a misL J take when it discussed this deal only informally in executive session and never took a public vote on it. This is the kind of thing the Freedom of Information Act was designed to prevent. If its spirit had been followed, or just remembered, the board and Dr. Bernd would have been spared this weeks embarrassment. The extra $50,000 for Dr. Bernd may represent a commendable private initiative, but it also affects a prominent public employee. And the public  like any employer needs to be told when somebody else is paying its servant for doing his job, how much, and why. So, as any good educator would ask, what have we learned from this? That at the end of any executive session of a school board, or even during it, someone should be specifically responsible for asking whether the public needs to know what is being discussed, or if a vote on the matter needs to be taken in open session. One good way of telling is to ask the question: Suppose some radio talk-show host, like KARNs Pat Lynch, produces a memorandum about the decision and asks for an explanation. If that would embarrass, then either the board should not be talking about the subject in private session, or it should let the public in on what has been said as soon as it walks out the door. Its simple when you think about it. Beforehand. If the board needs a reminder, it is welcome to clip and save this editorial for handy reference during every executive session. We would consider it an honor to be of public service. Aikansas Democrat (gazette MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1992 Copyright O 1992. Littte Aock Newspapers Inc. I I Mac Bernd, superintendent of the Little Rock School District, I is convening an organizational meeting of about 30 business peo- pie Tuesday night at the school district administration building. The committee will assist in financial planning for the 1993-94 school year. Bernd asked in November for volunteers for the special finance committee, which wilt make recommendations on budget cuts and streamlining the districts operation. Bernd has estimated that the district will have to cut $4.6 million in expenses next year to balance the budget. That cut would follow on the heels of a $10 million budget cut this year. 4Arkansas Demcxirat (gazette D WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1992 CoQyngnt O 1992. Utita Rock Newspapers Ine. Bernd asks citizens to assess 8 areas looking for savings 4 BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrai-Qazette Education Writer Little Rock Superintendent Mac Bernd has asked a citizens committee to study eight areas of school district operations that could be more efficient. Bernd formed the committee of about 35 people, including parents and business and civic leaders, earlier this month to make recommendations that could be incorporated into the 1993-94 district budget. He told the committee at a meeting Dec. 16 that the district will have to trim as much as $5.2 million in expenses to balance next years budget. The district has a $112 million budget this year. Based on priorities listed by the committee members, Bernd is recommending that the committee focus on the following eight areas:  Safety and discipline. Bernd said the issue is of tremendous concern to patrons and addition of police resource officers in the 13 secondary schools could be a new cost.  Physical plant. The district is being asked to build new schools while older buildings need repairs and renovations. The committee should consider whether the district has too many schools that are under capacity or are too small to be operated efficiently.  Staffing. Seventy-five percent of the operating budget is spent on personnel. The committee should examine areas for reductions and for reallocations of funds so that personnel can be added in high priority areas.  Teaching and learning. Academic programs in the district should be studied to see whether the costs of the programs can be justified in terms of student learning.  Nonacademic areas. Can any of the nonacademic functions be eliminated or made more cost-effective? Many of the functions are required by laws and regulations or are expected by the community. He told the committee Dec. 16 that the district will have to trim as much as 35.2 million in expenses to balance next years budget. The district has a SI 12 million budget this year.  Transportation. The district is required to transport students because of geography, the districts desegregation plan or by law. The committee should study the efficiency of the system.  Courts and desegregation. The district is committed to a quality desegregated education system for all children. However, the desegregation plan should be studied to identify requirements that are ineffective, outdated or inefficient.  Revenues. The committee agreed earlier that sources of new revenues should be studied. Bernd said the districts financial future cannot be secured by budget cuts alone or by millage increases without making budget cuts. Other public or private sources of funds may exist. Committee members will select the topic in which they are interested. Groups for each subject area will meet at 6 p.m. Jan. 13. The overall committee is scheduled to complete its recommendations to Bernd in early March. Bernd is planning to submit a proposed budget to the school board in early April.1 \u0026gt; 6B  SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1993 Lawyer wants Bernd contraet defined BY CYNTHIA HOWELL . Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock civil rights lawyer .John Walker filed three documents in federal court Friday pertaining to different aspects of the 10-year-old Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit. The documents, sub-  mitted to U,S. District Judge Su-  san Webber Wright, included\n A request that the Little Rock School District clearly define the terms of Superinten- dent -Mac Bernds employment , contract, including any funds * being paid to him by members , of the business community,  A request that Wright an- \\nounce the criteria she will use fin selecting a court appointee 'to develop a Little Rock district Xbudget that will enable her to jmonitor the districts compliance with its school desegrega- -tion plan. The motion further 'requested an additional time -for Walker and other parties in the school case to nominate people for the job.  Objections to the Little Rock School Board election zone plan approved in January by the Pulaski County Board of Education. Walker, who represents the class of black residents who intervened in the Pulaski County desegregation case, said that although Bernds contract is a public matter, the public records are uncertain. He specifically asked that the district disclose whether it has made any arrangement with private citizens to supplement Bernds pay. Late last year it was disclosed that school board members had approached Fifty for the Future, a group of business people interested in economic development, about providing Bernd with $50,000 that he would be able to keep if he stays in the Little Rock position for five years. Where private money is paid to public officials without there being public accountability, the public officials may be subject to undue influence of their private benefactors, Walker said. He said the interests of a private group may be in opposition to the interests and needs of minority schoolchildren. He also contended that when the school board sought a new superintendent last summer, it did not disclose a $50,000 supplement to the pay. That could have been a ke5' factor in the decision of a black candidate. The black candidate, who was the first choice of the board, did not take the job. Walker said the different offers made to the candidates constitute an act of discrimination. In response to Wrights order Tuesday that she would appoint a person to develop a budget that links revenues to desegregation programs. Walker said he hoped the pool of job applicants would include black candidates. He said the district has shown no inclination to respect minority interests in the budget process. He also pointed out that a new Little Rock budget employee, who will essentially be working for the federal Office of Desegregation Monitoring, could affect the neutrality of the monitors office. Wright has said the new person will work in the Little Rock administration and be paid by Little Rock, but will answer to the desegregation monitor. Walker noted objections Lit- tie Rock School Board members had Thursday night to the judges plans. School board members objected to the cost of a new employee and suggested that the Office of Desegregation Moni- , toring do the job. One board 1 member said the district is | spending about $500,000 for the office, Ann Brown, the desegregation monitor, said Friday that the Little Rock district contributed $169,728 last year and she expected the amount to be the same this year. She said the office has been frugal in its expenditures and that the district may not have to increase its share of the office costs by much when the new budget employee is appointed. The Pulaski County Special and North Little Rock districts and the state of Arkansas also contribute to the cost of the monitors office. The total budget in 1991-92 was $591,557, On the issue of the election zones. Walker said the proposed zones do not comply with the provisions of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965,- Arkansas Arkansas Democrat (gazette SATURDAY, JUNE 5, 1993 Copyright  1993. Utile Rock Newspapers. Inc. B Two districts out West lure Bernd to interviews BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School District Superintendent Mac Bernd is a candidate for similar jobs in Newport Beach, Calif., and Glendale, Ariz. Bernd confirmed Friday night that he was recruited for those jobs and had interviewed in both cities. He has had a fbllow-up interview for the Newport Beach superintendent job, which indicates he is one of a relatively small number of remaining candidates. Richard Luehrs, co-chairman of a 50-member citizens committee, said Friday that Bernd was among 13 semifinalists interviewed for the position last month. Luehrs refused to say whether Bernd was a finalist but said: Mac Bernd is an outstanding candidate. I do remember his interview, and he is very quali- There has been wide speculation in Little Rock that Bernd went on recent job interviews. Bernd became Little Rock schools superintendent July 1, 1992. Reached before Luehrs comments, Bernd refused to speak about the matter. I couldnt comment on that, Bernd said when asked whether he had applied for any superintendent positions. Its the season for superintendent jobs to open. Were like baseball managers. Ive had contacts from headhunters. It happens every spring. I think if you look at the pressures on the Little Rock superintendent, when anyone hears if one gets anywhere near an airport, people wonder if they will come back, he joked. But after learning of Luehrs remarks, Bernd commented briefly, confirming that he had been interviewed for the jobs. I have not made any decisions about leaving, Bernd said Friday evening. Im just interested in finding out what the situation is like, and the fact that they expressed interest in me is flattering. He said he is not unhappy in Little Rock and that he finds many aspects of the job satisfying, including working with the people in the district, city and on the school board. He said what displeased him in his first year as superintendent in Little Rock was not having time to visit classrooms because he had to deal with other issues. John Moore, Little Rock School Board president, likened the news of Bernds job interSee BERND, Page 3BBernd  Continued from Page 1B views to the story that broke last month about University of Arkansas basketball coach Nolan Richardsons speaking with officials who ran the Atlanta Hawks professional basketball team about coaching opportunities. Anybody in this day and time would be irresponsible to their family if they did not check about other opportunities, Moore said. Im personally glad that other school districts think enough of our superintendent. Little Rock is a hard district, principally because of the fact that we are in a desegregation lawsuit, and, essentially, the federal judge attempts to run the district. And its hard on a superintendent, hard on a school board. In the months leading toward Bernds hiring, board members said a long-term superintendent would contribute greatly to the stability of the district. The Little Rock district has had seven superintendents in the last 10 years, including Bemd. Bernd receives an annual, salary of $110,000 and is eligible for an annual annuity payment of $10,000. Board members included in his three-year contract a golden-cuff clause meant to entice Bemd to stay at least five years and to penalize him if he left before then. According to the terms, Bemd would have to return all payments the district made to his tax-sheltered annuity if he left before the end of three years. He would have to repay half the money if he left after three years and a quarter if he left after four years. If he stays five years, he will be free to keep the $50,000 paid into the annuity. School board members told Bernd privately when he was hired that they would seek community- financed supplemental pay, but that was not part of the contract. Bernds first year on the job I i Mac Bemd has been a baptism by fire. Within the first week, hed already been sued over cheerleader tryouts and called to testify in a school desegregation hearing in federal court. Several weeks afterward, Bernd led the district in teacher contract negotiations and cut about $8 million out of the $122 million budget. Last winter, Bernd became embroiled in a fight over his decision to suspend Central High School Principal John L. Hickman Jr., who is well-liked by some people in the city. Bernd suspended Hickman with pay Jan. 7 over allegations of sexual misconduct and mishandling school funds. Hickmans suspension hearing, which began March 4, has yet to be resolved. Bernd, meanwhile, investigated the allegations and on April 9 wrote Hickman a letter recommending that he be fired. But even while dealing with the Hickman matter, which has been time-consuming, Bemd led the district through an unprecedented one-day teachers contract { negotiation and balanced the\nbudget smoothly. Bernd came to Little Rock af- 1 ter having overseen the 10,000-\nstudent San Marcos Unified : School District in San Diego County, Calif., since 1986. I 2B  TUESDAY, JUNE 8,1993 Bernd still in running for one job Old Arizona district hires someone else BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rocks school superintendent remains a finalist for a California job, but an Arizona school district that named him a superintendent finalist has hired someone else. Dr. Mac Bernd, superintendent of the Little Rock School District, remained in the running Monday to head the Newport Beach, Calif., public schools. The school district has about 17,500 students in 23 schools in Gosta Mesa and Newport Beach. The Little Rock district, which Bernd joined July 1, 1992, has about 26,000 students in 51 schools. Some Newport Beach board members said Monday they may make a decision as early as today, when a regular School Board meeting is scheduled. But other board members thought that it may take another week or two to reach a decision. The school district has about 17,500 students in 23 schools in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, ' A spokesman for the 9,300- student Glendale Elementary School District in suburban Phoenix said Monday that the School Board had selected Dr. Richard Terbush from the Pendergast, Ariz., public school system, as its new superintendent. '. Bernd, who used to work in the district, and Dr. Dan Johnson, assistant superintendent of the Cherry Creek, Colo., public schools, were finalists. -\nThe Newport-Mesa Unified School Board, which is recovering from last falls discovery that its top financial officer embezzled $4 million in school money, met in closed session in Newport Beach, Calif., Monday night to discuss whom to hire. The discussion centered on Bernd and Dr. Jerry Gross, area superintendent for the Long Beach, Calif., school district. Some board members said they may pull in two other candidates if Bernd or Gross drops out of the running.Arkansas Democrat (^azeU^ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1993 Copyright C 1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. Bernd still in running for California school post DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette EcJucaWon Writer A California school board remained undecided Tuesday over whether to offer Little Rock School District Superintendent Mac Bernd a job as its new chief. Newport-Mesa School Board President Rod MacMillian said . the board met twice Tuesday  once in the afternoon and again in the evening  to discuss op tions that included offering the job to one of two men, adding more candidates for ftnalist consideration or taking a site visit to Little Rock. If the board settles on one of , the two candidates, the winner will be contacted to see whether the job offer is accepted before the choice will be revealed publicly, MacMillian said. He said that Bernd and Jerry Gross, Long Beach, Calif., School District area superintendent, remain the top contenders to run the 17,500-student Newport-Mesa School District, which has 23 schools and includes the towns of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. Board members had visited the San Marcos Unifed School District in suburban San Diego to review Bernds record as superintendent there and may visit Little Rock if interest remains with Bernd. Some Newport-Mesa board members have contacted some Little Rock School District board members and other community leaders by telephone to learn more about Bernds record here. Bernd ran the 10,000-student San Marcos district from 1986 until July 1,1992, when he came to Arkansas to run Little Rocks public schools. Little Rock is Arkansas largest district, with about 26,000 students in 51 schools. Richard Montgomery, executive assistant director of the California School Boards Association, the search firm that recruited Bernd as a finalist, said late Tuesday that he thinks the process has reached its day-to- day stage. Montgomery is advising the board in the selection process. The district, which is based in ritzy Newport Beach, Calif., is trying to rebound from a discovery last fall that the top financial ofTicer embezzled $4 million from the district. The board spent part of its time Tuesday in a budget session. . Sixty-three people applied for the Newport-Mesa position, which opened after John Nicoll retired in December 1992, after 21 years, because of illness. A citizens committee narrowed the list to 13 semifinalists Bernd and Gross emerged as the top contenders from the semifinalist list, and each has been interviewed by the board.Aikansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1993 Copyright O 1993, Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. Bernd leads other finalist for California school post BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School District Superintendent Mac Bernd appears to be a front-runner for a job with a California public school district. The Newport-Mesa School Board interviewed Bernd, 49, in closed session Thursday night. A source in California with direct knowledge of the search, but who declined to be identified, said Thursday that the school board is leaning toward offering Bernd a job. Bernds interview marked his third session with the board since he applied for the superintendents job this year. The other finalist. Dr. Jerry Gross, 53, area superintendent of the Long Beach, Calif., Unified School District, has had two interviews. The boards decision to interview Bernd a third time represents more interest in Bernd than Gross as of Thursday night, though Gross remained a finalist, the source said. Board members wanted to ask Bernd some additional questions before making a decision, which could come as early as today, the source said. Bernd missed a regularly scheduled Little Rock School Board agenda meeting Thursday night  reportedly the first time he had been absent for such a session. A Little Rock School District official said Bernd had taken two personal days off, including today, but did not add where he was or what caused his absence. After the agenda meeting, the Little Rock board went into executive session for about 90 minutes over unspecified personnel matters without taking any action. John Moore, Little Rock board president, told reporters afterward that the board had discussed possible options to pursue if Bernd takes another job. Moore said the discussion included what steps the board might need to take to fill Bernds shoes, who may be available to fill in as a possible interim superintendent, and what plans may be needed to keep the district running administratively if Bernd quits. Bernd  who joined the Little Rock district July 1,1992  acknowledged a week ago that he had been interviewed for superintendent positions in Arizona and California. The Glendale, Ariz., Elementary School Board named Bernd as one of three finalists for superintendent, but ultimately selected Dr. Richard Terbush from Pendergast, Ariz. Bernd has spent much of his first year on the job in Little Rock dealing with the federal See BERND, Page 7B Bernd  Continued from Page IB court that oversees the Pulaski County school desegregation case and sitting through suspension hearings over a popular principal, John L. Hickman ' Jr. of Little Rock Central, on charges of breaking district policies. Bernd came to Little Rock after serving as superintendent of the 10,000-student San Marcos Unified School District in northern San Diego County, Calif. The Little Rock board, which oversees 26,000 students in 51 schools, signed him to a contract that pays him $110,000 in fiscal 1993. Before hiring Bernd last year, board members said a long-term superintendent would help provide stability for the district, the states largest. The Little Rock board gave Bernd a contract that offers financial incentives to stay at least five years, Bernd has said he applied for the California and Glendale jobs only after being recruited. He also has said he was flattered by the California and Arizona districts interest in him and simply wanted to learn about the situation in those places. The Newport-Mesa district, which includes ritzy Newport Beach and the town of Costa Mesa, has about 17,500 student in 23 schools. The search for a school chief in that oceanfront community brought attention on the West Coast because the California district is looking for its first superintendent in 21 years. John Nicoll, the California districts former superintendent, retired because of ill health in December 1992 after officials discovered that the school systems chief financial officer had embezzled $4 million in school funds.Arkansas Democrat W (gazette SATURDAY. JUNE 12.1993 Copyright  1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. Bernd resigns to take California job Says court oversight of LRSD drained his enthusiasm ----- The board voted 4-3 to select BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Dr. Mac Bernd i.s leaving the Lillie Rock School District superintendents post after less than a year on the job. The Newport-Mesa School Board  which oversees the towns of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa in Orange County. Calif.  hired Bernd as superintendent at a special meeting Eriday morning. 1 like being in classrooms more than 1 like being in federal court, Bernd said by tele Departure of Bernd removes second of lop two officials responsible lor action against Hickman 13A phone from California. The last couple of days in court drove home the kind of activity the l.it-tle Rock superintendent gets involved in  a lot of time in fed eral court and a lol of lime with litigation. Thal had a tremendous influence on my decision. Bernd becomes the seventh superintendent, including acting superintendents, to leave the Little Rock post since 1982. He will gel a three-year contract with a starling salary of $104,000, beginning .July 15, to run the 17,500-student district in California. The Little Rock board hired Bernd last year at $110,000 a year, plus financial incentives to stay longer. His contract also called for raises geared to teacher pay increases. The California board interviewed Bernd Thursday night and took two votes Friday morning. Bernd, 49, over Dr. Jerry C. Gross, 53, area superintendent of the Long Beach, Calif., Unified School District and the only other finalist for the position. Edward Decker, one of the three board members who voted against selecting Bernd, then proposed that the board take a unanimous vote in support of and to hire Bernd. \"My no vote on Dr. Bernd simply meant that I believed that another candidate would See BERND, Page 13A Dr. Mac Bernd Bernd  Continued from Page 1A have been a better match for the needs of the district at this time, Decker said by telephone. ? But my no vote does not indicate that I think Dr. Bernd wont be a good superintendent. I believe he will be a good superintendent. Rod MacMillian, board president and one of the four members who voted for selecting Bernd, said he thought Bernd Would grasp educational issues and come to firm decisions better than the other candidate. I think that Mac has a more direct approach than the other candidate, MacMillian said. The second vote was 7-0. Bernd will replace John Nicoll, who headed the Newport- Mesa Unified School District for 21 years. Nicoll retired because of ill health in December 1992. Shortly before that, officials accused the school districts chief financial officer of embezzling about $4 million in school funds. - Bernd acknowledged on June  4 that he had interviewed for superintendent positions in Glendale, Ariz., and Newport Beach, calif. In both places, the boards selected him as a finalist. 'J John Moore, Little Rock . Sthool Board president, said he was disappointed to see Bernd leave but that it is understandable. 7 1 The leader of a school dis- .trict in most cities is an educational leader, Moore said. But in the last year the superinten- 'dent of Little Rock schools has juot had the chance to work in LRSD superintendents  Uttle flock School District su^^ntendents for the last IS ye^ 'Aug. 1978 - May 1982 May 1982-June 1982 JsA, -kJ ' June 1982 - June 1987 ! Dr. Paul Maseru, Supt. i Dr. Ruth Steele (Acting) \"tiW Dr. Ed Kelly, Supt. I Mr. Vance Jones (Acting) Dr. George Cannon (Acting) Dr. George Cannon, Supt, Dr. Ruth Steele, Supt, Dr. Mac Bernd, Supt. STEVE SCALLION /Ark. Dmocrat-Gaxtt9 education, but instead spends time in court and dealing with July 1989-June 1992 July 1992-July 1993 - July 1987-Oct. 1987 Oct. 1987- Dec. 1987 Dec. 1987-Aug. 1989 must have a masters degree that includes at least 60 hours ' of graduate study in educational administration or its equivalent. Moore said that, when Bernd returns to Little Rock next week, they will go over a list of pressing issues the district must handle as it prepares to enter a new fiscal year July 1 and another round of federal court hearings in the summer. Desegregation issues include gaining court permission for a site for Stephens Elementary School and addressing U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wrights concerns and questions regarding the districts budget and how that money is spent to comply with the plan. Wright oversees the Pulaski County school desegregation case. Bernd leaves a contract that offered incentives to stay. That contract, which took effect July 1, 1992, states that Bernd would get $10,000 annually in a tax-sheltered annuity. But the contract called for repayment if he left before serv-financial matters. He said that some people on the Little Rock board are considering whether the next superintendent ought to deal exclusively with the districts desegregation case and long-term financial condition, while a deputy or assistant superintendent oversees educational matters. As a result, Moore said, the board may consider the suggestion of one board member who thinks it is time for the district to examine whether it can get a waiver from the state Department of Education on the minimum requirements of a superintendent. If the board follows this path, it may leave room for the board to consider someone from the corporate world to become the next Little Rock superintendent. Ken Vaughn, who runs the certification office in the state Department of Education, said the basic requirement of a superintendent of an Arkansas public school district is certification as a teacher and four years of public school teaching experience, including three as a classroom teacher. The superintendent also Bernd did a lot of homework to learn about the job when he applied for it in 1992 and appeared to know what kind of situation he was entering. But Bernd said that kind of preparation cannot get anyone ready to deal with operating a district that is involved with oversight from a federal court. The legal system is designed to catch and punish people who do things wrong, Bernd said. To really improve education, you need to catch people who do things right. Bernd came to the 26,(X)0-stu-dent Little Rock district after serving as superintendent of the 10,000-student San Marcos Unified School District in northern San Diego, Calif., where he worked from 1986-92. He has spent much of his first year on the job dealing with the federal court that oversees the school desegregation case and sitting through suspension hearings over a popular principal, John L. Hickman Jr. of Little Rock Central High., for allegedly breaking school district policies. Ann Brown, who heads the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, an arm of the federal court, said that although the district will once again have to find a new leader, she is optimistic that the states largest school system can overcome the latest chapter of revolving-door superintendents. The Little Rock district is a survivor, and it will carry on, said Brown, who is also a parent of a child in the district. It will be difficult right now, but there is a lot of talent in that dis-ing three contract years. He also got a mid-sized domestic car equipped with a cellular telephone for personal trict and I think if everyone and professional use and a note- - - book computer for his home. pulls together, the district will make it, JUN-21-93 HON 11:36 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 03 ^Newport-Mesa mines New - a Superintendent By BOB ELSTON .SrSCIAl to THE TIMES c  ^ NEWPORT BEACH-After a four-monUi nationwide search, the j iiALiuiiwiu^ acGuk.li, viic ^ttoubled Newport-Mesa Unified j hool District on Friday hired the\n/school superintendent from Little SCBOO ? Rock, r|.kG.iC, Ark., but trustees were fj sharply divided in choosing the district's first new top administra- S tor in 22 years. After Cloyde McKinley (Mac) Bernd was hired in a 4-3 vole J\n1^. during a brief meeting Friday\nt. morning, he told the assembled ^ teachers, principals and adminis- . iraiors that he \"will give nothing , but my 100% effort to make this _distrlci the best in the nation.\"  it- Bernd, who was superintendent in the San Marcos School District in northern San Diego county for 'six years and then held the same 'post in Little Rock this past school ..year, was chosen over another .'finalist, Jerry C. Gross, an area superintendent in the Long Beach Unified School District. However, some trustees thought ! the district was hiring the wrong 1 man to the S104.000-a-year post. It'was an agonizing decision. V said trustee Martha Fluor, who. along with Judy Franco and Ed- ^.ward Decker, voted against Bernd. . We got a starkly contrasting picture of him\" from former col-' . leagues in San Marcos. I \"I dont think he is the right man j for the district at this lime,\" Fluor ' said, declining to elaborate.-\nAlthough the three dissenting trustees shied away from discussing specific reasons for opposing Bernd, they indicated that concerns about his reportedly tough management style were raised by officials in Ban Marcos. Trustees Please see BERND, A14JUN-21-93 HON 11:36 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 04 }* A14  SATURDAY, JUNE 12.1993/R i  J BERND: 3 I - 14* Dissenting  ^L Trustees  ..CoBtiausd from Al .also spoke with school offlcjals in . - 14ttle Rock during the screening  .   Xi P\u0026gt;as. X- \"\"TI felt some of hie qualities were $^Jnot as desirable as other candi- \u0026gt; 'dates',*' Decker said. I . Bui some of Decker's concerns .'about Bernd served as selling  points to other trustees, lit' '\"IT t hink hek hna..s the spark to bring S' this community together,\" said ^.trustee Sherry Loofbourrow. \"He pT can really connect with people, ft\" publicly and personally. |r..., Trustee Forrest Werner said: \"'Ke seta high goals and demands excellence from the people around .? him. . . . DAVID MUBONaKA / Lot Anfeks Timet Cloyde McKinley Bemd vows to work hard for Newport-Mesa schools. . The district, which includes 23 schools and 17,500 students .'!\u0026lt; throughout Newport Beach and - Cosu Mesa, began its search In i January, a month after longtime superintendent John W. NicoU announced his retirement, citing ill health. N icoU stepped down as the district was under heavy crit- ' iciam from parents and teachers outraged by the $4-million embez- ! zlement of the' district by its then-\n budget chief, Stephen A. Wagner. , Wagner has since pleaded guilty to I. the embezzlement charges and is j awaiting sentencing. { Since then, the district has tried 1 io recover its credibility with the community by Involving parents, . teachers, administrators and resi-dents in aelecling a new superin-tcndenU Sixty-three applicants from 20 sutes appUed for the Newpon- ! Mesa job, and after the resume- Profile: Cloyde McKinley (Mac) Bemd Bom\nOctober, 1943_____________ Marital status\nMarried with one child MUttary aafviee! Sergeant. Army Cdueatlon: Doctorate in education. 1975, University oT Colorado\nmaster's degras, political scierrce/sociology. 1970, University of Colorado\nbachelor's, degree, social science/psychology, 1967. University of Northern Colorado Most recent Jobs: Superintendent of schools. Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Ark.. 1992 to present\nsuperintendent of schools for San Marcos Unified School District, San Diego County, 1986-92_________________________ Hobbles: Marathon runner and avid reader flenul hygienist in Denver. The 49-year-old educator said in \u0026gt; an interview that he has make i decisions that created enemies. . \"In my experience as a superiO' tendent, I have had to make ded I I sioM that were not popular, he  said. F ! or example. Bernd was forced to lay off bilingual aides and i , screening committee and a M-member interview committee narrowed the field to eight, trustees . talked with colleagues in the home .  districts o{ the final two candidates I before making a selection. The district hired Bernd for\n IKMXX. which is *6,000 less than he made in Little Roick, where he\nwas responsible for overseeing 63 I schools and 26,000 studenU. Al-\n.  though the new superintendent , doesn't begin his new job until I July, Bernd spent most of the day Friday visiting district schools. A motorcycle lover who rides a Harley-Davidson, Bernd grew up in Colorado and has degrees from the University of Colorado and the University of Northern Colorado. He began his career as a social studies teacher and a coach of football, wrestling and track at a Colorado high school. He took the San Marcos job in 1986. Bernd is married and has a 26-year-old daughter, who is a \"cut into the flesh of the system to : balance the San Marcos School District budget in his final years : there. Some Ncwporl-Mesa trust-\nees suggested they were concerned\nby reports from some former col-  leagues in San Marcos that Bernd , pushed two prindpals into retire-  ment and shifted a third into another job. But despite budget constraints, student CAP scores in San Marcos under his tenure improved faster than In any other district in Cali- ' fornia. While In Little Rock for less than a year. Bernd logged a lot of ! time in Arkansas courtrooms as the\ncourts sought to uke control In desegregating schools there. , \"1 spent more time in the court- , room than I did in the clasaroom,\" Bernd said Friday. Even after taking over In Newport-Mesa, he may be forced to fly ^ck to Little Rock ! to testify in the legal battle. ! \"That is very frustrating for an educator,\" said Bernd, \"and is ex-  acily why I came here. T % Judge tells board 4 departures wont cut any slack for LRSD LO O cu BV DANNY SHAMEER \"oenMUMtt* educaltan WMw U.S, District Judge Susan Webber Wright said Thursday she is concerned about whos minding the store in the Little Rock Schiwl District because four top administrators are leaving But Wright told Little Rock School Board members during _  hearing that she doesnt plan \" lo let the district back off its de- ~ xgregatioH commitments while it goes through administrative rr transition for the second con- o o o Lo secutive year. \"1 am sympathetic to the dis- o hict.\" Wright said during a hear- iag mainly about a proposed site for a new elementary school building. I thought I was patient with the new administration in getting   FRIDAY. JUNE 25.1993   Related articles ISA, 28 its house in order last year, and I'm not about to go through the same thing again this year. The board faces a number of problems\n Dr. Mac Bernd, the superintendent. is leaving alter a year in office to accept a job in Newport Beach, Calif.  Gary Jones, the district's chief financial affairs official, is leaving to work for Memphis public schools.  Associate Superintendent Janet L, Bernard is leaving for a job in Poway, Calif.  Acting Assistant Superintendent Sam Stueart is returning to a teaching job.  Wright has scheduled hearings on the school districts budget for July 7-8.  District officials are trying to finish the new Dr, Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School and recruit a racially balanced student body for it  District officials are trying to prepare for the opening c? classes in August while seeking a replacement for Bernd. So far, no acting superintendent has been designated. Wright ignored a suggestion to postpone next month's scheduled hearing on the school district's budget. She urged board members to make sure the district is prepared for the hearing and suggested they turn to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring  which aids the federal court in Soo WRIGHT, Page tSA SVright Conlinued Irom Pago IA i^ersceing the desegregation plans and tl29.7S million fi- rtanciai settlement  if they need any help.\nWright, the federal judge who oversees the Pulaski Coun- ly school desegregation case, touched on the district's administrative turnover twice during the hearing. She used some of the hearing's opening minutes to allow tile court record to reflect the latest loss of top-level admin- Islrators.\"  a loss, joked John f-it. mmnk wllh the olan Walker, a lawyer who represents the Joshua intervenors, the black children and parents in the desegregation case.   Walkers otT-lhe-cufTremark (irompted some laughter.  Wriglitthen asked tlie school districts atlorney to reel off the itames and titles of the latest Repartees. - 'If0ie county board I Cannot meet its 1 qbligations under the  plan, the county district I the a separate Entity, and / want to iftake sure board ^embers understand ihat*Judge Susan Webber Wright I I Wright told school board them her 8 attending a hearing Thursday that their oversight is increasingly importanL ' Wright mentioned once again that receivership is alfails to comply with the plan and the court's instructions. Jerry Malone, the atlorney Who represented the district in court 'Thursday, said in an interview after the hearing the judge was sounding a concern, riot an alarm over the empty administrators' offices. ' \"I think slie just wanted to express an concern, which the board shares. The board has met several times to discuss alternatives and continues to meet to find solutions. The I f board is aware of its desegre- I gation obligations and I think  co 03 I LO CM I zter able in recruiting, inter- CO CD CD CD co CD LO oz X \u0026lt;x lx. \u0026lt;X) CD Q et\nlx. co CD I LO CdzI viewing and selecting a new team that can demonstrate a track record and an ability to become familiar with the issues we face here In a rapid and quick manner. Malone said the judge hasn't made clear what placing the district in receivership would entail, but that it implies that someone other than the school board would be given decisionmaking power. The Little Rock district wasnt the only one to feel Wrights touch Thursday. While instructing attorneys about next months budget hearings, Wright said she \"strongly suggests the Pulaski County Special School Board attend. If the county board cannot meet its obligations under the plan, the county district wont be a separate entity, and I want to make sure board members understand that, she said. The Little Rock School District sued the state and two neighboring school districts in 1982, seeking consolidation, setting off what is known as the Pulaski County school desegregation case. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St Louis overturned a consolidation order but changed some of the Little Rock district boundaries to bring in more white students to the city school system. Wright is monitoring the parties' compliance with a subsequent settlement The Little Rock board was required to attend Thursdays hearing. During the hearing\nDorsey Jackson, the boards vice presgation plan to make sure correct language in the case was being put into the record. The board members spent about 30 minutes after the hearing with administrators from the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts to discuss how to handle the delayed opening of the [ I I I King Jr. Elementary School. \"I think the board will have to take a more active role until we get someone in there and until the transition process has been completed, Jackson said during a break in the hearing. The Little Rock district, the states largest with 26,000 students, is facing its second con-secutive year of administrative turnover. Last year several top administrators left, but the board had already hired Bernd and started the process to hire the others. Bernd said he thinks the district will be able.to ride out the next couple ofWeeka without a problem. ......... . tble.toride if^eeka wi He said the administrators who are staying are handling various duties that they would normally do now. Mark Milfaollen, the districts controller, is preparing matef-lai for the districts budget i hearing before the court : Bernd said that other administrators are holding routine biweekly meetings to plart the opening of school next fall, which Involve Associate Superintendent Estelle Mattbis and others.  \"The conditions are such that this is a good time for a transition, Bernd said, refer'- ring to a prepared 1993-04 budget and a new teachers contract, \"What would really be tough is if there was no budget and if a contract still bad to be negotiated. The board has some breathing room.\"  Ann Brown, the desegregation monitor, said she does not anticipate any problems working with the district during the trari-sition period and afterward.  \"We will be as supportive as we can be, Brown said. ' Aikansas Democrat ^(gazette THURSDAY, JULY 1, 1993 Copynght o 1993. Unia Rock Nawapwan, Ire. LRSD board tackles filling Bernds shoes i Picking interim chief tops meeting agenda BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Board has tentatively scheduled a special meeting for 5 p.m. today and hopes to name an interim superintendent. The board has a self-imposed deadline to name or hire by today an interim superintendent for the states largest school district. John Moore, board president, said Wednesday. Moore said the board hopes to be ready with someone to fill in for Dr. Mac Bernd, the districts superintendent, who resigned to take a similar position in Newport Beach, Calif. Bernd vacated his office and left for California on Wednesday, which marked the end of the 1993 fiscal year.  Three other top administrators also have left. Two resigned to take similar jobs in other states, and one interim administrator returned to a teaching position because he did not j know who his immediate super- i visor would be. i Meanwhile, remaining ad- ministrators continue to handle the routine duties of the district and cooperate to perform the duties of the vacant positions. The district headquarters is\nat 810 W. Markham St.r I LOCAL NEWS/WEATHER/EDITORIAL PAGES S ACTION B SUNDAY JULY 11, 1993 ORANGE COUNTY cct I t HIGHLIGHTS I CANCER THERAPY EFFECTS: Young cancer survivors may find themselves suffering the side effects of radiation and chemotherar py\nlearning disabilities, stymied growth, weakened hearts and lungs, and loss of fertility. Bl NEW SCHOOLS CHIEF: Cloyde McKinley (Mac) Bemd, who will become superintendent in the Newport-Mesa Unified School District on Monday, talks about his plans to be accessible to students and teachers, and other issues. Bl A DUCKS CROWD: People lined up early at the Anaheim Arena for a chance to appear as non-paid extras in \"Mighty Ducks 2, lured by the chance to be in a movie, check out the new arena or see the films star, Emilio Estevez, Bl  !  i\n! '  ( New Schools Chief to Work to Restore Faith  Q\u0026amp;A: aoyde McKinley (Mac) Bemd, who will become superintendent of the troubled Newport-Mesa district, wants to be accessible to the community. For the first time in 21 years, a new person will sit in the office of the superintendent in the Newport-Mesa Unified School District on Monday. Cloyde McKinley Bemd, 49, who loves to ride Harley-Davidson motorcycles and goes by the nickname Mac, was hired last month from Little Rock, Ark., to lead the embattled district through some tough educational and budgetary issues. The Newport-Mesa school district is stiLL stinging from the largest embezzlement in the history of California schools. And when the school year resumes this fall, most teachers will handle classes that will have about 30 students from many cultures and races. All the while, school districts try to do more educating with less money. Bemd talks with Times correspondent Bob Elston about what it will be like to be superintendent of schools in Neuyport Beach and Costa Mesa and what QA changes can be expected during his tenure. #4 Q uestion: This is the beginning of a new era for the Newport-Mesa school dis-s A' \u0026amp; trict. You are the first superintendent to be hired in more than 20 years. Where do you plan to take this district, its faculty, administration and students? Answer: This school district has a long record of accomplishments. That is not to say that we have not had some recent problems. . . . What I will spend a lot of time on initially is determining what is really good about this school district and what needs to be improved. You have to keep both those things in mind at once, almost QWhat were your initial impressions of this district when you visited schools for the first time a couple of weeks ago? One of the things 1 asked teachers to do when I visited classrooms was to introduce me. And after they introduced me, the kids knew what a superintendent was and knew I was new. The [students] were responsive and helpful. They don't act like young people that have been Oppressed. Initially, I saw a good climate in the schools, responsive kids and people, who are proud to work for the district. Q Do you have an idea of what you can do to make yourself accessible to every-body, the students, the teachers, the par- ents and the administrators? I am going to be in every school twice before winter breakthat is 26 schools. That will keep me busy. We are-going to have some community forums set up where people have a chance to come in and talk about the schools. . . . We are going to set up the same kind of occasion for all employees. We see this being culminated with a sort of an education summit. We want to lay out our own map and move forward. QYou spent six years as superintendent in the northern San Diego County school district of San Marcos and then last year in the same position in Little Rock, Ark. Can you relate how those experienceswill influence what you do here? ASan Marcos had about 10,000 students Please see BERND, B5 LOS ANGELES TIMES BERND Continued from Bl when I left The district was a revenue-limit district, so finances were tough there. You would have to characterize it as a suburban district that is about 40% Hispanic. Over my six years there, various socioeconomic measures actually went down while [student] test scores went up. From there, I went to Little Rock, which was a typical urban school district It is a city that is 70% white and 65% of the school district was African-Ameri-can. . . . White flight was epidemic. There also was a heavy court-ordered desegregation order and, quite frankly, it was like nothing I have ever experienced in my life. I spent the majority of my time there, thinking about, preparing for or attending [court] hearings on implementing that desegregation plan. I could only spend very little time teaching and learning. QTell me a bit about yourself. It is hard to talk about Mac Bernd without talking about the Harley- Davidson and the nickname. I am a man of many interests and contrasts. I am in a line of work that requires me to be extremely straight-laced. People have made light of the Harley-Davidson, but that is a real enjoyment to me. I enjoy getting my hands dirty and getting out on the weekends riding. It kind of cleans out my head. I spend a lot of my time working with humans and human problems, and they are not like machines. The results are not predictable. ORANGE COUNTY being responsive to the community. When a cataclysmic thing happens. it really clears peoples head and gets them focused again. QWhat will restore the districts credibiiity with the community in the wake of the Wagner embezzlement? A In San Marcos, we had the same auditing firm that the district hired here to tighten things up. We (in San Marcos] had gotten things to the point where we had a tight operation. . . . You really got to get the community involved in the financial processes of the district. If people knew what was going on, then you are not going to have the opportunity that Mr. Wagner was able to avail himself. Q Moving on to other issues: The nature of a sex education curriculum has been an issue in this district Recently at Costa Mesa High School, parents had raised concerns about a presentation which used a banana to show how to use a condom. What is a good sex education curriculum and how much is too much? A State law says we have to forthrightly address some issues that students are exposed to in this society, and I think we have to do that within the bounds of good taste and what is acceptable to the community. 1 am not for spontaneous assemblies or other types of activities not within the curriculum. 'These are sensitive matters. QIs there a right way and a wrong way to present a bilin-gual education curriculum? Alt depends on who you talk to. You have got English-only oroDonents who sav that you have fully functional is this society. Even in multicultural Southern California, in order for them to do that, they will have to speak English well. QDo you speak another language? AYeah, I stumbled around in Spanish. I can probably at least get up and get through a speech if I am prepared well and get a lot of help. QWhat are your thoughts on campus security? There is a zero-tolerance policy for weapons In this district and on two occasions during the past school year kids as young as second or third grade were suspended for bringing a kitchen knife to school. The kids were suspended and then sent to other schools. AI absolutely agree with zero tolerance. You have to look at conditions in the community to decide how to enforce it In [San Marcos] we really didnt need a strong policy and in [Little RockJ we had metal detection in all the secondary schools. . . . When you get into young children who dont understand what they are doing, you have to be compassionate in how you handle it Transferring students or taking other measures which do not result in disruption of their education and do make a strong statement for the institution, it is a good way to handle it Q 'The district is preparing to launch its first fund-raising drive in the community to raise millions of dollars for school instruction, equipment and maintenance. Are you any good at asking A My focus is to be well-known enough in the community that at least I wont be a stranger to the people I approach. There are an awful lot of things to know and people to know, but I am going to be sure they get to know me. They -will know who Mac Bernd is and what he is about. The community has to feel they are a part of what you are doing. GO FOR THE MARBLE! Why settle for ceramic tile when you con get the look and quality of marble,^granite or limestone, at savings up to *40% below retail? 1 Marmol Export is a group of iT^e firms specializing in Crema Marfil, Crema Europa Limestone and Granites. UPTO 40% It has more than 20 years of experience in this business and brought a new conception of quality and service to the U.S.A. Get an additional 5% off your purchase when you bring in this ad. RESIDENTIAL  COMMERCIAL  IMPORT  EXPORT HPO/ir, It THE EXPERTS IN MARBLE In the Heart of the Mile of Tile 1550 South State College Blvd., Anaheim CA (714) 939-0697 While supplies last- This ofjer expires 8/31/93. R/SUNDAY, JULY 11, 1993 B5 THE COMPLETE PLAYER BASKHBALL CAMP ^^5THYEAR August 9th thru 13th At Golden West College Huntington Beach W Boys \u0026amp; Girls, Grades 3-12 Jack Haley With The For Information Call fSOO\n532-8255 ASXETlAtt CAM7 Buying direct from over 15 countries around the world. Marmol Export can assure you the best selection and the best price. Come and see the experts. We are open Mondays to Fridays 8 am to 5 pm and Saturdays 10 am to 5 pm. -JI  ^^UfMt wUygk kg\nt    LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL Superintendent Mac Bernd appears to be the front-runner for a job with a California public school district. He was interviewed by the Newport-Mesa School board Thursday night in closed session. I I MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1993  Golden parachutes let superintendents bail out in style BY DANNY SHAMEER Democral-Gazene Education Writer pocketed an extra $9,166.60 of taxpayers Rock School District payroll one day past the end of the fiscal spent in Cali- Thats one of the perks school superintendents and city man' agers get under contracts that state law would forbid for others, such as the governors Cabinet appointees. Its a reflection of the mar- pff Karl Plath Of Plath, Nielsen, Rodgers Associates, an executive search firm based in Northbrook Ill its of salaries and benefits. The challenge of fl nncifirvM o-.z4 *L. __ ..T* the quality of life will entice someone to from one end of the country to and ben- move efits have to be there.' Of school districts and managers of municipal governments can reach pockets through special clauses in contracts. t fdttle Rocks new superin- Honry P. Williams, claimed $77,734 from the Syracuse, N Y school district, where he worked until Sept. 30. Williams claim is for 212 used sick days and vacation days he accrued during the 4/i years he worked there. Williams terms of his contract Syracuses school board, stunned by that bill, is considering whether to stop its long- Standing practice of allo wine administrators to save unused time off that can be cashed in later. In Arkansas, the state Legis- iature has put controls on that sort of thing for agency depart- nient employees. Those controls attect even the governors Cabinet-level appointees. But school districts or city governments have no such across-the-board controls in ^Kansas. Its a community de- Thats the same situation in states surrounding Arkansas Whether the situation in Syracuse can happen in Arkansas will depend on how long a superintendent or city manager stays on the job at a particular city. School board members and city boards of directors say the types of contracts they give their superintendents and city managers are market-sensitive. Superintendents and city managers are roving professional administrators who apply for positions across the country, and the boards have to use extra incentives to attract them. n un- np 'dee president rLittle Rock s school board, said he thinks a school superintendent or city manager has a tougher job than, say, a Cabinetlevel officer under the governor. School superintendents and city managers must deal with specific problems than IndT Higgs said, h Higgs said local boards nave to be more accountable to the public. i aPerks  Continued from Page 1A There is a lot more pressure on the local level to hire the very best, Riggs said. Scott Trotter  executive director of Common Cause of Arkansas, a citizens lobby group that promotes governmental reform  said there is no perfect solution for communities. He suggested that local boards spell out contract terms before anyone is hired so the public will not be surprised. I can see that cities have some market pressures, but it seems like contracts need to be scrutinized publicly because they may have a time-bomb factor in the end, Trotter said. When a person leaves, there could be the potential for an incredible amount of money involved. In state government, there is a running debate about whether governors can affor.d to hire high-quality people, he said. Trotter said the Legislature has opted for some system of control by setting certain guidelines in Arkansas, such as:  Deciding on the highest salaries that can be offered.  Not allowing Cabinet-level officials to be paid for unused sick time.  Capping the amount of vacation time Cabinet-level officials can be paid for upon retirement or resignation. Grainger Ledbetter, president of the Arkansas Education Association, said the situation presents a double standard. School boards will hold down salaries and benefits for teachers but not make a comparable effort on salaries and benefits for administrators. I think any initiative to cut administrative costs would benefit teachers and kids, who are the folks in the classroom, Ledbetter said. The situation in Arkansas can best be illustrated by the almost simultaneous departures of two high-profile Little Rock education officials. Burton Elliott stepped down as the states education chief last summer about the same time as Bernd left. Elliott, whose perks are governed by state law, lost eight vacation days as director of the state Department of Education, general education division. He started in 1989. When he left, he was earning $83,578 for the 1992-93 school year. He resigned effective June 30. In his four years on the job, Elliott had built up 38 vacation days. But state law treats Cabinet-level officials such as Elliott the same way as lower-paid, state agency employees: They can accrue and get paid for no more than 30 days of vacation. As a result, when Elliott resigned, he got a check for $9,643.61  30 days worth of vacation time. He lost out on eight other days. Bernd negotiated an employee contract with the Little Rock School Board. ... It seems like contracts need to be scrutinized publicly because they may have a time-bomb factor in the end.  Scott Trotter The Little Rock School District followed the terms of Bernds contract by paying him for 20 instantly accrued days of vacation time at the start of the new fiscal year, plus nine carried over from the 1992-93 academic year. When he left Little Rock, he was paid $13,291.57 for unused vacation  $9,166.60 for the 20 days, and $4,124.97 for nine unused days he earned during the last year he actually worked as the districts superintendent. Bernd, who served as Little Rock superintendent for the 1992-93 academic year, earned a base salary of $110,000. His contract called for him to be awarded 20 vacation days on July 1. District officials have said Bernd vacated his office June 30. But he remained on the payroll for two more days  through the end of the work week. Dorsey Jackson, Little Rock School Board president, said that clause should not have been part of the contract and that vacation time should have been awarded on a prorated basis. Unfortunately, I think we made a mistake to allow a whole year of vacation time to be awarded July 1, he said. Jackson added that the board understood that by keeping School District, gets 15 days of Bernd on the payroll through July 2, which fell on a Friday, he would get extra money. But he said the board had to let Bernd leave when he wanted. Otherwise, the board would have had to set a date for Bernds departure, which would have been like termination  a more costly scenario for the district under the contracts terms. Also, Jackson said, the district had several unresolved matters that needed attention, and the board decided in June that it would rely on Bernd if it could not find an interim superintendent by July 1. By then, the board had named Estelle Matthis as interim superintendent. But the departure date for Bernd had already been set. Williams, the new superintendent, has a contract that allows him 20 days per year of vacation, which he can accrue. Un- Bernds agreement, like Williams contract does not specifically state that he gets all 20 days awarded on July 1. There is no cap on the number of accrued vacation days Williams can build up and get compensated for, as there is for other administrators in the district. Williams contract does not state whether he can get compensated for unused sick time, as he was able to do in Syracuse, but some board members said they interpret the contract as not allowing compensation for unused sick time. Other contracts show:  Tom Dalton, director of the Department of Human Services, now has the potential to build up to 30 days of vacation as a state agency employee. But as a former city manager of Little Rock he had the potential to accrue an unlimited number of unused vacation days, and get paid for them upon leaving.  Charles Nickerson, city manager for Little Rock and Daltons successor, may accrue up to six months of vacation hours. On the end of his tenure, he can get paid for any accrued and unpaid vacation leave.  Bobby Lester, superintendent of the Pulaski County Special School District, is treated like other long-time district employees when it comes to vacation: He can accrue and get compensated for up to 30 days.  James Smith, superintendent of the North Little Rock vacation a year, and they are not cumulative.I J. ORANGE COUNTY LOS ANGELES TIMES | | j. CHRrSTINE COTTER / Loe Angeles Times Supt. Mac Bernd \"Is pretty intense when it comes to work, says one Newport-Mesa school trustee. Turnaround Maestro Superintendent Breatlies New Life Into Newport District B3 By ROB ELSTON SPECIAL TO THE TIMES NEWPORT BEACHWhen Mac Bernd moved his belongings into the superln- I tendents office last summer, the Newport-Mesa Unified School District was a house divided. A chorus of parents and teachers were unrelentingly criticizing school officials, who had failed to prevent the district's budget chief, Stephen A. Wagner, from stealing $4 million from various district accounts. In the fallout of that 1992 scandal, the largest embezzlement In California school history, Siipt. John W. Nicoll had resigned, citing poor health. Bernd was hired six months later to begin repairing the damage. The embezzlement \"was really a calamitous event. I think there was a lot of sadness in the district, Bernd said. By the time the new superintendent moved in, \"there was an intense desire to move forward, to start having fun again. Bernd, 50, who was brought In last summer from Arkansas, has given the 17,0(X)-studenl district a lift this year with a series of swift, high-profile moves not seen in Newport Beach and Costa Mesa educational circles in a long time. In that past 12 months, he has presided over an administrative shake-up, hired new principals at all four district high schools, helped repair the district's finances, which were depleted by the embezzlement, and orchestrated a series of successful community meetings that have brought an alienated community back Into the fold. 'T think we have accomplished all those things In one year,\" said Forrest K. Werner, school board member. \"It has been an outstanding turnaround, and Mac was not bashful about taking the ball and running with It. Board President Edward 11. Decker said: \"People here have Profile: Mac Bernd Born\nLincoln, Neb. Lives: Costa Mesa Age: 50 Occupation: Superintendent, Newport-Mesa Unified School District Family\nWife, Shelley, and 27-year-old daughter by another marriage Education\nDoctorale in education, 1975, University of Colorado\nmasters degree, political science/sociology, 1970, University of Colorado\nbachelor's degree social science/psychology, 1967, University of Northern Colorado______ Profasalonal: 1992-93. superintendent of schools. Little Rock School District, Lillie Rock, Ark.: 1986-92, superintendent of schools, San Marcos Unified School District, San Marcos, Calif.__________________ Hobby\nRiding hi.s Harley-Davidson motorcycle____________________ How he'll fix things: \"We want to clear the way for teachers to do their jobs. I think there is always going to be conflict and problems, but it must not disrupt our focus on teaching and learning. Source: Newport Wesa UnMed School Ohirtet memories of a time when people In Ihe district were not returning their phone calls. . . . Our previous superintendent was somewhat invisible. But Mac's accessibility has overwhelmed people, after more than 20 years of not having that.\" Bernd immediately established a reputation for openness. He asked people to call him \"Mac. Before the start of the school year, 2,000 district employees, teachers and intendent is. . . . You don't (ordi-administrators assembled in the Edwards theater at Fashion Island Newport Beach for a one-hour pep rally. Bernd considers that his best performance of the year. eah, we filled the whole room. Obviously, people didn't know me at all, he said. \"We all got together and talked about leaching and learning. Il was importantI think there was a degree of acceptance there. The first day of school, the superintendent rode the bus with a groggy kindergartner. Later in the year, to the amazement of students allending a pep rally at Corona del Mar High School, Bernd drove his beloved Harley-Davidson motorcycle onto the floor of the gymnasium. He stole the show at a Costa Mesa High Schoo! student rally as well. \"He walked right out there and screamed Into the microphone, 'Are you ready to rock, Costa Mesa High School?  said Clay Stockton, a graduating senior. \"Students now cilltles will Include at least 11 con* actually know who the new super-narllyl see kids get excited about seeing an administrator. To get parents Involved, Bernd held a series of community meetings known as \"An Evening With Mac, which culminated in a much-hyped Education Summ\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eOffice of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)\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_p15728coll5_2564","title":"B'nai Israel: History of a Jewish Community","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll5","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Video Collection","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":["B'nai Israel (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":["This VHS tape chronicles the history of Congregation B’nai Israel in Little Rock, Arkansas. It unveils the rich story of the Jewish community and its vibrant cultural impact on Arkansas."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Pfeifer Family papers, 1865-2013 (UALR.MS.0312)"],"dcterms_subject":["Jewish merchants--History","Jews--Arkansas--History"],"dcterms_title":["B'nai Israel: History of a Jewish Community"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15728coll5/id/2564"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["We believe this item is covered by our copyright, fair use, or public domain. If you claim copyright, contact us: cahc@ualr.edu"],"dcterms_medium":["videocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":["00:22:00","2,250,000 KB","00:46:02"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ndd_bsams_01007","title":"Box 1, Folder 7: Beyond the Dream Symposium, 1992","collection_id":"ndd_bsams","collection_title":"Black Student Alliance records, 1969-2006","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Durham County, Durham, 35.99403, -78.89862"],"dcterms_creator":["Duke University. Black Student Alliance"],"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Black Student Alliance Records, 1996-2006, Black Student Alliance Records, Duke University Archives, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library, Duke University."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American college students--North Carolina--Durham","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--History","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Political activity","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Social conditions","African Americans--North Carolina--Durham--Social life and customs","African Americans--North Carolina--History--Archival resources","African Americans--North Carolina--Political activity","Duke University. Black Student Alliance","Duke University--Students--Social conditions","Duke University--Students--Societies, etc.","Duke University--Students--Political activity","Student participation in administration","Congresses and conventions--North Carolina--Durham"],"dcterms_title":["Box 1, Folder 7: Beyond the Dream Symposium, 1992"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/findingaids/uabsa/#bsams01007"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["[Identification of item], Black Student Alliance Records, Duke University Archives, David M. Rubenstein Rare Book \u0026 Manuscript Library, Duke University."