{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47936","title":"[Rosa Parks with actress Cicely Tyson, Coretta Scott King and an unidentified woman at the reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Rosa Parks with actress Cicely Tyson, Coretta Scott King and an unidentified woman at the reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47936"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","King, Coretta Scott, 1927-2006","Tyson, Cicely"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47942","title":"[Rosa Parks with actress Cicely Tyson, Elaine Steele, Artis Lane and an unidentified woman at the reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Rosa Parks with actress Cicely Tyson, Elaine Steele, Artis Lane and an unidentified woman at the reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47942"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","Tyson, Cicely","Lane, Artis","Steele, Elaine Eason"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47950","title":"[Rosa Parks with Artis Lane and others at reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Rosa Parks with Artis Lane and others at reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47950"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","Lane, Artis"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47949","title":"[Rosa Parks with Artis Lane and others being interviewed at reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Rosa Parks with Artis Lane and others being interviewed at reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47949"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","Lane, Artis"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47937","title":"[Rosa Parks with Artis Lane at the reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Rosa Parks with Artis Lane at the reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47937"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","Lane, Artis"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47951","title":"[Rosa Parks with C. Delores Tucker at reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Rosa Parks with C. Delores Tucker at reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47951"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","Tucker, C. DeLores"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47948","title":"[Rosa Parks with Congressman John Conyers at the reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Rosa Parks with Congressman John Conyers at the reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47948"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","Conyers, John, Jr., 1929-2019"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47899","title":"[Rosa Parks with students at the Rosa Parks Scholarship banquet, Detroit, 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Detroit, 42.33143, -83.04575"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Rosa Parks with students at the Rosa Parks Scholarship banquet, Detroit, 1991] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47899"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc","group portraitscolor1990-2000.gmgpc","portrait photographscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47901","title":"[Rosa Parks with unidentified man, Rosa Parks Scholarship banquet, 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Rosa Parks with unidentified man, Rosa Parks Scholarship banquet, 1991] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47901"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_690","title":"Safety and security","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School management and organization","School discipline","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Safety and security"],"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/690"],"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\nIncludes ''Task Force on Safety and Security in the Secondary Schools of Little Rock'' report, ca. 1989\nLRSD - SAFETY \u0026amp; SECURITY (ANNS FILE) (DO NOT SEPERATE)SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON FEBRUARY 28, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS TO\nFebruary 25, 1991 Board of Directors FROM: Ruth c SUBJECT: FEB 2 8 1! Office of Desegregation Monitormg . Steele, Superintendent of Schools SAFETY AND SECURITY PLAN FOR LRSD AND THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK Based on comments and opinions from, school board members, employees, and patrons, I am recommending that the Little Rock School District form a partnership with the City of Little Rock to develop a master plan for addressing increasing problems of crime, violence, drugs, and gang activity in our community. Elements of the partnership will include the following: 1) A pilot School Resource Officer Program will be implemented in three secondary schools in March, 1991, and will be evaluated no later than the end of the 1991-92 school year. It will be developed in accordance with the proposed agreement between the City and the School District which you have already received. The duties of the resource officer will be as outlined in the job description which you have also received. 2) Assistance will be provided by LRPD in training security personnel employed by the Little Rock School District. In addition, LRSD will provide sensitivity training to LRPD. (Note: Increased security will be provided in all secondary schools not participating in the School Resource Officer Program thereby increasing the need for training assistance,) 3) The Little Rock School District's Biracial Advisory Committee will be asked to evaluate the District's Safety and Security Program no later than at the end of the 1991-92 school year and to file a report for review by the City Board of Directors and the School Board. The Biracial Advisory Committee's report will be used to assist in determining which, if any, changes need to be made prior to the 1992-93 school year. 4) LRPD will provide to the District up to 30 hours of drug dog services with handling by an off-duty policeman (to be paid by the District) following payment by the District of an initial fee not to exceed $5,500. 5) Representatives from LRPD and LRSD will review recommendations from the Safety and Security Task Report which require cooperation between the City, a orce especially the Police Department, and the School District. A report will be given to the Board in April, 1991, concerning which of these recommendations have or have not been implemented and what plans exist, if any, to implement them. This report will include plans and actions by LRPD to address problems that exist outside the school environment and contribute to disciplinary and security problems in the schools .I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 February 28, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: THROUGH: :hip Jones, Manager of Support Services Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent SUBJECT: Safety and Security Program On January 12, 1989, the Board established a Safety Task Force \"to report to the Board through the Administration to and security at Little Rock School among other things. \"Resource Police Officer Program address safety District secondary schools The Task Force recommended establishing . er Program\" in each secondary school. n a 'X' During the development of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan District proposed a safety .... ' officers. As this plan was refined after Bill Barnhouse, who served on the Task Force, was named director, it became apparent , .  --------- Its safety and security The District could either add safety employees, or it could try a school resource officer program. When the budget was 1990, a sufficient reserve was programmed into the budget to allow for either approach. office with thirty (30) As this plan was refined after Bill that the District was at a crossroads plan. resource Throughout the fall cis' the security When the budget fall. District officials met with representatives City to develop the School Resource Officer Program. Principals were included in three meetings, and their suggestions' comments, and concerns have been used in developing a proposed The principals' sentiment about the contract and job descriptions. program was mixed. Some felt the program had a lot of potential  , . concerned whether a need actually existed for police officer in the buildings. while others The advantages follows: 1. a of the School Resource Officer Program are as I I. The growing problem of violence in the schools is symptomatic The community must begin to develop and strengthen relationships with other agencies in order to solve a social problem that is threatening our students and schools. of a community problem. Board of Directors February 28, 1991 Page 2 2. More of the same may not effect a significant change in the schools. While the additional training for the school security officers has helped this year, we uaimuL quuni-iiy that adding additional security officers will improve total school security. schools. we cannot quantify 3. Having trained, professional police officers in the building will add a higher level of security awareness at the school. 4. The prospect that students will acquire respect for authority is appealing. In programs in other districts that have been In programs in other districts that have been successful, the students have learned to regard the resource officer as a friend. The program jointly developed by the City and the District is intended to instill in students an appreciation of the role of police responsibility in society. The advantages of adding additional security staff are as follows: 1. The District will have absolute control of the security employees. 2. The District will have more flexibility for assigning staff to problem areas and to add and delete resources as needed. 3. ?\u0026gt; There will be no question about the principals' authority and their responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for our students. !-'Vw f We are now at the point of implementing Board policy, presenting this policy issue to you for consideration. and we are ------------------- The issue before us is how the School Board wishes to discharge its duty to\nprovide safe, secure schools for our students and the extent to f which it wishes to enter into a partnership with the City to i address a social problem that threatens the community as well as  the schools. This is clearly a policy question, and we are presenting it to you in that light. I would appreciate your W '^roents to assist me in making a recommendation that supports the collective will of the Board regarding this issue. 3?^ A recommendation will be made during the regular meeting on February 28, 1991. *LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS May 23, 1991 SS! '^' TO: Board of Directors OS* o\\ gessJ'- FROM: I^Bill Barnhouse, Director of Safety \u0026amp; Security THROUGH: t-^hip Jones, Manager of Support Services J^Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: UPDATE ON SAFETY AND SECURITY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS On January 12, 1989, the Board of Directors established a special Task Force to address safety and security concerns in the Little Rock School District. to the Board at the completion of its work. The Task Force presented 20 recommendations A checklist has been prepared in an effort to identify which recommendations have been implemented at this point. I will discuss the entire report at the Board meeting, including an explanation of recommendations 12 and 20 where no \"X's\" are shown. M-***ar,-* [ ] Implemented 1 . RECOMMENDATIONS [B] Partial Implementation [ C ] Not- Implemented Overhaul of the Discipline Code: A B C A. X X X X B. Adopt tough, clear and progressive discipline statements. Update the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to make it appear more like. 1 . 2 . 3 , serious and business- X X X X X X X X X Comments: B. C. D. E. F. G. Set Recommend no expensive jewelry to be worn to school. Recommend no large sums of money be brought to school. Develop a clear definition of weapons. a tone of progressive discipline. Establish a committee to re-write the discipline code. Add anti-gang statements. Ban Beepers. Re-evaluate due process hearing procedures. 1 . 2 . Remove any appeals from the pupil/counseling division and place in the school division. Appeals for short term suspensions granted only on grounds of due process violation. {Ban Book bags.) 1. and 2. - Principals make on-going reminders through intercom announcements and school bulletins to ask students not to wear expensive and/or carry large amounts of money, recommendations have been suggested to in new handbook for 1991-92. jewelry These be included G. 2. - Administration will support a recommendation unless due process procedures have been violated. (Ban Book bags,) Some schools do not allow students to carry book bags. 2. Take a strong, possession of tough and uncompromising position on the use or weapons. A. X X B. Possession of a gun warrants permanent expulsion. Use of any weapon will expulsion. warrant permanent3 . 4 . X c. _x_ X X Take a strong, D. E. F. Possession of any weapon other than a gun will warrant expulsion for a minimum o f one (1 ) yen r. Possession of a weapon facsimile warrants a long term suspension. Prior to returning to the regular school environment from a suspension or expulsion for an offense involving weapon or facsimile, a student a must successfully complete one (1), semester in a Little Rock alternative school. The LRSD will not accept from another school district a student who is on expulsion or suspension as a result of possession or use of a weapon. drugs on school grounds: X X X Comments: tough and uncompromising stand against illegal A. B. C. Establish stronger penalties for drug off enses. Discussions should be held with the federal district attorney to determine the scope of the federal safe school laws, particularly those dealing with a protected zone of 1000 feet around school campuses. The school districts desire for the federal district attorney to prosecute should be emphasized. Purchase a drug dog for district use . 3.A. - At times, students are held out of school when they have been arrested or charged with drug violations. Under the emergency removal clause a student may be removed from school if that students presence poses an immediate danger or may disrupt the schools orderly operation. 3.C. - Two attempts have been made during the school year. The administration worked with county government in an attempt to secure services this attempt failed. A drug dog was one of the features of the Police Resource Officer Program. did not adopt this program. The Board Mr. Neal is now working on a RFP to lease services of a drug dog. Establish an Alternative School: A. X X B. To keep students in the educational system and off the streets. To act as environmeiit. a way back into the regularX X 5 . 6 . 7 . c. D. Establish a review committee of building level administrators/teachers to supervise placement the Alternative School. in and removal from Establish Saturday School in lieu of short term suspension (to offer an alternative learning environment for those who have had discipline problems in the regular setting). (Establish a properly staffed alternative classroom. ) Improve the effectiveness of campus supervisors: X X X X X A. B. C. D. E. Make improvements A. X X X B. X X X C. D. E. Develop a Establish job description. a training program. Have a uniform dress (wind breaker) and I .D. tag to make them easily ident i f i able. Better communications (walkie-talkie). Increase pay. in the Bus system: Better screening and hiring practices for bus drivers. Bus driver training on dealing with student problems. Drivers check bus picture I.D. cards. Bus supervision modeled after the L.A. safe corridors 1. It program. Pay stipends to campus supervisors and teachers to ride back seat of problem buses. (Reduce the number of bus stops. ) Strongly recommend bus runs to reduce Move from 3 to 2 the It window of vulnerability\" for supervisions. (Earliest runs for secondary schools.) Establish a Resource Police Officer Program in each Secondary School: X X X X X X A. B. C. D. E. F. Police presence. Drug abuse programs. Child Abuse. Extra-curricular programs. Probation counseling. G. Officer to be advisor. Inservice for getting legal seen as a friend and staff for procedures in as s i stance.X I (Safe driving programs.) 8 . Develop School Strategy Plans to prevent and deal with crisis si tuations: X A . B. Earthquake (gunman) drill. Reverse fire drill (for getting students back into the safety of the X school building when a crisis arises 9 . X X X X X X Comments: C. D. on the campus or in the neighborhood). Crisis Plans: 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . Emergency signals. Hostage Crisis. Bomb threat/reality. Grief counseling (training for staff). Frequent Locker checks. 8.B. - This type of drill will be a priority for the 1991-92 school year. Improve school maintenance for security and better climate. A. X X X B. C. D. X X E. X X X X X X F. G. H. X X I . J . Maintain clean building and grounds to make schools an obviously different place than some neighborhoods. Prune shrubbery to allow maximum visibility. Remove all coverings (decorations) on door windows from classrooms and offices to allow better visibility to halls. Make graffiti removal a high priority for local buildings as well as central maintenance office. Install convex mirrors in and It blind corners\". It blind halls II Secure doors so that you may enter only througli the front, yet may exit at any door in case of fire. Post Signs: 1 . 2. 3 . 4 . Directing visitors to register in the office and receive I.D. Announcing the penalty for pass . trespassing(non-trespassing sign, legal distance apart). Giving the Hot Line Number. Weapon violation signs made larger. Make sure all rooms have working intercom. Upgrade exterior ligliting. Purchase a hand Field metal detector for eacli school (to be used in lieu ofX K. X personal searches). Purctiase a camera for each school for photographing and cataloguing graffiti. 10 . Develop n Crime Prevention Strategy: A, X X B. C. X X X X D, E. F. G. X 11. 12 . Crime prevention clubs: Youth Crime Watch (Miami). Crime/Violence/Weapon Prevention Hot Line (New Orleans). Work out a method with the prosecuting attorney where by a school administrator may get a warrant without leaving the school building for a long period of time . All students \u0026amp; staff should have I.D. cards. All cars have numbered parking Small reward for accurate tips weapons ($5-$10) from activity (modeled on New Orleans). Use all available resources to stickers. on funds improve communications between students and school personnel which will cause students to feel comfortable and protected in knowing that their identity will not be revealed or compromised when they provide school authorities with information regarding crimes to be committed on campus. Initiate neighborhood child protection strategy: A. At hours wlien children are X X X X Employ Social f rom 1 . 2 . 3 . Workers A. B. C. 1 school and bus stops: Develop a neighborhood walking to/ tt watch It watch\". Identify on the order of \"safe houses a child \"crime child may run for help. Have police cruising the where a areas. (Identify fewer and safer bus pick up points.) at each school: Worker to begin outreach program by making home and community visits. Work hours to be flexible so that after hours visitations may be made. Social workers are to help prevent neighborhood fights from spilling into the schools.Comments: D. E. F. 13 . 14 . 15 . 16. 17 . Social workers are to help prevent the spread of gangs in Little Rock. Workers are to identify child and neglect. Deal with residual There are no in the district. abuse effects of a crisis. social workers currently employed Case managers in New Futures schools do a number of these tasks in their day-to- day work with students and families. Inservice for employees: X X X Comments: The A. B. C. On improved security techniques. On identifying and combating gang behavior. On self defense and intervention tactics ( f ights, assaults, weapons). (Strategies for women teachers to use in physical confrontations.) Safety and Security Department has worked in a number of schools on crime prevention surveys. Additionally this department has visited churches, counselors, and McClellan Community School to talk about gang problems and identification. Begin a Gang-Violence Prevention Curriculum Program in all schools (K-12). X X A. B. Establish regular, Violence Prevention-model after Boston. Gang Intervention and Prevention-model Portland. planned meetings with a reservoir of community resource agencies to coordinate activities combating child abuse. Little Rock: crime, violence, and the \"gangification 11 of X Comments: X I A. Regular meetings of agencies, church groups (CJOHN), police, and Health department. Meetings have been held with PTA o roups, churches. Little Rock Police Department, COPE, and other groups to coordinate activities. Establish close ties with the media. Establish a Leadership Roundtable for city officials and school officials:X X A. Government leaders (mayor, 18 . I I X X 19 . 20. X B. C. D. E. legislators, judges ) . Chamber of Commerce Pol ice Teacher groups Community groups governor, !_x_L I I The LRSD will establish an office of safety and security. Establish an on-going review committee to monitor the of the implementation of recommendations report: X A. B. results contained in the Small committee (6-8 people) Monitor: 1 . 2 . 3. Security Gang activity Programs and Curricula suggested in the report. The governor and the legislature need to take action: A. Make assault on a school employee serious crime. a more B. C. Possession of a weapon on campus or bus should have a stronger penalty. Upgrade the penalty for possession of drugs/alcohol on a school D. campus. E. Establish strict zoning laws around school campuses. Toughen penalties on adults who cause disruptions on school campuses. Comments: After working with the LRSD Task Force, Mr. Butterfield (National School Safety Center) George was invited to address the Lt. Governors Task Force on Discipline. Mr. Butterfield shared items of concern that were reported in the LRSD report. Additionally, Sam Stueart was invited to address the Lt. Governors committee. testified on the Mr. Stueart Task Force report. same concerns expressed in the Both the Lt. Governor and Governor Clinton asked for and received copies of the report.TO: FROM: SUBJECT: SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON AUGUST 22, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 recejved AUG 2 6 J99I August 21j 1991 Office of Desegregaiicn fenitoring LRSD Board of Directors Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools \"Safe Schools\" Plan Attached is a 53-point action plan that references activities in the District that contribute directly or indirectly to the well-being, safety and security of our students. Also, attached are sample copies of letters to parents referred to in Point 26, page 8. \"Safe Schoolsrr 53-Point Action Plan 1991-92 A Report to the Board of Directors Little Rock School District August 22,1991 Following is a fact sheet detailing steps either underway, recently completed or soon to be implemented which contribute toward the improved environment for student well-being and safety in the schools in the Little Rock School District. Actions and decisions are predicated on these premises: -The well-being of the students in this District is a priority given serious attention by every staff member and a responsibility of every staff member. -A strategy of prevention, intervention and remediation will minimize the need for crisis reaction. -No one action will solve the problem, but each action, program or step is supportive of the entire process, leading to comprehensive, long-term results. -Securing the publics confidence in the degree of safety and security provided by the District requires decisive actions and frequent communication about these actions. (Where appropriate, actions listed below include in italics a start or completion date, cost, responsible department and reference number to the relevant recommendation contained in the 1989 Safety \u0026amp; Security Task Force Report.) 1 1. Safety \u0026amp; Security Task Force Review Committee At its next meeting the committee will review and identify needed additions, clarifications or amendments to the 1989 report recommendations. The committee, which meets monthly, held its first meeting in June. Three of its members, plus the LRSD safety and security director, were members of the 1989 task force. Members are teachers, principals, patrons and community representatives. August 1991, Safety and Security, 19. 2. Heightened security awareness associated with opening of school year Summer maintenance, building improvements, new security measures, letters to parents, inservice training and planning and other focuses on safety will elevate the importance of all aspects of the school operation in connection with safety improvements. August 26,1991. 3. Closed door practice Every principal has been mandated to assure that any door that is necessary to secure or control access to every 3 building in the District will remain locked this year except one front door available to the public. Every building in the District was audited this summer and comprehensive repair or replacement of every door or door frame necessary for controlled access will be completed by the end of September. Cost to date for labor and materials is $100,000. Another $70,000 of expense is anticipated. In some buildings this repair or replacement was for outside doors to the buildings and on some buildings, due to building design where classrooms open to the outside, the work involved repair to classroom doors. The $100,000 figure includes $16,000 in parts and 300 to 400 hours of labor already expended and $84,499 for contracts awarded August 20 for repairs at Parkview, Jefferson, Forest Park, Pulaski Heights Junior, Pulaski Heights Elementary and Dunbar. Remaining schools where contracts will be awarded are McClellan, Hall and Wilson. It is estimated that remaining work will account for another 400-500 work hours. Completion by the date set is contingent on hardware availability, because the scope of the project has placed a tremendous demand on suppliers in the Little Rock area. August-September 1991, $170,000, Plant Services, 9. 24. Housing Authority assistance to monitor attendance Officials of the Little Rock Housing Authority and the District will work cooperatively to monitor attendance of students in the District who live in the Highland Park and Hollinsworth Grove projects. The Authority also has agreed to assist with transportation for parents to attend parent-teacher conferences and other school functions, as well as to provide space for after-school study centers. A letter co-signed by a Housing Authority official and the superintendent was sent to parents August 10. Additionally, police have agreed to pick and take to school other truants. August 1991, deputy superintendent. 5. Hotline 9V Students and patrons can notify the District of security concerns. A separate number, 688-3033, has been established. The voice mail box arrangement, which will be monitored every 90 minutes, lets persons telephone and leave their message in response to recorded instructions. It also instructs persons to call another number in case of emergency. A plan to communicate the availability of the service is being developed. Kickoff is set for August 26. August 1991, Safety and Security, Communications Department, 9. 6. Fight Back Insure the Children The District, in cooperation with the City of Little Rock and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arkansas is sponsoring a comprehensive drug abuse and alcohol program which will provide insurance for an extensive treatment plan for every child in the District. The contract will be signed August 23. August 1991, Pupil Services. 7. Crisis management plans Each principal, using criteria developed in 1989, will appoint a school-based committee to update individual school emergency plans which prepare for various categories of occurrences including earthquakes, tornadoes, fires, bomb threats or violent incidents. Plans, depending on building design, may include, for example, pre-determined codes and instructions for student and staff movement during an emergency. All school personnel will be familiar with the plan for their school. Copies of the plans are filed with the Security Office. The security director and the assistant superintendent for that school who will review the plans and monitor buildings and personnel for awareness and compliance. October 1,1991, Safety and Security, building principals, 8. 38. Dialogue with law enforcement officials In order to determine and monitor potential problem situations with certain students and with an aim toward either removal of hard-core cases or assistance where warranted, the District has stepped up its interface with local law enforcement agencies. Two units, one dealing with gangs and one that deals with youth investigations (primarily crimes against persons) have been formed by the Little Rock Police Department. Representatives from the units met with principals during the Principals Institute in mid-August. Safety and security staff will monitor and serve as a go-between as needed. August 1991, Safety and Security, 17. 9. Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook revision The handbooks for the elementary and secondary levels were revised during the summer. Each version clearly defines acceptable standards of student conduct. Each student will receive the book. Elementary teachers are working on classroom strategies or steps for intervention in disciplinary situations that will be used in support of the handbooks during the year. To underscore the need .4 for uniformity in use and to raise the importance of the handbooks in the students eyes, during the first week of school, every elementary teacher in a school will teach the handbook simultaneously for a number of minutes each day. Students will be pre- and post-tested on their understanding. Parents must sign off to acknowledge awareness of rules. Teachers will keep accurate documentation in the grade books to assure due process is followed in disciplinary actions. August 1991, Pupil Services, assistant superintendents, 1. 10. Safety, security component for school improvement plans Principals at Principals Institute in mid-August conducted group (elementary, junior high and senior high) planning for security needs and solutions to use in development of the safety/security component of school improvement plans each school will develop and file by midSeptember. Mid-September 1991, assistant superintendents. 411. Violence prevention, personal safety training for school staff A 45-minute workshop for building staff on violence prevention and personal safety, will be provided on request. Four sessions have been scheduled to date. The session includes suggestions for conduct before and after school and techniques to prevent potentially violent situations from escalating. Reminder bulletin about availability will be mailed. August 20,1991, Safety and Security, 13. 12. New hand-held radios Fifty two-way, hand-held radios to replace old models were purchased during the summer and have been allocated to staff at seven schools. Currently all secondary schools and approximately 12 elementary schools have hand-held radios. August 1991, $10,000, Safety and Security, 5. 13. Secured parking for Quigley Stadium Central High School principal and security staff will provide for parking inside the fence on the practice field and the tennis courts for all football games at Quigley * Stadium during 1991-92. Security officers will patrol the lots. Cost will be $2. Parkers may purchase tickets at the east gate for seating on either side of the field. August 1991, Central High School, Safety and Security. 14. Drug testing program All Transportation Department drivers, aides and mechanics have been tested for the presence of drugs and alcohol pursuant to the policy adopted by the Board of Directors in June (only drivers and aides are mandated for testing\nother transportation employees were tested voluntarily). They were tested for alcohol, cocaine, morphine, barbiturates, marijuana, amphetamines, metham- pheumines and PCP. Testing was conducted by District staff and confirmed by tests administered by the University of Arkansas Medical Center. Three tested positive and are no longer employed by the District Testing is planned again in January. Additionally, each transportation employee is subject to two random drug tests at unannounced times during the year. Probable cause drug screening, begun several years ago, will continue as needed. August 1991, January 1992, ongoing, $20,000, Transportation and Safety and Security, 3. 515. Removal of window coverings Every teacher will remove all coverings from classroom door windows to afford easy view of the classroom. August 26,1991, teachers, building principals. Safety and Security, 9 16. Clean buildings and grounds Ground crews have worked this summer to prune shrubbery to allow maximum visibility, repair broken or cracked glass, repair loose hinges, repair steps and install emergency lighting. Also, $37,000 has been spent to add monitoring security for expansions at six schools. More sites will be added to the monitoring network when construction is completed. Personnel from safety and security, plant services, as well as assistant superintendents, will visit each building during the first semester to recommend further site improvements. July-August 1991, $50,000, Building Services, Safety and Security, assistant superintendents, 9. 17. Reading teacher assigned to Cornerstone Project The District will pay the salary this year for a reading . teacher to tutor participants in the program that serves junior and senior high school students throughout the year from 3:30 until 10 p.m. daily. Students take part in classes offered by the staff and volunteers that focus on drug prevention, career awareness, computer literacy, self- esteem and personal achievement skills. Funding will be from the Districts Compensatory Education Grant. August 1991, associate superintendent for educational programs. 18. Improvements for compensatory education Each of the four restructured junior high schools will have additional math and reading teachers assigned. All other secondary schools will have an additional reading teacher assigned. Proper attention to compensatory needs will contribute toward acquisition of skills. August 1991, associate superintendent for educational programs. 619. Academic Progress Grants Thirty-two areas schools may apply for $25,000 grants which can be used to assist with their improvement plans and which must be targeted at improving student achievement. Parts of approximately 12 applications have been approved. The grant money may be used for extended-day tutorial services, parent involvement activities, more hands-on activities, additional field trips that relate to daily instruction or activities that promote self-esteem. August-October 1991, assistant superintendents, associate superintendent for educational programs. 20. Expanded drug education program An enhanced drug education program will be added this year into health, science and social studies curriculum at the junior high level. August 1991, associate superintendent for educational programs. 21. Relevant staff development activities The District staff development program will offer over 71 mini courses and training courses during the school year that focus on prejudice reduction, classroom management, the Program for Effective Teaching, sensitivity to student needs and the delivery of instruction that provides for more direct and engaged learning experiences that actively involve students in the process. August 1991 - June 1992, associate superintendent for educational programs. 22. Active pursuit of federal grants The District federal programs office will aggressively pursue acquisition of federal monies which the District can use in various programs and approaches to student safety, security, well-being and compensatory education. August 1991-June 1992, Federal Programs. 23. Purchase of drug dog services Each secondary school will be searched at least one time each month by a specially trained dog and its trainer. The dog will search lockers and parking lots. The dog can detect marijuana, cocaine and amphetamines, as well as firearms. All searches will be during school time. Students will not be searched. This is the first time the District will have used a drug dog. September 1991, $14,000, Safety and Security, Safety and Security, 3. 724. School safety drills Each schools must, in addition to the fire drills routinely practiced by schools for years and the more recently added drills for bomb scares, earthquakes and tornadoes, educate students on proper actions to take in the event of a shooting. This includes a reverse fire drill and gunman (bullet) drills. Each principal has been instructed on a drill procedure to follow and will keep written records of these drills. Teachers must carry class rolls with them during drills.Drills will be conducted by the fifth day of each month. Assistant superintendents and Safety and Security will monitor. September 1991, Safety and Security, assistant superintendents, 8. 25. Resource police officer program A meeting at 1:30 p.m. September 3, the superintendent, Little Rock police chief and Little Rock city manager will discuss with secondary principals options related to a police officer resource program. September 3,1991, ongoing, superintendent, 7. 26. Letters to parents of all secondary students Each secondary principal has drafted a letter for parents that will be mailed during the first week to 10 days of school telling them what safety/security improvements have been made over the summer and about additional plans. The letter will be co-signed by the superintendent. September 3, 1991, assistant superintendent for secondary schools. 'll. Student and staff photo identification badges Each high school has requested that badges be provided for all students. Students will be required to carry the badges with them but not to wear them. No junior high school has requested badging this year. Additionally, all LRSD staff NOT based at a school will be badged and required to carry the badge when on school premises. September through November 1991, $25,000, Safety and Security, 10. 828. Crime prevention clubs Each elementary school will implement a club to further students understanding, awareness and cooperation with law enforcement officials and the legal process. Assistant superintendents will monitor progress. September-December 1991, building principals, 10. 29. Survey of public opinion to develop baseline data To assess safety issues and to measure progress in meeting public expectations, a telephone survey of the public, including students, will be conducted. September 1991 and annually, $1,500, Communications Department. 30. Media/crisis communications training Representatives from each school and Central Office administrators who work with news media routinely during the year or during an emergency situation will receive this training. September-October, 1991, Communications Department. 31. School safety profiles A checklist of District criteria reflecting all the areas a school should address annually relative to safety and security will be developed and the status of each school in addressing these will be assessed. The instrument will be useful to target and direct resources and to report to the public status and improvements. January 1992, Safety and Security. 32. Police officers eating lunch in schools LRPD has agreed that police officers on patrol may be invited to have lunch in school cafeterias. To support this partnership, the District will provde the lunches free of charge. A letter will be sent to the chief of police formalizing the proposal. September 1991, School Food Service, 7. 33. Alternative schools at elementary level Three elementary schools will be identified to have an . alternative classroom for the 1991-92 school year. Planning for operational criteria and staffing is underway. Implementation is scheduled for the second nine weeks. November 1991 -January 1992, assistant superintendents for elementary schools, 4. 934. Community gang activity awareness and prevention training Upon request, this four-session training, begun in September 1990, will be presented to church and community groups and at McClellan Community School. Ongoing, Safety and Security, 14. 35. Gang/violence prevention curriculum Current curriculum based on a Boston program in use in the District by teachers and counselors since 1989 will be reviewed and compared with a model used in Portland, Oregon. A recommendation will be made to associate superintendent for educational programs. Curriculum should provide preventive, rather than punitive, alternatives to some of the acting-out behavior that teenagers are prone to display. August 1992, Pupil Services, associate superintendent for educational programs. 36. Liaison with fire and police departments A Safety and Security Department supervisor serves as liaison between the District and these two departments, usually daily contact. Crime prevention surveys and routine calls for help on bus stops are monitored. Fire department inspections and visits are scheduled, also. Ongoing, Safezy and Security 37. Playground safety inspections Each playground will be checked for dangerous situations or needed repair on equipment. Police incident reports are scanned for notices of playground problems. The building principal is notified. Ongoing, Safety and Security, Risk Management, assistant superintendents for elementary schools. 38. Off-duty police protection Protection is provided at all athletic events and other school meetings and functions, based on the type of event, location, size and other factors. Assignment is done cooperatively among the District, LRPD and the Pulaski County Sheriffs Office. Ongoing, Safety and Security. 1039. Building security Each structure in the District (approximately 81) is covered by perimeter, fence, door, glass, motion detection and/or sound detection devices to protect against fire, theft, burglary or break-in. Ongoing, $100,000 annually. Safety and Security, 11. 40. Crime prevention surveys LRPD and/or Little Rock Fire Department personnel, accompanied by District staff, assess safety and security needs of school sites periodically. Ongoing, Safety and Security. 41. Home-school visits District security personnel visit student homes on request from school staff or transport parents to schools for meetings when problems arise. Ongoing, Safety and Security. 42. Use of National School Safety Center consultant The National School Safety Center cooperates fully 4 with the LRSD to furnish requested assistance. Written materials, research results and recommendations are shared with District staff. Ongoing, $1,000 annually. Safety and Security. 43. Police assistance on bus stops and in neighborhoods 11 The District Transportation Department compiles a list of problem stops which is forwarded to the LRPD. Police officers pay particular attention to these areas, as does District Safety and Security staff. Ongoing, Salctyand Security, Transportation, 11.44. Office of Safety and Security and campus security officers The office has a director, two supervisors and 33 school-based campus security officers. The Safety and Security Office serves all schools, while the security officers are assigned in the secondary schools only. Each campus security officer is paid $7 an hour and works 40 hours weekly. Officers are assigned to work extra curricular events in the afternoons and night. Each junior high has two officers. Each high school has from one to five officers, depending on individual situations. They are not armed. Ongoing, $300,000 annually. Safety \u0026amp; Security, Support Ser\\ices, 18,5. 45. School bus total safety planning Every activity of the Transportation Department is designed to enhance the safety of LRSD students from the time they leave their homes in the morning until their return in tlie afternoon or evening. LRSD buses travel over five million miles annually. School bus transportation is statistically the safest form of transportation in service today. This is assured by a program that routinely and methodically includes supervisory training, maintenance training, drivers training, careful route and bus stop se- - lection and student and driver supervision. Ongoing, Transportation Department. 46. School bus vehicle inspection Route buses in daily operation range from 1983 to 1991 model vehicles. Vehicles are replaced when they reach 100,000 miles or sooner, if necessary. Each receives a complete safety inspection a minimum of every 30 days and a state inspection twice each year. Ongoing, Transportation Department. 47. Driver training courses for transportation staff 12 The285 drivers and drivers aides, as well as the safety supervisors, dispatchers and mechanics, receive three drivers training courses. The courses are the state school bus drivers training program, the commercial drivers license training program and a defensive driving program. Ongoing, Transportation Department.4 48. Bus route safety planning 49. Bus stop location factors 50. On-bus communication, behavior management Route selection is managed via a computerized routing system that determines the safest and most efficient and economical routes to follow. Copies of routes and all route changes are furnished to students in advance by the school to ensure uninterrupted service. Emergency bus routes, used primarily during inclement weather conditions, also are prepared and distributed to students. There is a practice run of these routes in early November each year to ensure against confusion during actual emergency weather conditions. Ongoing, Transportation Department. Buses stop within four blocks of each elementary students home and within six blocks of each secondary students home, by school board policy. These stops are regularly monitored by transportation staff, safety and security and the police. Ongoing, Transportation Department. Each bus driver is in constant contact with the  Transportation Department via two-way radio. The Department can immediately contact all area hospitals, police and fire departments and area ambulance services, if needed. The bus is considered an extension of the classroom. Each student is assigned a specific seat and the driver is responsible for overseeing compliance. Any student activity which endangers the vehicle or its passengers or is distracting to the driver or other motorists is recorded on the Bus Incident Report form and submitted by the driver to the school for appropriate disciplinary action. In severe cases of student misbehavior which prevent the further safe operation of the bus or present other imminent danger to fellow passengers safety, the driver will stop the bus and notify the transportation office by two-way radio. A supervisor, the police or both will be sent to deal with the problem. Dispatchers and supervisors have extensive training and detailed instructions on dealing with all emergency situations. Ongoing, Transportation Department. 1351. Driver selection, supervision of driving habits, effective student relations Constant and effective supervision of bus drivers includes monitoring on a daily basis of driving habits, ability to drive the route in a safe and timely manner and ability to deal effectively with students, patrons, school personnel and other employees. Driver safety meetings are held each month. Ongoing, Transportation Department, 6. 52. Character education curriculum As part of the overall curriculum revision process, a model citizenship program will be planned into the social studies curriculum that will consider socio-political decision making, justice, ethics, morality and practical application of civics. August 1992, associate superintendent for educational programs. 53. Deputy prosecutors make presentations to students Prosecuting Attorney Mark Stodola has offered to schedule deputy prosecutors one hour a week at secondary schools this year to talk about law, protections and rights, and penalties for dlegal actions. 1991-92, assistant su- * perintendent for secondaiy schools. 14LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTR ICT Forest Heights Junior High School 5901 Evergreen Street  Phone 671-6390  Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Dear Parents\nBelieving in the motto, \"RHAT'S BEST FOR KIDS\", the Forest Heights staff certainlv knows that student safety is and always lias been of grea t import ance. Forest Heights will maintain a safe and secure environment by following the measures listed below. 'File administrative staff will do on goin, evaluations of these procedures and monitor and adjust as needed, are in effect for the 1991-92 school vear. The following measures 1) Teachers will stand outside their classrooms before and after class 2) 3) time so as to monitor student safety\nClassroom doors will be locked from the inside\nTis'o full-time campus supervisors will monitor the campus. vi.sitors and A) students\nBefore and after school, the campus will be monitored by si.x certified teachers and three administrators, in addition to the two campus 5) supervisors\nDuring lujich time. three certified teachers, administrators and camtxis 6) 7) supervisors will monitor the campus\n.Administrators will be present for all extracurricul activities\n8) Off duty policeman will assist administrators in monitoring student safety during athletic events\nThe Forest Heights School Emergency/Safety Plan will be reviewed, revised 9) and taught to all staff\nFinally, it should be mentioned that al the campus at all times. three administrators will monitor If at any time during the school year, you have any questions concerning measures please feel free to call my office at 671-6390. these Sincerely, Ax Richard Maple, Principal Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Cloverdale Junior High School 6300 Hinkson Road Phone 570-4085 Little Rock, Aiknnsoj 72209 tear Parents, Sumner reports regarding disruptive teen Lxtiiavior in oiir city have heightened our resolve regardiiig school safety. Clearly, our goal is to ensure that Cloverdale continues to offer .a disciplined environiicnt conducive to learning. During the sunnier, our staff conducted an annuaJ. school safety audit of facilities, policies and proccclures. The following recaimendations on school, safety wiJ.J be .implemented, continued or revised during the 1991-92 schoo.L year: 1. 2. 3. Revise and update the annual security plan. Repair all doors, locks and security equipnent. Continue the need for clear, fair and consistent nile enforcement that pronotes a belief in the validity of school rules. 4. Continue to conduct safety drills: fire, oartliquake. 5. tornado, evacuation, etc. Control and monitor the access points to school grounds 6. Increase security and surveillance. Additional staff 7. 8. 9. persons will assist the two security guards and ndininistrritors with buildings and grounds supfervision. Update the crisis management plan. Continue to solicit parental participation in the supervision of students and the screening of visitors. Provide additional inservice training regarding safety for students and staff. Since campus safety is everyone's business, including students, parents, teachers, staff and administrators, you are encouraged to take responsibility for the safety of our children by doing the following\n1. 2. Review carefully the district, school and team rules' regarding discipline and safety. Clearly explain to your child your expectation for appropriate student behavior. 3. Report suspicious individuals or unusual activity ininediately. Teach your child ways to resolve conflicts. Your support is critical. A safe and productive school year is our goal. We are confident that when heme and school work cooperatively together, our students develop a sense of belonging that premotes an increased sense of security and academic success. feel free to call us at 570-4085. to serve you. If you have questions, please Thank you for giving us the opportunity 4 . Gayle B? Bradford, Princi] A. Ruth Steele, Superintendent ^hall high school 6700 \"H\" Slreel Lillie Rock, Arkonsos 72205 661-9000 August 7, 1991 Dear Parents/Guardians of Hall High School Students, Recently there has been a heightened concern in our community about the safety and security of school environments. At Hall High School we share your concerns that your young people are safe and secure while in our care during the school day or at after school activities. We are committed to providing a well supervised and meaningful educational experience for all of our students. For the 1991 - 92 school year several measures will be undertaken to secure our All the exterior doors to the building have been surveyed to determ.ne campus. Where repairs are necessarj', if the locking mechanisms are in working order. they have been requested. During the school day all exterior entrances to the building will be secured, al lowing-entrance only through the front entrance of the building. As we have operated lest school year, students will not be permitted to leave the campus without permission, nor congregate in unsupervised areas of the campus during the school day. Your coope.ration is requested in directing your students to enter the building upon arrival and remain in the appropriate areas of the campus at all times. Two security officers will beon duty each day and at after school extra curricular activities. All four administrators, as well as available instructional personnel, will supervise students before and after school and during the periods between classes. Faculty members will monitor the corridors at their classroom doors as students pass to class each hour. As we have in the past, we will continue to rely on the prompt assistance of the Little Rock Police Department in the event of an emergency which requires the presence of law enforcement officers. We will restate our expectations that students treat each other with kindness and respect. We will continue to closely monitor student behavior and remove from the campus individuals whose actions threaten the safety and well being of others. We are optimistic about the opening of school. climate of quiet excellence. Hall High School has enjoyed a Our students are mostly well behaved and cooperative. With your support and the cooperation of our young people we will have an outstanding school year. We need not forget that. Sincerely, Victor Anderson Principal Ruth S. Steele Superi ntendentSkip Rutherford LITTLE ROCK August 23, 1991 Ms. Ann Brown Metropolitan Supervisor Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann: I thought you would find the attached secondary school analysis of interest. Included are some of the more serious discipline categories. Reports are available from the School District which list all the categories for all the schools. It is my belief  and concern - that safety and security issues are having a detrimental impact on the Little Rock School Districts desegregation plan. As I have stated before, parents who are enrolling their children in any Little Rock public school need to know the 1990-91 individual building crime statistics. Si !rely, mhei ip Rpiherford 1 SR:sw Attachment1990-91 SECONDARY SCHOOL CRIME STATISTICS Data based on Little Rock School District Fourth Quarter Attendance Report and Little Rock School District Suspension Data Report Quarter 1 to Quarter 4. 176 student class days SENIOR HIGH Category (District Code #) Enrollment: Fights (1030) Assaults on Students (2010) Thefts (2030) Indecent Exposure (2100) Paging Device (2123) Physical Assaults on Staff (3071) Possession of Firearm (3080) Central 1460 25 5 2 2 3 1 0 Fair 801 37 4 1 0 1 0 0 Hall 1145 41 6 3 1 2 0 3 McClellan 945 42 4 8 0 3 0 1 Parkview 766 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 TOTAL 5,117 161 19 14 4 9 1 4 District TOTAL 25,134 1,056 87 71 32 31 26 13 Possession of Weapon (3090) Use of Weapon (3121) Gang Membership (3123) 6 59 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 8 1 1 4 15 0 0 2 0 6TUNTOR HIGH Category (District Code #) Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest TOTAL District TOTAL Enrollment 719 606 748 863 609 855 692 655 5,747 25,134 Fights (1030) 108 83 94 102 48 64 72 112 683 1,056 Assaults on Students (2010) 9 6 4 11 0 1 0 6 37 87 Thefts (2030) 4 4 7 5 0 9 0 6 35 71 Indecent Exposure (2100) 5 1 2 0 0 3 5 1 17 32 Paging Device (2123) 1 3 2 0 7 4 0 3 20 31 Physical Assaults on Staff (3071) 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 10 26 Possession of Firearm (3080) 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 6 13 Possession of Weapon (3090) 4 1 0 3 8 1 5 6 28 59 Use of Weapon (3121) 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 Gang Membership (3123) 1 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 8 15 These totals represent only those offenses which resulted in: 1. 2. 3. out-of-school suspensions long-term suspensions expulsion They do not include incidents which did not result in 1.2 or 3. (In-school suspensions are not included)SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON NOVEMBER 21, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED NOV 2 7 1991 TO\nNovember 21, 1991 Board of Directors Office of Desegregation ftonitoiing FROM: SUBJECT: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON SECURITY I am attaching information on the Resource Officer Program and a report on the activity of the drug dog which should be attached to the report on security.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 November 19, 1991 TO: FROM: Dr. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools './Dr, Angela Maynard Sewall, Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools SUBJECT: Resource Officers Job description is acceptable to both principals committee and the four officers from LRPD. Prior to any program the budgets of both entities, LRSD and City of LR must be examined in light of programmatic costs. Proposal is for officers to be selected and new recruits to be hired and trained by LRPD to replace the officers on the force who became Resource Officers. The program, if approved by the School Board and City Board, could not begin until fall as new officers have 15 weeks of basic training and then 12 weeks of training with a senior officer i.e. 27 weeks of training which means at least 6 months of lead time is necessary. Comparative costs: Campus Security Guards - (approximately 10,600 plus benefits for 9 months) School Resource Officers - approximately 28,000 each (this is entry level i.e. experienced officers, which are preferable, would cost more.) The District would have to commit to providin\nig some staff development to the officers in addition to normal training provided by LRPD. Officers would work a teachers contract, 192 days. AMS/sh Attachment:LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Police Resource Officer JOB GOAL: To implement the Police Resource Officer program which has as its goal the provision of information in regard to the ways in which enforcement relates matters to students, faculty and administration, program are: The objectives of the 1. To prevent students from becoming involved in behaviors that violate state statutes and city codes and District policy\n2. To establish an improved rapport between law enforcement officers and youth\n3. To assist the building staff and administration in providing security for students\n4. To act as a resource to staff and students in legal matters and violence prevention intervention\n5. To help to provide an educational environment that offers prevention programs in determining youth involvement in gang activities, crime, alcohol, and drug abuse\n6. To assist in the coordination of community resources in promoting interagency approaches to the solution of community youth problems. PRINCIPAL DUTIES: 1. Counsels with students regarding law enforcement matters, primarily upon self-referral. 2. Serves as resource speaker for assembles and in classrooms as requested by the principal and/or teachers. 3. Monitors locations at the school considered \"trouble spots\" for students and teachers recommendations to the principal for correction.Police Resource Officer Cont'd. Page -2- A. Confers with students, staff, parents and others upon the request of the principal or his designee. 5. Assists principal with problems stemming from neighborhood conflicts that arise at school. required to consult with parents.) (Visits to homes may be 6. Exercises legal police authority. 7. Attends and participates in extra-curricular activities as assigned by the principal. 8. Attends staff meetings and assists with faculty inservice upon request of the principal. 9. Supervise students as other staff members do. 10. Adheres to the policies, rules and regulations of the School Board, the school and the LRPD. 11. Maintains a daily log of activities and provides a summary to the principal upon request. 12. Other duties as assigned. GUIDELINES: 1. The school resource officer will work approximately forty hours per week. The school resource officer will be compensated for any time worked over forty hours according to LRPD policy. The school resource officer's overtime or compensatory time will be monitored by the resource supervisor. Time off will be authorized by the resource supervisor along with school personnel. 2. The School Resource Officer may review students' records only with the consent of parents and upon request/approval of the principal. 3. The School Resource Officer may attend due process hearings in cases that involve violations of statutes or city codes for the purpose of providing information.Police Resource Officer Cont'd. Page -3- 4. The School Resource Officer may conduct investigations in a manner that complies with School Board policies, state statutes and city codes. May exercise arrest powers as needed. Resource officers will wear their uniforms at extra-curricular activities and at other times as designated by the principal. 6. Concealed firearms will be carried while wearing plain clothes. If the officer is in uniform, the weapon shall be worn. 7. A weekly activity summary will be submitted to the principal. Also, a monthly activity summary will be submitted to the resource officer supervisor and principal. 8. Resource officers will notify the principal upon each departure from the campus and will notify the principal's secretary prior to departure. Such notification is to include destination and time of return. 9. Requests from teachers for the resource officer as a classroom speaker will be made in writing to the principal and will include time, date and topic, officer. The principal will notify the QUALIFICATIONS: 1. The candidate must have a minimumn of three years as a police officer with the Little Rock Police Department. 2. Officer must have effective oral communication skills. 3. Officer must have effective written communication skills. 4. Officer must have strong desire to work with young adults. 5. B.A. degree or equivalent combination of training and experience is preferred, but not mandatory. 6. Requirements may be waived by the Chief of Police, based on the needs of the program.Police Resource Officer Cont'd. Page -4- EVALUATIONS: The evaluation of the program will include the following components: 1. Written evaluation by principals, including suggested improvements. 2. Written evaluation by school resource officer, including suggested improvements. 3. Survey of all staff members of schools. 4. Survey 10% of students, including high and middle school students. 5. Survey 10% of parents of high and middle school students. 6. Compare pre and post data for suspensions, attendance, dropout incidents involving unauthorized non-students on campus and juveniles processed into the juvenile justice system.OFFICE OF SAFETY AND SECURITY done at this point Approximately 20 drug searches . in the secondary schoo addition, he has used dogs at his aisp + 4-  moC _ has three dogs belonging to other police agencies at times. IS licensed by Durham-Haus Working Dogs - Agency with a Schedule 1 and 11 permit. the Drug Enforcement with a All dogs are Association. certified by the National Narcotic Dog Detector Student lockers searched in the schools. search is lots. Dogs are trained to detect cocaine, methamphetmine, marijuana, and gunpowder/^A c^/ Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 1. PRINCIPALS' MEETING September 24, 1994 Opening remarks by the Superintendent RECEPS SEP 2 W\u0026lt;)4 Oflico 0^ Cvesegrej lea' T\u0026gt; '8 2. Principal evaluation instrument 3. Mobile Security Force 4. Security guard contract 5. Crisis communications plan 6. Discussion of security needs 7. Crisis prevention planATTACHMENT 9 Revised September 1994 Little Rock School District Crisis Communications Management Plan This \"Crisis Communications Management Plan\" is a supplement to the LRSD 1994-95 Procedures for School Closings and Operations During Emergency Conditions which provides an outline for response by various individuals to a crisis situation in the Little Rock School District. It will also serve as a supplement to each school's individual emergency response plan as it relates to communications and media concerns LRSD Administrative Directive 92-1 IS, dated October 6, 1992, is a reminder that District policy requires that all press inquiries for information are to be directed to the Communications Office to ensure coordination, clarity and consistency in messages to the public It also states that the superintendent will act as District spokesman and in his absence, the Communications Director will act as District spokesman. Whether durin .. a crisis situation or a more routine media inquiry, when you receive any media request, direct the news representative to the Communications Office. At the same tune, telephone the Communications Office to alert it about the news media request and the nature of the information being sought. This wiU allow the Communications Office prepare tor the forthcoming media call and either prepare an information response 7 . --O------------- \u0026gt;**** wxvu^^i an iiuviuidui oegin to determine from whom the necessary information will be obtained. to or 5 m ^ O unusual event which involve District personnel students wiH determine the level of involvement by the District Office of Communications. Many situations will be handled by the school staff, but certain situations, such as a shooting, hostage, bodily harm of any kind or a natural disaster or would require the Director of Communications to be at the site. The person at each school listed as that site's media representative in the school's emergency plan will assist the Director of Communications at the site durin the emergency situation. Those duties are set out below. There will be numerous groups that must be reached during and after a crisis. A checklist XLlvX uUvOi  Staff, students, and school crisis team - District administrators and school board members - Police, fire, disaster - Media - Parents/guardians - Community experts (clergy, government, counselors) - General public In order to get a better idea about the variety of activities that will be simultaneously linnftrWziV nlinno a nncic fk\u0026lt; \u0026lt;.1__________ . ... undenvay during a crisis, this plan lists steps that the Communications Director will take^ ainno ixzitn com** Uz* -ix-__________ i  some of the steps that site personnel and au?tiliary groups may be taking that Will ________________________j_ -/or j vxxcx*. will relate to media and information needs. O a DAYl Site (In accordance with Building Security Plan) Assess situation, DO NOT move or disturb evidence at site RSCEiVEB SEP 2 4 Ollies ol DesegraaaVon MoniSornQ Pat- liarsGather needed information for emergency calls Call 911: - Give assessment of situation (name, address, phone number of school, etc.) Do not release names to anyone other than necessary school and emergency officials at this time until family/guardian can be notified. Notify District administrators who will begin implementation of 1991-92 Operations During Emergency Situations (Attachment 4, \"Notification of Personnel of Emergency Conditions\"\nAttachment 5, \"Operations During Emeroencv Conditions\"\nand Attachment SA, \"District Crisis Response Team\").' Call School Crisis Team together to begin their pre-assigned duties. J Set up crisis meeting room\nmay be area of command post. If for some reason the school building cannot be used for a command post, contact a neighbor to see if their ho me, business or church could be used. (The initial contact should be made before the cnsis occurs.) Secure area until Director of Facilities Services arrives (Attachment 5). Be sure students and staff are safe and are not in an unsecured area or in the hallways. Notify staff of the situation in order to squelch rumors and panic. Use one door for entrance and exit Secure all other doors. Contact parents or guardians of students and immediate relatives of staff involved. Plan for orderly exit of students from site. Work with Director of Transportati (Attachment 5) for transportation services. on Be sure feeder schools have facts. If necessary and time of day will allow, write parent memo to be sent home. (Communications Office may assist in this if school equipment is unavailable), ^old faculty meeting after student dismissal, give update, discuss Day 2 agenda. Director of Communications can outline expected media coverage and how to respond to the media. Allow for a question and answer period. School media representative assists Director of Communications at site. - Should you receive media inquiries during the hours or days immediately following the accident/emergency, and in the absence of the Director of ^mmumcations, direct the news representative to the Communications Office. At the same time, telephone the Communications Office to alert it about the news media request and the nature of the information bein- sought. This will allow the Communications Office to prepare for the forthcoming media call and either prepare an information response or beoin to determine from whom the necessary information will be obtained.  - Set up media room. Make sure that media room has telephone(s) and electrical outlets. 'O'* - If the pre-assigned media room is not available due to the crisis situation locate another room. Be sure to notify the Director of Communications of the change. o Escort media to media room through designated entrance. - Assist Director of Communications with media and further briefing. Q Pat* 19*r22Auxiljary Groups (police, fire, medical) Provide one person from whom information and details can be obtained. Secure area. Do not destroy, move or remove evidence (shell casings, footprints, gun, etc.) Set up security area around area and next to evidence. Use one path to/from area. Set up Command Post. Anyone in the area during the crisis must report to this post. Obtain following information: - Where is the disturbance? -\u0026lt; Has someone been injured? - Are victims being held? - Where are the victims?  Are power sources operational?  Are phone lines operational? - Access to roof? - Trap doors?  Post person at secured entrance to observe who comes in and out. - If rooms have been evacuated, post a sign on the door.  In the case of a drive-by shooting, I.D. car license, car make, color, identifying marks, dents, etc. Communications Director: Get facts from principal and police. Check with school media representative to see what media contact has occurred. Set up media room (phones, electrical, etc.) if not already completed by buildin: media representative. g Escort media to media room from designated entrance (site media representative will cover this responsibility). Assure that staff and students are not interviewed inside the school. The media will be allowed to interview staff and students outside the building. Notify staff of situation before media briefing. This will ensure that rumors will not get started and be perpetuated. Provide media with names, bios, dates, places and other background information. If confidentiality is an issue, explain. DO respond clearly and accurately to questions about the following: 1. What happened 2. Where it happened (as specifically as you can ascertain) 3. When it happened (date and time only) 4. What facilities and equipment were involved 5. Factual assessment of current situation 6. Number known injured, taken to hospital or dead (No names) DO NOT speculate and DO NOT attempt to answer questions about the following: 1. Possible causes 2. Blame or responsibility 3. Anything that might imply district liability, fault or negligence. 4. Monetary estimates of damage Pm* Morn5. Insurance coverage and FINALLY 1. If in doubt, leave it out. If you don't know the answer to a question, when appropriate, say you or someone else will try to find out and call back as soon as possible. 2. Nothing is ever \"Off the Record.\" Assume everything you say will be quoted. 3. Keep a record of whom you've spoken to (including phone numbers) and what facts you've released to the media. Set up general news briefing with primary players as soon as possible. Coordinate additional interviews for media\nset time and place for Day 2 briefing. news Review next day agenda and concerns with site administrators. Be sure superintendent, board members and other administrators involved are briefed/updated. Monitor all news coverage for accuracy. DAY 2 Site Secure campus. Hold faculty meeting if necessary, provide a written update for staff. School Crisis team will continue to visit classrooms and continue counseling. Counselors will continue follow-up counseling. Update feeder schools Decide if parent memo or meeting is needed. Send memo if needed. If parent meeting is required, organize a panel discussion - (possible participants include Principal, police, Director of Communications, crisis team, community experts. - Give facts - Explanation of what preventative measures are in place - Speak to issue of safety. Parents will ask, \"How do I know my child will be safe?