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["biographies (literary works)","reading lists"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_267","title":"Budget, court filings","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: Western District)"],"dc_date":["1992/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Budget, court filings"],"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/267"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["prints (visual works)"],"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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER filed 1993 OARL fl, Sy.-. / clerk oep. PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS During a hearing on July 8, 1993, the Court asked the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to provide an update on the status of the district's desegregation plan audit. The Court has repeatedly l expressed concern about this audit because of its crucial relationship to the district's planning and budgeting processes. The audit. which is an inventory of all the district's obligations contained within the desegregation plans and related court orders, is to serve as a basis for the district's long-term program and budget planning. It will enable the district to determine not only what it is required to do, but also to ascertain the status of progress toward implementing each requirement. In response to the Court's inquiry at the July hearing, Mr. Sterling Ingram, Director of the LRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, testified that he is in charge of conducting the desegregation audit. a task which was assigned him by the superintendent in March 1993. He stated that he expected the desegregation audit to be ready by August 1993. At the hearing, the Court once again stressed the importance of the audit and expressed  9 -1 J concern that it would be as late as August before the audit's completion. The Court directed the LRSD to provide the audit as soon as possible to the Court, the LRSD Board of Directors, and the other parties. The Court also directed Mr. Ingram to meet immediately with the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, Mr. Bill Mooney, to discuss information that would expedite audit completion. Again, at a hearing to consider the LRSD budget on August 12, 1993, the Court inquired about the status of the district's desegregation audit. In response. the district offered a memo (Exhibit 164), dated August 3, 1993, documenting that the meeting with Mr. Mooney had taken place. The LRSD also submitted a Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report (Exhibit 162) which had been presented to the LRSD Board of Directors at its regular monthly meeting on July 22, 1993. The progress report indicates that the audit was not yet complete at the time of the board meeting. Mr. Ingram, whom council identified as the district's lead planner. testified that the plan audit was still not complete as of the hearing date, but that he expected to finalize it soon. This important audit process is taking far too long to conclude and is, thereby, impeding the progress of other critical program and budget planning processes. Superintendent Mac Bernd told the Court on February 1, 1993 that the audit was underway. although later evidence revealed that Dr. Bernd did not even commission the audit until March 1993. Now, almost six months later, the audit still is not complete despite assurances from the district in both July and August 1993 that its conclusion was imminent. Even though the Court -2-recognizes that certain follow-up aspects of the audit will be ongoing, the initial audit must be complete before other aspects of program and budget planning can be developed. During the August 12, 1993 hearing, the Court praised the LRSD for beginning to make planning headway, all the while stressing that the district had only made a beginning and that diligent follow- through and continuous execution would be necessary. The LRSD does not appear to have take that admonition to heart. The Court hereby reguires the district to submit immediately the desegregation audit it has promised for so long. If the audit is still incomplete at this time, then by 5:00 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of this Order, the district must file the following: (1) a complete and succinct list of the audit process steps that are complete and those that remain to be completed\n(2) the precise timeline for completing each of those unfinished steps\n(3) the person(s) responsible for each of those steps\nand (4) firm a completion and submission date for the audit. The Court reminds the LRSD that it and the other parties are reguired to provide simultaneously to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring a copy of any submission to the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of September 1993. ^ITED STATES DlSTRICO\nt judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP -3- ON BY_Vreceived IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coOfeG 3 ^993 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF LRSD BOARD INVOLVEMENT The plaintiff. Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or District\"), for its Notice of LRSD Board Involvement, the order of this Court, states: pursuant to 1. On November 16, 1993, an order was issued and filed directing the Board of Directors of the LRSD to file a report outlining how the Board was being involved in the LRSD budgeting process, how the Board was preparing itself to make specific budget decisions, how the Board's approval was being sought and received, and outlining which specific line item budget transfers the Board had approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August, 1993. This filing is intended to be responsive to that order. 2. As an attachment to the order. the Court included excerpts from the transcript of a July 8, 1993 budget hearing. In the order, this Court specifically referred to comments by a Board member that he hoped the Board would know by Christmas 1993 what Irsdpul.notbudget cuts to make in order to address the anticipated deficit for the 1994-95 school year. However, by virtue of the manner in which personal and real property taxes are assessed, collected and paid in the State of Arkansas, and the manner in which Pulaski County administrators notify school districts of the funds which will be available to them from those tax collections, District administrators are not in position to provide the initial a financial forecast until after that information has been obtained from the County administration. assessed and analyzed. The information from the State of Arkansas regarding minimum foundation program aid to the respective Districts will not be available until even later in the 1993-94 school year. It is also necessary to place the referenced comments by the Board member into the proper context. Mainly, by order dated June 15, 1993, this Court required the LRSD to begin the development of a planning process that would be used by the District to develop its 1994-95 budget. Prior to the July 8 hearing, the LRSD had been required to submit certain information responsive to that order. The June 15, 1993, order also required the LRSD to develop a written action plan to demonstrate how it would develop a long- range planning and budget process. That action plan had to be filed on or before June 28, 1993. The action plan was timely filed and the LRSD was in the process of developing a written plan for the long-range planning and budgeting process at the time of the July 8 hearing. The Court had required that written plan to be Iradpul.iKX 2filed by July 30, 1993. Accordingly, at the time of the July 8, 1993, hearing the LRSD had neither developed, analyzed, adopted nor submitted its written plan for the long-range planning and budgeting process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget. Subsequent to the July 8 hearing, the LRSD continued its efforts to develop a written program planning and budgeting process. 3. In developing the planning and budgeting process, representatives of the LRSD conferred with the budget specialists which had been appointed by the Court to assist the LRSD in budgetary matters. Those conferences took place in early July, 1993. At that time. the LRSD was advised that the budget specialists had reviewed the order of this Court and developed a draft paper detailing how many of the requirements of the order could be satisfied. Working from that draft paper. and in conjunction with the budget specialist, the LRSD developed the program budgeting and planning document eventually filed by it on July 29, 1993 . During hearings on August 12 and 13, 1993, regarding the LRSD budget, the LRSD presented testimony outlining the process used to develop the long-range program planning and budget document. Additional background on this process can be found in the LRSD's 1993-94 First Quarter Status Report filed November 3, 1993. on 4. The program planning and budgeting document filed on July 29 constituted the LRSD's response to the June 15, 1993 order of this Court requiring a detailed written action plan for the Indpul.mM 3long-range planning and budgeting process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget. That order specifically required the LRSD to \"clearly describe the roles in the planning and budgeting process of the School Board, the superintendent, the superintendent's cabinet, and any other key participants. 11 Prior to the document being filed, the LRSD Board of Directors met on Wednesday, July 28, 1993, for the purpose of assessing, analyzing and adopting the process as developed from the budget specialists' draft paper. 5. Since adopting the program planning and budgeting document, and explaining its workings to this Court during the August 12 and 13 budget hearings, the LRSD has endeavored to utilize that process to develop the 1994-95 budget. In fact. pursuant to the order of this Court, the LRSD has now worked with the Court-appointed budget specialists to identify and purchase software and put in place a project management tool to guide. monitor and control the development and implementation of its planning and budgeting process. The District has filed monthly reports with this Court for the months ending August 31, September 30, October 31 and November 30. To its knowledge, the LRSD is on target with the timelines established in the program planning and budget document as further refined by the project management tool. 6. In assessing Board involvement in the budgetary process, the LRSD would submit that the Board has been involved in accordance with the process outlined in the program planning and budget document as well as in accordance with the refinements made 4 IrtdpuJuK*through the project management tool. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is true and accurate copy of a report submitted by the a superintendent of the LRSD on behalf of the Board of Directors. The response attempts to address each guestion posed by this Court as well as provide listing of the Board's activities and involvement in the planning and budgeting process, is incorporated herein by reference. That document 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum reflecting the budget activities which occurred immediately after the July 8, 1993 hearing. As reflected in that memorandum, the Board of Directors met at 7:00 a.m. on Friday, July 9, 1993, for purposes of providing the administration with a direction and guidance for budgetary revisions to be presented by the administration to the Board. That document is also incorporated herein by reference. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum to the LRSD Board of Directors dated July 28, 1993, giving notice of certain matters regarding the budgetary process. This memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. Of significance to this filing. please note that in the second paragraph, it is reported that the LRSD Board of Directors decided to meet each Thursday during the month of July for purposes of budgetary matters. This is merely illustrative of the commitment this Board has demonstrated during the budgetary process. In fact. the Board has continued to devote a substantial number of hours to the District and its operation. lndpul.oo( 59. It is anticipated that the Board of Directors will continue to be involved in the budgetary process as outlined in the program training and budget document, the project management tool and as circumstances otherwise permit or require. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of LRSD Board Involvement has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3^ day of December, 1993. --- Jerry L. Malone Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Irsdpul.not 6 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown (hand delivered) Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone IradpuJ.oM 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 30, 1993 TO: Jerry L^J^lnne FROM\n1. tarns, perintendeni SUBJECT: Response to Recent Court Order The Board of Directors remains committed to quality implementation of the Court- approved Desegregation Plans, Monitoring Reports, and other Court Orders which include our July 30, 1993, filing. The July 30, 1993, filing presented the districts long- range planning and budgeting process. The Board thoroughly reviewed and examined this document prior to the filing. District staff were questioned extensively by Board mernbers to ensure staff had outlined a planning and budgeting process that would the Board to be involved on ........ .................................... an allow ongoing basis in developing the 1994-95 budget, as well as future district budgets. The document was basically an adoption of a process suggested by Bill Mooney, the Court-appointed budget specialist. Questions Posed by the Court 1. 2. Report on how the Board is being more involved in the budget process. The Board is following the process as adopted in the July 30, 1993, Court filing (see Attachment A for specific activities). Report on how the Board is preparing itself to make specific budget decisions. Board members have requested specific reports and information from the Superintendent and staff in order to stay fully informed and involved. A special report is to be provided during our December Board meeting. Staff has been asked to review the planning and budgeting process that is outlined in the July 30, 1993, filing (see specific activities in Attachment A).Response to Recent Court Order Page 2 3. 4. Report on how the Boards approval is being sought and received. The Superintendent keeps the Board informed of all major activities that have implications for the existing budget and the projected 1994-95 budget. The Superintendent and Board President either meet or confer on a regular basis to address desegregation and budgetary issues, as well as the routine day-to-day activities of the district. Staff provide assistance and information to various Board members through routine written and/or oral requests. Identify which specific line item budget transfers the Board has approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August, 1993. Three specific line item budget transfers will be considered for approval by the Board during a special meeting on December 2, 1993. Business cases have been developed for review and approval by the Board to allow the budget transfers for the following programs to be implemented: Program/Project Amount Transferred Truancy Reduction Program Special Assistant to the Superintendent Garland Multimedia Technology Theme - $ 58,943.00 $ 60,000.00 Phase One S 75,000.00 These programs will be funded as follows: Truancy Reduction Program: The police resource officer program was not fully implemented. The projected increase in students attendance will have a positive impact on funds received by the district from the state through an increase of student average daily membership. (Students will benefit academically and socially by attending school on a regular basis.)Response to Recent Court Order Page 3 Special Assistant to the Superintendent: Funds currently budgeted for positions not filled will be used pay for this position. A projected increase in federal funds to the district will pay the future salary of this employee. Indirect costs generated by the acquisition of federal funds should allow the district to expand the grant writing team. Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme: Garlands staff has been advised to develop a proposal for the expansion of this project that can be presented during the budgeting process for the 1994-95 school year. Funds were generated from a one-time only carryover, plus existing funds in Garlands incentive school budget. Future phases of this program will follow the process outlined in the July 30, 1993, filing to the Court. The Board remains committed to living up to its obligations as identified in the planning and budgeting document.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS DATE July 8, 1993 7 a.m. July 27, 1993 ______ activities/INVOLVEMENT Discussed with Cabinet, Bob Morgan and Bill Mooney (Office of Desegregation Monitoring) in order to givedirections to staff for reduction of three million dollars from 1993-94 budget. Designated the lead planner from Planning Research, and Evaluation ' Discussed/reviewed approved July 30 uxscusseu/reviewed approved July 30, 1993, Court submission and \"Program Planning and Budget Document, II including the budget calendar RESPONSIBILITY Board of Directors Board of Directors Board of Directors August, 1993 Appointed two Board members to participate in work sessions to establish Mission Statement and tentative goals I Dorsey Jackson August 31, 1993 Participated in the work session Board of Directors Developed Mission Statement and tentative goals Dorsey Jackson/ Katherine Mitchell September 9, 1993 Participated in work session - Board Agenda Approved Mission Statement/tentative Meeting. Board of Directors goals.  Reviewed: issues related to needs assessment Desegregation Program Inventory Report Mission Statement/Goals Established guidelines for determining written priorities for the annual budget (1994-95)  Reviewed and provided guidance related to proportional allocation formulaLittle Rock School District Board of Directors Program Planning and Budgeting Process Page 2 September 9, 1993 cont'd Considered strategies for funding shortfall  Identified/approved program for \"fast track evaluation\" Provided input regarding public forums September 15, 1993 September 23, 1993 November 18, 1993 October 11 October 26 November 10 November 16 November 30 Participated in planning and budgeting activities: support I Little Rock School District/City of Little Collaborative Effort Rock Raised issues/gave additional direction to staff regarding Desegregation Update (School Operations section of Program Budget Document) to staff Raised issues regarding the resolution of financihq projects with Office of Deseoreaation Mnniiny-inrr and district staff of Desegregation Monitoring Raised issues regarding a comparison of staffing and staffing patterns for 1992-93 and (numbers, costs) 1993-94 Requested a report for our December 17, meeting on the projections for the as well as deficit shortfalls 1993, Board 1994-95 budget, Requested a review of the Budget Planning Document for December 17, 1993 Board Meeting Attended Public Forums: Cloverdale Elementary School Parkview Magnet High School Bale Elementary School Forest Heights Jr. High School Rockefeller Incentive School I Board of Directors John Riggs Katherine Mitchell Bill Hamilton Board of Directors T. Kevin O'Malley Pat Gee Dorsey Jackson John Riggs John Riggs Board of Directors ITo: From: Subj ect: Date: Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR Board of Directors 72201 'Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent LRSD 1993-94 Budget Revisions July 22, 1993 Thursday, July 8, 1993, the United State District Court, instructed the Little Rock School District to revisit the 93-94 LRSD Budget to consider further reductions through adjustments to recurring expenditure budgetary items. The District was also advised to reductions through adjustments to if any. The District was also advised to consider reducing the reliance, if any, placed on non-recurring revenue sources used to achieve the balanced budget submitted to the court by the LRSD. Prior to the Court adjourning on Thursday, July 8, a rccccc was taken to allow all of the parties, in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to meet and confer regarding a schedule for considering and making the requested budget revisions. A timetable was discussed and agreed upon whereby the LRSD (in consultation with representatives from the O.D.M.) could make the necessary budget review and revisions, if any, obtain LRSD final Board members actions and file any revised document with the court by 6 p.m. on Monday, August 2, 1993. a recess was any Hearings on the LRSD budget were set to resume on August 12-13, 1993. announced Still under the impression that the court would meet regarding the LRSD budget on Friday, July 9, as had been previously announced, the LRSD Board of Directors, administrators and representatives of O.D.M. agreed to begin their meetings on Monday, July 12, 1993, at 7 a.m. Upon returning from the recess, the court was advised of the schedule which had been agreed upon by the parties and O.D.M. In consideration of that schedule, the court, thereupon, announced that the hearings which had previously been set for Friday, July 9 would be canceled. Acpordingly, the parties and O.D.M. agreed that the meetings between and among them would begin on Friday, On Friday, July 9, 1993, the Board of Directors met with me and other administrators to provide direction and guidance for the additional budgetary revisions to be presented to It by the administration. Also in attendance were Mr. Bill Mooney, Court-appointed budget specialist for the LRSD, and Mr. Bob Morgan, with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. July 9 at 7 a.m. \u0026lt;2.Board of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 2 with the advice and input of representatives from O.D.M. ----------------------------- v^.r^.ri., the LRSD Board of Directors instructed the administration of the LRSD to consider ways to reduce or eliminate, if possible, the LRSD's need to rely upon the proceeds from the desegregation loan (a recurring revenue source) in the 1993-94 budget. To accomplish this, the Board directed the administration to consider approaching Rock Classroom Teachers Association regarding the possibility of a one percent salary roll back during the 93-94 The administration was also directed to consider whether across-the-board cuts could be made in the areas of materials/services/supplies (i.e. four percent or less). Other the Little school year. could made four percent or less), areas to be considered were identified as follows: - Abacus Program - Staffing Efficiency - Ish Closing - Reinstatements non- Following the two-hour meeting with the Board of Directors, administrators held various other meetings during the day to consider the LRSD budget and various other desegregation related , Particularly, Sterling Ingram and LRSD attorney, Jerry Malone, met with Bill Mooney regarding the LRSD desegregation plan (On Thursday, July 8, the court directed Mr. Ingram and Mr. Jerry Malone to meet with Mr. Mooney to provide a status update From the meeting, it was apparent that Mr. Ingram and Mr. Mooney had already reached agreement on various matters relating to the program inventory needed for proper implementation, evaluation, and monitoring of the desegregation plan process. The program inventory will also play a critical roll in the development of the LRSD budgetary process in accordance with the process outlined in the June 15, 1993 order. issues. audit. regarding the audit.) Board General consensus was reached regarding the purposes to be achieved through the audit procedure developed by Mr. Ingram to accomplish those Ingram reported that inquiries have gone out to the purposes. various program managers to establish the status of implementation on the various program elements. This information is now being returned and compiled by the Office of Planning and Evaluation. On Thursday, July 8, ,1993, the court suggested that the LRSD , uLixy o, uiie court suggesrea mat the LRSD now has an opportunity to consider ways to become more efficient in its staffing and, thereby, achieve significant cost savings. Board also the administration to consider staffing efficiency as an element in the budgetary review process. In accordance with those instructions, on Friday, July 9, 1993, the LRSD administrators (along with Bill Mooney) met to finalize the plans which were already in process to fill the Human Resources Director position. directed to The LRSD 1993, the I also announced other efforts being made to ensure that a greater staffing efficiency is achieved during theBoard of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 3 93-94 school year. . - Particularly, I have enlisted the services of Victor Anderson, principal of Hall High School, to address staffing issues at the secondary level, an expertise in this area. Dr. Dr. Anderson has exhibited Brady Gadberry, our current Human Resources/Labor Director, will continue his efforts to obtain the current Relations continue his efforts to obtain maximum benefit from transfers, reassignments, and new hire process. Your were to make every effort to staff based on This will be particularly critical in meeting the s affing needs of the new King Interdistrict Magnet School. Hopefully, this process will become somewhat instructions enrollment. 4.-  , - , , --------- ---more clear now that District knows that Ish Incentive School will be closed during trie 93-Qd cnbnnl mu-\u0026gt;4- ______t j ____ ___ _ _ _ the 93-94 school year. process. That could play an important roll in this Later on Friday, July 9, Mr. Malone and I met with Mrs. in the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. i:__ in agreement that the LRSD could not and would Ann Brown Mrs. Brown and I were 1 could not and would not seek to delay Its efforts regarding the Desegregation Plan during the interim I Superintendent. In fact, due to my long-term tenure with the LRSD and my administrative background with the District . . obtain the level of team support necessary to implement the process for opening schools. In addition, my familiarity with the Desegregation Plan, will serve to ensure that no loss of momentum occurs. Mrs. Brown and I also discussed matters such as: - Incentive Schools - Staff Organization - Attendance Zones - Position Control - Magnet Schools - Staff Development - Curriculum - Monitoring/Reporting Procedures ' 1553, I convened the LRSD Council to continue revision process. I gave instructions to those in assigned tasks to be accomplished in accordance with the schedule imposed by agreement of the parties and O.D.M. process. Based on the foregoing, it appears that we consider whether any further budget reductions\nthat we are on target to ensure that a revised document, along with any necessary business it are on target to It also appears that are possible for the cases, willBoard of Directors July 22, 1993 Page 4. be filed by Monday, August 2, 1993. Since being appointed Interim, I have also held conferences with various program managers, Directors, and other administrators including, not limited to. Director of Plant Services Procurement Directors, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation' Desegregation Facilitator, Director of Planning, Research, ' Evaluation, Director of Transportation, I__ Director of Human Resources/Labor Relations\" u..i We all understand the immediate, critical needs of the District and are working together to move us forward. I have also had a meeting with representatives of the LRCTA and the Joshua Intervenors. Services, Controller. but Director Director Plant of Planning, \u0026amp; Director of Information and LRSD I have also initial principals' meeting was held on Monday, July 19, ___ Attached you will find an agenda from that meeting. We are off to a good start. 1993. On Wednesday, July 21, 1993, an extended work session was held for the purpose of further refining the elementary school staffing needs for 1993-94. We are hooeful that thp nmrpqq n-i-i i i i i result resources. available. We ere hopeful that the process utilized will  efficiency and utilization of our limited More information will be provided as it becomes in greater of as c: Sterling Ingram Mark Milhollen Marie Parker Brady Gadberry Chris Heller Fred Ursery Jerry L. MaloneTo: From: Subject: Date: Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock School Board of Directors Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. July 28, 1993 This memo is to notify you that the hearings before Judge Susan Wright regarding the 1993-94 LRSD budget was recessed on Thursday, July 8, 1993. Pursuant to the agreement reached and accepted by the Court, the hearing will resume on Thursday, August 12, 1993 and Friday, August 13, 1993. calendars. Please place these dates on your If anyone has a conflict with these dates, we must know immediately so that requests can be made for excused absences. Judge Wright has given word that she will no longer tolerate untimely requests to be excused. A' ccordingly, i' t is my request that each of you give immediate consideration to this matter. As instructed by the Court, a meeting was held with board members and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on Friday, July 9, 1993. The meeting opened at approximately administration building. 7:00 a.m. at the LRSD As a result of the time constraints within which we are working, the board members decided to meet each Thursday for the rest of this month. Accordingly, the Board will meet at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 15\nThursday, July 22\nand Thursday, July 29. The Court has indicated that although the budget for 93-94 is balanced on paper, she fears that the use of non-recurring revenue sources (i.e., the desegregation settlement loan, desegregation settlement proceeds, transfers and other funds, etc.) to cover recurring expenditures (i.e., teacher's salaries, utilities, etc.) will create an iimmppoossssiibbllee situation when the 94-95 budget is prepared. Pursuant to the board's instructions, the administration is now pursuing various options to present to the Board. The Court has instructed the LRSD to file a revised budget by Monday, August 2, 1993. It is imperative that this deadline be met, as the Court has indicated that no variance whatsoever will be allowed. To meet this schedule, it is our hope that final board action can occur on Wednesday, July 28, 1993 . Should there be no drastic changes from the proposals as submitted by the administration to Board of Directors July 28, 1993 Page 2 the Board, we are hopeful that the necessary revisions and updates can be made to allow the budget to be timely filed on August 2. Judge Wright indicated that she is pleased that the District has begun using business cases. Although we have submitted business those cases for the budget documents currently before the Court, iluse business cases may or may not support the revised budget document to be filed on August 2. Accordingly, it is my request that the administration review the business cases already submitted and provide appropriate revised business cases or new business cases to support the recommendations to be made to you. *      Again, please review your schedules to determine whether the August 12 and 13 hearing dates pose a conflict. If so, please notify me immediately. Should any conflicts arise later, each of you must notify us immediately so that a determination can be made whether Should later to request an excused absence from the Court. Please recall that Judge Wright has become very impatient with what she perceives an efforts to flaunt the authority of the Court in attendance requirement. imposing the Let's make an effort to establish a tract record of cooperation and good-faith attention to the requirements of the Court-approved desegregation plan. By doing so, we will be able to develop a factual trail to overcome the conclusory statements placed on record regarding receivership.Board of Directors July 28, 1993 Page 3 Thank each of you for your kind attention Hopefully, future correspondence will not be to this remember that Z am a lawyer.) as verbose. matter. (However, JLM:nr Mrs. Estelle Matthis Mr. Sterling Ingram Mrs. Marie Parker Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Brady Gadberry Mr. Mark Milhollen c:cews O'lhts o' OeseQ'\"\"- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: February 25, 1994\nApril 6 and 7, 1994\nand May 25 and 26, 1994. These hearing dates coincide I I J with the schedule embodied in the LRSD's latest Project Management Tool filed November 30, 1993. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. Subsequent orders pertaining to the information required for each hearing may follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of December 1993. NITED STATES JUDGE 'HiS DOCI n -'OMPLIANf nr' CM CCCXuT SHEET IN B'/ n :D/OR 7S(a) F.'iCP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER rled'OUfiT 'fiKANSAS By: plaintiff'^ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), and without objection from any of the parties to this action, the time in which the LRSD must file its proposed 1994-95 budget is hereby extended to and including April 15, 1994. The hearings on the W4R 1 8 J594 vs. budget originally scheduled for April 6-7, 1994, will be continued to a date after April 15, 1994. The Court will reschedule these hearings by separate order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of March 1994. UNITED SPATES 'DISTRICT .JUDGE FHIS DOCUMENT ENTEAED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 50 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY 1/1 tr- 1 -Xw-fe. V J MP?r2:-\u0026gt;9'4 MON 9:36 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C' eastern DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION COURT t, Hi 1 f. } LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. J./ 'PLAINTIFF NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL district no. 1, et al. SCHOOL MRS. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS INTERVENORS notion TO EXTEND TIME AND,TO RESCHEDULE HEARING For its motion, the Little Rock School District 1. (LRSD) states: The court has established deadlines which a schedule of hearings and development corresponds with key dates in LRSD-s budget process. LRSD is budget to the presently scheduled to submit a Court on March 24, IS scheduled for April 6-7, 1994 and a hearing on the budget 2. Several 1994. important components of LRSD's uncertain at this time for budget are various reasons. in the process of For example, LRSD is with the Little negotiating a professional negotiations agreement Rock Classroom Teachers reluctant to Association and is the project a budget for teachers' salaries thia early in negotiating process. - LRSD is also in the determining process of whether to outsource certain Finally, LRSD support functions. expenses. is continuing to look for ways to reduce its On the revenue side of the budget. funding and the amount the method of state LRSD will likely receive under a new fundingi M??-21-P4 HON 9:37 SUSAN M WRIGHT fomiula remains uncertain. time within which to FAX NO, 5013246576 LRSD must therefore present to the court budget for the 1994-95 school year. 3. LRSD must make decisions certified personnel P. 02 request additional a Complete and balanced concerning the contracts of no later than May 1, 1994. the court sufficient time to In order to provide ot that date, lrsd requests an extension review its proposed budget in advance it must submit its of the time within which proposed budget to and including April lrsd also 15, 1994. be rescheduled to requests that the hearings scheduled for April 6-7, 1994 a date after April 15, I994. 4. counsel for PCSSD, NLRSD, the Joshua Intervenors Knight Intervenors have been they do not oppose it. contacted and the concerning this motion and WHEREFORE, for the order extending the time reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an within which it must 1994-95 budget to and including April 15, file its proposed hearing on the 1994 and rescheduling the proposed budget to a date after April 15, 1994 . Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg 400 West Capitol Street Little Rocky AR 72201 Christofer Heli Bar No. 81083 2MAR-23-94 WED 9:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 us DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS MAR 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT m,cqRMACK,CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DIVISION By:, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The hearings previously scheduled for April 6 and 7, review the Little Rock School District (LRSD) proposed 1994 to 1994-95 budget are hereby rescheduled to begin at 9.00 a.m. on Friday, April 22, 1994. By April 15, 1994, the LRSD must submit to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring the district's proposed 1994-95 budget, along with business cases for programmatic additions, deletions, or modifications that are reflected in the budget. The district must also identify each major budget adjustment, including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions. and proposed deficit reduction measures. Each deficit reduction Strategy must be accompanied by a rationale for the assumptions underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of March 1994. 'ATES .-4/^ CT JUDGE RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 1 5 1994 Office ol Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSD 1994-95 BUDGET STATUS REPORT The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report, pursuant to the order of this Court, states: 1. The LRSD, pursuant to the order of this Court, developed and adopted a program, planning and budgeting process to guide the development of the District's 1994-95 budget. Also in accordance with the orders of this Court, the LRSD developed and adopted a Project Management Tool process to set out the respective tasks necessary to develop a budget and impose timelines on those persons responsible for the various tasks identified. Both the comprehensive budgeting process and the management tool process were developed and implemented at or near the beginning of the 1993-94 school year. The LRSD has been operating in accordance with both the planning document as well as the management tool throughout this 1993-94 school year. Further, the LRSD has provided the Court with quarterly status reports as well as monthly management tool reports.LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 2 2. The Program Budget and Planning Document came into being as outlined in the LRSD's 1993-94 First Quarter Status Report filed herein on November 3, 1993. That filing is incorporated herein by reference. Further, the Notice of LRSD Board Involvement, filed on December 3, 1993, touches and concerns this development. It too is incorporated herein by reference. 3. The LRSD submitted project management tools, as ordered by the Court, for the months ending August 31, 1993, and September 30, 1993. However, beginning with the Project Management Tool filed on October 29, 1993, the LRSD used a format which more closely resembled the format desired by the Court. For each month thereafter, the LRSD has submitted its Project Management Tool to the Court. The tool, among other things, identified the various tasks necessary to plan, prepare and present a budget on behalf of the LRSD. The tool also identified the responsible persons for the various tasks. the percentages of completion and the proposed completion dates. Recognizing the newness of this effort to it, the LRSD placed the Court and the parties on notice that it would continue to fine-tune the process so that the monthly reports would become more accurate, timely and informative. 4. Among the many categories of tasks to be completed was that of \"Budgeting. Beginning with the Project Management Tool filed on November 30, 1993, the budgeting category of the tool outlined those steps necessary to build the budget document theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 3 District is obligated to submit to the State of Arkansas. As indicated by the November filing, the proposed budget would be submitted to the Board of Directors of the District on March 24, 1994, revisions would be made, the budget would be submitted to the Board for adoption at its July 28, 1994, meeting and would be submitted to the State of Arkansas on or before August 26, 1994. The time frame outlined was developed based upon the District's knowledge and awareness of the infonnation and steps necessary to arrive at the various components of the budget as well as in recognition of the time when various pieces of information become available to it. For instance. certain steps and procedures necessary submitted before a final balanced budget can be prepared and are not determined until accounts can be reconciled. certain information is received from the State of Arkansas, accounts properly closed out and an ending fund balance determined. 5. The District continued to refine and revise dates it found to be out of sync with the facts and circumstances as they were being developed or less reliable based upon knowledge acquired through the planning and development process. However, the projections regarding the submission of a proposed budget to the Board, the revision process. Board adoption and submission to the State remained in tact. This is so for the Project Management Tools filed on December 28, 1993, January 31, 1994, February 28, 1994, and March 31, 1994. Based on reasonable information and belief, theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 4 LRSD has remained on schedule as reflected in those documents. 6. The Project Management Tools, as suggested by and developed with the assistance of the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, has consistently contained the District's best estimates of when the various tasks and activities outlined would occur. However, realizing that the District had embarked upon a process vastly different from and more expansive than the process that had been used by the District in prior years, the LRSD continued to notify the Court, as matters became more apparent to it, when and where refinements to the process had to be made. As evident from the recitals above, the critical tasks in the budgeting component remained as established in November, 1993. 7. The LRSD submits that it is still on schedule to present the final budget to the Board of Directors for adoption by the July Board meeting and to submit a balanced budget to the State of Arkansas by August 26, 1994. However, as evident from the Project Management Tool filed on March 31, 1994, the LRSD has further defined those constraints (both internal and external) with which the District is faced and which must be overcome in order for the District to meet these goals. In particular, the Court will note that the tasks between ID #193 and ID #220 of the March \"tool\" contain greater detail on the items which must come together prior to completion of the process. Notwithstanding, this expanded list is not fully exhaustive of those tasks which must be undertaken andLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 5 completed. Rather, they represent most. if not all, of the substantive events along the way. 8. On March 24, 1994, the LRSD administration submitted to its Board of Directors the proposed annual budget for the 1994-95 school year. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate copy of that budget. Similar to the 1993-94 budget filed herein on December 17, 1993, this budget reflects the financial structure of the LRSD by school and department and shows detail through function codes. object codes and FTE's. The document also reflects the actual revenues and expenditures for 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93. It also includes the projected budget for 1993-94 and the proposed budget for 1994-95. The Board conducted a work session on this document on March 29, 1994. 9. Under Tab 2 of Exhibit 1, a budget summary appears which identifies proposed revenues and expenditures for the 1994-95 school year. Based upon the proposals identified, the District would experience a deficit in the amount of $7,099,292 at year end. 10. By order dated March 22, 1994, entered on March 23, 1994, this Court directed the LRSD to submit its proposed 1994-95 budget by April 15, 1994. Exhibit 1 is submitted in compliance with that directive. 11. The Order also required the District to make additional submissions. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and accurate copy of a Court submission dated April 15, 1994, which contains theLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 6 required business cases for programmatic additions, deletions or modifications reflected in the proposed budget, a schedule of major budget adjustments (including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions and proposed deficit reduction measures). Further, the document contains various appendices which provide the rationale for the assumptions underlying each deficit reduction strategy and the steps and timelines the District will follow in implementing the various strategies. Both Exhibits 1 and 2 are incorporated herein by reference as fully as if set out word-for- word herein. 12. The budget summary contained under Tab 2 of Exhibit 1 is repeated on pages 204-205 of Exhibit 2. Although a deficit is reflected, the LRSD hastens to point out that the proposed deficit reduction measures identified on page 208 of Exhibit 2 exceed the proposed deficit contained in the budget summary. Accordingly, full implementation of the proposed deficit reduction measures causes the deficit to be eliminated and a positive ending fund balance to be realized. Given the foregoing, the LRSD provides the documents and information submitted herewith in accordance with the directives imposed upon it by the Court to this date. The LRSD is continuing its pace to ensure that the timelines identified by it through the project management tools are maintained. In fact, the Board of Directors continued to guide and direct the budget developmentLRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report April 15, 1994 Page 7 process through a special Board meeting on Thursday, April 14, 1994. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District does hereby submit this filing in accordance with the order of this Court\nit prays that it be granted any and all legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled either now or as influenced by future circumstances. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD 1994-95 Budget Status Report has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on April 15, 1994, upon the following, except as othervise indicated: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET 1994 - 1995 DRAFT 1 MARCH 24, 1994 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY budget summary line item summary (Object) PROGRAM SUMMARY BUDGET (Function) program budget (Object Within Functions) DEPARTMENT BUDGET DESEGREGATION X c Vi c 2 2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT u COURT SUBMISSION April 15, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Page No, Executive Summary 1 Review Process For Program Development 2 Business Cases: Category I - Incentive Schools 4 Franklin Incentive School Communications Technology Theme Franklin Incentive School Spanish Program Implementation Rockefeller Incentive School Alternative Room Specialist Rockefeller Incentive School Spanish Instruction Rockefeller Incentive School Computer Science Theme Rightsell Incentive School Spanish Instruction Rightsell Incentive School Career Awareness and Mass Media Theme Mitchell Incentive School Foreign Language Program (Spanish Teacher) Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Theme - Phase II Stephens Incentive School Spanish Teacher 6 16 22 25 30 43 46 60 64 70 80 Business Cases: Category II - Desegregation Plan/ADE 82 English As A Second Language (ESL) Program Language Arts and Mathematics Applied Biology and Chemistry Science Cumcuium Revision Foreign Language Program Science Program 84 97 106 113 118 126 Business Cases: Category III - Related Desegregation/ADE 134 Science, Mathematics, and Reading: Statewide Systemic Initiative Foreign Language K-12 Curriculum Articulation Social Studies Department Secretarial Position Romine Interdistrict School Theme Specialist Incentive School Immersion Spanish Program - First Grade Pilot Project Executive Assistant for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Student Assignment Office Reorganization 136 144 150 156 160 165 174 1990-95 Revenue and Expenditure Projection (Draft 1) 204 Schedule of Major Budget Adjustments 206 Proposed Deficit Reduction Measures 208 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F 209 210 211 212 213 214-f./tj /i'n FILED K. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTg^g^gjfifJ^A^jTS^^^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAY 1 8 1994 JAMES W. MCCORMACK. CLERK Cy. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LRSD^S 1994-95 BUDGET PRE-HEARING FILING The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), for its 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing, states: 1. By Order dated May 9, 1994, this Court required the LRSD to submit all written information and exhibits (including business cases) which the LRSD expects to discuss at the hearing set by this Court for May 25, 1994 (to be continued on May 26, 1994, if necessary). 2. Attached hereto as Attachment 1 is a true and accurate copy of the 1994-95 budget information required by Order of this Court. 3. The information submitted herein reflects the LRSD's progress toward meeting its desegregation obligations through the Program Planning and Budgeting Process developed with the assistance of the Court-appointed Budget Specialist.LRSD'S 1994-95 BUDGET PRE-HEARING FILING May 18, 1994 Page 2 WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District sxibmits its 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing in accordance with the Order of this Court and prays that it be awarded any and all legal and equitable relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's 1994-95 Budget Pre-Hearing Filing has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on May 18, 1994, upon the following, except as otherwise indicated: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED COURT eastern district ARKANSAS JW I 0 1594 JAMES By.-. 5W.McGURMACK,CLERK AZ-v  OCP ClRK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The Court has previously scheduled hearings on June 28 and 29, 1994 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District's (LRSD) 1994-95 budget development process. Listed below is the information which the Court will review at that time. The parties must submit all requested information. along with any other submissions they expect to introduce during the hearing, to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) by the end of the workday on Monday June 20, 1994. 1, Latest revision of the projected LRSD 1994-95 budget. including revenues and expenditures by department and line item category. 1993-94 budgeted expenses. and projected year-end actual 1993-94 expenses. 2. Identification of any budget revisions, which have been made since the last Court submission, that the district has based upon subsequent re-examination of projected enrollment, the employee Reduction In Force, the early retirement program. ? 2 2 16transportation outsourcing, and school closings. 3 . Updates on the status of specific budget-balancing measures which the district has previously identified in submitted documents, such as the Early Retirement Program, salary freezes, use of settlement loan monies, etc. 4. Status of employee salary negotiations and Reduction In Force. 5. Identification and explanation of any new budget-balancing measures introduced since the last submissions. The explanation must include a rationale for the assumptions underlying the measure, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing it. 6. Revised five year revenue and spending projections and anticipated budget balances or deficits by each of the next five fiscal years. 7 . Any new business cases or revisions of earlier business cases for anticipated changes, additions, or deletions in programs, operations, or staffing. The business cases must clearly show the budget impact including department. function, and object assignment. 8 . Update on the timeline for budgeting decisions and actions. The timeline must reflect the July 1994 hearing dates and deadlines for submitting the final budget to the school board, the parties, the Court, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Additionally by the same date, the district must provide the -2-following information which is listed in the LRSD May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool, and which comprise tasks which will have been completed by June 20, 1994: 1. Copy of the Facilities Study (per Tasks 62-66 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 2 . Copy of the completed Needs Assessment listing (per Task 77 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 3 . Copy of the Program Inventory Report for 1993-1994 (per Task 97 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). 4. A list of the Desegregation and Non-Desegregation related programs (as shown in the Third Quarter Program Budget Document) which were actually evaluated, annotating those selected for downsizing, deletion. or modification (per Tasks 184 and 329 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool) . 5. A copy of the Board-approved tentative budget for 1994-1995 (per Task 207 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool) . 6. Copy of the Incentive School program modifications (per Task 228 of the May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool). According to Task 5 in the district's May 31, 1994 Project Management Tool, the LRSD began in July 1993 to reassess its planning organization and structure. That reassessment is scheduled to be complete on June 30, 1994. Also on that date, the district is scheduled to complete Task 6, which is any necessary restructuring and modification of the planning organization and structure. Along with the Project Management Tool items listed -3-above, the district must submit documentation of Tasks 5 and g to the extent to which they are complete on June 20, 1994. Through the ODM, counsel for the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) has conveyed a request, and the Court has agreed, to review the NLRSD budget at the June hearing instead of the July hearing as originally scheduled. The NLRSD must submit its revenue and expense projection for the 1994-95 budget cycle and a five year projection of revenues and expenses. The district must also submit business cases for anticipated changes, additions, or deletions in programs, operations, or staffing. The parties should also be prepared to discuss any other items not specifically listed in this order but which were itemized in the May 9, 1994 order that scheduled a budget hearing on May 25, 1994.* IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of June 1994. UNITED STATE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ___Ot 1 / * That hearing was subsequently cancelled by the Court. -4-CC- / FILED O'STI^'CTAR'i^^lSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 06 1994 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMESCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT \u0026lt;Z OEP clerk PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The Court is charged with monitoring the districts' compliance with their Settlement Agreement and making sure that they don't waste desegregation funds. In order to fulfill this charge, the Court keeps a close watch on the districts' budgets. Accurate and complete budgets are important to making sure that the parties keep their desegregation commitments. In this regard, the Court has vs. held hearings on February 25, April 22 and June 28 and 29, 1994 to determine progress being made by the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD on developing their 1994-95 budgets. During the June 28-29, 1994 hearings, the districts told the Court that, in order to complete their 1994-95 budgets in balance. they need to know the level of state support to anticipate through Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). Until the districts know the amount of MFPA for 1994-95, they will not know what additional expense restrictions to implement for next year. The parties have told the Court that the State has been vacillating for some months on the amount which it may place in theMFPA fund, citing amounts that have varied from $50 million down to $0. The Court hereby requests the State to submit the following information: A. Whether the State intends to put additional (new) money into MFPA. B. The amount of any additional monies it intends to place in the MFPA fund. C. The date it will notify the LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD of their total individual MFPA allocations for 1994-95. D. The steps the State will take in making the decisions to determine its contribution to MFPA and the accompanying timeline for each step. The Court will hold hearings on July 27-29, 1994 to review the parties' final, balanced budgets for 1994-95. Anticipating those dates, the Court has required the parties to submit their budgets and related information to the Court and ODM by noon on July 18, 1994. Therefore, the Court and the parties must have the above requested information from the State no later than 5:00 p.m., July 13, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of July 1994. UNTTED STATES DISTRI .IT JUDGE rnIS CXXUM9\u0026lt;r EWTlfO 0 tXJCRET SWEET IN COMPUTE MTH_RUL 58 AND/OR 75(a) FRCP ON 7- 6- -RECEIVEO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 1 8 1994 Office ol Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the following documents required by the courts July 6, 1994 order. 1. LRSD's current 1994-95 budget document is attached. The budget document includes current revenue and expenditure projections, a line item summary, a program summary by function, a program summary by function and object, department budgets by function and object, a Magnet School budget, and the budgets for federal programs, food service. capital projects. and desegregation. 2. Also attached are documents showing LRSD's actual expenditures for the 1991-92 and 1992-93 school years. and the budgeted expenditures for the 1993-94 school year. LRSD's books are not entirely closed for the 1993-94 school year and the attached list of 1993-94 actual expenditures is not a completely final tally of actual 1993-94 expenditures. kathy^'Heaiwg.Budget3. LRSD has separated and identified funds according to their intended use. State reimbursement for Workers' Compensation and Magnet indirect costs are listed as separate revenue items. LRSD is continuing the process of adding necessary function and object codes to separate and identify funds according to their intended use. 4. LRSD has attached revised five year revenue and spending projection with the anticipated budget balances or deficits for each of the next five fiscal years. 5. LRSD has attached business cases for outsourcing of transportation, academic progress incentive grants, the Incentive School Spanish program, and a modification of the business case for desegregation facilitator. Each business case shows its impact on the budget. 6. Because LRSD's books for 1993-94 school year are not yet closed. because some budget issues for the 1994-95 school year remain unresolved (e.g. outsourcing of transportation), and because posting of budget revisions (e.g. early retirement, reduction in force) is not yet complete at the detail level, LRSD is unable to provide a final program summary by function and object and a final department budget by function and object. LRSD has provided a 1994-95 budget for food service, but cannot provide final 1993-94 actual expenditures. Finally, LRSD cannot provide final 1994-95 budgets for federal programs and for desegregation. LRSD's planning documents show a July 21, 1994 deadline for preparation of a final 1994-95 budget, which is scheduled for presentation to the kad^XP-Hcarii^.Budgel a 2board of directors on July 25, 1994 and for approval on July 28, 1994. LRSD expects to have each of the required documents in final form before the scheduled budget hearing begins on July 27, 1994 and will provide those documents to the court, the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring as soon as they have been completed. 7. The attached budget reflects a reduction in Incentive School expenditures of $2,000,000.00. The amount budgeted for Incentive Schools for the 1994-95 school year is the amount necessary to provide double funding at each Incentive School. LRSD is in the process of preparing a business case which will show whether or not the Incentive School budget can actually be reduced to the double funding level. Because of the need to meet with each Incentive School principal and the Joshua Intervenors as a part of this process, the business case will be submitted to the court, the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on Thursday, July 21, 1994. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 efiristopher Hell Bar No. 81083 lathy \\P-K6anng.Bud get 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of July, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 ristopher Helleg^^ kalfayXP-Hcanng.Budg^ 4FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS FEB 0 7 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER Informational hearings on the Little JAMES By:_ W. McCOiRflNMACK, CLERK AX BtP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Rock School District (\"LRSD\") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 24, 1995\nJune 8 and 9, 1995\nand August 1 and 2, 1995. These hearing dates coincide with the schedule for budget development which appears in the LRSD's most recent Project Management Tool, filed on January 31, 1995. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. Subsequent orders pertaining to the t information required for each hearing may follow. DATED this day of February 1995. TED\nt judge rws DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FCP ON BY l/r^^ 2 3 5 0 si IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED B* Ji:5-O'STR'CT court eastern district ar Kansas FEB 2 4 1995 JAMES Vl/. ,McCMMACK. CLERK -i u 0 \\ OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) filed February 21, 1995 for a continuance of the budget hearing set for March 24, 1995 by Court Order dated February 7, 1995. The LRSD states that several of its administrators, whose participation is necessary at the hearing, have made travel plans during that week, which is the LRSD spring break. In order to avoid placing a hardship on those administrators, the LRSD asks that the hearing be rescheduled. The Court has carefully considered its own calendar as well as that of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in an attempt to accommodate the LRSD's request for continuance. Unfortunately, the Court is unable to come up with a new date that will fit its calendar and that also will be timely as far as the budgeting process is concerned. It regrets that the motion for continuance 2 must be denied. DATED this 24th day of February 1995. -N CM- WlTEly^ATES DISTRICT JUD JUDGE 6 DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ILE 58 AND/O^9(aj FRCP -BYI IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED STRICTCOURT eastern district ARKANSAS MAfi - 3 1995 JAMES 'Rmack. clerk llA OEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER By previous Order, the Court has scheduled a hearing to begin at 9:00 a.m. on March 24, 1995 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") in developing its budget for the 1995-96 fiscal year. No later than March 14, 1995 at 5:00 p.m.. the LRSD must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties, all of the documents, budget material, business cases. and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. These submissions must include at least: the district's proposed 1995-96 budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual (August 1994)\nand business cases for programmatic additions. deletions. or modifications that are reflected in the budget. Also, the district must identify each major budget adjustment, including projected revenue increases. projected revenue reductions. projected expenses, and proposed deficit reduction measures. Each deficit reduction strategy must be accompanied by a rationale for the t assumptions underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy. The Court expects the LRSD to present business cases which the district has thoroughly constructed in the context of the desegregation plans and related court orders. For example, if the LRSD were to consider changing the McClellan Community School Program, the district would have to do so in light of the desegregation plan and this Court's orders regarding McClellan. In orders of December 30, 1992 and August 26, 1993, the Court cautioned the LRSD against changes that would negatively affect the district's ability to desegregate McClellan. The Court directed that the McClellan Community High School Advisory Council \"must be meaningfully involved in all changes at McClellan, including budget planning and adjustment, because the Council is a means for promoting community input so that any changes proposed for McClellan reflect the community's needs and wishes. As another example, if the district were to consider proposing to eliminate the seven period day in its junior high schools, it would have to build a strong business case that takes into account this Court's December 30, 1992 order regarding the seven period day, especially in relation to magnet programs. The Court will expect the district to show that any budget cuts under consideration are \"as far away from the children and the desegregation plan as possible.\" (See Order of December 30, 1992.) SO ORDERED this \u0026lt;3 day of March 1995. U^r^TED ST DISTRICT (JUDGE rHJS DOCUW.i\u0026lt;. UH , .r: -- Ut CVCKET SHEET HM COMPLIANCE With RUlE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP Ji 1 \u0026lt; Tv IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION mar 2 V 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER ey.jZ ^inCK, CLcSK 1. iC OEP CLcftK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The hearing to review the progress of the Little Rock School District in developing its budget for the 1995-96 school year. which began on Friday, March 24, 1995, will resume at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, April 10, 1995. Any revisions in business cases or other new information must be submitted to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties by noon, April 3, 1995. DATED this 29th day of March 1995. ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE . 58 AND/OR79(a) Ff^P BY 79(a 3 u 3\n3 M N 2 3 9 1c , HA MOn \"10^45   'SUSAN K WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 FILED us fiSTOiCT CO'J.'I' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAN,SA5 WESTERN DIVISION I 1995 JAMfS W. WcUUHMACK, CLERK By\n-d..i20uV..rn_ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OsfCiEMX , PLAINTIFF V. KO, LR-C82-86e PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFEN DAI^TS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIOHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS OR PER Through an earlier Order, the Court has scheduled hearings to begin at 9:00 a.m, on June 8 and 9, 1995. The purpose of these I ,.\n6f-.\u0026lt; i.  L  hearings is to review the progress of the Little RocR School District (LRSD) in relation to its 1995-96 budget, and to determine 4 the extent to which the district has fulfilled certain orders of the Court. 1 By 5:00 p.n. on Friday, May 26, 1995 the district must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the !\u0026gt; parties all documents, budget material, business cases, and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. As at the last budget hearings, f -f these submissions must include at least: the district's tentative budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual of August 1994\nand any new or revised business cases for programmatic or position additions, deletions. or modifications that are reflected in the budget. The district must also identify 11 71 any major adjustments it has made in the budget since submitting A? V. . otilMiK 7, .y MfeFEB-15-96 THU 9:51 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 01 FsLED u s DISTRICT COURT EASTc.RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1996 JAMES! p//J.. McckkuuhkmmAaCcKK,, ccllerk DE? CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-a6b PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER , Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996\nJune 6 and 7, 1996\nand July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. Subsequent orders pertaining to 2y.__i VS . the information required for each hearing will follow, IT IS .10 ORDERED this day of February 1996. I '^\"UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ,D Oi . DOCKEr SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RU' ON -- BY_2 D/OR 79(a) FRCP rH'S DOC'J^'^T SNi u : L- FiLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS j\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1996 OffiCS 0\u0026gt; Dece^-iya\njiiHG JAMES By\n_4 !J IVIc^HMACK. CLERK OE? CLERK  little rock school district PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA.. ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996\nJune 6 and 7, 1996\nand July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski 1 District. Subsequen Oxders pcrtaj.ning 3 I J vs. the information required for each hearing will follow. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of February 1996. STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CHS POCL'J/EN COMPLIANCE WITH RL'L ON 5 ON DOCKET SHEET IN C AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BY 77? -______ Ai f ?. 01 FEE-15-36 THU 9:51 SUSAN N NRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 FsLED U3 Oia',\"ICT COURT\nTE.R,J CISTRICTA.RKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF .ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FEB 1 4 1596 u'Al'ES Mc^UnMACK. GLt.HK ViC^UnMACK. G OEr CLSnK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-S2-a66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER Informational hearings on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") draft budget and budgeting process are hereby scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. on each of the following dates: March 26, 1996\nJune 6 and 7, 1996\nand July 29 and 30, 1996. Members of the LRSD 3oard of Directors are required to artend the hearings. During the July hearing dates, the Court will also review the budgets of the Norrh Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. Subsequent orders pertaining to vs. / the information required for each hearing will follow, IT IS .10 ORDERED this day of February 1996. .) U.,'/ '\"^'UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE rH!S DQC!JV.E\u0026gt;T NT COMPLIANCE Y/iTH PCI' DON DOCKET SHEET IN .AND/OR 73(a) FRCP BY ________ 2 6 2ia ^3. JUL-13-95 THU 11:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol FILED CAS-JiS DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTj^j^^gg EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Sy\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER 2, JUL I 3 1995 McCormack, clerk OEP CLEW PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has previously scheduled hearings for August 1 and 1995 to consider Little Rock School District (LRSD) budget matters for FY 1995-96. On those dates, the Court will also review the 1995-96 budgets of the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). Listed below is the information the court will review during the hearings. The parties must submit the requested information, along with any other submissions they will introduce during the hearings, to the Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) by 12:00 P.M. (noon) on Monday, July 24, 1995. I. A. LRSD must furnish its final 1995-96 balanced budget document, including final revenues and expenditures projections. line item summary, program summary by function, program summary by function object, department budget by function and object. magnet school budget, and the budgets for federal programs, food service, capital projects, and desegregation.JUL-13-95 THU 11:13 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 S. In each of these categories above, include actual expenditures for 1992-93 and 1993-94, and budget and actual expenditures for 1994-95. C. Add function codes and object codes as necessary to separate and identify funds according to their intended use. Commingling of disparate funds will not satisfy the Court's need for budgeting information that is specifically identified D. E. A. according to its planned use. Also, identify all revenue items as revenue items and all expenditures as expenditures to provide an accurate representation of each item. Submit a revised five year revenue and spending projection and anticipated budget balances or deficits for each of the next five fiscal years. Provide any new or revised business cases for budget balancing measures and for changes, additions, or deletions in programs. operations, or staffing which are reflected in the final budget, the Each business case must clearly show its impact on budget including department. assignment. II. function. and object The NLRSD and PCSSD must furnish their respective final 1995-96 balanced budget documents. including final revenues and expenditures projections. salaries and wages by object within function, other expenditures by -2-JUL-13-95 THU 11:14 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 B. C. object within function, federal programs, and other supporting information the districts may provide. Submit a revised five year revenue and projection and anticipated budget balances for each of the next five fiscal years. Provide any new or revised business cases spending or deficits for budget balancing measures and for changes, additions, or deletions in programs. operations, or staffing which are reflected in the final budget. Each business case must clearly show its impact on the budget including department, function, and object assignment. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of July 1995. ISTRICT JUDGE -3- FaLD U S OISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DIVISION By\n. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership ORDER MAR 1 2 1996 3 W. McQUHMAGK, CLEi RK OeP CLhRK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS By previous order, the Court has scheduled a hearing to begin at 9:00 a.m. on March 26, 1996 to review the progress of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) in developing its budget for the 1996- 97 fiscal year. No later than noon on March 18, 1996, the LRSD must submit to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the parties. all of the documents. budget material, business cases. and any other information which the district expects to introduce as subject matter for the hearing. These submissions must include at least the following: 1. The district's proposed 1996-97 budget, as defined in the LRSD Program Planning and Budgeting Manual\n2. Business cases for programmatic additions, deletions, or modifications\nAn identification of each major budget adjustment. including projected revenue increases, projected revenue reductions, projected expenses, and proposed deficit reduction measures, be accompanied by expenses. Each deficit reduction strategy must rationale for the assumptions 3 . a 2 6 4 1 underlying it, as well as the steps and timelines the district will follow in implementing the strategy\n4. An itemization of year-to-date expenditures by object code through the end of January 1996, along with a forecast of expenditures by object code for the balance of the 1995-96 fiscal year. In earlier hearings, the Court has admonished the LRSD to abandon its old practice of basing new budgets on the amounts the district has allotted within discrete categories in preceding annual budgets. (The Court has referred to this procedure as \"budgeting on budget.\") Instead, the Court has advised the district to build its new budgets on the actual expenditures incurred within the various budget categories during the previous year. (The Court has referred to this practice as II budgeting on expenditures\" or \"budgeting on actuals.\") During the hearing, the Court will ask the district to explain how it is working to construct its 1996-97 budget on actual expenditures, rather than on previous budgets. Further, the Court expects the LRSD to present business cases which the district has carefully constructed in the context of the desegregation plans, related court orders, and the realities of the district's financial condition. For example. the Court will require the district to show that any budget cuts under consideration are \"as far away from the children and the desegregation plan as possible. It (See Order of December 30, 1992.) The Court will also expect that any proposed new expenditures will be counterbalanced by similar reductions elsewhere in the budget. For example. it the district were to propose adding an -2-administrative position in one area, the Court would expect to see reductions in another area of the administrative budget to accommodate the proposed change. IT IS SO ORDERED this - /o\u0026lt; aay of March 1996. UNITED STATES^IST] 'RJCT JUDGE rmS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITy RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FRCP ON IPUANCE WITH RL BY -3-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING ei\u0026lt;u '-97 MiR 1 8 J^^^ntiff JAMES w McCormack, By\nCLERK DEP. CLERK DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In accordance with this court's order of March 12, 1996, the Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the Little Rock School District 1996-97 Proposed Budget and Little Rock School District Business Cases For Proposed Budget FY 1996-97. The budget documents reflect the following significant changes in state funding: 1. twelve Beginning with the 1996-97 fiscal year, LRSD must pay a percent (12%) teacher retirement matching contribution. previously paid by the state. which results in an increase to I fringe benefit costs (object 0220 in the line item budget) of $8,371,294.00\n2. Beginning with the 1996-97 fiscal year, LRSD must pay what was previously the state's share of health insurance costs which results in a $3,501,056.00 increase in LRSD's fringe benefit costs (object 0240 in the line item budget)\nk\u0026gt;ihy\\MoU*Fil.3183 . Some of the increased costs described above are offset by an increase in state aid, but based on the most current information the impact of the change in state funding will be a net loss to LRSD in the amount of $226,804.00. A chart comparing state aid for the 1995-96 fiscal year and projected state aid for the 1996-97 fiscal year is attached to this Notice of Filing\n4 . LRSD will pay twelve percent (12%) retirement a contribution plus additional health care costs for its food service workers in the amount of $486,000.00\n5. The changes described in paragraphs 3 and 4 above result in a net loss to the operating fund of $712,804.00\nand 6. LRSD will receive its final fixed settlement payment in the amount of $683,125.00. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By:7^__ Christopher Helle: Bar No. 81083 lathy \\Nou*Fil.318 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of March, 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hell^ knhy\\^ou-FU.318 3 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MEPA^*S^?.3HfK LIHLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STATE AID COMPARISON 3-14-96 BUDGET 1995-96 REVISED 1995-96 DRAFT 4 1996-97 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS___________________ SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD_________________________ ORPHAN CHILDRENMMiiP8B@SS)Wt^1%\n^^ TRANSPORTATION -REGULAR TRANSPORTATION -M TO M COMPENSATORY,EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION ALTERNATIVEEDUCATIONMB818BS3jmS 27.023.348 3.829,942 2.500,000 0 1.100,000 1,444,499 233,992 7,000 3.850,000 AT RISK FUNDING SUMMER'SCHOOlBatiOfeWiaBa^iiSS^ WORKER'S COMPENSATION TOTAL 285,000 2,800,000 790,466 0 0 399.350 430.542 44.694.139 STATE FORMULA AID TEACHER RETIREMENT MATCHING CONTRIBUTION HEALTH INSURANCE MATCHING CONTRIBUTION 27,012,642. 3,829.942 500.000 0 1.100.000 1.444.499 233.992 ?yS3,066/ ^1,656\n540i 2.195.910 --9246,030 2.607.195 808.523 . 222\n134\n5{3a 67,044' 399.350\n501.193 42.828.059 29.606.806 s-29.606,806\n39,595,812\n683,125 0 0 900.000 1,444.499 245.000 m1\n656,540 2.500.000 .19ss.a.O' 3.641.000 810.000 FORMUIA\" FORMULA^ FORMULA?\n? FORMULA - TORMU13V FORMULA'^ 405.275 51.881.251 41.252.352 (8,371.294) (3.501.056) a29.380,a02i FORMULAE ^1226,804)\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eUnited States. District Court (Arkansas: Western 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_280","title":"Budget, court filings","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":["1992/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education and state","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Budget, court filings"],"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/280"],"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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\"'''^'- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION y: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS i MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On November 14, 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remanded the cause to the Court to review the parties' proposed modifications [May submissions] to the 1989 plans. 1 Little Rock School District, et al., Nos. 91-2640EA, 91- 2648EA, 91-2655EA, 91-2683EA, slip op. (8 th Cir. November 14, 1991) . In response to the order of the Eighth Circuit, the Court scheduled a hearing to begin on December 18, 1991. It informed the parties involved that. prior to reviewing their proposed modif ications, it would ask. the Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD] to report on its financial situation and hear a ^The three school districts involved. Little Rock School District [LRSD], Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD], and North Little Rock School District [NLRSD], and the Joshua Intervenors submitted proposed modifications to the settlement plan approved by the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990).report from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the budgetary processes for desegregation expenditures which are employed by the three school districts involved in the matter. The Court determined that before it could consider proposed modifications to the settlement plans, it needed to learn whether there are district budgetary processes in place which will enable the Court to monitor the implementation of the plans. At the conclusion of the second day of the hearing, the Court expressed concern about its ability to effectively monitor the settlement plan without budgets that reflect the three school districts' intentions. goals, and priorities regarding their desegregation efforts. The Court specifically mentioned the state of the Little Rock School District's [LRSD] budgetary process. In its opinion approving the settlement plans of the three districts, the Eighth Circuit noted the parties have committed to \"solemn undertakings\" and stated: We accept these undertakings, again with the reminder that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1390 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Eighth Circuit further directed the Court to \"monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and agreement. -2-and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.\" Id. at 1394. The Court monitors the use of settlement monies through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring [ODM]. In October 1991, the ODM informed the LRSD that it must be able to provide the Court with information which (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. a [Document # 1517] Pursuant to the directives from and the considerable latitude and discretion given the Court by the Eighth Circuit, the Court finds that the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites and that it is necessary for the LRSD to submit revised cost figures to the Court. 2 Therefore, (1) The LRSD must submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan and which are reflected on updated implementation timelines contained in the plan. 2 In a note to its May submissions, the LRSD indicated that the cost figures originally submitted with its desegregation plan were outdated and it would provide revised cost figures in a separate desegregation budget. To date, the Court is unaware of any such revised figures having been submitted or filed. -3-a (2) The LRSD must submit a long-range budget projection on per annum basis which covers all anticipated desegregation expenditures over the entire term of the desegregation agreement. (3) The LRSD must submit.a long-range revenue projection covering the same period of time, which includes revenues anticipated not only from the settlement monies and settlement loan, but also from state and millage revenues and any other money sources. This long-term projection will provide a clear picture of the district's financial future and, thereby, enable the LRSD to predict with accuracy if and when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any anticipated millage increase is to be indicated along with the date when the district will present a millage increase to the voters. (4) The LRSD has maintained that a significant portion of desegregation expenditures are \"start up.\" The district must specifically identify which desegregation costs are \"start up\" and when these start up costs will terminate. (5) The revised budget shall be prepared in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and shall be submitted to the Court within thirty (30) days after the Court rules either from the bench or in a written order on the proposed modifications. - By this Order, the Court confirms its oral approval of the construction of the interdistrict school at the Crystal Hill site. Further, the Court confirms oral instructions made to the parties to explore alternative sites for the construction of King -4-Interdistrict School along the 1-630 corridor. DATED this ^/^^dav of January, 1992. '1^. trNlTED STATES DISTRICT J JUDGE r : OtJ ,PL!A\n2V...,^. - -- .. 1-,3-h '1?^ BHEET IN i) FRCP -5-4- oirsidTSSaSBAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT may -1 199\nEASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court held hearings on the parties' proposed modifications (May submissions) to the 1989 settlement plans on December 18-19, 1991\nJanuary 21-23, 27-28, 1992\nand February 6-7, 1992. This Order addresses those proposed changes. In its order approving the individual settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that ''[i]t may be necessary. in order to make a smooth transition. for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Court rejected the parties' May submissions. finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991).4 The parties' motion for reconsideration was denied. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special Schools District No. 1, 769 F. Supp. 1491 (E.D. Ark. 1991). remanded the case and stated: On appeal, the Eighth Circuit The 1989 settlement which we approved last year should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case. The parties are not authorized to modify it at will Further, we agree, for the most part, that any changes approved should be concerned only with the details of plan, affecting it only at the margin, so to speak, wish to dispel, in particular, any notion that asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction i.. commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan . . . The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed. in particular, the We an in their The If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major substantive commitments to desegregation. District Court has the authority to consider it. such changes, for example, as the District Court noted? may have merit, either because they advance desegregation, or for other reasons. they the Some Even changes that go beyond the level of detail, moreover, could be approved, but only if the parties affirmatively establish good reasons (not including lack of funds) for them. It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows. (1) double fundinc for stuHont'c: arronH-i-nrr retreat should be approved. They are as . funding students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools\nincentive (virtually all-black) schools\n(2) operation of the a^eed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable\n(3) operation of the agreed number of i^terdist.-ict schools according to the agreed timetable\n(4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable\n(5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\n(6) the agreed elements of early-childhood education, at least in the incentive schools\nand (7) appropriate involvement of parents. Appeal of Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special -2-School District No. 1, North Little Rock School District, cLnd Mrs. Lorene Joshua, 949 F.2d 253, 255-56 (Sth Cir, 1991) , In remanding the case to the District Court, Circuit further stated: the Eighth The parties' agreement should be upheld if 1^ constitutional, workable, and fair to class members, vu the other hand, the application of this test is affected by the new procedural context in which we now find the The 1989 settlement is a benchmark. if it is On case. xue xaay Although changes can be made, the District Court and we must take into account the potential for confusion, that constant change creates. ' even chaos, , - The parties and the public deserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or aeserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or at the margin, will not seriously interfere with this goal. Changes of greater significance, however, may well do so, and that fact must be taken fully into when such changes are proposed and considered. goal. account We recognize that the language somewhat general. of this opinion is It leaves a considerable degree of latitude District Court. That Court must determine in the first instance, using criteria we have suggested, what changes are mere details and what changes are outside that category. 7^ --_ _i__ ____ its own best judgment, what changes should be~approved\"\" notwithstanding their going beyond the level of detail* because they would advance desegregation or for other- sound reasons. The District Court should proceed with that discretion and flexibility that characterizes courts of equity. . . .[W]e will give a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court. to the That It must also determine, in Id. at 257. With this background in mind, the Court addresses the parties' proposed modifications. The changes that the Court approves will not be enumerated or addressed, for the most part. The Court comments on changes it approves subject to certain conditions and discusses in detail the substantive changes it will not approve, generally following the order of the provisions and their section -3-headings as they are found in the plans. are attached to the Order. INTERDISTRICT PLAN Baker and Harris Elementary Schools The 1989 plans require the Pulaski The plans as approved County Special School District (PCSSD) to establish interdistrict schools at Baker Elementary School and Harris Elementary School. The PCSSD now proposes to modify the settlement plan and eliminate Baker Elementary as thematic interdistrict school with expanded seating. According to the proposed modifications, the 200 a additional seats originally planned for Baker the new interdistrict school at Crystal Hill. would be placed at The PCSSD proposes to eliminate Harris Elementary as an interdistrict school and establish a new interdistrict school to be built along the Highway 67/167 corridor. The PCSSD claims that Baker has been desegregated without having to convert it into an interdistrict school,  the reason for its becoming an interdistrict school. thus obviating However, the Court finds that Baker's designation as an interdistrict school was intended not only to desegregate that school but also to aid in the desegregation of three additional elementary schools: Romine in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Lawson and 1, Other changes such as historical background and context, timelines, changes to correct language discrepancies and inconsistencies, and other changes which contribute to clarity or support intent, are not discussed. language discrepancies -4-Robinson in the PCSSD. Testimony and figures presented at the bearings indicate that failure to designate and promote Baker as an interdistrict school as originally planned may be impacting desegregation negatively in schools having difficulty achieving or maintaining compliance with the minimum required racial balance of their student enrollment. Because of the Court's concern about difficulties with racial balance at Baker, Romine, Lawson, and Robinson, and in the interest of adherence to the agreed number of interdistrict schools, the Court finds that Baker should interdistrict school. remain an The Court requires the district to look carefully at the quality of the programs at Baker, particularly the extended day program which was intended to attract students who would promote desegregation of the school. The extended day program must be expanded as necessary to accommodate additional students, particularly those transferring from the Romine area as emphasized in the plan. As promised in the original language of the plan. the PCSSD shall continue to provide its full compensatory education program at Baker so long as 35 or more black students have transferred from LRSD to Baker. The Court approves that portion of the modification that deletes the required addition of 200 seats at Baker. regard to Harris, testimony at the hearings convinced the Court that deleting the designation of Harris Elementary as an 2 PCSSD Superintendent Mr. Bobby Lester stated at the hearings that Baker is considered to be an interdistrict school. -5-interdistrict school and establishing instead a new interdistrict school in an easily accessible location is wise decision. a Because the Court finds that this proposed change will likely advance desegregation, it adopts the modification but delays until a later date ruling the PCSSD ^s motion to postpone for five years the construction of the new interdistrict school. The Eighth Circuit ordered in November 1991 that the agreed number of interdistrict schools be operated according to the agreed timetable. However, in a number of instances it was impossible to adhere to that order. For example, under the 198 9 plan. Crystal Hill was scheduled to open in 1990-91. It is now scheduled to be ready for the 1992-93 school year. Romine did not meet the original date but it is now open. As with the new interdistrict school to take the place of Harris, the dates for the establishment of Stephens and King are the subject of a pending motion and will be determined at a later date. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT As with the interdistrict plan, the Court determines that the ^^jority of the modifications proposed by the PCSSD are concerned with details and. therefore. are approved. However, certain modifications the Court finds substantive of two of the primary goals of the and student achievement. case. and unsupported in light i.e. racial integration PATWICK The PCSSD proposes to eliminate PATWICK, a program established -6-to enable parents to meet and work activities designed to aid their cooperatively with teachers in children's progress in school. Dr. Bobby Altom, the PCSSD's Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, testified that other parental involvement programs are being planned but are not identifiable at this time, of the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on parental involvement. In light the Court determines that PATWICK should remain in the plan until the district has designed, and the Court has parental involvement program that holds approved, a comparable promise of meeting the goals PATWICK was expected to achieve. Special Education The parties propose to delete certain language in the plan regarding the reduction of disparity between black and white students and the elimination of disproportionality within races in special education. While the Court approves the addition of new language regarding the relationship between disproportionality in special education. social deprivation and the original language regarding long-range goals must remain in order for the Court to monitor progress toward the goal of reducing achievement disparity between the races and reducing over representation of black students in special education classes. In the plan section dealing with special education screening and internal monitoring. changes have been proposed that would eliminate the requirement for a central office review committee. thereby reducing from three to two the levels in a screening process intended to prevent black students from being referred for -7-special education indiscriminately. At the hearing, a PCSSD witness testified that meaningful changes in the referral process should come from involvement at the local school level and that building practitioners should bear the burden of responsibility and accountability for the initial special education screening and review. The witness stated that the district will require those schools with over representation of black special education students to submit plan for correcting the placement disproportion. The Court is reluctant to condone alteration of a process which should prevent special education placement problems and obviate the need for process to correct such problems after they have materialized. However, the Court agrees that site-based decision-making may encourage accountability and responsibility at the local school level by increasing the involvement of those closest to the children. The Court approves the change in the number of review levels from three to two with the may require the district to restore the third\ncaution that it review level if monitoring reveals ineffective efforts to eliminate special education placements. disparity in Information/Special Services The parties propose to strike references to each school having programs which include school volunteers. parent advisory committee. parent/teacher/student discipline committee. a a a a a school/community partnership arrangement, and \"any other organized structures which the principals and their respective communities feel necessary for positive schoolcommunity relations. Because -8-the Eighth Circuit considers parental involvement crucial to the success of the desegregation plan, the Court does not allow the change. Parent and community involvement in education must be enthusiastically invited and carefully managed throughout the district to sustain the interest and continued activities of parents, business people, retirees, and others in the schools. The district must strive to maintain positive relations with the public, supporting those efforts through such organized groups and programs as school/community partnerships. school volunteers. parent advisory committees, Biracial Committees, in the plan. and others named Secondary School Curriculum Coordinators The parties propose a modification that reduces the number of PCSSD secondary curriculum coordinators from thirteen to six.^ The 1989 plan promised that an instructional coordinator would be provided to support every discipline and that every teacher would have a coordinator to provide materials, demonstration teaching. instructional supervision, moral support, of each school's program effectiveness. and an annual assessment The Court is concerned that testimony regarding the curriculum coordinators indicated that the figure of thirteen was placed in the plan even though the PCSSD failed to consult with the district's assistant superintendent for instruction. In addition. Dr. Altom testified that the PCSSD did not believe that by was Testimony at the hearing was that seven and one-half curriculum coordinators presently were employed by the PCSSD. -9-describing thirteen positions in the plan it was committing to always having thirteen coordinators in place, testimony is combined with that heard during\nWhen Dr. Altom's a hearing on August 7, 1991, on the parties' joint motion for partial stay pending appeal, the Court is particularly disturbed. In August 1991, the PCSSD lawyer stated that the PCSSD did not intend for the number of curriculum coordinators to be a component of the settlement plan and that the district was merely \"loading\" its plan. In spite of the discrepancy between the plan language and subsequent testimony, the Court approves the reduction in the number of secondary curriculum coordinators from thirteen to six in light of Dr. Altom's testimony that the reduction was made in the firm belief that removal of the positions would not result in substantial change in student performance as measured by the district's standardized tests. the exit exams at the secondary a level, and the MPT exams at the third. sixth, and eighth grade levels. However, the Court recognizes the significant role of curriculum coordinators in providing important services to teachers and in the development, implementation, and maintenance of quality academic programs. When a reduction in the number of coordinators results in shifting many duties to a smaller group of employees. there is a danger that the increased administrative and supervisory responsibilities will yield inadequate support for personnel and programs that directly impact student performance. If disparity in student achievement does not improve or if test scores decline. the Court may require that the full number of curriculum -10-coordinator positions be restored. The Court also notes that the parties propose to delete in the Compensatory Education section the full time instructional specialist at the elementary level and assign the specialist duties to the assistant principal or Chapter 1 coordinator at schools where black student enrollment exceeds 40%. ] the instructional specialist position at each Elsewhere in the plan, elementary school has been deleted and the assistant principal is referred to as assistant principal/Chapter coordinator or assistant principal/instructional specialist, Once again, the parties seek 1 to saddle one individual with multiple duties and accept the risk that all duties will not get done. While the Court approves the modifications, it will carefully monitor student achievement and the district may be required to restore the Minority Facilitator Recruitment Program deleted positions. The PCSSD also proposes to change certain features of the Minority Facilitator Recruitment Program, a program designed to recruit black teachers as facilitators in the district's Talented and Gifted Program. As the Court understands it, the proposed changes concern that portion of the program which offers tuition assistance for black teachers who work for the district and who are interested in completing graduate courses which will qualify them to teach gifted and talented students (TAG and ALPHA programs). The program provides that for every one year that the teacher works for the school district. the PCSSD will fund six hours of coursework. If the teacher does not maintain a certain grade point -11-average, he or she must refund the money. Also, if the teacher does not complete the program, the debt must be repaid. The PCSSD proposes to lower the grade point average (GPA) these black teachers must maintain from a 3.0 to a 2.8 on a four-point scale and to forgive the debt for black teachers who are fired. The Court is troubled by these proposed modifications and declines to approve them. Lowering the GP.z^ requirement for black teachers receiving district-subsidized tuition for the gifted education courses they take sets a separate and inferior standard of performance for black teachers. The proposed change suggests that minority teachers either will be unable to maintain a 3.0 grade average or will be attracted to the program by a substandard achievement requirement. In addition, at a time when national and local emphasis is focused on higher expectations for student performance and the importance of educators as role models responsible for leading children to meet those increased expectations, it is inappropriate to lower the achievement standard for any group of teachers. of debt for teachers who Furtheirmore, the proposed forgiveness fired is illogical and inconsistent with the requirement that the tuition money be repaid the district by any teacher who chooses not to continue the program or who fails to fulfill the obligation to work in the district for one year for every six hours of coursework funded by the district. Air Force ROTC Program The parties proposed in the 1989 settlement plans to move the PCSSD's Air Force ROTC program from Jacksonville High School to -12-North Pulaski High School. In its modifications, the PCSSD deleted the proposed transfer and stated in hearings that the Air Force refused to grant pemission to move the program. In this Court's Stay Order of August 22, 1991, transfer of the ROTC program was \"stayed pending appeal, effective upon receipt by the Court of documentation of the PCSSD's efforts to move the program and the Air Force's denial of that move.\" To date, the Court has not received the information requested last August, obligated to furnish the required documentation Early Prevention of School Failure Program The parties remain to the Court. The Court approves the modification of language concerning measurement of the effectiveness of the Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) program and agrees that the Biracial Committee may have the opportunity to review and make recommendations regarding the effectiveness of such programs. Any decision regarding the effectiveness of the EPSF program is a curriculum issue, however. and not one within the exclusive province of the Biracial Committee. Furthermore, the Court understands that EPSF is a nationally validated program which is based upon young children's developmental stages. Any program which might replace EPSF, in whole or in part. must be comparable in validation scope and developmental grounding. Biracial Committee The Court notes that the parties have included a new plan subsection describing in some detail the composition and role of the PCSSD Biracial Committee. The Committee is to have 14 members -13-who are representatives of the district 's population and geography with each election zone to have two representatives, one black and one \"other member. The parties have agreed that the Joshua Intervenors will appoint half (seven) of the Committee members, four of whom will be black. In another area of the plan, new language regarding the Biracial Committee has been introduced. providing for a 30 day period for the \"advise and consent\" of the Biracial Committee regarding unresolved desegregation grievances. While the Court approves the changes concerning the Biracial Committee, it understands that the primary role of this volunteer group is to monitor the progress of the district toward the goals of the desegregation plan. If the Committee is asked to take on additional duties. the members must be recruited with full knowledge of the scope of their responsibilities and the time required to fulfill them. the Biracial Committee with new duties and allowing a 30 day period for the group's action must not be allowed to detract from the basic monitoring function of the Committee. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan Under the terms of the 1989 plan, all schools in the LRSD were to implement a four-year-old program by the 1993-94 school year. The May submission deletes that commitment and proposes to replace it with provisions contained in a long-range implementation plan which was filed with the Court on October 1, 1991, and discussed -14-in the February 6 hearing. During the hearing the Court expressed specific concerns with certain of the modifications proposed in the LRSD Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan (Long-Term Plan) and questioned the impact upon the implementation of early childhood education programs, a provision of the desegregation plan which the Eighth Circuit has identified as a crucial feature. The Court agrees with the parties that four-year-old programs are both compensatory and desegregatory in nature since they impact disparity of academic achievement by better kindergarten and also act to attract white preparing children for children to the public schools. The parties have convinced the Court that, as a desegregation tool, it is wise to place four-year-old programs in those schools or areas which have Therefore, the LRSD will not be proved difficult to desegregate, required to place four-year-old programs in every elementary school. However, the parties have made solemn promises regarding early childhood education. The Court views the four-year-old program as a substantive component of the settlement plan which holds achievement disparity between black promote racial balance in the schools. great promise to reduce and white children and to The Long-Term Plan does not satisfy the original intent of the parties regarding the scope of the four-year-old program. The Court will not release the parties from serving the number of children who would have been served had every school offered a four-year-old program as agreed in the 1989 plan. Also, the Long-Tenn Plan contemplates converting Ish incentive school to an early childhood center. The Eighth Circuit -15-has said that the incentive schools are crucial and stressed the importance of a period of stability. Closing an incentive school altering the function of such a school is a highly disruptive event which the Court would be reluctant to approve absent compelling evidence that such a change would better of desegregation. serve the goals The LRSD Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan is not approved. The parties are required to refine the provisions of the Long-Term Plan and again petition the Court for approval within 30 days of this Order. The revised Long-Tera Plan must: 1) identify the precise number of children to be served by the LRSD using the standard of 18 classroom, as agreed by the parties\nstudents per 2) accommodate in four-year-old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been included if all schools in the district had a four-year-old program as originally planned\n3) place four-year-old programs in locations which will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance\n4) eliminate the closing of an incentive school\n5) follow a time schedule in which implementation of four-year-old programs is completed by 1994-95, completion date identified in the Long-Term Plan\nthe and 6) limit reliance on four-year-old programs that are provided through agencies, such as Head Start, which the -16-district does not control and the goals of which do not parallel the settlement agreement goals of program scope, racial balance, location. and so forth. While the district IS encouraged to continue its cooperative relationship with agencies such as Head Start and the Cii.y of Little Rock Day Care Center, the parties may not shift to such programs the obligation the parties themselves assumed when they wrote the Special Programs 1989 plan. The LRSD proposes to eliminate Little Rock Job Corps Alternative Program from the settlement plan. Mr. James Jennings, LRSD Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services, testified that the Job Corps Center no longer offers the Alternative Program and that there are other programs in place that deal with high school students who are at risk of dropping out of school: the LRSD Alternative Learning Center in the old Carver building, the JTPA Summer Learning Program, and a Changing Directions program. Additionally, Mr. Jennings and Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs for the LRSD, mentioned programs such as New Futures for Little Rock Youth and the Cornerstone Project with which the district collaborates to provide various services which promote student success. The district also proposes to delete the Homework Telephone Hotline for English, math. establishment of a science, and social studies. (This phone service is not the same homework hotline -17-which the district is required to provide for incentive school students.) Mr. Jennings testified that the funding for this Hotline, which was to be provided by the business community, had not materialized. Instead, some students who attend the four LRSD junior highs involved in the New Futures program can phone a recorded homework assignment message and can participate in an after school tutorial program. There is also a corporate-sponsored state telephone homework line which Little Rock students The Court approves the changes regarding the Little may use. Rock Job Corps Alternative Program since Job Corps no longer offers the program. However, the district must continue to provide students who are experiencing attendance or disciplinary problems with other programs similar to the Job Corps Alternative Program, such as this may wax and wane but the district remains Programs obligated to assure that there are ongoing comprehensive and effective services for students needing specialized support. The district is expected to make wise use of all available community resources. to maintain strong coalitions with such organizations as Job Corps, New Futures, and Cornerstone, and to seek new resources to take the place of those no longer available. The Court will carefully monitor the district's use of community resources and the LRSD's programs, policies, and practices which are designed to enable students to remain in school, promote their academic success, alleviate behavior problems. and The requirement for the Homework Telephone Hotline, other than the homework phone line which serves incentive school students. may -18-be removed from the plan because similar services are being provided by other organizations. However, the Court may restore the requirement for the district to implement a homework hotline if comparable services become unavailable elsewhere and students are not receiving adequate help with homework through hotlines other means. or New Futures The 1989 plan contains certain references to operations of the New Futures program which largely have been deleted in the May submission. The Court understands that the program as originally described in the plan is now outdated, operations of the program have changed. as certain features and At the hearings, several references were made to New Futures by two district witnesses. This testimony indicated that the district continues to depend upon New Futures, especially in four junior high schools, to provide such services as after-school tutoring centers, phone recordings of homework assignments, and extended day programs. Also, LRSD financial statements contain New Futures budget allotments and debits which attest to the district's ongoing relationship with the program. It IS incongruous to remove plan references to New Futures while continuing to rely heavily upon New Futures as a partner. The Court will not approve deleting from the plan language which describes New Futures' functions in LRSD schools at the time the plan was written until the parties provide the Court updated information which will replace the obsolete description of New Futures and its role in the LRSD schools. -19-Academic Support Programs In the 1989 plan, the LRSD approach to academic remediation was largely embodied within a program known as Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL). When PAL was incorporated into the plan, there was general understanding among the parties as to what the program entailed because the LRSD had developed an extensive written description of PAL and had begun widespread inservice training on its implementation. Mrs. Matthis testified at the January 23, 1992 hearing that there has been dissatisfaction with the results of PAL as it has existed and that the district desires to modify PAL and change the district's overall approach to remediation. The parties proposed to delete PAL from the language of the plan, replacing it with generic reference to an a unspecified number of unnamed \"LRSD academic support (remediation) programs.\" The Court is convinced that PAL as it has been implemented is an inadequate approach to remediation and does not wish the district to continue investing resources in an ineffective program\nyet the Court cannot sanction a complete abandonment of PAL or deletion of all references to it in the plan until the parties are able to replace it with an interrelated, programmatic approach to remediation that is sufficiently detailed for the Court to monitor. Therefore, the parties must submit within 60 days a written plan for the entire academic support program that is proposed to replace PAL. The plan must include the following\n1) the name and location of each academic support program\n-20-2) Clearly stated goals and objectives for each program\n3) a comprehensive description of each program's components and activities, including those which may be \"extended day\" in nature\n4) an overview of how all the individual academic support programs will be coordinated for continuity of services to children and efficient use of resources\n5) the number of students targeted for participation in each program by school and grade level\n6) the number of teachers or other staff (identified by position) responsible for delivering each of the academic support programs\n7) 8) implementation time lines\nanticipated costs\n9) an overview of the necessary staff training by content, by year, and by number of training participants\n10) evaluation criteria that will indicate how effectively teachers are implementing new instructional approaches. an element termed \"critical\" by the LRSD witness at the hearings\nand 11) evaluation criteria that will measure the degree to which each academic support program is successful in meeting its particular programmatic goals and objectives of remediating student achievement and contributing to the overall reduction -21-of disparity between black and white students/ According to LRSD financial data, materials and personnel for PAL have been underwritten by millions of dollars in settlement money. The district must salvage to the extent possible what has been invested in the PAL remediation approach. Staff positions, computer hardware, software programs. and other equipment and materials previously devoted to PAL should be properly reallocated toward the new approach to remediation. Additionally, in the LRSD remediation programs designed to address students' learning deficiencies, the parties propose to delete science and social studies as \"core areas\" through which requisite skills are maintained and reinforced at the secondary level. In their joint motion for partial stay pending appeal and during the hearing on the motion. the parties contended that science and social studies were deleted from the list of discrete academic support programs in order to emphasize remediation in the areas of English, reading, and math rather than \"diluting\" the program by including science and social studies.- At the hearing in January 1992, Mrs. Matthis indicated that removing students from class for remediation in social studies and science as well as for reading and math would result in increasing the isolation of students from the regular classroom, decreasing the cooperative *If it appears that the Court is being too particular in setting forth required components of proposed programs such as the academic support programs and the Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan, it is because the parties have failed to provide the Court with well thought out, comprehensive program plans which can be closely monitored. -22-learning interaction among regular students and those participating in remediation programs, and decreasing the ability of these students to complete the number of courses required for graduation. (See Exhibit 19A, attached.) Mrs. Matthis also testified that remediation in math and reading would benefit student achievement in both science and social studies since math and reading skills are prerequisites to success in other curricular areas. She stressed that it is \"critical\" that the district provide the staff development necessary to ensure that teachers are able to assume greater responsibility for the total educational experience of students rather than only specific subject-oriented content. The Court allows the change regarding science and social studies as proposed and requires the district to provide all teachers with ongoing training to meet students' need for academic remediation in the most inclusive setting and comprehensive manner possible. The Court will closely monitor student progress on test scores in social studies and science. If students fail to progress in these areas or if improvement is not made in reducing overall achievement disparity between black and white students, the Court may require changes in the plan. The parties propose to modify the plan by adding language that gives the LRSD an option of merely informing parents rather than actively involving them in each identified phase of the remediation programs in which their children participate: individual assessment, individual improvement planning, formative assessments. -23-workshops, and. summative evaluations. Given the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on parental involvement, the Court denies the modification. Focused Activities Testimony indicated that approximately 8 0% of the black elementary students in Little Rock do not attend an incentive or magnet school but are educated instead in area schools. In order to advance desegregation and reduce achievement disparity among the large number of students served by area schools, the plan gives each area school the option of developing a program of focused activities which may center around a theme. The goals of focused activities are to promote a community of learning among parents, staff and students\nto provide enrichment opportunities at the schools\nand to ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the area schools. The parties also wish to continue a related program. the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program for the area schools. The Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program provides up to $75,000 for each area school over a three year period to fund programs which will improve the education of all students and reduce student achievement disparity. The Court approves continuing the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program, which the district will evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognizes the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of. the original focused activities feature of the plan. Focused activities will -24-continue to be an option for area schools, may center around a theme, and will operate according to the original plan which provides for community and parental involvement and allocation of funds. an annual Junior High Schools The parties propose to eliminate from language concerning the possible construction the settlement plan of a new junior high school, leaving only \"planning\" for additional junior high capacity. Evidence presented at the hearing indicates that the LRSD is experiencing serious capacity problems at its junior high schools, with four of the district's eight junior highs at or above 100% capacity. (See Exh. # 27, attached). When this case began. there were three junior high schools located in the eastern or central sections of Little Rock: Booker, Dunbar, and Mann. Within the last few years, all of these schools have been converted to magnet schools. Dunbar and Mann have remained junior highs and Booker is an elementary magnet. Consequently, those children (most of whom are black) living in the east and central city have been largely displaced from that area's junior highs and must bear an unequitable burden of transportation to attend high schools in the western sections of town. nonmagnet junior Moreover, when capacity of the junior high schools is inadequate for the number of children eligible to attend them and the buildings become overcrowded, these schools are rendered unattractive to parents who hesitate to place their children in an environment that offers less than optimal learning conditions. -25-The Court does not approve the modification. The language of the plan does not require the LRSD to build immediately a new junior high school but it does obligate the parties to conduct careful review of junior high capacity and its immediate and long term impact on programmatic needs and/or intradistrict and M-to- M needs, If results of the study, based on current and complete information, indicate that construction of a new LRSD junior high school is necessary, the Court will require the district construction timGlinss and. procGdurss  Incentive Schools to submit Reserved Seating and Parent Recruitment - The parties propose change in the plan that would allow the district to place black children in vacant seats which had been reserved for white children at the kindergarten and pre-kindergarten levels in the incentive schools. Mr. James Jennings testified that the district now fills a a any unclaimed reserved seats after the first week of school. The Court is concerned about the impact of this change. When seats intended for white children are instead filled with black children, desegregation at the incentive schools is seriously impeded. No matter how successful subsequent recruitment might be, once seats at a particular grade level are filled with a racially imbalanced enrollment, the imbalance tends to persist at that grade level as those students matriculate from one year to the next. The parties have pledged to desegregate the incentive schools with aggressive and sustained recruitment of white children, including the strategy of targeting geographic neighborhoods for recruitment -26-to a specific incentive school and stressing group preference as an assignment option. In order for this type of group recruitment plan to work, there must be seats available at the incentive schools. In their June 1990 Joint Brief for Appellants, the parties explained to the Eighth Circuit that the incentive schools would be desegregated in phases \"through combination of white recruitment into the Incentive Schools. and by reserving a a ^.siqnated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. Joint Brief for Appellants at 36, Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89- 2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 90-1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90- 1580) (emphasis original). First of all, the number of black students identifiable schools will be reduced in racially automatically through the plan. Our target is to reserve fifty percent of the seats in the incentive schools for white students each year, beginning with next year's kindergarten class. A certain number of those seats will be reserved whether or not the white students show up. And that number, we have discussed in the past with the Joshua Intervenors. The fifty percent target will work if all of our schools are allowed to go forward with the construction schedule of inter-district schools. If not we would still retain, at least, the district average of whi\u0026lt;.e students who would reserve, at least, that many seats throughout the entire six years, so that if, three or four years from now, a group of white students decided to go to the fourth grade at Rockefeller School, would be available for that purpose. That is our target. show up. If not. seats Id. at n.64. Provisions of the interdistrict plan target the ideal racial balance of the various types of LRSD schools: interdistrict schools -27-at 50 percent black/white with a variance of 60 to 40 percent of either race\nmagnet schools at between 50 and 55 percent black\nand area schools at an enrollment of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. While the plan does not identify a specific target racial balance in the incentive schools, the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit require that a racial balance at the incentive schools be 50 percent of each race, at least in the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten levels. This proportion is to guide the district in the number of seats which are initially reserved for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. The Court will reluctantly allow seats reserved for white students to be released after a reasonable period only if timely. vigorous, and sustained recruitment efforts to fill the seats with white children are unsuccessful. These recruitment efforts must be thoroughly documented by the districts to the extent that the Court can determine that--the parties are diligently trying to recruit white students to the incentive schools before any reserved seats. releasing The parties also propose to modify their plan language so as to limit the LRSD's incentive school recruitment efforts to potential kindergarten students. Such a change would allow the _ ^The Court, recognizes that the Eighth Circuit has defined racially identifiable black elementary school in LRSD as\nelementary school that is 81% or more black (rounded in LRSD \"a any uuc is ex-5 or more black (rounded up or down to the nearest whole number) .\" _ Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 339 f 2d 1296 1988) . ' 1307 (Sth Cir. -28-LRSD to diminish efforts to recruit students into grades one through six and the four-year-old program in the incentive schools. Such a restriction would place a heavy burden for desegregating an entire school upon only one grade level. Given the plan's emphasis upon desegregating the incentive schools and the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit of the plan's \"automatic\" desegregation features, the Court does not approve restricting recruitment to potential kindergarten students. The Court is mindful that all parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregation of the incentive schools. Although the Court will carefully monitor interdistrict collaboration in support of desegregation of all schools, it will pay close attention to the efforts directed toward the incentive schools and particularly scrutinize the LRSD's efforts to carry out diligently the incentive school recruitment activities as outlined in the plan and detailed in the LRSD Incentive School Marketing Plan, a strategic plan referred to by Mr. James Jennings at the hearing. The Court encourages the parties to implement any additional recruitment measures that will aid desegregation of the incentive schools as a whole. The Court is pleased to note that marked progress is being made in desegregating Rockefeller where the school's overall student enrollment is 31% white for the current year. Also encouraging is the present racial balance of the four- year-old classes (48% white) at Franklin. Progress at these two schools holds forth promise that desegregation of the incentive -29-schools ultimately can be achieved or at least significantly increased. The Court encourages the district to analyze the success factors that are contributing to the desegregation of these two schools to enhance desegregation of the remaining incentive schools. Pupil-teacher ratio and classroom aides ~ The plan describes in detail a wide range of special features which are unique to the incentive schools. These enhanced programs, activities, support systems, and funding levels are compensatory and remedial in that they are intended to help children overcome past discrimination and boost student achievement. They also are designed to promote racial desegregation by attracting white children to these predominately black schools. The Eighth Circuit has underscored the importance of the many special incentive is important for the settlement plans to be school aspects: \"It scrupulously adhered to and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools...\" 921 F.2d at 1386. Among the distinctive incentive school features is a pupilteacher ratio that is lower than that of other LRSD schools. In the 1989 plan, the parties promised that the incentive schools would have a maximum pupil-teacher ratio of 20 to one. This ratio is consistent with the February 9, 1988 opinion of the Eighth Circuit which states that \"the most important element of the compensatory and remedial programs should be the reduction of class size in the racially identifiable black elementary schools to 20 -30-pupils per teacher,\" Little Rock School District v- Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 839 F.2d 1296, The low incentive school pupilteacher ratio 1307 (Sth Cir. 1988) . was again stressed by the Eighth Circuit in its order of December 12, 1990: \"A salient feature of these [incentive schools] would be a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one.  921 F.2d at 1379. The school district has used this reduced ratio in marketing the incentive schools, promising a \"low pupil/teacher ratio: small classes of 20:1 which provide more time for teacher interaction with students\" in a LRSD recruitment brochure which was used to attract new students to the incentive schools for the 1990-91 school year. The LRSD's Incentive School Strategic Marketing Plan for 1992-1997, published in May 1991, enumerates the many strengths and benefits of the incentive schools, listing among them smaller class sizes, lower student-adult ratios. and an instructional aide for every classroom. Clearly the LRSD has represented to the courts and to the community that incentive school students. teachers, principals, and parents could expect that the children would be taught in smaller classes with pupil to teacher ratios lower than that of other schools, indeed lower than that by state accreditation standards. required Yet language in the plan creates confusion about the twenty to one ratio and the number of students that actually will be seated in a classroom. The 1989 plan states that \"there may be more than 20 students per classroom. however, there will be certified aide in each class and possibly a second teacher in those -31- aclasses.\" (LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan, May 1, 1991, p. 256) In their June 1990 Joint Brief to the Eighth Circuit, the parties reaffirm their commitment to a \"specific and detailed\" plan for the incentive schools and state that \"Incentive Schools would have a maximum effective pupil/teacher ratio of 20:1 by placing a second teacher or certified instructional aide in each class with more than 20 pupils (where classes of that size were permitted by state law).\" Joint Brief for Appellants at 43, n.76. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89-2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90-1580). 90- Earlier, in its Objections to the Findings and Recommendations of the Special Master, filed with the district court in May 1989 and included in the Joint Designated Record on Appeal, the LRSD had addressed the ambiguity of the plan that promised a 20 to 1 pupilteacher ratio but also allowed more than 20 students to a classroom: The Special Master expressed concern at an off-the- record conference that the pupil/teacher ratio was beina rnanrrorl 4_____ . _ . . changed to twenty-five to though the maximum class one. LRSD explained that even size would be twenty-five students, the pupil/teacher ratio would remain at twenty to one. LRSD provided the example of four classrooms with twenty-five students and one full-time teacher in each classroom. A full-time language arts teacher would be assigned to work with those four classrooms, overall ratio of one hundred students to five teachers or twenty to one. The Special Master indicated that such an arrangement would be acceptable provided that teachers and not certified aides were used to achieve the to one ratio. for an twenty Joint Designated Record, Vol. II at 2767, Little Rock School -32-District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1374 (Sth Cir. 1990)(Nos. 89-2288, 89-2289, 89-2352 to 89-2354, 1165 to 90-1167, 90-1579 and 90-1580). 90- At the January 1992 hearings on proposed 1989 plan revisions, this Court noted Eighth Circuit orders which specifically refer to the twenty to one ratio. Responding to this Court's concern about what the parties had represented to the Eighth Circuit regarding the incentive school pupil-teacher ratio, the LRSD lawyer indicated that the Eighth Circuit's order of December 1990 was based in part upon oral arguments made before the judges in June 1990 when the parties explained the difference between a class with a maximxim of 25 students and a pupil-teacher ratio of twenty to one. The lawyer stated that \"Judge Arnold is not a judge to waste words in an opinion, and the issue was before him concerning the difference between class size and pupil-teacher ratio. And we explained that we would have a class size with a maximxim of 25 students but an effective pupil-teacher ratio based on a total staff devoted to those students of 20 to one.