\" - Questions and answers. Continue to monitor situation and keep close contact with the Communications Office, notifying it of any changes. Commanications Director Be sure superintendent, board members and other administrators involved are updated. Anticipate inquiries from reporters and conduct news conference. Set up \"reaction\" interviews for media. Monitor news coverage for accuracy. Pa II UBDAY 3 Site Return to normalcy. Reduce crisis team. Prepare any additional updates to faculty, parents, etc. Communications Director Provide updates and set up interviews for media from district office. Monitor news coverage for accuracy. Pm* ata5 X% C-z/ SECURITY GUARD CONTRACT 2 4 1994 O'/'ce of Desegregation Mofwcfing ARTICLE 12 HOURS OF WORK AMD OVERTIME SECTION 1. The work year for 9 1/4 month security guards is to be equal to the number of student contact days, plus four (4) additional days. The normal work year for twelve (12) month security guards shall be 235 days, July 1st through June 30. The normal work week for full-time employees shall be 40 hours beginning Saturday through Friday. The normal workday for full-time employees shall be eight (8) hours including two (2) fifteen (15)- minute breaks. Employees will take an unpaid, duty free, uninterrupted luncb period of thirty (30) minutes. If a lunch period or break is interrupted by an emergency, the employee shall be allowed to take the remaining time before the end of the shift. SECTION 2. Each employee shall be assigned to a definite shift, for student and non-student attendance days. with designated starting and ending times. split shifts shall not be used without the consent of the employee. Such assignments shall be totally voluntary. I All full-time non-exempt employees will be paid one and one half times their hourly rate for any work beyond forty (40) hours per week. Overtime work shall be avoided insofar as possible but may be required in the interest of efficient operation. For work in excess of the regular work week, the employee shall be paid the current overtime rate. The authorization of overtime work and personnel selected is the responsibility of the Building Administrator\nhowever, no overtime will be paid by the Security Department unless approved in advance by the designated representative of that Department. When it becomes necessary to require Security Guards to work outside the normal work week, the following procedure will be followed: 1. Guards regularly assigned to the site of the event will be offered the overtime first by seniority and will thereafter be rotated. 2. If sufficient guards from the site are not available or initially ask not to work the overtime, the District will attempt to cover the event with other qualified District security guards. 3. If the District is unable to adequately cover the security needs after steps 1 and 2 above. mandatory overtime will be required of theguard(s) regularly assigned to the site using the rotation established in step 1. When offering or requiring overtime, a seniority list by site will be maintained, and overtime will be assigned on a rotating basis. Whenever possible, the administration shall notify the employee of required overtime 24 hours in advance. SECTION 3. All employees shall be provided a break if their regular daily schedule calls for more than 4 (four) continuous hours of work. Breaks and lunch periods shall be scheduled as near as practicable to the middle of the shift for lunch or the half-shift for breaks. An employee who works a five (5)-hour or longer shift is entitled to a lunch break.R T E N I MEMO OFFICE To: From: Subject: Date: Ann Polly Safety and security wording in desegregation plans August 3, 1995 Attached you will find the pages of LRSDs desegregation plan that contain the wording safe and safety. The LRSD Desegregation Plan does not contain the word security. The Interdistrict Plan does not contain the words safe, safety, or security.7 SUPPORT SERVICES The Office of Support Services shall provide materials, supplies, equipment, and services to support a positive environment for learning in all schools. Facilities The District will provide clean and safe facilities and make all repairs fundamental to maintain incentive schools, magnet schools, and area schools in good condition. To this end, roofing repairs, painting, plastering, recarpeting, and other needed repairs will be made. Concrete walks and macadam drives will be in good repair. New public address systems and bell systems will be placed in buildings where such items are not repairable. Any school which has portable buildings will have these portables replaced with new units or repaired so that they will be in a condition suitable for use. The capacities of junior high schools will be reviewed in light of needed programs. Such capacities will then be revised as necessary. If, upon review, it is determined that inadequate junior high capacity exists in the District to meet programmatic needs of the District and/or intradistrict and M-to-M needs as they develop, then an adequate site will be located and planning will begin for the construction of a new junior high school. The District will involve the parties in identifying and planning for additional junior high capacity. Curriculum supervisors, and associate/assistant superintendents, and others as needed will be involved in the planning process. Construction of this junior high school will be completed on a timeline comparable to that followed for other newly constructed District/magnet schools and in a manner commensurate with building needs. The Purchasing Department will work with staff and principals in all schools to provide necessary materials and equipment. Data Processing Data Processing will provide the necessary support for all school and central office-based functions. Programs will be developed and implemented relative to the following areas: Dropout Statistics (to include the ability to generate data by race, gender, and grade on a school by school as well as district-wide basis). Test Scores (to include capacity to score tests and to generate data by race, gender, grade, school, subject area, and districtwide.) Student Achievement Data (to include the capacity to monitor test scores, grade distribution and other identified achievement data by race, gender, grade, subject, school and districtwide). Page 131COMPUTERIZED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The District will continue to use its automated routed system to make efficient use of district resources in providing transportation to those students eligible for transportation. The Transportation Department will also request additional resources to help provide transportation support for evening and extended day programs. In 1990-91, the District reduced its number of runs from three to two. The two run system has been well received by the community, and the district plans to keep this method of routing buses. The^Little Rock School District has made progress in the utilization of the Ecotran MapNet System It appears that the vastly improved 1988-89 opening of school justifies all the long hours both the District and Ecotran System spent in initializing the automated routing system. As a result of the proposed change in the student assignment plan (from city-wide open enrollment to home area schools) there is extensive work to be performed in updating the geographic files/table within the LRSD database. School attendance areas and updated walk zones need to be encoded into the map files. Transportation/safety policies need to be reviewed and updated properly and assignment promotion population region tables need to be created to ensure proper student assignment. The above massive database update teamed with the inherent problems such as grandfather assignment, magnet schools, etc. would tax the existing transportation personnel resources. Currently, these resources are busy attempting to keep ahead of day to day student assignments due to the district wide open enrollment. Therefore Ecotran Systems has proposed the following plan for service, for the 1989-90 school year. Proposed Services Transportation Ecotran Systems will update all geographic files to coincide with the new student assignment plan. All school attendance areas will be encoded into the geographic tables, corresponding walk zones will be generated for schools, alt transportation/safety policies will be reviewed and updated. Tables will be created to reflect new assignment/promotion procedures. In addition, Ecotran Systems will update all student data files relating to the student assignment changes. Students may then have the transportation eligibility determined utilizing then new established attendance areas and walk zones. An entire new stop network will be generated to improve efficiency and most economically utilize District resources. Assignment of students to the correct stop location by Ecotran Systems is the next procedure. Page 230LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TENTATIVE TIMELINE 1989 Date Action February 15, 1989 Contract signature. March 1, 1989 Control table development and verification for 1989-90 Desegregation Plan. March 1,1989 Geographic Files updated. Building new streets, subdivisions, review of transportation/safety policies, encoding of \"Home\" school attendance areas, walk zone generation. April 1, 1989 Initial student census download. The editing of student addresses and assignment of unaddressed students will occur. May 1, 1989 Student census download #2. Further correction of student addresses and updating procedures. May 22, 1989 Final student census download. Utilized to promote students to 1989-90 grade and assign to 1989-90 school of attendance. Address updating should be under 10% of total student census. June 1,1989 School assignment/transportation eligibility checked. Exceptions list provided to the District. June 8,1989 Stop generation. June 20, 1989 Stop review. July 1,1989 Route generation. July 15, 1989 Route review. July 22, 1989 Vehicle coordination generated. July 26, 1989 Vehicle coordination review. August 7, 1989 Final reports delivered to the LRSD. August 10, 1989 Pre-implementation meetings. August 22, 1989 School begins. Page 232DEC 2 1996 Little Rock School District Office of Desegregation Monitoring November 25, 1996 TO: FROM: Safety \u0026amp; Secuji^ Task Force Committee Members //\u0026gt; Jo Evelyn Elstoh, Director of Pupil Services RE: December Meeting A Safety \u0026amp; Security Task Force meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, December 12, 1996 in the LRSD Administration Boardroom from 5:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Please make every effort to attend this meeting. If you have any questions please feel free to call me @ 324-2162.07/30/2004 15:19 501-447-1161 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 02/02 810 West Markham T.irrlc Rock, AR 72201 For Immediate Release July 30. 2004 For more information: Robert Jones, 447-2077 Emergency Preparedness Drills to Take Place August 2 \u0026amp; 3 The safety of our students is our top priority. That is why the Little Rock School District has partnered with the Little Rock Police Department and MEMS to conduct mock emergency drills at two Little Rock schools on August 2 and 3. These drills will help prepare city law enforcement, rescue and school personnel to act in the unlikely event of an actual emergency at one of our schools- The first drill will take place on Monday, August 2, on the campus of Hall High School, located at 6700 H Street. This exercise will concern a sniper in the wooded area behind the school. The second drill will be Tuesday, August 3, at Forest Heights Middle School, 5901 Evergreen Street. This drill concerns a hostage situation inside the school building. Both exercises will consist of a briefing beginning at 9 a.m. and the actual drill, which is expected to commence at approximately 9:30 a.m. ###07/30/2004 15:19 501-447-1161 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/02 DATE\n810 West Markham UttleRock, AR 72201 Communications Office\nFax: (501)447-1025 (501)447-1161 - jpkU__ TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MESSAGE: # Pages {including cover) a To Fax# An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge i_r.oLi I luno Hage 02/02 810 West Markham Urrle Rock, AR 72201 For Immediate Release A.ugust 16, 2004 For more iniormation: Juiie Davis, 4474027 LRSD Safety \u0026amp; Security Department Holding Frofcssional Development Seminars The Dctle Rock School Districts Safety and Security Department is preparing for the start of the 200405 school year with a series of professional development seminars continuing through Wednesday, August 18. This valuable training will help the security officers perform their jobs better throughout the year. One of the most important seminars for district security officers is the fire suppression class, which will take place this afternoon (Tuesday) from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. Security officers will have the opportunity to extinguish an actual fire. The professional development seminars will take place at the LRSDs Garland building, 3615 West 25'*' Street. ###t-r.ov I iuno PAGE 01/02 lf\u0026gt; !\u0026amp;l \\ \\ ' -Rq^ i Bl ! I^'l 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Communications Office\nFax: (301} 447-1023 (501)447-1161 DATE\nFROM\nSUBJECT\nMESSAGE: * Pages (including cover) To Fax # An Individual Approach to a World of KnowledgeEstablish a Resource Police Officer Program in each Secondary SchooiWe made police power a positive force in our schools BY ANTHONY R. MORIARTY AND PATRICK J. FITZGERALD nCoIPS ON CAMPUS? This school must be in serious trouble.\" That's what some teachers and students at our suburban high school thought when they first heard about our plan to set up a police liaison program. But those initial suspi-aons have dissolved. And now, after almost four years of having police officers on campus every day, we can say the program has produced overwhelmingly positive resultsnot only for the school, but for the police department as well. The program started out simply to provide protection and security for the school. Over time, though, the police officers involved have contributed to the school in many waysoffering their expert advice on school security, teaching classes as guest lecturers, and establishing sound and healthy relationships with kids. A program like ours can work in your schools, too, and it costs little to set one up. Suggestions for starting a police liaison program appear in the article on page 14. Now, here are the details: Park Forest, Ill., is a diverse, middleclass suburb of Chicago. Students at Rich East High School (9-12\nenr.: 1,278) come from various backgrounds\nSome come from low-income families, some from families who are quite well off. Thirty-nine percent of our students are minorities (mostly black). Like most schools, we have kids who take advanced placement courses and others who need help with basic skills. When we began contemplating the need for police on campus. Rich East had not been troubled by any major incidents. But we were concerned: Drug problems were on the rise in the Chicago suburbs, and gang recruitment was increasing. At Rich East, people who weren't students Anthony R. A/lohorty is ossis/ont principal at /itch East /iigh School in Park Forest, III., and Patrick J. Pitrgerald is a defective holding the rank of corporal with the Pork Forest Police Deportment. Together, they coordinate the school/police liaison program. often wandered in and out of the building, and teachers were reluctant to confront these intruders. A major problem, we feared, was bound to develop sooner or later. We wanted to head off trouble. The two of usan assistant principal and a detective with the Park Forest Police Departmentbegan talking about ways to bring police officers or. campus. At first, we discussed using the police only for protection and security. Police officers, we agreed, would help the school handle trespassers, drug dealing, crowd control, and parking problems. In addition, they would serve as liaisons between the school and the police department. The questions we needed to work out were primarily logistical: Who would be in charge? How would police power be used on campus? Could officers make an arrest on school grounds? The answers to these questions came largely from school administrators, who laid out some firm expectations for the program. The officers involved had to want to work with teenagers. They had to act differently at school than on the streets: No hands on kids, no arrests on school grounds, no authority to suspend students, no guns, no uniforms. Ultimately, responsibility for discipline problems rested with the school's deansnot with the police officers. Both sides agreed this would be primarily a liaison program. That is, the 12 police officers involved would be cm-ployed full-time by the police department, working at the school only one day a week when they were off duty. The school system would pay the officers an hourly amount for their servicesbeginning at $9.50 an hour and increasing over time to $10.50. Typically, each officer would put in one six-hour day each week at the school. Officers would supervise football games and evening events and would be present in the building during the day for security purposes. Once wed agreed on these ground rules, we recruited police officers for the program. In interviews with candidates, we soon found that some couldn't live with the guidelines we had set up. Some didn't want to lock their guns in the schcral safe, as required. Others didn't like the idea that they couldn't make an arrest on the spot. Still others, when it came right down to it, had to admit they just don't get along with kids very well. Our best prospects, we found, were juvenile officers. They are accustomed to working with teenagers, and most of them genuinely like kids. They're used to exercising more latitude on the joband Heres how you can use campus cops constructively FOLLOW THESE EIGHT tips tO Set Up a police liaison program similar to the one at Rich East High School: 1. Select your liaison people carefully. The police department and your school should appoint one key person each to work with the programand these two individuals must be an effective match. They must understand each other's role, and they must be able to communicate well with each other and with other people. 2. Develop thoughtful employment criteria. Not every police officer wants toor shouldwork in a school. Screen out anyone who doesn't like working with kids and who rigidly follows police procedures regardless of the situation. The right person for the job should be comfortable and relaxed with kids, trained in how to handle young troublemakers, and able to turn student problems over to school people for resolution. We found juvenile officers best fit the bill. (One note\nOf the dozen officers working in the Rich East program, two are women and two are black. We want and need more of each. And so do other agencies and corporationswell- trained women and minorities are hot commodities in the justice field.) 3. Encourage officers to take on nonpolice roles. When officers tell kids about their hobbies and interests or give guest lectures, they have a chance to develop a rapport with kids that pays off in many ways. The officerswho too often see only the troublemakers get to know the responsible teenagers, too. And the kids get to know that cops are people they can trust. 4. Work with local officers. We debated whether to use local police or state troopers. State troopers, some people argued, would be more objective than local police officers, who might have dealt with some of our kids in the streets. Also, some people thought the state troopers would be more qualified and better trained. The argument in favor of local officers: They know our kids and work in our community, and many have kids enrolled in our school. As it's turned out, the local officers are a great choice. The kids know and recognize them on the street, and they refer to the officers as \"our cops.\" 5. Write specific operating procedures. Police officers are used to dealing with sound, clear policies and proceduresand they'll expect the same from your schools. Write clear and detailed guidelines for handling discipline problems, turning problem kids over to school executives, and consulting school officials if an officer needs to make an arrest. At Rich East, we developed a manual that we hand out to officers. 6. Sell your community on the program. The idea of police on campus can evoke images of serious problems. Parents, teachers, and even students might think the school is on the verge of chaos. When you present the concept to the community, be sure to emphasize that you are preventing future problems not trying to solve existing ones. 7. Set up accountability procedures. Make sure a detailed, workable recordkeeping system is in place when you start the program. At Rich East, we use a computerized data-base system to file entries that officers make in a daily logbook. This information is useful in several ways. From it, we compile an annual report, which we distribute to school board members, administrators, and the police chief. Also, by artalyzing the data from the log, we're better able to plan our security needs for regular events, such as those that occur during homecoming weekend. And we can evaluate trouble spots and determine where and when we need less security. 8. Base your program in the schools. Don't associate the program with the police department. Everyone should see and accept the officers as school staff members. This approach places primary responsibility with your school and avoids the notion that the police department is in charge of your campus. At Rich East, a police officer who sees the need to make an arrest must consult with the assistant principal and the dean of students.a.r.m. and p.j.r. to consulting probation officers, social workers, and others. Theyve had training in preventing much of the delinquent behavior likely to occur in a school. They know how to deal with problem kids and can help keep them out of the courts. Once we'd selected 12 officers, the next step was to introduce them into the school as smoothly as possible. To make everyone more at ease, we urged the officers to greet at least 25 students each time they came into the building. The officers also got involved in evening basketball leagues and even took part in the spring talent show. Before long, they knew dozens of students by name, and the kids grew to know the officers and looked forward to seeing them. What happened next took us by surprise. Frankly, school executives and teachers had not expected the police officers to be as well trained and well edu- YOUR VERDICT, PLEASE You might find this article controversial. Let us and your colleagues from across North America know your reactions. Turn to the reader reply card next to page 8, and give us your verdict. Well publish a roundup of the results in a later issue of The Executive Educator. cated as they are. Our officersmost of whom have college degreesare competent people with a variety of skills and a great depth of expertise. We took advantage of our officers' abilities by urging them to take on \"noncop\" roles. One officer gave a lecture to a business law class, and another spoke about sexual abuse to a psychology class. One officer found he enjoyed the classroom so much that he got his certification as a substitute teacher and now does substitute teaching on his day off (we lost him from the program, but we're glad we kept him in the classroom). Right from the start, the officers were at ease in handling the kids. Students gradually started coming to them with a variety of problems\nWhen a kid can't get into his locker or when he locks his keys in his car, he'll turn to our cops. Students also ask the officers what to expect when they have to go to court to answer speeding charges. The officers can be comfortable and open with students, yet they know how to set appropriate limits on familiarity. Meanwhile, the officers continually (Please turn to page it5 I THE executive educatorPolice power offer their expert advice on security matters to the school. For example, they have trained school deans and discipline officers in how to interview troublemakers, investigate a problem, identify drugs, and recognize gang activities. Because of their training in how to respond to emergenciesespecially medical emergenciesthe officers were able to offer valu- j able advice on setting up a crisis in- i tervention plan. And that's not all: When we were having a problem with thefts from the locker rooms, the officers analyzed the situation and suggested several ways to tighten security. When we wanted to make the school more secure overall, they assessed the entire building and grounds, making suggestions on steps we should take to improve security and recommending the kind of alarm system that would best meet our needs. The school budgeted for 12 hours a day  from the officerswhich costs us ap- j proximately $22,000 a year. For the school, that's a bargain\nHow else could 1 we hire the breadth of coverage and depth  of expertise our officers provide for only $22,0007 The officers, we know, aren't doing this for the money. They tell us they enjoy the kids and love being in the school. At the same time, they've reaped some important benefits. By developing , good relations with the kids, the officers i have an advantage on the streets that they  didn't enjoy before the program was ' established. Now, when a crime is com- i mitted in the community, students are ! more willing to tell the cops what they j know about it. In fact, the officers say the i kids were key in getting a gun off the streets and solving an arson and a shoot- I ing that occurred outside of school. , Despite a cautious beginning and ten- j uous initial acceptance by the school com-  munity, the school/police liaison pro- gram at Rich East High School has evolved into a multidimensional program. It helps the school prevent crime and delinquency, educates students and staff members, provides expert advice to the school, and satisfies everyonestudents, parents, teachers, administrators, and police officers. An ounce of prevention has turned out to be worth much more than we anticipated,  How do you rate this arliclt? Please tum to now ao 1|I5 1 , t the reply card lacittg page 26 and circle 181 it\n.s . a _ 90^ ll'c 1 you think it's excellent, 182 U you think it good, and 183 U you think it's poor. Thanks. 'sSecurity Provisions at Dallas Independent School District 2538 South Envoy. Dallas. TX 75215 Director - Eldrige Fisher Court Liasion - Bill Haggart Phone - 214-421-1453 A School Security Department provides assistance and monitors DISD's 200 schools (K-12). 21 Youth Action Centers are present which provide services to respective cluster/feeder schools. Each center is staffed with a specialist, teacher, clerical person and advisor. Students are referred to the Center by principals, parents, counselors or teachers. Students are counseled, home visits are made and parents counseled regarding disruptive behavior, school truancy and other behavior disorders. A contracted behavior agreement is made. If emergency situations occur they are called to lend support to schools in need of assistance. 18 Dallas Police Officers work through these centers. They are specifically assigned by the department to DISD. School Safety Resources 1. 2. School Crime and Violence Victims Rights Published by the National Safety Center \"Chaos to Calm\" - a film from the California Crime Prevention Council presents a variety of potential solutions to problems to school safety. 3. \"Safe Schools - Better Schools 4. Institute of Justice. \"What's Wrong With This Picture? is a film produced by the National II Award Winning - First place Gold Medallion for Documentary-Social Issues at the Houston International Film Festival. First place Gold Screen for Films by the National Association of Government Communicators. Recognized for Creative Excellence at the United States Industrial Film Festival. H This film, \"What's Wrong With This Picture?\", is designed to encourage It dialogue between school principals and their community resources, presents the critical issue of school safety in a frank and straightforward way, dramatizing real life incidents of crime and violence on school campuses. Five scenarios taken from interviews with actual school crime victims and witnesses, covering drug traffic and abuse, intimidation teacher \"burnout\", violence, theft and suicide are depicted. The film leaves little room for doubt that the problem does exist and that it is serious.PROFILE OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE UNIT DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS The Special Investigative Unit is a school system operation responsible for the provision of law enforcement services to  -  The 1988-89 budget for this the Dade County School Board. unit is approximately $4.2 million with a staff as follows: 1 Director 2 Assistant Directors 5 Supervisors 1 Data Specialist 9 Secretaries/Clerks 19 Investigators 33 Uniformed Patrol Officers 26 Uniformed Guards 20 School Resource Specialists The unit has a central office and four area offices. Each area office is staffed with a supervisor, one secretary and several investigators. the central office with one supervisor. The uniformed patrol is housed at FUNCTIONS\nINVESTIGATIONS Nineteen (19) investigators are assigned to feeder-pattern configurations centered around senior high school to provide follow up investigations to those incidents that are reported in accordance with the School Board Rules. They are also responsible for providing in-depth investigations into complaints against any School Board employee if a approved Additional by the Department responsibilities of include Personnel conducting Management. security surveys, liaison with local police and emergency response to school locations. PATROL UNIT Thirty-three (33) patrol officers in uniform and in marked vehicles provide patrol services to some 80 schools in the  ~  They are deployed in three inner city of Dade County. shifts that are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Their main function is to provide emergency response to ensure the safety of students and staff during school hours and during non-school hours to protect property and respond Occasionally, the uniformed patrol is to intrusion alarms. used as a strike-team to prevent a disturbance from taking place on a school campus. Within the uniformed division. twelve of the officers are assigned as School Resource Officers in a preventive-type program.NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SCHOOLS SECURITY UNIT I Supervisor: 8-4 Lindsey Payne A. Director C. Boyd, Jr. Supervisor: 4-12 Ronald Luki novi ch I Maintenance b Confidential Secretary Yvonne Reed I Detail Supervisor: l?-fl Vacant I Trainitigl hool-Based \u0026gt;unse1or Alexander Baptiste Bi enemy Brown Curtis Edgerson Harri s Marts Stewart Johnson Brpssette 1 School-Based Counselor R. DeLoach N. Hawkins D. Hollins R. Janes R. Jones L. LaBranch R. Thomas R. Smith D. Stukes T. Chamberlain W. Jones R. Malone V. Sorina J. Hensley (Vacant) Patrol S. Adams H. Baptiste C. Condo!\" R. Foster W. Jones E. King C. Mims J. Smith 0. Lawson G. Deruise J. Lalnez Technicians D. Blunt H. Ebanks Y. Edwards Y. Embry G. Harrell J. McFarland D. Cooper Patrol Y. Adams R. George I. Gilbert J. Hills T. Hutton Y. Irving M. King A. Henry Patrol M. Harris D. Hawkins H. Irving L, Richards C. Young J. Chissell K. Green G. Wilson Rovers K. Hayes P. LeBlanc 6. White 26 School-Based 3 Floats 27 Patrol 7 Technicians 2 Supervisors 1 Secretary 1 Director 67 TotalFebruary 8, 1989 PHONE CONVERSATION: Sam Stueart with Sgt. Dan Leedom, Portland, Ore. Security Officer DATA: 1. Portland Oregon School District has its own certified police department. 2. The chief of the school district's police department is Mack Locket: (Phone: 503-249-3307). 3. The school district's police wear uniforms and carry guns. 4. The security police work schools by geographic districts. 5. Along with the district police, two campus supervisors are assigned to each high school. 6. The district has a strong Anti-Gang curriculum written by Ms. Alcena Boozer (phone: 503-280-5783).Portland Public Schools 501 N. Dixon Portland, Oregon 97227 March 13, 14, 1989 Visited by Junious Babbs Marion Lacy Sam Stuart 10 High Schools (9-12) 17 Middle Schools (6-8) 67 Elementary Schools (1-5) Racial Composition 25% Minority 75% Majority Staff Offices Visited 1) Mrs. A. Hoosier - Administrator for Alternative Education 2) Mr. Mac Lockett - Chief of Portland Public School Police 3) Dr. Donald D. McElroy - Executive Deputy Superintendent 4) Dr. Matthew Prophet - Superintendent Support Mechanisms/Proqrams in Place 1. 2. 3. 4. A hard stand by the board and superintendent regarding gangs and student violence Leadership Roundtable - A monthly meeting of city leaders to review programs and/or strategies regarding the welfare of young people and attempting to streamline efforts. 3-4 Alternative Schools - Each with a coordinator Student Awareness Video \"Tips on Removal/Non-Involvement with Gangs\". Roy Pittman Ex-Olympic Wrestler Narrator 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Gun/Weapon Hotline 6-8 Outreach Workers (utilized in schools) Youth/Gang Task Force Teams - Community based by geographic locations Two alternative teachers and 1 aide in each secondary school (core classes Drop-Out Prevention Grant in some schools Portland Public School Police Force 1 4 5-6 18-20 Chief of Police Sergeants Office Staff Persons Officers 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Home visits for each alternative student at least once a month Safety curriculum within the handbook taught at the beginning of each school year Bus aides for some schools and troubled areas Staff inservice on security and gang behavior Campus Security Persons Use of Walkie Tai kies (recognizible jackets) 18. Child Development Specialists in elementary and middle schools (similiar to social workers) Inservice for Campus Security (CPR, First Aid, Fire Arm Safety Class, investigative skills, control hold training)Portland Public Schools Page 2 March 13, 14, 1989 19. Close conmunication between the Portland Public School Police Force and the Portland City Police _ 20. NCIC (National Crime Information Centers) computer reading housed in the office of the Portland School Police - central office) 21. 22. 23. Community Programs against violence Teen Health Centers in some schools Removal of building graphetti receives top priority Schools Visited 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Cleveland High School Harriet Tubman Middle School Jefferson Performing Arts Magnet High School Portsmouth Middle School Roosevelt High School Wilson High School Literature/Policies Retained 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Portland School Police Child Abuse Program Campus Security - Job Description Loitering Notice Exclusion Notice Gang Prevention Habitual Offender Program Gangs in Schools Guide to Policies, Rules and Procedures on Student Responsibilities, Rights and Discipline (secondary and primary) Teen Health CentersOrganized in 1943. the Portland School Police Depl. is the only school law-enforcement agency In Oregon, Known Originally as Ihe School Investigators Office, the force has grown from two officers assigned to vandalism and burglary investigations to a sophisticated department involving 19 uniformed officers and six office personnel. School Police Chief Mac Lockett has been with the force since 1965. If] '.\u0026lt; , The school police department operates 24 hours daily, seven days weekly on a year-round basis. Officers handle a variety of criminal violations including childabuse. narcotics, assault, traffic and burglary. A computerized communication center links the school police department with all Oregon criminal, court and prosecutors' computer networks, criminal investigation bureaus in other slates and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Slate of the-art fire alarm and burglary-response systems constantly track and report disturbances, enabling Portland school police to achieve Ihe highest burglaryin progress arrest record in the state. Portland Public Schools officers are granted full police authority by the Oregon Legislature. Portland school police protect the students, employees and property of the school district. The school district employs nearly 6.CXX)full and part-time staff members and has a student enrollment exceeding 50,000 School police respond to crimes in and around some 100 school buildings, enforcing criminal laws and ordinances of the State of Oregon and City of Portland  s. *3 I, -4 ,f^\" In addition to normal law- enforcement duties, school officers perform crime-prevention activities, participate in community-service events and make presentations to students, school staffs and parent groups. Those presentations deal primarily with juvenile law. drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, legal updates and career development. Other police responsibilities include crowd control al athletic events and other school functions and maintaining close working relationships with nine other police agencies in the 152- square-mile jurisdictional area. Portland school police o' ficers receive certificalic' from the Oregon Slate Boa^c of Police Standards anc Training and must complete training at the Oregon Police Academy. Officers also rp ceive on-gomg specialize, training. Effective communicalio' with youths is essential in . school police officer s qua' fications. Officers also mus have abilities to relate well t persons from many differei ethnic backgrounds. J I !  I \"J S' i( ir ko School police are commt' ted to providing a safe, sr cure learnir\u0026gt;g environmer\u0026gt; for Portland s students Pre fessionalism and person? dedication make Portian School Police Dept, officei among the most oulstand'f in Oregon's lav/-enforci ment agencies. :  Portland Public Schools 501 N. Dixon Street Portland. Oregon 97227PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 501 N. Dixon St. I Portland. Oregon 97227 Phone: (503) 249-3307 Mailing Address\nP.O. Dox 3107 / 9720S-3107 PORTLAND PLDl.IC SCHOOLS POLICE OTicc of (he Chie CAMPUS SECURITY MONITOR TRAINING AGENDA DATE/TIME COURSE INSTRUCTOR Monday, Feb. 1. 