\" However, this Court's review of the Eighth Circuit's own audio tapes of those oral arguments reveal that. while there was discussion of double funding and other aspects of the incentive schools, there was no reference whatever to the size of incentive school classes nor the pupil-teacher ratio. The numerous extraordinary features of the incentive schools have been represented to the Court and the of substance and not of mere semantics. community as a matter This Court finds that -33-sBBsasiQ^sssEaEgB^e^s^E Si providing a smaller-than-usual class size in the incentive schools was intended in the settlement agreement as a means to promote both academic achievement and racial balance in the schools. The Court notes that to have anticipated placing up to 25 students in each incentive classroom would have been a violation of Arkansas accreditation standards which permit an average of 25 students per elementary classroom only in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. Recognizing that language in the settlement plan allows for more than twenty children in a classroom. the Court orders that the maximum individual classroom enrollment at incentive schools will be as follows: 18 students in four-year-old classes. as agreed by the parties\n20 students in kindergarten, 23 students in grades one through three. and 25 students in grades four through six. class sizes which are consistent with certain of the state's accreditation standards. fi This Court is mindful of the Eighth Circuit's emphasis on the reduction of class size in the incentive schools to 20 pupils per teacher and that Court's caution about reducing the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools without significant justification. In order to effect a low pupilteacher ratio as provided in the settlement plan, the Court orders that there be at least one full time instructional aide per incentive school classroom in those schools where any classroom contains more than 6 The table on page 254 of the LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan concerning capacity at incentive schools is being modified in accordance with this Order. -34-20 students. the district should choose to reduce class size to a maximum of 20 students in kindergarten through sixth grade classroom in an entire incentive school, the Court will allow that school to have two instructional aides for every three K-6 classrooms. In any case, an appropriate number of supervision aides will be provided at each incentive school, regardless of whether there is one instructional aide per classroom or, in those schools which elect to have no more than 20 children per K-6 classroom, two instructional aides per every three K-6 classrooms. Infomnation presented at the hearings indicated that over half of all incentive school classrooms presently have more than 20 students. The Court is sensitive to the tremendous disruption that changing schools causes for children and their parents. In adjusting to reduced class size for the 1992-93 school year. the Court will not require that students currently enrolled in the incentive schools be transferred mandatorily to some other school. Children attending an incentive school during the 1991-92 school year may remain at that school until they move on to junior high or voluntarily transfer to another school. No new student shall be enrolled in an incentive school if that student's enrollment would cause the ordered class size limits to be exceeded. However, the Court is willing to permit an exception if the new student's enrollment would improve racial balance. Academic Programs - Given the importance of parental involvement. the Court does not approve a change that would remove the requirement for the district to develop a parent component model -35-and incorporate it into the district's four-year-old program. The Court will approve a proposed change in the four-year-old program content model from the designated High/Scope Curriculum only if the shift is to comparable developmentally appropriate curriculum model which continues to foster the active and independent of each child. learning The Court is not convinced that school themes at the incentive schools should be deleted from the 1989 plan and does not approve their elimination. The Eighth Circuit has stressed the importance of parental involvement. School themes, developed at the local level by parents and staff, provide an important avenue for community participation. Themes have proven their value in magnet schools as successful desegregation tools which offer a focus for enrichment activities. help give schools an identity and individuality, and provide parents with more options for their children's education. Moveover, considerable money, materials, and personnel already have been invested in thematic development at the incentive schools\nit will be a wise use of resources to continue to build on the thematic foundation which has already been laid. The parties propose to modify the plan to allow science laboratories to be either mobile or permanent. The modification would release the district from the requirement to have traditional laboratory in separate room reserved for that purpose. The district has cited lack of adequate space for housing permanent laboratories in some of the incentive schools as the basis of this proposed change. The Court is reluctant to approve a a a -36-modifications in the plan that stem from lack of planning foresight on the part of the parties, as is evident with the science laboratories, but will allow mobile science laboratories in those incentive schools where adequate space for a full size permanent science lab is not available. The mobile labs must be fully equipped so that students using them receive the same range and high quality of experience as students who are taught in permanent labs. At the August 1991 hearing on the motion for partial stay. LRSD Superintendent Dr. Ruth Steele stated that preparation of Parent Home Study Guides was linked to the completion of the district's new Computer Managed Instructional Technology and related cxirriculum reform. The Court allows the modification to delay development of Parent Home Study Guides. However, the guides must be completed and ready for parental use at or before the beginning of the 1993-94 school year, the date the district has indicated it will complete the guides. The LRSD seeks to eliminate its commitment to establish foreign language laboratories at each incentive school. Because children cannot be expected to achieve a degree of foreign language proficiency without the practice and reinforcement afforded by a language laboratory, the modification is not allowed. The Court notes language contained in the parties' joint brief filed in June 1990, enumerating the wide array of activities, enhanced programs, and support mechanisms that would be available at the incentive schools. The Eighth Circuit has emphasized the importance of the -37-incentive schools and this Court will not allow the district to diminish the scope and quality of the schools' instructional programs and enrichment activities. Year Round School The 1989 agreement offered year round school and summer school at all incentive schools. The parties propose to modify the settlement plan by replacing year round school with an extended-year program and providing summer school at possibly only one site. The Court approves the change but notes that there is a significant difference between a traditional summer school which emphasizes academic remediation and an extended-year program which may include remediation but also adds a variety of enrichment opportunities that enhance and extend children's learning beyond the regular school year. The parties remain obligated to provide incentive school children with summer learning experiences that go beyond the customary basic curriculxim of an ordinary summer remedial school. The extendedyear program for incentive school students must be located in a facility or facilities with \u0026lt; sufficient to accommodate all of the eligible students who attend the program. capacity wish to Washington Attendance Zone - The parties propose to add language offering certain incentive school educational services, such as extended day activities, extended year activities. and a scholarship program, to students who reside in the Washington attendance zone but cannot attend that school. The parties' July 25, 1991 stipulation indicates that these services are available to students who are enrolled in Washington. The parties' positions -38-are unclear. Before the Court will approve the modification, the parties must provide more details, such as: 1) the status of the LRSD's plan to include these newly- eligible children in the incentive school extended-year, and scholarship programs\nextended day, 2) whether the LRSD has budgeted the money to underwrite incentive school services for additional students. e.g., transportation. after-school snacks. materials and supplies, additional personnel to satisfy the staffing requirement for Homework Centers, and so forth\nand 3) how communication will be coordinated among the staff at Washington, staff at the incentive schools. and parents in order to develop individual Student Education Plans and otherwise assure continuity of services for the Washington students who elect to take advantage of proposed provision. this The Court will not approve the modification until details are forthcoming. Camp Pfeifer - Provisions throughout the parties' plans obligate , them to make use of community resources (such as New Futures and the Cornerstone Project, discussed above) which aid overall progress toward desegregation goals. Camp Pfeifer is a type of residential alternative program for children needing additional assistance in order to be successful students. The parties propose to add wording to the effect that district students will participate provided the funding of the Camp Pfeifer continues and -39-the program meets the needs of the students. The Court allows the new language with the understanding that the change does not relieve the parties from their obligation to manage their relationship with community agencies in all good faith with careful attention to maintaining ongoing communication, cooperative teamwork, and complementary support. The parties are wise to join with the community in strong working partnerships to build a solid support network for children. The Court will monitor changes which the parties may wish to make in their relationship with such community resources as Camp Pfeifer, New Futures, Cornerstone, and others to determine the impact of those changes on desegregation. In further considering the parties' reliance on various community resources, the Court notes that the parties have added language making the continuation of several programs contingent on the availability of outside funding. For example, in the Interdistrict May submissions (p. 415) and in the LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan (pp. 10, 41, 46, 166, 304) , programs and services provided through such agencies as JTPA, HIPPY, Camp Pfeifer, and local cable education access channel are to continue only if other funding is available. The Court allows the modifications but stresses that funding availability refers only to the particular programs. The parties' obligation to provide comparable services is not negated by the unavailability of other funding. -40-Program Specialists and Other Recommended Positions - The parties propose to delete the positions of specialist for alternative classroom and program specialist and to base the position of assistant principal on enrollment. The Court disapproves the deletion of the program specialist in each incentive school as the position is necessary to support the thematic emphasis required in each school. In addition, the Court does not approve the language which would make student enrollment the sole determining factor for including an assistant principal as part of an incentive school's staff as there are other indicators of a school's need for the position. The district must place an assistant principal, or any other staff position which has been recommended in the plan. in accordance with equitably meeting the identified needs of the staff and students in a particular school. For example, an assistant principal may be needed to help with the additional documentation. services. and enhancements that are required at the incentive schools. An assistant principal can serve as a classroom observer and program monitor to assure the sustained quality of the incentive schools. As stated in the plan, positions recommended for each school are not all inclusive since additional or different positions may be identified during the needs assessment process. The district must make decisions regarding recommended staff positions based upon criteria linked to a current needs assessment of an individual school. this vein, the Court does not approve removing an alternative classroom specialist from the list of recommended staff and requires the district to determine the need -41-altsmativs classrooms and establish them where necessary to serve students who will benefit from the specialized alternative setting. staff Development - The parties propose to create at each incentive school a staff development committee composed of Instructional Resource Center specialists, teachers, parents, principals, and other administrators as appropriate. Because there is great value in parents' taking active part in all aspects of the incentive schools, the Court approves the school-based staff development committees. This change will provide an avenue for frequent parent input into the operation of the schools since the plan requires the committees to meet on a monthly basis to plan activities related to meeting the needs of students who are achieving below acceptable levels of mastery. The functioning of these school committees will be supported by the incentive school coordinator and staff development department which must ensure that there is a smooth transition from the LRSD Staff Development Planning Committee as originally provided in the plan to the individual development committees. school staff Incentive School Curriculum - The Court allows the deletion of the requirement to develop curriculum specific to the incentive schools. but if the regular core curriculum is used in the incentive schools, it must be amplified as necessary to properly incorporate and support the thematic emphasis of each incentive school. It will be appropriate for the district to seek parent. teacher. and other school staff input into the development of -42-curriculum that will incorporate individual school themes and serve the specific needs of students attending the incentive schools. Consultant/Monitor The original plan called for the Special Master to appoint a consultant/monitor to make quarterly- evaluations and recommendations to the Special Master. changes replacing the Special Master with The Court approves the the Court. It does not approve the language requiring the Court's Monitor, who directs the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), to make at least quarterly visits to all schools in the three districts nor to report to the Court on a quarterly basis. The ODM is an arm of the Court which is responsible only to the Court. Its schedule and activities are not determined by the parties. None of the language in the plan's Consultant/Monitor section shall be construed as a comprehensive description of the appropriate function of the Monitor nor shall it limit the activities of the ODM. Such determinations are reserved for the Court. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Court determines that the modifications proposed by the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) the guidelines set forth by the Eighth are in conformity with Circuit. The changes concern details and adapt the original plan to existing circumstances. The Court notes, however, that the NLRSD plan makes reference to and includes a voluminous appendix. While the Court -43-questions the current significance of some of the documents included in the appendix, the NLRSD plan attached to this Order includes the appendix as presented by the parties modified plan. as part of their SUMMARY The Court hereby approves the revised plans as attached to this Order. The Little Rock School District is ordered to file with the Court, within 3 0 days from the date of entry of this Order, a Four-Year-Old Program Long-Term Plan. It is further ordered to file within 60 days from the date of entry of this Order a plan for the entire academic support program that is proposed to take the place of PAL. In addition, as this Court previously ordered on January 21, 1992, the LRSD must submit within 30 days from the date of entry of this Order a revised budget. The parties must file any motions for clarification and/or modification of this Order by May 14, 1992. DATED this 29th day of April, 1992. JNITED STATES DISTRICT JI UNITED JUDGE -44-TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS December 18, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs SUBJECT: Remediation - Reading/English, Math, Science, and Social Studies Provided is additional information to suppon our argument for providing remediation within the regular classrooms and reducing pull-out programs 9 . Students educational programs should not be implemented in isolation. . Facilitates the reinstitution of tracking of students by their supposed academic potential as most remedial classes are more than 90% black. . Proposal institutes more cooperative learning among groups of young people with varying abilities. . Allow teachers to team teach in more flexibly-designed curriculum blocks that integrate several disciplines rather than presenting students with disconnected, rapidly separated 50-minute subjects. . Train teachers to acquire a repertoire of teaching strategies that will enable students to acquire skills in learning how to learn, problem solving, and communication skills. . Existing staffing decisions and the program deliver/ model need to be reviewed and revised in accordance with our revised curriculum. . Existing compensatory and remedial programs rarelv teach the development of higher-order skills. . The amount of time recommended in each content area bv ADE and National Association for Accredited Schools is prohibitive to student mobility in completing course requirements for graduation (20 credits) as well as devoting recommended time in each elementary discipline. EXHIBIT 19 ARemediation - Reading/English, Math, Science, and Social Studies Page 2 . Students are prevented from benefiting from panicipation in electives. Remediation becomes punitive and is resisted by students and their parents. Remedial and compensatory education services must be provided as additions, otherwise, providing remedial services in lieu of would be considered supplanting by our accrediting agencies (ADE and NCA). SCHEDULES Elementary Level Subject Recommended Time Grades 1-3: Language Arts Mathematics Social Living (science, geography, history, economics, health/safety Creative Recreation (art, music, P.E.) 180 min. daily - 900 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly 60 min. daily - 300 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly Total 330 min. daily - 1,650 weekly Grades 4-6: Language Arts Mathematics Social Studies Science Creative Recreation 150 min. daily - 750 weekly 60 min. daily - 300 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly 30 min. daily - 150 weekly 45 min. daily - 225 weekly Total 330 min. daily - 1,650 weekly Secondary Level A minimum of 50 minutes per class is required with the exception of some vocational courses. Most of our classes are 55 minutes in length. Students must acquire a minimum of 20 credits to graduate and, by ADE statute, must exit school by age 21. The amount of time allocated to complete course work will not allow pull-out programs in all core areas.TO\nFROM: SUBJECT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 11, 1991 Ruth Steele, Superintendent Long Range_Building Planning Committee James Jennings, Associate Superintendent BradyGadberry, Labor Relations Specialist Sterling Ingram, Director, Chip Jones, Manager of Planning, Support Services Research \u0026amp; Eval : ucng Range Building Planning Coanittee As we have considered the building dis.._c. schools, recommended uses of vacant buildincs. and secondary capacity. of buildings, X . School Sites The District currently owns-- four properties pouentia_ as sites for new or expanded schools, have Deen held with Philander that have fifth site. Smith College for Discussions a possible (a) One site is located at th e present Westside camous. Westsioe property is only a few blocks from 1-630 areas of the City and County acjacent to Arkansas Childrc ' \"   - accessible to all t: ve and o (b) c: ,inc-n\ns\\ already expressed located near them. xs xas en's Hospital (ACK). AC.H r enthusiastic support for a school support for xOr joint use of the prooertv develop a partnership to needs of children. They also would like to develom olans _ sc that LRSD and AC.H  serve educational and health , . P-p-iininary site plans indicate that f a capacity of 656 K-6 students and 40 four-year-olds for a total located on the sit two-story building with e. use of space, but offers exiting facility. w 11 or 696 students can be This plan will require efficient the potential for a unique Rockefeller School is located on a tract well-suited for expansion. and of land that is Ample space is available for P-vide seats for students , school is also easily accessible and has been successful in attracting student Citv. east s from all over the EXHIBIT 27Ruth Steele June 25, Page 2 1S9 1 ! II. (C) (e) The current Stephens site is adequate to support a school for approximately 656 K-6 students and 40 four- students for a total of 696 students. The year-old current Stephens building would be replaced with a new structure. Rebuilding Stephens on the current site enables a site significant number of black students .to attend school without being bussed out of the neighborhood. to The site the former Kinc/Oakhurst physically attractive location situated east of Field . fortner School is a of Curran- Conway Field. The King site is also large enouch to accommodate approximately 840 K-6 students and 40 feur- .year-olds .fo-r a total of S80 students. The King site is also attractive because of its proximity to Curran-Conway Field. The District would seek to enter into a joint-use agreement with the City so that the students will develop interests in a variety of extra-curricular activities. Field. st In order to populate a school on the King site, it be necessary to transport some black students from predominately black will one attendance zone to predominately black attendance zone which would i the burden of busing-for-black students. another ncrease Philander Smith College has expressed an interest in developing a model teacher education training orocram and would like to develop a partnership with the District. They have rejected cur proposal to build a school on their campus, but we should continue to plan to develco cooperative efforts with Philander Smith'. Attendance Zone Data - Elementary Schools This section will address the attendance zone changes that are needed to objectives. First, King phens Schools will be rebuilt in the 1-630 Corridor. \u0026lt;St comply with two First, and schools will become interdist These Ct schools, and they will have a racial balance of 60 percent blac.k and 40 percent white. The white population in these schools will come primarily f^cm PCSSD. Second, bussing the District on zones as possible. is seeking to reduce the burden black students by eliminating as of many satellite The fulfillment of this objective is restricted by the minimum black percentage that is required in tul elementary area schools. As a result, some schools in all west satellite Little Rock must maintain some, if zone blocks in order to comply desegregation requirements. not all, of their with court-ordered c:\\fnemos\\: . wodRuth Steele June 25, 1991 Page J two objectives x..ese zwo cojectives are interrelated. The construction projects will make it possible for students who live attendance zone of incentive/interdistric in the --- schools to attend these These projects will also, to some reduce the burden of bussing on black students. schools. extent, A zotal of 2190 students currently reside in the attendance zones of the incentive schools. The total capacity of the seven incentive schools is 2405, r*' of 1:25. Although 215 vacancies will The total 1:25. using a teacher/pupil ratio exist if all azzendance zone students attend the incentive schools, of the vacancies can be filled by students who currently nearby satellite.^ zones.   reside in satellite these zones allow the respective attendance zone A total of 281 students that can be eliminated reside in currently and s i 1 1 0 minimum desegregation schools to comply with This requirements. situation is complicated by the fact that 200 of the 281 satellite students live near the Stephens/Garland area. Ar her se azzendance zone. rious problem involves the Washington Magnet School Washington is the only elementary magnet zone,- This zone was drawn initiallv to accommodate 1050 incentive school students. school with an attendance converted to a Desegregation Plan. magne school The Diszric under the The school^was Tri-Distric,t recently received czu^z oval to continue to operate Washington as a magnet school. T..e attendance zone for Washingzon is too large to accommodat an of e the black students. Washington's capacity is are 892 black students who reside in the Washington The desegregation requirement for Washingt,.. As a result, only 60 percent '(488) of the black- a zendance zone studenzs nay attend Washington. 404 students must reassigned to non-attendance schools.  from eas e Washington's azzendance zone. is 60% black. 404 mus be 814 . ^n to The remaining zone These reassignments usually involve busing students t Little Rock to southwest Little Rock. Most of the 404 students from the Washington attendance (235 studenzs) reside on the northeast edge of the District. The closest elementary schools to these students are Carver- Magnet School, Booker Magnet School, and Rockefeller Incentive School.  zone The magnet shadow preferences for Carver and Booker (25 percent of building capacity) are too small to accommodate these students. percen the are small c: \\fnemos\\blscf\u0026gt;r.2. wpdRuth Steele June 25, 1991 Page 4 Ill. Attendance Zcne Data Secondary Schools In a separate process, calculate capacities for from' fomnula has a formula been developed secondary schools. to It is apparent .the study that very little capacity exists currently che junior high level and a significant amount of caoac at  , . - -----wt caoacitv exisus the highs. However, the District seems ti n.aye reached the peak of junior high enrollment in 1990-91 and that enrollment will decrease for a couple of years begin to increase again slightly in 1993-94. indicate that senior high enrollment will in the senior highs. However of the Distric and then IV. 'ext five years but not to the extent . The projections increase over the is required. required in 1992-93 that additional capacity However, adjustments to attendance zones mav be iQ-)Lno _'_______ or subsequent years. (See Attachment 1) While educational trends indicate that articulation between seventh grades, eighth to ninth grades, and ninth to sixth o tenth grades is best with a grade s 9-12, appears that the it District ucture of K-6, changing its secondary grade struc secondary capacity problems. should not 7-S, and consider re as a means for solvin Junior high enrollment will range, from 93% without the additional seats for' the juni 90% to 94% rest r to 102% of capacity .------- junior high schoois\"an,d with the proposed construction. Heights is expected to exceed the The enrollment a ... - - -- ----- -- current building capacity in 1993-94 and continue to increase in 1994-95 1995-96. Tne enrollment will range from capacity with the proposed construction. At The 37% to 97% and of Southwest Junior gh iu appears' that replacing 4 portable classrooms, 2 classrooms, . , - - ----------, adding and utilizing 3 classrooms in.the PDC will be the maximum advisable construction and-will provide additional space for attendance zone students. The other junior high school that should be expanded is Mabelvale. - -  Replacing the pori.able c...assrooms and building 4 new classrooms will provide adequate space for Mabelvale and southwes much of the growth is occurring. Little Rock, where 1990 Census The Office of Desegregation is presently involved in analyzing A map overlay has been prepared that black/white population count for each census tract. The 1980 Census data will be added to the facilitate comparisons of data by race and each census tpact. the 1990 Census data. map overlay to tn a total population in Preliminary comparisons the population trends that expected to continue. were evident seem to indicate In particular, in 1930 can be the. population in c: \\memos\\i:l dcomZ. updRuth Steele June 25 Page 5 1991 central and east Little Rock will continue to decline, and the population in portion of southwest and northwest Little Rock will continue to increase. it 1 did was recently announced that the original 1990 census count include 5.3 million ..persons. Our analysis of the no original census data for Little Rock Our analysis seems to confirm that ese figures are too low. We are in the process of obtaining e revised census counts. It should be noted, however, that e revised counts have not been.,approved by the U. Bureau. S. Census Further analysis,\nwill be needed to identify trends in specific geographic areas. each census block. The next step is to analyze the data for several census blocks. (Note: Each census tract is made uo of The census block data report * has approximately 700 pages.) In addition to examining census block data, another map overlay will be drawn for the attendance zones. There will probably be numerous discrepancies between the boundaries for the census tracts and the boundaries for the attendance zones. In such cases, the census block data will be usedto determine the exact number V. of students in a particular attendance zone. T.ne census map for 1990 is not the same as the census 1930 . Most of the changes in map for he boundaries for the census tracts occurred in southwest Little Rock and the western edce of the City. These differences will have to be reconciled in order to be able to make valid comparisons. Professional Development Cente For many years, SU I oort tie the District's instructional specialists and functions have been spread across Little Rock with chance for a coordinated instructional management The Math, Reading, Science, Staff Development, Social and English Departments are currently located in the former Lee School Building, now called the Instructional system. Studies, Resource Special Education, Gifted and Talented, Pupil Services, and the Student Hearing Officer, are located in the District's Annex Building on West Markham, and Library Media Services is currently located at Franklin School. Center (IRC). Health Services, Markham, c: \\mcmos\\blscom2 . upd Ruth Steele June 25, Page 6 1991 For several years, the District has been concerned about the physical condition of the IRC building, but the District has not bad opportunity to provide a satisfactory solution^ Trr Dictritt Desegregation Plan In the Tri-District    i I f d Magnet was proposed for Southwest Junior High. a University Lab -  . . -  As a result of ...IS proposal, the District chose the Southwest site for a new professio.nal development center that would provide state-of- the-art administrators. drawings of instructional space for students, teachers, and An architect for the District has develooed students, VI. provide a two-level 45,000 s\u0026lt;^are foot building which will - uf instructional specialists, a space for all of the multiple purpose auditorium, ctional specialists, . a professional library, wcrk/production r^ooms for teachers, classrooms, instructional classrooms, generous techrtology labs,\"an instructional management - . center, and many Ou.'er functions. The professional development center will be located south of Southwes er functions. Street. facility (PDC) Junior High along Sryant The District considers the construction of critical to improving the potential this new ,  -  r--------- for sLal cevelopment for the District's teachers and administrators. (The PDC has been designed so that it \u0026lt;__ additional junior high seatsif necessary. Dcr-.-icus currently occupies Services School. can be converted three classrooms The relocation of Library Media to Library Media at Franklin Services to the Professional Development Center will'allow Franklin's caoacitv to increase by 75 students.) Other Properties The^ District currently has several buildings that are not suited to meet the instruction goals of .the District, buildings or sites that do not fit several buildings tha The into the long range plans of the  are the former Gillam School, Eastside ' Auditorium, the former King/Oakhurst School, and the fonaeT- Lee School (the current IRC).  he orium, District School, and the (a) Gillam School - The District currently leases of the building to Watershed, Inc. a majority . - - Rental income oavs approximately 66% of the operating cost of the building. The is located on Confederate Boulevard in Little Rock. Preliminary Requests for Proposals being developed to attempt to sell the property to site Preliminary Requests east are profit agency. a non( b) Eastside Auditorium - The auditorium a Eastside has not ysed^ for many years. The other portion of the building is used primarily for Adult Education. The auditorium is in very poor condition and is not been for Adult Education. of without significant and very expensive habitable renovation.Ruth Steele June 25, 1991 Page 7 Eastside Rockefeller. is located near 1-630 and 1-30, not far from (c) Lee School^ (IRC) - The Lee School Building is in very condition, and the District should find new the staff housed there as soon as The site would not be appropriate for a school because of traffic congestion and its limited poor facilities possible. VII. Recommendations  1) Direc - The Lee School Building is the District housed find soon size. our attorney to prepare stipulations to proceed .with rebuilding Stephens School at its present location and new King school at the old Westside site (14th Marshall Streets). and Stephens will have a capacity of 696 (including 40 four-year old students). addition to the present attendance area of zone blocks 0573, 0441, 0572, 0574, 0583, part of the McDermott lite zone (zone block 0562) will be added Stephens School. During the construction of the students four-year old In 0441, 0574 , 0583 , part 0562) Stephens, the const current students reassigned to the closest schools will to new be available. temporarily The new attendance zone for Stephens will have approximately.. 370 K-6 students. The new King School will have a capacity of 69 6 students (including 40 four-year old students) .* zone for King School will The attendance blocks: consist of the following zone 0442, 0443, 0445, 0446, 0459, 0458, (from the current Mitchell attendance zone). 0444, 0457 0439 (from the current Rightsell attendance zone) 0438 (from the current Jefferson satellite zone) The boundaries for the new King School are 12th, High, 16th, and State attendance zone Streets. The new attendance zone for King School will have approximately 380 K-6 students. In order to comply with the racial balance requirement for interdistrict schools, 40 percent of the seats at the ' r    ..w s, (,.1C new Stephens and the new King Schools have been reserved for white students.. This primary responsibility for recn at each school. means that PCSSD will have ting 40% of PCSSD will have he stude recruitment efforts to meet t' to s goa 1 . implement In addition s ma] or toRuth Steele June 25, Page 8 1991 recruitment to interdistrict schools, PC serious attention to the recruitment of PCSSD needs to give 2) the elementary magnet ipulation allows PCSSD to fill current s schools. more students to The magnet elementary magnet seats. 33.7 percent of the During the 1990-91 school year, PCSSD represented 23 percent of the total elementary magnet population. students percent the If PCSSD is unsuccessful the District will Garland school(s). in fulfilling its obligation, recomme^id closing Rightsell afford to reseirve seats The Distric will and/or not be able to for more than a year once the new _sc..ools .are* constructed. The number of seats to be reserved is approximately 500. The number of If PCSSD sends 500 M to M students to LRSD, approximately $2.0 million of will be generated to pay for school coeraticns. tesezrved seats are not filled by MtoM students. District will not be able to schools when school. seats are revenue If the the afford operating separate available to absorb an entire When the new King School is close Ish School and Mitchell and Rightsell. revise available for occupancy, the attendance. zones_^for The new attendance zones for Mitchell will be the following zone blocks: 0472, 0485 0451, 0452, 0453, 0476, 0477, 0479 , 0430, The boundaries' for 'the new Mitchell School attendance zone are 28th, Wolfe, 37th, and State Streets. Also, small area bounced by Roosevelt Road, Battery, 29th, High Streets, and a small area bounded by 22nd Street, a and Howard Street, Roosevelt Road, and High Street. ' attendance zone for Mitchell School will approximately 340 K-6 students. The new have The new attendance following zone blocks: zone for Rightsell will be the 0448, 0450, 0449, 0454, 0464, 0473 The boundaries of the new Rightsell 16th, High, 28th, and State Streets. a zone students. for Rightsell will have ttendance zone are The new attendance approximately 282 .X-6 Assign zone block 0553 to Jefferson and zone block 0552 to Forest Park.Ruth Steele June 25, Page 9 1591 4) Add approximately 270 seats to Rockefeller classroom addition. Move zone blocks 0210, and 0121 from the Washington with an 11 5) 6) 7) 8). 9) . Rockefeller attendance attendance 0111, zone 1 to 0112, the zone. The boundaries for this area are the Arkansas River, Interstate 30, part of East 13 Street, and part of East 6th Street. This area has approximately 135 K-6 students. ill be districts. filled by white The remaining 135 seats students from the three During the construction of the new Stephens, the curre students will be temporarily reassigned to the closest ,available.schools . For the schools that are vacated or for sites no longer utilized by the district, we will issue offering circulars to established non-profit organizations to seek we issue competitive proposals for the buildings. tr.d intended use -  Offering price 2nd of the property will be among the evaluation factors. The sites that should be offered immediately _ for sale or lease are Gillam School, Lee School (subject to court ^approval for building the FDC) and Pankey. * ors.  among the Direct attorney to prepare stipulations approval for a building replacement at Forest Junior High (as previously submitted to the Court) with a net increase of 6 classrooms, a 6 classroom addition to Southwest Junior High to replace 4 portable classrooms :or a net increase of 2, and a classroom addition, with a net increase of 4 classrooms to Mabelvale Junior High. our prepare seeking Heights ted to the Court) wi Direct attorney to prepare a stipulation approval the construction of a professional development center near Southwest Junior High. our for a a seeking LRSD, the other parties, and the Magnet Review Committee will study the of shadow preference for Booker, Carver, Consideration will be given to reducing the number of neighborhood students who are displaced by the current assignment process used for use and Gibbs. will be given students who these schools. assignment process usedMann jr.it i\u0026gt;iaoN4\u0026gt; P-.a*K K\u0026gt;\nnt6 Ss-iiwes\nM am Cemal UsCella.') r aif\\-e* Cent! al Fair Kall McC)i:an Parkvt* Aeiossaae Cioacify 733 959 59* 692 702 *50 S.656 67 653 959 i,7\u0026lt; 692 603 751 *50 6.C39 1.691 934 1.218 1.085 5.5*6 1.891 90* 1.216 1.065 450 400 5.9*6 LRSO long-Sange Ar.encance Zone Pi Conaifwo^n 0\u0026lt; Nw Seal* 1W2-93 1993*M 795 74 9 1.C21 M9 702 631 764 0 5.SS1 795 7*9 1.C21 6t9 7Z2 -/A 831 764 0 5,551 1.751 918 1.088 1.221 0 *.966 1.751 918 1.066 0 4.966 1 C2 1 CJ 1 0 1 ifi 1 01 1.C2 0.00 0.96 0.93 0.56 1.06 1.C2 1.01 1.03 1.02 0.39 0.92 74 7*2 977 641 679 BM 605 0 5.5*9  Cl , Cl 1 02 ns 0.96 1.2 1.07 0.00 0.96 f? 799 1 C?3 Ml MS 914 627 0 5.701 CcMiucJier Ne* Statt 781 7*2 977 681 679 66* ks 0 5.\u0026lt;37 0.91 0.67 1.02 1.01 0.96 1.10 1.07 c.oo 0.90 612 799 1.023 661 665 91* 627 0 - 5.701 VAihout Conciruetion ot A\u0026gt;o*eact Snio( H^h Sctiooit C.93 1.C2 0.69 1.13 e.c: 0.90 0.93 1.02 0.89 1.13 0.00 0.90 1.825 1.C2 1.916 985 1.09 1.C26 1.069 1.339 5.338 5.90 1.23 5.00 0.96 1.0*3 l.*C2 0 5.38* Win Conatrueiion ol Aiopaee Snor Hifh Senoo)* 1.925 1.02 1.916 965 1.09 1.C26 1.389 1.339 0 5.338 - Sai.o on cu.i.nt ntoUm.nn 0. an.noanc. ion. (so,, noi \u0026gt;.ll.ct .nioUmani, Oy icnool). - S.ai, lo\u0026gt; Im.ioiatnot Uagn.i Scnoo at. count.d in io\u0026lt;al caoacily. Out no .luo.nt. at. .non lot in, - No .iio.anc. Ka, o..n mao. lo. u-io-u iiancl.i, a iniiaamtnci o.\u0026lt;.g..gatK\u0026gt;n i.an.l.... =age 1 0.90 1.23 0.00 0.96 1.0*0 1.402 0 0 5.36* 'jec'.icns  09 1 C7 C.9 1.30 0.00 1.01 5.95 1.07 0.96 0.9 1.10 c.oo 0.94 1.01 1.13 0.5S 1.29 c.oc 0.97 1.01 1.13 0.86 1.29 0.00 0.00 0.91 1.C35 *53 697 919 634 0 5.759 634 1.C35 653 657 919 0 5.759 1.530 1.439 0 5.451 1.561 1.030 1.021 1.439 0 0 5.451 995-S t C3  .C 1.0* 1.13 1 Cl 0.00 1.02 C.96 1 06 0.97 1.01 c.oo 0.95 1.C4. C.F* 1.33 5.03 0.98 1.0* 1.1* 0.6* 0.00 0.00 0.92 1.X7 1 35 6*3 7C3 6*9 612 0 5.M9 626 1.0C7 5*3 703 6*9 612 0 5.\u0026amp;9 1.973 1.03* 1.573 1.034 1.001 0 0 5.4*9 1 Zt 1 Z2 0.00 1.00 C '^7 0.95 1 22 1.38 C.9* 0 2 0.58 0.62 0 00 0 05 ) achooi* \u0026amp;cau they n* nc aiienaance\none.XiX. Timeiifies Litiie Hock School District Building Plan Timeline Court AppfcvaJ qI Building Plan AMtgn arehiiectc RockalatUr Stephan* King Fores Haighla Southwest Mabalvala POC Working Drawings Prepared Aockelaiiar r Stepheng Xing Forest Heiphts Southwest MaOeiviJa POC Cpoiracts Awarded Rockaiallar Sephans King ....... Fores\nHeights Southwest Mabalvaia Relocation of Saphang' Sudanis Consinjclioo Phaea Rockelailar Saphans King Forest Haights Southwest MaPalvaia POC Occupancy Rockefeller Saphans King Forest Heights Souihwast Mabaivilia POC Spring Fail Winiw XXX XXX  XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX 1M1 XXX XXX XXX XXX  XXX XXX XXX 1M2 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Spring 1602 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Summer 1M2 XXX XXX XXX XXX Fll 1002 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX \\Vinier 1003 XXX XXX XXX Spring 1003 XXX XXX XXX Sommor 1003 XXX XXX . Fall XXX XXXIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 93 JU 30 PH 5: IP LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPL : HTS.CL.\n: PLAINTIFF V. BY_ _ _ _ LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of the following budget documents required by the Court's June 15, 1993 Order: 1. An updated 1993-94 tentative LRSD budget document which includes: A. By school or department, budget detail showing function code, object code, and FTE that incudes any changes from the 1992-93 budget as to additions. deletions. and i reinstatements\nB. Also by school or department, 1991-92 actual expenses. the 1992-93 budget, 1992-93 unaudited actual expenses. and the 1993-94 budget\nC. Any other summaries and budgets shown in the table of contents of the tentative budget document. 2. A LRSD budget summary projecting revenues and expenses for each of the next five fiscal years which reflects annual incoming settlement monies (and any settlement loan funds the district anticipates drawing). The summary must also include anticipated yearly M-to-M revenues. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Bar No. 8108 .ristopher CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 30th day of June, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ristopher Hell . -X ' * .it'- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 3 1592 Offics of Qessgi yui !n Mor:'ior-t'} LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING On January 21, 1992, this court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit certain information concerning its desegregation budget. The required budget information was filed on June 1, 1992. The budget projections which were previously submitted have now been revised based on current information. The revised budget projections are attached to this Notice of Filing. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Helfer Bar No. 81083 kaihyiNoticB of FilialCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st, day of July, 1992: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher He knihy'Noikx of Filing 2 LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Revised 7-30-92 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation Monitoring (ODM). with the Office of Desegregation Although the LRSD implemented the TriDistrict Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. 2. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD committed to the programs of Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed is 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. the as precise commitments of funds. it is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more costeffective ways. It The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be Consequently done with certainty. For the purpose of these projections, it is assumed that annual step and experience increases will be provided to all employees. We have also used a factor of 1% for inflationary increases in non-salary costs. The LRSD Board of Directors adopted a balanced budget for 1992-93 on July 23, 1992. None of the budget reductions will prevent LRSD from implementing its Desegregation Plan. modifications to the Desegregation Plan proposed by LRSD and The approved by the Court for Henderson and McClellan, however, will have to be adjusted in order to implement the proposed budget reductions at those schools. At this time, the LRSD takes no position as to the necessity for a millage increase. The reasons for taking this position are as follows: A) B) C) It is not practical to rely on a millage increase in the near future to balance the budget. The LRSD's ability to fund long-range capital improvement projects is linked to the issue of extended millage. The LRSD Board of Directors must set its priorities and develop a long-range plan priorities. and budget around these It is assumed that capacity for the incentive schools will be limited to a ratio of 20 students to 1 teacher. The projections show in summary the revenue and expense of the most significant federal programs.LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 8. Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. 9. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. We believe most of this is planned for. covered with second-lien issues possible extended millage. Any additional improvements will be or from bonds secured by 10. The 1993-94 reduction 11. 12. 13. Programs, equipment. reflects in program Some funding the completion #10, Academic Support is maintenance of this equipment. added of payments for PAL for replacement and The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not provided separate accounting codes at this time. This means that cost information for implementation must be extracted from other budget line items. The opening dates of the new King and Stephens Schools shown as approved by the Court. are The fifth and sixth positions (from the left) of the LRSD standard account code desegregation expenses. will be used for identifying The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. 14. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified, known \"start up\" costs are as follows: The A. Academic Support Program $1.0 million ends in 1992-93 B. Data Processing $.25 million in 1992-93 and $.50 million in 1993-94 through 1996-97 C. Four-Year Old Programs $34,500 for five new programs and $30,000 for playground equipment No other significant \"start up\" costs are projected. 15. Because of the new reporting codes used for 1992-93, reconciliation between 1991-92 and 1992-93 program budgets is The District will provide any specific answers which may arise because of the change in accounting coding imperfect. structure.Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. B. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. Each budget manager will submit a proposal for spending allotted funds. These proposals will be conjunction with the Desegregation Plan audit. reviewed in Once specific plans for spending have been proposed, the Superintendent will prepare a proposal for Board approval. In addition the Superintendent will prepare a process for requiring Board approval for changes in planned expenditures above a to-be determined spending authority. Once the types of expenditures have been programmed, the Purchasing Department will not be authorized to issue a purchase order except for those items programmed and approved. D. The Superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process. E. The Superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct a proposals. Desegregation Plan audit and related budgetLITTLE FIOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN UEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 39,088,120 21,694,578 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 40,093,227 22.453,744 4,577,692 144,200 309,000 226,914 484,050 309,000 102,874 41,416,117 23,196,645 4,615,022 148,526 318,270 229,183 508,253 318,270 104,932 42,786,512 23,966,307 4,753,473 152,982 327,818 231,475 533,665 327,818 107,030 44,206,276 24,718,335 4,896,077 157,571 337,653 233,789 560,348 337,653 109,171 TOTAL 64,998,181 66,559,408 68,700,700 70,855,217 73,187,080 75,556,873 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 73,419 15,350 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 TOTAL 88,769 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 28,394,849 8,094,112 73,419 1,500,000 903,594 240,873 3,000 3,300,000 575,436 3,600,000 718,517 29,814,591 6,042,591 73,419 1,545,000 993,953 252,917 3,000 3,564,000 604,207 5,200,000 740,072 31,305,321 3,829,942 73,419 1,591,350 1,093,349 265,563 3,000 3,849,120 634,418 5,460,000 762,274 32,870,587 683,125 73,419 1,639,091 1,202,683 278,841 3,000 4,157,050 666,139 5,733,000 785,143 TOTAL 48,670,683 46,367,563 47,403,799 48,833,751 48,867,755 48,092,076 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 9,385 129,428 394,675 40,000 262,000 600,000 35,000 272,480 400,000 30,000 283,379 300,000 25,000 294,714 200,000 20,000 306,503 100,000 TOTAL 533,488 902.000 707,480 613,379 519,714 426,503 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,291,121 113,913,390 116,896,398 120,386,766 122,658,968 124,159,872UTTLEFIOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-37 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994- 95 1995- 96 1996-97 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER 3,272,693 224,423 558,810 1,076,226 4,474,288 215,020 569,986 1,097,751 4,563,774 219,320 581,386 1,119,706 4,655,049 223,707 593,014 1,142,100 4,748,150 228,181 604,874 1,164.942 4,843,113 232,745 616,971 1,188,240 TOTAL 5,132,152 6,357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL REVENUE 119.423.273 120.270.435 123.380.584 127.000.636 129.405.115 131.040.941LITTLE KICK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 072992 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994- 95 1995 - 96 1996- 97 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES, SUPPLIES, EQUIP. DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 7,950,100 0 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 66,364,271 9,208,546 19,148,407 14,972,774 9,090,123 600,000 67,691,557 9,254,588 22,515,161 15,421,957 8,845,248 700,000 69,045,388 9,300,861 23,246,037 15,884,616 8,258,921 800,000 70,426,296 9,347,366 23,732,324 16,361,155 8,041,468 900,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 112.604,098 115,872,561 119,384,121 124,428,511 126,535,823 128,808,608 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 5,132,152 6,357,045 6,484,186 6,613,869 6,746,147 6,881,070 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 13,887,841 14,165,654 14,448,967 14,737,946 15,032,705 15,333,359 TOTAL EXPENSES 131,624,091 136,395,260 140,317,274 145,780,327 148,314,675 151,023,037 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 1,687,023 (1,959,171) (2,487,723) (4,041,745) (3,876,855) (4,648,736) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,321,865 362,694 (2,125,029) (6,166,774) (10,043,629) ENDING FUND BALANCE 2.321.865 362.694 (2.125.0291 (6.166.7741 (10.043.6291 (14.692.3651 FUND BALANCE ANALYSIS BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 2.321.865 362.694 3.874.971 5,833.226 6.956.371 INCREASE(DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE RECORD LOAN REVENUE BUDGET REDUCTIONS (1.959.171) (2.487,723) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (4,041,745) 3,000,000 3,000,000 (3,876,855) 2,000,000 3,000,000 (4.648.736) 3.000.000 ENDING FUND BALANCE 362.694 3.874.971 5.833.226 6.956.371 5.307.635 * $1.5CX3.OOO recorded as revenue in 1992-931105 1110 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA KINDERGARTEN 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 2410 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 3000'S 4000 5100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURES BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER SALARY 138,077.08 2,760,904.00 28,381,519.29 3,989,261.59 4,023,283.53 1,013,772.90 1,143,799.80 2,570,622.02 2,667,369.46 198,491.86 3,895,984.12 287,255.96 COMMUNITY SERVICES NON PROGRAMMED BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OPERATING FUND 79,415.14 347,089.07 6,024,779.24 1,354,685.45 1,158,370.16 697,588.87 253,127.76 183,211.79 1,174,153.77 1,631,966.93 446,175.31 1,983,094.66 19,318,518.35 2,161,066.34 740,723.24 32,450.45 7,950,100.01 DESEG 94,937.48 6,072,099.95 10,538.70 107,559.18 35,631.06 1,589,524.16 309,073.21 1,479,959.60 441,244.35 107,262.02 1,041,101.85 465,561.53 504,079.83 3,738,667.07 TOTAL FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL 302,717.88 338,788.30 130,394.89 3,123,267.62 55,541.49 371,072.25 301,061.72 88,318.56 429,905.44 8,567,902.51 276,198.03 592,044.13 5,333.69 181,901.87 658,847.84 414,539.17 4,792.23 302,192.60 114,004.58 1,207,390.15 1,050,413.66 503,364.75 51,070,341.61 45,536,516.54 15,997,239.99 5,132,152.12 13,887,841.24 312,429.70 3,537,898.51 49,046,300.99 5,933,401.65 6,220,045.30 863,614.82 5,985,026.13 1,564,454.95 5,083,769.09 6,494,896.88 1,174,230.08 7,193,730.95 21,414,826.09 2,913,883.83 1,546,995.67 7,950,100.01 131,624,091.50Prg # Pa# Description 1 5 2 5 5 28 6 28 7 39 Hippy 4 Yr Old Programs Student Hearing Officer Office of Desegregation Extra-Curricular 8 44 Teacher Recruiter 9 46 10 48 12 63 13 82 Staff Development Academic Support Multicultral Programs Incentive Grants 14 86 15 114 16 129 17 129 18 143 19 148 21 148 22 224 24 227 25 1-9 Original Magnets Sp Ed Learning Center Security Data Processing System M-to-M Magnet Schools King School Stephens School Monitoring Activities Computerized Transp Romine Theme 26 93 27 34 28 35 Community School In-School Suspension Job Fair 29 28 32 106 33 1-56 34 131 35 125 Testing Assistance Library Services Parent Recruiting VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction Plant Services 49 00 To Be Allocated Incentive Schools: 51 149 Office of Incentive Schools 52 152 53 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 54 153 55 153 56 153 57 154 59 158 61 171 64 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 65 172 Extended Year 66 176 72 190 73 193 74 194 75 153 Incentive/Recognition Staffing Staff Development TeK:her Stipends Other Academic Programs SUB-TOTAL INCENTIVES GRAND TOTAL SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET Unaudited 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 214,295 278,772 284,347 290,034 295,835 301,751 811,591 88,332 452,998 31,072 45,924 400,069 2,846,490 164,490 658,575 3,738,667 56,291 703,830 200,727 354,920 0 0 373,686 0 17,267 295,276 914,101 4,063 0 588,441 22,367 62,714 0 268,247 0 13,314,433 261,482 1,096,193 1,325,132 2,682,807 15,997,240 1,202,033 1,238,094 1,520,236 1,810,843 1,847,060 99,087 101,069 103,090 105,152 107,255 433,133 441,796 450,632 459,644 468,837 0 0 0 0 0 42,204 43,048 43,909 44,787 45,683 447,446 456,395 465,523 474,833 484,330 2,785,221 1,840,925 1,877,744 1,915,298 1,953,604 240,315 320,000 3,800,000 110,307 617,038 411,583 721,442 0 0 391,495 10,000 85,816 115,000 748,258 1,500 11,350 716,504 27,000 65,863 5,000 200,000 13,886,365 63,147 15,000 15,000 15,000 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,500 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,664 17,013,029 245,121 320,000 3,876,000 112,513 629,379 773,930 543,085 2,603,300 0 399,325 10,200 87,532 115,000 763,223 1,530 11,577 730,834 27,540 67,180 5,000 200,000 15,927,943 65,041 15,450 15,450 15,450 7,725 5,150 868,890 38,625 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 61,285 231,750 56,650 3,220,464 19,148,407 250,024 255,024 260,125 320,000 320,000 320,000 3,953,520 4,032,590 4,113,242 114,763 117,058 119,400 641,967 654,806 667,902 789,409 805,197 821,301 553,947 565,026 576,326 2,655,366 2,707,000 407,311 10,404 89,283 115,000 778,487 1,561 11,809 745,451 28,091 68,524 5,000 200,000 19,198,082 66,993 15,914 15,914 15,914 7,957 5,305 915,557 39,784 21,218 583,171 275,834 22,809 970,535 63,124 238,703 58,350 3,317,078 22,515,161 2,708,473 2,761,140 415,457 10,612 91,068 115,000 794,057 1,592 12,045 760,360 28,653 69,894 5,000 200,000 19,829,446 69,002 16,391 16,391 16,391 8,195 5,464 943,023 40,977 21,855 600,666 284,109 23,494 999,651 65,017 245,864 60,100 3,416,591 23,246,037 2,762,643 2,816,363 423,767 10,824 92,890 115,000 809,938 1,624 12,286 775,567 29,226 71,292 5,000 200,000 20,213,235 71,072 16,883 16,883 16,883 8,441 5,628 971,314 42,207 22,510 618,686 292,632 24,198 1,029,641 66,968 253,239 61,903 3,519,088 23,732,3243 NOV IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION filed NOV 0 51992 0iiiC3 CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK By.. DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 26, 1992, the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") submitted to the Court for review and approval a budget for the 1992-93 school yeeir for the six original magnet schools. (Document #1609.) On July 31, 1992, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a Special Status Report setting forth its operating budget for 1992- 93. (Document #1649.) At a hearing on August 3, 1992, the Court heard testimony on budget reduction proposals by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Some of those cutbacks resulted in staff reductions at the magnet schools. The Court, with some exceptions. approved the LRSD's proposed reductions in an order filed on August 4, 1992. On September 28, 1992, the MRC wrote the Court, expressing its concern about certain LRSD budget cuts. It also addressed staffing changes at two of the magnet schools which resulted in a white principal and assistant principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School and a black principal and assistant principal at Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet ElementarySchool. (Document #1693.) The MRC complains that the LRSD failed in its obligation to work with the MRC prior to implementing reorganization or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. The LRSD filed a response to the MRC's letter, basically arguing that the role of the MRC has changed since the establishment of the magnet schools during a period of the \"controlled choice desegregation plan. It contends that the MRC's role now is to recommend policy decisions which must be communicated in writing to the par\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\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_284","title":"Budget cuts","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Budget cuts"],"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/284"],"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\nGibbs Magnet School PTA 1115 West 16th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 324-2490 'Working Together for a Better Future received May 25, 1993 JUN 3 '3 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Federal Court P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, Arkansas OliiCS of Desegregation Moiwcnng 72203 Dear Judge Wright: The patrons of the Gibbs International Magnet School very concerned about the proposed elimination of the computer lab attendant position from our school. are Since our teachers do not have time to assume the responsibilities of the computer lab, this decision could result in an inferior program in which our children might not receive the full benefits of the lab. The computer lab attendant is the heart of our computer progreun. Therefore, we strongly urge you to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position. At a recent meeting, several of our patrons wanted to show their support by signing a petition urging the Little Rock School Board to reject the proposal, your information. A copy is attached for Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Willie J. les Co-Pres iaent Attachment Annette Thomas-Jones Co-President Wright 7993 judge Petition to the Little Rock School Board y^e, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs Intenaationat Magw\u0026lt; urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the districts proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. , / // -^d-kjLay\u0026lt; JMWk C^C^C lat the pe / -7/'. tk / d c, I Sil ?\\ 1aj~^ r (X\\aA$s.4jrCi ^2Zz2 L/'7\\J.^'k ' dub/ ,- ut^ ahA^ j2p2DE54 'J^^g-TUr Cdcbczl7\u0026gt; -XH-Jk-\" -- A-k fe Ax' / Petition to the Little Rock School Board y^e, the undersigned patrons of 6ibb lateniational MagneC Schaol, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. c :iCi. .4- I ,1 r C' /\u0026lt; t A- 1 fX / MJU, -\"P-' F 2. ~n.Lj^^ ( \"r fzt,46^S\u0026lt;(y nK:: 'i ,7 Petition to the Little Rock School Board SI y\\/e, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs In^ai'natiawai Magnet School, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the district's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly tr without-a computer lab attendant. i n 64\u0026lt;.z^ \u0026lt;1 O/iAPetition to the Little Rock School Board y^/Q, the undersigned patrons of Gibbs International Magnet Scbool, urge the Little Rock School Board to reject the districr's proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant position from our school. We feel that the computer lab is a valuable asset to our students, and we fear that the program will greatly suffer without a computer lab attendant. .I f.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States Oistrict Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building LftHe Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 June 16, 1993 Mr. Willie Jones and Ms. Annette Thomas-Jones, Co-Presidents Gibbs PTA Gibbs Magnet School 1115 West 16th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Annette and Willie, I hope you both remember me. I taught kindergarten at Franklin when your older daughter was in Louise Carpenters room, about ten years ago. Of course, I also remember Annette from the AEA, during years I was active in the LRCTA. I recently received a copy of the letter you sent Ann Brown and she asked me to respond to your concerns regarding the elimination of the computer lab attendant position at Gibbs. I realize this response may not reach you until the opening of school, since the above is the school address. I sincerely regret the delay. Any budget cuts the district recommends for the magnet schools must be made in consultation with the Magnet Review Committee (MRC). Im sure you remember the attempt to eliminate Gibbs music teacher last year, and the later reversal of that decision. This years proposed budget reduction will also be given close scrutiny by the court and. Im sure, the MRC. A budget hearing is scheduled for early July and the eliminated positions will be discussed. We appreciate receiving your input and the attached petition from other concerned patrons. Thank you for taking the time to speak out. Sincerely, Melissa Ripling Guldin Associate Monitor122 P02 SEP 03 93 13:08 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO\nFROM: SUBJEC July 29, 1993 A Estelle Mathis, Interim Superintendent, LRSD ^m\u0026lt;ala :T.^- 93-9 Daggett, Community Education 93-94 Budget Cuts Thank you for requesting my input and for your willingness to negotiate regarding the amount of cuts in the Community As I explained over the phone, we Education 93-94 budget. have planned our 93-94 programs in relation to our originally budgeted amount of $220,000. For that reason, X wanted to talk with the CE staff to determine whether or not we would need to cut programs if we cut $50,000 as you requested. I reported to you that we could probably make it fine if the cuts ranged from $30,000-$40,000. However, we discovered just yesterday afternoon that about $14,000 worth of purchase orders approved in 92-93 have been charged to our 93-94 budget. I have spoken with Mark Milhollen regarding these charges, and he assured me as did you that you all would cover us on these shortfalls. I appreciate your support. cc: McClellan Community High School Advisory Council Jodie Carter, McClellan PrincipalSeptember 28, 1993 SUSAN JRBCEIVso SEP 3 0 1933 Judge Susan Webber Wright Federal Building Fifth and Gaines Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 us. district judge Dear Judge Wright: This letter expresses the sentiments of nurrierous LRSD employees..Even'though'we feel it would be unwise to sign our names, please do not let the lack of signatures lessen the attention that you give to the matter. We are aware that you conducted budget hearings and directed the LRSD Board of Directors to review its proposal and determine if additional cuts could be made, which indeed was possible. However, we are not aware if you have given your approval to a final budget for 1993-94, thus the basis for this letter. In the spring of 1993, teachers and all administrators except 12 month administrators, were given three percent raises. package: 1, Twelve month administrators received the following 2. 3, 4. 5. Contract days per year extended from 240 days to 250 days Pay raise set at 1 1/2% instead of 3% Paid vacation days granted on the basis of: 0-7 years experience - 15 paid vacation days per year 8-14 years experience - 20 paid vacation days per year 15+ years experience - 25 paid vacation days per year Sick leave days may be accumulated equivalent to the total number of contract days. When/if the 12 month administrator leaves the district, he/she will be compensated for any accumulated vacation days. We think that you should know that by granting the above package to 12 month administrators, they become the only employee group in the LRSD to receive even one paid hoiiday/vacation. Every other group is paid solely on the basis of days worked - NO PAID HOLIDAYS, NO PAID VACATION DAYS. Furthermore, the fact that they received a 1 1/2% raise instead of a 3% raise was almost immediately made up for by the provision for paid vacation days\nbecause, with the high salaries they receive, it will only take three or- TUE 11'27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX in luiyyibbib four days onehalf percent. for most of them to recoup the other one and we strongly feel^ administrators LRSD employees and bears a copletely district, costly granted to 12 month  . __4 ^,4 of that the package unfair to the 1 total lack of equity. . for the _ district, m good remainder of the It is also wellbeing -- conscience, grant such a , monetarily speaking -  How can this benefit to these financial administrators. investigate this package Please . fAirfip.^s and finfinc J:ilS S indebted to you for your i.l intel and question pubHcly the a rtftr.ision, of such decision. this matter.  Sincerely, A CONCERNED GROUP OF EMPLOYEESRECEIVED FSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS NOV 1 8 ^993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NOV 1 S1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring WESTERN DIVISION CARL H. BRENTS, CLERK By: CEPTeLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER During a budget hearing on July 8, 1993, representations were made by certain members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to the effect that they understood the financial peril of the district. specifically an anticipated $11,000,000 deficit despite a budget that was technically balanced, and that the board would take steps to deal with the problem. It was suggested by one member that the board would need to know by Christmas 199 3 what budget cuts to make in order to address this problem. In addition. there was a discussion concerning the board having to approve $25,000 line item budget transfers before such transfers were made. A partial transcript of the budget hearing during which these representations were made is attached hereto. Because it is not clear if the board has begun to consider specific budget cuts or if it is in fact approving $25,000 line item budget transfers, the Court hereby orders the board to file with the Court a report on how they are being more involved in the 3 0 2 0budgeting process, how they are preparing themselves to make specific budget decisions, how their approval is being sought and received, and which specific line item budget transfers the board has approved since the 1993-94 budget was finalized in August 1993. This report must be filed with the Court on or before December 3, 1993, at 5:00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED this /6 day of November 1993. UNITED STATES DISTR^zCT J JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79/a) FRCP ON lANCE Wl WITH RULE 58 AND/QR 79(a) FRCP BY -2-NOV- 5-93 FRI 14:49 FAX NO. 5013710100 p.02 but I just wanted to point out that what was submitted, and, of course, it s not July 30th yet - THE WITNESS\nI understand. a THE COURT\n- what was submitted was not what the Court had in mind, and I do think that it would be very beneficial if you talk to the monitors, specifically to Mr. Mooney, and flesh this out  MR. MALONE: Right. THE COURT: - as to what we meant. MR. MALONE: And - and, your Honor, but we have, in fact, had some of those conversations and well continue to have those, and thats what were planning to do when we meet with them and talk with them next week is to continue that dialogue regarding an action plan and the budgetary process and what it should be. THE COURT\nI know that Dr. Bernd also indicated last summer that he was going to include the board in these budget decisions to a greater extent than they had been. In other words, in the budget process to a greater extent than the board had been included previously. What action has been taken on that front? Is there now a policy in place so that the board considers certain budgetary actions as part of this process other than just approving the whole document? MR. MALONE: Your Honor, I wouldnt say that there is a policy. leant speak to that, but I do know that the outline contains certain things that will occur or proposals about what will occur in terms of cabinet work session and board work sestons and how that will be worked Into the process. And, also, in the discussions weve had regarding the budgetary process in general, theres some ideas about how that process ought to work. Some of these things as the Court noted that there are some stipulations at one of the board meetings about certain things being on hold until certain business cases were presented to the board. I think that is the start of  of the board involvement in the entire process, and I think thats some - all of what will be worked out in March, THE COURT: All right. MR. MALONE: Mr. Milhollen had some comment. THE WITNESS: There - there was one policy that was  was instituted recently, and I - I cant quote it exactly, but it has to do witli when budget managers want to have funds transferred between budgets, and there is now a dollar limit thats been set that exceeds that dollar limit, and I believe it's $25,000. It must come before the board and be approved before the transfer can be effected. So, that is one policy change that - that has been made, THE COURT\nAll right. I dont have any of the board members on tlic stand right now, but Mr. Jackson has been very kind about offering what he remembers. And 1 know that Mr. Jackson Is an accountant. Mr. Jackson, how do you see this problem of the current budget being balanced with funds that are nonrencwable and with having expenses that are recurring? Do you have any professional opinion on that or a particular concern? MR. JACKSON: I - Ive got a lot of concerns and I think Ive expressed diose concerns publicly and privately in our meetings. And Mr. Riggs has continually pointed out that the budget that we have this next year whereas it reflects a balanced budget, inNOV- 5-93 FRI 14:49 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 03 truth, is $11 million worth of deficit spending. And I think these programs going forward  you asked him, Mr. MilhoUcn, what would you do if you put - I believe no mills but with cuts. If you look at his five mills with cuts, he simply adds position program cuts and starting in 94-95 of 4 million, and it increases up to 10 million in 98-99. Essentially, what 1 think with no mills and cuts for 1990 - for 1994-95, you have to have $15 million in cuts. In *95-96, another 16 or $17 million in cuts. But I think  I think my position is that there has to be cuts and - and substantial cuts, made and, you know, we can we can spend the next three weeks in court here talking about each of these little 100,000, $200,000 line item cuts that have been made or that are proposed to be made if you want to establish a record, but it  it, quite frankly, is not going to solve the problem. THE COURT: Right. MR. JACKSON: And - and so, you know, what - what I think is a better use of our time and a better use of this staffs time is that they be over at 810 West Markham figuring out what these programs are and where we can make these cuts. I think one of the things - one of the actions we took at our last board meeting, and that had to do with the labor contracts in terms of getting board involvement, is that that the board insisted that those persons responsible for the labor contract get witli the board, that we have both private as well as - as a group sessions looking at what we see in those contracts that needs to be changed, and there has to be some changes made. You cannot continue under the status quo. Now, having said all that, I -1 think it is unrealistic for the district to think - and this is my personal opinion - unrealistic for the district to think that we will be able to accomplish all of this simply with cuts. We will have to ask for a millage increase. But I dont think that the district or this commun  the district and the people that support this district are capable of selling that millage increase until we, in fact, make some cuts and some serious cuts and establish some degree of accountability. THE COURT: Thank you, I appreciate everything youve said. I do wish that I could recess this and send you all away to make your own budget cut decisions. I feel that under the mandate from the Eighth Circuit I have to monitor what you are doing. Another problem I have is that Dr. Bernd did promise a year ago that he was going to do these things, and they have not been done, and, meanwhile, you have been receiving the desegregation money from the state, the settlement money, and it is being spent. And as a result, I feel that I cannot give you any slack any more. He was a new superintendent and he made these representations and I gave him time to what he said he was going to do, and he was not able or did not or some otherwise just didnt accomplish it. And so, now, here we are a year later, and without a permanent superintendent. And I appreciate the boards concern and tlte recognition of the seriousness of this problem. And I do hope that you are able to get together and I hope you will listen to the advice that Mr. Mooney gives you. I hope the board would be willing to sit down wth him and listen to some of his constructive suggestions to get you out of this hole. Il will take some working together, j^d I know that if the board does it on its own, the community will be much more receptive to it than if the Court has to do it. And thats what ought to happen.NOV- 5-93 fRI 14:50 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 04 1 regret that were tn this lawsuit. I wish we didnt have to have it, but the constitution requires that these schools be desegregated and the Eighth Circuit has said that they are not. Theyre not up to constitutional standards yet and the Plan will make them that way if you follow it. , And so, thats why were here. And, of course, the ultimate beneficiaries are the school children, I hope. Thats what we want, quality educational for all of our children. And so, we will make every effort to comply with this Plan and to squeeze this budget where it can be. But I appreciate your remarks. And, Mr. Riggs, do you have any that you might like to make to the Court at this time? MR. RIGGS: Well, I - the question, your Honor, and the whole issue is going to come down to this is  is really political courage. The board knows it  you know, I mean, by state law, we got to cut unless we go into receivership. Either you take us in or we go in through one of the chapters. I tliink Mr, Milhollens analysis is fairly accurate from what - what Ive seen today and what Mr. Mooney and Mr. Morgan and I have discussed at length. So, it  it really is going to come down to a - you know, this year, theres a paper balance, but its $11 million deficit. Next year, theres going to be an actual deficit. The question is does the board have the political courage to do something about it. If they dont, well, we could close the schools early, you take us over, we go into receivership. That's really what It comes down to. Now, along those lines where  where Mr. Mooney is going to be of great value is - is the process. Were going to have to have this process developed over - and - and implemented, like, as quickly as we can so that by - in my opinion, by December, by Christmas, wc know what budget cuts that have to be made next year and have to be made over the next two or three years, and whether - as Mr. Jackson says, whether were going to have to have a millage increase, which I believe hes right. We re going to have to do it. And hes right about  were not going to be able to sell them unless we can get our house in order. So, thats where  where Mx. Mooney and Mr. Morgan both are going to, in my opinion, help the district to get the process and the procedures on line and going. Now, its up to the board co hold the administrators accountable for that process. If anything where weve been lax, we havent done a good job. Obviously, youre up here talking about what Dr. Bernd has promised over the last year and, you know, in my opinion, one of the reasons ho aint here today in that chair is because he made promises and didnt do anything about it. He decided to leave on his own, but he could easily have left because of some other reasons, some of them being that - that he was making promises wc knew he wasnt going to keep to the Court and to us. So, if we - if we get the process developed, if we implement that process and if we have the political courage to to take the bullet  to bite the bullet and do those things, cut the programs that may be programs that patrons like but dont have anything to do with desegregation, thats going to be up to us. And if we cant do it, then Im sure as Ive said before, were going to have to put the keys on the table and somebody else is going to have to lock up and turn off the lights. THE COURT: Well, I might add, once you have a superintendent in place andNOV- 5-93 FRI 14:51 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 05 once you have thia budget process ongoing and the Desegregation Plan audit in place and working and administrators in place who are answerable to the board, then the Court will not require the presence of the board at these hearings. But I have felt that there has been a vacuum in this district as to who's accountable and whos responsible, a leadership vacuum, and that is why the ult^ate people - you are ultimately responsible, the board members, and thats why youve had to be here and thats why you will continue to have to come until this thing gets in order. But I do appreciate your attention to this and your wilhngness to face up to these hard decisions that must be made, and I do hope the board does have that poll deal courage you refer to because that is what the community will accept is your political courage. A community is very reluctant to accept whatever a federal judge does, and 1 know that. But I will do it. It is my job. And if necessary, I will do it. I dont want to. MR. RIGGS: Well, I guess a lot of it - THE COURT: And- , . MR. RIGGS: - your Honor, too. gets back to the community putting pressure on the board to have the courage to do the right thing, and - and Its my opinion is that the community needs to put that pressure on this board to get our house in order or the community loses the right to  to guide their ship and  THE COURT: Thats correct, MR. RIGGS: - then thats when you have to step in and - and guide the ship. THE COURT: That is correct. And the community did not elect me and they cant take me out of office and I am answerable to the constitution and to this country. But federal judges are never popular. They are always resented. I understand why, and I dont want to play that role of running your district. I want you to run it and I want you to make these veiy difficult decisions that you must make, and I dont want to tell you precisely each one. Those are your decisions, but theyre going to be very hard ones. MR. RIG GS: Y oure right. THE COURT: And I appreciate your being here today. I only wanted to ask him one more question. Are you going to be the planner for this? I havent looked at this. Is he the chief planner at this point, Mr. Milhollen? THE WITNESS'. Im not sure thats been determined yet. THE COURT\nOh. MR. MALONE: No, and thats - and thats - THE COURT: All right. , MR, MALONE: And thats what we were saying, with the state we re in, there were going to be - once those cabinet discussions are held and - and t^e place, some decisions can be made at that point as to who the  the go-to person will be. THE COURT: All right. MR. HAMILTON: Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes, sir. Mr. Hamilton. Im sorry. You and Ms. Gee are both welcome to say anything you - MR. HAMILTON: Right. I thought maybe one of us would be next. I certainly wanted to have some comments. THE COURT: Well, those two have been more eager to talk, and so that s the reason. I didnt want to pick on people. So, go ahead, Mr. Hamilton.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor December 3, 1993 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: At last Augusts hearing on the LRSD 1993-94 budget, the Court reviewed the budget and numerous related business cases. The Court closely questioned LRSD about the business case that reduced the districts Communication Assistant to a part-time position. Judge Wright advised the district that the Court would particularly watch this staff reduction because it appeared to be a retreat from the Interdistrict Plan which requires the districts to search for ways to increase the number of staff responsible for public relations programs. In its August 26, 1993 order, the Court expressed strong concerns about the Communications staffing change because it represented a reduction that created the potential for negatively affecting desegregation progress: \"The Court questions the effect that losing a full-time Communications Assistant will have on the districts ability to meet its plan obligations.\" I understand that, although it was approved by both your Board of Directors and Judge Wright several months ago, the Communications Assistant position still remains open. Even though you have been in the process of reorganizing your staff, leaving this half-time position vacant for so long a time (the fiscal year is now half gone) is particularly troubling in light of the Courts pointed concern that a part-time position may not be enough to help the district meet its desegregation obligations. 1 also understand that the Communications director recently has been charged with coordinating the districts recruitment efforts, a new responsibility that inevitably leaves her less time to spend on regular communication duties and creates yet another void in the Communications office. Please let me know the date by which the Court can expect the Communication Assistants position to be filled. Also, will this position still be part-time or will it be full-time in light of the directors increased responsibilities? Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown LRSD Junior High Budgets, Enrollments and Per Pupil Expenditure Dunbar Jr High Enrollment Per pupil Expenditure Actual Expenditures 1991-1992 2,177,871.82 691 3,151.77 Actual Expenditures 1992-1993 2,233,736.11 705 3,168.42 Actual Expenditures 1993-1994 2,375,356.69 701 3,388.53 Budget 1994-1995 Dated 8/08/94 2,215,349.31 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cloverdale Jr High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,012,575.56 745 2,701.44 2,162,862.55 775 2,790.79 2,197,345.54 701 3,134.59 2,072,735.61 Forest Hts. Jr. High Enrollment | ~~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,320,122.47 765 3,032.84 2,365,925.57 787 3,006.26 2,424,252.56 788 3,076.46 2,494,614.11 Henderson Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,464,130.70 859 2,868.60 2,836,387.32 914 3,103.27 3,049,192.92 915 3,332.45 2,961,683.42 Mablevale Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 1,918,244.33 665 2,884.58 2,047,442.02 667 3,069.63 2,097,826.14 654 3,207.69 2,053,420.97 Pulaski Hts. Jr. High Enrollment Per pupil Expenditure 2,337,373.84 761 3,071.45 2,484,029.31 774 3,209.34 2,493,182.82 790 3,155.93 2,391,960.24 I I I I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Southwest Jr. High Enrollment | ~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,124,034.56 704 3,017.09 2,299,448.03 695 3,308.56 2,150,663.98 679 3,167.40 2,068,377.82 Mann Magnet Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 3,055,026.00 872 3,503.47 2,896,401.00 849 3,411.54 3,157,632.00 851 3,710.50 3,195,685.00 I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Totals Avg. Per Pupil Expenditure 18,409,379.28 6062 3,036.85 19,326,231.91 6166 3,134.32 19,945,452.65 6079 3,281.04 19,453,826.48 $ $ $ $ I $ $ $ Enrollment based upon Oct. 1, 1992 \u0026amp; 1993 (J i-* if I Prepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: November 16, 1994 From: Melissa Guldin, 1, Ass Isociate Monitor To: Gwen Efrid, Little Rock School District Health Services Coordinator Subject: LRSD Nursing Staff Our office recently received some information from the Little Rock School District regarding possible budget cutting strategies. The list of budget reduction possibilities included the substitution of Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) for the Registered Nurses (RNs) currently working in the schools. I understand that there are important differences in training, experience, and qualifications between LPNs and RNs. Since the issue of RN versus LPN is sure to be debated in the months ahead, I would like some information on the current status of the LRSD nursing staff. This data should help me be better informed regarding the districts nursing program. Please send me a list of all LRSD schools that currently receive nursing services, the number of days (or hours) per week that each site is served by a nurse, whether that nurse is an RN or LPN, and each nurses race and gender. If you have any additional information that you think would be helpful or informative, I would welcome receiving that also. I would like to become more familiar with the scope of the nursing program, before the district makes budgetary decisions. When the monitors visited the incentive schools, we were impressed with the wellness clinics serving the students, staff, and patrons of the incentive schools. The clinics myriad of health services and eligibility for Medicaid reimbursement help ensure that area residents and LRSD staff have increased access to quality health care. In addition to the staffing information requested, would you please send me a list of all the schools with wellness clinics that have been approved for medicaid reimbursement. Thank you for your help in providing this information. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns.Lntite 3Scfe PTA Comcill D 0 FF5 2 A 1995 February 20, 1995 iJiciGiOi.nq Dear Dr. Williams and Little Rock School District Board of Directors: The Little Rock PTA Council is gravely concerned about the administrations proposed budget cuts pertaining to the school nurses. The decision to eliminate 19 registered nurses is quite shocking in view of the 1994-95 Little Rock School Board Priorities compiled just last September. 1994. in which Quality Nursing Services ranked third highest in priority. The PTA Council feels that the level and quality of nursing health care and services received by all students would be greatly diminished under this proposal and in the area schools would be virtually non-existent. Although it appears that most magnet and incentive schools would retain their school nurse positions, in reality these nurses probably would frequently be pulled to work at other schools that have no nurses. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that, ultimately, all our schools are at risk of losing the professional health care and services currently rendered to our children by the school registered nurses. The PTA Council is also extremely concerned about possible future plans to consider replacing the RNs (registered nurses) with LPNs (licensed practical nurses) and/or health aides. The knowledge and skills base of a registered nurse is significantly more appropriate in the school based setting in comparison to a licensed practical nurse. Neither an LPN nor a health aide possesses the specialized skills, judgment or knowledge necessary in providing the types of nursing care and services needed in our schools for our children. No parent wants his child to suffer the consequences or risks of mismanaged care given by inadequately trained personnel. During the process of identifying student health needs and intervening however necessary to meet those needs, school nurses provide innumerable types of professional services. In many cases, registered nurses are the only persons legally authorized under state public health regulations to complete the myriad of referral and evaluation forms for students needing special services. Consequently, the PTA Council feels that replacing RNs with LPNs and/or health aides would be comparable, theoretically, to replacing our classroom teachers with instructional aides. Many parents are greatly concerned about the continued assurance of basic nursing services received daily by their children such as administering medications and making pertinent observations, giving specific medical treatments, providing mental health observation and intervention, and providing observation and care for acute and chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, and head or other traumatic injuries. Every student has the right to a physically safe and emotionally secure environment in our schools, but will this right be severely compromised or. at worst, denied under this proposal? It must be noted that children in the lower socio-economic strata of our student population will undoubtedly stand to suffer greatly under this plan, because the school nurse is their only source of medical care for their health needs. The number of children in this category ranges from 100 to 150 per day. Currently, there are 1260 students in the LRSD served each day for acute illnesses and injuries, and over 1200 individual doses of medication are given daily. School nurses serve an extremely important function as health educators and advocates. As positive role models in developing permanent healthy lifestyles, they promote good health habits and illness prevention, carry out many health education programs, and work closely with students, parents and teachers regarding special health needs. Oftentimes the school nurse is the first and foremost person in whom a student will confide concerning personal problems and needs. Therefore, the nurses play a key role in providing support and intervention and handling the daily crises that arise. Therefore, the PTA Council strongly holds that in order for students to function at their highest learning ability and to have a successful educational experience, they must have access to the health services and education necessary to promote optimal levels of wellness. The PTA Council firmly takes the stand for maintaining health services as they are presently delivered and preserving the school nurse positions that we currently have. Thirty schools are covered daily with nurses while twenty schools are not covered\ntherefore, it would appear that the LRSD should consider adding school nurse positions rather than eliminating them. We also feel strongly that budget cuts should be made further away from the children, because school nurses directly serve 100% of the students in our district. At the last PTA Council meeting the members voted to make known to the LRSD Administration and the School Board of Directors our position on the proposed budget cuts affecting school nurses. Attached is a list of those members in attendance and the schools they represent. These individuals represent more than 13,000 PTA members in the LRSD. At a time when we are striving for safe schools, this situation certainly acquires a chilling perspective if we are to lose our school nurses and, as parents, suddenly feel that our children are truly in an unsafe environment The Little Rock PTA Council sincerely hopes that you will give strong consideration to our viewpoints regarding this issue and will not make any changes in the current school nurse program in the proposed budget cuts. Sincerely, MU Debbie Glasgi Glasgow, President(y Barbara Mills and Debbie Velez, Council Representatives Little Rock PTA Council cc: Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Ann Brown, ODM LRSD Administrators Gwen Efird and School Nurses PTA PresidentsName - A L y/iU/ Little Rock PTA Council DATE\nliM '^5' School/PTA Office Home Address/Phone /-^ryf A^AUsyPh {^20 '^nrck'^iAr/ I'i'iz ? cQ. / K 2. TU ao r 1 : \u0026gt; c r i' 1 y \u0026lt;1, !\\.lli-: T I3l( /Csa rl rk '1 \u0026lt;)/.. OTu^az-- A? -VA^ S , 3L ICv1UL4/l l\\ ft X ^f. n /UcC\\^U C6Ur,c3 po.y 77 -'lA,.. i /\\ I f 21 6 (3 }yidjc ) 'I I J 3 0 ') '\u0026gt; C-  'h\nflCOName CjLivv/yixZ ~Wy\u0026gt;d^ 1 't Little Rock PTA Council DATE=_a^^/y^,//7, /ggs School/PTA Office Home Address/Phone id ^'fWiV^ki S^'AfNS____ ______ V\\a5\u0026gt; '(1 CL^r^l Q'Dgc^ m^- lx ^A^CA I jL.^ \\ .d (^1 /I A W-^P -----Vc^A -^\"/u b I xt V. 9dzxi C ~7 \u0026lt;9 3^0 Kuh b/Q- L. r2 6 (Muisl (1/- 2i^ L^r- I \u0026lt; I7^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1390-96 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION {DRAFT 2} 02:-22-35 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL 1992-93 ACTUAL 1993-94 BUDGET 1994-95 PROJECTED 1994-95 BUDGET 1995-96 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 31,899,357 20,601,593 3,214,974 [depository INTEREST iREVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES IMISC. AND RENTS !interest on INVESTMENTS [ATHLETIC RECEIPTS I L TOTALl ' REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES [county GENERAL ! SEVERANCE TAX I [ REVENUE - ST A TE SOURCES iMFPA______________________ jSETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION WORKERS COMPENSATION TOTAL REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND TOTAL [TOTAL REVENUEQPgflATHHe: 118,998 I 317,646 I 120,412 I 317,978 I 141,376 I 91,322 ?5,823,6S6 73,971 I 16,232 [ 90,203 j ! 22.037,764 10,356,778 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 8,820 2,885,960 609,943 1,007,481 624,119 46,472,6I 28,585 95,588 613,166 737.339 103,123,807 38,196,979 21,081,833 ' 4,250,186 ' 140,858 241,476 224,667 I 406,878 ! 354,446 I 100,857 64,998,180 73,419 i 15,350 [ 88,769 39,701,855 22,220,949 4,293,380 145,690 360,734 245,162 574,918 208,519 37,005 67,838 212 73,428 18,031 91,459 27,264,460 i 25,275,221 8.637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 0 8,926,606 1,500,000 72,694 1,261,451 1,139,235 234,403 3,540 3,198,252 563,602 2,127,216 799,544 0 48,670,884 45,101,764. 9,385 129,428 394,675 503,365 1,036,853 114,794,488 40,866 171,006 ______0 458,905 670,777 113,702,212 39,625,387 22,011,928 5,666,289 146,379 333,970 182,353 I 194,465 I 265,622 j 38,600,327 21,420,949 4,802,692 145,000 325,000 ' 180,000 ' 220,892 ' 322,232 I 40,330,355 I 41,330,355 21,420,949 i 21,742,264 i 4,802,692 ! 4,700,000 i 154,473 i 368,6527 157,385 220,892 335,000 74,416 102,005 80,000 I 155,000 ' 385,000\n139,000 ' 230,000 [ 375,000 : 85,000 : 68\nSQ3\n809 66,119\nO97 67,870-398 63\nT41\n619 I I 73,210 I 17,749 I 90,959 73,419 18,000 91.419 24,710,980 I 26,162,235 8,094,112 I 6,042,591 ________0 i 1,600,000 0 ! 1,382,418 1,282,804 263,992 3,198 3,553,095 517,260 2,720,581 792,081 0 _______0 1,320,000 1,344,499 233,992 3,198 3,700,000 580,435 3,100,000 797,893 367.319 43,320,521 45,252,162 108,747 18,000 -126,747 100,000 i 18,000 i I 26,156,074 i 26,526,188 , 6,042,591 i 1,600,000 _______0 1,320,000 1,344,499 233,992 6,984 3,788,805 543,922 2,764,143 790,466 367.319 44,958,795 29,969 1,228,696 _______0 348,725 1,607,390 38,000 500,000 900,000 716,116 2.154,116^ 113,519,679 jl 13,616,794 38,000 500,000 900,000 685.103 2,123,103 115,079,043 3,829,942 0 i 0 j 1,100,000 I 1,444,499 i 235,000 j 7,000 I 3,850,000 ! 580,435 [ 2,800,000 I 808,523 j 375,000 I 41,556.587 30,000 500,000 250,000 685,103 i 1,465,103 1 jl2iS3^r i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1^-96 REVENUE ANO expenditure PROJ ECTION (DR AFT 2) O2-22-9S ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL 1992-93 ACTUAL 1993-94 BUDGET 1994-95 PROJECTED 1994-95 /REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS BUDGET 1995-96 I CHAPTER I jCHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER I TOTAL i revenue-magnet SCHOOLS ISTATE'LOCAL I TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE I EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS ^PURCHASED SERVICES MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER OBJECTS DEBT SERVICE [contingency RESERVE FOR ENCUMBRANCES total OPERAT)NGXPa\u0026lt;SESiS EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS total expenses INCREASE (DECREASE) IN fund BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING TOTAL :  2,886,618 227,900 468,964 974,090 4,557,572 12,571,785 12,571,786 120.253.16* 3,275,099 ' 224 423 558.810 I 1,164,511 i 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,221,200 4,286,192 122,666 624,024 ' 1,230,084 I 4,299,095 177,262 628.560 1.003.005 I 5,222,843 6,313,98 6,262,966 6,107,922 I j i 13,887,841 13.887,841 133.905,170 65,192,947 I 73,191,21-3 8,032,967 10,457,140 3,613,450 3.628,473 5,036,791 6,646,769 0 iia2iSQ8.537-\n4,190.920 12.571.785 119,371,242 881,922 185,838 119,574 552,490 634,844 13,089,529 I 13,301.449 13.0^.629 13.301,449 i33\ni{^^' 133iog4\na94^ 14.236.418 14.236.418 133.961.134 11S.Q79.043 i 112,281,309 : 71,912,128\n75,079,647 1 73 .341,-179 8,992,742 i 9,908,175 _________________ 9,305,313 I 10,338.888 jj00,718 I 9,534,751 I 11,369.363 i I.3i7nqn.3 4.010.761 2.973,788 3,959,731 I 2,954.394 5,402,198 7,950,100 0 5,076,338 9,554,535 T13\n:J07i46ai _________0 714,896 TT2\nS29\nQ0iS?:\u0026lt; 3,420,371 1,704,608 ' 4,537,917 ' 8,903,285 0 I T14.320,SO4i 5.132.152 5,922.798 6.688.267 13.887,841 1,777,714 552,490 634,844 643,181 2,321,867 13.089.529 131,641,33g 1,464,395 643.181 2,321,867 1,034,369 3,395,074 TTg^SS*^ 2,9^,0481- 4,429,443 13.301.449 134.310,220 (1,226,126) 1.034,369 4.985,188 609,068 4,184,363 4,793.431 74.566,029 76,619.818 i 3,273,118 2,644,992 5,504,406 8,533,631 0 10,422,322 12,000,000 3,000,000 2,600,000 I 10,361,349 12,300,000 . 3,300,000 j 2.900,000 i 5,200,000 I 5,900.000 ' 8,533,631 0 8,532,296 1,000,000 116i807.3J7 :\n116i^1,982 121,413,465 ( 6.711.620 14.236.418 137.755^55^ 116,321,982 121,413,465 (3.794,221) (1,242,939) (9,132,156) I i 609.068 4.184.363 609,068 609,068 4,184,363 I 2,941,424 5.370 993,840 i ^210T^ 609.068 2.941,424 609,068 ! (6,190,732)1B5022802 MEMORANDUM Date: February 28, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures As a result of my phone conversation this morning with you and Ms. Brown, I wanted to take this opportunity to share with you some information on the list of ideas entitled Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. I have kept a running list of possible budget reduction and improvement ideas since about June, 1992. I also track every shortfall strategy, business case, and other budget initiative through the entire budget cycle. Most of the people 1 regularly work with in the district are aware of these habits and have seen various versions of my notes from time to time. I have found the need to keep them since the district does not capture a comprehensive, running history of budget initiatives\ninformation I find useful in planning for the fijture. With the submission of the districts final budget in August, 1994,1 began a new cycle. This means I rolled over the list of ideas, and started anew tracking the shortfall strategies, business cases, and other initiatives for the fiscal year. In the joint LRSD/ODM staff meeting on November 22, 1994, we discussed the budget cycle and specifically shortfall strategies. During the discussion of shortfall strategies, I mentioned I had a long list of ideas. Since no one responded, I detected no interest. On December 20, 1994, Bob Morgan and I met with Fred Smith to introduce ourselves and offer our assistance. During that meeting, I mentioned the list of ideas, and Fred said he would like to see it. Attachment A is a copy of the document I sent Fred on January 6, 1995. During small talk at the beginning of a budget meeting on February 3, 1995, Fred acknowledged he had received the list, and said the district had already thought of some of the items. The district had the list. Another thing of importance. The list of ideas is just that. They are not ODM recommendations, they are not proposals. They are just ideas which I, were I in your shoes, would seriously research as a possible strategy. Some may be good, some may be bad, some might not be feasible. I felt the need to emphasize the point with a strange title, lest anyone attempt to use the list as an official mandate. If you read Attachment A, you will note that statement on each and every page. If you ask, I am confident Mr. Riggs and Ms. Magness will confirm I made essentially the same qualifier when they asked for the list. Keeping ideas secret has no value to me. I will share my thoughts with anyone willing to listen. Fred asked, and I shared them. Mr. Riggs and Ms. Magness asked, and I shared them. Had you asked, I would have shared them with you. I have been trying to share my ideas with the LRSD for two years\nsome have listened and some have not. However, getting people to listen gets harder with each passing month. If you want any of my ideas, ask and I will share them with you. If you want me to give them to you first, hire me. Copy to: Ann BrownB4112803 1/5/95 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. * School Closings. \\ Outsourcing transportation. \\ 11/7 Board Work Session. CHART OF SHORTFALL STRATEGIES BUDGET FY 95-96 11/7 Board Work Session. * Outsourcing other. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Delivery of Nursing Services. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Staff Development. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Clerical Support. * 11/7 Board Work Session. IRC - Staffing/Use. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Federal Programs. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Staffing Efficiencies/RIF. * 11/7 Board Work Session. New Futures/In-School Suspension. * 11/7 Board Work Session. Facilities Usage. * Academic Incentive Grants. * 11/7 Board Work Session. I i 11/7 Board Work Session. ATTAtHHeMT 13. Student Assessment. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 14. Vocational Education Delivery.  11/7 Board Work Session. 15. Four-Year Old Programs. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 16. HIPPY. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 17. Fringe Benefit Package. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 18. Contract Lengths. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 19. Community Education. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 20. Millagoe Election. * 11/7 Board Work Session. 21. Spending Freeze. * 11/7 Board Work Session. MOONEYS ADDITIONAL LIST OF POSSIBLE SAVINGS * Performance based pay * * * * * * * * * * Stipends. Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall Salary evaluation and overall review Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in Salary rollback. Reduce the number of school days. Reduce the hours of certain staff. Purge positions over $35,000. Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. Consolidate classes J * * * * * * Car allowance. Cellular phones. Vacation days policy revision. Review sick leave policy. Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM Initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance. * Incentive program for accident free driving. * Six period day. * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization. Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layoff/RIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, all support services in bundle. Serious program evaluation. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PCs. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Building rentals. 9 * Sell vacant properties. * Trash compactor\nCOMPAX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, VVA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the A APT Driver Workshops ($70/$350) * * Ask Union to give some contract back. Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. S~ 4-'  l!JLi^ !? *7^^ n *  : \" '*r   TO: LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FR: AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS MAR 8 1995 OKlcs ot Desegrsgalicn Mon\nMarch 6,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons collected approximately 430 signatures (in less than a 24-hour period) protesting the proposed 1995-96 Budget Cuts by the LRSD Administration. Area School Parents and Patrons feel that most of these cuts were addressed in the March 1993 petition to the Court, which was accepted into the Court record. We simply feel outraged and betrayed by this Administration's blatant disregard of the primary needs of the children in the majority of the LRSD'S schools, which were addressed in that March 1993 petition. And AGAIN, we ask the Administration and the Court not only to listen to our concerns, but also to act responsibly by making cuts which DO NOT AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHIT DRFN 'T / / fjB5030602 MEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney fiM Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List As you requested, I am sending you a copy of the latest revision to the brainstorming list. The attached copy is up to date as of today, March 6, 1995. The next revision will be around the end of the week. Copy to: Ann Brown-7-- SSGEsV 'iQ-. LRSD ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MAR 5 1995 FR: A CONCERNED PARENT WHO HAS TALKED WITH MANY P.ARESjTS O^segregaKca March 8,1995 Area School Parents and Patrons are dazed at the prospect of the Administration's attempt to cut the Area Schools' Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the Focused Areas of Activities allotted monies, especially in light of the the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's report of December, 1994. This Administration's latest Business Case on these monies is so poorly yvritten and difficult to understand( besides the fact that it is filled vith inaccurate and incomplete information) that it simply should be rejected by the Court. The Court should demand that the LRSD give these monies to the AREA SCHOOLS in a timely and efficient manner, and should hold The LRSD accountable for its lack of concern for the Area Schools. It is difficult to try to figure out if this Administration deliberately writes such incredulously vague reports to confuse the people, or if this Administration is simply too incompetent to write clear, concise informational reports. Area School Parents and Patrons are adamantly opposed to cutting nurses in the Area Schools. It is this type of cut which makes the patrons of LRSD reel with feelings of rage, lack of trust, and abandonement. We demand MORE NURSES, NOT FEWER, IN OUR AREA SCHOOLS. Area School Parents and Patrons demand that the LRSD have a logical, workable plan of action in order to consider the closing of any schools. We believe that the LRSD has no workable plan for children who would be left without a school. The suggestions previously made by this district are illogical and unworkable. How dare the district ^^g^st that students be placed in already filled-up, overcrowded and underserved Area Schools. We do NOT support the closings of Fair Park and Badgett. Area School Parents and Patrons are fervently opposed to cutting any Counseling or Music services to our Children. AREA SCHOOL PARENTS AND PATRONS DO NOT SUPPORT ANY CUTS WHICH DIRECTY AFFECT THE PRIMARY NEEDS OF OUR CHILDREN. J a'MOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run costhenefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * Performance based pay * Stipends. * Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall * Salary evaluation and overall review * Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in * Salary rollback. * Reduce the number of school days. * Reduce the hours of certain staff. * Purge positions over S35,000. * Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. * Consolidate classes * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 20* * * * * * Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofE'RIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.\nuse Westside as chip. * Approvach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, VVA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. 21* Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/5350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA fonnula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 22B5030702 MEMORANDUM Date: March 7, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is the most recent version of a spreadsheet which I developed to help track budget actions. I am just now working the bugs out of it, so let me know if you have any recommendations. This tracking tool will be updated only when actions occur. Copy to: Ann BrownSheet! Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 204 8 Substitute Teacher_____________ Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)________________ Badgett School Relocation_______ Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School Mann Magnet Clerical Add_______ New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers_______________ Social Studies Curriculum Rev. Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses______ Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park Reduction In Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park Renovation at Fair Park - IRC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC___ BC BC SS SS SS SS SS SS O O N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M A M M A A M M M Y M D M M M M M M GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NSheetl $ 77,000.00 Y N $ 1,321,520.00 Y Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 185,828.18 $ $ Y YY N NY 170,000.00 669,900.00 Y Y ! 1  Y N Page 3 Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 182,783.90 Y Y I 1 N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 607,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 12,000.00 3,000.00 52,117.00 30,000.00 36,500.00 13,200.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 750,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N $ 849,282.00 $ 11,027,350.08 $ $ $ 10,178,068.08 $ Page 4B5031301 MEMORANDUM Date: March 13, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List The attached document is the latest revision to the Brainstorming List. It is effective as of March 10, 1995. The next revision will be around the end of this week or first of next week. Copy to: Ann BrownMOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost^enefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * Performance based pay * Stipends. * Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall * Salary evaluation and overall review * Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in * Salary rollback. * Reduce the number of school days. * Reduce the hours of certain staff. * Purge positions over $35,000. * Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. * Consolidate classes * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 21* * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofEZRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VIPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.\nuse Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. 22* Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/$350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 23BO3I5O3 Date: March 15, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet which I have been keeping. It is up to date as of March 13, 1995. I have yet to include the Proposed Budget information, but will do so late next week. When I get that done, I will send you an update. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to\nAnn BrownSheetl Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 204 8 Substitute Teacher_____________ Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)________________ Badgett School Relocation Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School_________________ Mann Magnet Clerical Add_______ New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers_______________ Social Studies Curriculum Rev. Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses______ Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park______ Renovation at Fair Park - IRC Reduction in Administrators EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC iBC ^BC BC BC SS SS SS SS SS SS O O O N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M M M A, M A M M Y M D M M M M M M D GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NINCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST Sheetl ' 9 DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 445,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 185,828.18 Y Y Y $ $ 170,000.00 626,848.00 Y y I $ $ $ 125,268.00 185,828.18 N $ $ 170,000.00 626,848.00 I N N Y Y N Page 3Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 1 N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ $ 798,696.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 $ 10,652,976.18 $ 9,854,280.18 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 478,696.00 $ $ $ $ $ N N 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 Y N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 7,449,656.18 6,970,960.18 Page 4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NB5032301 Date: March 23, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney li^ Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet. It is up to date as of March 23, 1995. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to: Ann BrownSheetl LRSD PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY FNAME: LREEBC01 REVISED: 3/22/95 ITEM SEQ# PROGRAM NAME METHOD PLAN MOD INCR COST DECR COST B/C REC A/D/M PLAN MOD 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 21 28 29 14 3 227 23 233 24 230 33 Academic Progress Inc Grants 231 Family Life/New Futures 2 [^FourVea r^3ldProgmm 2Q1 213 Guidance Services 215 Health Services/Nursing Services 1 HIPPY 15 McClellan Community School 13 New Futures 226 222 223 224 ____79 ____78 251225 5 203 21 EE/BC EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE/BC EE EE/BC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC EE EE/BC EE/BC EE EE___ EE EE___ EE EE EE iEE jEE EE___ SEE Y N Y N Y Y N Page 1 $ 445,000.00 $ 28,943.00 $ 175,000.00 Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y N Y D Y M M N Y Y Y Y Kzi: X Y N N Y N N N Y Y N N Y M M M D M N N Y Y NSheetl 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 204 8 Substitute Teacher Voc Ed (non-deseg)_____________ Voc Ed (deseg)_________________ Badgett School Relocation_______ Fair Park School Relocation Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education Arkansas Crusades Beacon School New Comers Center Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses Eliminate contingency___________ Eliminate increments____________ Shorten year by 2 days__________ Move IRC to Fair Park___________ Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen Utilities for IRC at Fair Park Renovation at Fair Park - IRC Reduction in Administrators EE EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC SBC___ [bc tec BC tec BC SS SS SS SS SS SS o o o N N N N Y Y I A M D D M M M A M M A M A M M Y M D M M M M M M D GROSS TOTALS $ 28,943,00 $ 620,000.00 NET POSITION Page 2 N N Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NSr INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST Sheetl * DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 445,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 223,769.00 Y Y Y $ $ 130,000.00 626,848.00 Y Y j $ $ $ $ $ 125,268.00 223,769.00 130,000.00 626,848.00 Page 3 N I N N Y Y NSheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y 1 $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 I N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 300,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ II $ $ $ $ $ 798,696.00 $ 10,650,917.00 $ 9,852,221.00 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 478,696.00 $ $ $ $ $ N N 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 Y N N $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 300,000.00 300,000.00 7,447,597.00 6,968,901.00 Page 4 N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 DATE : ^/cl7S TO: PAT Cree' TAK it FROM: Bit-L HgPAfgy NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET MESSAGE: AS pec\u0026gt;cf^sTeD. iS Tf/e- LAresr i/siIs/oaP, TT X CAA Se- At/Y AeiJ\u0026gt;. FeeL FP.ee To cacl.. X X Kt k: X X Kt Kt P.Ol DATE START RECEIVER APR- 6 13:35 5692476 TRANSACTION REPORT APR- 6-95 THU 13:38 TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE 2'28\" 4 SEND OK X X X X X X X XMOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cosPbenefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * Performance based pay. Benchmark Cincinnati Public Schools plan for administrators. * Stipends. * Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall * Salary evaluation and overall review * Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in * Salary rollback. * Reduce the number of school days. * Reduce the hours of certain staff. * Purge positions over $35,000. * Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. * Consolidate classes * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Look at alternative health care plan with eye to maintain benefits at less cost\nthird party arrangements. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary * Incentive program for accident free driving\nboth monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. 24* * * * * * * * Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofTRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. Reorganize and downsize Federal Programs office. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VTPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H.\nuse Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Building rentals. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMP AX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. 25* Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/5350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 26MAY- 9-95 TUE 8:58 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 District Judge Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 C.'-6 CF 335 03 , Dear Sir\nI am writing as a concerned citizen of the Little Rock area, the personnel matters that have faced LRSD in the last months, have been taxing to me, and the friends who are employed in the district. The tremendous amount of stress and uncertainty imposed upon the districts employees is absolutely ridiculous. Listed below you will find some additional factors to consider for budget cuts: 1. 2. 3. Why do they project budget cuts just before the students take the test? (the teachers, supervisors, and directors are usually stressed and the FEELINGS carry over to the students in the classroom.) They want to pay Worthen Bank the money instead of bring the TEST SCORES UP. Did the Superintendent, Special Asst, to the Supt,, Assoc. Superintendent of Desegregation, Director of Human Resources, and Planning Research and Evaluation Directors take a cut in days, or give the district 5 or 10 thousand dollars from their salaries to balance the budget? The reason the Incentive Schools are not operation effectively is because of the incompetent,insensitive,unqualified instructional leaders who are trying to educate the urban Afro-American student, the principals are at Mitchell, Franklin, and Rockefeller Incentive Schools. Don't allow them to continue to DAMAGE the Afro-American students, place them in a west Little Rock school,my- 9-95 TUE 8:58 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 SO they won't corrupt the inner city students in the Little Rock Area. 4. 5. The GANGS are infested in the schools because of the tremendous amount of HATE exhibited by the teachers who are only in the teaching profession in the LRSD area to obtain a pay check. So much hate is exhibited from the principals and teachers that the students join gangs, to feel human and the ability to have some self worth.(a lot of teachers come from small town outside of Little Rock, but stay in the system to obtain the monetary benefits.) Why are the Afro-American directors and supervisors the first ones to be eliminated, or to cut the extra personnel in their departments\nwhile the European-Americans maintain their departments, and are allowed to add additional personnel QUIETLY. These are some important factors to consider when you go to court concerning the LRSD Desegregation Case, and why so many of the ideas in the case have not worked. The LRSD Administration office is INFESTED with Institutional Racism, until this FACTOR is eliminated LRSD will never integrate, or effectively educate the students in the Little Rock area. ^aa ^^acx d . 3 MAY 3 1995 Oifice of Desegregaiioii Moniioring PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE CUTS Legal Services (Staff Attorney and Secretary) Deputy Superintendent $ 88,520 VACANT (2) $ 93,969 E, Matthis Associate to the Deputy Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Coordinator $ 12,\u0026gt;1,33 S. Ingram $ 52,671 D, Rynders HIPPY Coordinators (2) Plant Services (EPA or Construction Mgr.) Instructional Technology (was D. Omfleet 1993-94) $ 48,118 A. Roper J. Richardson $ 49,127 $ 42,056 VACANT Supervisor of Math (was J. Trowell 1993-94) $ 55,942 VACANT Displaced Principals (2) $125,288 $628,130 POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE ADDITIONS Administrative Program Supervision $228,130 Net Administrative Savings $400,000 Plant Services current^has these two positions funded, but one recently became vacant, and the other may become vacant The two positions will bo combined and the rcsponsifciliiieswili be employee. met by one CTrrcntJy has three schools with acting principals (King, Carver, Henderson), be filled nArmAnntIv fk,* 1Qe Q_1__1 permanently for the 1995-96 school year. which will A We have five principals who are considered'displaced,\" Three of these individuals will be reassigned as butldmeonnanak in IQOS-OA anri ____.-ii v. , ... *u uo i cjssignea as building principal in 1995-96 and two positions will be eliminated, which two people will be eliminated as principals at this time. It has not been determined THE BOARD DID NOT VOTE ON THE INDIVIDUALS OR ON THE POSITIONS LISTED ABOVE, BUT ONLY ON THE ELIMINATION OF 5400,000 IN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES,B5O5O5O1 MEMORANDUM Date: May 5, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List The attached document is the latest revision to the Brainstorming List. It is effective as of May 5, 1995. The next revision is dependent on district budget action. Copy to: Ann BrownMOONEYS BRAINSTORMING LIST OF POSSIBLE COST CUTTING MEASURES Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost/benefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. * * * * * * * * * * * * Performance based pay. Benchmark Cincinnati Public Schools plan for administrators. Negotiate with the union. Stipends. Stop advance payments on payroll\nproblems stopped and one-time windfall Salary evaluation and overall review Salary freeze\nfreeze administration first for buy-in Salary rollback. Reduce the number of school days. Reduce the hours of certain staff. Purge positions over $35,000. Freeze all hiring of replacements in non-teaching positions. Consolidate classes Purge all vacant positions from the budget * Car allowance. * Cellular phones. * Vacation days policy revision. * Review sick leave policy. * Cafeteria plan\nbetter education and selling. * Revise travel reimbursement procedures and amounts. * Look at alternative health care plan with eye to maintain benefits at less cost\nthird party arrangements. * Employee suggestion program. * Get suggestions from transportation workers. * TQM initiatives. * Review monitoring functions of the parties for possible coordination/consolidation. * Review reporting generated by PRE. * All secretaries must demonstrate proficiency in WordPerfect and Excel. * Incentive program for attendance\npreferably non-monetary 28* Incentive program for accident free driving, both monetary and non-monetary * Six period day. * * * * * * *  Flatten administrative organization\nremove some layers Get 10% to 15% from each administrative department General layofTRIF Give transportation to someone else. Outsourcing\ntransportation, custodial, accounting, data processing, human resources, or all support services in a bundle. Serious program evaluation. Begin benchmarking campaign nation-wide to identify cost saving targets. Reorganize and downsize Federal Programs office. * Lease purchase refinancing. * Food Service transfer. * Insurance fund transfer. * Transfer of positions and expenses from operating funds to federal funds. * Settlement Loan draw-down. * Grants which would defray operating costs for programs. * Get computer company to volunteer training staff on PC's. * Combine AS400 operations into one. * Work with APSCN to find low cost, long term computer solution. * Implement the Finance Analysis Model immediately, and try to retro-fit for the last two years for possible cut analysis * Check actual expenditures against budgeted for targets of opportunity. * Control and crack down on substitutes. * Cut athletic programs. * Combine recruiting efforts (teacher, parent, VTPS, private school) * Increase Medicaid reimbursement for health services * No cost contract for all health services with A.C.H., use Westside as chip. * Approach State about picking up the Medicaid match portion. * Social work reimbursement from DHS * Reject paying for the Green Factor committees * Reject any costs for the strategic planning action plan committees * Eliminate high school kindergartens. * Begin phased chartering of existing schools that volunteer. * Strong phased effort to site-based management 29* Building rentals. * Lease existing available building space rather than build new school buildings. * Sell vacant properties. * Sell the Annex. * Sell the administration building\nconsolidate all administration in less expensive quarters. * Trash compactor\nCOMPAX 101. * Long-term computer (PC) leasing contract. * Revised energy audit with follow-on program * Flags from Secretary of State, legislators, American Legion, WA of Arkansas * Reduction in materials and supplies. * Diesel bus change out * Relocate IRC and Annex to cheaper places. * Major recycling campaign. * Participate in the AAPT Driver Workshops ($70/S350) * Dont rebuild Stephens, and change the facilities use pattern. * Ask Union to give some contract back. * Retrieval bargaining with the Unions * Revision of MFPA formula with the State. * Negotiations with State on forgiveness of loan payback. * Millage increase. * Revise method of calculating the magnet per pupil cost (see Bob) * Work deal with the ADE on computer costs under the APSCN funding. * Litigation on Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. * Pooling agreement appeal. * Set up education endowment fund and seek contributions. 30B5O5O5O2 Date: May 8, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney Subject: LRSD Program Development Summary Spreadsheet Attached is a revised copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet. It is up to date as of May 5, 1995. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Copy to: Ann BrownSheetl Page 1 Sheetl 30 31 32 3^ 35 36 37~ 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 \"59 60 61 Substitute Teacher 204 Voc Ed (non-deseg) 8 Voc Ed (deseg) Incentive School Staffing________ Elementary Music Teacher Staff Improving Student Transport_____ Parkview Commercial Art Proposal Alternative Education___________ Arkansas Crusades Beacon School New Comers Center__________ Reading Recovery/Literacy Pilot Security Officers Information Services Eliminate purchase of buses Eliminate contingency_____ Eliminate increments _____ Shorten year by 2 days EE/BC EE/BC EE/BC BC__ BC___ BC BC BC BC___ BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC BC SS SS SS SS fes Reduction in Debt Service-Stephen |SS Reduction in Administrators O O O GROSS TOTALS NET POSITION N N $ 28,943.00 $ 620,000.00 Page 2 N N Y Y A M N N I D D M M jy A M M A A M a M M Y M D M M pMMMD Y Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N NN Sheetl $ : ft  \"  S  INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS INCR COST DECR COST DO PASS REC SUBMIT APPROV $ 445,000.00 Y $ 261,000.00 Y Y ACT $ 77,000.00 Y $ 77,000.00 Y N $ 1,321,520.00 Y $ N Y N N $ $ $ 125,268.00 560,000.00 223,769.00 Y Y Y $ $ $ 125,268.00 223,769.00 Y N PB N N Y N N ACT $ $ 130,000.00 626,848.00 Y Y $ $ 130,000.00 626848.o6 Y PB N ACT Page 3Sheetl $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I $ $ 50,000.00 98,462.00 Y Y I N N $ $ $ $ $ 523,000.00 637,000.00 608,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 34,965.00 30,000.00 37,000.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 702,000.00 161,800.00 300,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 270,000.00 $ 300,000.00 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $ $ $ $ II $ $ $ $ $ 798,696.00 $ 10,650,917.00 $ 9,852,221.00 34,965.00 30,000.00 18,500.00 12,117.00 10,614.00 36,500.00 $ 317,500.00 $ $ $ 228,130.00 $ 688,326 00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 211,250.00 161,000.00 100,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,500,000.00 699,546.00 300,000.00 400,000.00 6,964,143.00 6,275,817.00 Page 4 N N Y Y I Y PB Y H N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N N N o N N N N ACT N Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N NB5080701 Date: August 7, 1995 To: Ann Brown From: Bill Mooney Subject: Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures After the LRSD budget hearings on August 1-2, 1995, you requested that I put together information concerning the times I had contact with LRSD concerning the list known as the Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This memo contains the occasions on which I have some record. In addition to this listing, there were several other instances where staff or board members requested another copy which I provided without note. I have kept a running list of possible budget reduction and improvement ideas since about June, 1992. I also track every shortfall strategy, business case, and other budget initiatives through the entire budget cycle. Most of the people I regularly work with in the LRSD are aware of these habits and have seen various versions of my notes from time to time. I have found the need to keep them since the LRSD does not capture a comprehensive, running history of budget initiatives, information I find useful in planning for the future. The brainstorming list of ideas is just that. They are not ODM recommendations, they are not proposals. They are just ideas which I have gathered from many sources. Some may be good, some may be bad, some might not be feasible. I felt the need to emphasize that point with a strange title, lest anyone attempt to use the list as an official mandate. Also, keeping ideas secret has no value to me. The list is no good unless decision-makers think about it, and this memo will show they had ample opportunity to use these ideas. With the submission of the LRSDs final budget in August 1994,1 began a new cycle. This means I rolled over the list of ideas, and started anew tracking the shortfall strategies, business cases, and other initiatives for the fiscal year. I am about to close out the 94-95 fiscal year by adding the final budget information to the list. The brainstorming list is contained as the last section of the comprehensive document\nLRSD BUDGET ACTION SUMMARY. This document was updated numerous times during the fiscal year, mainly after some significant budget action by the LRSD Board. Attachment A is the most recent version, dated 6/30/95. It will be updated one final time. NOTE: the items in bold print represent the two times I got direct feedback on the shortfall strategies. 8/4/94 I had lunch with John Riggs, and we discussed the budget and several shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list. 8/16/94 11/22/94 12/20/95 1/6/95 2/3/95 2/3/95 2/24/95 2/24/95 2/28/95 2/28/95 3/6/95 3/7/95 3/13/95 I provided Mark Milhollen with the latest revision to my lists. In a joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting, I mentioned the brainstorming list which I was maintaining. I noted some research had already been done on some of the items, and that the list was pretty long. No one from LRSD responded\nHank Williams was present. Bob Morgan and I met with Fred Smith to introduce ourselves. During the meeting 1 mentioned the list of shortfall strategies, and volunteered a copy to Fred Smith. I sent Fred Smith an annotated copy of the brainstorming list, explaining the material. During a meeting with Mark Milhollen and Fred Smith, we discussed the shortfall strategies on the list. During a casual conversation at the beginning of a budget meeting, Fred Smith and I discussed the list. Fred Smith said the district had already thought of some of the items. I had breakfast with John Riggs. We discussed the budget and some of the shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list, specifically health services. I provided him an updated copy of the brainstorming list. Ann Brown and I met with Judy Magness and Russ Mayo. We discussed budget matters, and specifically shortfall strategies and health services. I provided Magness an updated copy of the shortfall strategies. I was brought in on a phone call between Hank Williams and Ann Brown. Hank Williams was complaining that he was not given any of the shortfall strategy information. I pointed out the 11/22/94 staff meeting and the 1/6/95 copy provided Fred Smith. I said I would send him personal copies in the future. I sent a memorandum to Hank Williams providing him a copy of the brainstorming list, and explaining its history and purpose. This was in response to the phone call of 2/28/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/6/95. 1 sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet which 1 used to track all shortfall strategies actually acted upon by LRSD. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/10/95.3/15/95 3/22/95 3/23/95 4/6/95 5/5/95 5/8/95 7/14/95 8/2/95 I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 3/13/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 3/22/95. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 3/23/95. I sent a facsimile copy of the brainstorming list, updated 4/3/95, to Pat Gee. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the brainstorming list, as of 5/595. I sent Hank Williams an updated copy of the LRSD Program Development Summary spreadsheet, as of 5/5/95. Fred Smith, Mark Milhollen, and I met to discuss the shortfall strategies on the brainstorming list. Fred Smith had prepared a matrix showing some of the strategies down the left side, and obstacles across the top. Fred Smith did most of the talking, and I got the impression the purpose of the meeting was to show Bill Mooney why strategies were not undertaken. I hand delivered a copy of the brainstorming list, update 6/30/95, to Linda Pondexter in court.B4112802 06/30/1400 LRSD BUDGET ACTION SUMMARY FY 95-96 This document is an ODM staff working paper which contains the following material: 1. Chart of Business Cases. This is a listing of all business cases known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those business cases. 2. Chart of Shortfall Strategies. This is a listing of all shortfall strategies known by ODM, and contains a cumulative summary of actions taken by the LRSD on those strategies. If a shortfall strategy had a business case prepared, then the strategy was moved into the Chart of Business Cases. 3. Chart of Budget Issues. This is a listing of budget related issues that should be addressed somewhere in the LRSD budget. 4 Mooneys Brainstorming List of Possible Cost Cutting Measures. This is an informal brainstorming list of possible measures for cutting the budget or improving services. We have not determined the feasibility of the items, nor have we run cost/benefits. The menu is made up of things that might be considered with no judgement made on value. These items in no way should be construed as ODMs position, recommendation, or suggestion. NOTE: Please help keep this paper updated by letting Mooney know of budget actions or suggested changes. 1LRSD CHART OF BUSINESS CASES BUDGET FY 95-96 NOTE: The items in bold print headings are active. The items with regular print headings are not active. 1. Academic Progress Incentive Grant. * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 14, Academic Incentive. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 14 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Gremillion and Mitchell. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Academic Incentive, for modification or deletion. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. APIG and Focused Activities deletions. * * * * * * Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $445,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness wanted to know why the district can cut this program in light of the Court Order. Williams says a plan modification will be required. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $445,000. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $445,000. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced the savings from $455,00 down to $290,000. * 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of revised business case. No action taken. * * * 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved continuing APIGS/FA and funded it at $20 per student for each area elementary school. The approved cost is now approximately $171,000, making the savings approximately $274,000. LRSD estimates savings as $261,000 on the summary table from the Board meeting. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the program 2modifications for a savings of $261,100. A new business case was submitted with the budget document. 2. Academic Support Program. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 03, Academic Support. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 03 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Glasgow, Parker, and Adams. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 03, Academic Support, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. 3. Data Processing. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 23 and 24, Data Processing. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams indicates he wants to give Beason some time on the job before considering Outsourcing data processing services. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 24 and 230, will be prepared by Beason. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 33. 4. District Wide Facilities Study (School Closings). * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 33, Facilities. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows District wide Facilities Study (program sequence # in error) will have a business case. It will be prepared by Mayo. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett of discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 22 and # 23. 5. Pupil Transportation Services. * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 223, Pupil Transport. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # 223, will be prepared by Cheatham. 3* 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes feeder for # 25. 6. Family Life Education/New Futures. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #231 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young and Carson. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 231, Family Life/New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Assign FLE teaching responsibilities to nurses, counselors and science teachers, modification. Savings of $77,000. Would not require a Deseg Plan * * * * * * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $77,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $77,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. Savings at $77,000. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects a savings of $77,000. 7. New Futures. * * * * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 13, New Futures. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #13 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Young. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 13 New Futures, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Language Arts Plus in lieu of Learning Foundations\nreturn to 6 period day. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $669,900. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. Board deleted the Learning Foundations course in the New Futures Junior Highs. This seems to lay the foundation for elimination of the 7 period day. Savings of $669,900. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted amount of savings dropped to $626,848. Difference is that this amount is based on actual salaries vice averages. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 4* 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $626,848. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. * 3I22I9S Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings * * * of $626,848. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Young concerning the business case. Mainly centered on cutting the 7th period. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to accept the business case as submitted by the superintendent failed. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. In response to the failed business case. New Futures funding of $626,848 added back into the Tentative Budget Document. No savings now reflected. 8. Four-Year-Old-Program. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 02 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Price. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 02, 4-Year-Old, for modification or deletion. 2/1/95 flyer to parents. The pre-registration material sent to parents around the first week of February contained a flyer on the 4-year-old program. The flyer said that due to projected budget cuts the program may not be available in many of the schools. The final decision will be made by the Board in the near future. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate program except at the Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $1,321,520. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness states that the Board does not want to cut the 4 year old program, and the administration should look elsewhere. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $1,321,520. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program cost of $1,321,520. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving the program in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 9. Guidance Services. 5* * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 213, Guidance Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #213 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Elston. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 213, Guidance Services, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduce positions but maintain Arkansas * * Public School Accreditation Standards, modification. Savings of $125,268. Would not require a Deseg Plan * * *  2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $125,268. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of$125,268. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and the savings of $125,268. 10. Health Services. * *  * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 215, Health Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence #215 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Efird. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 215, Health Services, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Reduction in nursing positions while maintaining services. Cut 19 nurses from area schools. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $560,000. * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. * 2/24/95 Mooney meets with Riggs to discuss alternatives in health services. * 2/24/95 Brown/Morgan/Mooney meet with Magness/Mayo to discuss alternatives in health * * * services. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $560,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget as a program 6* * cost of $560,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. Board formally approved leaving health services in the budget. No cuts will be made in the program. Now a dead issue. Williams indicates the district is now working with the Dept of Health on some new ideas for health services. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects no cuts and no savings. 11. HIPPY. * * * * * * * * * * *  11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 01, HIPPY. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 01 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Shead. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 01, HIPPY, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate HIPPY program except for parents within Incentive Schools. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $185,828.18. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. Many board members voice opposition. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested some service numbers, asked about duplication of services, and possibilities of combining with other programs. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness, Mitchell, and Pondexter voiced concerns about cutting this item. If cut, savings have been increased to $223,769. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $223,769. Also included an action deadline of 5/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $223,769. 3/24/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Williams says they are recommending the cut in the HIPPY program because of the deficit. The proposed cut is not final at this time, since the Board has not voted. Other programs can deliver this service. Matthis says HIPPY will remain in the incentive schools and schools in southwest Little Rock. Cuts will remove about 50% of the kids served. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. A number of Board motions failed. No action taken. * 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the HIPPY expenditures added back at $223, 769, and now shows no savings. Removed from the actual list. 12. McClellan Community School.  * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 7* * * * * * * *  * * * * 15, McClellan Community School. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 15 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Carter. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 15, McClellan Community School, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Deletion of program, with Business Department delivering the program. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $170,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about advisory board involvement. Williams directed Carter to go back to the advisory board for more input. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. General discussion concerning involvement of the Advisory Council. Board wants more input from Advisory Council and additional information from the staff. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $130,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $130,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion of the proposal. No action taken. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Matthis concerning the business case. No action taken. Administration considering counter-proposal (business case) by the McClellan Advisory Board. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. The Community School will be funded at $40,000 (plus earnings of about $50,000), for a total savings of $130,000. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. General discussion on the business case developed by the Advisory Committee\nthe committee did what they were supposed to do. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still at $130,000. 13. Staff Development.  * * * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 21, Staff Development. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 21 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Woods. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 21, Staff Development, for modification or deletion. * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 814. Substitute Teachers. * * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Gadberry and Hurley. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # none. Substitute Teachers, for modification or deletion. This item did not appear on the 1/5/95 Extended Evaluation List, but was on the 1/17/95 tentative business case list. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Place a cap on professional leave. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $50,000. * 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $50,000. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings * * of $50,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $50,000 savings. 15. Vocational Education. * * * * * * * *  * 11/7/94 Board Work Session. 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 08 and 204, Vocational Education. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 08 and 204 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Green. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 08/204, Vocational Education, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Eliminate Exploring Industrial Technology education programs at two junior high schools\neliminate low demand courses. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $182,783.90. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings had been reduced to $98,462. Smith says this is the result of fine tuning. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $98,462. Also included an action deadline of ASAP. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $98,462. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 9 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the $98,462 cut and savings. 16. Safety and Security. * * * * 1/5/95 Extended Program Evaluation list. Shows up on the evaluation list as Sequence # 25 and 225, Safety and Security Services. An extended program evaluation will be prepared. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 25 and 225 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Jones. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 25/225, Safety and Security, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Becomes a feeder for # 31. 17. Discipline Management. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Mitchell, Robertson, Marshaleck. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate that this is a dead proposal. 18. Alternative Education. * * 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout on tentative business cases. Program sequence # NA, will be prepared by Elston, Anderson, and Glenn. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Pilot program of alternative classrooms at Southwest Junior High and Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $34,965. * 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration * list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $34,965. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was added to the budget for an additional cost of $34,965. * 4/12/95 Board Work Session. No action taken. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $34,965. 19. Incentive School Program Modification. * * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 217. Develop business case for incentive schools program modifications for submitting to Superintendent and Council. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revise staff configuration\nimprove staff efficiency. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $607,250. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 10* * * * * * *  * * 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested more numbers and better justification. More general discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. Magness noted the savings amount had been reduced to $608,250. The difference is cutting 38 vice 45 positions. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $608,250. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $608,250. 3/31/95 Technical assistance meeting. Smith and Mooney meet with Matthis and Ingram to discuss the technical aspects of a proposed modification to the business case. 4/3/95 Court Submission. Revised business case reduced savings from $608,250 down to $211,250. Personnel cuts not as severe, from 45 FTE down to 10.5 FTE. 4/7/95 Court Submission. LRSD submits corrections to the revised business case. No change to the bottom line savings of $211,250. 4/10/95 LRSD Budget Hearing. Detailed testimony by Ingram on the business case. Detailed testimony by Brooks, Donovan, and Buchanan. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the revised business case as submitted by the superintendent. Savings at $211,250. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects savings still set at $211,250. 20. Middle School Concept. * * 12/22/94 Project Management Tool, task 218. Explore, gather, and assess data relative to the transition to the Middle School concept. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Was not included in this package, which would indicate this is a dead proposal. However, the 1/30/95 Project Management Tool indicates the district is 100% complete on exploring, gathering, and assessing data relative to such a transition. 21. Beacon School Concept.  * * * * 11/11/94 letter from Williams to Brown. Letter indicates that planning has been completed and the district is moving ahead without the benefit of a business case. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Implement Beacon School concept at Cloverdale Junior High. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Additional cost of $12,000. 2/23/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. The $12,000 is for custodial costs. Program would run year round. Gee suggests looking for a grant. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. Budget cost still shows $37,000. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the additional cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for an additional cost of $37,000. 11* * * * * * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $37,000. 4/6/95 Board Work Session. General discussion on proposal. No action taken. 4/10/95. LRSD Budget Hearing. Brief discussion about the Beacon School concept in relation to the McClellan Community School business case and recommended cuts. No action taken. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Williams says the amount can be lowered to $18,500 additional. The board tabled the addition. 4/27/95 Special Board Meeting. Since only about $20,000, Riggs suggests waiting on this issue until later in the year when the programs are about ready to start up\naround 12/95. No action taken by the Board. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the addition of $18,500. 22. Badgett School Relocation. * * * * * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 2/7/95 Community meeting held at Badgett to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Badgett School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $523,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness asked questions about keeping all the students together in any move. Riggs supported the idea. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $523,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. * 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional * * cost of $523,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Badgett failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school still open, with no savings in the budget. * 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote * on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 23. Fair Park School Relocation. 12* * * * * See feeder item #4. 1/27/95 Arkansas Democrat Gazette article. Article quotes Mayo as saying that Badgett and Fair Park are at the top of a possible closing list. Mayo says closing both would save $900,000. 1/31/95 Community meeting held at Fair Park to discuss recommended closure. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Closing Fair Park School. Would require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $637,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. * 2/28/95 Board Work Session. Magness requested the amount of money to repair Fair Park * if it were kept open. Figures were not available. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. This item has been dropped from consideration on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will not be reflected in the proposed * * * * * * budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item shown as deferred and on hold. Still shows possible savings of $637,000. Included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was included in the budget for an additional cost of $637,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. Motion to close Fair Park failed. Funding will stay in the budget. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the school remaining open, with no budget savings. 6/15/95 Newspaper Article. Article reported that a 6/14/95 Special Board Meeting to vote on the closing of Badgett/Fair Park would be postponed. 6/22/95 Special Board Meeting. Board approved closing the school without discussion. The decision rescinded a Board vote in April that allowed the school to remain open. 24. Elementary Music Teacher Staffing. * * * * * * * 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Revision of current elementary music teacher assignments. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings of $161,000. 2/22/95 Board Work Session. General discussion. 3/8/95 Board Work Session. No discussion. This item is on the Budget Consideration list, and the savings will be reflected in the proposed budget. 3/16/95 Special Board Meeting and Work Session handout. Item still included in the proposal for a savings of $161,000. Also included an action deadline of 4/15/95. 3/22/95 Proposed Budget, dated 3/14/95. Item was deleted from the budget for a savings of $161,000. 4/12/95 Board Work Session. The Board approved the business case as submitted by the superintendent. 5/26/95 Tentative Budget Document. Tentative Budget Document reflects the cut and savings of $161,000. 1325. Improving Student Transportation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * See feeder item #5. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting. Williams says the LRSD is coming back with a recommendation to outsource transportation. 1/17/95 Joint ODM/LRSD staff meeting handout. Tentative business case list shows program sequence # 223 will have a business case. It will be prepared by Cheatham. 1/26/95 Board meeting material. New Extended Evaluation list recommends sequence # 14, Pupil Transportation, for modification or deletion. 2/15/95 Business Case book to Board and ODM. Outsourcing transportation. Would not require a Deseg Plan modification. Savings\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_274","title":"Budget process","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":["1992/1994"],"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"],"dcterms_title":["Budget process"],"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/274"],"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\nJUL 1 7 FILED U S. CiSTRICT COURT ASTcpN aokansas JUL 1 5 1992 CARL f!. 3i By: -1/ NTS. CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UEfX\nLE^K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER Pursuant to telephone notice provided to counsel on this 15th day of July, 1992, the hearings to be held on the Little Rock School District budget process previously scheduled for July 17, 1992 are hereby rescheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, August 3, 1992. It is so ordered this /-\u0026gt; day of July, 1992. iJn^ted States District J^ddggee THIS DdOoCcuUMmEeNnTt eEnN ti terMcedu on DOQCS\nSJgiN ''OMPLIANCE WITH RULE 56 AND/OR 7S(a) FHLa\" ,1N RECEIVED FILEDcr\u0026gt;\u0026lt; fOT JAM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 0EC 3 0 1992 BY^ ' 'i.vucH Office of Desegregation Monitoring OEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS On August 3, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1992, at a hearing scheduled to address the budgetary process of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD), the Court heard testimony on reductions in the LRSD 1992-93 operating budget. The Court entered a brief order on August 4 finding that many of the reductions have an impact on the desegregation plan. Nevertheless, with the exception of eliminating the seventh period at McClellan High School, the Court approved the reductions for the 1992-93 academic year and ordered that certain reductions be restored for the 1993-94 academic year. In this Order, the Court addresses in more detail the reductions made by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Music Teachers The LRSD Board of Directors approved the reduction of 22.8 FTE music teacher positions. the effect of which is to require the classroom teachers to provide the required music instruction. In its August 4th Order, the Court allowed the reduction of music teacher positions for the 1992-93 school year, but ordered that BQ those positions be restored for the 1993-94 academic year.* Music is very much a part of the LRSD's desegregation plan. For example, four-year-olds are to \"receive the services of counselors, music teachers\" and others (LRSD Plan at 17)\n\"Students will have opportunities to examine the artistic, musical. scientific, literary, social and political accomplishments of many ethnic groups.\" (LRSD Plan at 63.) Although it appears that the LRSD will comply with state standards regarding music education, it is guestionable whether. without full-time music teachers, it can maintain a music program with quality high enough to boost desegregation efforts. For example, one of the goals of the four-year-old program is to acclimate young children to the school environment by including them in the total school community through involvement in the broad spectrum of the school's activities. Music teachers help facilitate this assimilation process by working with all grade levels on joint projects such as special programs and presentations. Eliminating the music specialist hinders such coordination and may impede young students' integration into the school community and slow their ability to achieve feelings of \"belonging.\" Four-year-old programs have proven to be a successful desegregation tool, attracting students to the public schools and also serving important functions of both remediation and t In a separate Memorandum and Order filed last month, the Court ordered the LRSD to restore 3.9 FTE positions at the magnet schools, including the full-time music teacher at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School, for the 1992- 93 school year. -2-prevention-of-failure. The four-year-old program's quality is directly linked in part to the varied services, such as music teachers and counselors, that the LRSD desegregation plan has promised these very young children will receive. Another result of reducing the number of teachers with highly specialized music skills is decrease in the variety of a instructional options available to classroom teachers and their students. The settlement plan implicitly recognizes that music also sharpens listening skills. teaches group cooperation. commitment to task, and gives children multicultural experiences through the musical traditions of other cultures and countries. Because the Court finds that the reduction of 22.8 FTE positions for music teachers will negatively affect the district's desegregation plan, the Court has ordered the LRSD to restore all 22.8 FTE music teachers in the 1993-94 academic year. Elimination of Seven-Period Dav at Henderson Junior High School Even though the Court believes that eliminating the sevenperiod day at Henderson Junior High School for the 1992-93 school year will impair the success of the magnet program, it approved the proposal for this school year only and ordered the LRSD to restore the seventh period for the 1993-94 academic year. Henderson Junior High School is now the only secondary magnet school with a six-period day. The success of secondary level magnet programs is closely related to the degree of freedom students have to take the elective courses offered as part of the program. At the junior high level, it can be particularly 3-difficult to operate an effective magnet program within a six- period day given the need for students to fulfill certain graduation requirements. The Court made it clear when it granted permission to establish the Henderson and McClellan magnets that the LRSD must maintain distinctive, high quality programs to maintain the public's favorable perception of, and participation in, the magnet concept. Closely related to the quality of Henderson's program is the public's perception of this program compared to those at other magnet schools. The LRSD originally proposed the Henderson magnet program in hopes of reversing five-year decline in white a enrollment. (According to the district's figures, almost a third of the district's vacant junior high seats have been at Henderson.) A magnet program seen as only partially operational would only exacerbate Henderson's image problem, making it more difficult to recruit students and desegregate the school. Gifted and Talented Programs The LRSD reduced the number of its gifted and talented specialists to 16 FTE positions. While the Court did not disapprove this cut for the 1992-93 school year, it is concerned that the staff reductions may make it more difficult to maintain the required level of services to students, faculties, and parents. If this should prove to be the case. these cutbacks will be contrary to both the letter and spirit of desegregation agreements. The LRSD desegregation plan strongly commits the district to gifted and talented education. In a section entitled Gifted -4-Education, the district promises a superior program implemented by teachers with specialized training and experience: 'Services are provided to these [gifted and talented] students by teachers (specialists and facilitators) who have completed or who are pursuing graduate credits in gifted education.\" (LRSD Plan at 58.) Also, \"all three districts are committed to following the best practices in the field of gifted education in identification. curriculum, and program evaluation.\" (LRSD Plan at 58.) The desegregation plan assures that black children will not be underrepresented in gifted education: \"[SJpecial attention shall be devoted to the identification and placement of black students and students from low and middle socio-economic levels.\" (LRSD Plan at 58.) This plan provision relates to the fact that minority students and those from low socio-economic backgrounds may not exhibit their \"giftedness\" in traditional ways that are more readily discerned by a teacher inexperienced in identifying exceptional children. Therefore, gifted and talented program cutbacks may result in fewer minorities participating in the gifted program. The cutbacks may not only affect black and poor children, but also may hinder the academic progress of all children whose unusual gifts and talents can be adequately nurtured only through quality, specialized learning opportunities. The desegregation plan contains numerous other provisions that reinforce the district's commitment to gifted education. For example, the LRSD obligated itself to seek federal funds to help support a long list of programs that includes gifted and talented -5-education. (LRSD Plan at 97.) The incentive schools are to offer such specialized programs as gifted and talented \"during the core instructional day, with reinforcement activities available through the extended-day, week, or year programs.\" (LRSD Plan at 154.) The LRSD even made gifted and talented education a programmatic emphasis at the Dunbar Junior High International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet School to attract a diversified student body to this hard-to-desegregate school. The magnet program began in 1990 and the school is now within racial balance guidelines. Clearly, the LRSD has promised parents, teachers, students, and the courts that it will advance desegregation by providing a comprehensive, quality gifted and talented program that is attractive to parents and meets the needs of all children. The Court also notes that the State of Arkansas requires and strongly supports gifted and talented programs. The state has specific standards regarding these programs, including requirements relative to teacher-student ratios and the amount of weekly time children spend in gifted learning activities. Cutbacks in the LRSD gifted programs may place the district at risk of violating state standards. The Court will not condone any programmatic or staffing change that would result in the district's breaching state educational standards, including Arkansas Department of Education guidelines for programs such as gifted and talented. Because changes in the gifted and talented program may jeopardize desegregation, the Court will closely monitor the impact of reducing the gifted and talented staff and concomitant program -6-modifications. If the Court determines that the changes detract from the quality or appeal of the gifted and talented programs and magnet features, hinder the participation of all eligible children, or otherwise result in failure to fulfill desegregation plan commitments, the Court may require the LRSD to restore the number of gifted and talented specialists to previous levels or to make other adjustments in the program. Plant Services The LRSD 1992-93 operating budget cut 10 FTE custodial positions, citing an \"Omaha Formula\" as the basis for allotting custodial staff. The Court warns the district of its responsibility to ensure that all schools are clean and in good repair. with particular emphasis on maintaining the incentive schools and other hard-to-desegregate buildings. The district has recognized that maintenance and facility attractiveness are important to the incentive schools' ability to draw new students. Furthermore, schools with special programs (such as Rockefeller where the early childhood program serves children as young as six weeks of age) may have unusual cleaning needs that the district must not neglect. If school maintenance declines due to the decrease in custodial services. the Court may require a return to previous staffing levels. To facilitate monitoring, the Court requires the district to submit a written description of the \"Omaha Formula\" and an explanation of how it is being used to determine staffing levels. The district must also furnish, within 30 days from the -7-date of entry of this Order, a complete list of the number of custodians by building, indicating where staffing changes have been made between the last school year and the current one. Teaching Vacancies In an effort to reduce the number of teaching positions, the LRSD decided to eliminate small classes by strictly adhering to a minimum class size of fifteen students. The Court cautions the district about the possible negative impact of dropping small classes, especially in magnet schools where specialized classes are a part of those schools' unigue appeal. Moreover, most of the district's secondary schools offer certain specialized or advanced level courses, such as those in mathematics and foreign languages. These courses have magnetic appeal that helps promote a desegregation. The Court encourages the district to find ways to augment enrollment in specialized classes through recruitment or combining groups so that children will not be denied an opportunity to participate in special learning experiences because a certain class has low enrollment. The Court will monitor the schools to determine what classes are dropped due to the district's fifteenstudent enrollment minimum. If the quality. scope. or desegregative appeal of academic or magnet programs are compromised by the withdrawal of previously offered courses due to low class enrollment, the Court may require the district to reinstate deleted courses. -8-Counselor Department Positions and Elimination of the Pupil Personnel The LRSD's 1992-93 budget reduced the number of FTE counselors by 19 and eliminated the entire Pupil Personnel Department, a district administrative division that was responsible for coordinating and supporting school counseling and other pupil services. The LRSD desegregation plan is replete with examples of guidance and counseling services that it is obligated to furnish the children. (See LRSD Plan at 2829 for a number of district goals related to availability of such services.) There are also incentive school features that specifically require the direction and support of counselors: the Career Skills Development Program, Attendance and Behavior Guidelines, College/Post Graduation Awareness, Individual and Group Counseling, and Study Skills. Additionally, several of the desegregation plan's incentive school implementation timelines list the Pupil Personnel Department as responsible for helping to ensure that incentive school children receive assistance cataloged under two discrete desegregation goals: \"To create a program of counseling/social work to provide extra support to students to ensure them opportunity for success\" (LRSD Plan at 183) and \"[t]o more closely and thoroughly monitor incentive schools in order to develop a clearer picture of student achievement at these buildings.\" (LRSD Plan at 186.) Eliminating the Pupil Personnel Department is a cause for great concern. One of the main responsibilities of this department's director was to coordinate guidance and counseling -9-services throughout the entire school district. Arkansas Act 908 of 1991 establishes over thirty responsibilities for student services coordinators and names the position of Student Services Coordinator, which is analogous to that of the LRSD Pupil Personnel Department director. Act 908 requires counselors to provide a number of specific services, mandating that they devote at least 75% of their work time to direct counseling services and not more than 25% of their time to administrative activities. The Court fears that, with the reduction in the number of counselors and the lack of direction and support from the Pupil Personnel Department, the district may not fulfill the guidance and counseling functions required by the desegregation plan and state law. If monitoring determines that the district is unable to provide the full range of required services, the Court may direct the district to restore eliminated positions. Non-certified Vacancies The LRSD determined to reassign four instructional aides from the Instructional Resource Center (\"IRC\") to existing vacancies in the schools. These aides have enabled the IRC to provide a range of instructional support because the aides' assistance helps IRC specialists deliver academic and desegregation-related services directly to teachers in the schools. The desegregation plan casts the IRC in important supporting roles in all the schools. For example. IRC specialists are obligated to furnish inservice and any needed special assistance to principals and teachers in order to promote student achievement and -10-growth (LRSD Plan at 127.) The plan heavily commits IRC specialists to supporting the incentive schools through such means as staff development, participating on special committees, assisting new teachers and those experiencing difficulty. and (See LRSD Plan at 192-93, 194, 201, and 204.) While the LRSD has not cut the number of IRC specialists, the Court is nevertheless concerned that, without their experienced helpers, the specialists will be forced to curtail the extent of school-based assistance they are able to give. Such support is especially critical this year because the district has adopted an expansive new curriculum that impacts teachers in all grade levels. There has been much fanfare about this new curriculum, which the LRSD developed in response to an extensive 1990 curriculum audit, a part of the case record. In the audit report, there are numerous references that go to the heart of instructional problems which the IRC staff shares great responsibility for alleviating. For example, in a report finding entitled \"Line of authority and direction of the district's curriculum management function is disordered and fragmented\", the auditors noted that: \"Teachers and parents lamented the inadequate support given to improvement of the quality of instruction... Some principals took uneven notice of ineffective and inadequate classroom patterns and teaching activities. Observed teaching activities [included those] which reflected very low power teaching techniques and feeble and ineffectual instructional activities...\" (LRSD Curriculum Audit at 13.) Distressingly, the report goes on -11-to state that \"learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse, unless administrative direction. expertise, and intervention is provided in the educational programs of the Little Rock School District.\" (LRSD Curriculum Audit at 14.) The desegregation plan plainly represents the IRC as an intervention resource for all schools with emphasis on applying IRC expertise to the incentive schools. As the schools adjust to the new curriculum, working to ensure that learning does indeed get better instead of worse, there will doubtless be greater demand for all types of support services, especially those from the IRC which has for many years been the district's seat of curriculum guidance and support. In paring its budget by eliminating services that so closely affect the children. the district risks undermining its own desegregation plan. Once again, the Court reminds the LRSD that the Court will closely monitor these changes to determine their affect upon the district's ability to live up to its desegregation promises. Material, Supply, Equipment, and Substitute Budgets The Court is concerned about the reductions the LRSD 1992-93 budget lists in 44 departmental budgets, and the potential impact these cuts have on desegregation. The Court particularly notes that the reduction in the McClellan Community School budget is so large that it likely will have a direct effect on program delivery. The district must be mindful of the language in its desegregation -12-plan which states that a McClellan Community School planning committee (now called the McClellan Community High School Advisory Council) is a means for promoting community involvement and input so that whatever changes are proposed for the school will reflect the community's needs and wishes. This council must be meaningfully involved in all changes at McClellan, including budget planning and adjustment. It is within the scope of the committee's responsibilities to help the district monitor the effect of the budget cuts on the community school program, recommend any appropriate changes that will enable the program to achieve its goals economically but effectively, and to work with the district in planning the 1993-94 community school program budget. The LRSD's $25,000 parent recruiting budget cut may jeopardize the district's pledge to recruit white students through activities and events outlined in the desegregation plan. numerous During the process of revising and updating the desegregation plans, the parties chose to incorporate the public relations section from the Tri-District Desegregation Plan into the current interdistrict plan. This addition obligated the districts to aggressive public relations activities that directly affect the ability to attract parents and their children to the public schools and keep them there. Because the work of parent recruiters is crucial to public relations and the recruitment process, the recruiters have tremendous responsibility for the desegregation plan's success. The LRSD desegregation plan explicitly assigns the parent recruiters a long list of responsibilities (see LRSD Plan at 95, -13-216, and 218-22) in addition to those implicit in the interdistrict plan. The district must provide for effective parent recruitment. Furthermore, the district is well aware that it must double fund any incentive school for as long as the school remains racially identifiable. Since recruiting white students to desegregate the incentive schools is a primary job of the parent recruiters. the district must provide the Court with specific details about how it intends to cut $25,000 from the parent recruitment budget and yet maintain the recruitment level necessary to fulfill its obligations under the plan. Utility Costs The district intends to reduce its utility costs by adjusting the start-up temperatures for activating heating and air conditioning systems in the schools and other buildings. Such a step is a reasonable cost-containing measure\nhowever, the Court advises the district against operating the temperature control systems only while students are in the buildings. If heating and cooling units operate only when children are present. the new utility policy can have a negative effect on staff. School staff frequently remain in their building. after children have been dismissed. for a variety of reasons. including instructional planning, classroom preparation, meetings, conferences, tutoring sessions, and inservice. Many buildings do not have windows that can be opened for ventilation. In hot weather. lack of a ventilation makes it impossible for individuals to work comfortably and productively in buildings once the climate control system has -14-been turned off. Staff should not be expected to swelter or freeze while they donate after-school time on behalf of the district. Conclusion The Court will not tolerate budget cuts inhibiting the full, on-schedule implementation of the desegregation plan. It has ordered the LRSD to restore for the 1992-93 academic year the seventh period at McClellan High School. The Court has ordered that 22.8 FTE music teacher positions and the seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academic year. The effect of the other budget reductions: gifted and talented specialists reduced to 16 FTE positions\ncustodial positions cut by 10 FTE\nFTE counselors cut by 19\nelimination of the Pupil Personnel Department\nreassignment of 4 instructional aides from the IRC\nreductions in the budgets for material, supply, equipment, and substitutes\nand the strategy to reduce utility costs, will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts. The Eighth Circuit Court has been emphatic about how it will view budget cuts and the district's commitment to desegregation: We wish to dispel, in particular. any notion that an asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction in their commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan, even if such a reduction were agreed to by the Joshua Intervenors, an eventuality which, in any event, seems to us most unlikely. The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. are The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed. -15-Even [plan] changes that go beyond the level of detail, moreover, could be approved, but only if the parties affirmatively establish good reasons (not including lack of funds) for them. Appeal of the Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991). In its opinion extending the millages, the Court stated: The district court appears to suggest in its opinion that the scope of the remedy can be limited to reflect the loss of the anticipated funds. We cannot accept the suggestion that a remedy can be so limited once this court has found it to be constitutional. Such a course would be contrary to what we said in the opinion and contrary to law. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 971 F.2d 160, 165 (Sth Cir. 1992). The success of the desegregation plans depends upon the schools' ability to attract and hold white students and to lower the achievement disparity between black and white children. The Court will find it hard to tolerate any budget cuts that jeopardize the district's ability to do exactly that. This is why the Court is concerned about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson). The district must be mindful of the many commitments it made in the public relations section of the interdistrict plan. a -16-section which the parties themselves chose to transfer in its entirety from the TriDistrict Desegregation Plan. Recognizing that desegregation will succeed only so far as the community supports and participates in it, this section presents an encouraging picture of energy. creativity, and renewal that promises to build a strong and positive relationship between the school districts and the community. The section stresses that dependability, credibility, and integrity are basic to the success of the desegregation plan and that public trust depends upon the districts' fulfilling their commitments. The Court cannot stress too strongly that it will be impossible to build and sustain public confidence and participation if the communityincluding school employeesperceive that they cannot count on the school districts to keep the promises they make. The Court also worries about the impact of the budget changes on teacher morale. The interdistrict plan specifically recognizes the strong relationship between staff morale and successful desegregation, calling on school staff to serve as ambassadors to the community and to share responsibility for recruiting and sustaining desegregated student enrollment. (Interdistrict Plan at 64-66.) Classroom instruction. especially as related to eliminating achievement disparity, is greatly affected by morale\nit is also impacted by what the district requires of its teachers and the amount and scope of support the district provides so the teachers can fulfill those requirements. District personnel are having to deal with many significant changes this year resulting -17-from a new superintendent and other top administrators, the effects of the budget cuts, curriculum changes, and desegregation plan requirements. For example: school staff must implement the extensive new curriculum\nthey must learn how to use the new computer instruction and achievement tracking system, and find the time to feed the required information into the system\nthey must compensate for the cutbacks in gifted and talented specialists by assuming an additional instructional load\nmost elementary teachers must incorporate music instruction into their classroom routine without the benefit of music teachers or even a music supervisor as a resource\nand teachers' remediation responsibilities have increased due to changes in the district's academic support program (previously known as PAL.) The staff who are most directly responsible for helping ensure children's academic success are having to make many difficult adjustments this year, and the Court is concerned about the effects these adjustments will have on desegregation. The Court does not sanction changes that will have the effect of putting the LRSD at risk of non-compliance with state standards or statutes. The Court will closely monitor the effect of the budget changes and many reductions may have to be restored if the Court determines that the desegregation plan is being impeded by the changes. The Court understands that Superintendent Bernd did not have many options open to him when he joined the district last July, but the Court trusts that he will make choices for 1993-94 and beyond that are as far away from the children and the  18 desegregation plan as possible. Should the LRSD anticipate making any changes, the LRSD must submit these changes to the Court and must not implement them prior to the Court's approval. DATED this -^0 day of December, 1992. _________ UNITED States DISTRICT JUDGE I -19-On January 21, 1992, the United States District Court ordered the LRSD to make certain submissions in order that ODM could determine that the LRSDs budgetary process would meet the following requisites: (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the districts legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. The LRSD filed its reply to that order on June 1, 1992 and began an ongoing process to satisfy the request of the court. By incorporating into the general ledger a code structure that ties the districts general ledger to the desegregation plan, a link has been established between the districts legal requirements (the desegregation plan) and its fiscal commitment (the budget). The district has committed to maintaining the code structure and to provide reports to the ODM for monitoring. The district has incorporated the new codes into the 1992-93 budget. The ODM continues to have concerns about the budgeting process that is used in the LRSD and its capability to determine its financial status. The LRSD is a multi million dollar enterprise. It is the states largest school district and should set an example of strong fiscal management. Yet, the district operates its financial affairs like the smallest of school districts that have simplistic needs. The Arkansas Department of Education provides Handbook II as the basis for school district accounting and within the code structure there is ample flexibility to measure any aspect of school finance. The LRSD Policies and Procedures Manual has very little in the way of board policy relative to financial matters. There is no requirement for board approval of major expenditures. Therefore, major financial obligations are undertaken without full public disclosure committing the District to, not only current year obligations, but also to future payments. Examples include the purchase of computer equipment for the CMIT project and the expenditure of millions on the PAL program, as well as the open ended \"double funding\" of the incentive schools. The Board has not required, as a matter of policy, that new or changed needs that require substantial outlays be funded in the budget, and that the sources of the funds be identified. For example, if additional funds are needed for security personnel, which item in the budget will have to give up the money. The current financial system is essentially an accounting system that produces the accounting reports required by state law. However, it does not generally satisfy the high priority needs of the District itself. Major unmet needs include an improved ability to generate systematic short- and long-term expenditure projections, as well as an improved ability to allocate resources according to explicit District priorities, especially in relation to academic programs.In December 1990, a report submitted by a team from the National Curriculum Audit Team and commissioned by the LRSD Board stated in Finding 5.3 \"School management practices show inadequate control of district resources.\" and in Finding 5.1 \"the district may be not exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel.\" The auditors found that \"the budget was not used as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities were not apparent\" Neither is the desegregation plan used daily as an instrument to guide implementation of district policy. There is a disparity between the promise of the plan and reality yet there is no evaluation of the programs the school district offers to see \"what works\", and no changes are made to cut ineffective programs. In effect, the school district seems to have a large slump hole into which it pours money. In no way can the district offer that they have shown good faith efforts to improve the quality of the educational process. The lack of program orientation and other truly useful financial information may impede the Districts efforts to provide an equitable and productive distribution of resources to all students. Program budgeting has the characteristic of a primary focus on the purpose for which funds are intended, e.g., McClellan Magnet Program, PAL Program, Alternative Programs, Gifted and Talented, etc., rather than on object code line items, e.g., textbooks, supplies, certified salaries, etc., or organizational units. When budget documents are presented to the board and public, there should be a comprehensive overview of each program and all of the resources allocated to them. The accounting codes used by the school district provide for the use of a function code which could be defined as program categories in a program budgeting system. School districts provide educational services to students in the form of academic programs such as reading, mathematics, science, social science, etc. Parents, teachers, and students view progress and achievement in the same terms. The financial and human resources to accomplish all of this in the LRSD are accumulated, budgeted, allocated, analyzed and reported in terms of funds, schools, functions and objects, but not the primary programs which embody the reasons for the districts existence. Thus, neither the public education constituencies nor the administrators themselves can readily discern the priorities of the district as reflected in the allocation of resources. The curriculum audit pointed this out to the district in its Recommendation 12: \"Move toward greater involvement in budgeting with curriculum linkages.\" That recommendation is especially valid considering the need to balance budgets with revenues in an effective and equitable manner. The recommendation identifies the major steps, found on pages 119-120 of the curriculum audit, necessary to install programmatic budgeting. Instead of concentrating their management efforts on improvement of internal processes and developing basic management information, the district has continued to ignore the direction of the court and its own commissioned audit. The Board of Directors at the direction of the previous administration renewed contracts for all personnel effective May 1, 1992 and passed responsibility to provide a balanced budget to the new superintendent. As a result, sweeping cuts were made to the budget that were inappropriate. At the time of the cuts. Superintendent Mac Bernd made promises to improve the financial process in order to be in better position for the next year. He stated in the budget document transmittal Once this budget is adopted, the budgeting process will not end. We must begin to restructure the budgeting process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement rather than providing so many different programs which ultimately distract the Districts focus to the other issues. It is my goal to place the entire District in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement. This will be done by concentrating our attention first on the core curricular areas. Next, programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement in these areas will be linked to particular expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not have this linkage, I will be recommending in the Spring of 1993 that personnel contracts in these areas not be renewed for the next fiscal year. Finally for the district to operate efficiently and effectively it will be necessary to streamline the administration. Because contracts have been renewed for 1992-1993, this cannot happen this year. On the other hand, the District has several cost centers where investment in personnel might produce savings or generate revenues for the District. All of these items will be considered in the coming months. Now as the District approaches May 1, 1993, history seems to be repeating itself. The district is projecting large deficits for the next year yet has little good information on which to base cuts or deployment of personnel. Again, the plea of \"wait until next year\" is heard. We can no longer continue down this path. The administration was aware of problems and has not put adequate resources to correct them. The position control system does not reflect the authority for each position or the person assigned to that position. How can a district cut personnel when it cant even determine what positions it has? Where is the plan for allocating personnel to the needs of the children?John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 'i-m 5\n1\n' (F 3 y U !1 iSroa 8 V *.r. ' FEB 2 1993 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR. * Also admitted to Practice in Georgia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia. February 1, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 -.ng Dear Dr. Bernd: I would like to have the names, addresses, telephone numbers and race of all the members of the advisory committee on budget _ J. also like to have a about which you spoke this afternoon. copy of their minutes of each meeting held thus far along with their agenda and any reports they have made today. I would like to pick this information up by the end of business on February 2, 1993. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours. U). John W. Walker JWW:Ip cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Richard Roachell tHase CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNEHSHI? OF INDIVDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 3LTLDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCC, ARKANSAS 22201-3493 Tritphone (501) 375-2011 Fix No. (501) 375-2147 DiicetNo. 370-1506 TO: MEMORANDUM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a repon about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matten which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that\" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1, Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) 3, Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 4. Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 5. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 The orders WWW which have been issued by the District Court since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building, Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation plan. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: \"(1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations,\"* On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that \"the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites\" and ordered the Little Rock School District to \"submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan' together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. It On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97\". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 24 Court also notified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher positionsTn the seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year \"will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts\". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Court and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern \"about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson).\" The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward \"other issues of concern to the Court\". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to comElying with its desegregation aooui me utue kock scnooi comm: plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget mal^i^ difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared, all previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). (I have transcripts of almost 3X 1\no There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case. 4 FEB-23-93 TUE 15:03 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On February 1, 1993, the Court held a hearing to determine, among other things, what progress the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") was making with respect to conforming its budgetary process to that outlined in earlier orders of the Court. Having considered the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing, the Court determines that the LRSD needs assistance in developing a budget that complies with the Court's requirements for a budgeting process and document that can be effectively monitored. The Court first notified the LRSD of its concern about the LRSD's budgetary process over a year ago. During hearings on the parties' proposed modifications to their settlement plans. the Court expressed concern about its ability to monitor the parties' compliance with the settlement plans absent budget documents that clearly reflect the districts' allocation of resources in relation to both short-range and long-range planning to meet desegregation plan goals, programs, and priorities. The Court specifically addressed its remarks to the LRSD, and followed up its comments FEB-23-93 TUE 15:04 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.03 with an order filed on January 21, 1992, directing the Lrsd to submit a revised 1991-92 budget, prepared in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM). The Court ordered the LRSD to make certain submissions so the Court could determine that the LRSD's budgetary process would meet the following requisites\n1) accurately reflect and comprehensively account for expenditure of settlement funds\n2) demonstrate the link between requirements and the fiscal requirements\nthe and link the the underwriting district's of legal those 3) describe a desegregation budgeting demonstrated, justified, and verified\n4) enable the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to desegregation obligations. process that can be and align finances with The LRSD filed its response to the Court's order on June 1, 1992, \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93-1996/97,' A revised version of this document was filed on July 31, 1992. Among the changes and additions in the revision's section entitled \"Desegregation Budgeting: Description - Future Year Procedures\" were new statements that \"[t]he Superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process\" and \"[t]he Superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct audit and related budget proposals.\" a Desegregation Plan Additionally, in the budget document presented to the Court on July 31, 1992, which was the subject of an August 3, 1992 hearing. LRSD Superintendent Bernd, stated: who had come on board July 1, 1992, Once this budget is adopted, the budgeting process will not end. T- -------- We must begin to restructure the budgeting -2- FEB-23-93 TUE 15:04 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 so process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement rather than providing many different programs which ultimately distract the District's focus to other Issues. It is my goal to place the entire District in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement. This will be done hv Next, , This will be done by concentrating attention first on the core curricular areas. programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement in these areas will be linked to particular expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not have this linkage, i will be recommending in the Spring of 1993 that personnel contracts in these areas not be renewed for the next fiscal year. Finally, for the District to operate efficiently effectively, it will be --------  and administration. necessary to streamline the Because contracts have been renewed for 1992-93, this cannot be fully accomplished this year. C*, the other hand, the District has several cost centers where investment in personnel might produce savings or generate revenues for the District. All of these items Will be considered in the coming months. On All of these items Document # 1649. In December 1990, the LRSD Board of Directors received a Curriculum Audit it had commissioned the National Curriculum Audit Center to conduct. This report is a part of the case record. In Finding 5.3, the report found that show inadequate control of district \"school management practices resources.\" In Finding 5.1, the auditors stated\n'[T]he district may be not exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel.\" The auditors found that \"the budget was not viewed as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities were not apparent . , 11 Finding 5.4. The Court finds that this continues to be the case. -3- FEB-23-93 TUE 15:05 SUSAN H WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 Despite the persistent urging of the Court, there is no indication that a budget process of the type sought by the Court is or will be forthcoming from the LRSD. During the February i, 1993 hearing at which budget matters were discussed, the Court asked Superintendent Bernd when the district would have a budget that would meet the requirements of the Court's previous Orders. Dr. Bernd replied that he believed the district and a half away.\" was \"at least a year The Court has been patient. It encouraged the LRSD to work with the ODM on the district budget, but, despite ODM's diligent efforts to assist, the LRSD has not produced a budget process that enables the Court to meet its obligation to monitor desegregation plan compliance. The Court, thus, finds it is necessary to assist the LRSD by appointing a person or persons to work with the LRSD at LRSD expense to prepare a budget document that will make it possible for the Court to monitor the myriad of programs the LRSD agreed to conduct in its desegregation settlement plan. The Court is concerned not only with the LRSD's expenditure of desegregation money but also with all the state, local, and federal funds the district uses to finance its entire operation. The LRSD must achieve a budgeting process, develop a budget document, and demonstrate budget management that fully reflect the district's careful planning for meeting its desegregation obligations over the full span of the settlement plans. The person or persons employed will be paid by the LRSD but will report to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The LRSD is -4-0 23 93 14: 4B 301 324 2032 L R School DIst ODM @001 '001 Little Rock School District February, 25, 1993 Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann: 1 am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which 1 indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court. The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. 