1988 8:00 A.M. Orientation (staff introductions, agenda, expectations, ccnmunication, I.D. tags, jackets) School Police 10:00 A.M. District Policies Lashley 10:30 A.M. School Police Procedures (Department overview, tape, working relationship) School Police 12:00 P.M. Lunch 1:00 P.M. Reporting Child Abuse (Video, questions and answers) Linne' and C.P 3:00 P.M. Narcotics PPB Tuesday, Feb. 2, 1988 8:00 A.M. Report Writing (Use of Trespass forms. Stolen Property forms. Incident Reports) Taylor 12:00 P.M. Lunch 1:00 P.M. Criminal Law (Theft, Trespass, Assault, scope of authority, victims rights, court procedures) W. Pearson (D.A.'s Office 5:00 P.M. Ajoum Page DATE/TIME COURSE  INSTRUCTOR Wednesday, Feb. 3, 1988 8:00 A.M. First Aid Risk Management 12:00 P.M. Lunch 1:00 P.M. C.P.R. Risk Management 5:00 P.M. Ajoum Thursday, Feb. 4, 1988 12:30 P.M. Basic Firearms Safety Taylor 1:30 P.M. Investigative Skill.q (Interviewing, gathering facts and information) Taylor 2:30 P.M. Basic Hostage Situations Taylor 3:30 P.M. Lunch 4:30 P.M. - 8:30 P.M. Self Defense/Control Holds Christensen/PPB Friday, Feb. 5, 1988 8:00 A.M. Juvenile.Gang Activity (Black, Asian, White) Hollingsworth/ Leedcm 12:00 P.M. Lunch 1:00 P.M. Discussion and Review * NOTE: Classes February 1 only, will be'held in the B.E.S.C. Boardroan. Training for the remainder of the week will be at Whitaker Middle School, Roon E-206.SCHOOL PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS TRESPASS OR LOITERING REPORT DATE OF VIOLATION: TIME OF VIOLATION: NAME OF VIOLATOR SEX . RACE DATE OF BIRTH ADDRESS. PARENT OR GUARDIAN: SCHOOL STATUS. ACTIVITY OBSERVED AND OTHER DETAILS: PREVIOUSLY WARNED: yesD NO  ACTION REQUESTED: TRESPASS LETTER  INFORMATION ONLY  OBSERVED BY. DATE OF THIS REPORT: School Police Department Portland Public Schools 501 N. Dixon Street Portland. Oregon 97227 249-3307 REPORTED BY. DATE OF THIS REPORT: (Administrator in Charge) ir'PI - White (SCHOOL COPY) - Yellow 67-7180 Reviscdl? PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS POLICE DEPARTMENT 501 N. DIXON ST. PORTLAND, OREGON 97227 NOTICE OF EXCLUSION FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 1 PROPERTY TRESPASS NOTICE PERSON RECEIVING NOTICE DATE 1. 2. 3. 4. ADDRESS LOCATION SIGNATURE OF DISTRICT REPRESENTIVE OR OFFICER D.O.B. TIME You are prohibited from coming on the property indicated at the above location for the period of,(3 months),(6 months),(12 months), from the above dote without the express permission of the School Principal or building Administrator. If you return to the above location during the period of exclusion you may be ARRESTED for CRIMINAL TRESPASS IN Tie SECOND DEGREE. According to Oregon law (ORS 164.245), a person commits the crime of criminal trespass In the second degree If ho or she enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises. I, the excluded person, understand the above information and also understand the notice is effective immediately. Signature of Excluded Person 4/88 \\ PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS Al, sill N. PixunSl./loilluintJkcgiHi '\u0026gt;1221 Ilionc\n(503)249-33(17 Mailing Aiklicss: P.O. Hnx 3107 / 97208-3107 POK 11 AND POBI.K S\u0026lt; IIOOI.S POI-K ! lVO 1 VViBl/f o All Olliivi'l ilicCliK'l March 10, 1989 ___ N.E. 30th Ave. Portland, Oregon 97211 This office has been notified by the staff of Beauncxit Middle School thatWMBU school property, on 3-7-89, at 2:55 P.M., without permission. This is to inform you that there are state statutes prohibiting the unauthorized presence of persons in public schools and on school property. unauthorized presence at Beavmont is ag_ ain repoirted to usrweilfl reefrer LLoovveellllee ttoo the Juvenile Court for further action. Sincerely yours. /) L. Mac Lockett, Chief I Donald J. Eilert, Captain LML/nm cc: School CERTIFIED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WARNING: INTERROGATION before you are asked any questions, you must understand your RIGHTS. ID You have the right to remain silent. (D (D (4) Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer before we ask you any questions and have him present while you are being questioned. If you cannot afford a lawyer, the court will appoint one before any questioning. I have READ THIS STATEMENT OF MY RIGHTS AND AM FULLY AWARE OF THESE RIGHTS. I AM WILLING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ASKED OF ME. 1 DO NOT DESIRE THE PRESENCE OF A LAWYER AT THIS TIME. THIS STATEMENT IS SIGNED OF MY OWN FREE WILL WITHOUT ANY THREATS OR PROMISES HAVING BEEN MADE TO ME. Signature Date Time Rev 873 Place BFtCIAL It-:VZ PORTLAND ^31 M. E. CL.\\  ID t n e s s\nW i T n e s s ^4PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS POLICE BOMB THREAT REPORT SCHOOL OR LOCATION: \"date EXACT WORDS OF PERSON PLACING CALL Caller's Identity: Voice: Loud TIME TRY TO DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING (CIRCLE AS APPROPRIATE) Male Soft Accent: Local Female Adult Juvenile Age years Speech: Fast Language: Manner: High Pitch Not Local Slow Excellent Calm Angry Emotional Background Noises: Deep Raspy Pleasant Intoxicated Other Foreign Distinct Good Region Distorted Stutter Nasal Slurred Lisp Fair Poor Foul Other Rational Irrational Coherent Incoherent Deliberate Righteous Laughing Intoxicated Office Machines Factory Machines Bedlam Trains Animals Music Quiet Voices Mixed Airplanes Street Traffic Party Atmosphere ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Time Building searched by district employee  School Police dispatched to scene  PPB Bomb Disposal Unit to scene  Other Copy to School  PPB Bomb Disposal Unit  DECEIVING telephone number PERSON WHO RECEIVED CALL  information taken by RECOMMENDATIONS [A] Implemented [B] Partial Implementation [C] Not Implemented 1. Overhaul of the Discipline Code: A B C A. X X X X X X X X X X X X X -L -U Comments: B. B. C. D. E. F. G. Adopt tough, clear and progressive discipline statements. Update the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to make it appear more serious and businesslike. 1. 2 . 3 . Recommend no expensive jewelry to be worn to school. Recommend no large sums of money be brought to school. Develop a clear definition of weapons. Set a tone of progressive discipline. Establish a committee to re-write the discipline code. Add anti-gang statements. Ban Beepers. Re-evaluate due process hearing procedures. 1. 2 . Remove any appeals from the pupil/counseling division and place in the school division. Appeals for short term suspensions granted only on grounds of due process violation. (Ban Book bags.) 1. and 2. - Principals make on-going reminders through intercom announcements and school bulletins to ask students not to wear expensive jewelry and/or carry large amounts of money. These recommendations have been suggested to be included in new handbook for 1991-92. G. 2. - Administration will support a recommendation unless due process procedures have been violated. (Ban Book bags.) students to carry book bags. Some schools do not allow 2. Take a strong, tough and uncompromising position on the use or possession of weapons. A. X X B. Possession of a gun warrants permanent expulsion. Use of any weapon will warrant permanent expulsion.t J I JO c. X X X D. E. F. 3 . 4 . 5. Possession of any weapon other than a gun will warrant expulsion for a minimum of one (1) year. Possession of a weapon facsimile warrants a long term suspension. Prior to returning to the regular school environment from a suspension or expulsion for an offense involving a weapon or facsimile, a student must successfully complete one (1), semester in a Little Rock alternative school. The LRSD will not accept from another school district a student who is on expulsion or suspension as a result of possession or use of a weapon. Take a strong, tough and uncompromising stand against illegal drugs on school grounds: A. X B. Establish stronger penalties for drug offenses. Discussions should be held with the federal district attorney to determine the scope of the federal safe school laws, particularly those dealing with a protected zone of 1000 feet around school campuses. The school district's X X C. desire for the federal district attorney to prosecute should be emphasized. Purchase a drug dog for district use. Establish an Alternative School: A. X X X 1 X B. C. D. To keep students in the educational system and off the streets. To act as a way back into the regular environment. Establish a review committee of building level administrators/teachers to supervise placement in and removal from the Alternative School. Establish Saturday School in lieu of short term suspension (to offer an alternative learning environment for those who have had discipline problems in the regular setting). (Establish a properly staffed alternative classroom.) Improve the effectiveness of campus supervisors:X X A. B. C. D. E. X X X Develop a job description. Establish a training program. Have a uniform dress (wind breaker) and I.D. tag to make them easily identifiable. Better communications (walkie-talkie). Increase pay. 6. Make improvements in the Bus system: 1 A. JU. B. C. D. Better screening and hiring practices for bus drivers. Bus driver training on dealing with student problems. Drivers check bus picture I.D. cards. Bus supervision modeled after the L.A. \"safe corridors II program. 1. Pay stipends to campus supervisors and teachers to ride back seat of problem buses. (Reduce the number of bus stops.) E. Strongly recommend - Move from 3 to 2 bus runs to reduce the \"window of X X X X vulnerability\" for supervisions. X t (Earliest runs for secondary schools.) 7 . Establish a Resource Police Officer Program in each Secondary School: X X X X X A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Police presence. Drug abuse programs. Child Abuse. Extra-curricular programs. Probation counseling. Officer to be seen as a friend and advisor. Inservice for staff for procedures in getting legal assistance. (Safe driving programs.) X X 8 . Develop School Strategy Plans to prevent and deal with crisis situations: X X X X X X A. B. C. Earthguake (gunman) drill. Reverse fire drill (for getting students back into the safety of the school building when a crisis arises on the campus or in the neighborhood). Crisis Plans: 1. 2. 3. Emergency signals. Hostage Crisis. Bomb threat/reality.4 . 9 . 10. X X D. Grief counseling (training for staff). Frequent Locker checks. Improve school maintenance for security and better climate. A. X X X X X X B. c. D. E. F. G. 4 d X X X X X X X H. I. J. K. Maintain clean building and grounds to make schools an obviously different place than some neighborhoods. Prune shrubbery to allow maximum visibility. Remove all coverings (decorations) on door windows from classrooms and offices to allow better visibility to halls. Make graffiti removal a high priority for local buildings as well as central maintenance office. Install convex mirrors in \"blind halts\" and \"blind corners\". Secure doors so that you may enter only through the front, yet may exit at any door in case of fire. Post Signs: 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . Directing visitors to register in the office and receive I.D. pass. Announcing the penalty for trespassing(non-trespassing sign, legal distance apart). Giving the Hot Line Number. Weapon violation signs made larger. Make sure all rooms have working intercom. Upgrade exterior lighting. Purchase a hand held metal detector for each school (to be used in lieu of personal searches). Purchase a camera for each school for photographing and cataloguing graffiti. Develop a Crime Prevention Strategy: A. X X X B. I C. D. X X E. Crime prevention clubs: Youth Crime Watch (Miami). Crime/Violence/Weapon Prevention Hot Line (New Orleans). Work out a method with the prosecuting attorney where by a school administrator may get a warrant without leaving the school building for a long period of time. All students \u0026amp; staff should have I.D. cards. All cars have numbered parking stickers.X X F. G. Small reward for accurate tips on weapons ($5-$10) from activity funds (modeled on New Orleans). Use all available resources to improve communications between students and school personnel which will cause students to feel comfortable and protected in knowing that their identity will not be revealed or compromised when they provide school authorities with information regarding crimes to be committed on campus. 11. Initiate neighborhood child protection strategy: A. X X X X At hours when children are walking to/ from school and bus stops: 1. 2 . 3 . Develop a neighborhood II watch\" on the order of a watch\". Identify It safe houses\" child \"crime where a child may run for help. Have police cruising the areas, (Identify fewer and safer bus pick up points.) and 3 Safety-Security vehicles. 12 . Employ Social Workers at each school: I A. X X X X X X B. C. D. E. F. Worker to begin outreach program by making home and community visits. Work hours to be flexible so that after hours visitations may be made. Social workers are to help prevent neighborhood fights from spilling into the schools. Social workers are to help prevent the spread of gangs in Little Rock. Workers are to identify child abuse and neglect. Deal with residual effects of a crisis. Comments: There are no social workers currently employed in the district. Case managers in New Futures schools do a number of these tasks in their day-to- day work with students and families. 13 . Inservice for employees: X X I 4. I 1 I 4. I I I I I 4- I I I 4. I I I I A. B. C. On improved security techniques. On identifying and combating gang behavior. On self defense and intervention tactics (fights, assaults, weapons).14 . 15. 16. 17 . 18 . I I I I X I I I 4- I I I X I I I I (Strategies for women teachers to use in physical confrontations.) Comments: The Safety and Security Department has worked in a number of schools on crime prevention surveys. Additionally this department has visited churches, counselors, and McClellan Community School to talk about gang problems and identification. Begin a Gang-Violence Prevention Curriculum Program in all schools (K-12). X X A. B. Violence Prevention-model after Boston. Gang Intervention and Prevention-model Portland. Establish regular, planned meetings with a reservoir of community resource agencies to coordinate activities combating child abuse, crime, violence, and the \"gangification\" Little Rock: of X Comments: A. Regular meetings of agencies, church groups (CJOHN), police, and Health department. Meetings have been held with PTA groups, churches. Little Rock Police Department, COPE, and other groups to coordinate activities. I I X I 4- I i I I Establish close ties with the media. Establish a Leadership Roundtable for city officials and school officials: A. X X X X X B. C. D. E. Government leaders (mayor, governor, legislators, judges). Chamber of Commerce Police Teacher groups Community groups I J I I X I I I 4- I I I 4- I 1 I I The LRSD will establish an office of safety and security. 19 . Establish an on-going review committee to monitor the results of the implementation of recommendations contained in the report: I I I I X X I X I X I X I X I I I ) A. B. Small committee (6-8 people) Monitor:20. X X X X 1. 2 . 3 . Security Gang activity Programs and Curricula suggested in the report. The governor and the legislature need to take action: A. X B. C. X X X Comments: D. E. Make assault on a school employ\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_731","title":"Salary schedules","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/2005"],"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 statistics","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Salary schedules"],"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/731"],"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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 24, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend your approval of the following salaries for the 1990-91 school year for the senior administrators listed below: 1989-90 Salary 1990-91 Sal ary Difference % Amount Associate Superintendent $56,500 Estelle Matthis $59,890 +6% $3,390 Associate Superintendent James Jennings 58,500 59,890 +2.4% 1,390 Manager, Support Services Chip Jones 49,600 52,576 +6% 2,976 Asst. Superintendent Margaret Gremillion 50,000 53,000 +6% 3,000 Controller Mark Milhollen 50,539 53,000 +4.9% 2,461 Total $13,217SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON OCTOBER 24, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Sec'a 3 t? TO\nFROM: SUBJECT: October 24, 1991 Board of Directors OCT 2 3 1991 Office of Dssegregsiicn f ioiing Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools PERSONNEL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS Act 10 funds resulted in average salary increases of 13.37 percent for certified administrators and 14 percent for teachers, contrast, eight senior administrators received 4 percent. In Until such time as we complete a salary study to address and solve the many inequities I have already mentioned, I recommend that duty stipends manner: be provided to senior administrators in the following Estelle Matthis James Jennings Jim Ivey Angela Sewall Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Arma Hart Mark Milhollen $ 3,500 3,500 3,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500. I also recommend that educational stipends paid to other administrators be applicable to these employees' salary. These recommendations are effective for the 1991-92 school year. f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 RECEIVED Office of Desegregation Monitoring J UN 'i 5 1993 June 24, 1993 TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATOR PAY Now that the Board and virtually all other employee groups have agreed on contracts for the 1993-94 school year, it is necessary for the Board to make administrators. decisions concerning the District's In my opinion, the District must address the issue of recruiting and retaining talented managers. To that end, I suggesting that compensation for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources and School Support be set at $68,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. I am also suggesting that compensation for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator be set at $61,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. Further, I am advocating a 1.5% base salary increase for all 12- month administrators except those listed above. In addition, I suggest that all 12-month administrators be placed on a 250 day contract with paid vacation days credited according to years of experience as an administrator in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District at the time of the merger in 1987 as follows\ndays\n15+ years, 25 days. 0-7 years, 15 days\n8-14 years, 20 For all administrators whose contracts are less than 12-months, I suggest a 3% base salary increase. Finally, accumulate contract. am advocating that administrators be sick leave up allowed to If a contract is reduced. to the length of the individual's the accumulated sick leave cannot be greater than the length of the current contract. I It is my recommendation, following\ntherefore. that the Board adopt the A $68,000 annual salary for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources Support for FY 1993-94\nand Schoolr A $61,000 annual salary for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator. 1.5 base salary increase for administrators for FY 1993-94\nall 12-month A A 250 day contract for all 12-month administrators with paid vacation days based on experience in LRSD and PCSSD of 15 days for 0-7 years of service\n20 days for 8-14 years of service\nand 25 days for 15 or more years of service\nA 3% base salary increase for all administrators on a less than 12-month contract\nand The ability for administrators to accumulate sick leave up to the length of the individual's contract.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 24, 1993 Board of Directors 72201 C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools ADMINISTRATOR PAY Now that the Board and virtually all other employee groups have agreed on contracts for the 1993-94 school year, it is necessary for the Board to make administrators. decisions concerning the District's In my opinion, the District must address the issue of recruiting and retaining talented managers. To that end, I suggesting that compensation for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources and School Support be set at $68,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. I am also suggesting that compensation for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator be set at $61,000 for the -1993-94 fiscal year. Further, I am advocating a 1.5% base salary increase for all 12- month administrators except those listed above. In addition, I suggest that all 12-month administrators be placed on a 250 day contract with paid vacation days credited according to years of experience as an administrator in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District at the time of the merger in 1987 as follows: days\n15+ years, 25 days. 0-7 years, 15 days\n8-14 years, 20 For all administrators whose contracts are less than 12-months, I suggest a 3 base salary increase. Finally, accumulate contract. am sick advocating that administrators be leave up to the length of the allowed to individual's If a contract is reduced, the accumulated sick leave cannot be greater than the length of the current contract. I It is my recommendation, following: therefore. that the Board adopt the A $68,000 annual salary for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources Support for FY 1993-94\nand School A $61,000 annual salary for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator. 1.5 base salary increase for all administrators for FY 1993-94\n12-month A A 250 day contract for all 12-month administrators with paid vacation days based on experience in LRSD and PCSSD of 15 days for 0-7 years of service\n20 days for 8-14 years of service\nand 25 days for 15 or more years of service\nA 3% base salary increase for all administrators on a less than 12-month contract\nand The ability for administrators to accumulate sick leave up to the length of the individual's contract.LRSD 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Base Salary Number of Certified Positions Actual Average Salary Actual Average Step Increase Actual Average Salary Raise Average Total Increase (D-hE) Revised ^rage Salary (C+F) Impact on Budget (BxF) Total Cost to District (BxG) 16,000-21,000 21,001-26,000 26,001-31,000 31,001-36,000 36,001-41,000 41,001-56,000 56,001-61,000 61,001-76,000 76,001-81,000 81,001-86,000 TOTAL (J) 1993-94 Average Salary (A) The base salary will be used only for identifying employees within a certain salary range. (B) The number of positions column identifies the number of positions within that base salary range. (C) The actual average salary is an average salary for all the positions identified in column (B). (D) Actual average step increase is the averaged dollar amount received per position identified in column (B). (E) Actual average salary raise is the averaged dollar amount received for the \"across the board\" percentage raise per position identified in column (B). (F) Average total increase is the step increase plus the salary raise. This is the amount the district will pay \"over and above\" last year. (G) Revised (or adjusted) average salary is the average salary identified in column (C) plus the step increase, plus the salary raise. (H) The impact on the budget is the number of positions identified in column (B) times the average total increase, column (F). This is the additional amount the district will be paying during 1993-94 over what they paid in 1992-93 for the positions identified in column (B). (I) Total cost to district is the amount the district will pay for salaries of those positions identified in column (B) during 1993-94. (J) 1993-94 average salary is determined by dividing the total cost to district, column (I), by the number of positions, column (B),Exhibit 1-C Revised LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES (A) BASE SALARY (1993-94 Schedule) (JI o 20,000-25,000 25,001-30,000 30,001-35,000 35,001-40,000 40,001-45,000 45,001-50,000 50,001-55,000 55,001-60,000 60,001-65,000 65,001-70,000 (B) NUMBER OF CERTIFIED POSITIONS 301.50 433.30 470.90 411.50 216.00 20.00 (C) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY 1992-93 21,320.10 .26,148.75 30,702.44 35,010.48 39,430.38 44,607.72 (D) ACTUAL AVERAGE STEP INCREASE 804.37 805.44 806.53 809.77 824.31 947.95 (E) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY RAISE 671.10 837.56 947.47 1,085.23 1,387.76 1,382.95 (F) AVERAGE TOTAL INCREASE (D^E) 1,475.47 1,643.00 1,754.00 1,895.00 2,212.07 2,330.90 (G) REVISED AVERAGE SALARY (C*F) 22,795.57 27,791.75 32.456.44 36,905.48 41,642.45 46,938.62 (H) IMPACT ON BUDGET (B*F) 444,854.21 711,911.90 825,958.60 779,792.50 477,807.12 46,618.00 (I) TOTAL COST TO DISTRICT (B*G) 6,872,864.36 12,042,165.28 15,283,737.60 15,186,605.02 8,994,769.20 938,772.40 TOTAL 1993-94 AVG SAL 1,853.20 32,008.91 3,286,942.33 59,318,913.85 Note: The base salary ranges in (A) are determined using the 1993-94 salary schedule\ntherefore, average salaries for the personnel shown in (C) for 1992-93 may fall below the ranges defined in (A) for 1993-94.^6^ Exhibit 1-C Revised LITTU: ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES UI o (A) BASE SALARY (1993-94 Schedule) 20,000-25,000 25,001-30,000 30,001-35,000 35,001-40,000 40,001-45,000 45,001-50,000 50,001-55,000 55,001-60,000 60,001-65,000 65,001-70,000 (B) NUMBER OF CERTIFIED POSITIONS 301.50 433.30 470.90 411.50 216.00 20.00 (C) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY 1992-93 21,320,10 .26,148.75 30,702.44 35,010.48 39,430.38 44,607.72 (D) ACTUAL AVERAGE STEP INCREASE 804.37 805.44 806.53 809.77 824.31 947.95 (E) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY RAISE 671.10 837.56 947.47 1,085.23 1,387.76 1,382.95 (F) AVERAGE TOTAL INCREASE (DtE) 1,475.47 1,643.00 1,754.00 1,895.00 2,212.07 2,330.90 (G) REVISED AVERAGE SALARY (C^F) 22,795.57 27,791.75 32,456.44 36,905.48 41,642.45 46,938.62 (H) IMPACT ON BUDGET (B-F) 444,854.21 711,911.90 825,958.60 779,792.50 477,807.12 46,618.00 (\u0026lt;) TOTAL COST TO DISTRICT (B-G) 6,872,864.36 12,042,165.28 15,283,737.60 15,186,605.02 8,994,769.20 938,772.40 TOTAL 1993-94 AVG SAL 1,853.20 32,008.91 3,286,942.33 59,318,913.85 Note: The base salary ranges in (A) are determined using the 1993-94 salary schedule\ntherefore, average salaries for the personnel shown in (C) for 1992-93 may fall below the ranges defined in (A) tor 1993-94.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 30, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: .Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: stelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Associate Superintendent Pay Rate Effective August 3, 1993, Dr. Henry Williams directed me to administratively assign Sterling Ingram to assume temporary responsibilities for the Desegregation offices. He is performing the responsibilities left vacant by the resignation of Marie Parker. By means of this memorandum. Sterling Ingram should be paid in accordance with Superintendent for Desegregation. the position of Associate Dr. Williams has approved the increased rate of pay for Sterling Ingram. /bjf cc: Mark MilhollenLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 May 25, 1994 TO: FROM: Bob Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring ark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services SUBJECT: Information Request Per your telephone request concerning a special sorting of data included in the Districts salary object codes, I submit the attached schedule which includes changes filed in the May 18, 1994, Court submission (under the categories designated by you). Please contact me if additional information is needed. MDM:ca AttachmentLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Object Actual 1992/93 Budget 1993/94 Budget 1994/95 INSTRUCTION iio 117 120 124 _______130 140 Total Instruction I 349,686,191,29 | I $166,548.53 I $7,987,966.23 | $52,365.03 I $195,978.02 I $1,076.76 I $54,683,609.33 | $191,735.00 I $7,468J 71.67 I $0.00 ! I $53,090,125.36 | $0.00 $62,343,516.00 $52,736,456.32 $163,614.11 $3,199,755.04 _________$0.00 _________$0.00 _________$0.00 $61,099,825.47 -3,5% INSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 110 115 117 120 124 130 135 140 145 Total Inst Admin I I $3,201,426.21 I $5,386.52 I $157,451.13 I $2,383,373.10 | $17,122.71 I $1,167,653.99 ' $175,747.31 $7,108,161.47 $3,157,753.52 | I $114,150.31 I $2,317,952.67 | I $1,226,321.00 I I $185,264.20 I $0.00 1 $7,001,446.70 I $3,455,670.47 $128,183.00 $2,471,351.29 $60,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $200,000.00 $7,715,204.76 SUPPORT SERVICES 0110 0117 0120 0121 _______0140 Total Sup Sen/ $11,967.73 $2,650.00 $5,297,373.66 $1,167,691.67 I $234,152.52 j $6,713,840.53 I $0.00 $5,176,657.28 | $1,136,945.28 I $231,580.25 i $6,545 J 82.31 I $0.00 $5,576,194.79 $1,089,626.75 $200,000.00 $6,365,821.54 ^gRSQTQTAL I- $71,912,127.91 I $7S,mi45.ST | $75.S80.85T.77~j9 1/4 MOS. -95-96 000001 1 20262 000002 21316 000003 22369 000004 000005 000006 23443 24537 25652 2 21072 22126 23180 24254 25348 26462 3 21883 22937 23990 25064 26158 27273 4 22693 23747 24801 25875 26969 28083 5 23504 24558 25611 26685 27779 28894 6 24314 25368 26422 27496 28590 29704 7 25125 26179 27232 28306 29400 39515 8 25935 26989 28043 29117 30211 31325 9 26746 27799 28853 29927 31021 32136 10 27556 26610 29664 30737 31832 32946 11 28367 29420 30474 31548 32642 33757 12 29177 30231 31285 32358 33453 34567 13 29388 31041 32095 33169 34263 35377 14 30798 31852 32905 33979 35074 36188 15 31609 32662 33716 34790 35884 36998 16 32419 33473 34526 35600 36694 37809 17 35337 36411 37505 38619 18 37221 38315 39430 19 39126 40240 20 41051 7 '010*744 IS*? WALKER LAW FIRM 'S33 P02 AUS OS 'S? John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Lw ] 723 BaO.WWAY Little Rock. Akkans.is 12206 Telephone (.501) 374-375$ FAX (501) 374-4I8\nJOHN W. %\u0026gt;LiLK ILILPH WASHINGTON ^URK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. f Fax August S, 1997 Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Mr Richard Hurley Little Rock School District 810 W. xMarkham Little Rock, Arkansas Re: Little Rock School Dititrict Gentlemen\nUnder the Arkansas Freedom of Information xAct, would you please provide me the salary histoiy of Roy Wade, Cleo Collier, Jerome Farmer and James Moseby, and anuy other writings that reflect their pay. Please provide this information to me by Tuesday, August 13, 1997. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 1 ^mcerely. W. Walker rww\nlp cc. Ms. Ann Brown FRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK MfRSCHEL H. pmOAT, e-.a. ROBERT V. LICmT, P-A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W . MOOR 6 BYNQN M. eiBEMAN. JR-. P A. JOE 0. BCkU. PA. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAME3 BWTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERV. P.A. H.T. LAR2ELJC. OSCAR E. OAVlS. JR , P A. JAMES C. CLAR*. 4P-. P A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN OCWtY WATSON, P.A. FAUL B. BENHAM III. F A. larry W. BURKS.P.A. A. WYCKLIFP N13BET. JR.. F.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MER^OITh P. CATLETT, F A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P A. 9M\u0026lt;PHCRO rubsell HI. P.A DONALD H- BACON. P A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. Paulson ii. p.a. BARRY e. COPLIN, P A. RICHARD D. TAVLOR. P-A. JOSEPH B. HORST. JR.. P.A. (LIZABETH J. ROBBEN. F.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, F.A. ROBERT 8. SHAPER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIPPIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P-A. Michael 5- moore. OlANt $. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. A ?AATNERSHI\u0026lt;\u0026gt; OF INOIVlOUAUS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW KEVIN A, CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. waOOELL, JR.. P A. CLYOE 'TAO* TURNER. P.A. CALVIN 4 Mill, R.A. 2000 first commercial building 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 T6LSPH0NE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 August 24, 1994 /I ? 2B 'sg/i SUPrsoFFICt SCO J. i,ANCA8TCR. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P A. M. OAYLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT B, REACH. JR.. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C baker, JR.. P A. H. CHARLES axnnwENO, jR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. tucker, f.A. JOHN CLATTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WAGE, P.a. PRICE C, CAROnER J. MICHAEL PlCAENB TONIA P. JONCS DAVID D. WILSON H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNtn JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAP CARLA 0. SPAINHOUn JOHN C. PENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZEL JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX PRAM C. HICKMAN OliTTY J, OCMORV SqWNNib WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P A  .s. Clark WII I I. .M . TERRY wHtiAM L. Catton, jr.. p RtTEA' *\u0026lt;A. (SOU 370.1606 ^fce/veo Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Dr. williams\nI have noted that the board intends to consider a proposal to use any revenues in excess, of those budgeted to provide stipends to senior teachers and support personnel who did not receive a step increase. I am concerned about the proposal for several reasons which I will discuss below. Jerry Malone will be present at the board meeting tomorrow night to discuss the proposal with you and the board. My first concern is for the integrity of the bargaining process. After long and sometimes difficult negotiations, the board has approved and the Class Room Teachers Association has ratified an agreement between the parties. I know of no precedent for an effort to reopen or change the agreement at this point. I am also concerned that the use of excess revenues to pay stipends would not be favored by the district court. The court has expressed its concern that the district continues to fund recurring expenses with non-recurring revenues. The district must also make plans to replace the diminishing settlement funds and should have a contingency plan to repay the settlement loan. It would be difficult to justify to the court the payment of stipends in the face of our long term budget problems. 20d too ** NOIlWiS 30IAd3S ailWISOVJ ** 19517 Sgl 60 SS ! Z0 0  80 17661Jerry Malone will be prepared to discuss these and other concerns about the stipend proposal, like to discuss the matter further. Please call me if you would Yours truly, er Heller CJH/k J lOd too ** NOIiViS 30IAd3S 3HWIS0VJ ** Z9Gt C2l GO 55:10 oc-ao-teGiJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received ^U6 2 0 1997 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. office Or DESEGREGMlOfl MONIIOWIW via Facsimile 371-0100 August 18, 1997 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: Enclosed please find the salary histories of four black employees of the Little Rock School District. Please look at this matter and you will see how the District finds money whenever it wants. I further believe that the District rewards those who seek to regress the legitimate intervention of the Joshua Intervenors. The stipend policy gives Mr. Millhollen, Dr. Hurley and Mr. Gadberry huge opportunity to manipulate pay of employees and it also shows how the budget itself can be manipulated. I believe that a budget hearing is in order and request that you advise the Court of same. \" ' '  matter if you seek our input. We can shed more light on this Clearly budget manipulation affects the District's ability to met its desegregation plan obligations. Please let me hear from you. Walker JWW:js Enclosure Cleophis Collier salary history Hired revised Grade - step 8/24/87 1-2 asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1-3 11-3 11-4 11-5 11-6 tchr-2-7 tchr-2-8 tchr-4-9 admcer-2-7 admcer-2-8 Cleophis Collier Months-days 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 10.5months-210 10.5months-210 Salary Stipends(total) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 16,234.00 17,702.00 18,555.00 19,200.00 21,075.00 24,311.00 25,180.00 26,739.00 29,872.00 36,222.00 37,288.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,510.00 5,510.00 5,642.00 5,642.00 5,839.00 5,388.00 6,019.00 6,206.00 6,206.00 1,840.00 1,840.00 Page 1 4 .Hired Grade - step 8/27/74 1-0 revised revised revised 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1-1 1-2 1-3 11-4 III-5 IV-5 IV-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-11 IV-12 IV-13 IV-14 IV-14 IV-16 IV-17 IV-18 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 admcer-2-15 Jerome Farmer salary history Jerome Fanner Months-days Salary 10months 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 $ 7,250.00 $ Stipends(total) $ 8,240.00 $ $ 8,692.00 $ $ 10,790.00 $ $ 11,571.00 $ $ 13,988.00 $ $ 15,766.00 $ $ 17,282.00 $ $ 19,861.00 $ $ 19,999.00 $ $ 21,603.00 $ $ 22,515.00 $ $ 23,453.00 $ $ 26,178.00 $ $ 27,488.00 $ $ 28,799.00 $ $ 31,248.00 $ $ 35,671.00 $ $ 37,960.00 $ $ 38,763.00 $ $ 39,054.00 $ $ 39,126.00 $ $ 44,752.00 $ 300.00 380.00 589.00 801.00 857.00 1,656.00 1,722.00 2,207.00 2,548.00 3,954.00 4,838.00 5,031.00 5,034.00 5,915.00 6,673.00 6,100.00 6,100.00 5,891.00 5,891.00 5,985.00 5,985.00 6,966.00 272.00 Page 1Hired Grade - step 8/21/73 1-0 revised revised asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-sr hi 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 11-7 11-8 11-9 11-10 IV-12 IV-13 35-2-7 36-2-8 36-2-9 36-2-10 36-2-11 36-2-12 admcer-2-13 admcer-2-14 admcer-2-15 admcer-2-16 admcer-3-17 Jimmy Mosby salary history Jimmy Mosby Months-days 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 10months-180 Salary $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 6,700.00 $ 7,468.00 $ 8,480.00 $ 8,938.00 $ 9,806.00 $ 10,471.00 $ 12,213.00 $ 13,809.00 $ 15,155.00 $ 17,561.00 19,827.00 $ 22,158.00 $ 23,079.00 $ 22,937.00 $ 29,072.00 $ 30,648.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 34,322.00 $ 38,999.00 $ 40,132.00 $ 42,371.00 $ 43,405.00 $ 44,718.00 $ 48,584.00 $ Stipsnds(total) 335.00 635.00 360.00 369.00 394.00 410.00 466.00 592.00 108.00 124.00 375.00 1,637.00 286.00 340.00 340.00 1,254.00 2,370.