1 appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of Directors FEB-23-93 TUE 15:06 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 06 expected to treat the employee or employees like its other fulltime employees for purposes of benefits and will provide adequate work space, equipment, and materials along with full access to information and support. The Court, after consultation with the person or salaries. persons and the LRSD, The employment will not be will determine appropriate permanent but will continue for as long as it takes to get the job done, as determined by the Court. The Court will not consider the task complete until the LRSD demonstrates that it understands that budgeting procedures. and the resulting budget documents, are not static, but an integral part of the district's on-going planning and evaluation processes. DATED this day of February, 1993. -5- UNITED STATES DISTRT TCT JUDGE, 0 23-93 14:46 \"S'5111 324 2032 L R School Dist  ODM @001/001 Little Rock School District February, 25, 1993 Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann\n1 am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which 1 indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself'will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of DirectorsNTF March 2, 1993 TC with Mac about his Feb. 25, 1993 letter re meeting with the new budget person to define what we are looking for.\" 1 told him we would not mandate a format, rather let the process dictate the format\nthat I was not so concerned with format, but with the relationships between the plan and the budget, and how it could be used as a tool to help measure progress\nthat 1 had developed a list of \"characteristics\" from the orders that would guide us. Assured him that we would talk to, in his words, \"pin down a moving target.\"Little Rock School District February, 25, 1993  t ,1 Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FEB 2 b ^993 ,,T h'lonitciing C!f\nc3 of D03S=0*3G Dear Ann: I am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which I indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court. The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 FILED U.S, OlST.^IGT C JURT EASTERH O!S7?:CT ARKANSAS mar 3 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR - i 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring CARL LERK DEP.CLEft. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court hereby orders the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present at the March 19, 1993, hearing, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. in Room 305 of the United States Post Office and Courthouse Building. The Court had previously requested that they be present but upon further reflection has determined that their presence is required. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. UNTTED states DISTRICT' JJUUTDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON CCC:\u0026lt;ET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WTH RULE 53 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ON p A J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COl^JC EASTER DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION '^ARL R. 2 6 1993 CLSflK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. 1 1993 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Office ot WonAon'^9 INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO COURT ORDER OF FEBRUARY 24, 1993 On February 24 1993, the Court entered an Order advising the parties that she would appoint at least one person to assist the Little Rock School District in developing a budget from the district and she invited resumes of potential nominees by March 1, 1993 . The Joshua Intervenors respectfully respond as follows: 1. They wish to be helpful to the court in helping to develops an appropriate applicant pool for the position and accordingly respectfully reguest the court to set forth the criteria that the Court intends to apply in filling the position. Without such guidance from the Court, Joshua cannot be very helpful. Por this reason, Joshua ask the Court to specify such criteria and extend the time for submission of resumes for an additional five (5) days from the date of such specification. 2. The Joshua Intervenors are concerned that the prospected pool of applicants-considerees be sufficient to increase the possibility of an African-American being the designee. This is very important to Joshua because (a) the school district has shown no inclination to respect the minority interests in the budgetprocess, and (b) by having the person assigned to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring an additional white staff person will cause that already racially imbalanced office to be further imbalanced. We have previously brought this concern to the Court and the Court has indicated that it is mindful of it. (Of eight (8) full-time employees, only two (2) at present are of African American descent.) concern Joshua would also bring to the Court's attention their about the propriety of a member of the ODM staff being an official participant in any Little Rock policy making, programming or budgeting. We do not object to their being helpful to the parties in an advisory capacity, but they should not have actual membership in any of the committees. Otherwise, their neutrality may be compromised and their impartiality reasonably questioned. In filling the budget position, Joshua asks the Court to take great pain to determine that such designee not be an idealogue or other person with particular agenda that is 3 . 4 . a a independent of the task being performed or objective of the Court. 5. On Thursday, February 25, 1993, the Little Rock School District gave notice to the community that they objected to the Court's Order, \"to expend funds, to hire another person to develop a budget...[because it] does nothing to improve the performance of students in the classroom. This is just more make work. tl The board member making this statement was Mr. Dorsey Jackson. See Exhibit A. Board President, Mr. John Moore, concurred in this view. Although there has been no formal pleading filed in objection, we wish to advise the court that the argument submittedby Mr. Moore, 1. e. \"I don't think I can, in good conscience, spend another $50,000.00 or $60,000.00 for someone to count numbers. It misses the point. This person is not a II numbers counter. If although the job description is not set forth by the Court. The position is essential to the development of a budget to which the District can be held accountable. Moreover, the district. without Court approval and without involvement of a public proceeding and without following its own bid procedure, has entered into an additional contract, open-ended in amount, to hire additional local counsel to supplement the work of Mr. Christopher Heller. That action was taken without official board action and without costs consideration. It was done by Superintendent Bernd and Assistant Superintendent Bernard and Court approval was not sought. Surely if the Superintendent or a staff member can take it on themselves to enter into employment contracts without Board or Court approval, which are open-ended in costs, the objections by the board and its president to the approval of an additional monitor type staff member are inappropriate. WHEREFORE, premises considered. the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court allow the parties an additional five (5) days after specifications in writing of the employment criteria and task to be performed in which to submit resumes\nthat the Court give serious consideration in filling the position to the overall racial composition of the ODM full-time staff\nand that the court disregard the objections of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District with respect to the budget position. Respectfully submitted.By: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (5 Jo\n72206 Bar No. 64046 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel, on his 26th day of February, 1993. co H-h - cm 55- .i: 0. \na FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26,1993  3 to\n^'dr4er,niandating 'bud^tnpdlt BY CYNTHIA in the had beei pStientybut would ap-\" who'have worked dniientirin '/whenihJjob is completer.- DO int ATIA AT* tit AT*Q T3AAa1a Ta Ha XX b . , .  . . _ _ I}! J Democrat-GazetiB Educaiion ww  classcoom,. board member point one or more people to do '/.-..'Little.Rock Sch'ql Board-^.-Tiorsey Jackson said-at the - the job:''~------ . classcoom,. board member members 'bbjecte'd'Tijrsday to - \"boards.meeting. .This is jusf T7 f T..J more make-workdl.'-..^-.-^..:.,-.\n.,,,,-:... U-.S.yDistrict Judge.-Si|an 'Wetn- ber'i'Wright^s'.ordep'^i'ng she' . X.---------- - .--x'Wright\nsaidj'during.a\nFeii\n-T would-appoint atJeaj\u0026amp;rie per-'-c cdurt hearing andin anbrderis- son to_develop a budg|^tl.t.h.. '  cahtise to monitor-thiaistricts that she dese^egation planctapliance.  ..i.7.To'expendTuh'd's'Uhire an- 1 other\", person to..a.ey'elp a budt get does nothing tqj'OTove the $ 'sii'edtruesday.that she had re- pe'atedlyaskedthedistrict fora '.budgedthat.wp'uld.link the dis- atrict's're'yeh'iijes.'and'expendi- t tui'esltqJUyiese^egatibh-p rot. .igram,-Qbn'gatiousJShe'said she- T\u0026gt; J -f, ' Board.member-Katherin the'iob-'^=-''-c5-\u0026gt;-A/- ... A-t:-Board President John Moore Mitchell asked if the distric Will be temporary\nt-he jud^ said. , . ..Jackson said hecould under- the budget. He saidjt was un-.\n,ge . why the Office of Desegregation . UI jjczcsiegaLiun. ' $500,000 for the federal Office of ... Monitoring couldnt prepare the i Desegregation Monitoring  r . - ^.document:.  ....................- I dont think I can-in good  --Y s '   i- can-in gooa suggested tnat anynew . conscience spend another . menL Eireiat5maAufac.i ihmh ii . stand that.theldistrfct hadidest- ao vuubui-\ned the judge_spatience7but^^e  tents so the district wouldnt pay h',^ \"i\"\"\n.?-.^i^^.?l?5-.?Si?.'?lSimstratprs' . _\nunemplqvment compensation\ndoesnt help desegregation:\n  . v , . , . I w V 4iw s. xx,*.* vv aUVbUCi employees be.hired as consul- M $50,000 or $60,000 for someone to^\ncount numbers, he' said .That J- ' Members discussed the feas bility of anLappearand.'Bern said he would pass themember:  concerns to the districts atto\nney, Chris Heller. .The nextcou: hearing isMarch.ig.-hr.'if-iaztiT- A- tu-iiigijiiwxLoai aaj J.7.\u0026lt;\nfu\n-o:2\u0026gt;2^Vle ! wiir misslISansaS' { I Lflr\n- I^I iSmtGwoiSeSlsi Jjhe Associated Press . 07,1. aT :-h?o. edi.-lu:\n1 -Arkahsans would .fare.'bettet '.] than many other Americans unf der President'Ciintons'eco- I ri higher .taxes for th'ejrich'and'a: ener^tajtto-be^shjMedbv'all. He'said'the'enM^taxBit would average-ra'b'but'?:$17 nomic package, Rep. ^yjrhom-,\n. . ton,'D\nArk.,'said.Thursday. ?i 'Thdrntonaisbgave'Clintdn-'a'-, ': good chance of selling the plan''''\nthe.nation, and to .Congress,. . ! if the.president emphasizes'\"''  spending cuts and applies tax- es fairly. . month. -^1  Ti r A CTT* o yn  t e' T, 1-a n. .Thejob^JroK^fs^htend 'ed.to'.md.ye j,eopTepu^df-w fare ahd'ihto wbrkLfar'e\n.^'fc ton said.\n.Peop,le:i.n-^Mkansa like that i'dea? c.lf/t-'.M\n!-'-''' y\" 13 [is, oi \"\"Zll iiB. The reaction that Im getting is that, if we do the cuts first, make sure that leads the list and the people can see that were se- ' Arkansas,' a rui^ state wher motorists drive more miles'tiia: many more-urbanized state\nwill still take a'softer hit fror. Clintons energy tax because th plan taxes energy in Britis\nthermal.units, the amount c Li- .' rious about cutting expenditures and ivaste in government, ,..pp ...x\n. . 1 it s going to have a pretty. ..- perature of 1 pound.of wate: J goon chance of passing,? Thom-' \\ degTeeFah\"renh'eit.r.\nt a-.'j.\n- heat required to raise the teirRECEIVED FILED MAR 3 1993 MSB*' Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR -1 1993 .zARL HyOni^i uuhr.K OS. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Before the Court is the response of the Joshua Intervenors to the Court's Order of February 24, 1993, inviting the parties to submit resumes of potential nominees for appointment to assist the LRSD in developing a budget document. Even though the Court set a March 1 deadline and the Court continues to regard this matter as urgent, the Court will accept applications through March 5, 1993. Attached to this Order is a description of qualifications for the position. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. UNITED States distrIicCtT JUDGE ynis documfnt rule 53 ANO/Ol BY ITV 79(a) FRCP Goal: Special Position To work in collaboration with the Little Rock School District on a short-term project to meet the Court's requirements to develop and implement budgeting processes, budget documents, and budget management procedures and practices that institutionalized are to be as an integral part of the LRSD's ongoing planning, appropriating, monitoring, and evaluating processes to ensure the district fulfills its desegregation obligations. Qualifications: 1. Excellent skills and extensive experience in planning, organization, research, monitoring, and evaluation in a large organization. 2. Strong background in public or private sector administration (public preferred), with specific experience in budget development, management, and evaluation. 3. Expertise in designing and implementing staff position allocation. control systems and resource 4. Expertise in developing internal financial controls. 5. Proven ability to direct and support others to accomplish specific goals and objectives. 6. Strong oral, written, and 7. 8. communication skills. interpersonal Coraputer word management skills. processing and database Minimum of a administration, bachelor's degree educational in public administration, business administration or related field.RECEIVE!^ FILED U.S, DISTSIGT COURT, EASTERh D!St=:CT ARKANSAS MAR 3 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR -1 1993 CARL B. clerk Office of Desegregation Monitoring DEF.CLER. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court hereby orders the members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to be present at the March 19, 1993, hearing, which will begin at 9:30 a.m. in Room 305 of the United States Post Office and Courthouse Building. The Court had previously requested that they be present but upon further reflection has determined that their presence is required. DATED this 1st day of March, 1993. ST'A.KTS'EE.SS DDIISSTTRRIICCT' JJUUEDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 53 AND/OR 73(a) FRCP ON HHHE ef ' f' Little Rock School District March 4, 1993 c a MAR 4 1993 Mr. Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Office of Dessgregciion Mcniforing 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: Enclosed for your review is a draft outline of the Little Rock School District budget process and a draft of the revised budget document. Please respond in writing if these documents meet your approval. We cannot proceed with budget development until we have your approval. Sipfcere^, Ga 7)Jones Manager of Resources and School Support Enclosures cc: Ms. Ann Brown (w/enclosures) c:\\budget\\drafts.wpd 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SSSSS: ANNUAL BUDGET 1993 -19941993-94 BUDGET PROCESS DATE December December January - February February - March April June July TASK Revenue and Expenditure Forecast School/Department Budget Requests \u0026lt; Staffing Levels Materials and Supplies Evaluation of Prior Yei RESPONSIBILITY Business Manager Principals Department Managers earns (1992-93) Principals Academic Program Administrators Proposed Bi Submit P ? lent iludget to the Board Make Budget Revisions Adopt Budget Business Manager Controller Superintendent Business Manager Controller Board of DirectorsBUDGET SUMMARYLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1993 Actual (Unaudited) 1991-92 Budget 1992-93 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK____________ DELINOUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS_________ INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 64,998,181 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL__________ SEVERANCE TAX 39,088,120 21,694,578 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 66,559,408 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA____________________ SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN________ APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL______________ HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD________ ORPHAN CHILDREN________ TRANSPORTATION_________ COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS________ ADULT EDUCATION o T 73,419 15,350 88,769 73,419 11.000 84,419 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874____________ TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL REVENUE 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 48,670,683 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 46,367,563 9,385 129,428 394,675 533,488 114,291,121 40,000 262,000 600,000 902,000 113,913,390 I k LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATING BUDGET EXPENSE PROJECTION FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1993 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES, SUPPLIES, MATERIALS,~EQi DEBT SERVICE \" ~ CONTINGENCY TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 1 Actual (Unaudited) 1991-92 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 L... u 112,1 i!ioo 0 ^OM INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE ENDING FUND BALANCE 1,687,023 634,842 2,321,865 Budget 1992-93 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 115,872,560 (1,959,170) 2,321,865 362,695UNE ITEM SUMMARY (OBJECT)I u I u I Object X 'oiio 0115 !0117 I 0120 0121 ,0124 0130 0135 0140  0145 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-1994 BUDGETS OBJECT SUMMARY SALARY, OPERATING,. \u0026amp; DEBT FUNDS Description Budget 1991-92 Actual 1991-92 CERTIFIED SALARIES Regular Certificated Cert. Instr. Assist. Stipends________________ TOTAL CERTIFIED_______ NON-CERTIFIED SALARIES Regular Non-Certified Maitenance______________ Clerical Overtime Substitute Teachers-Short SubSt. Certied Long Ter Subst Non-Certified-Short SubSt. Non-Certified Long Budget 1992-93 Budget 1993-94 TOTAL NCN-CERTIFIED EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 0210 [Fringe Benefits______________ 0250 Unemployment Compensation 0290 [Other Employee Benefits_____ ! I TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS i 0310 0311 0312 0313 0314 0316 0318 0319 0322 0324 0325 0326 0327 0328 0329 PURCHASED SERVICES Professional \u0026amp; Technical Instruction Services Instructional Prog Improv Pupil Services Staff Services__________ Data Processing Services Board of Ed Services Other Professional \u0026amp; Tech Budget Control Cleaning Services Carpentry Repairs-Equipment Rental of Land \u0026amp; Building Rental of Equipment \u0026amp; Veh Other Property Services 50,811,617 0 853,790 51,665,407 15,077,845 989,280 0 1,049,784 7,799,115 165,000 80,405 8,044,520 477,139 13,540 1,015,363 46,031 3,790 7,961 488,334 140,306 3,507,346 0 605,058 592,938 95,007 31,325 169,000 53,889,627 8,213 1,224,330 55,122,169 53,991,696 ________0 1,703,640 55,695,336 15,076,555 1,129,828 91,813 871,099 32i 141 k21\n54\n96 8,783,594 153,797 60,097 8,997,489 327,016 13,309 1,052,785 44,070 40 7,529 57,238 91,162 3,388,097 0 ( 519,413 470,552 50,771 23,214 126,364 16,818,714 0 _____0 900,000 _____0 350,000 0 8,068,714 9,768,728 160,000 73,462 10,002,190 586,390 1,000 691,900 _______0 2,000 _______0 366,862 70,000 3,865,000 15,000 501,558 596,964 42,000 18,464 275,500PROGRAM SUMMARY BUDGET (FUNCTION)-T  FUNC. 1105 1110 1120 1125 1129 1130 1135 1137 1140 1145 1146 1151 1152 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1190 1193 1195 1199 1210 1220 1230 1240 1290 1292 1321 1322 1331 1332 1333 1341 1351 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-1994 BUDGETS FUNCTION SUMMARY SALARY, OPERATING, \u0026amp; DEBT FUNDS DESCRIPTION I BUDGET 1991-92 INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS Early Childhood Education Kindergarten______________ Elementary Elementary Magnet_________ Specialty Program Middle/Junior High School Junior High Magnet_________ Junior High Restructuring High School High School Magnet High School Standards Boys Athletics_____________ Girls Athletics ___________ Football/Minor Sports Volleyball Basketball Track,Tennis.Golf \u0026amp; Swimming Baseball__________________ Other Regular Traveling Teachers Accelerated Learning Substitutes Instruction Itinerant Instruction Resource Room____________ Special Class Homebound and Hospital_____ Other Extended Year Hand. Service Marketing/Dist Ed-Coop______ Marketing/Dist Ed-Expl Business Ed Coop__________ Business Ed Expl Business Ed-Skill Tr_________ Health Coop_______________ Trade \u0026amp; Ind-Coop 1,219,666 2,731,343 19,917,085 51,500 ________0 7,723,977 73,000 644,196 7,970,557 18,700 28 H ^^0 n - 7,^0 45,540- 12,960 9,000 240,394 20,000 2,362,712 1,049,184 889,800 1,975,166 1.279,727 132,161 729,405 12,390 174,719 0 170,853 54^,280 945,875 46,336 170,559 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 BUDGET 1993-94 1,243,379 3,107,993 18,969,162 24,950 978,337 8,134,325 71,943 429,685 7,895,831 14,219 ____2,301 5^53 ^33 p,490r 42,794* 9,067 8,947 64,549 21,043 2,278,158 1,393,302 943,193 2.065,294 1,253,040 255,077 823,730 14,152 197,722 2,869 191,121 853,848 970,157 58,755 193,755 1,479,804 3,253,399 21,975,945 265,892 ________0 8,635,782 212,864 492,021 8,407,541 273,096 ________0 44,620 13,230 49,680 7,200 45,540 11,160 10,800 37,697 12,000 2,275,181 1,096,370 901,880 2,189,284 1,296,583 240,566 435,287 0 194,886 ________0 190,480 57^,814 965,542 50,996 189,221 PROGRAM BUDGET (OBJECT WTTHIN FUNCTIONS)Object Description  Func ti 1105 ___ 0110 0117 0120 0130 0140 0210 0311 0312 0327 0332 0333 Regular Certificated Stipends Regular Hon-Certlfled Substitute Teschers-Short SubSt Hon-Cortifiod-Short Social Security Tax Instruction Services Instructional Prog Isgjrov Rental of Lend 6 Building Travel-Payroll Travel 0342 0380 0410 0416 0540 0548 0630 Postage Food Services Materials and Supplies Supplies - Supply Center Bqulpsisnt-Personal Proper Bquipnent - Supply Center Dues  Fees  Subtotal   Func I: 1110 0110 0210 0410 0412 0416 0417 Regular Certificated Social Security Tax Hatarlale and Supplies local Supplies Sp Trackin Supplies - Supply Center Supplles-Supply Center * Subtotal ** * Func *\u0026gt;..11120' 0110 0115 0117 0120 0140 0210 0290 0310 0312 0326 0331 0333 0342 0350 Regular Certificated Cart. Instr. Assist. Stipends Regular Boa-Certifled Subet Bon-Certified-Short Social Security Tax Other lagsloyea Beneflte Professional * Technical Instructioaol Prog isgtrov Bepaira-Bgalpeaaat Pupil Transportation Travel Fostoig* A*rtielnq Little Rock School District Object Within Function 1991-1994 Craft Actual 1991-92 .508923.06 133.50 484704.68 417.58 6847.68 144785.75 195.00 650.00 150.00 0.00 4773.60 1074.23 7150.24 74990.71 0.00 8492.60 0.00 2760904.00 318950.86 15123.15 13015.06 0.00 0.00 3107993.07 14477326.70 8212.70 3124.01 1517618.15 44534.64 1997265.51 17.85 I I I 0.00 1486.50 6809.32 87961.35 0.00 6479.16 5574.58 Budget 1992-93 623446.00 0.00 549439.67 0.00 0.00 204639.64 500.00 0.00 0.00 1000.00 1000.00 1500.00 2123.00 40800.00 5200.00 38656.00 11500.00 0.00 1479804.31 2848548.00 370123.91 10182.00 12968.00 9592.00 1985.00 3253398.91 16554844.8b 0.00 422103.36 1496690.80 0.00 2295506.03 0.00 0.00 400.00 16050.00 119250.00 0.00 750.00 0.00 Budget 1993-94 I i DEPARTMENT BUDGETLittle Rock School District Operating Budget Detail 1993-94 DRAFT Object Function Budgeted ABaount * Buget Unit! 0001  Certified Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Stipends Stipends  Subsubtctal  Kindergarten High School High School Magnet Resource Room Special Class Marketlng/Dist Ed-Coop Business Ed Coop Business*' Ed-Skill Tr Trade t Ind-Coop Trade 4 Ind-Bxpl Cons/Rmkg Coord Career-Coop Compensatory Education Guidance Services School Library Services Offi High High I I 01 00 40 1110 0001 0110 01 00 40 1140 0001 0110 01 13 10 1145 0001 0110 01 20 40 1220 0001 0110 01 20 40 1230 0001 0110 01 00 40 1321 0001 0110 01 00 40 1331 0001 0110 01 00 40 1333 0001 0110 01 00 40 1351 0001 0110 01 00 40 1352 0001 0110 01 00 40 1362 0001 0110 01 00 40 1392 0001 0110 01 00 40 1595 0001 0110 01 00 40 2120 0001 0110 i I 01 00 40 2222 0001 0110 2410 0001 0110 1140 0001 0117 1140 0001 0117 II  Hon-Certified Regular Non-Certlfled Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Cartlfled Regular Hon-Certifled Regular Hon-Cartlflad Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Cartlfled * Subsubtotal  High School Accelerated Learning nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Safety S Security I 02 00 40 1140 0001 0120 02 13 10 1195 0001 0120 02 00 40 2134 0001 0120 02 00 40 2222 0001 0120 02 00 40 2410 0001 0120 02 00 40 2542 0001 0120 02 13 16 2587 0001 0120 ' Benefits Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Seeorlty Sax Kindergarten High School High School High School Magnet Accelerated Learning Resource Room Special Class Marketing/Dlst Id-Coop Business Kd Coop Business Id-Skill Tr Trade 4 Ind-Coop 01 00 40 1110 0001 0210 01 00 40 1140 0001 0210 02 00 40 1140 0001 0210 01 13 18 1145 0001 0210 02 13 10 1195 0001 0210 01 20 40 1220 0001 0210 01 20 40 1230 0001 0210 01 00 40 1321 0001 0210 01 00 40 1331 0001 0210 01 00 40 1333 0001 0210 01 00 40 1351 0001 0210 =llLittle Rock School District Operating Budget Detail 1993-94 DRAFT Object Function Budgeted Amount I ** Buget Unit! 0036 t I  Certified Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Budget Control Budget Control Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Regular Certificated Stipends Budget Control Budget Control  Subsubtotal * * Hon-Cortifled Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-Certlfled Regular Hon-Certified Regular Hon-CertlfIsd Regular Hon-Certlfled Regular Hon-Certified * Subsubtotal  Pour Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Blemontary Elementary Elementary Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Gifted 6 Talented Guidance Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Blementary Blementar' Elementar' 0036 0117 0036 0117 Pour Year Old Program Elementary Blesasntary Accelsratad Learning Hurling Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Opkeep of Buildings 1 01 13 02 1105 0036 0110 01 00 20 1110 0036 0110 01 00 20 1120 0036 0110 01 13 72 1120 0036 0110 01 13 65 1120 0036 0110 01 13 57 1120 0036 0110 01 20 20 1210 0036 0110 01 20 20 1220 0036 0110 01 00 20 1910 0036 0110 01 00 20 2120 0036 0110 01 00 20 2222 0036 0110 01 00 20 2410 0036 0110 01 00 20 1120 0036 0117 I 02 13 02 1105 0036 0120 02 00 20 1120 0036 0120 02 13 64 1120 0036 0120 02 13 10 1195 0036 0120 02 00 20 2134 0036 0120 02 13 32 2222 0036 0120 02 00 20 2410 0036 0120 02 00 20 2542 0036 0120 I i I  Benefits Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Sscurity Tax Social Sscurity Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Security Tax Social Seourity Tax Social Seourity Tax Pour Tear Old Program Pour Tear Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Blementary Elementary Elementary Accelsratad Lsarning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room 01 13 02 1105 0036 0210 02 13 02 1105 0036 0210 01 00 20 1110 0036 0210 01 00 20 1120 0036 0210 01 13 72 1120 0036 0210 02 00 20 1120 0036 0210 02 13 64 1120 0036 0210 02 13 10 1195 0036 0210 01 20 20 1210 0036 0210 01 20 20 1220 0036 0210 I i IFEDERAL PROGRAMSa :X.x\u0026lt;x5:\nyv  f- ^'' -^* ** ^xa-xj^sss X4a S'tBiMA'RYfjBR Federal Proi ................\" \u0026gt; \u0026gt;*  ***wwa^ggaagBM 92-93 rams IgU SnlQrios 93-94 Sularfes-'^^ CERTIFIED STAFF Fringe Benefits(20) \u0026gt;bcsx?dx wvwxx 1 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT STAFF 1 r C' Fringe Benefit5(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY xxxxxsx 0.0 $0 ixxxxxsxj $0 TOTAL (l(I\u0026gt;20} XSXCTCSI \u0026gt; Furchased SERVICES (30) TOTAL (30) xxoaxxl xttxxxxl xxxxxxxl .wrciMl l^TERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) XXTO0CS| xxxxxxx [ CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO) OTHER (60) I TOTAL (40) TOTAL (50) xxsxxxx xxxxxxx xgcxxy xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxs xxxxxxx IBkxxxx {XXXXXXX $0 Ixjwcpcx ___________(KXWOK jsxxxxxx fxxxxxxx $0 TOTAL (60) \u0026gt; TOTAi\np0-60) TOTAL (10-60) xjcDcca yobdax JQDCXXXX KVXXXXX 0.0 GRAND TOTAL XXXXX-\\X .KXXXXX.X jxxxxxxx Isxwcxx {XXXXXXX twccpgc ~$0 Iwiyxxx |sxxx^ txxxxxxx h \"so I $0 IXXX-WCX \" ', $0 [xxxxxxx 0.0 so |x.xxxxxx -:-----tuuun $0 jxxxxxxx $0 $0 $0 12= $0 $0 $0row 92-93 Chapter 1 9$\nSlarteg-'W^ 93-94 FTJ^ Sal^rfti^ CERTIFIED STAFF Fringe Benefit5(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR xxsoda 0.0 $0 xxxxxxx 0.0 $0 SUPPORT STAFF __________Fringe Benefits(20) jTOTAL SUPPORT SALARY TOTAL (10-20) ~~ xxsocct 0.0 KSDCDOn so . $0 iXXXXMCt 0.0 xxxxsxx $0 SO::. PURCHASED SERVICES (30) xxxxxxs XXDtXSLX ^ocDoca xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx T xxxxccx TOTAL (30) xxxxxxs $0 xxxxsxx $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxs LXXXXXXX SXXXXXX' xxxxxxx xxxxsxx TOTAL (40) xxxxxxx $0 xxxxxxx $0 CAIITAL OUTLAY (50) I TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx xwcxxx xicxxxxs: xxxxxxx so sxxxxxv iXXXXXXX xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $0 OTHER (60) XXDtXXX xxxxxxx xxo TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60)~ TOTAL (10-60) xxxxxxx XXXXX-XX 0.0 xxxxx.\\x GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx SO $0 so so $0 xx,xxxxxl 0.0 ! xxxxxxxl x.xxxxxxi SO SO SO SOMAGNET SCHOOL BUDGET t1992-33'Bddget Proposal sumMa^VTor magnet schools^ * \\x 1991-92 1992-93 CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF Principal__________________________ Asst. Prin.________________________ Specialists________________________ Counselors_______________________ Media Spec.______________________ Art-Perf./Prod.___________________ Music_____________________________ Foreign Lang.____________________ Vocational________________________ Special Education________________ Gifted____________________________ Classroom_______________________ Substitutes_______________________ Other-Kindergarten______________ _______________Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY Secretaries_______________________ Nurses____________________________ Custodians_______________________ Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1_______ Paraprofessionals-Other'________ Other-Aides F.T.E. 6.0 10.0 Salaries $346,537 $456,057 37.4 I $1,274,519 12.4 7.0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 14.0 8.8 5.0 181.4 0.0 14.0 xxxxxxx 296.0 18.0 5.4 29.5 0.0 5.0 39.5 _______________Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-20) PURCHASED SERVICES (30) Utilities___________________ Travel____________________ Maintenance Agreements Other 97.4 XXXXXXX XXXXXXX BGkxx $444,641 $218,210 $0 $0 $0 $507,273 $248,275 $163,550 $5,308,868 $153,813 $407,561 $1,068,359 $10,597,663 $301,141 $148,859 $346,330 $0 $108,103 $316,035 $185,965 $1,406,433 $12,004,096? $601,780 F.T.E. 6.0 10.0 36.2 9.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.6 8.8 3.5 177.6 0.0 14.0 XXXXXXX 284.7 17.0 5.4 29.5 0.0 6.0 39.5 XxXx)6o(?' 97.4 XXXXXXX xxxxxxx wrxxxxx xxxxxxx Salaries $356,933 $481,040 $1,267,906 $332,407 $224,756 $0 $0 $0 $489,528 $255,724 $121,175 $5,215,774 $158,428 $419,788 $1,185,445 $10,508,904 $310,176 $153,326 $356,721 $0 $111,191 $325,514 $227,463 $1,484,391 ??$W93i2S5:? $627,700 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) ____________TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (40) MS if 6^0 ^38,28 CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other xxxxXxx XxXxxXx xxxxxXx xxxxxxx JObOOCMt xxxxxxx xxxxxxX $343,433 $56,509 XXXXXXX? x\u0026gt;x \u0026lt;xxx XWdoiX?? xxxxx)\n?' $195,093 $822,793 $399,942 $111,824 xxXXxxx?? xxXxxxX? xXicxxxX XxxxxxX? $379,717 $59,072 $438,789 $120,394 OTHER (60) TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other xxxxxxx Joaxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL LINE ITEJ ____________TOTAL (60) __________TOTAL (30-60) __________TOTAL (10-60) MS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx Xldexxxx 393.4 xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $111,824 $8,358 xXxxxxXs Wxxxxx XXXXXJCC XWOOOC: $120,394 $5,895 $8,358 $1,288,412 $13,292,508 $595,333 $13,887,841 XXXXXXX XXXXXXX xxxxxxx 382.1 xxxxxxx XSOOCXXX $5,895 $1,387,871 $13,381,166 $531.886 $13,913,052CAFETERIA FUNDCERTIFIED STAFF I SUPPORT STAFF i ,!..Fnnri SprvicP (92-93\n93-94 'few __________Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALAR wxxxxx 0.0 $0 S3CXYXXX 0.0 i $0 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx iTOTAL SUPPORT SALARY '' \\' TOTAL \u0026lt;10-20} PURCHASED SERVICES (30) 0.0 I jawaxi\nxvxxxxsl XXSjQCOtl xwcoocl xxobcfil so $0^ jSXXgLgd 0.0 $0 $0 TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) TOTAL (40) c CAITTAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL (50) TOTAL (60) TOTAL (10-60) GRAND TOTAL xxxsxxsl xxxxxxx xxsxxxx XXXJOCXX xxxxx^a xxxxxxx xxsxxxx XKXXXSX JOCXXXXX xxxxxxx xxxxxxx rxxx}^ xxxxxxs XXTOXX 0.0 xxxxxxx .VXXXX.XX $0 $0 $0 (XXXXXXX xxxxsxxl XX-XXXXXj xxxxxxx! xxxxxxx $0 $0 $0 ' , $0 $0 $0 xxxxxxx sxxxxxx xxxiaxx XWODOt XX-VKXXX 0.0 xxxxxxx $0 jxXXXXXKi $0 $0 $0 $0 M $0CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDEXPEN Dmj RES UTTLE HOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 ACCOUNT CODE PRIOR BOND ISSUES PLANT SERVICES SUSTOTXL 32,467.82 32,467.82 03.00.00.2542.0088.0590 7.\u0026amp;40.000 BOND ISSUE AEROSPACE MAGN PURCHASING CARVER CONTINGENCY SUSrOTAL 2,750.00 95.425.80 185.97 4.426.69 102,788.46 03.06.00.2536.0124.0590 03.06.00.2536.0085.0590 03.06.20.2536.0021.0541 03.06.00.2536.0080.0590 5,400.000 BOND ISSUE ENERGY GRANT SUBTOTAL 63.413.03 63,413.03 03.08.00.2533.0088.0319 8,164,100 BOND ISSUE DUNBAR ASBESTOS ENERGY GRANT MT WATER TOWER CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 139,833.50 541.84 196,120.00 55,114.00 1,264,140.62 1,655,749.96 03.10.30.2536.0007.0570 03.10.00.254Z 0088.0570 03.10.00.2533.0088.0319 03.10.00.2539.0088.0570 03.10.00.2536.0088.0590 16,900,000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST SOUTHWEST MCCLELLAN ALT LEARNING CEN CLOVERDALE JR CLOVERDALE ELEM MABELVALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK GARLAND GIBBS WESTERN HILLS WESTERN HILLS DODD GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HGTS ELE WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE ELEM 9,209.59 16.725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 47,866.50 D ^50, 83,823.61 EQUIP 453,697.23 102.50 29,744.43 144,154.27 13,684.67 1,016.56 6,160.02 20.944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 20,441.21 975.52 2,247.19 4,200.00 6,122.91 EQUIP 27,043.80 2,942.49 85,020.81 8,766.18 56,419.93 67,727.73 59,056.84 T 700 70 a 170 -.0570 1.0570 03.11.30.2536.0007.0570 03.11.40.2536.0008.0570 03.11.30.2536.0010.0570 03.11.30.2536.0011.0540 03.11.30.2536.0011.0570 03.11.40.2536.0012.0570 03.11.30.2536.0014.0570 03.11.30.2536.0015.0570 03.11.20.2536.0031.0570 03.11.30.2536.0016.0570 03.11.20.2536.0018.0570 03.11.20.2536.0019.0570 03.11.20.2536.0020.0570 03.11.20.2536.0022.0570 03.11.20.2536.0023.0570 03.11.20.2536.0024.0570 03.11.20.2536.0026.0570 03.11.20.2536.0027.0570 03.11,20,2536.0027:0540 QO3.I 03.11.20.2536.0029.0570 03.11.20.2536.0032.0570 03.11.20.2536.0037.0570 03.11.20.2536.0038.0570 03.11.20 2536.0044.0570 03.11.20 2536.0045.0570 03.11.20 2536.0046.0570DESEGREGATIONNAME DESCX Early ChiIdiood BUDGET CONTROL OSRAM 10:05 NAME: STUDENT NEARING OFFICER Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Hearing Officer Hearing Officer BUDGET CONTROL STAFF STAFF STIPENDS STIPENDS OSRAM ID:06 NAME: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION Assoc. SURSt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity Assoc. Supt-Equity LITTLE ROCX SCHOOL DISTRICT desegregation budget 1992-93 DESEGREGATION DESEGREGATION BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION CUSTODIANS STAFF STAFF STIPENDS STIPENDS OSRAM 10:08 NAME: TEACHER RECRUITER Hunan Resources Hunan Resources BUDGET CONTROL - I TEACHER RECRUITER DESEGREGATI OBJECT SALART/AMOUNT 27,000.00 1,044,606.00 16,420.00 19,927.00 50,041.00 168.00 3,639.00 90,195.00 38,240.00 6,870.78 115,018.80 221,932.00 900.00 5,100.00 ,1.51 BENEFITS 0.00 157,426.62 0.00 3,024.68 5,548.24 14.08 304.95 8,891.95 0.00 1,429.30 12,348.18 30,791.10 75.42 427.38 TOTAL 27.000.00 1,202,032.42 16,420.00 22,951.68 55,589.24 182.08 3,943.95 99,086.05 33,240.00 8,300.08 127,366.98 252,723.10 975.42 5,527.38 ACCOUNT CODE 02-13-02-1105-0132-0300 02-13-05-2212-0121-0300 02-13-05-2212-0121-0120 01-13-05-2212-0121-0110 02-13-05-XXXX-0121-0120 O1-13-O5-XXX3(-O121-O11O 02-13-06-2326-0064-0300 02-13-06-2542-0064-0120 01-13-06-2326-0064-0110 02-13-06-2326-0064-0120 02-13-06-XXXX-0064-0120 01-13-06-XXXX-0064-0110 OSRAM ID:09 MAME: STAFF DEVELOPMENT Staff Development Staff Development Staff Development Staff Development BUDGET CONTROL - DESEGREGATION STAFF STAFF STIPENDS OGRAM 10:10 NAME: ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAMS Central Hall Hall Dunbar Dunbar Fair Fair Forest Heights Forest Heights Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT ACADEMIC SUPPORT TEACHER COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT JR HI RESTRUCTURE COMPUTER LAB ATTENDANT JR HI RESTRUCTURE is. low 3, 433,132.96 10,000.00 02-13-08-2642-0081-0300 32,204.08 02-13-08-2642-0081-0120 38,464.00 3,740.08 42,204.03 122,363.00 21,066.00 263,596.00 6,534.81 413,559.81 9,960.00 23,302.00 9,466.00 82,061.00 9,960.00 28,680.00 9,466.00 31,069,00 9,713.00 102,915.00 9,054.00 129,004.00 0.00 3,120.13 30,218.14 547.62 33,885.89 2,189.45 3,307.51 2,148.05 10,941.11 2,189.45 3,758.18 2,148.05 3,958.38 2,168.75 14,043.48 2,113.53 17,584.54 122,363.00 02-13-09-2212-0059-0300 24,186.13 02-13-09-2212-0059-0120 293,814.14 01-13-09-2212-0059-0110 7,082.43 O1-13-O9-XXXX-0059-0110 447,445.70 12,149.45 02-13-10-1195-0001-0120 26,609.51 01-13-10-1195-0002-0110 11,614.05 02-13-10-1195-0002-0120 93,002.11 01-13-10-1195-0007-0110 12,149.45 02-13-10-1195-0007-0120 32,438.18 01-13-10-1195-0008-0110 11,614.05 02-13-10-1195-0008-0120 35,027.38 01-13-10-1195-0009-0110 11,881.75 02-13-10-1195-0009-0120 116,958.48 01-13-10-1137-0009-0110 11,167.53 02-13-10-1195-0010-0120 146,588.54 01-13-10-1137-0010-0110 REFERENCE DATA 1Prog 9 P.O.* OMOrtphon 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 21 22 24 25 28 27 28 29 32 33 34 35 49 Inoantfva Sctioeta: 61 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 61 64 66 66 72 73 74 75 5 6 28 28 38 46 48 63 82 86 114 129 129 143 148 146 234 227 1-9 93 34 35 28 106 I-56 131 125 00 149 152 153 153 153 153 154 158 171 172 172 176 190 193 t94 153 H'ppy 4 Yr Old Pfograma Sludant Haa/lng Otlfcpe Ofitea Oaaagragallon Ertra-Currlcular Taachar Rac'uhar Stall Davalopmani Acatfamie Support Uulticuhral Programa Incanl^a Granta Original Magnata $p Ed Laaming Cantar Saeurliy OU Procaaaing S/alam U-ip-U Magnai Schoela King School Staphana School Uoniiorlng ActMtiaa ComputarUad Tranap Aomina Thania Community School In-Schooi Suapanalon Jeb Fair Tatting Aatlatanea Library Sarvieaa Param Bacruiting VIPS - Recruiting Prejudice Reduction Plant Servlcea To Ba AJlocatad OlHca inoantiva Schoela Writing To Raad Science Labt Computer Laba Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Oay/Week Field Tripe Trantportabon Inatructienal Aides Extended Yai tn ca n tfva/Reoeg n i t Ion Stalling Stall Daveiopmant Teacher Siipenda Other Academic Programi sus-total incentives QRANO total SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET Unaudited BI-0S 92-03 93-04 04-06 06-96 96-07 2H.29i 2'9.772 287.135 295.749 334.621 313.760 795.690 99.232 462.998 31.072 46.824 400.069 2.848.723 164,490 668.575 3,783.217 66.291 703,830 200.727 354,920 0 0 373,986 0 17.267 588.441 22,367 62.714 0 266.247 0 13,347,824 261.482 1.096,148 1,291.788 2.649 416 15.997.246 1.2C2.033 1.238.094 1.275.236 1.313,493 1.352.898 99.087 102.060 105,121 108.275 111.523 433.133 446.127 459.511 473.296 487.495 0 0 0 0 0 42.204 43.470 44.774 46.118 47.501 447.446 490.869 474.695 488.936 603.604 2.785.221 1.868,777 1.024.841 1.062.586 2.042.063 240,316 249.928 259,926 270.322 261,136 320,000 320,000 320.000 320,000 320,000 3.800,000 3,914,000 4.031.420 4.152.363 4.276.933 110.307 113.616 117,024 120,53$ 124.151 617.038 635.550 654.616 874.256 694.482 411.583 721.442 0 0 391.495 10.000 85,816 1.500 1,350 718.604 27.000 85.863 5.000 200.000 13,886,365 63.147 15,000 15,000 15.000 7,603 6,000 863.000 37,500 20.000 549.695 260.000 21.500 914.823 59,500 225.C00 55,C00 3,126,664 17.0,3.020 773.930 543.08$ 2.633,300 0 403.240 10,300 89.248 116,000 r73.739 1.545 11.691 737.999 27.810 67,839 5,000 200,000 16.040.317 65.041 15,450 16,450 15,450 7.726 6.150 888,890 38,625 20.600 566.186 267.800 22.145 042.267 61.285 231.750 56.656 3^20,464 '9 260.78, 1.147.148 1,531.563 1.927.610 669.378 576.159 623.444 2.681,399 2,707.000 419.369 10,609 92,818 116.000 793.827 1.591 12.041 760.139 28,644 69.874 6,000 200.000 19,566,751 66.993 15.914 15,814 16.914 7.967 5.305 915,557 38,784 21,218 583,171 275.834 22.809 970.536 63.124 236,703 58.350 3.3,7,078 22.883.829 2.761.841 2.788,210 436.144 10.927 99.531 115.000 817.542 1.639 1^402 782.943 29,504 71,970 $.006 2C0.000 20,492.274 69.002 16.391 18,381 16,391 8.196 6.494 943,023 \u0026lt;0.877 21.855 600.666 284.109 23.4M 999.651 65.017 245,864 60,100 3.416.591 23,908.865 2.844,696 2,871,856 453,590 11,255 100.392 116,000 642,171 1,668 12,775 806,432 30.389 74.129 5.000 200,000 21,445.873 71.072 16,883 16,883 16,883 8.441 5.628 971.314 42.207 22.510 618.686 292,632 24.198 1.029.641 66.968 253.239 61.903 3.510.088 24.964.U61 03/17/93 16:03 0501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/002 i Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 17, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD HOLDS BUDGET STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING The Little Rock School District will hold, a public meeting Thursday, March 18, at 6 p.m. for the purpose of presenting the preliminary recommendations of the Budget Study Committee. The meeting will be held in the media center at Hall High, 6700 H Street. The committee was formed by Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd and was comprised of a cross section of volunteers from throughout the community. ###03--17/93 16:03 0-501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM El 002 -002 'Ka i *1 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 17, 1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSD HOLDS BUDGET STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING The Little Rock School District will hold a public mparing Thursday, March 18, at 6 p.m. for the purpose of presenting the preliminary recommendations of the Budget Study Committee. The meeting will be held in the media center at Hall High, 6700 H Street. The committee was formed by Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd and was comprised of a cross section of volunteers from th rough out the community. ###-------* JOHN W. W,\\LKER RAI.PM WASHINGTON M.\\RK BVRNRTIE WILBY A, RR ANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER. .JR. John w. walker, p.a. ArroRNEY At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 P. 02  A' adniittfi M Pnu.tn-e in 4 '\u0026gt; Dintnff '\u0026gt;t 'v 'J'nbni. delivered via facsimile March 17, 1993 Chris Heller, Esq. c/o Little Rock School District 810 West Markham 72201 Little Rock, AR i 4 I I i irl Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Heller\nexhibits that you would you kindly provide me with any new , plan to use hnHofAt hearina on Friday. I would also like to know who you plan to call as at the budget hearing on Friday. _ . v witnesses and a brief summary of their testimony. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Ciehh 0V\u0026lt;A,' John W. WalkeiH ' .n JWW:Ira TOTAL P.0203/17/1993 17:11 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P.fi. TO 3710100 P. 02 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas Telephone (.501) ^^58 FAX (501) 374418/ JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON markbvrnettc WILEY A. RR ANTON. -JR- AUSTIN PORTER. -JR- , .. .. delivered via F_ACSIMI1.-E March 17, 1993 Chris Heller, Esq. Little Rock School District c/o 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 u  ii 'r Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Heller\nWould you plan to use at know who you plan to call as kindly provide me with any new Jto the budget hearing on Friday. I would also like to witnesses and a brief summary of their testimony. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, o\u0026amp;hn OVA' Jolin W. WalkeiH^ JWW: lin I i /Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Ti Roher 1024 North Palm Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Ti: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. My associates. Bob Morgan and Margie Powell, especially enjoyed having the opportunity to get to know you. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Margie and Bob told me that you might be willing to volunteer some time to work on the school districts budgeting process. I truly appreciate your offer and will not hesitate to take you up on it. Ill let Mr. Mooney know that youre willing to help and have him contact you after he gets his bearings in his new job. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. We all appreciate the many ways you support our communitys schools. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Clarence L. Horn, Jr. 1911 Rice Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Mr. Horn: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. My associates. Bob Morgan and Margie Powell, enjoyed having the opportunity to get to know you. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefuUy considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 March 22, 1993 Glenn A. Spung 24 Rocky Valley Cove Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Mr. Spung: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. My associates. Bob Morgan and Margie Powell, enjoyed having the opportunity to get to know you. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. BrownOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Elizabeth Thalheimer 5005 Crestwood Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Libby: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. We all appreciate the many ways you work to support our communitys schools. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Richard B. Steinkamp First Commercial Building, Suite 1700 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Richard: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. We all appreciate the many ways you work to support our communitys schools. Very truly yours, Ann S. BrownOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Clarence A. Hamilton P.O. Box 4555 North Little Rock, AR 72116 Dear Al: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. There were many applicants for the specialist position. You and several of the candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. BrownOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 March 22, 1993 Edward N. Rolle 63 Sunset Lane Cabot, AR 72023 Dear Mr. Rolle: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. The candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown 1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 March 22, 1993 David Jameson 1421 N. University Avenue, #S320 Little Rock, AR 72207 Dear Mr. Jameson: Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. The candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks, and that of Judge Wright, for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibility of working with us at ODM. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown March 22, 1993 M. xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Dear xxx\n5\" Thank you very much for your interest in serving as a specialist to assist with the Little Rock School District budgeting process. The Court received many applicants for the specialist position. The candidates were exceptionally well qualified, making the decision difficult. After carefully considering candidates background, specific knowledge and experiences, performance record, and availability. Judge Wright chose Bill Mooney to fill the position. Mr. Mooney has an advanced degree in public administration with a long and successful history in both public and private sector budget planning, management, and evaluation. Please accept my sincere thanks .for the time, care, and thoughtfulness you invested in exploring the possibilitiee of worlgi Very truly yours. .aidui uic uiiic, Ldic, diiu uiuu^iiuuiiicdd yuu iii rl^g with us at ODM. (zW Ann S. Brown. FEB-25-93 THU 17:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 10 1421 N. University #3320 Little Rock, Ar 72207 February 25, 1993 Honorable Susan Webber Wright P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, Ar. 72203 Dear Judge Wright, I note you are seeking a person to develop a Little Rock School District budget that will permit monitoring compliance with the court-approved desegregation plan. Please accept this letter, and the enclosed resume, as my application for that position. I have been a banker for many years. president, including service as chief operating officer and chief financial officer of banks as large as $700 million in assets. My specialty in banking has been planning, founding and managing new financial institutions. This work has involved development of new financial systems from scratch. including business plans. budgets, general ledger accounting systems, data processing hardware and software, and complete operating systems. I would have no problem in quickly understandin District budget and accounting system, the Little Rock School preparing a budgeting system that meets your requirements, and implementing such a system. Due to unusual personal circumstances. I can be available on one days notice, and for any period of time up to approximately one year. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss this position with you. My telephone number is 664-8363. Bincerelv yours. David Jameson received CHAMBERS OF SUSAN WEEWBRr-IG---H--T-FEB 25 1993 U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE . FEBt25-93 THU 17:38 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 11 RESUME: DAVID JAMESON 1421 N. University Ave., #S320 Little Rock, Ar 122Q1 (501) 664-8363 WORK EXPERIENCE: 1990- Employed as senior officer of a 501(c)3 non-profit international development organization operating in 34 countries. Annual budget of $9 m i 1 1 1 An non-prof i t Annual budget of $9 million. 1987-1990 Ogg. Nat Iona 1 Bancshares, Inc, , Little Rock, Ar. Senior Vice President/Senior Investment Officer $500 million multi-bank holding company of million multi-bank holding company. Chairman of Investment and Asset-Liability Management tVl m 1  * Ci r\\ n C*  .. 4. 2 _____! . Committees. Executive Committee. 1983-1986 Bre_n_twood_Bank of California. Los Angeles, Ca. President and Chief Executive Officer, three-year contract, planned, founded. Under a iniee-yw contract, planned, founded, staffed and managed this successful new bank for a group of local investors. - third year. Reached $100 million in assets in 19811983 American National Bank. Bakersfield, Ca. Executive Vice President/Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Directed all line and staff departments in this $700 million bank with 30 branch offices. 1980-1981 National Cooperative Bank,Washington, Director of Lending and Investment, Planned, founded, staffed and initiated operation of the lending and treasury divisions of this national development bank created by Act of Congress with initial capital of $130 million. D.C. 1974-1979 QPEQrtuaity Funding Corporation. Washington, D.C. Senior Vice President for Program Development. Regional Director - Southern United States. Washington Managed venture capital and Ioan programs supporting regional and local development organizations in twenty states. -  state, Designed, developed and managed the primary national capital support program for minority-owned financial inst i tut ions. Inc_^, Little Rock 1976-1979 (concurren Cooperative Assistance Fund. New York, N.Y. t) Managing Director of this venture capital fund created from the pooled program-reIated investment funds of ten major national foundations including Ford, Rockefeller, Rockefeller Brothers, Mott,FEB-25-93 THU 17:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 12 RESUME DAVID JAMESON Page 2 19731974 u. s. 1970-1973 1969-1970 1968-1969 1965-1968 Small Business Administration, Honolulu, Worked under a two-year contract tq init iate U.S. government lending and development programs in Micronesia, Guam, and American Samoa. Trained commercial banks, government agencies and local business groups in credit criteria and processing requirements for federal programs. Central Banking Svstem, Inc., Oakland, Ca, Administrator of Affiliate Banks, Inc Planned and directed operation of six community banks owned by this multi-bank holding company. Concurrently company. served as Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of affiliate banks located in Livermore and Fresno, Ca. Deposit National Bank, Mobile, Al, President/CEO under a three-year contract to turn- around and sell this failing bank. Successful, Union National Bank, Little Rock, Ar. Commercial Loan Officer and Assistant to chairman. Wells Fargo Bank, San Francisco, Ca. Loan Officer and Regional Loan Supervisor. Completed bank management and loan training program with #1 ranking in group of 48. MILITARY SERVICE\n1960-1963 United States Army, _ Stationed at The White House COjnniuni cat ions Agency, Washington, D.C, specialist in communications security and intelligence at The White House, Served as EDUCATION: 1963-1965 University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts, with Honors. 1960 University of Poitiers, France. 1958-1960 Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. Received National Scholarship based on high school record and SAT scores. PERSONAL: Born 1940 in Missouri. One son, 18 years old. Hi.FEB--25-93 THU 17:34 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 February 24, 1993 The Honorable Susan Wright U.S. District Judge 600 W. Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: I recently moved to Arkansas after completing my military service and have watched with interest the process and progress of the court in effecting an accecptable measure of desegregation in the LRSD. Todays article in the Democrate- Gazette suggests a further intrusion into the District's operations is forthcoming. Perhaps my background and experience would be useful to you in these endeavors. I have attached a resume and experience history for your perusal. I would add that I still have the energy, initiative and integrity of my previous office and I am politically unencumbered. I am available at your convenience. Sincerely, Colonel, nited States Arra\u0026gt;-Retired ?ECiE(VSD OF WJS.AS WR/gHT FEB 25 1993 IJ. S. DfSTRlCT JUDGE FEB-25-93 THU 17:34 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 Background Executive Management Project Management Resource Management Operations Training Development Evaluation Personnel Management Education Personal Edvard N. Rolle 63 Sunset Lane Cabot, Arkansas (501) 843-2474 72023 EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT Over fifteen years in fast paced, demanding Executive, Project and Resource management positions. ___1. experience in operations, training development and evaluation, personnel management and administration. Extensive As deputy chief of a large office within the Operations Directorate of the National Security Agency, coordinated, defined and evaluated operational intelligence activities, improved resource allocation and programming processes, chaired promotion and awards boards and supervised out year planning. As the chartered Project Manager, directed a $120 million Department of Army integrated intelligence automation project in South Korea supporting both senior US and Korean commanders. Defined, acquired, installed and supported widely dispersed networked system of 3 mainframes and 122 terminals. Formulated major modification resulting in a more responsive user friendly system simultaneously avoiding over $1.5 million costs. Project was on-time, within budget with the system 98% operationally available. Effectively managed multi-million dollar long term system oriented fiscal program for the Director of Operations, The National Security Agency. Devised methodologies for system integration leading to the elimination of duplication. Presented, defended and justified program through to congressional submission. cross Revamped and streamlined operational and exercise intelligence support provided to worldwide deployed military forces. Eliminated cumbersome and inefficient decision layers which resulted in a responsive, competent and motivated staff. Conceived, initiated, and contracted a revised, comprehensive training program for automation system users. Reduced training time by 30% through expanded on-site training programs. Measured user performance and tailored training accordingly. more Measured user performance and tailored Highly successful record in selecting and developing staffs, motivating and leading individuals or groups to accomplishing organization'\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_275","title":"Chapter 1 Programs of Public Law, 100-297","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":["1992/1995"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational planning","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["Chapter 1 Programs of Public Law, 100-297"],"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/275"],"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  SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR MEETING ON JUNE 25, 1992 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 25, 1992 RECEIVED JUN 2 6 1992 Otfice of Desegregation Monitoring TO: Board of Directors FROM: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs THROUGH: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Program Application, Chapter 1 of Public Law 100-297 The ESEA Chapter 1 Application is being prepared for submission to the Arkansas Department of Education by the June 30, 1992, due date. Please fine attached a copy of the Program Abstract. When completed, copies of the Application will be provided for your review. The 1992-93 allocation is $4,376,161, which is based on a total of 10,164 eligible students. This represents an increase in funding in the amount of $1,001,279. The additional funds will be used to provide added services to our secondary students. The largest portion of Chapter 1 money will be utilized for paying the salaries for reading and mathematics teachers. We are continuing to work toward the completion of the Chapter 1 Application. It is recommended that you authorize the administration to submit the 1992-93 Chapter 1 Application to the Arkansas Department of Education.CHAPTER 1 APPLICATION FOR 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR PROGRAM ABSTRACT The purpose of assistance under the Chapter 1 Program is to improve the educational opportunities of educationally-deprived children by helping such children succeed in the regular program of the local educational agency, attain grade-level proficiency, and improve achievement in basic and more advanced skills. These purposes shall be accomplished through such means as supplemental education programs, schoolwide programs, extended day/week, and the increased involvement of parents in their childrens education. Based on the annual needs assessment, which included a program survey, it was determined that our program should be expanded to the secondary level and provide remedial services in the areas of reading and mathematics. To this end, the greater portion of the program budget will be earmarked for paying the salaries for reading and mathematics teachers. While the major part of the budget will cover these personnel, other authorized activities include the following:  Acquisition of equipment and instructianal materials Employment of special instructional personnel, school counselors, and other pupil services personnel  Extended day/extended week tutorial services  Parental involvement activities A major change in Chapter 1 regulations in recent years is the increased emphasis on allocation of resources and the selection of students for the program. Chapter 1 guidelines specify that districts must utilize uniform criteria for selecting and serving students of greatest need. Utilizing the normal curve equivalent scores (NCEs) for each student, we are able to identify appropriate students to be served in a manner that is comparable from school to school. The process used to identify students to be served for the 1992-93 school year will allow the Little Rock School District to be in compliance with Chapter 1 guidelines. This Program Abstract should provide you a summary of the 1992-93 Chapter 1 Application. The Application will be forwarded to you for your review in the very near future.I ' Arkansas Democrat (gazette  THURSDAY, MARCH 3,1994 Coovncnt /S Little Rock Newsoaoe^- Application errors by LRSD hold up\n$4.2 million in aid One problem remains to be solved been resolved, Lovell said. Information on the final issue is e.xpected to be delivered to the Education De- BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrai-Gazene Education Writer State officials have withheld more than $4.2 million in federal compensatory education money for the Little Rock School District because of problems with the application. The districts initial Chapter I apolication had incomplete of conflicting information when it was submitted to the department in August 1993, said Clearance Lovell, associate director for fed^al programs in the state Department of Education. Federal Chapter I money partment this week. The final issue centers on Woodruff Elementary School and whether it is eligible for a schoolwide Chapter I pro- is used by districts to supplement mathematics and reading instruction. The ject. Lovell said Wednesday the department has problems , with the Little Rock district s application yearly, but the problems have not been^se- rious enough to cause the district to lose its funding. The district is one of two' in the state that has not re- j ceived its funding this Y^^r- The other is the Earle School District in east Arkansas.. I monVyts allotted based on The Little poverty rates of the families grant is the largest Chapter of children in a school. How- I grant awarded by the state. eUf seMces are provided Lovell said he doesn t be to any individual pupil based lieve the size of thedistnjit on academic need and not so- or the gra Rocks cioeconomic status. All Lit- shou d cause Little Rock s tie Rock elementary schools problems, since the ann 1 get at least some Chapter I grant money, although not all funds to pay administrati buildings have schoolwide costs. In addition to the Chapter I application problems, the Education Department had problems with the Little Rock districts accreditation report earlier this school year. As a result, the department was delayed in mining whether Little Rock schools complied with state education standards. The reporting problems were cor- a projects. . The fact the district had not received its money for this year became public last Friday during a federal court hearing on the Little Rock districts budget. Superintendent Henry Williams said the services are being provided to pupils despite the lack of funding. All but one of Little Rocks application problems have rected..-.i- * Arkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 . (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT. Director, General Education Division fl n n *^771-^ id' SEP 9 1994 MEMORANDUM Oifics oi L TO\nFROM: Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Anita R. Farver, Program Advisor, Chapter 1 DATE: September 7, 1994 SUBJECT\nLittle Rock School District Please find enclosed a copy of the letter dated July 25, 1994, that was sent to the Little Rock School District concerning their cancellation of Chapter 1 school improvement meetings. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION\nChiinnin . ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock  Vice Oiaiman  RICHARD C SMITH JR.. Tillar Membera: CARL E BAGGETT, Rogers  WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould a JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR, Fort Smith  JAMES A McLARTY III, Newport a RAE RICE PERRY. Arkadelphia a SHERRY WALKER, bttle Rock a NANCY M. WOOD. Little Rock An Equal Opponunicy Empioyer I Arkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL . UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division July 25, 1994 J 1 -^RX LEA Code No: 60-01 SEP 9 iqqa Mr. Leon Adams, Coordinator Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street iHico of :r\nLittle Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Adams: Mrs. Farver and I were disappointed to hear that the Chapter 1 school improvement meetings planned for July 27-29 have been cancelled by your district. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reschedule these meetings until late September. This of course means that Chapter 1 funds will not be available to the Little Rock School District until those plans are submitted and approved. In addition, the law is clear that these plans must be in place when school starts so delaying them any longer could cause problems. Sincerely, Elizabeth Gaston Program Advisor Chapter 1 )r- EG/mbm cc: Estelle Mathis Bob Kerr Clearance Lovell STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION\nOuirron  ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock  Vee Ouimun  RICHARD C SMITH JR.. Tillar Members CARL E BAGGETT, Rogen  WILLIAM E HSHER, Paragould  JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JE, Fort Smith  JAMES A McLARTY III, Newport  RAE RICE PERRY, Arkadelphu  SHERRY WALKER, Uttle Rock  NANCY M. WOOD, Little Rock * Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 9, 1994 Anita R. Farver, Chapter 1 Program Advisor Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Uttle Rock, AR 72201-1071 Dear Anita: Thank you for your memo letting me know that the Uttle Rock School District cancelled its summer Chapter 1 school improvement meetings. 1 am very concerned about both the financial and educational consequences of the districts action, and will follow up immediately. I very much appreciate your keeping me informed. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (SOI) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 September 12, 1994 Mark Milhollen Manager for Support Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mark: I have just become aware that the Chapter 1 funds will not be available to the Little Rock School District until the district complies with the federal regulations regarding them. Apparently the scheduled July 27-29 1994 school improvement meetings that are a prerequisite for approval were not held. Recalling the late approval process that the district went through last fiscal year I am sure that you will give this matter your prompt attention. If this office can assist you please call upon us. Sincerely yours, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 12, 1994 Mark Milhollen Manager for Support Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mark: I have just become aware that the Chapter 1 funds will not be available to the Little Rock School District until the district complies with the federal regulations regarding them. Apparently the scheduled July 27-29 1994 school improvement meetings that are a prerequisite for approval were not held. Recalling the late approval process that the district went through last fiscal year I am sure that you will give this matter your prompt attention. I will be calling you soon to discuss your plans. Sincerely yours, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor Encl: Itr. Elizabeth Gaston to Leon Adams July 25,1994 /] * \u0026gt; 1 . I DENI IrI CAT I OU: a. LEA: t). c. 2 . 3. NU I !Gh OF GRANT AWARD FOR AN APPROVED PROGRAM UNDER CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE I, ESEA AS AMENDED Little Rock School District Name of Applicant Agency 60-01 LEA Code No. 801 West Markham Address Grant: Source 61 Class 4411 Program\nCONDITIONS: 6 f\nNOV 1 0 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, Arkansas C i ty State 72201 Zip Code Amount $ 4,456,721.23 Term - From July 1,1994 to June 30,1995 Program No. 93-3 Effective Dates F rom Approval Period July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995 August 15, 1994 to June 30, 1995 Approval No. 95-293 Ihe above local educational agency (LEA) is hereby awarded a grant of funds under Chapter I of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended for the purpose of providing assistance to meet the special needs of educationally deprived children served by it. The award is made to the LEA on the condition that it be used to support the program identified above and described in its original application and approved The applicant must develop and implement the program and projects described in its applications in accordance with the Assurances it has made to support its applications and in compliance with the provisions of Chapter I of Title I and the federal regulations and state policies for administration of amendments thereto. Chapter I. The amount of the grant identified above includes Chapter 1 funds as follows: A1 I Cash on Hand All Allotment Balance F rom $ $ Reallocation Funds $ From the 1995 Allotment . 