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 362.00 Page 1Hired 8/14/67 I-2 revised revised 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 Roy Wade salary history Roy Wade Grade - step Months-days Salary 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-5 1-7 1-8 11-9 11-10 11-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 ill-12 111-12 111-12 1111-14 IIII-14 1111-14 tch-5-15 tch-5-15 tch-5-17 tch-5-18 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 10months 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,958.00 6,716.00 6,901.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 8,280.00 8,982.00 admcer-3-20 11 mo-210 $10,346.00 $11,672.00 $12,234.00 $13,584.00 $15,442.00 $16,464.00 $18,677.00 $21,300.00 $22,108.00 $23,268.00 $23,643.00 $24,026.00 $27,645.00 $29,028.00 $30,340.00 $32,883.00 $37,496.00 $37,633.00 $38,763.00 $39,054.00 $39,126.00 $40,088.00 $40,088.00 $52,430.00 Page 1 Stipends(total) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,485.00 1,658.00 1,500.00 2,050.00 1,840.00 2,214.00 2,014.00 2,094.00 2,950.00 2,717.00 2,475.00 2,908.00 5,559.00 5,427.00 5,652.00 5,652.00 6,345.00 7,001.00 6,567.00 7,388.00 7,978.00 7,977.00 8,277.00 7,847.00 8,685.00 9,435.00 1,862.00oZZ John W. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received MJG 2 0 1997 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. OFFICE OF desegregation MONilORlNQ Via Facsimile 324-2146 August 18, 1997 Dr. Don Roberts Interim Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Don: This request is being made pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Would you please provide to me the following information by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday afternoon. a printout of all stipends paid to employees in the District for the past five years\n1. 2 . a copy of the District's stipend policy\nany written interpretations of the stipend policy made by any administrator or by the Board within the last five 3 . years\nand the salary history of all junior and senior high principals for the last five years. 4. Please explain how an uncertified administrator can be given a salary of $54,000 pursuant to your salary scale. Is this being done so as to reward Mr. Roy Wade for \"standing up\" to the class counsel for the Joshua Intervenors. I am also curious to know why Ms. Gayle Bradford is the highest paid senior high school principal in the District. advised that she has the least experience as a senior high administrator or principal of any high school principal now occupying that position. ?  ' - - I am and Ms. Again, it seems as if the Hall faculty Bradford's favorites who do not favor the desegregation plan are rewarded for their adversity to it. if I am wrong. Please correct me. Please let me hear from you.I. Sincerely, \u0026gt;3ohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown 5013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM 992 P32/08 AUG IS 97 17:55 John vv. Walker, e.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telerhont (501) 374-3758 PAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR, Ms. Ann Brown Via Facsimile - August 18, 1997 371-0100 Desegregation Monitoring 201 Last Markham, Suite 5io Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: Enclosed please find the employees of the Little Rock i this matter and Salary histories of four black , School District. T.u ... Will see how the District whenever it wants. '-ricr Please look at finds money I further believe that the to thJ The stipend policy gives Mr Mi 11 hnn of the Joshua Intervenors. Gadberry huge opXtu^i^v Millhollen, Dr. Hurley and Mr. also shows how the budget itself^can^b J^P}oy6es and it xtseir can be mamnniat-o/t itself can be manipulated. I believe that you advise the Court%f^same ^^We^c^ order and request that matter if you seek on? m ^^^ht on this affects thrniSric?\" aSuiv Obligations. ability to met its desegregation plan Please let me hear from you.  Walker JWW:js Enclosure5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 992 P03/O8 AUS 18 97 17:56 Cleophis Collier salary history Hired revised Grade - step 8/24/87 1-2 asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 I-3 II-3 11-4 11-5 11-6 tchr-2-7 tchr-2-8 tchr-4-9 adnncer-2-7 admcer-2-8 Cleophis Collier MonthsKJays Salary Stlpendsftotal) 9.25monlhs-192 $ 16.234.00 $ Salary 9.25months-192 $ 17,702.00 $ 9.2Snionths-192 $ 18.555.00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 19,200.00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 21,075.00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 24,311,00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 25,180.00 S 9.26rnonths-192 $ 26,739.00 S 9.25months-192 $ 29.872,00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 36,222,00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 37,288.00 $ 5,510.00 5,510.00 5.642.00 5,642.00 5,839.00 5.388.00 6,019.00 6,206.00 6,206.00 1,840.00 1,840.00 Page 1 45013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 59. PO4/0S AUG IS 97 17 b Hired Grade - 8/27/74 1-0 step revised revised revised 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 I-1 1-2 1-3 11-4 III-5 IV-6 !V-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-11 IV-12 IV-13 IV-14 IV-14 IV-16 IV-17 IV-18 1992-93 Tchr-5- i-19 1993-94 Tchr-5-19 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 admcer-2-15 Jerome Farmer salary history Jerome Farmer Months-days Salary Stipendsftotal) 7,250.00 S lOmonths Wmonths 10months lOmonths lOmonths Wmonths Wmonths Wmonths Wmonths lOmonths 9.25months Wmonths Wmonths lOmonths Wmonths Wmonths 9.25 mo-192 9.2S mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 $ $ $ 8,240.00 $ 8,692.00 S S 10,790.00 $ $ 11,571.00 $ $ 13.988.00 $ $ 15,766.00 $ $ 17,282.00 S $ 19,861.00 $ $ 19,999.00 $ $ 21,603.00 S $ 22,515.00 $ S 23.453.00 $ $ 26,178.00 S $ 27,488.00 $ S 28,799.00 S $ 31,248.00 $ $ 35,671,00 S S 37,960,00 S $ 38,763,00 $ S 39,054.00 $ $ 39,126,00 S S 44,752.00 $ 300.00 380.00 589.00 801.00 857.00 1,656.00 1,722.00 2,207.00 2,548.00 3,954.00 4,838.00 5,031.00 5,034.00 5,915,00 6,673.00 6,100.00 6,100.00 5,891.00 5,891.00 5,985.00 5,985.00 6,966.00 272.00 Page 1513137441S'? WALKER LAW FIRM 992 R05'0S AUG 13 '9' Hired Grade - 8/21/73 1-0 step revised revised asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 asst-jrhi 1988-89 asst-jrhi 1989-90 asst-jr hl asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1990-91 1991-92 I-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 11-7 11-8 11-9 11-10 IV-12 IV-13 35-2-7 36-2-8 36-2-9 36-2-10 36-2-11 36-2-12 1992-93 admcer-2-13 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 asst-srhi 1996-97 admc9r-2-14 admcer-2-15 admcer-2-18 admcer-3-17 Jimmy Mosby salary history Jimmy Mosby Months-days 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25month5 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months IOmonths-180 Salary Stlpends(total} 6,700.00 $ $ $ S s s 7,468.00 $ 8,480.00 $ 8,938.00 $ 9,806.00 $ S 10,471.00 $ S 12,213.00 $ $ 13,809.00 S $ 15,155.00 S $ 17,561.00 S 19,827.00 $ $ 22,158.00 $ $ 23,079.00 $ $ 22,937.00 S 335.00 635.00 360.00 369.00 394,00 410.00 466.00 592.00 108.00 10.5months-210 $ 29,072.00 $ 10.5month8-210 $ 30,648.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 31,500.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 34,322.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 38,999.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 40,132.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 42,371,00 $ 10.5mon(hs-210 $ 43,406,00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 44,718,00 5 10.5months-210 $ 48,584.00 $ 124.00 375.00 1,637.00 286.00 340.00 340.00 1,254.00 2,370.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 362.00 Page 15013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM qq- F06 '08 AUG IS  17: 5 Hired revised revised Roy Wade salary history Roy Wade Grade - step Months-day: 8/14/67 I-2 'S 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-5 1-7 1-8 11-9 11-10 II-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 111-12 III-12 111-12 IIII-14 1111-14 1111-14 tch-5-15 tch-5-15 tch-5-17 tch-5-18 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 admcer-3-\nlOmonths lOmonths 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths Wmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25 mo-192 9,25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9,25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 20 11 mo-210 Salary $tipends(total) $ 5,958.00 $ $ 6,716.00 $ $ 6,901.00 $ $ 7,210.00 $ $ 7,210.00 S $ 8,280.00 S $ 8,982.00 $ $10,346,00 $ $11,672,00 $ $12,234.00 $ $13,584.00 S $15,442.00 $ $16,464.00 $ $18,677.00 $ $21,300.00 $ $22,108.00 $ $23,268.00 S $23,643.00 $ $24,026.00 .5 $27,645.00 $ $29,028,00 $ $30,340.00 $ $32,883.00 $ $37,496.00 $ $37,633.00 $ $38,763.00 $ $39,054.00 $ $39,126.00 $ $40,088.00 $ $40,088.00 $ $52,430.00 $ 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,485.00 1,658.00 1,500.00 2,050.00 1,840.00 2,214.00 2,014.00 2,094.00 2,950.00 2,717.00 2,475.00 2,908.00 5,559.00 5,427.00 5,652.00 5,652.00 6,345.00 7,001.00 6,567.00 7,388.00 7,978.00 7,977.00 8,277.00 7,847.00 8,685.00 9,435.00 1,862.00 Pago 15013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM 932 PO7.-0S AUG 18 97 17 w. walker R.ALPH Washington UaRK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR .JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadw'ay Little Rock. .Arkansas 7'''C'6 Telephone (501) 374.3758 F.AX (501) 374.4187 Via Facsimile - August 18, 1997 324-2146 Dr. Don Roberts Interim Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Don\no In?oation^Jctf' pursuant to the information by 5\n00 Would you please Arkansas Freedom P.m. on Thursday following District fc^ employees past five years\nin the 2 . a copy of the District's stipend policy\n J , Written interpretation^^ i \" '\" made by any administrator or by the Board within thZlast years\nand of the stipend policy five 4. principals fcrX^aS\"!iw* years. senior high 1 am also . . ,------- curious to know why M\nsenior high school administrator ? least eSperi:^:: . Gayle Bradford is the principal in the District. occuDvinrf Th +-^ Principal of any high school position. Again, it seems as as a senior high principal now I am Bradford's favorites who do not rave plan are rewarded for their adversity to^T^ If I am wrong. if the Hall faculty not f^yor the desegregation *\"* Please correct me, Please let me hear from you.501374418? WALKER LAW FIRM y82 POS OS AUG IS 8? JWW\njs cc: Ms. Ann Brown Sincerely, /? SahTi W. Walkfir-\n.John w. Walker At,Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Slates 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 11, 1997 Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear John: In organizing papers on my desk this morning, I discovered that I had neglected to respond to a fax you sent me on August 18, 1997. My failure to answer was wholly unintentional, and I apologize for my oversight. Your fax expressed concerns about the equity of stipends the LRSD has paid to certain of its employees. Attached were four pages listing the salary histories of four black males, who are employees of the LRSD. Also attached was a copy of your August 18, 1997 letter to Don Roberts, in which you asked for certain information about LRSD salaries and stipends. In your letter to me, you suggested that a budget hearing would be appropriate as a means for monitoring the LRSD. Monitoring the LRSD is not presently an option available to this office, nor has it been since the Court granted the districts motion for a moratorium on monitoring. However, as you requested, I will keep Judge Wright informed of your concerns. Sincerely yours, (^23^ Ann S. Brown'DK-15-97 MON 10:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 F.Ol S John w. Walker, p.a. Attornty At L.w 1723 Broadway Littls Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON X-URK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. VO December 12, 1997 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LR-C-32-S56 LRSD V PCSSD Dear Judge Wright\nEnclosed please find the job postings by the Little Rock School District for four positions: Associate Superintendents for Desegregation, Support Services and Instruction and Director of Planning, Research and Development, I am writing to request that you allow the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to review and study the impact of the salary structure set forth in the postings, i.e. $70-90,000.00 plus car allowance and benefits with one position being open ended defined as negotiable. We have, previously had extensive budget hearings, no budget that allows payment of $100,000.00 or more including benefits to any group of employees. I believe that allowing the District to make these changes without court approval will have a tendency to have an adverse impact upon the ability of the District to meet, not only its desegregation obligations, but its other obligations as well. The effect will be magnified because the concept of equal pay will mean that scores of administrators There is may be able to make legitimate cla Thi level. s for upward pay adjustments, will include principals and other persons at the Director o  o Dr. Leslie Carnine, the new superintendent, may not be aware of the budget concerns of the Court or the history of pay to administrators in the District.  The Court is reminded that there has been no showing of a dearth of qualified applicants for administrative positions and thus, that huge payment is required to attract necessary staff. The salaries are grossly out of line for this district in comparison to other districts in the State except the possibility of the Pulaski County Special school District where we have raised similar concerns regarding pay inflation for administrators, many of who.m are unnecessary. Dr. Carmine's principal advisor appears to be Mr. BradyDEC-15-97 MON 10:39 SUSAN K WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 Page. 2 - Letter to Juge Wright December 12, 1997 Gadberry who has expressed chagrin at being paid less money than Dr. Richard Hurley, the Personnel Director. 'Y' ou will recall that Dr. Henry Williams brought Dr. Hurley aboard and paid him far more than anybody else without adherence to the salary schedule in existence. That put him ahead of his supervisor, Mr,. Gadberry. By allowing advertisement at these ranges of pay, a number of people like Mr. Gadberry will be able to make claims for pay adjustments. This, in turn, will generate, I believe, more contention from the teachers and the grossly unpaid services workers, most of whom are black. Because of the broad implications and the possible far reaching effect of the pay initiatives, I respectfully request that you allow ODM to review this matter and to make a prompt report to the Court before the February 1, 1998 deadline. WWaayy II remind the Court that such increases also will necessarily result in substantial budget adjustments for ODM staff, if the concept of comparability to administrative positions in the LRSD is carried forward and if the Court ends jurisdiction any time soon. For those monitors will be entitled to Associate Superintendent level pay as well. This is not a anttii--Drr.. CGaarmniinnee lleetttteerr.. I expect that the teachers organization will express grave reservations regarding the source of additional revenues having been told that the District is on the verge of being broke in the recent negotiations. Thank you for your attention to this request. JVW\nj s CC ! Dr. Leslie Carnine Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brov/n DEC-15-97 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISITUCT 810 WESTMARKHAM STREET ' LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST December 9, 1997 .n?? The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION: Associate Superintendent for Instruction QUALIFICATIONS\n1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Successful experience, in an urban setting, as a principal and/or administrator with instructional program implementation responsibilities. 5. Evidence of successfill experience with parent and staff involvement in decision making. 6. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. NOTE\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW, REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISES: Staff as may be designated by the Superintendent JOB GOAL: To assist the Superintendent in the task of providing leadership, support, and direction in the area of instruction by providing building principals with a vehicle to more effectively utilize the division of instruction to improve teaching and learning.DEC-15-97 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQLTRY TO\nDr. Richard E. Hurley Director of 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 INTHRXTEW 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 emplojment practices.DEC-15-97 HON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST V  f December 9. 1997 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION: Associate Superintendent for Desegregation QUALICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (S) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Successful experience as an administrator in a multi-cultural setting or urban setting. 5. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality and equity in student learning and school organization. 6. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 7. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision-making and communication. 8. Demonstrated knowledge of how to apply the concept of high expectations to school organizational patterns. 9, Extensive experience in organizing staff development programs with a focus on Effective Schools research. NOTE\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO\nSuperintendent of SchoolsDEC-15-97 MON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 APPLICATION DEADLINE: February 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable NOTE: All interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for the position. EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E. Hurley Director of 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 Superintendent of Schools. 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.DEC-15-97 MON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLEROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST- December 9, 1997 The Little Rock School District is now 1997-98 school year: accepting applications for the following position for the ... POSITION: Director - Planning, Research and Evaluation QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Experience in research, testing, and program evaluation, 5. Evidence of successfol experience in developing and implementing monitoring and evaluation of educational programs. 6. A commitment to parent and staff involvement in decision making. 7. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 8. Ability to administer programs and supervise professional staff. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISES: Planning and Evaluation Specialists and assigned clerical and secretarial support personnel assigned to the department.1 DEC-1'5-97 NON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 08 APPLICATION DEADLINE\nFebruary 1, 1998 - stalling date negotiable SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock Schoo! District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: All interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for this position. EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with the provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDU.AL 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.DEC-15-97 MON 10:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 09 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 December 9, 1997 PLEASE POST  accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION\nAssociate Superintendent for Support Services QU.ALIFICATIONS\n1. 2. 3. Minimum of a Masters Degree. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. In-depth knowledge and experience with financial, budgeting, computer, and data processing systems and applications are essential. Evidence, through positive past accomplishments, js required to demonstrate the high level of analytical, problem- solving, and decision'tnaking skillsneeded for this position. 5. A strong commitment to quality desegregated public education must be shown along with a full understanding of the relationships required between student, staff, and administration to be a highly motivated, successful school district.  parent, 6. Demonstrated ability to effectively communicate, both orally and in writing is essential. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE Qualifications in the initial screening interview. REPORTS TO\nSuperintendent of SchoolsDEC-15-97 MON 10:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 10 5. Serves as chief financial and support services advisory to Superintendent and liaison with all professional staff, students, and the financial and support services serves as community on matters relating to SALARY AND TERMS\n$70,000 - $90,000 - commensurate with experience, plus berxefits package. month position, plus car allowance. a twelve (12) EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board s policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE\n.February 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable be considered for this position. SEND VTUTTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO. Dr. Richard E, Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: ^IVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A \\^RY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS, THEREruKt l AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARTT v ktc am that an interview will be CONDUCTED ^^^SSARILY MEAN THEREFORE, BECAUSE The Little Rock School District is addressed ,o ,he Associate SuperinSm *\" It is the policy of the Little Rock School District practices. I'  .. , .-------------------f'Ot to discriminate on the basis of aae sex, racr* disability in its educational programs, activities or employment  f' 'keyOffice 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 January 15, 1998 Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear John\nJudge Wright has asked me to acknowledge that she has received your letter dated December 12, 1997. In that correspondence, which was copied to me. Les Camine, and Chris Heller, you raised concerns about recent LRSD job postings for four associate superintendent positions that listed a salary' structure of 570-90,000 plus benefits. You requested that ODM be allowed to review the potential effect of the salaries and report to the Court before February 1, 1998. Judge Wright and 1 have discussed your request. However, as you are aware, the LRSD is presently under a moratorium that has suspended ODMs monitoring of the district. Therefore, I will not be able to investigate and report on the matter of the salaries posted for the associate superintendents. Because you are troubled by the high salaries that have been proposed. 1 trust that you, Les, and Chris will discuss the matter in the spirit of openness and cooperation that we all seek in our working relationships with one another. Sincerely yours, in S. Brown cc: Susan Webber Wright Les Camine Chris Heller ROACH ELL LAW FIRM Attorneys at Law 504 Lyon Building 40 I West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. Arkansas 7220 1 Richard W. Roachell Travis N Creed. Jr. Janelle S . Evyan telephone (50 I ) 375-5550 FACSIMILE (50 I ) 375-6 I 86 Honorable Susan We] United States Di :ct Judge\nr Wright 600 West itol Avenue Linle (ck, Arkansas 72201 Re: January 19, 1998 RECSSViO JAN 2 1 1SS3 OFFICE OF OESEGREGATIOH MONITORING Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special SchooiDistrict, etal. United States District Court No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright\nOn behalf of the Knight, et al. Intervenors, I have been authorized to write to you concerning Mr. Walkers letter dated December 12, 1997. The Knight, et al. Intervenors are wholly in agreement with Mr. Walkers arguments that posted job openings by the Little Rock School District for the four positions cited are grossly out of line for this district and that the consequences, both long term and short term, of filling such positions at such salaries and benefits would impair the Districts desegregation obligations in ways that should be studied carefully by ODM. Sincerely yours, ROACHELL LAW FIRM Richard W. Roachell RWR:ajm cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Timothy Gauger Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Sam Jones Mr. John Walker Mr. Stephen Jones AC.P Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT JUL 2 1 1998 July 17, 1998 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATiONMONITOfiING Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re\nRevised Desegregation and Education Plan Section 2/3 2.2.3 Dear Ms. Brown: We have extended the current administrative pay system by two new levels. Levels 7 and 8 have been added to the current structure for the purpose of placing the newly appointed assistant superintendents and associate superintendents. As has been previously noted, the changes and promotions will not require additional funds for district leadership positions. We have and will continue to look for opportunities to consolidate administrative and staff positions. Please understand that the rationale will be to look for opportunities that will increase services to children and teachers rather than compromise a service function. We further have indicated to the individuals promoted and to the Board of Directors that we believe the total salary plan should be independently reviewed for adequacy and equity. We anticipate contracting for that service and are optimistic that a report and recommendations will be forthcoming during November 1998. Further, we believe that by the conclusion of the 1998-99 academic year that we will have accomplished the goal v/hich was established by the revised desegregation and education plan. Respectfully. cesliffi V. Camine Superintendent of Schools Attachment: Administrative Salary Plan \u0026amp; Placements cc: Board of Directors Mr. Chris Heller 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 received From the desk of. . .  Leslie V. Carnine JUL 2 1 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LEVEL 8 - ASSOCIATES Vic Anderson* Junious Babbs Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell 14 12 20 8 LEVEL 7 - ASSISTANTS OR EQUIVALENTS Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Kathy Lease* 10 17 16 Doctorate degreesreceived JUL 2 1 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ADMC12 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ,1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 17622 18838 20054 21270 22486 23702 24918 26133 27349 28565 29781 30997 32213 33429 34645 35861 37077 38293 39509 40724 34010 35226 36442 37658 38874 40090 41306 42522 43738 44954 46170 47386 48601 49817 51033 52249 53465 54681 55897 57113 35949 37165 38381 39597 40813 42028 43244 44460 45676 46892 48108 49324 50540 51756 52972 54188 55404 56619 57835 59051 38064 39279 40495 41711 42927 44143 45359 46575 47791 49007 50223 51439 52655 53870 55086 56302 57518 58734 59950 61166 41059 42275 43491 44707 45923 47139 48355 49571 50787 52003 53218 54434 55650 56866 58082 59298 60514 61730 62946 64162 45465 46681 47897 49113 50328 51544 52760 53976 55192 56408 57624 58840 60056 61272 62488 63704 64919 66135 67351 68567 53888 55104 56320 57536 58752 59968 61184 62400 63615 64831 66047 67263 68479 69695 70911 72127 73343 74559 75775 76991. 63897 65113 66329 67545 68761 69977 71193 72409 73625 74?41 76057 77272 78488 79704 80920 82136 83352 84568 85784 87000Office 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 August 7, 1998 Dr. Les Carnine Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: Thanks for your recent letter informing me about some of the changes youve made in the LRSDs administrative pay levels. The letter arrived July 21, which was just after Id left for a two-week trip to tend to ill family members. Im presently processing the mail that accumulated while I was out of state, so please forgive my delay in responding to you. It may be helpful for you to know that the Court has a history of intense concern about how the LRSD constructs and manages its budgets, because of the relationship between finances, district operations, and desegregation goals. For example, the Court has been concerned about such past district practices as: funding long-term commitments (such as salaries) with one-time or short-term monies, failure to clearly align each annual budget with the districts educational and desegregation commitments\nbasing new budgets on the previous budget instead of actual expenditures (known as budgeting on budget\")\ntop-down rather than bottom-up budgeting (top-down budgeting sets numbers at the summary level and then forces the detail figures to fit those totals)\nfailure to link planning and evaluation activities to drive budget decisions\nand failure to use written business cases (or a similar process) as a decision-making tool to define and support all manner of decisions, including salary increases, adding or deleting positions and programs, and so on. Im not sure I understand how the information in your letter and its attachments fits into the districts approach to fulfilling its Plan commitment (2.2.3) to establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, provide compensation in accordance with qualifications, and minimize complaints of favoritism. I note that you chose to set the salaries of top administrators before establishing the uniform salary schedule for all positions in the district, which sounds like the carts before the horse and also could be construed as a form of favoritism. I also note that youve chosen to establish the salaries of top administrators before concluding contract and salary negotiations with the union, a timing decision that could bolster the unions leverage position..August 7, 1998 Page Two I'm not questioning your right to make decisions about salaries or timing. Rather Im concerned about the districts overall financial management practices. I would be remiss if 1 didnt emphasize that the Court has paid considerable attention to budget management over the years and has frequently admonished the LRSD about the need for a budget planning and management system that will enable the district to make careful financial decisions, effectively manage its multimillion dollar business, and reach its desegregation goals. I would be happy to discuss with you any aspect of the districts budgeting history, including the role of the Budget Specialist the Court appointed for the district in 1993. .Although ni be closely monitoring the districts budget development and management process and will need further information later on, right now Id appreciate a copy of your administrative organizational chart that includes the names of each individual administrator. Id also like the job description for each position so I understand who is responsible for what. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, I ' I -Ann S. Brown ///AC.9 1/4 MOS. (192) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 'teachers 2000-01 4.25% 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 '3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 '24,118\" 25\n372' 26^26 29,207 30,533 2 25^83 2\u0026amp;.iZl 21.5^} 28'869 \"30,17f 31,498 3 '26,047 27,302 28.556 29^834 '31,136 32,463 9J/2 MOS. (1^) _ _1 '24,746 26,033 2^ 3 26,726 28,013 27y:^0^ 28310 _^9^99 28,631 29,621 29,968 30^^ 31,329 32,318 30,611 31,947' 33^308 10 MOS. (207) 1 _ 26,002 2 27,042 27,354 28^9 28706 30,085 3'1,489 '32,919 29. 2ii21 32\n529' 33,959 3_ 28,082 30,787 _4 27.012 28766 20.020 30,799 32j01 33,428 _4___ 27,716 29,002 30,289 31,60i 32,937 34,298 4 29,12'2 30^475 3\u0026lt;827  32,'165 33,205 33,569 '3\u0026lt;999 34,609 36,039 jb'lM MOS. (212)_______ _ 1 _ 26,630 28,015 29^00 30,811 _5 _ 21.Qn 29,23\u0026lt; 30',405 31,763 33,066 34,392 J_ 28,705' 29,992 ?L279 32,591 33,927 35,288 5 30,163 31,515' 32,867 34,245 35,649 37,079 6 __ 2^42 30J9'6 3'1,450 32j2Q 34,031 35,357 7 29,906' 31,160 33,693 34,995 36,322 8 30.871 32.125 33.379 3'4658 35.960 37.286 9 31,836 33.090 34,344 36,925 38,251 10 32,800 '34,055' 35,309 36,587 37^889' 39,216 11_ 33,765 35,019 i7,^2 '38,854 40,181 12 34,730 35,984 37,238 '38,516 13 35,695 36,94^ 38,20^ 39,481 39^819 40784' 41,145 42,110 14 ^659 39,168' 40,446 41748 43,075 15 37,624 38,878 40.132 41.411 42.713 44.039 16 38,589 39,843 41,097 42\n375 '43,678 45,004 17 43,340 18 44.305 '44,642 45,607 45,969 46,934 19 46.5^ 1 47,898 20 48,863 6 29,69^' 30,982 32,269 ' 33,580 ' 34,917 ' 36,278 ' 1 30,685 31,972 33,259 34,570 '35,907 37,268 8 31,675 32,962 34,249 35,560 36,896 38,257 9 32.665 33.952 35.238 36.550 37.886 39.247 10 33,655 34,941 36,228 37,540 38,876 40,237 11 34,645 35,931 12 35,634 36,921 37,218 38,M8 38,530 39,866 Ti,227 39,519 40,856 13 36,624 37,911 39,198 40,509 41,846 42,217 43,207 14 37,614 38,901 40,188 41,499 42,835 44,196 15 38,604 39,891 41,177 42,489 43,825 45,186 16 39,594 40,881 42,167 43,479 44,815 46,176 17 18 19 20 43,157 44,469 45,805 47,166 45,459 46,795 '48,156 47,785 49,146 50,136 6 31,203 32,555 33,907 35,285 36,689 38,119 7___ 32,243 33,595 34,947 36'325 37,12Q 39,159 8 33,283 34,635 35,987 37'365 38,769 40,199 9 34,323 35,675 37,027 38,405 39,809 41,240 10 35,363 11 36,403 12 37,443 38.795 36,715' 37,755 39,107 40,147 _13__ 38,483 39,835 14 39,523 40,875 39,445 40,849 42,280 40^485 41,526 42,566 41,188 42,228 41,890 43,320 42,930 44\u0026gt;60 43,970 45,400 43,606 45,010 46,440 15 40,563 41,916 43,268 44,646 '46,050 47,480 16 41,604 42,956 44,308 45,686 r 47,090  4X520 17 18 19 20 45,348 46,726 48,130 49?56Q 47,766 49J70 50600 50,210 51,640 52,681 20 19 18 17 16 42,608 43,993 15 41,543 42,928 14 40,478 41,863 43748 44,659 13 39.413 40798 '42,182 12 38,348 39J32 41 jl7 11 3X667 _ 40^52 42,901 44,366 10 36,217 37,602 38,987 40,398 41,836 9 35,152 36,537 i 37,922 r 39,333 I '40,771 _8___ ^,08^7 35\n472 36,856 38,268 39.706 1 33,022' 34,406 6 31.956 33.341 5 3O^89 'Z2.27Q 4 __ '29,826 3l',211 3 2 27,696 29\nOM\" '36?465' '31,876' 28,761 30746 3i?530 32'942 32.595 33.661 '34,726 35.791 44,313 45^378 46,443 47,855 49,293 50,757 46,789 48,227 49,692 48.920 45724 42,529 '43^594 ____________ 45.252_ ^6,097 47,162 50,358 51,423 51,823 52,888 37,203 '38,641 36.137 L35:2.72 36,510 34.007 ' 4X967 r 45,431 53.953 33,315 \" 34,380 3X7~14~ 34,779 Ct: ' 5' 32.249 6 35.445 37.575 '35^844' 36^910137,975 I 39,040~| 40,105 | 41,170 42,236 '43,301 Teachers at the top of the schedule who do not receive step increases are paid an additional $1,500. 46,496 47.562 '48,627101/2 MOS. (217__21_. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TEACHERS 2000-01 4.25% 1 2 3 4 5 6 1_ 2\u0026lt;258 28,676 30,093 ^1.8^ 33,610 34,509 2 '28,349 29J66' 32^628 34,100 35,599 3 \"29,439 30'856 '32,274 _33,7f9 35,i'9l' 4 30,529 31,947 5 3\u0026lt;626 33,037 6 33\n364  34,455 .^1809 36,281 36,690 37,780 10 3/4 MOS. (222) 35,899 37,371 38,870 32.710 34J27 35,545 36,990 38,462 39,961 7 33,800 35,218 3X635 38,080 39,552 41,051 8 34,891 36.308 'i7J2\u0026amp; 39,170 40,642 42,141 9 35.981 37,398 38^816 40,261 41,733 43,232 10 3X071 3X489 3X906 41,351 42,823 44,322 11 38,162 39,579 40,997 42,441 43,913 45,412 12 39,252 40'669 43,532 45,004 46,503 1^ 40,342 41,760' 43,177 44,622 46,094 47,593 14 41,433 42?850' 45,712 '47,184 48,683 15 42,523 43,940 45,358 46,803 48,275 49,774 16 42.613 46.448 47.893 49.365 50,864 17 18 19 20 47,539 4X983 50,455 51,954 50,074 51,546 53,045 52,636 54,135 55,225 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 27,886 29,337 32,265 33776 2_ 29,00J 30^52 3L992 33,380 34^886 35.304_ 36j1?2  Yi Mos.l^f 1 2 3 4 L_ 28.515 29,997' 3\u0026lt;480 '32,991 5 34?531 6 36,099 _ 2___ 29,655 32'621 34,132 35,672 1 2 3 4 5' 6' 3 30. UL 3r^'^ 33:0JJ 34,496 36,001 37,535 4 31,233 32,683 34,133 35,61\u0026lt; 37,117 ___ 32,348 33,798 35,248 36,726 38,232 M,651_ 39,766 6 33,464 34,914 36364 37,842 39,348 40,882 7 34,579 36,029 37,479 38,957 40,463 41,997 8 35,695 37,145 38,595 40,073 41,579 43,112 9 36,810 38,260 39,710 41 j 88 42,694 44,228 10 37,926 39,376 40,826 42,304 43,810 45,343 11 39.041 40.491 4 \u0026lt;941 12 40,156 41,607 43,057 43,419 44,535 44,925 46,459 46,041 47,574 13 41,272 42,722 44,172 45,650 47,156 48,690 14 42,387 43,837 45,288 46,766 48,271 49,805 15 43,503' 44,953 46,403 47,881 49,387 50,921 16 44,618 46,068 47,518 48,996 50,502 52,036 17 18 19 20 48,634 50,112 51,618 53,152 51,227 52,733 54,267 53,849 55,382 56,498 30,796 3X278 33,761 25,272 36,812 12 MOS. (247) _1 3T0'27 32640 34,254 2 32^268 33,881\" '35^4'95' 3 33'509 35 J 22 36,736 35,898 '37,139 38,380 __4 __ ?l:036 33,4'19 \"34,902 36413 \"37,953 39,521 5 33,077 34,560 3'6,042 37.554 39.093 1O\n662 6 34,217 35,700 37,183 38,694 40,234 41,802 7 35,358 36,841 38^324 39,835 41,375 42,943' 8 36.499 37,981 '39,464 40,975 42,515 44,083 9 37,639 39,122 40,605 42,116 43,656 45,224 JO__ 38,780 40,262 41,745 4X257 44,796 46,365 11__ 39,920 42,886 12 41,061 42,544 44,026 44,397 45,538 45,937 47,505 47,077 48,646 13 '42,201 43,684 45,167 46,678 '48,218 49,786 14 43,342 44,825 46,308 47,819 49,359 50,927 15 44,483 45,965 47,448 48,959 50,499 52,068 16 45,623 47,106 48,589' 50,100' 51,640 53,208 17 18 19 20 4 5 34,750 35,'991 36,363 37,977 39,621 37,604 6 38,846 39^18 40,459 37,'573 \"38815 ' 40,056 4\u0026lt;297 39,280 '40,521  41,762 43,003 40,862 42,538 44,2'4'4 42,103 A2,77Q 45,485 7 38,473 \"40,087 41,700 43,344 45,020 46,726 8 39,714 JL328 42,941 44,586 46,261 47,987 9 40,955 42?569 44,182 10 42,19'6 43,810 45,423 11 43,438 45,051' 46,664 12 13 44,679 45,920 45,827 47,068^ 48,309 47,502 49,209 48,743 60,450 49,984 51,691' 46,292 47,905 49550 51,225 52,932 47,533 49,146 50,791 52,466 54,173 14 47,1'61 4X774 50,388 52,032 53,707 55,414 15 48,402 _50,qi5 5\u0026lt;629' 52,272 54,948 56,655 16 49,643 51,256 52,870 54,514 56,190 57,896 Teachers al Ihe lop of Ihe schedule who do nol receive step increases are paid an additional $1,500. 49,729 51,241 52,780 54,349 52,381 53^921 55,489 55,062 56,630 57J7Q 17 18 19 20 54,111 55,755 57,431 59,137 56,996 58,672 60,378 59,913 61,610 62,860appendix B SUPPLEMENTARY PAY SCHEDULE 2000-01 ( ATHLETICS amount I Senior High: Head Football Coach Asst. Head Football Coach Asst. Football Coach Off-Season Football Coach Asst. Off-Season Football Coach Head Basketball Coach Asst. Head Basketball Coach Head Track Coach Asst. Head Track Coach Asst. Track Coach Cross Country Coach Volleyball Coach Softball and Baseball Coach Gynmastics Coach Golf Coach (Boys or Girls) Tennis Coach (Boys or Girls Sponsor - Cheerleader, Drill Team, Pep Club Asst. Gymnastics Coach Asst. Volleyball Coach Soccer Coach Pre-Season Football Middle School: Head Football Coach Asst. Head Football Coach Head Basketball Coach Asst. Basketball Coach Head Track Coach Asst. Track Coach Volleyball Coach Gymnastics Coach Golf Coach (Boys or Girls) Tennis Coach (Boys or Girls) Sponsor - Cheerleader, Drill Team, Dance Team, Pep Club Asst. Gymnastics Coach Asst. Volleyball Coach Soccer Coach Pre-Season Football MUSIC Senior High\nBand Director Asst. Band Director Middle School: Band Director Orchestra Director 3,740 2,031 1,710 1,282 962 3,740 1,390 1,817 1,496 1,390 535 1,390 1,817 1,603 460 460 1.817 612 1,176 1,390 per diem pay 1,390 641 1,390 641 1,390 641 1,176 1,226 460 460 962 612 481 1,176 per diem pay 2,672 1,870 1,870 1,069appendix B SUPPLEMENTARY PAY SCHEDULE 2000-01 ( JOURNALISM Senior High Middle School (Yearbook) Middle School (Newspaper) 1,977 1,069 535 1 DRAMA Senior High: Play Director (one play) Play Director (two plays) OTHER Senior High \u0026amp; Middle School: Department Coordinator Extra Duty - Before and After School Extra Duty - During School Hours ELEMENTARY Volunteer lunch and/or playground (30 minutes) The stipend will increase the same percentage as the base salary increases each year. 908 1,817 908 2,084 2,084 1,335I PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION 2000 - 2001 Article 9, Section L, of the PN Agreement states that Teachers requested (by principal or Central Office administrator) to provide professional services on a day not specified in Article Vn as a workday shall be compensated for the time spent in performmg those services according to the following schedule\nHours per Calendar Day 2 to 6 hours more than six hours Compensation .25 percent of base salary ($60.30) .50 percent of base salary ($120.60) are This provision does not apply to teachers who paid a stipend for extra duty, to services performed outside the minimum schedule hours of work on a workday specified in Article VII, nor to the State Department requirements for job performance. SUBSTITUTE PERIOD PAY Article 31, Section D slates, When elementary teachers are required to cover an entoe class other than their own, they shall be paid one-twentieth (1/20) of one percent (.0005) of the annual base salary for a 914 month teacher for the major portion of each hour, rounded to the nearest A hour, that they are required to substitute. For second^ teachers the contract states, Secondary teachers who serve as substitutes shall be pmd one-twentieth (1/20) of one percent (.0005) of the annual base salary for a 9% month teacher for the major portion of each hour, rounded to the nearest 'A hour, that they^^e required to substitute. For the 2000 - 2001 school year ($24,118 x .0005 - $12.06) SiJ d L n ij n 5 o p s 'I O n s D s 8 1M MOS. (192) f 11 2 3 4 5 6 1_ 20.546 2''.873 20:200\" 30.^3 31,931 2 \"26,38 4' 29771'1 3'l,dB4 32,442 33,335 33,646 3 J7,567 267094 307221 31,574 32,962 34.356 9 112 MOS. (197) 1 j 1 I 2 ' 3..... 2 I 23,599 I 3 4 29,91)1 ' 311,4115 31,3'19 31,873 27,761 26,285 zn'.iza ' 29,6'46 5 3^63J 33,287 6  r 31,204 ''34',7Z7  ' i(\u0026gt; MOS. (K(7): 1 2 3  I 4 ! 5  6 I i 1 2 4 _ 28.688 5 29,609 '30,630 26.915 36'933 31,'242 32j95_ '3'3.973_ 35.37'7 32,283 3i:9S7 33.284' 33,616 34:637 7 31,651 34,305 35,656' I 8 4 '34'994 ' 36,615 37,036' 36,396 \"5 37,419  38,446' 6 7 'Little Roa\u0026lt; schooi wsiRicr .....teachers'2002 03 27875/.' 9 327672 7 33,593 33.999  35,020 35.320 : 367347 '36,679 i \"37.700 10 'i'l 3\u0026lt;71+  35735 36,041  37,062 37.368'J 38,389 M,721 12 36,758 38:d83 \"39.4'10 .....vv I 39,'742 4O,'763' 'aa.ce?  39',d7B'['40,099' '41,120............ '39:461 40,462 41:5'63'1 42,524 ^  I  31.008 32.3E6 33,610 35,251 29j^33^ 30,380 30,694 7 31:742 32,056 33,444 '34',8S8 \"36:299 33,103 34,491 I 31,427\n32,476 32.789 347161 35.539 35,906 36,953' 3t346 _ 36.394 33.837 35.199 38.001 39.441 8 33,523 34,684 36,246 37,634 39,048 40,489 9 10 34,570 35,616 35,932 37,204 36,682 40:086 41,536 36.980 38,341 39,720 '41.144 42,584 11 36,665 38,027 39,369 40,777 42,191 43,632 I fzzTzzjrs\" 13 J 15 3'^777 .\"3'8,798 j 39,818 ' 39,104 ' 4'0,125 ' 41.146 ^2,141 14 39.104 ' 40,125 40,431 , 4j.452 41.'7M'''42,8b5 43:162. 44,183 43,545 44'566' '45,567' '427473 43,826 '45,204 4'6,608 __16 _ 40.839 42,167 43\",494' 44,847 17 44,515 46,225 '47,246 .^29. 48,650 18 46,868'r46,889 49,671 19  20 49,268\" 12 37.713 39.075 13 38,'76d\" 40,122 46:437 41,4'84 41,826 I \"42,872 oho*. Zit'dfic 14 39,808 41,170 '2'5'i22 '43,020 1'5 40.855 4272'17 '43:579 16 4'3,2'65 44.627 17' T 18  19 20 43:2'39i 44:286\" 45,334 44,879  46,774 '44,967 '46:016 46,382\" 4\"7,429 477822 48,869 '45,674 47.063 46,477 46.017 4'87i io\" \"49.524  60,905\" 50,572 52,012 23,620 30,0111 3t,4il2 32,910 34,426 I 35,940 I 2!),1?0 30,801 32,0:12 3.-4,41iO 34,976 30.490 20.720 31,151 32,562 34,041 ' 35,527 37.040 :i1MOS (212) i 1 l'i 23,3111 2 3' 2 : 33,7'76'_3ti'.o 2J,87T' 3O:438 34,904 3 32,212 4 5 6 3^16 35.258 _3'2^8l)y 33.369' 31,2'1)9 '347863' , 35,821 3'6:385' 36:808'! 37,372'' 37,935 4 30,82'1 32,252 33,063 35,142 36,627 38,141 5 31:922 33,353 34,784 36,242 37,728 39:'242' 6 33,023 34,454 35,685 37,343 38,629 40,343 8 34,123 1 36,224 35,554 ^,655 36,085 38,444 39,930 41,443 36,066 39,545 41,031 I 42,544 9 36,325 37,756 39,187 40,645 42,131 43,646 10 37,426 38.857 40,268 41,746 43,232 44,746 i 11 36,526 39,957 41,386 42,647 44,333 45,847 12 39,627 41,058 42,489 43.948 46,434 46,947 13 40,728 42,159 43,590 45,048 ' 46,534 48,048\" 41.829\" 43:200 44.691 46.149 ' 47.635 49:149 15 16 42,929 44.030 44,360 \"4577'91' 4'7:250\" 48,736 50,249 46,692' 47\n93' '48,350 1 4'9:45'1 '5i',3M 52,451 18 19 20 '60:552\" ?,2:O36 'W:552 53,139 H652  66,763 4 ij Mi '33,0'31 \"s' 6 '32:393 ,\"33,620 '34,168 34^97 _35JM '35.900' 37,118 a'z.sl^' 39.^2 a'Bjsid \"40.190 35,266 '34,'947 36,413 a i' 9 36,075 37.'262 10 -f i 11 J:L5L 36.245 39.372 J7.641 30:006 38,668 40,134' 3^,767 41,317 46,894' 42,022 40,500 4i:627 387330 i' 39,457' _3^796 ^0,9M 41,2612 42:388  42,75'5 I \"43,882 12 4O,'M4' 42,050 13 41,712 J3:177 14  16 42.444 43,572 43,140 4'4,276\nISIM 44.699 45,826 46,954 I'ucliei ( al the lop t the schedule who do no! receive step fncisaies ere paid an additional 61,500. '43:516 1 44,643 \"427630 43,963 '44.304 '457^ \"16 45.094 17 18 19 20 \"45,009 48,531\" '46,136 45,770 46,897 47,856 48,786' 48:681 4'9:269' 46,659 47,26'4' 48:391 '50,336' 40.913\" 51,463 48,025 49,152 4'9:518 ' 50,646 51.040 62.690 5'1:7'73\n' \"53.2'95 i 54,422 ' 53,7\"18' 54,845 r55,972' 52,168 \"57.1'60'Ari\u0026lt;ansas Democrat '(Gazette  TUESDAY. MARCH 21, 1995  Teachers want raise\ncut in works LR would lop 2 days from its school year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL  Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School District teachers want a 5 percent raise next year. But the district, contending its cupboard is bare, is proposing a shorter work year and an accompanying pay cut. District administrators and the Classroom Teachers Association exchanged proposals late last week in preparation for the first negotiating session on the 199.596 teachers contract. The session is set for March 28. The district's proposal re- llects financial problem,s that were subjects at several school board meetings in Februaiy and March. The district is trying to balance next year's budget by making $9.1 million in cuts and adjustments. The district's initial contract proposal includes no provisions for across-the-board raises for teachers. The proposal also calls ftni contract changes that would\nReduce the school year by two days, with teachers working 190 days and students attending class 176 days. Employee salaries would be cut accordingly, about 1 percent. For example, the $20,225 paid beginning teachers this year would fall t6 $20,014 next year.  Remove the automatic salary increase most teachers get for an additional year of experi- efice. This year, those incremental raises were about $800 per year for each teacher who hadnt reached the top of the salary schedule. i Freeze the district's cost for fringe benefits for teachers. If insurance premiums increase, the teachers would have to absorb the cost.  Reinstate the practice of assigning teachers to supervise liinch and playground duly, which would allow the district to eliminate supervisory aide positions. Teachers now have a 30- minule duty-free lunch each day.  Halve the extra pay for junior and senior high teachers who teach six classes each day instead of the standard five. Teachers are paid the equivalent of 20 percent of their salary for teaching a sixth period. That supplement would be reduced to 10 percent. The CTA proposal calls for a S percent across-the-board raise for teachers in addition to the traditional increment. Teachers ineligible for the increment because they have reached the top of the salary schedule should get a bonus equal to 5 percent of their salaries, the CTA says. Trimming the school year vyould require the state Department of Education's approval.Ajkansa^emocrat (  WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1997 LR schools, LRSD teachers get pay haggling out of the way BY CYNTHIA HOWELL T- ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE . _ vi auiger LeuDetter, the new Little Rock School District President of the union, said the teachers will start work next negotiations were hard but month with salary increases rang- district officials were more open ing from 3.6 percent to 5.3 percent usual about the financial con- ff a tentative agreement reached dition of the system. dopted by the school I believe we have the best set- fpophiner Pvnon'oni-a board and the Classroom Teachers Bement possible given the dis- ^aCniTlg CXpenence. Association. . tricts financial situation  T .Arlhot- ------------------------------- The salary agreement holds the promise of more money for teach- ere if the school district wins a $5 5 million lawsuit against the state over the funding of health insurance and teacher retirement That ca.se IS pending before the Sth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St Louis. Interim Superintendent Don ssgs eggss bbsb , .  tuiuouauj' early in a low-key and amicable fashion. Typically, teacher salary negotiations continue until school ' starts in August, raising fears about teacher strikes. _ Thats the case in the neighboring Pulaski County Special \u0026amp;nd North Little Rock districts, plagued by contract disputes and labor relations problems. To get this done on July 15 fits in with our effort to show the community that we are doing things differently, Roberts told the board. This means we can focus See LRSD- Page 5B  Continued from Page 1B on getting school started and getting people to buy into the fact that we all must work together as a team. The districts 18,000 teachers perCCnt start work Aug. 13. Students start increaSC in thc BaSC scnooi Aug. 20. I , Grainger Ledbetter, Salary, Whlch will gO from $20,760 to $21,020 more open tricts financial situation, Ledbetter said. A few other contract provisions remain to be settled between the districts and unions negotiating teams. Once those issues are resolved, the complete tentative agreement will be presented to the School Board and to the union membership for final approval. trict employee salaries. That pro- Ihe salary agreement calls for vision is capped at a $5.5 million a 1.25 percent increase in the base crt ' salary, which will go from $20,760 by the suit, to $21,020 for a teacher with a bachelors degree and no teaching A final provision of the salaiy agreement makes a bonus of ^70 available for up to one-third of the districts teachers if they take nine crease, or $840, for their added SS/ yearofexperience. -we think this will provide The district s most experienced teachers with the skills and moti- experience. Also, most current teachers will get an average 2.7 percent inteachers , who have reached the top of the salaiy schedule, are ineligible for the experience increment. In lieu of the increment those teachers will get a stipend of The salary agreement calls for a 1.25 percent for a teacher with a bachelors degree and no $980 for their added year of work, up from $810 the previous year. The top salary will be $43,566 for teachers who work 9!!i months and have at least 21 years of experience and a masters degree plus 30 more credit hours. Teachers could get another raise of as much as 3 percent if the court award  the amount sought II vation to use computers, Roberts said, adding that the training may be provided by either staff members knowledgeable about computers or computer operators in private businesses. Roberta said money for the computer training will likely come from whats left of a $20 million loan from the state to the district for desegregation. About $5 million of the loan has not yet been spent. Roberts said he envisioned using some of that money this year to buy computer equipment. In another break from tradition, the tentative salary agreement was negotiated before the School Board voted on a budget for the 1997-98 school year. It doesnt have to happen this way eveiy year, Roberts said. But it is a way to say that employee relations are important and that they shouldnt come at the end of everything else. The board may vote on a 1997- 98 budget at a meeting Tuesday. That budget is expected to include the raises, as well as funding for some expected enrollment in- creases and anticipated changes in the district alternative eduoa.- tion program for junior high stu-, dents.  as The superintendent praised Uip- School Board for efforts to stabi-. lize the school district and work, together. The salary agreement- typified those efforts, he said,  did tile recent orderly hiring of a new superintendent  Leslie Cai\n- nine  who will replace Roberta by the end on the year. ,. j\n,Arkansas Democrat ^(5azcltfe. O FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1997  i LR schools hope to offer everyone 1.25% pay raises BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOT RAT-GAZETir All Little Rock School District employees can expect raises this year if the School Board approves recommendations administrators made Thursday. Board members first heard the salary proposal during a meeting announcing the expansion of a drug-abuse prevention program. Superintendent Don Roberts and Mark Milhollen, the district's manager of financial services, pre- ' sented a draft 1997-98 budget that includes a 1.25 percent increase in every employee groups base salary, plus the traditional raise employees get for another year of experience. The proposed increases are similar to the proposal made earlier this month for the districts 1.800 teachers. District administrators are reSee RAISES, Page 8B X -I- Raises  Continued from Page IB fining the proposed budget, which the School Board took no action on Thursday. .. The budget draft shows that the district finished the 1996-97 school year with a $2.1 million balance in federal and local funds. Much of that will be spent this year to off- get anticipated expenses of $162 million. Revenues are projected at $160 million. This is the first year since 1989 tliat the district will be without special desegregation funding from the state. The district got its last payment of $683,125 this past year, Milhollen said. The state payments have been as high as $8 million annually as the result of a financial settlement between the district and the state.  I But the school district can stilt draw from a $20 million loan from the state and will continue to get special state funding to support magnet schools and interdistrict student transfers. In other School Board business, organizers of a year-old program to reward Little Rock high school students who choose not to use illegal drugs announced plans to exThe budget draft shows that the district finished the 1996-97 school year with a $2.1 million balance in federal and local funds. pand the program to include junior high students. John Ostner, a member of the Downtown Little Rock Rotary Club, told the School Board that 22 percent of eligible public and private high school students participated in tire voluntary prevention program last winter. The number far exceeded his expectations, Ostner said, and he called the program a resounding success. The Rotarj Club organized the program  Teens Resisting Unhealthy Choices Everyday, or TRUCE  last year, basing it on a similar program in Texas. Students are asked to prove they are drug-free by undergoing a urinalysis, and get a TRUCE card that entitles them to discounts and hiring preferences at more than two dozen busirresses. Of tire 6,116 students enrolled iir Little Rocks five public high schools. Mount St. Mary Academy and Pulaski Academy last year, 1,319 participated in tire program. Participation in the private schools was greater, with 45 percent of tire 875 enrolled at St. Marys and Pulaski Academy taking part, compared to 921  or 17.6 percent  of the public schools 5,241 students. Tlris school year. Baptist Health has joined with tire Rotary Club to sponsor tire program. Also Thursday. Roberts told tlie boaid hes close to completing negotiations with IBM and National Computer Systems to update the districts administrative computer system, quadr upling its capacity. He said the improvements should serve the district for tire ne.xt four to five years. The hardware improvements will cost about $2M,000. The $133,000 cost of software improvements will be waived and the three-year service contract dis- coiurted by 35 percent, Roberts said. The negotiations, once completed, will end an ongoitrg dispute be tween the district and computer system providers that dates back to 1991, he said. IArkansas Democrat (j^azette^  THURSDAY, AUGUSTU Teachers OK pact for raises of 3.6% to 5.3% The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association voted Wednesday to accept a contract providing salary increases from 3.6 percent to 5.3 percent The contract was approved unanimously, association President Grainger L^better said. He declined to speculate on how many teachers showed up to vote at Hall High School, but he said turnout was light The contract now faces a LiWe Rock School Board vote, e.xpected tonight There are no real surprises here, Ledbetter said. This ,is something eveiybody has known about for some time.\n* Union and school district ofiB- cials reached a tentative agreement July 15. If approved by the school board, the contract will raise the base teacher salary from $20,760 tb $21,020. Most, teachers will receive an average a? percent increase.'*^ I*\u0026gt;.2B  WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1998  Alkans^ Democrat LR teachers seek 10 percent pay increase next year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-OAZETTE The teams would like to reach crease of 2.3 to 33 percent Teach- settlement before_the last ^y of en at tte top of tte sala^^^^^ assigned to the junior and senior district policy. is barred from a class for the sec- Repeated or habitual noncom- ond time, according to the propos- pliance with established building al, the child shall not be returned.   .. . ------j_ A teacher who refuses to accept Repeated or habitual noncom- highs. . . The association has proposed --------------C\"'7C\"u new contract language that would Procedures by the buildi^ ad- a settlement betore me lasi a*y ui cia at uix f am. ivnnri refhers^!ocrau|n 1?^^^^ ^a^lnlTcS^^thels^^^ sp^cificauFtoate each school .ffiMSS.SS.'l... aKSffJSSMJ  SKSS.'tiK.S'S SSSluEK -----------------r,,il.,i,n. Intial teachere. e^urelh^^^iwl'administSora officer, the proposed contract Ues, according to the CTA propos- ence increment would get a $!0 principal as the person with the primary responsibility for enforcing discipline in their schools. ----------------- Some orincipals give teachers view team of representatives from ciai pay given lu vuaviito cuiu lu 1 11,  nnt lA il-A aa,tv,1Haa HiaTTA anncQls- teachers who do extra duty such the message that they are not to tion proposal. ministration should be reviewed such a student will not be threat- by the Discipline Management ened with reprisals, tte proposal Committee and, if unresolved, said. Additionally, a student who shall be reviewed by a joint re- has been suspended but is ^peal- \" 1 ing the suspension and IS still at- the committee,the CTA, an assis- tending school should not be al- tant superintendent, the principal lowed to participate in regular and the districts student hearing school-spo^ored eve^ or activi- tors.  Dut, just as important to teachers as the salary proposals are ^TepraS^s%Taete^^^^ tioto thTc?eato of a P^efKafSnSet stuck S|a^assocj_a_tion have pl^^^^^ '\"^ntssuesrelatedtodiscipllne, management con....................... bf a new contract and will contin- -ue to try to meet once or twice a rne associauou ^'''Cgigmentary school for dis- would have the authority to re-  week for the next few weeks to cent across-the-board ra runtive pupils and the assignment view a principals discipline en- jeach a settlement, said Brady teachers, coupledl^th a gffl ex- to forcement if a teacher believes Gadberry, the director of labor re- penence * J g^npLnee every school Currently, virtually the principals action is inconsis- g?tooT^ The torameni^anfounte to ai im all 7ampus se^ty officers are tent with building procedures or first stages of negotiations. Ihtial teasers, lusuauasco v j-aisc would increase a The language provides a means ------------------------j for an appeal beyond the school ing table this year, is site-toed The association seeks a 7 per- Ss-sS rupttye pupils and the assis^ent \"owj_pracipals^dism^^^^ ^at ^w teachers to bar disrup- proposed contract naust be^ - tive students from class, some- proved by the Little Rock School : times permanently. Once a child Board and the association.Arkiuisas Democrat| WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 1998 School chief sets ay for top aides: 831 to $87,000 5 LR districts new associate superintendent for instruction at the top ol salary schedule BYCYNflllA IIDWr.LL ARKANSAS OI-MfK'KAI GAZhl II, IJltle Hock School District Ku pcrintendent Leslie Carnine ha.s set 1998-99 salarie.s ranging from $64,831 to $87,000 for his seven new top assistanls. But salaries for all district administrators and other nonleaching employees may be subject to change soon. Carnine said this week lie wants a consultant to review district salaiy schedules for equity and adequacy. Carnine wa.s hired as superin- Icndent last summer and assumed Mill ian l.,in:cy, I'ornier piin-vipiil at Miinii Ails anil Svienves Magnet .liinior High, will be assistant snperintendent I'or secondary education at a salaiy of $73,343. Katherine Lease, a former Little Rock district employee who most recently worked as director ofsec-ondaiy education in Fayetteville s public schools, will oversee the district's (mice of Planning, Research and Evaluation at a salaiy or$72,127. (aiiiiiie said he tried to limit administiatois pay raises to 10 the duties in October. Selecting associate and assistant superinlen-pciccnt. 'I'liat cap was exceeded. though, in cases where the adniin-istratois will work more days per dciiLs in M...a..r.c..h..,.. ..h..e began ruling yeaCr.a rnine, who IS paidi $ti1i1n5,otXoKn) na year, said that although the assistant and associate superinlen-positions that had been vacant for a year or two because of resignations and retireinenls. At the lime - --------- J . of llie appointnienls, which took deiiLs salaries are \u0026gt;\u0026gt;'8 effect July 1, Carnine said the .i.s ti .a.l.i..v..e.. .s..a..l.a...r.i..e.s ove-ranll ssbhmoudldd bhee salaries were not final. lleessss Uthniss yyeeaarr.. TIhhaaltss bBeeccaauussee aass Carnine has added two new lev- many as 11 admniistrative imsi-ehs to the districl'.s adininistralive lion.s are being ssaablairryv sscchheedduullee ttoo aaccccoommmmooddaattee ers are being moved into cainims the new associate and assistant su- I norinfprulPIlb\n. level positions. . The number of positions in the districl'.s planning, icseaKli and evaiiialion oirice, the stall uevel-opineiit onke. the Instructional Resource Center and the districts student assignment office are being reduced, Carnine said. On the other hand, stalf positions will be incre.ased for alterna-perintendents. Previously, the schedules highest adininislrative salaiy was $68,567. The highest salary now possible for an assistant superintendent is $76,991 and the highest possible for an associate superintendent is $87,000. An ciniiloyee's lernUned noUn7y by Um assigned tivror' \"'^'^\".'..XeroVas-job but also by years of experience ............... \"mnbei and educational background. Bonnie Lesley, Uie districts new associate sutieriiitendent for instruction, will be paid the top pals, salary of $87,000. Now the Little Rock districts curriculum leader, Lesley is a fonner associate superproarauis, and the number of as- sislaiil. piiiiei_p_al1s.. iJn.. eleinentaiy schools will rise, ^hunine said, Not all schools have assistant pruici- i'lie call for an independent review of district salaiy schedules T eslev is a former associate super- was prompted by the distiic s fnlendent and chief of staff of pub- newly i -ised desegregation and Victor Anderson, a longtime junior high and high school principal and former assistant superintendent for secondary education in Lillie Rock, will be paid $79,704 as associate supcrintendcnl for operalions. Sadie Mitchell, also a former liewi,y I iovv. -- education plan, Carnine said, and by his own discomfort with what he Ihinlcs are i.neipiitics in pay. The desegregation inaii, approved by a federal judge in April, obligates the district to establish a uniform salaiy schei.'ule for all positions that will coiiii.'ciisalc cin-also a loriiiei ployees based on their qiialifica-princ. pa. a... most recently lions and iniininize coiiip,anils of worked as an assistant superinlen- m|. deni for eleinentaiy education is Caininc has sK ,,icinn or the districts desegrega- meiils can be coinpieieu uy principal who denl elementaiy liuw aaovc.ukv ------------ school services at a salaiy ol vision of the districts desegrega-lion obligations. Three people were selected by Carnine and approved by the School Board for assistant super-has asked .lim Mal-veiiiber. , , , The affected salaiy schedules are for administrative and support intendent positions. Frances Cawtlion, fonner principal alJefferson Eleiiientary, wi 1 be assistant superintendent for el-pineiilnrj' ediicalinii at a salary of cinlion. personnel, rather thanteachers. UClOUllllVll  . - ----- - Carnine said. Tlie leacliers salary schedule is subject to collective hurgaining each year with Uie Lit- Ue flock Classroom Teachers Asso- \\ Arkansas Democrat 7^ OjjazcHc  FRI DAY, APRIL 23, 1999 ILR board extends contract for school chief with raise BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARK.ASSAS DEMOCRAtC.VETTE The Little Rock School Board voted 5-1 Thursday to increase Superintendent Les Gamine's compensation package by 10 percent years. A majority of teachers got across-the-board raises of 8.5 peri cent over two years, plus step increases for e.xperience of about 5.4 percent. Board member Katherine and e.\\lend the duration of his con- Mitchell cast the dissenting votes on tract by one year to give him a the contract e.xtension and on the three-year pact benefits. Board member Judy Maj The board approved the contract ness left the meeting before the changes during a meeting in which a counselor from JA Fair Higli votes were taken. Mitchell said after the meeting School appealed to board members that she objected both to aspects of for help in resolving faculty dissen- Gamine's job performance and to sion regarding the school's former the informal process the board used principal. William Broadnacc. Five percent of the approved in- in evaluating the superintendent  Earlier this month, board mein- crease will go to Gamine's annual bers discussed Gamine's job perforsalary, raising it from SI 15.000 to mance in an e.xecutive session S120.750. The remaining 5 percent closed to the public. Mitchell said S5.750. will be contributed annually the evaluation was done in Gar- to his retirement fund. The raise is nine's absence and that Berkley retroactive to Sept 1.1998. then presented a summary of the The salary increase marks the boards discussion to the supenn- first raise in base pay for the dis- tendenL Mitchell said her remarks   about Gamine's job performance tricts chief e.xecutive since 1993.  when Dr. Henry Williams was hired were not included  and therefore not valued  in Berkley's verbal re: as superintendent t Board President Larry Berkley P^ Gamine.     She said the omission was espe- said after Thursday's meeting that a majority of the seven-member board was pleased with the direction Gamine is taking the district's educational program and with the districts progress in complying with its dese^egation plan. Gamine has been a district employee since September 1997. Board members said the increase in his compensation was intended to be somewhat similar to the percentage increases paid district teachers over the past two cially disturbing because she was the only black board member participating in the evaluation. Board member Mike Daugherty, who is. also black, was absent2B  FHIDAY, OCIOUEU 15. 1999  Pay schedule for secretaries is approved by LR board . BY ARIEL RJ-KANK ARKANSAS 1)1 MO( RAI (iA/l I II The Little Itock School Board approved a new saliiry sclicdiile . for secretaries and administrative staff at a special meeting , Thursday niglit. , Board members and school . district employees concerned pbout disparities in pay within the district called the move ii step in the right direction, but . said that it was nol a solution. . Richard Hurley, the districts director of human resources, told . Ilie board the district mostly followed the recommendation!\nof a . salary consultant who had been  hired to evaluate the secretarial and administrative jobs and recommend a salary scale. Thc district also surveyed 10 other school districts to determine liow they decided secretarial salaries. Hurley said. The most lively part of thc discussion focused on the fact that middle and elementary school secretaries are to be placed on a lower salary grade than secretaries for high school principals. Secretary Vickie Armstead told the board she and her fellow clerical employees support the new salaiy scale but not the ranking system that deterniined it. The schedule will give secre- Ufies on the superintendents\n.staff about $4,(MX) more per year - than entry-level grade school sec-\nrctarics, who earn about $14,(XX) a -year. Much work needs to be done *lo solve the ineejuities, 2 'Board member she said. Board Michael 'Uaugherty said the rankings by iwhich tile new pay scale was de- ^termined create a caste system. \u0026lt; But Hurley and Superinten- ,dent Les Camine said they hope -to put salaries for all secretaries fon thc new scale within the next .three years. They would have ^likcd to do so immediately, but *thc money isnt there, they said.  Were not creating fa hicrar- chyl. It already exists, Hurley tsald. *. The board also postponed un- Itil its next meeting two issues on *the agenda  a retmest by the ^districts speech palliologists to\n*be removed from the bargaining Cunit of the Classroom Teachers ^Association, and tlie seleciion of | \\a fiscal agent to assist in generat- nng at least $50 million through a nhliagc increase means. and other4B  FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1998  Aikansas Democrai ^(Bazcttc Board apprehensive about cost of teacher raises, new school  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL . . . . ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE .: .in a 4'A-hour meeting devoted - both to academic and financial is-  sues. Little Rock School Board  members voiced concerns Thursday  about the long-term cost of a proposed 4.5 percent employee pay , raise and the possible $105 million nice of a new school -\" The board took no action on any ' issues. Most  including the pro-\nposed 1998-99 teacher contract proposed school attendance zones and a curriculum for the eight new mid- - die' schools  are set for a board - voi? Jfev. 19. The new Stephens Elementary , School, projected to cost about $3 / -  -million more than the $7.2 million .  the district has set aside for it will - -likely be the subject of a special -' -School Board meeting next week. A majority of the board members indicated Thursday that they were inclined to approve the proposed teacher contract But they also acknowledged that changes in district finances will be necessary in the ne.xt few years to avoid a $356,000 deficit by 2001-2002. District administrators described the long-range financial projections as a worse-case scenario that included no Binding increases for enrollment growth, legislative funding changes, increases and modifications in federal funding, or significant increases in local tax revenues. The proposed contract ratified by the Classroom Teachers Association last week, calls across4he- board raises of 4.5 percent or 525 percent for teachers this year if the district gets reimbursed for shortfalls in state-funded teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Most other district employees will get identical percentage raises, also contingent on the state funding. The proposed teacher contract also includes provisions to increase contributions to employee health insurance costs and to raise stipends for e.xtra duty, such as coaching or club sponsorships. The district e.xpects to get as much as $20 million in state reimbursements for 1996-99 and about $8 million annually each year thereafter. The total cost of increased teacher benefits this year is about $9.3 million, and the district owes teachers $3.4 million for raises that went unpaid in 1997-98. Board member Judy Magness said it appeared the district cant afford the raises in the long term, especially if the district is also to pay for installing and using more computers in schools, training for sitebased decision-making and repairing school building. Magness questioned who authorized district negotiators to offer teachers the 4.5 percent raise. She said she thought the cap in the contract talks was to be 4.25 percent She asked for changes in the process used to get board input in future negotiadons. Besides the promised 4.5 percent teachers and other employees are already getting incremental raises that they traditionally get for their addition^ year of e.'cperience. For teachers, the increment is about 3 percent Superintendent Les Carnine said the board approved the incremental increase in September as part of the 1998-99 budget The district deferred some $2 million in anticipated e.'cpenses in that budget to be able to pay the e.xperience increment The move was intended to help employees offset insurance premium increases that took effect OctL Board President Larry Berkley said he wanted the district to pay the highest salaries in the state but also wanted to be sure it can remain solvent The board also got its first look at plans for the construction of a new Stephens Elementary School in central Little Rock at 18th and Maple streets. The district has owned most of the land for the school but has bought four adjacent properties, which prompted board members to ask why they were not asked to approve the purchases. They asked for a breakdown of the specific costs of the school to better determine what costs they could trim before the plans for the school are completed. Stephens is intended to be a state-of-the-art school for the 21st century. Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell said. The school will feature one computer for every five students, as well as a focus on economic education and communityi .4s currently designed, the split- level 75.000-square-foot school for about 650 pupils in pre-kinder- garten through fifth grade will be laid out like a city. The bookstore might be a simulated bank, the main hai might be a mall and the cafeteria could be divided into four different kinds of restaurants. Mitchell said. It would cost about $90 a square foot to build.r THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2000  District, teachers sign tentative pact for coming 3 years LR School Board, union members may OK contract with 7.25% and 5% raises next week BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRATCAZETTE Most Little Rock School District teachers can expect total pay increases of 7.25 percent this year and more than 5 percent in each of the next two years, according to a tentative contract signed Wednesday by district and teacher leaders. The three-year agreement must be ratified by the Little Rock School Board and the membership of the Classroom Teachers Association to become final. That is expected to happen next week. 