168,511.23 25,212.00 -0- $ 4,262,998.00 AUTHORIZATION: Authorization for the above grant is based upon the information contained in the LEA's application relating to the above identified program which applications have been reviewed and determined to be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations\nhowever, neither the approval of the applications by the State Education Agency nor the issuance of this grant shall in any way relieve the ITA of its responsibility to comply with all applicable requirements. In confirmation of the foregoing, we attest by signature. Recommended by: Approved by: Coordinator, Chapter 1 Pjblic Law No. 100-297\n20 use 2701 ' Date ssociate F Ass ate Director for Federal Programs ADE Form No. FED-01-00-014 ////^ /! Date 6-91Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 13, 1994 To: Hank Williams CONnODniAL From: Subject- m Brown Delays in Chapter 1 funds to the LRSD I wanted to let you know that 1 recently received a copy of the attached fetter from ADE. Although Mrs. Elizabeth Gaston signed the letter, it was a supervisor, not Mrs. Gaston, who forwarded the letter to me. Bob Morgan is \"formally\" following up the delayed Chapter 1 funds with Mark Milhollen, but I wanted to privately make sure that you knew about this. 1 dont know why the meetings were cancelled, but I cant imagine circumstances that should have resulted in their cancellation and the resulting m.oney delays. Enc.I Arkansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCA.T1ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  UTTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-1071 . (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director. General Education Division July 2S, 1894 7^33 i 7 LEA Code No: 60-01 SE? 9 iQOi Mr. Leon Adams, Coordinator Little Rock School District 310 West Markham Street Little Rock, .AR 72201 of i Liear Mr. Adams: Mrs. Far'/er and I were disappointed to hear that the Chapter 1 school improvement meetings planned for July 27-29 have been cancelled by your district. Unfortxxnateiy, we will aox. be able to reschedule these meetings until late September. This of course means that Chapter 1 funds will not be available to the Little Rock School District until those plans are submitted and approved. In addition, the law is clear that these plans must be in place when school starts so delaying them any longer could cause problems. Sincerely, Elizabeth Gaston Program Advisor Chapter 1 ,1^ EG/mbm cc: Estelle Mathis Bob Kerr Clearance Lovell STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chiinnin  ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock . Vm Ouirnuti  RICHARD C SMITH JR, TllUr Membax CARL E BAGGETT. Root . WILLIAM B. FISHER. Paragould . JAMES M. LLEWELLYN. JR, Fort Smith  JAMES A MclARTY HL Newport(c: .s: Arfonsas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division September 14, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 received SEP 1 6 1994 Dear Dr. Williams: Ofiics CI usascrcgaiion Moi Thank you for your letter of September 2, 1994, and your expression' of appreciation. The Chapter 2, ESEA, staff has been working in a spirit of cooperation with the Little Rock School District by approving your district's requests to waiver excessive carryover in fiscal years 1989 ($84,386.54), 1990 ($41,061.03), 1991 ($55,438.79) and 1992 ($55,914.25). I., il__ 1 district was cautioned (see attached letter dated September 3, 1992) that excessive carryover could not be approved for a fifth consecutive year. In fiscal 1993, the 3, At the end of fiscal 1993, the Little Rock School District had balance of $90,919.70. - - ___ a carryover This was $69,767 over the 10% limit allowed. TLa Handbook for Chapter 2, ESEA, page 4, #7 states: \"Excess balance will be defined as ten percent of the LEA grant or $2,500, whichever is greater. voiiuequentxy, * , fxscal 1994 Grant Allotment of $192,433.00 was decreased to a Grant Award of $122,666.00. Even with that reduction in monies and a May, 1994 expenditure of nearly $6,000 in Professional Development tapes, the Little Rock School District has an excessive balance for fiscal 1994. The t Consequently Annual Financial Report is $39,354.59. percent limit. The total carryover reported on the Thia is $20,111.29 over the allotted ten The sig- nificant carr.y over f-o-r - sixth\" consecutive year, even after a $69,767 reduction xn fiscal 1994 grant monies a tt reauctxon xn fxscal 1994 grant monies, appears to indicate that the district needs less money to operate its Chapter 2, ESEA, programs. Your letter stated you ^Te \"putting into place strategies that will prevent thia situation from takxng place in the future.\" Our office recognizes the Little Rock District's problems and will evaluate another waiver request if you will detail these strategies for fiscal 1995 and tell how they are different from past, unsuccessful efforts to reduce the excessive carryover. ESEA, programs. 1995 how they are different If you have any questions or if I can be of further help, please call the Chapter 2 office at 682-4278. Sincerely, Bernadine Hoffman Program Administrator Chapter 2, ESEA BH:rh attachment cc: Ann Brown STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION\nChainmn  ELAINE SCOTT, Link Rock  Vice Chaintun  RICHARD C SMITH JR.. Tillar Memub er. /C'AADRIL nE n A  B. FISHER---.- --P---a-ri^mKuouniwd w.k J AM 'E S M . LLEWEUYN, JR. Fo r(t\\ iSLm,niAthA .U J AMOEMS I A1 n. M I tctL,A lRllTUYr HI. Newport lAnonsas_____________________ DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL  LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071  (501) 682-4475 Burton L. Elliott, Director, General Education Division September 3, 1992 Mr. Leon Adams Project Director Little Rock School District 310 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Adams: Records in the Chapter 2 office verify that for the past five years. the Little Rock School District has extenuating circumstances and submitted a letter stating policy relating to excessive carryover. ESEA, pg. 4, #6 and #7 state: tl requesting a waiver on Chapter 2 The Handbook for Chapter 2, When an LEA has been determined to have excess balance on hand, payment from the current grant will be delayed until assurances are received as to the disposition of the balance. 6 . 7. Excess balance will be defined as ten percent of the LEA grant or $2,500, whichever is greater. letter will serve to notify the Little Rock School District a all monies in excess of 10% of the district's allocation as of June 30, 1993, will be withheld from current (1993-94) grant. If you have questions, please call the Chapter 2 office at 682-4276. Sincerely, Glenda Peyton Coordinator Chapter 2, ESEA GP:rjb cc: C. M. Bernd Superintendent An Equal Opportunity Employer cr Aikansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL . LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 . (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division RECEJVPO October 3, 1994 OCr 7 f994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Dr. Williams: Thank you for your letter of September 29, 1994. The Chapter 2, ESEA, appreciative of your efforts to meet federal guidelines in the expenditure of your Chapter 2, ESEA, grant In your letter you have outlined some viable steps which agree will reduce the carryover balance at the end of office is 1994. monies. your 2 we ayxee reouce tne the fiscal Completion of the strategies mentioned in the letter will indeed guarantee that monies are spent in a timely manner. Therefore, we are pleased to be able to approve the entire fiscal 1994 carryover of $39,354.59. carried into your year. the strategies current fiscal year. This money is to be fiscal 1995 project for expenditure in the Sincerely, Program Administrator Chapter 2, ESEA BH:rjh cc: Ann Brown BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chairman  ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock  Vice Chairman  RICHARD C. SMITH JR. Tillar Members: CARL E BAGGETT, Rogers . WILLIAM B. FISHER, Paragould . JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR, Fort Smith . JAMES A. MclARTY III Newport  RRAAEF RRIICCEF PPEFRRRRYV, AArrLkta./d4eal\u0026gt;plnhkiua * ScHuEcRdRdYv uWzA a Lr KveEnR , Little Rocik . vN, Aa NCY aM e. WOOiD lU, L, iitNtlCeW RpoOcrtk An Equal Opportunity Employer (PC.' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation TO: Ms. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Mr. Dennis Snider, Assistant Superintendent, Secondary Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources y Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Mr. John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney RECEIVED FROM/ r. Robert Glowers, Director APR 7 1995 RE: Chapter 1 Information for Secondary Schools from School Profiles OtIiCQ of Oosogrcgalion Monitoring DATE: April 6, 1995 Enclosed is the Chapter 1 enrollment information for those LRSD secondary schools tliat have Chapter 1. (Some secondary schools do not have Chapter 1 programs). As you may recall, Chapter 1 information for secondary schools was not available on February 20, 1995, when the school profiles for the second semester were provided to you. This data is current as of the printing date of March 17, 1995. As you know, the eru'ollment for these programs is constantly changing, and updates are made periodically as the information becomes available from the schools. If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact Dr. Paul J. Smith at 324-2120. RLC:pjs Enclosure cc: Dr. Elenry P. Williams SchoPr 2.Doc01 LRSD GIFTED , CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL\n007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Total Female Male Female Male Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 38 50 39 77 5 3 212 41.5% Chapter 1 Reading 78 49 6 3 1 0 137 92.7%01 LRSD GIFTED S, CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Female Male Other Other Female Male Total Female Count % Black Gif ted/Talented 34 65 22 15 0 2 138 71.7% Chapter 1 Reading 58 55 2 5 0 0 120 94.2%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gi fted/Talented 36 51 69 85 3 0 244 35.7% Chapter 1 Reading 72 54 4 0 0 0 130 96.9%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: on SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Female Male Other Other Female Male Total Female Count % Black G1fted/Talented 30 37 4 10 2 0 83 80,7% Chapter 1 Reading 45 55 5 2 3 3 113 88.5%01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 62 73 34 31 3 4 207 65.2% Chapter 1 Reading 77 55 3 0 1 0 136 97.1% I01 LRSD GIFTED \u0026amp; CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOIt HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gi f ted/Talented 21 35 9 2 0 0 67 83.6% Chapter 1 Reading 87 68 11 5 0 0 171 90.6% - i IR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Jlii 19' June 29, 1995 Cffics ci Dassgi tVjor p.c MEMORANDUM TO\nTitle I (Chapter 1) Reading and Math Specialists FROM: Dr. Rici iuri^ Director of Human Resources SUBJECT: ELIMINATION OF CHAPTER 1 SPECIALISTS POSITIONS Due to changes in regulations regarding ESEA, Title I (Chapter 1) funding, the delivery of services will also change. As a result, the District has eliminated Title I reading and math specialists positions and established a new job title and job description under which these services win be provided by persons who are qualified to teach both reading and math.. The job description and a copy of the position announcement is attached. If you wish to be considered for this position, send a letter to Shirley Ridgel, Office of Human Resources, no later than the July 7 deadline. If you do not wish to be considered, or if you are not selected for a new position, you will be placed in a pool of teachers to be reassigned. On Tuesday, July 18, 9:00 a.m., in the Board Conference Room, you will be able to choose, by seniority , from a list of known vacant elementary teaching positions in the District.PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST June 30, 1995 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following positions for the 1995-96 school year: POSITIONS\nTitle I Instructional Specialists - Thirty-Seven (37) Positions QUALIFICATIONS\n1. A bachelor's degree in elementary education. 2. Must meet Arkansas certification requirements. 3. 4. Minimum of three (3) years successful teaching experience with specific emphasis in the content area of teaching reading or mathematics. Consideration will be given to applicants with Chapter 1 experience. Evidence of successful teaching experiences with computers in a classroom or lab setting. 5. Evidence of successful experience in working with curriculum development and implementation. 6. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 7. Evidence of strong interpersonal skills and a record of successful interaction with students, teachers, parents, and supervisory personnel. 8. Evidence of knowledge and skills in integrating reading and mathematics with each other and with other subject areas using an experimental approach. (K-4 Crusade Completion is desired). 9. Evidence of successful academic intervention with educationally disadvantages students. 10. Evidence of experience in working with other teachers as a trainer, coach, or mentor. note\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW.Title I Instructional Specialists REPORTS TO\nPrincipal JOB GOAL: To provide direct instruction to Title I students in reading and mathematics, to provide assistance to students in the District's instructional computer program, and to conduct staff development at the building level. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Provides academic support to target students in reading and mathematics. Plans and uses effective teaching strategies for Title I students in reading and mathematics - focus on use of reading and mathematics technology, manipulatives, cooperative team learning. Shows an understanding of early childhood practices in reading and math. Assesses the accomplishments of students on a regular basis, and provides progress reports as required. Maintains Title I records on target students in assigned schools. Guides the learning process toward the achievement of instructional obj ectives. Conducts staff development for teachers through building level inservice meetings, demonstration lessons, team teaching, and joint lesson planning. Attends District level inservice on successful strategies for teaching reading and mathematics and serving students with educational needs in these areas. SALARY AND TERMS: Salary based on a teacher's nine and one-fourth (9.25) month salary schedule, plus benefits package. EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel.Title I Instructional Specialists APPLICATION DEADLINE\nJuly 13, 1995, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO\nDr. Richard E. Hurley Director, Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.VACANT7.XLS i Elementary scools vacancy list 6/16/95 3/4 EXCESS EXCESS I TITLE lAUX PS I ELEM. - (ELEM.-1ST lELEM. - 1ST I ELEM. - IST I ELEM. - 1ST I ELEM. - 1ST I ELEM. - 2ND I ELEM. - 2ND !ELEM. - 2ND I ELEM. - 2ND I ELEM.-2ND iELEM.-2ND I ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM. - 3RD I ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM.-3RD (ELEM.-3RD (ELEM.-3RD (ELEM. - 3RD (ELEM.-4TH (ELEM.-4TH (ELEM.-4TH (ELEM. -4TH (SCHOOL (MITCHELL (CLOVERDALE - (BALE_________ (BRADY CHICOT FULBRIGHT GEYER SPRINGS EXCESS ELEM. - STH ELEM. - STH ELEM. - STH IELEM.-STH_________ (ELEM.-STH_________ IELEM. - STH_________ (ELEM. - STH_________ (ELEM. - STH/6TH (ELEM.-STH_________ IELEM. - STH_________ (ELEM. - STH lELEM.-STH_________ (ELEM. - ART_________ IELEM. - ART_________ lELEM.-K___________ IELEM. -K___________ (ELEM.-LIFE SCIENCE (BOOKER_________ (CARVER (DODD (FULBRIGHT (MITCHELL (RIGHTSELL (BOOKER (MEADOWCLIFF (PULASKI HEIGHTS (RIGHTSELL (ROCKEFELLER 'TERRY (WAKEFIELD (WASHINGTON (WOODRUFF (DODD (FRANKLIN (MABELVALE (GARLAND________ I BOOKER (FAIR PARK (GARLAND (GEYER SPRINGS (MEADOWCLIFF (ROCKEFELLER (WOODRUFF {forest PARK I BALE (CARVER_________ IFOREST PARK (WASHINGTON M.L.KING RIGHTSELL IFOREST PARK WATSON WASHINGTON |G \u0026amp; T__________ ' LIBRARIAN (LIBRARIAN (LIBRARIAN [math spec (.20) (MATH SPEC (.20) (MABELVALE/BADGETT (BADGETT___________ (ROCKEFELLER (WOODRUFF_________ [garland (JEFFERSON Page 1VACANTT.XLS MATH SPEC (.30) MATH-CHAPTER 1 MATH-CHAPTR 1 MATH-CHPTR 1 (.60) MUSIC MUSIC____________ ORCHESTRA READ CHPTR 1 READ - CHPTR 1 READING READING (.40) I READING (.40) EXCESS EXCESS READING (.40) SPE LD (.20) SPE-LD SPE-MP/HND SPEC EDUC SPEC EDUC N-CATEG SPEC EDUC N-CATEG SPEECH (.50) FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT BRADY/PUL.HGTS. WESTERN HILLS CHICOT GEYER S/WDRUFF BOOKER CHICOT TERRY GARLAND BRADY RIGHTSELL M.L.KING PUL. HEIGHTS ELEM MABELVALE WILSON GARLAND/McDERM BADGETT CARVER BASELINE BASELINE BASELINE WASHINGTON Page 2July 5, 1995 Shirley Ridgel Office of Human Resources Little Rock School District Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Ms. Ridgel: I wish to submit my letter to be considered for the job of Title I Instructional Specialist. I have been a teacher in the LRSD for 22 years, been a Chapter I - Math Teacher for 8 years. I have Thank you for your consideration of my request. Sincerely Janet Adams cc: LRCTA 929 W. Colonel Glenn Rd. Little Rock, AR 72210 821-2173\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_271","title":"Cheerleaders","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":["1992/1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Student activities","Educational law and legislation","Race discrimination"],"dcterms_title":["Cheerleaders"],"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/271"],"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\nJOHN w. Walker, I.A. A'iTORNEY At Law 172.3 Broadway LirrLE Rtx'K. Arkansas 7T.JIII\nTelephone (.'loi) 371-37.58 EAX {.5(H) 371-1187 JUN 2 5 1992 .JOHN W. WALKER RALIII WASHINOTON MARK RllRNl'.Tl'E WILEY A. URANTON. .JR. AUSTIN IORTER..JR. * Alsfi t Irarlin- in Ihr Dislrict if Office of Desenre-iPfirn \u0026gt;. Monitoring June 24, 1992 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United Stated District Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Judge Wright: Relief and I have filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunctive I would like to have the Court expedite All parties have been given notice other relief in this case. this matter if at all possible. and'the entirely new party, Mr.' Ralph Hoffman a Summons. issued out of an abundance of caution to insure he has This Summons was actual notice of the proceedings. Of course, I expect him to be represe nted by LRSD counsel. Very truly yours, ,// V j6hn W. Walker JWW:Im Office of Desegregation Monitoring cc: All Counsel Mr. Ralph HoffmanJohn W. Walker, p.a. received ArniuNEY At Law 1723 Broadway Lm-LE Rook. Arkansas 72-jihi Telephone (501) 374-37.58 FAX (501) 374-4187 JUN 2 S OHice ot Desegrogafon Monitoong  lollN W. WALKER liALI'll WASHINUION MAUK miUNElTE WILEY A. IIHANTON. IH. AUSTIN IOHTKIL -IK.  Alw iiilniiHi-ii l' I'tiirlin in tiv Iislricl \u0026lt;f \u0026lt; H|iiiiil\u0026lt;i:i June 24, 1992 Chris Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, P.A. 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Chris: to Intervene and for other I am enclosing a copy of the Motion relief which I am today filing against the Little Rock School District and Principal Ralpli Hoffman of Pulaski Heights Jr. High School. Please accept this letter as evidence of service of the relief which I am Please accept this Complaint, i.e.. Motion. and in Inasmuch as Hoffman is not a defendant at this time, that Dr. Mac Bernd has not been substituted as a party defendant and is not yet a party, I am taking the liberty of also serving Dr. Bernd and Mr. Hoffman with copies of the Motion. Please note that I am also seeking to have Dr. Bernd adhere to the Desegregation has started off by violating through his plan of Please note that Plan which he reorganization. I am In that the Motion seeks preliminary injunctive relief, hereby advising that I will ask Judge Wright to advance this matter so that it may be considered in a timely fashion. I am also serving each board member with a copy of the Motion by leaving same at the office of Mr. Bernd so that he may have them available for the board members when they come to the meeting scheduled for this evening. If you advise. have any questions regarding this matter, please Very trul yours, J' h W. Walker '^7 JWW:ImChris Heller, Esg. June 24, 1992 Page 2 cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring All Counsel P.S. A Memorandum will follow later on today.s CEiVEO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 5* 1592 Office of Desegregafion Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Come the Joshua Intervenors and respectfully move the Court: a. to allow the intervention of the named minor children below through their parents and next friends\nand b. for declaratory, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of said children with respect to their being allowed to participate without discrimination in the cheerleading activity at Pulaski Heights Junior High (hereinafter PHJH) in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The intervenors submit the following allegations and legal contentions in support of their prayer for relief. The legal basis for their intervention and for their right or entitlement to relief is set forth in the attached memo of points and authorities. 1. The intervenors in application (hereinafter \"intervenors\") are as follows: A. Jennifer Mays, as next friend of Tiffany Mays\nB. Charles Perry, as next friend of Kimberly Perry\nC. Annette Jones and Carlos Jones, as next friends ofShannon Jones\nand D. Mary Lacey and Riccardo Lacey, as next friends of Riccarda Lacey. All of the intervenors are citizens of the United States and reside in the Little Rock School District. Each minor plaintiff will be in either the Sth or 9th grade at Pulaski Heights Jr. High School during the 1992-93 school year. Each minor is a member of the class of black students certified herein. The defendants in this limited proceeding are the LRSD\nCloyde McKinley Bernd, Superintendent of Schools of the LRSD\nand 2. Ralph Hoffman, Principal of PHJH. Defendant Bernd is sued in his official capacity and is being substituted with appropriate leave of the Court for Dr. Ruth Steele, the immediate past Superintendent of the LRSD. Mr. Hoffman is named for purposes of this proceeding alternately in his individual and official capacities. 3. This is proceeding to declare and define the legal a rights and other legal relations of the parties herein with respect to certain treatment which the minor intervenors contend they have suffered at PHJH during the 1991-92 school year and which they stand to have perpetuated upon during the 1992-23 school year. This is a motion for preliminary injunctive relief which requires the defendants to alter or modify the process and results thereof involved in cheerleader selection at PHJH in April 1992 for the 1992-93 school year. This is also a proceeding to enjoin the defendants from allowing certain discriminatory or unfair practices which provide 4 . 2at least the appearance of partiality and racial motivation to accompany the process of participation in extra-curricular activities at PHJH School. 5. This is also a proceeding to cite the LRSD for contempt of court for failing to supervise the process of student participation closely and carefully at PHJH and for allowing the extra-curricular activities at PHJH to remain substantially segregated without a written plan for remediation thereof. Preliminary Statement 6. The Joshua Intervenors in good faith entered into a Settlement Agreement with the LRSD the purpose of which was to forthwith eliminate all vestiges and effects of racial discrimination. All parties agreed that extra-curricular activities would be altered or modified to provide for the equitable, if not proportional, participation of both primary races in all school activities and programs. The spirit of the Agreement was to promote an environment wherein all youngsters who attended the LRSD public schools came to feel that the schools were being operated for all children and that inclusion of both races, rather than exclusion, was the objective in all activities. The School District took ultimate responsibility for implementing this expectation. Indeed, the District has formulated policies and other writings designed to provide for the elimination of vestiges of discrimination. Those procedures must be followed. at the least, if the relief promised to black children is to be provided. This action is essential because the conduct of defendants. 3especially Principal Hoffman and his staff, is egregious, and because the school district board has not seen fit to hold Principal Hoffman to the standard which the District itself has set for racial inclusivity. Court intervention is the last resort as provided in the Settlement Agreement. 7. During the 1990-91 school year. the PHJH operated a number of extra-curricular programs and activities. Program data generally demonstrate racial patterns of participation. See Exhibit \"A\", pages 1 and 2 hereto. This exhibit. inter alia. demonstrates that in 1991-92, of twenty-six cheerleaders only two were black. while on the other hand. out of sixteen drill team members, only three were white. The enrollment of PHJH during 1991-92 was 761 students of whom 468 or 61% were black. 8. PHJH maintained other vestiges of discrimination as well. The resource room was 96% black (42 of 45) , while gifted and talented students were overwhelmingly white. In the remedial and compensatory education classes, 157 (97%) of the 162 pupils were black. Furthermore, the statistics on suspensions and expulsions demonstrate gross disparity. Black male youth, especially. are suspended and recommended for expulsion for reasons as vague as wearing \"gang colors\" and giving II gang signs. II In reaching these consequences, the administration is deliberately set up to provide the appearance of racial inclusivity in decision making. Accordingly, a black assistant principal, James Mosby, is put into all situations involving the discipline and treatment of black students. Mr. Mosby so routinely validates teacher recommendations 4and other racial adversities that this may be regarded as condition of his employment or his job description. 9. The minor intervenors in this action complain about the process which Defendant Hoffman and the LRSD utilized in the selection of cheerleaders at PHJH for the 1992-93 school year as being racial in effect if not purpose. The facts which they a specifically allege are as follows: a. During the cheerleader tryouts for 1991-92 which were held in April of 1991, approximately thirty-six black pupils applied out of a total of fifty applicants. There were twelve applicants selected of which two were black. In other words, black applicants were initially selected at the rate of one out of eighteen while white applicants were initially selected at the rate of six out of seven. On information and belief, this disproportionate effect discouraged many would be black applicants from applying to participate in the cheerleading program for the 1992-93 school year. b. While the cheerleading program at PHJH has become labeled as intended for white pupils, the drill team has become labeled as intended for black children. Consequently, all sixteen of the dream team applicants who completed the application process during 1990-91 either were selected to participate on the drill team or to serve as managers for it. The three white students who had the temerity to apply for the drill team also served. During the cheerleader tryouts in April, 1992 for the c. 51992-93 school year, only eleven black pupils applied. Seventeen white pupils applied. Of the eleven. only one was chosen, Intervenor Shannon Jones. [Her specific contentions will be addressed, infra.] Of the seventeen white students, eleven were chosen. d. The selection process has the appearance of being intended to effect a specific purpose. On information and belief. Mrs. Terry Bridges, Cheerleading Sponsor at PHJH school, selected judges for cheerleaders. She did so by selecting two white and two black judges. The two white judges were a mother and her daughter while one of the two black judges was an employee of the white mother and daughter. The second black judge was from out of the city. Mrs. Bridges has refused to disclose the name of the judges. Moreover, Mrs. Bridges, with the knowledge and consent of Mr. Hoffman and in violation of cheerleading rules, allowed her own mother to participate in the process as a non-voting member. Thus, Mrs. Bridges was in ultimate initial control of the process. On April 27, 1992, the one black judge from outside the community wrote a letter, \"To Whom It May Concern,\" indicating that the selection process. in her opinion. was unfair and recommended that the \"situation should be viewed again. II See Exhibit It 1. II To date. no LRSD official has inquired into her e. f. reasons for believing the process to have been tainted. g- Other adult applicants for intervention have sought to appeal the process and results of the cheerleader tryout through 6Principal Hoffman and Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent effective until June 26, 1992. On May 11, 1992, they sent a letter to Dr. Steele with their complaint herein. See Exhibit II 2. II h. In adult intervenors' meeting with Defendant Hoffman, he was rude and non-communicative to them. Moreover, he refused to allow them to view data on which he based his decision and which he placed into the files of their children. Hoffman also refused to disclose the names of the judges or to share with the parents the criteria utilized. the weights attached to each criterion and the ultimate consequences as reported by the individual judges. 1. On information and belief. Dr. Ruth Steele passed this matter on to Assistant Superintendent, Dr. Angela Sewell, for investigation and recommendation. Dr. Sewell, again on information and belief, verbally requested Defendant Hoffman to review the situation again and give her a report. All of this happened subsequent to May 11, 1992. There has been no response to date to the applicants in intervention from either the District or Mr. Hoffman. Dr. Sewell has not provided a written recommendation or report to her superiors. On information and belief, Mr. Hoffman sought to adjust the situation by naming Javanna Moss, a black junior high j  school student, as an alternate. Ms. Moss' parent was one of the signers of the letter dated May 11, 1992 , Exhibit This \"2. \" increased the black probability of participation to 8%. k. During the 1991-92 school year, however. Principal 7Hoffman removed one of the two black cheerleaders from the squad. That left Shannon Jones as the lone black cheerleader at PHJH during the 1991-92 school year. The tradition or past practice at PHJH is that a 9th grade student who served as a cheerleader the preceding year would be selected as one of four captains of the cheerleading squad. Shannon Jones was one of seven returning cheerleaders selected for the 1992-93 school year. Only four persons manifested an interest in being captain or co-captain of the 9th graders who returned. Shannon was one of them. Ms. Bridges manipulated the process to exclude the possibility of Shannon serving as captain or co-captain. Consequently, each returning white child who wished to serve in these roles did so, while the only black child who wanted to serve in that role was not allowed to do so. 1. During the 1991-92 school year, the one black child excluded from the cheerleading group. Christie Love, had been assigned to PHJH. A parent of the rejected white applicant complained that Ms. Love may not be eligible to attend the LRSD the next year because of her new residence in the county. Upon that event. the rejected child of the complaining white parent. was appointed to the squad by Defendant Hoffman. m. Ms. Love's application for permission to remain at PHJH was disallowed. n. The minor intervenors were both qualified and eligible to participate as cheerleaders. Kimberly Perry tried out during both 1990-91 and 1991-92 school years. The adult 8intervenors and other black parents were never given reasons by Defendant Hoffman for the alleged rejections or for the almost unanimous selection of competing white youngsters. 10. On page 1 of the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the District has committed to: E. of Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases school activities school, class and and operations (i.e. staff assignments\nparticipation in extracurricular activities\ndistribution of resources\netc.) added for emphasis] [underlining I. equip staff Ongoing staff development activities to teachers, with the administrators, skills needed and to other achieve 11. quality desegregation education. On page 28 of the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the goal of the District is set forth as being inter alia: \"to provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact students. Exhibit It on II 3\" , minority and disadvantaged [underlining added for emphasis] 12. On page 39 of the LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline, the goal is stated as follows: 13 . It [to] provide and ensure opportunities and encouragements to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities. II Exhibit \"4 II for emphasis. [underlining added Furthermore, the District commits to a yearly II analysis II of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. [In this respect. Superintendent 9Bernd proposes to change the desegregation responsibilities within the plan by his proposed reorganization plan. He has neither sought nor obtained Court approval of his plan.] There has been no written \"analysis\" by the defendants as provided by the plan, however. 14. The foregoing allegations are serious indications of this school district's failure to \"ensure\" non-discrimination at PHJH. Moreover, it is an indication that the District will not follow its own desegregation plan when the effect is to deny or limit participation of white students or to afford it to black students in certain activities. such as the Beta Club, Cheerleading, the Yearbook and the Y-Teens organization. 15. The District has made strong verbal and written a commitment to desegregation. implementing race relations 1. e. , among students and staff members\nensuring equities in all phases of school activities and operation\nand requiring the promotion of \"positive public reaction to desegregation\". This commitment is the first page of the LRSD Plan. See Exhibit \"5\" hereto. 16. The effective though paraphrased definition of equity as utilized in this case, is \"participation. not mere access.\" 17 . By the foregoing allegations, it is evident that the LRSD continues to treat one group of youngsters as inferior and another as superior. Principal Hoffman and his staff clearly engage in these practices in myriad ways. It is thus evident that the practices complained of constitute business as usual, racial prejudice, insufficient \"inservice\" training, or lack of awareness 10of the desegregation plan expectations on the part of Hoffman and his staff. The minor intervenors have been deprived of due process and equal protection of the laws. They have also been injured psychologically by their unequal treatment and by the exclusionary practices of Defendant Hoffman and the Little Rock School District. These injuries affect their attitudes about race, adult integrity, studying, their future and their self concepts. It says to them that they are not of value equal to white students. It also says that when they do seek to follow the reasonable rules of the district and when they do meet all the District's requirements for participation, they will still be treated differently due to their race or color. 19. Principal Hoffman has not prepared a written plan for eliminating or remediating racial disparities at PHJH, nor has he himself been properly \"inserviced\" by the District in such a way to avoid manifestation of furthering the interests of white students at the expense of and despite the needs of black students. 20. The minor intervenors and their parents have exhausted all reasonable remedies which they have for redress of their grievances in the school system. They have no other recourse than 18. to pray the Court for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief under the implementation promises of the desegregation plan and under the law. Their alleged treatment is violative of the Constitution, the Desegregation Plan, 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983 and other commitments of the District. This action is 11therefore their only effective recourse. WHEREFORE, intervenors pray (a) for preliminary and appropriate injunctive relief as may be determined to be within the equity powers of the Court\n(b) for a declaratory judgment that the defendants have deprived the intervenors of equal protection and due process of laws\n(c) for mandatory II inservice training\" for Defendant Hoffman\n(d) for a mandatory requirement that all staff members at PHJH read, be tested upon and thereafter implement the Desegregation Plan in good faith\n(e) for elimination of selfserving, suspect selection criteria and procedures and staff\nand (f) that the district be held strictly accountable for meeting the objectives, goals and timetables of the Desegregation Plan with respect to all programs and activities. Intervenors also pray for an Order which substitutes Dr. Cloyde McKinley Bernd as a party defendant in place of Dr. Ruth Steele. Intervenors further request an Order requiring defendants to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court for their conduct alleged herein\nand for an Order requiring Superintendent Bernd to adhere to the approved plan herein with respect to lines and positions of authority, which are set forth therein. Applicants for intervention also pray for their costs including reasonable counsel fees. Respectfully submitted. 12JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 i 4. / ri'* z/ John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 J .! I Wiley A. pranton, Jr. Bar No. 90053 Norman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013 13CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of ChristophtHeller, Esg. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive 7 Little Rock, AR 72212 j azmotion Jofrn W. Walker 14 f' if i _  EXHIBIT 1  Whoni cih / l^lea/f ti- ifwtz , fva^ one. /fy-aMs ~4I? l/l'ijl ' -'^\u0026gt;1? i Ihig Qhieti\u0026amp;\nc/i/^ Swad l^' IL 5^W4/z/ d/^saribLl cvm\n'S-lui-lum hMc(li f/iiy, mQ. ii'ri^/ i:if 041/ iMat \\ Al bl i'la \\-^ I .t '^ ],.\ny^in/, ~nic ^WO '^\\fihiied\u0026amp;7/^t'^M/^ o/r nMie\u0026lt; MMrlein LeiiddfiLiiJ and 'i-h^e ()liitiK' LMiiz I^Milf Cvaz. 'Ai^/in' . ernpitii^, ! LnL 'TTii /n^)lfit.ic CL ^iLLdl Sia/fd cbf- 44! (^ ') hc\u0026gt;/^//7a Oh  i ^1^05 \u0026lt;UAa^ oh^e^ .  QC/bVihi^i^tyc : iti OfUtri klbbV^ m. -hif Min. liA^mee/ UdMyitf dif\nIh^ AIkiL 53I\u0026amp;^ , J: nuitztvi LA's-)- Ihiy (Aum Lci^  zi- undc/^f^^ '^L\u0026amp;i in 4405. MM /i\u0026gt; U/ibit/M/i'ad i aria Cifiii^bia! . bud Ihe \\ialiijL i \"ziMli'ai MkiM. L. \u0026gt; . / f'n C(/lb/V/O//}dw( ! ^hl5 ITO: Dr. Ruth Steel Superintendent,LRSD EXHIBIT 2 May 11,1992 MEMORANDUM From: M. Lacey, J. Mays, K. Perry, J. Moss Parents of students at Pulaski Heights Junior High Re: Cheerleader Tryouts Process were Varsity cheerleader tryouts at Pulaski Heights Junior High held during the week of April 20-24. Our children participated in the tryout process primarily because they were requested to do so by teacher(s) and assistant principle(s) of the school. _ , The tryout process and outcome are of major concern to ua. We\n___Ji_______i ___ -'ith r. Ralph Hoffman, princip'le, Ms have discussed our concerns with Mr. Bridges, superintendent. teacher/sponsor and The results of productive as needed. therefore, Mrs. our your E. Mathis associate discussions were not as involvement is the next option to be explored. We meit with Mr. Hoffman initially on Monday April At ---4.1--------------------- *1 outcome of,^racial eleven were Caucasian that time we verbalized these concerns: 1. compositioi(^ of the twelve to be selected, and one african-american. '' The total number to tryout were ten african-americans and approximately 28 Caucasians. Even though the current desegregation plan does not address the racial composition of partici^nts in extracurricular activities, it does suggest that the school district will facilitate opportunities and provide an environment for motivation. 2. To further encourage egual access the school district has suggested that the judges involved be racially balanced. which relationship of three of was the the case at PHJH, however. the judges to each strongly suggest Two of the four judges were opportunities for improprieties. a mother and her daughter and the third judge (who was a minority) reported to the mother relationship. and/or daughter in an employment In addition the mother of the cheerleader sponsor. Ms Bridges, sat at the table with the judges and was allowed to carry completed judging forms from the judges to the tally table. The fourth judge was duly concerned as noted in a fax copy to me (attachment 1). The process was also a major concern to us, in that the constitution for cheerleaders in the Little Rock School District ma j or was disregarded without conscious. This document clearlyKe identifies the process for cheerleader tryouts at all schools. noted these inconsistencies: 1. Pre-tryout conference with parents and candidates was not held. 2. Candidates did not receive a copy of the constitution and the judging matrix prior to Tryouts were held for three days as opposesto the five 2 . tryouts. 3. days mandated in the constitution to exclude mock tryouts and Person(s) other than school district personnel were present during tryouts (Ms Bridges' mother). tryouts. 4. The constitution indicates that only school district personnel, judges, and the candidate should be present during tryout. Mr. Hoffman indicated he discussed these issues with Mr. Mosby assistant principj^ (attachment 2) and no reports of irregularities were concede. however. as a District prohibits a junior side issue, the Little Rock School varsity cheerleader organization. Pulaski Heights Junior High has such an organization - the other On the surface it appears as though junior high schools do not. this junior high school is exempt from compliance with the good faith guidelines established by the school district. review the matrix of our individual We also requested to Childs' performance along with their total score. On Monday April 27th we were denied access, both Ms Bridges and Mr. Hoffman stated it was against school policy to allow access to this information. This issue was discussed with Mrs.Mathis, who assured us that the requested information would be made available. On May 1st Mr. Hoffman provided each parent a score written on a memo (attachment 3) . This behavior inhibits evaluation of areas of needed improvement. Enclosed is information provided to candidates regarding Mr. Hoffman tryouts and Mr. Hoffmans' written communication to us. was asked who if any one on the administrative level participated in the formulation of his conclusions. out of line\". He stated the \"question was Even though this comment was perceived as an attempt to block further communication about this issue a rationale for the question concerns. was provided,ie.,with whom to further explore these Mr. Hoffman re-emphasized that the question was out of line, and suggested Dr. Sewell be spoken with next. Mathis is over cheerleaders and had already been However, Mrs. spoken with regarding parents not being allowed to see their childs' scoring matrix. At that time we requested that she allow Mr. Hoffman an opportunity to investigate and address our concerns. 1. Expand the We suggested these solutions to Mr. Hoffman: cheerleader squad to include at least four african-american candidates. 2. Conduct a second tryout and replace the teacher squad 2 . sponsor. the --. To our knowledge neither of these were considered. In view of your- resignation and the remaining four weeks in school year, we would appreciate feedback related to this matter as soon as possible. CC: Estelle Mathis Ann BrownEXHIBIT 3 H ' SCHOOL OPERATIONS .i'- The LRSD Office of Desegregation will be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the LRSDs desegregation plan with respect to the following goals: 1. To ensure an organizational structure which provides equal opportunity and access 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. for parents, students and all staff. To provide a climate in each school which is based on the belief and expectation that all children can learn and to provide resources necessary to support that belief. To develop and implement policies which influence school climate and improve and student attendance while also meeting individual student needs and discipline----------------------- - . , learning styles. The student hearing officer will be responsible for developing and monitoring plans to reduce the disparity of disciplinary actions. To provide guidance and counseling service which address students needs, are supportive of strategies and interventions to expectations, and provide communication to families of students. enhance student success and To provide guidance and counseling which makes students aware of their options and to assist students in acquiring habits and attitudes necessary for success in school and in later life. To monitor student class ratios and instructional practices to ensure equal opportunities for all students. TOVidT'and ehsure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. To^ssess the results of school practiccs, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. To review and assess testing practices, formats and results in order to better address the needs of all students while providing special intervention for disadvantaged students. 10. To give school principals sufficient authority to improve schools and to advocate for  . \u0026lt; . _1.__II! n11 xtx/lAntp students, and to hold them accountable for results and opportunities for all students. 11. To review staffing patterns and staff assignments in all schools and district offices for equity. 12. To establish recruitment programs for representation of minorities in all positions in the District. Page 28h lEA: School Operations LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMEPTTATION TIMELINE 5?  I w oal VII: Provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co\u0026lt;urricubr activities. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Responsibility Date Evaluation 1. Inform all students and patrons of co-curricular/ C extracurricular activities available for students and of participation requirements. Staff recruitment of students to participate. Increase student participation, particularly minority student participation in co- curricul Remove all barriers to equitable participation of students who wish to \\ participate in extracurricular activities. 1.1 12 1.3 1.4 2.1 22 3.1 32 3.3 4.1 Use of media and press. Send printed information to parents. Make clear public address system announcements to students. Use community agencies such as churches to assist with recruitment. Individual staff contacts with students encourage involvement. Staff shall specifically recruit from among students who do not typically participate in particular activities. Profile student involvement in each club or activity. Disaggregate participation data. Develop school based recruitment plans. Provide a district transportation program for student-transportation when necessary to assure equitable participation for students participating in district sanctioned extracurricular activities. 42 Provide a program for student access to equipment/ uniforms etc. needed for participation at minimal cost. Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Communications Dept Principals Staff PTA Board Educational Programs School based Dir of Extracurricular Activities Individual staff members Principal Staff Asst Supt Directors of Extracurricular Activities Manager of Support Services Asst Supts Assoc Supt Deseg Principals Log of announcements, media usage, other community student contacts Comparative review of data regarding numbers of applicants and participants by race Yearly analysis of participation data and comparative profiles Yearly analysis of participation data and comparative profdes w X w wEXHIBIT 5 COMMITMENT TO DESEGREGATION IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 The Little Rock School District is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment. The method of assigning students is merely the first step toward creating school and classroom environments that foster academic achievement and improve race relations among students and staff members. The next step involves a commitment to quality desegregated education by the District, parents and the community. Of course, real commitment always requires a plan of action. To that end, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to the following: j! 1 5 Vj I A. B. The belief that all children can learn. The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. J II 1 3 \"i 1 C. Improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved D. E. desegregation plan as enhanced/ incentive schools. Improving race relations among students and staff members. Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations (i.e. school, class and staff assignments\nparticipation in extracurricular activities\n4 distribution of resources\netc.) F. Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation. G. The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. J i 2 r H. The development curriculum. and infusion of multicultural education in all areas of the I. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other 8 staff with the skills needed to achieve quality desegregated education. In summary, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to having quality desegregated education in all schools. Quality desegregated education will result in long-term stability and growth for the city of Little Rock and Pulaski County. It also will provide all Little Rock School District students with the academic and social skills needed for successful experiences in the future. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors hereby acknowledges its commitment to quality desegregated education and respectfully invites parents and community leaders to make the same commitment. Such a commitment has to occur m order to ensure stability in our schools and ultimately achieve unitary status. w Page 1 ireceived JUN 2 6 1992 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OHice of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS I. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LIMITED INTERVENTION MUST BE AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS WHO ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE PARTIES' FAILURE TO MEET THEIR DESEGREGATION OBLIGATIONS The Joshua intervenors and the applicants for intervention jointly seek permission from the court to join the additional named intervenors to this proceeding pursuant to Rule 24(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Throughout this litigation, the role of the Joshua intervenors has been to ensure that the remedy in this case resulted in enforceable commitments from the other parties on behalf of minority students in the three districts. That goal has been accomplished through the approval by the Court of the parties settlement agreement and the three school districts* individual and joint plans for desegregation. These commitments are now enforceable by the Joshua intervenors through this court. enforcing the agreements. but in the real beneficiaries will often be individual students rather than the entire class of minority students. After all, individual students come into daily contact with the districts in entirely unique sets of circumstances, buteach student has a right to enforce the remedial obligations as it affects them in their daily interaction with the parties. Although the Joshua intervenors are diligent in their attempts to monitor the districts and to insist on compliance, ultimate responsibility for enforcement is in the court. Therefore, as the real beneficiaries of very specific remedial obligations, minority students in the district must have access to this court on their own behalf. Since it is actually the individual applicants' right to fair treatment under the parties' ettlements which the Joshua intervenors are seeking through this s limited proceeding for preliminary injunction, the applicants for intervention should be allowed to intervene for the limited purpose of enforcing the settlement as it relates to their particular participation in extra-curricular activities at Pulaski Heights Junior High School. II. INTERVENORS ARE ENTITLED TO IMMEDIATE RELIEF The present motion is styled \"Motion for Preliminary Injunction,\" but intervenors are essentially seeking enforcement of the parties' prior settlement agreements and desegregation plans. Consequently, this motion might also be considered a motion for contempt and enforcement. Either approach justifies a quick hearing on the claims raised. A. Preliminary Injunction Intervenors will be irreparably harmed if the LRSD is not enjoined from implementing the cheerleader selection results which intervenors claim are racially biased and out of compliance with the districts obligations for desegregation of extra-curricularactivities. The selection of cheerleaders for Pulaski Heights Junior High, PHJH, occurs once a year, usually in April. This selection process has occurred and it has presumably determined the cheerleader participation for the 1992-93 school year. That participation begins during the summer. however, through the summer training camps which the school sends its cheerleaders to. Only students that attend PHJH may participate. Consequently, the minor intervenors will be ineligible for participation in the summer cheerleading camps nor in the future because they will presumably move on to the next grade and a different school after the 1992-93 school year. Therefore, relief must come swiftly, if it is to come at all. The damage to the intervenors' self esteem and their disillusionment with the educational system that will result from their denial of fair participation will also irreparably harm them in their future educational processes. The benefits of fair and equitable participation are cumulative and cannot be restored after the fact. Intervenors are likely to succeed in obtaining the relief they seek. Pursuant to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, LRSD V.PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990), remedial orders have already been entered in this case pursuant to the parties \"settlement agreements\" and \"settlement plans\". The LRSD plan for desegregation has recently been resubmitted and represents enforceable commitments by LRSD to the intervenors. (See Desegregation Plan Little Rock School District April 29,1992\n11 relevant portions of which are attached to Intervenor's Motion) The intervenors reserved the right to seek enforcement of these plans through this court. (See Settlement Agreement, p. 19.) Under the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the District has committed to: Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases. of school activities and operations (i.e. school, class and staff assignments, participation in extracurricular_Bctiv.ities, distribution of resources\netc.) [underlining E. activities added for emphasis] \"Equity,\" in this situation, means \"participation. If in meaningful numbers, not merely the right to access. There should ordinarily be some semblance of proportional participation. at least proportional to the numbers that try out for a particular activity. Here the disparities in participation are so overwhelming as to be patently unfair and ludicrous. (Eleven out of seventeen white applicants were selected, while only one out of eleven black applicants were selected\nin the previous year. an even more disparate selection ratio occurred.) The district also has a binding commitment to: I. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other staff with the skills needed to   , (LRSD Plan, p. 1) Ongoing and achieve quality desegregation education. commitments to c. Encourage positive attitudes and commitments to the desegregation plan by taking a team approach to promoting it, involving school staff, administrators,--parents,--- volunteers. (INTERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN, p.65) The district has failed to meet its obligation to develop these commitments in their staff and volunteers. Their failure is egregiously obvious in the disparities in these extra-curricular and\nactivities. In addition, the ability to improve is built into the process through the school's participation in summer training camps for their cheerleading squads. Furthermore, the District has committed to a yearly \"analysis\" of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. These monitoring activities must occur in timely fashion so that they can be translated into corrective policies throughout the school year. Yet, nothing has been said or done by the administration to address the miscarriage of the district's obligations in regard to the extra-curricular activities complained of herein\nnot even a response to the intervenors. The district has obligations in all of these areas pursuant to their own Desegregation Plan. There is little doubt that it has not met these obligations and that intervenors will secure the relief they seek. In contrast. there can be no injury to the defendants by enforcing their obligations under the settlement plans\nthey are already obliged to take these remedial steps. After providing the proper training to the staff and judges. the district will be obliged to contact all of the students who tried out. reschedule try-outs and remake these decisions. This can hardly be considered enough of a harm to counter-balance the harm to the intervenors. In contrast. the public interest will be best served by enjoining the district and enforcing the defendant's desegregation plan. The public interest is best served when the public seesactivities. In addition, the ability to improve is built into the process through the school's participation in summer training camps for their cheerleading squads. Furthermore, the District has committed to a yearly \"analysis\" of participation data. The responsibility is that of the Assistant Superintendents, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager for Support Services. These monitoring activities must occur in timely fashion so that they can be translated into corrective policies throughout the school year. Yet, nothing has been said or done by the administration to address the miscarriage of the district's obligations in regard to the extra-curricular activities complained of herein\nnot even response to the a intervenors. The district has obligations in all of these areas pursuant to their own Desegregation Plan. There is little doubt that it has not met these obligations and that intervenors will secure the relief they seek. In contrast. there can be no injury to the defendants by enforcing their obligations under the settlement plans\nthey are already obliged to take these remedial steps. After providing the proper training to the staff and judges. the district will be obliged to contact all of the students who tried out. reschedule try-outs and remake these decisions. This can hardly be considered enough of a harm to counter-balance the harm to the intervenors. In contrast. the public interest will be best served by enjoining the district and enforcing the defendant's desegregation plan. The public interest is best served when the public sees faithful adherence to the school's procedures and conimitinents to desegregation. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the LRSD has failed to meet it obligations to intervenors under the terms of the parties settlement agreement and desegregation plans, and should be enjoined as intervenors have prayed for in the accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 /.V, John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 I ILA  A Mark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 7 Wiley A. Braiiton, Jr. Bar NoZ 90053 Horman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this ---- day of j 19 Christopfier Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 7. (I Mark Burnettefaithful adherence to the school's procedures and commitments to desegregation. CONCLUSION Wherefore, the LRSD has failed to meet it obligations to intervenors under the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and desegregation plans, and should be enjoined as intervenors have prayed for in the accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 f'-y- 1,^ John W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 / ark Burnette, Bar No. 88078 Mark .0\nWiley A. Brarfton, Jr. rfton, Jr. Bar ^Jo-/ 90053 Norman Chachkin, Esq. NAACP Legal Defense Fund 99 Hudson Street New York, New York (202) 212-1900 10013JUL-15-02 WED 13:27 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P.Ol JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 12205 Telephone (501) 374-37.58 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RAJ .PH WA.^inNGTON MARK BURNOTE WILEY A. BRANTON, .JR. AUSTIN PORTER. JR. * AUu w Pru/tiae in Georgia  the DiUhcb af Cjlujrbla. July 15, 1992 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion with respect to the cheerleader situation and related matters at Pulaski Heights Jr. High School in Little Rock on June 24, 1992. not answered nor otherwise formally responded. The defendants have Moreover, we have not worked\" the matter out as encouraged by the Court. therefore. consideration. submitting I would respect to this matter. a proposed Order for the I am. Court's appreciate your early directions with incerely, ohn W. Walker JWW:Ira Enclosure cc: All Counsel Mr, Ralph Hoffman JuL-15-92 WED 13:27 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On June 24, 1992 the Joshua Intervenors prayed for certain relief for minor class members who were allegedly denied equal opportunity to participate in the cheerleader activity at Pulaski Heights Jr. High (PHJH) School. The LRSD has not responded to the Joshua Petition and prayer which was filed and served upon the defendants and other named individuals on June 24, 1992, within eleven (11) days as required by Rule 20 of the local rules of the Court for Motions and within twenty (20) days as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding response time and answer to a civil Complaint. IT IS, THEREFORE, the Order of the Court that: 1. Dr. Cloyde McKinley Bernd shall be and is hereby substituted as a party defendant for Dr. Ruth Steele in his official capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the LRSD\n2 . Mr. Ralph Hoffman, Principal of Pulaski Heights Jr. High School in the LRSD, shall be and is hereby added as a named defendant herein personally and in his official capacity\n3. The defendants. by their conduct as alleged in theJUL-15-92 WED 13:28 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 03 Complaint and Motion, have deprived the named class members- intervenors, who are represented by the Joshua Intervenors, of equal protection and due process of laws with respect to inclusion in or exclusion from the cheerleader activities at PHJHS for the 1992-93 school year and by failing to comply with the letter and spirit of the Court approved Desegregation Plan herein\n4. The defendants shall be required to implement a remedial plan upon which the parties may agree. In the event of their failure to reach an appropriate agreement, a remedial plan shall be developed by the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The parties shall have seven (7) days from the date of this Order to develop such a remedial plan as set forth herein. In the event that the parties do not reach a written agreement, Joshua shall immediately advise the ODM. The ODM shall then, within three (3) days, present to the parties and the Court an appropriate remedial plan which the defendants shall implement. 5. The defendants shall be, and are mandatorily, enjoined to affirmatively implement the nondiscrimination requirements of the plan in all respects with the Court's admonition that failure hereafter to implement the plan shall cause the Court to give serious consideration to holding the defendants in contempt of Court\n6. Defendant Hoffman and all certified staff members at PHJHS are hereby directed to read with understanding the Desegregation Plan herein and to be capable. thereafter, of providing appropriate responses, thereto, if and when called upon to demonstrate knowledge about same by or from parents or patrons-   JUL-15-92 WED 13:28 U.S. DI ST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 04 of the parties hereto in appropriate circumstances. Moreover, the defendants shall provide \"inservice training\" for Defendant Hoffman and for all other staff members pursuant to an accepted model, to be determined by the ODM, for same\n7 . The LRSD shall be and is hereby reminded that it is to be held strictly accountable for meeting the objectives, goals, and timetables of the Desegregation Plan in all aspects\nT. plaintiffs are entitled to their legal fees and costs for the ccessful prosecution of this action. These parties are encou^ged t seek voluntary resolution of this issue within fo. teen (14) days of this Order. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATEJOHN w. Walker, p.a. A'ITORNEY At Law 1723 Broadway Li'itle R(xk. Arkansas T^axi Telephone (501) 374-37,58 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED JUN 7 MJ JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER..JR. * Aadmitted tn frartice in (ieonria \u0026amp; the District of Cniumhia. June 4, 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Pulaski Heights Jr. High School Dear Dr. Bernd: It has come to my attention that Pulaski Heights Jr. High School has been conducting junior varsity cheerleader clinics since Tuesday, June 1, 1993 in preparation for the selection of twelve (12) junior varsity cheerleaders. This is illegal according to the district's constitution and accords a select group of students unfair advantage over the general student population which is discriminatory. If you recall, we had similar problems last year and all principals were told they could not have junior varsities, but pep squads where all who came out could participate, with no special selection process. It appears that Mr. Hoffman continues to do as he pleases contrary to Also, there is the question of how the person coordinating the activity is being district policy. compensated inasmuch as there is no line item in the budget for a junior varsity sponsor. Hopefully, you will look at this matter as soon as possible. Please let us know your findings of fact. Thank you in advance for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, I n W. Walker JWW:Im\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":"tmll_hpcrc_68727343","title":"Civil rights issues facing Asian Americans in the 1990s : a report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights"],"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Asian Americans--Civil rights","Asian Americans--Employment","Asian Americans--Social conditions","United States--Race relations","Civil rights--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Civil rights issues facing Asian Americans in the 1990s : a report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12as4z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_68727343"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["233 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_69174285","title":"Civil rights issues in Arkansas, 1991-92","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Arkansas State Advisory Committee"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Discrimination--Arkansas","Civil rights--Arkansas"],"dcterms_title":["Civil rights issues in Arkansas, 1991-92"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr12is7z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_69174285"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["15 p. : maps ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aar_alabamaphoto_4411","title":"Civil Rights Memorial at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama.","collection_id":"aar_alabamaphoto","collection_title":"Alabama Photographs and Pictures Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Alabama Department of Archives and History, 624 Washington Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36130"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Alabama. Department of Archives and History","Alabama Department of Archives and History photographs collection - places vertical file","Box 18"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights","Civil rights","Monuments","Montgomery (Ala.)","Montgomery County (Ala.)"],"dcterms_title":["Civil Rights Memorial at the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Alabama. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/cdm/ref/collection/photo/id/4411"],"dcterms_temporal":["1990/1999"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material may be protected under U. S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S. Code) which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. Though ADAH has physical ownership of the material in its collections, in some cases we may not own the copyright to the material. It is the patron's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in our collections."],"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":679,"next_page":680,"prev_page":678,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":8136,"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}}]}}