'The teachers association has scheduled a membership meeting at 5 p.m. Tuesday, the day before most teachers start work for the 2000-01 school year. The meeting to act on the contract proposal will be at the Arkansas Education Association building, 1500 W. 4th SL As of late Wednesday, the School Board had not scheduled a time to consider the newly inked I agreement but has a special meeting set for 5:30. p.m. Tuesday on a different matter Brady Gadberry, special assis- ,tant to the superintendent and the ence will be $50,363, compared jj.i-- with $48,372 last year. The contract proposal estab- districts chief negotiator, said the three-year proposal is significant because it will contribute to loi^- term stability and enable the district and community to concentrate on attaining release from federal court monitoring of the districts desegregation efforts. The districts 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes procedures for court release by next June. Wednesdays agreement is actually the second three-year pact between the district and the teachers union, Gadberry said. But the first agreement, in 1989-90, was concluded after teachers went for al- niost an entire school year without a contract. As a result the first year of tlie three-year contract was retroactive. According to terms of the agreement, all teachers will get a 4.25 percent pay increase this year and a minimum increase of 2.875 percent in each of the next two years, which amounts to a 10 percent raise over three years. The annual raises are coupled with the average 3.03 percent experience increment traditionally paid eligible teachers for their additional year of work. *  ' As a result, a majority of teachers should see a 7.25 percent increase this year and well over 5 , percent in the next two years. ' Teachers who have the most experience in the district and have reached the top of the salary schedule are ineligible for the 3.03 percent increment. But they do get a $1,500 stipend. Tlie salary for a beginning teacher with a bachelors degree will go from $23,135 in 1999-2000. to $24,118 this year. The top salary for a teacher with 20 years of experi- lishes a minimum salary increase for the second and third years.but also establishes a procedure'to increase percentages as nonrestrict- ed revenues to the district increase. Gadberry said there was a strong probability that pay increases will exceed the minimum. The contract language takes into account the possibility of teacher raises enacted by state lawmakers when the Arkansas General Assembly convenes in January. Gov. Mike Huckabee and others have See TEACHERS, Page 5B, m!Zi' .. i ^^Ir? ^^4^3 V^1 5. I f- 1',. f.-rS Teachers  Continued from Page IB indicated that raising teacher salaries will be a priority during the legislative session. The Little Rock contract proposal includes adjustments in the salary schedule, beginning with the 2001-02 school year, as a way to raise beginning salaries and entice new teachers to the district. According to the proposal, salaries paid first-time teachers this year will be eliminated for 2001-02. This years salaries for all second-year teachers will become the first-year salaries in 2001-02 and a new second-year salary level has been developed. Players in the contract negotiations, which began in earnest last June, were reluctant Wednesday to reveal the terms of the proposal until after it could be presented to the teachers. K Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/STEVE KEESEE Signing in Heather Passmore stands beside her children, Emily, 4, Eric, 6, and Andrew, 8, at Little Rock's Carver Magnet Elementary School during registration Wednesday. Registration for all Little Rock School District schools will go onjrom 10 a.m.-7 p.m.today. The two older children will be first- and third-graders. Classes start Tuesday at Mabelvale, Woodruff and Stephens. Other Little flock schools start classes Aug. 21. that she felt very positive about the proposal and deferred other comments until after next weeks membership meeting. Gadberry released the proposed terms to the Aikansas The teams used Francis X. Quinn, a labor relations specialist from Oklahoma, on both Tuesday and Wednesday to complete the negotiations. Quinn has been employed by the district and the association at different times in the past as an arbitrator or fact finder in employee and contract disputes. He was in the Little Rock School District this week for matters not related to the contract negotiations when he was called on to help, Gadberry said. Other changes in the contract for this year include the creation of a sick bank that will enable employees to donate unused sick days to be used by other critically ill employees. teaUer bIcheS d?^e^' benwcrat-M,butonly^er^e and no^experience in 20014)2 will. XSaVon Ac^ be $25,803. A second-year teacher with the same degree will earn $26300. A third year teacher will earn $26,796. In the final year of the contract, the beginning salary will be $26,835, the second-year salary will be $^351, and the third-year teacher with a bachelors degree will be paid $27,687. The top salary in the district that year will be $53,777. Players in the contract negotiations, which began in earnest last June, were reluctant Wednesday to reveal the terms of the proposal until after it could be presented to the teachers. Clementine Kelley, president of the teachers association, said only  information. The states Freedom of Information Act states that all records maintained in public offices or by public employees within the scope of their employment are presumed to be public records. And according to the law, any citizen of the state may inspect and copy public records. Gadberry said his reluctance to release the information was in deference to the union. The negotiating teams met most of Tuesday and for a few hours Wednesday to find acceptable language on the restructuring of the salary schedule beginning with 2001-2002.  WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2000  Teacher raises ^ttled in time school year BY JULIA SILVERMAN ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE the most senior teachers in the Tjfile Rock School District will be more than $50,000 this year, the first classroom teachers in the state to reach that level, under the terms of a three-year agreement ratified unanimously Tuesday night by the members of the Classroom 'Teachers Association. '\"'Tuesdays action caps several months of negotiation between the teachers and the city school board, which has yet to formally ratily the agreement but is expected to do so soon. And it came only one day before almost all of the districts teachers went back to work for the 2000-2001 school year. TTie agreement represents a carefully balanced compromise, said leaders of the negotiation efforts. TTie school boards primary objective was to raise first-year teacher salaries to attract more people to the profession and to the district, while the teachers association wanted to make sure that its members, many of whom have years of experience, would get their long-wished-for substantial  SeeTEWI iHERS, Page 3B ' Teachers  Continued from Page 1B pay raises. I feel very good about this, said Clementine Kelley, the president of the teachers association, af- past salary increases, will cortie' ter the meeting, which drew about from the districts general operat- 150 teachers. ing fund, which consists of both School board representatives state and local money. Under the have said the agreement will leave terms of the agreement during the administrators free to focus on oth- second and third years of the con-, er concerns, such as attaining re- tract the teachers will receive, a' lease from federal court monitor- percent raise equal to the average ing of the districts desegregation percentage increase of the general efforts. operating funds they have received Under the terms of the agree- over the last five years. ment, all teachers will receive pay raises of 425 percent this year, and state Legislature intends to raise . at least 2.875 percent in each of the teacher salaries, which would next two years. make the general operating fund Also, each year most teachers al- larger, and which in turn might ready receive a 3,03 percent annual push teacher raises past the 2.875 increase for experience. Teachers percent mark, with more than 20 years of expert- ence receive a $1,500 stipend. That means first-year teachers will make $24,118 this year, up from $23,135 last year, and the more senior teachers will make $50,363, up from $48272. By the end of the next three years, the districts first-year teachers will be making $26,8^. A teacher with 20 years experience, a masters degree and 30 additional credit-hours will make $53,777, ac-' cording to the contract '  For the second and third years, teachers are guaranteed a raise of at least 2.875 percent according to the contract , Money for that raise, as it has for'- There are indications that the FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 2000  LR School Board \" gives final approval to salary increases: Teachers, other district workers to get raises BY CYNTHIA HOWELL u ARKANSAS DtMCK RAT-CAZETI E Little Hock School Board members, by ratifying a prcpGuvd teacher contract Thursday, final- sent salary settlements with.ail other employee groups by Aug. '24. - ____ , On other financial matters, the ircrint u? authorized the issuancd of bonds to Prudential Securities on the districts construction bonds and the one that offered tlie in- fiod. ?ece workers who do not participate in negotia- tions or in Sie k and confer salary Ulks. -'\" The board adopted the contract y?\"issues will tak\ne and pay raises at a wide-ranging The bondf wm^be^ w it also authorized DortiSth^^vp^?,a^^^ pleted over about the next, five the sale of $46 million in construction bonds and considered regulations that will give parents a say on whether their children can be exempted from semester exams. portion of the revenues raised by.a 5-mill tax increase approved by voters in May. . Don Stewart, the districts chief financial officer, told the bo^rd that the district ended this past school year with about $7.6 million m its operating fund. That amount School district administrators ^d leaders of the Classroom Teachers Association reached a tentative agreement on the threA- x , .----------------- year teacher contract last week jna^et-school fund balances are Association members endorsed it Tuesday'so board approval the final step. . _________________ The contract provides a 4 25 8enda for the Aug. 24 regulaT percent raise across the board for includ- this year and at least a 2.875 per- ** revised regulations that will cent increase in each of the next 9Uire parents of students-in two years  more if revenue in- **'*'''\"** creases in the district warrant. grows to $9 million if federal and included. Part of Thursday's board meetwas . . -------------- . mg concentrated on reviewing the monthly business meeting, including revised regulations that will grades nine through 12 to give permission for their children to be exempted from one or more of their semester exams. Some parents Eligible teachers will also get an average 3.03 percent increase -T-T' each year for every added vear of ?iid teachers had complained duTr work experience, so most teachers =~Png will actually see their annual who met grade and atten- salaries increase by 7.25 percent *- *- this year and more than 5 percent in the next two years. The districts T \"j most experienced teachers who the college-bound, have reached thc top of the salary , With the new regulations, \". Stif? schedule are not eligible for the who have a parents penfiis- expericnce increment but will get and meet the grade, attem a top-out stipend of $1,500. dance and behavior requirements The districts chief negotiator 9^ he exempted. During the yean Brady Gadberry said the salaries e schools will honor a parents including the new starting salaries ''lst for a change on the testing of $24,118 this year and $ffi 803  the request is sent to the next year for a bachelors degree , Principal in writing at leastclO and no experience, are competi-  . before the first day of semes* live within the state but not as  er , high as starting salaries in the , Even though students :mayi'be Northwest Arkansas districts. S exempted from a test, they have ' 'Gadbeny said he hopes to pre- option of taking to raise tieif ing the past year about exempting cf 1An A M,* ..A 1 _ _ V It -------- ...HUM OVVV4V dance requirements because the adults said that the lack of testing was detrimental to the studehU regulations,'IStif? ter tests. thA nntinn nPtalrinr* it tA grades. In that case, taking thatest I will not result in a lower semester grade for the course, according to ' the regulations. FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 2004  LR teachers raises are official School Board OKs 2.875% for 2003-04,10% for next year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board made teacher pay raises of 2.875 percent this year and 10 percent next year official Thursday night by ratifying a two-year contract settlement that was negotiated earlier this month by district representatives and the Classroom Teachers Association. This years raise will be retroactive to last July 1 and will be paid to the districts approximately 3,000 teachers in their April 1 paycheck. Also Thursday, the board approved a similar retroactive 2.875 percent raise for all other employee groups. The nonteaching employees iso will get the same increase in insurance benefits for this year that teachers are getting. As of April 1, the districts contribution to monthly insurance premiums will go from $187 to $253. Our teacher salaries now have us being very competitive with surrounding school districts, said Beverly Williams, the districts director of human resources and chief negotiator. While we have districts in outlying parts of the state that still pay higher, I believe we have an attractive salary that will cause us to win the best teachers in the area and maintain those we already have. Williams said district administrators will return to the board later this year with recommendations for 2004-05 raises for nonteaching employees. School Board President Tony Rose, whose wife is a district elementary school teacher, described the two-year contract as a great victory scored for teachers and the district. This was a mutually agreed upon contract. It wasnt done so much through negotiations as it was through collaboration, he said. Board member Baker Kurrus called the raise substantial and significant. It gives our people incentive to stay in the classroom and gives people who are beginning to get some experience the chance to have a career that is fulfilling and doesnt involve the sacrifices that teachers have had to make to stay in the classroom, he said. Thats my greatest hope  that we continue to reward the people who have the greatest impact on our students. Board member Larry Berkley said he was particularly pleased with a contract provision that provides teachers with an incentive of $1,300 next year if they use no sick leave. The district and the teachers association have been at odds all year and continue to be in arbitration over a provision in the new teacher evaluation system that rates teachers based on their work attendance. But the disagreements over the teacher evaluation system were completely absent from Thursdays meeting. We are so very pleased at the extension of kindness and understanding and professionalism that the district extended to us by offering what we think is the most significant raise that Little Rock teachers have ever had ... and I thank you very much, Katherine Wright Knight, president of the association, told the board. Kurrus said he hopes the two organizations can build on the  good relationship as a way to bet- 1 ter serve the city. Weve always pulled on the same rope in this business, but frequently we pulled in opposite directions, he said. Now ... we are all on the same end of the rope, pulling in the same direction, and , its amazing how much more we r can do. ! SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2004  ! LR teachers to get I credit for experience ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board voted Thursday in favor of giving teachers in the Little Rock School District full credit on the district's salary schedule for previous teaching experience in schools, as well\nas colleges or universities. Teachers have, in the past, been I given credit for time spent teaching in other kindergarten through 12th-grade classrooms and for time spent teaching in colleges or universities if they held teaching licenses while working on those I campuses. Now, on the basis of a memo ' of understanding between the 5 School Board and the Little Rock | Classroom Teachers Association, j teachers will earn credit for teach- j ing in colleges and universities accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education or accrediting agencies of comparable rank as long as their higher-education e.xperience was in their major teaching fields. ' Beverly Williams, the districts ' director ofhuman resources, said ! the change would apply to new I hires and teachers working in the i district in the 2004-2005 school , year but it is not retroactive to pre- I vious teaching years. I2B  THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1,2005  LR School Board ratifies 2005-06 teacher contract Agreement gives 0.5% pay raise BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board on Wednesday ratified the 2005- 06 teacher contract, but not without some board members objecting to complaints made by teacher leaders about the 0.5 percent across-the-board pay raise in the agreement. The board's 6-1 vote, which makes the contract final, followed on the heels of a similarly positive vote by the Classroom Teachers Association on 'Tuesday. But Katherine Wright Knight, the president of the Classroom Teachers Association, said shortly after the union vote that the half-percent salary increase is an embarrassment. Board member Tony Rose, who participated in the negotiations as part of the district's team, on Wednesday accused the teachers association of waging a campaign of disinformation at a time when the School Board had directed district administrators to offer teachers all that the district can afford. I want to make sure it is noted that the day of antagonistic methods of negotiating a labor contract in this district have to end, Rose read from notes before voting for the agreement. Rose warned that the districts recognition of the association as the sole bargaining agent for teachers could be in jeopardy. I will carefully weigh the actions and words of the CTA over the next few months, and I hope I wont be compelled by those actions and words to move myself into a position of opposition to a union that I previously supported, he said. Rose questioned why teacher leaders publicly named longevity pay for veteran teachers and an experimental incentive plan at Meadowcliff Elementary as significant issues to the association but did not raise those issues as such at the bargaining table. If damage control by the CTA representatives has to include distorting the truth of the negotiations, I dont see the collaborative efforts, Rose said. It inclines me to support opening the negotiations process to the public and press so that we dont have those kinds of misunderstandings. The reaction of board members to the news account of her comments surprised Knight. I honestly think it was a misinterpretation of what I said, Knight said later Wednesday about the reaction. I said what was true. It was not intended to offend anyone. It was intended to communicate what my people believe. Board member Baker Kurrus cast the sole negative vote to the contract. He said he objected to the provision that calls for the salary negotiations to be reopened in midyear only if the Lake View school funding case  now pending in the Arkansas Supreme Court  results in an increase in unrestricted state funding to the 25,000-student district. If we are going to have a contract, lets have a contract, he said. If diesel costs go to four bucks or the cost of electricity doubles, we are not going to reopen negotiations. If we are going to go to a situation where we are going to open things back up,\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_709","title":"ServiceMaster Management Services","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","School facilities","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["ServiceMaster Management Services"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/709"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":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\nServiceMaster Management Services, an Illinois company hired to supervise Little Rock School District's maintenance and custodial staff.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO ENJOIN THE LRSD FROM ENTERING INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT WITHOUT FOLLOWING BIDDING PROCEDURES, REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND WITHOUT PRIOR INVOLVEMENT OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS The Joshua Intsr/eoors respectfijlly move the court to enjoin the Little Rock School District from entering into a management service contract regarding managerial services for custodial and maintenance services. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the court that 1. The Little Rock School District has not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors\n2. The proposed management contract has potential adverse racial effect and impact 3. The proposed management contract has not been let for bids and is not a part of the program, research and evaluation instrument for the next five years\n4. The proposed management contract has potential adverse monetary effects upon ftnandai resources of the district and has the potential for adversely affecting the ability of the school district to meet its desegregation obligations\nand 1 5. length and was designed to provide special favor to someone, a John Doe, in toe school district The Joshua ir^ervenors request an opportunity to engage in discovery and to have this matter set for hearing shortly thereafter. The matter will be presented to the Little Rock School Board this evening, August 31, 1995, for action. Timo is therefore of the essence. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that this court reserve the right to review, and cancel, if necessary, any contract which is entered into between the Little Rock School District and any management service contractor, unless said contract is let tor bids after the discussion process has been followed which involves the Joshua intervenors. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501)374-3758 in W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 2:5ATg OP SERVICE I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy cf the foregoing pii forwarded to ail counsel of record, by il.S. Mail, post^ prepaid, on this August, 1995. was y of 3 I -\u0026gt;i iiefji Assemnlv 193 3 ACl 01 100'5 ft 1 1995 Ottice oi Desesf^ataxi Moniiorina \\V A 1 t 3 KI 1 ) b a 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19- 20 t 23 24 -w act to B'cqOIRE THE SOUCITIX OF BIOS I?-a* COMOITY TO BE SCKOOt DIBTB^CT HAScM.ESTlHATEO PUKCE.XSE PEtCE ? .CHASSD 3Y A r.ruS'S.\" 3- n iNACTED 3Y THf : assz-sly Q7 i.T : s  43 F aRK.i2\u0026lt;S/iS : ION 1. Definition. Board of Directors (A) \"Purchasing Off of any school dist icC or a la' 13i\" shall near. .'.a lly designated age of the school district with authority to contract or behalf of the school district. . (3) \"Commodities\" shall laean aake purcha.ses all supplies\", goods, MCerial, equip- , meet, machinery, facilities, personal property, and services, other than and pr^ssional se^ces school district. , purchased for or on behalf of the (0) Purchase Price\" shall nean Che full sale or bid price 0 --ponuBod-iy,  , without any allowance for trade-in. 'Purchase\" shall mean and include not only the outright purcnase of a conmodicy whe the but also the acquisition of commodities under rental-purchas or lease-purchase agreements or any other type of agreements rental payments on the purchase price thereot. by a. () 'Open Market Purchases\" shall mean ,os purchases or c\njdi ties /y purchasing SECTION 2. official in which competitiv All purclunses - bidding is not required qS commodities by any school district. 26 27 23-  :o' except those spccifiea lly exempted by Section 3, shall be made as folic' I I (A) In each instance In which Che estiaaeed pu- ^.-ba8e price shall erj^- cvo-chgus.ind-dollars ($2,000) thif commodity shall be procured : \u0026lt;rnHcitiirr- bids'. orowided c.bat the purc.bas 'J rus/ and rs u the by r.egcz a irtg a co.icracc. zejecz * Z-*-e T 1 rJ I 'T J pp I 6\n: (}  1 I !2 13 14 15 a. t Pv t.Jf.V  i I 16 .n\nj7 i Ivbx. cl-.nr ' n ch- into i r vs L r T vitho-dt solicit and unavoidable cxi be aoproyedj by ths att.nrhcd o the IT*.,-- i  l purcha.^e df jsuc.h t. (2) toi 1'. a 1? iii t, C: dcJiar# ($2,000). P CSC* xoeh \u0026gt;.1^ the pur n s-tt tc rbv hereinafter listed co-raaoditics  bid.s: r.ency. S C (A) Comnioditics i Provided, ' ths superintende r.stancss of r.o S'. h crser u rsscer. '.cy purchase s\n. c, unless a statenen: in writ chose order deocribinr. he et seniy ncce rodity without cosnrtifivc biddinf. s available onlv fro.-a the fedcial Rover : sh in\" t by 182 r 12 ^23 sc: pt\" r-S 24 :b*' 1.0$. (c).Siuciirc: state sgaoc\n. (D) Usetd. 071 S-Ssl' a4 1   II . isorvices,-the rates ' for wiiich or a\"federal regulatory agency ar.d :::acnineii.  subj co r h -Tlie Doa'rd'of Directors'of each school district shall pre ibe--che'\"nieclioc of soliciting bids by regulation and aay adept other 4' .riles.and rcgula \u0026gt;26' .1. ons governins the procurenent of corrxodities. SEC^XzSSy^AJyl olaf i?n%\norr 'che^pcevisi6hs\\_ofTthis'Act shall be a .if I .29 * :i^-sjceanor '.S' ' '' -1 - ' . .w * SECTION 6, 1 - 30 Uiercfiy'Trepcalcd . ' k. V*  3 J 32 33 3r a- 11 laws and parts of'laws in conflict with this Act art .a n   tirfS- : n * /s/ Oobbtj Tullis f -V-' 3 3jAPPR0VED VS rG.Or.V-AEaRNNO'iaR -2- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS . NO. LR-C-82^^0g|V'^^ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS SEP 8 1995 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSDS RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION TO ENJOIN THE LRSD FROM ENTERING INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT WITHOUT FOLLOWING BIDDING PROCEDURES. REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND WITHOUT PRIOR INVOLVEMENT OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS (\"LRSD\" The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District or \"District\") , for its Response to Joshua Intezrvenors Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from Entering Into a Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests for Information and Without Prior Involvement of the Joshua Intervenors, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states: The LRSD denies the allegations made by the Joshua Intervenors in their Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from Entering Into a Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests 1. for Inf ozmiation and Without Prior Involvement of the Joshua Intervenors. 2 . The LRSD does hereby assert that this Court hold the Joshua Intex-zenors to strict proof of each and evezry allegation made by them in their Motion to Enjoin the LRSD regarding the \u0026lt;lara\\pcud/en)oi n.res -1-proposed entry into a management service contract regarding custodial and maintenance services. 3 . As of this response, the LRSD has not yet entered into any contract with any entity to provide managerial services for custodial and maintenance services. However, the board of directors of the District, on Thursday, August 31, 1995, did vote to authorize the administration of the District to negotiate terms and conditions of such a contract and to enter into the contract upon the completion of those negotiations. 4 . The Joshua Intervenors have stated no basis to permit discovery and the request to review a contract negotiated and entered into in the day-to-day operation of the District is unprecedented and without support in the law of this case or other controlling authority. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District respectfully requests that this Court deny the Joshua Intervenors Motion to Enjoin the LRSD From Entering Into a Service Contract and award the District all of the legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone {Bar No. I. D. 85096) dianavpcssd/enjoin.res -2-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's Response to Joshua Intervenors Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from Entering Into a Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests for Information and Without Prior Involvement of the Joshua Intervenors has been served by U. S. '7^ Mail, postage prepaid, on September J_, 1995, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Jiana\\ocss\u0026lt;l/en)oin.ra -3-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 September 22, 1995 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Fred L. Smith, Manager, Support Services THROUGH: Henry P. Williams, Superintendent SUBJECT: Proposed Agreement with ServiceMaster the District and the proposed agreement between comments, please call Attached is . . ServiceMaster. Should you have any questions or me at 324-2009.management services agreement , 199 5 , by and Liule Rock school Dlsrrict. (me -School ) WITNESSETH: RECITALS\noperates various departments A. which provide services in support of the that the B. i. is -- vSTa ci Xrnvtament for sodenu, suff and public and that d,= materials, supplies and equipment used by^such^employees m . be well trained and managed to C. D. materials, supplies in the discharge of their responsibilities he of the oroper quality and quanuty\n School that ServiceMaster has extensive faculties and in providmg certam of the i------- materials and supplies needed by such departments\nThe School wishes to certain of its support departments and management services for the School. obtain the management services of ServiceMaster for ServiceMaster desires to provide such NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the terms and conditions set forth below the parties agree as follows: 1. INTRODUCTION TheSchool hereby retains ServiceMaster as e ,,eeXiv^^SSS^ces'2:X\\se^tlon2andtonulma,a^^^^^ .he school agrees to pay The School the for the efficient performance of such managemem the consideration therefor C provided in section 6\nand ServiceMaster accepts as piuviutu ______ rnakp available such employment and responsibilities and equipment, all as set forth herein. bv ServiceMaster. The prograin of 1 -2 Information Provided hvU^der h^^^v^^lnped based on management services which ServiceMas r independent on-site survey and investigation iufor^dou provided by me \u0026amp;hoo and u^^^^ ,nd mmrviews ^b _____ImaaAXactfar 30 inSDCCtlOn 0l DUUUlUg, ^,4 has been developed based on bv ServiceMaster, an inspection DY OCl V IVCivxttJvw*., r administrators, principals and suff of schoo . 2. SERVICES . ServiceMaster agrees to train, manage and direct die Schoorlemp^S^seSarunents of School hlch are idendried tn secuon Agreement Page 1and direction together with 3.2 below (the .-Service Such \u0026lt;mlmn^^ X  and deUiont .of d. Physi^-- the i^ the administrative services related thereto (the \"Management ServiceMaster in the context of ServiceMasters duties of Servce Employees Agreemen. b, descriptions and duties------ , as are set forth in the Exhibits attached hereto and reference. (b) The Management Services shall be provided to those departments for which an Exhibit number appears in the following table\nDepartment Support Services Function Exhibit Custodial Plant Operations and Maintenance Grounds Grounds Equipment A A A B ServiceMaster agrees that it will perform ^1 the etnploymeX^u Service Employees by the school as directed by die Seto bT \"L\" Rnlafed Administrative Services. ^ch relate to the employment records and furnishing to the School the data from regular payroll for the Servicw Employees should the School so desire gxnense provide and maintain all 2.3 10.111101 Material^. Service-Master will, at   ' daUy work and project Management Service related traimng equipment,^ manuals used to train the schedules, indices, standard opetano^ PX- ,tooronetty of ServiceMaster. schedules, indices . such materials sh^ _at^^_t^- at its sole expense, ruQuired for the lawful renderins\nofj^^Mmgeto Service Employees. -------- 2.4 Permits and Licenses: Compliance with Laiv all licenses and permits which are i _ procure Services and are applicable to ServiceMaster agrees to comply with aU statutes the conduct of its services and sales hereunder . , ordinances and regulations which 2.5 Costs operating costs (a) ServiceMaster shall pay all direct The term \"direct To Be .Ahso^^^d bv ServiceMaster. htcuned ,^.n wi^ the athibuuble m the costs as used in the preceding sentence jjgt mciuuc uiuac of e Manageniem Semces^^^^^ foUowirig\nd m below, me lenu contributions (i.e., worker s y. -1-: . -3, benefits -d employment-ml^^^^^ (U) aU taxes compensation, unemployment,\nXr\\ocIu^^^^^^ connec^on wi e provision and fees currently unposed by fede^, suk^or loca^au _ of the Management Services, and (in) tra g costs which are to (b) The followmg costs are not direct p zn wages and. all related, payroll be paid by ServiceMaster as provided m costs or contributions (includm mxLof^tviceEmployeclothing cu^ndy operating costs does not include those provision \u0026lt; items listed in paragraph (b) below costs: (i) salaries, taxes in connection with the provision taxes or ocivius. uniforms or other special ciuuuub all to (.btomnance expenses for equipment owned by *e School provided to Agreement Page 2which is made available to ServiceMaster as provided in Section 5\n(iv) repair and maintenance Section 10\n(v) materials and supplies nf fhp snace orovided to ServiceMaster pursuant to  ... P -  (vi) payroll and employment forms and documents (such as time pursuant to Section 4,2(d)\nand, cards, time sheets, application forms, evaluation forms, etc). 3. PERSONNEL . , ServiceMaster Personnel, (a) ServiceMaster agrees 3.1 to furnish no less than five (5) coordinatmg managemem blSb^ shall be a coordinating manager, who shall be ServiceMaster s wi.h the performance of ServiceMaarers powers daues proper performance One of such persons and duties under ^^bUraddition to me management personnel. ServiceMaster will famish all necess^ (b) In addition to p,jects personnel as required for the supervisory, training and efficient performance of the Management Services. emnlovees of fc) All of the personnel described in paragraphs (a) and (b) will be employees or federal, sure or local sumte in connection wi eir employment. (d) If any ServiceMaster management, supervisory, personnel are not acceptable to training, technical or special projects 'ieJuperintendent of e Schoofor his or her designee, such of such personnel. Upon the receipt by reXSerTsucharrZ(5ervT^^^^^^ will provide w.thin Employees on dre dam of dais to be employees of the School as opposed to 3.2 .School Personnel, (a) All persons who were Agreement shall continue ServiceMaster and all persons employed by School as shall be employees of the School. All such persons a reasonable time a Service Employees after e date of this are subject to discipline, job Agreement shall be employees o uxc ovixuvu polices procedures, stamtes action and discharge by the School pursuant to applicable practices, polices, p and oer laws. (b) ServiceMaster shall not be regarded as a party to or agreements to which the School was or becomes a party any collective bargaining agreement ServiceMaster will, upon request by me school, SsX^eXMas:\nagrees established policies and procedures. cprvice Emnlovees and the School (d) The School shall pay all wages and salanes of the Service Employees anu shall pi all payroll and other taxes, fees, and other =^g!Vc^'^nlovees r.^. or'fmml Stamms relating to the employment of Ifa^loyees injured levied or required by, federal, state or local statutes relating to shaU pay all workers compensation insurance. Any claims . The SchoolWhile working under die dhection and supeivision of ServiceMaster shaU be handled by to . School. (e) The School agrees to furnish to ServiceMaster, upon request, certificates of u^rance evidence of the proper employee insurance coverage lo, the Seri ice Employees and Ser^IcXter agreesm furnish to School certiflcams of insurance as as to furnish to insurance coverage for evidence of proper employee insurance coverage for the employees of ServiceMaster, including, but not limited to. workers compensation insurance. 4. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 4.1 7rUe olthis Section. This Section 4 aUocates the respoi^ibilities of the parties for  and supplies which are requued in t---------- . the furnishing of the materials performance of the Management feXX colinon sePfonh in parugrHph (a) toeof is not connection with the sub-section to dus Section 4 is noc apptable satisfied, the sub-section shall be considered as deleted from to ^..^le only if the Management Services 4.2 Custodial, (a) This Secuon .- ph schools custodial department. to be provided hereunder include services wi reexpendable supplies referred   Ld:srn^d:dtc*\" SeXTSSaSe To to Ssmdi^ Depawhent is toiuded materials tjiis paragraph (b) are owned as of the appi.....w CprviceMaster oursuant to tjus paragrapn to\nand upon .nnination of to Agreement any inventory of and supplies shall be delivered to School. unused materials and supplies snail oe ucuvc... - . _ ?,^^^l^L.^\"TXMaster a Certficate of Tax Exemption upon e taxes, the School shall furnish to ServiceMaster a commencement of the Management Services. School agrees to provide, at its own expense (d) , the expendable supplies, as such may be defmed by agreement 0 sIZmss eiand Uhil, required drcounecdouwidithe ope ot SKViceMasBi ____ ,0) of the Schools Custodial department. towels, deodorants, washroom soap. Such expendable supplies include (but are nlastic container liners, and paint. toilet tissue, paper towels, aeoaorauu, waoxa....- \u0026gt; section 4 ' ' \" ' 4 T, Plant Operations and Maintenance., (a) This ion 4.3 shall be applicable only if the Management Services to be provided hereunder include services with respect to Schools plant operations and maintenance. its own expense, all plant operations and maintenance \" (b) The School shall provide, at its own expense, ai up...---------- supplies, materials, repair parts, oily if the Management Services 4.4 Ground, (a) This section 4.4 shall department. to be provided hereunder mclude services supplies, materials, repair (b) The School shall provide, at its own expense, an grounu^ pp (b) parts, and purchased services. owned by ServiceMaster 5. equipment ServiceMaster AU equipment now ServiceMas^ 5.1 Equipment Provided by Serviceiviaster. \\j\ncervices (including computer and used in connection with the tende^ o e am ServiceMaster shall be hardware and software) shall remam to property of ServiceMaster. Agreement Page 4responsible for the repair, maintenance and replacement of such equipment, at no additional cost to the School. This section 5.2 shall be \u0026gt; \"7 Pniiinment Provided bv the School. Custodial. ( ) applicable'oiif if the Management Services to be providS hereunder include services 5.2 Equipment (b)hoolS\"rSkXta^^^^^ use by ServiceMaster the =quipm owr^by die school and used in the custodial the shall remain the property of e ^erv.^ maintenance of the equipment. cKrndial denartment shall be provided and ^^u^^SVs^'SeMSS ^Threost of such additional or replacement equipment has been mamumed by ServiceMaster, rue e hv \u0026lt;berviceMaster oursuant to this h(bns XTby teshool S'ditional amounts to (e paid m ServiceMaster rdJ^Xio7Xs%reem^^^^^^^^ Equipment purchased hereunder shall e ^0 c^rviceMaster the unamortized book value exceed five years. School is not obligated to pay  not S Sc^S'XTaSte^a^yTay\" by ServiceMaster the equipment owned by purchased by ServiceMaster pursuant rather than to ServiceMaster. . 5 t rniiiriiir? - Bv P' Ooeranota secticnk^S sgS^SSS^ and Maintenance, (a) This the Schools plant operations and maintenance. services with respect to the School s piam operjuvw operations and -rh Qz'hnn! aarees to oemut ServiceMaster to utuize me prcsciu piau*- k- (b) The School agrees to p^t equipment in an operanve, maintenance service equipment. The School a rees mai mainuin such equipment in an operative, of additional or replacement maintenance service equipment. Thiq section 5 4 shall be operable, workable and safe School shall maintain such equipment, at its expose in^^Zquipntent condition. The School shall be respoi^ible, at i^ (including replacement parts). ServiceMaster P paid in fiiU, date of this Agreement, grounds equipment, *p P described in Exhibit B. The equipment so ServiceMaster at the termination of -T-n____i qmniinK to be paid to servicciviaaiti \u0026lt;. of its purchase this Agreement being The only additional amounts to be paid to----- the unamortized book value of said equipment. . - - its useful life, not to exceed tive years. Equipment purchased hereunder stall be amortaed by ru^Xolr value of any equipment School Is not Obligated to pay to J\" equipment not desiied by School School does not desire  ServiceMaster has not paid the complete shall be transferred to berviceiviasLci. Agreement Page 5amount owed on the additional equipment at the time the Agreement is terminated, the School may make any payments pursuant to this sub-section directly to the entity owed, rather than to ServiceMaster. 6. COMPENSATION 6.1 Schools Agreement to Pav Contract Amount. In consideration of the performance by Service.Master of the Management Services and in consideration of the transfer of the materials and supplies by Service.Master to the School in connection with the performance of the Manaaement Services, the School agrees to pay to ServiceMaster, at the times set forth in section 6.3, the Contract Amount as set forth in section 6.2. 6 Contract Amount. Subject to adjustment as provided in subsequent sections of this Section 6 the Contract ^Amount shall be S98.659.00 per mon. If the Management Services commence on a dav other than the first day of a month, or if the Management Services terminate dav other than the last day of a month, the Contract .Amount for the first or the last month on 3. dav other than the last nay or a muiiui. me vuuudvi Amuuuu tvi wx  shall be prorated on the basis of the number of days within such first or last month on which Management Services were provided. It is agreed that of the SI. 183.908 to be paid annually^ to ServiceMaster pursuant to this Agreement, ServiceMaster will meur not less than an average for materials, supplies and equipment to be used in its of S329,347 expense per year for matenals, supplies ana equipment lu uc uocu m performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and title to such material, supplies and equipment will be solely in the name of School. On or before each annual anniversary date of this Aareement, ServiceMaster shall provide invoices. contracts or other written documenution satisfactory to School evidencing that at least an average of 3329,3^1 has been expensed by ServiceMaster toward the purchase of materials, supplies and equipment. 6.3 'payments of the Contract .Mnount. (a) Commencing on October 15, 1995, and on the fifteenth of each month thereafter, the School shall pay to ServiceMaster the Contract Amount. . . , (b) If any payment of the Contract Amount is not paid in full withm fineen days or the due date, the unpaid portion shall bear interest at e highest rate allowed by the laws of the State of Arkansas. Further, School shall pay all costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Service.Master (not to exceed 10% of the amount awarded) in collecting amounts due to ServiceMaster from the School. 6.4 Adjustment of the Contract .Amount: Base Wage Increase. On each anniversary of the commencement of services hereunder, the Contract Amount (excluding custodial and pounds capital equipment, computerization and vehicles) shall be increased by die percenta.ge mcrease that the base, waae rate of the Service EmnloveeTot School have mcreased for the previous _ twelve (12) month period not to exceed 2.5%in any given year. Base wage rate is Qefmed as the rate otcompensauon paid to service employees wmch shall include the annual raise approved or authorized for the Service Employees of School. This amount does not mclude any annual step increase or increment given for an additional year of service with the School. 6.5 Adjustment of the Contract Amount: Change in Services. The Contract A^unt has been established on the basis of the area, job descriptions and specific dunes descnbedm e Exhibits. If the total amount of area or the job descriptions or the dunes to be pertormea by ServiceMaster or the Service Employees is enlarged, reduced or altered m any shall be an increase or decrease, as the case may be, in the Contract Amount. Such adjustment Agreement Page 6 shall be effective with the first payment to be made immediately following such increase, reduction or alteration. In connection therewith, ServiceMaster and School shall negotiate in good faith and mutually agree upon any enlargement, reduction or alteration of the contract, amount. 6.6 ServiceMaster Guarantee. ServiceMaster guarantees that the Schools costs to perform services for the custodial, maintenance and grounds departments as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, including ServiceMaster annual fees, during each year of this agreement, shall not exceed the amount reflected in the applicable portions of the School s 1995-96 fiscal year budget for such period as reflected in Exhibit C. Should any payment to ServiceMaster for services provided cause School to exceed the budget as adjusted for fiscal year 1995-96, ServiceMaster agrees that the School shall not be obligated to make any payment(s) to ServiceMaster which would cause the School to exceed the amount reflected in the applicable Rather, the schools liability to portions of the Schools 1995-96 fiscal year budget. ServiceMaster for any remaining amounts owed pursuant to Section 6 would terminate, except to the extent hereinafter provided. As such, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster the total annual amount reflected in paragraph 6.2. However, should the School realize sufficient savinss in the applicable portions of the Schools budget such that the amounts for the 1995-96 school year is less an or equal to the applicable portions of the adjusted budget for the 1995-96 fiscal year, including the amount owed to ServiceMaster, the School shall pay ServiceMaster any remaining amounts owed under paragraph 6.2. It being the intent of the parties that the School shall not incur costs and expenses, including the amounts paid to ServiceMaster, in the applicable portions of the School s budget relating to maintenance and plant operations which would cause the School to exceed the amount budgeted for that area during the 1995-96 fiscal year. For instance, the Schools 1995-96 budget for custodians, mainrenancs and related matters is $10,779,986.00. The ServiceMaster projection for 1995-96 for these same arsas, including the annual amount in paragraph 6.2, total $10,621,136.00. If those projections are achieved, ServiceMaster would receive the compensation as provided by  ? this Agreement, assuming all other terms and conditions are met. Should the projections not be achieved, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster, to the extent the payment(s) would cause the School to exceed the $10,779,986.00 budgeted amount for the 1995-96 fiscal year as pro-rated for the nine (9) months of the shortened initial year. In subsequent years, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster, to the extent the payments would cause the School to exceed the baseline amount as adjusted pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. To get the pro-rated baseline and actual amounts for the 1995-96 fiscal year, ServiceMaster and the School shall negotiate and mutually agree in writing within forty (40) calendar days after the October 2, 1995 commencement date. Management fees and amounts to be expended by ServiceMaster on equipment and supplies during the initial year will also need to be pro-rated, as necessary. Likewise, if the operational costs, exclusive of the amounts owed to ServiceMaster, exceed $9,596,086.00 ($10,779,986.00 minus $1,183,908.00), ServiceMaster must refund to the School, dollar for dollar, all such amounts already paid to Service Master which would cause the School to exceed the 1995-96 budgeted amount ($10,779,986.00). However, in no event would ServiceMaster be obligated to refund more than the management fee for the particular year (i.e., $854,561, which will be subject to proration during the initial year.) For example. Agreement Page 7 should the operational costs, exclusive of the amounts owed to ServiceMaster reach SIO.300,000 during the school year and the School has already paid ServiceMaster S640.917 (571,213 x 9), the total in this category so far would be 510,940,917. This exceeds the budgeted amount by 5160,931.00. As such, ServiceMaster would be required to refund 5160,931.00 to the School and not receive any payments remaining (571,213 x 3 = 5213,639), to honor its guarantee to the School. This same guarantee would apply for each year of this agreement, using the schools 1995-96 budgeted amount as the baseline. However, following the 1995-96 fiscal year, the wage and benefit portion of the baseline will increase each year by the base wage rate as defined in paragraph 6.4 plus any annual step increase or increment given for an additional year of service with the School. Likewise, the remaining portion including supplies, purchased services and utilities will increase each year by 1.5%.The amounts not paid from year-to-year, for which the School is not liable, may be determined by the School and ServiceMaster and recorded in a log. Thereafter, should the operational costs for the applicable portions of the Schools budget, including the amounts paid to ServiceMaster for the year in consideration, achieve sufficient savings (after all required services, supplies, equipment and other school needs for the year in question have been met), the School may pay Service.Master a portion of the amounts reflected in the log, but only to the extent such payment(s) (after determining the acnial expenditures for the year in question, including payments to ServiceMaster for the year in question) would not cause the School to exceed the applicable portions of the.baseline. Should such savings never be achieved during the term of this Agreement, the School would have no liability whatsoever to ServiceMaster for the amounts reflected in the log. Should ServiceMaster deem it necessary to request that certain expenditures be removed\nood faith, and mutually or adjusted to arrive at the actual expenditures for a particular year of this Agreement, upon request by ServiceMaster, ServiceMaster and School shall negotiate in g' agree upon any such adjustments. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, including the possibility that ServiceMaster may either receive less than full payment of the amounts reflected in paragraph 6.2 during one or more years of this Agreement or that ServiceMaster may have to refund monies to the School should sufficient savings not be achieved, ServiceMasters obligation to perform management services shall not be reduced, abated or otherwise relieved as such constimtes a portion of the guarantee made by ServiceMaster to the School. No party shall have any liability to the other hereunder by reason of any delay or failure to perform any obligation or covenant including ServiceMaster guarantee if the delay or failure to perform is occasioned by force majeure, meaning any act of God, storm, fire, casualty, work stoppage, strike, lockout, civil disturbance, riot, war, national emergency, act of government, ' act of public enemy, or other cause of similar or dissimilar nature beyond its control. 7.1 7. INDEMNIFICATION . . 7.1 Tn.surance and Indemnification of the School. ServiceMaster agrees to indemnify and hold the School and its School board members, officers and employees harmless from any liabUity imposed against the School by reason of the negligent acts or omissions of ServiceMaster or its employees. ServiceMaster shall, at its sole expense, obtain and keep m force during the term of this Agreement, a policy of comprehensive public liability insurance Agreement Page 8 insuring ServiceMaster and School against any liability arising out of the negligent acts or omissions of ServiceMaster or its agents, representatives or employees. Such insurance shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 for injury to or death of one person in any one accident or occurrence and in an amount of not less than $20,000,000.00 for injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident or occurrence. Such insurance shall further insure ServiceMaster and the School against liability for property damage of at least $20,000,000.00. The limits of said insurance shall not, however, limit the liability of ServiceMaster hereunder. If ServiceMaster shall fail to procure and maintain said insurance School may, but shall not be required to, procure and maintain the same, but at the expense of ServiceMaster. Indemnification of ServiceMaster. 7.2 The School shall indemnify and hold ServiceMaster and its parmers, directors, officers and employees harmless from any liability imposed against ServiceMaster by reason of the negligent acts or omissions of the School or its employees to the extent that the School is covered by insurance and to the extent that such is permitted by applicable law. Such insurance shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 for injury to or death of one person in any one accident or occurrence and in an amount of not less than $3,000,000 for injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident or occurrence. Further, the school does not, by so agreeing, intend to waive any immunity or other defense to which it may be entitled. Therefore, to the extent such an agreement would jeopardize or otherwise interfere with the Schools immunity and other defenses, such indemnity provision becomes null and void. 7.3 Indemnification Regarding Asbestos. The School acknowledges its obligation to identify the presence, if any, of asbestos material on the Schools premises and its responsibility to appoint the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) \"Designated Person.\" ServiceMaster agrees to provide assistance to the School in the form of: (i) support service employee education and training material when ServiceMaster is responsible to train, manage and direct said employees\n(ii) guidance in the form of Standard Operating Procedures for small- scale, short-duration operation and maintenance activities as defined by AHERA\nand (iii) other support as determined by ServiceMaster to aid the School in its AHERA-related activities. School agrees that under no circumstance shall a ServiceMaster employee be or act in the capacity of the \"Designated Person.\" School also acknowledges that ServiceMaster has no obligation hereunder to identify or take corrective action by removing or containing asbestos fibers for other than small-scale, short-duration operations and maintenance activities as defined by AHERA, nor does ServiceMaster have any duty to mitigate the hazards from exposure to asbestos fibers. The School agrees to indemnify and hold ServiceMaster harmless from any liability imposed against ServiceMaster, including costs and reasonable attorneys fees (not to exceed 10% of the amount awarded), by reason of the presence of asbestos material on the Schools premises or for any actions done or failed to be done by ServiceMaster while acting on Schools behalf related to AHERA. (This indemnity agreement is subject to the conditions, restrictions and limitations in paragraph 7.2.) 8. AGREEMENTS CONCERNING EMPLOYEES OF A PARTY 8.1 Agreements. At no time during the term of this Agreement and for a period of one year thereafter will either of the parties call upon any employee of the other party or persons who were employees of the other within the then previous twelve months, to employ, hire or Agreement Page 9 otherwise interfere with the contracmal relationships of such employees, without the prior written approval of the other party\nnor will either party directly or indirectly, for itself or on behalf of or in connection with, any other person, firm, parmership, corporation, association or School, solicit, hire, employ or take away any such employee from the other party. The parties agree that this provision is for the protection of their respective legitimate business interests and is not intended to restrict the employment rights of individuals. 8.2 Remedies for Breach. If either party breaches the above covenant, the offended party shall have e right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an injunction to restrain the offending party from employing such employee and for an order to enforce the terms of this section so breached, and the offending party shall be liable to the offended party for all reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses incurred by it to enforce the covenant. 9. TERM 9.1 Terms. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of five years commencing on October 2, 1995. 10. SPACE AND OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS PROVIDED BY THE SCHOOL 10.1 Space and Utilities. The School shall provide ServiceMaster with reasonable offices, storage space and facilities on the Schools premises from which ServiceMaster will conduct the Management Services. Such offices and storage space shall be under the operational control of ServiceMaster. The provision of such space shall include all utilities (including water, sewer, electricity and local telephone service). Such space, local facilities and utilities shall be provided without cost to ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster will insure its interest in any property owned by it located on or about the office and storage space provided to ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster shall vacate the office and storage space upon termination of this Agreement. 11. MONTHLY JOINT REVIEW 11-1 Joint Review Committee. The parties shall form a Joint Review Committee consisting of at least two persons from the School and two persons from ServiceMaster. The Joint Review Committee will meet on a monthly basis for the purpose of reviewing ServiceMasters performance with respect to the Management Services and generally to review the results of operations under this Agreement in comparison with the expectations of e parties. 12. TERMINATION FOR NON-PERFORMANCE 12.1 Notice of Non-Performance\nGrace Period: Termination. If one party (the \"Offended Party\") considers the other party (the \"Offending Party\") to have not performed one or more of its obligations hereunder, the Offended Party shall give the Offending Party a written notice which shall specify the nature of the alleged non-performance. The Offending Party shall then have sixty days from the receipt of such notice to remedy the alleged non-performance. If, at the end of such sixty-day period, the Offended Party considers the alleged non performance not to have been cured, the Offended Party may thereupon terminate this Agreement by giving the Offending Party a written notice of termination and, at the expiration of the thirtieth day following the delivery of such notice, the Offended Party shall be relieved from the further performance of its obligations hereunder. The parties understand and agree that the foregoing Agreement Page 1030-day period is to allow for an orderly transition from the Management Services as provided hereunder to an alternative service mechanism. 12.2 Termination by ServiceMaster Based on the Schools Failure to Pav the Net Amount Due. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12.1 and 6.3(b), ServiceMaster may terminate this Agreement upon ten days prior written notice if the School fails or refuses to pay ServiceMaster in accordance with e provisions of Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3(a) or 6.6. 12.3 Relationship to Section 8.2. This Section 12 shall not affect the covenants and remedies for breach thereof which are set forth in Section 8. 13. NOTICES 13.1 Form of Notice and Delivery. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by certified or registered mail, wi proper postage prepaid If to ServiceMaster, to\nServiceMaster Management Services L.P. ServiceMaster Education Management Services One ServiceMaster Way Downers Grove, IL 60515 Atm: President If to the School, to\nLittle Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Attn: Superintendent In the event the date of actual receipt of any notice is not recorded, notices shall be deemed to have been received on the third day after post. 14. GENERAL PROVISIONS 14.1 Appropriation of Funds. In the event sufficient funds shall not be appropriated or made available for the funding of operations of e School and School has no funds legally available for the payments due hereunder from other sources, School and ServiceMaster shall review the services provided hereunder and the Contract Amount, in keeping with the then proportionate amount of appropriated funds for the services hereunder, and determine the level of services which can be performed and the method of delivery of such services to School within the level of appropriated funds. In the event ServiceMaster is not able to modify its program to meet the funds appropriated, either party may terminate this Agreement upon giving to the other thirty days prior written notice. 14.2 Severability. If a court holds any part, term or provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if this Agreement did not contain the particular part, term or provision. Agreement Page 1114.3 Headings. The headings which appear in this Agreement have been inserted for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. They are not intended to, and shall not be deemed to. define, limit or extend the scope or intent of any provision hereof. 14.4 Entire A.greement. This Agreement (including Exhibits A, B, C and D as well as the Schools Business Case dated August 24, 1995, all of which are incorporated herein by reference as if included word-for-word) has been negotiated and prepared by and for the parties equally and shall not be construed as having been drafted by one party. When fully executed, it shall supersede any and all prior and existing. Agreements between the parties, either oral or in writing. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto wi respect to the subject matter hereof. 14.5 Amendments. Other than for amendments as provided in Section 6.4, any amendment or modification of this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by the parties. 14.6 Management Service (\"Exhibit D\\ A proposal detailing ServiceMaster Management Services has been submined. The said proposal becomes a part of this agreement and is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 14.7 Assignments. This Agreement is not assignable by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. 14.8 Choice of Law and Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Arkansas. The parties agree to submit to e jurisdiction of the courts within the State of Arkansas. 14.9 Attorneys Fees. Except as oerwise specifically provided herein, in any action brought in law or in equity based on this Agreement, each party shall be responsible for its own costs and attorneys fees. 14.10 Non-Waiver. No waiver of any default will be construed to be or constitute a waiver of any subsequent defaults. 14.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be a separate document but all of which constitute one and e same instrument. 14.12 Pending Litigation. Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. Service Master does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out of or in any way relating, directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the Schools liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. Agreement Page 12IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year above written. VICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES oited Partnership iceMaster Management Services, Inc., General Parmer ration Management Services,-Genefal Piutun ATTEST tn L. ,an, President Assistant ^Secretary J FLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTEST By: Agreement Page 13 j I -  N -zV.: ' ?*' I -'k-a \u0026gt; I 2539-120 1199-140 FUND 12-2542-120 2542-120 i-'- J 2542-12) 2541-120 2648-120 . i 210+240 ABOVE EUNCPONS i| 400,500,600 OBJECTS 2641.2,4,5 8 FUND 12 SALARIES VO TECH SUBS MAGNET CUST SUBTOTAL MAINT SER AREA ASB SUBTOTAL TOTAL Sal BENEFITS TOTAL LABOR SUPPLIES CUST MAINT MAGNET total SERVICE MAS^ER 38,500.00 2,070.570.00 2,109.070.00 1,330.243.00 59.426.00 1,383.669.00 3.498,739.00 524,611.00 4.023.550.00 109.259.00 480.575.00 15,000.00 604,634.00 300 OBJECf'S 254),2,4,5 EXCEPT 321-323 PORCH SER 603,159.00  y ACTUAL 92/93 ACTUAL 93.'94 actual 94795 BUDGET 95/96 FUND 12 2542-322 2642-321 2542-323 UTILITIES MAG.NET ELECT GAS WATER TOTAL 2.734,075.00 695.425.00 189.150.00 3.618.650.00 SER MASTER 1 J83,90? ')' A granc total 10.034,101.00 88.836,24 234,152.52 335,694.82 2.478.062.48 3,136.895.86 1.167.691.67 240.065.11 70,950.0-' 1.478.706.79 4,615,602.65 772,168.72 5,387,771-37 73,894.57 214,602.38 360,957.42 2.596,523.16 3,245,977.53 1,098.482.35 205.943.88 46.375.69 1,351,401.92 4.597,379.45 686.91272 5,284,292.17 79,809.80 212,697.87 351,306.97 2,536,386,27 3,ie{),200.9l 1,095,302.11 200,742.96 54,635.05 1,350,630.14 4,530,881.06 672,824.34 5.203.705.39 85,149.00 200.000.00 ' 372.934.00 2,661,168.75 3,219.261.75 1.109,338.00 175,750.00 55,115.43 i ,S40.203.43 4,559.455.18 720,591.26 '5,280,046.44 \u0026lt; ( f. ~  . \u0026gt;I ' 230,287.22 5,008.90 235,296,12 222.016.52 0.05 222,016.52 364.98223 17,460.10 382.442.33 198,541.00 15.000. CO 213,641.00 r, r 693,329-20 981,615.29 991,931.86 1,035,999.00 507,373.00 5,232,084.12 ^*,209.77 1 3.82 3.46 J 10-71 9.78C 337.40 598,876.00 2,766,666.00 642,959.98 227,539.97 4.286,030.95 529,201.00 2,443,097.45 482,255.81 230,574.64 3.685,128.90 576,335.00 2.791.665.00 698,200.00 184,100.00 4,250.300.00 10.723,954.93 10.263,208.48 ia\n779.986.44^ ) f OCT 2 6 1995 Office Of Desegregaccn moe: John w. Walker, pa. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Ltitle Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. October 24, 1995 Mr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: I would like to depose the following persons beginning at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon: Dr. Mr. Mr, Ms. Henry Williams Fred Smith Charlie Neal Linda Pondexter Ms. Judy Magness Mr. John Riggs Dr. Katherine Mitchell Each of the depositions should be relatively brief and will be focused upon the Servicemaster contract in anticipation of the Saturday hearing. If you do not agree, please let me know so that I may ask for an order from the Court requiring it. Ve: truly yours, ohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Dr. Mr. Ms. Henry Williams Jerry Malone Ann BrownFSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 5 1 1995 JAMt^ W. il^cCOfiMACK, CLERK DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER On October 28, 1995, the Court conducted a hearing on a motion by the Joshua Intervenors to prevent Little Rock School District from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster. The evidence was not completed, and the hearing on this issue is now scheduled to continue on Friday, December 8, 1995, at 9:00 a.ra. IT IS SO ORDERED this I day of October, 1995. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT3 United States District Judge PHIS DOCUMEMT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 53 AND/OR 79(al FRCP ON _ 25 5 2 I I i  i 1RECSs\" S NOV 1995 Oice oi DeseyiC'aauon MOiiitCi OlJ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS NOV 2 1995 OEP CURK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. V'- Intervenors, KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * LR-C\n82-866 Tr, MWWKZI W\u0026lt; ORDER With the Courts ruling from the bench during a heai ing on October 28, 1995, ServiceMaster Companys motion for leave to intervene (docket entry # 2547) is hereby granted. DATED this 1st day of November 1995. 'JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCEWITHRULE58 AND/OR79(a) FRCP ON BY 4 2 551 1.430/ 1 995 17:18 FROM JOHN W.URLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 02 1 X IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT-. CCf^, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 1. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIAZNTXFF VS, NO. LR\u0026lt;-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTER KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS Ths Plaintiff, SETTLEMENT Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") or (\"District\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\"), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, respectfully settle, resolve and compromise any and all issues and disputes between the\"!, pursuant to 11 14.12 of the Little Rock School District Management Services Agreement with ServiceMaster Management Services, L.P., (hereinafter referred to as the \"Agreement\"), on the following terms, conditions and understanding\n1. The District, on the recommendation of the District's superintendent, Dr. Henry Williams, authorized Dr. Williams to negotiate and enter into a contract regarding its custodial and janitorial services with an entity known as \"ServiceMaster Management Services, L.P.\", Delaware limited partnership a (hereinafter referred to as \"ServiceMaster\"). \u0026lt;MceMirruLur -1-2. .F ft It .JOHN .U...U.R.L K E.R __ p.0 3 The terms of the authorization of the Little Rock School Board Minutoe recited in the determined at dated September 1, a meeting of the hoard of director. ' excerpt 1995, as held on Thur.day, Augu.t 31, of the Dietrict 1995. evidence at the hearing referred hereinbelow as Court's Exhibit No. The excerpt was admitted to in Paragraph Nos. 31. 3 . On August 31, 1995, Joehua filed States District Division, Case No. Court, Eastern District LR-C-82-866, entering into a contract to into 9 and 9 a motion in the United Of Arkansas, Western seeking to enjoin the District from provide janitorial and management services to the District. custodial The XtRSS Prow Satering into Joshua's Motion to Enjoin Bidding Procedures \u0026lt; A Service Contract Without Reguests For Following lavolveaient e The Joshua and Without Prior the w motion\" or w Intervenors will be refsrrecl to heroin as pending litigation\". motion are adopted herein by reference The allegations off the for-word. as if set out herein On September 7, 1995, word- Joshua's motion, reference as if The allegations of the District filed its response to set out herein word-for-word. that response are adopted by 4. On or about September 20, brief in support off its contained in the brief herein word-for-word. 1995. Joshua filed a memorandum 5. motion. The allegations and are adopted by reference The primary issues ^rief, among others, *MOBWTTUI,ur arguments aa if set out raised by Joshua in its motion and were that the proposed management services' 2- f I11/.30Z1995 17! 20 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.O. TO 3710100 P. 04 contract had the potential to negatively impact the District's ability to carry out its desegregation obligations and that the District would be in violation of the laws of the State of Arkansas should it enter into the contract In the manner and under the terms proposed. 6 . The LRSO gave ServiceMaster, its agents and representatives notice of the Motion to Enjoin (referred to in the Agreement as the \"pending litigation) prior to the data on which the Agreement was subsequently executed. ServiceMaster and the District acknowledged the pending litigation and the District's right to terminate or modify the Agreement through either settlement of the litigation, order of the Court, or otherwise. The Agreement was executed on September 20, 1995. 7, On October 28, 1995, this Court the Honorable Susan Webber Wright presiding, conducted a hearing on Joshua's motion. The hearing was recessed until December 8, 1995. 8. At the hearing on October 28, 1995, this Court allowed ServiceMaster to intervene in the proceeding. ServiceMaster was represented by attorneys, John Everett of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and Joseph Mowery of Little Rock, Arkansas. 9. At the hearing, Joshua began presenting evidence and testimony toward the two issues referred to hereinabove. Prior to \u0026gt; .recessing the hearing. this Court noted the presence of the superintendent and members of the board of directors of the . District in Court and the advocacy of the lawyers for the District \u0026lt;iHtfci0imsxrr -3- )11Z30Z1995 17!20 EBQM.JQHN .U.WALKER P.fl. TO 3710100. P. 05 in defending adherence to the Agreement. The Court further remarked that ita primary interest, notwithstanding the presence of other isauea of importance, concerned the potential for the Agreement to have an adverse impact on the District's ability to meet its desegregation obligations (l.e., its ability to fund and appropriate money for desegregation programs) and whether the laws of the State of Arkansas had been complied with in reaching the Agreement and the terms of the Agreement, This Court remarked that should the Agreement be found in violation of Arkansas state law, and the Court indicated that it probably was, the Court would then have to determine whether to require the District to go back through the selection process. However, this Court went on to note that if the contract does violate Arkansas state law, it is either void or voidable. Specifically, the concerns raised relate to Code  6-31-301, aS. US', which provides that all school districts in the  State of Arkansas are required to purchase commodities as defined therein through soliciting bids where the purchase price shall equal or exceed $5,000, Commodities are defined as all supplies, goods, materials, equipment, machinery, facilities, personal  property and services, other than personal and professional services, purchased for or on behalf of the school district, excluding school buses. A violation of these requirements constitute a Class ^C criminal misdemeanor offense. 10. Paragraph 14.12 of the Agreement providest AMMSMantALR' -4- A11^30/1995 17:21 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 Bach of the parties agree that as pending ILtiaation. of the date of the execution of this Agreement, a motion to enjoin school from entering into this Agreement-with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled \"Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al.\", No. LR-C- 82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereinafter have arising out of or in anyway relating directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this School is under no obligation or duty to Agreement. appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, -T ?.l~ otherwise) of that litigation. order of the Court or 11. In recognition of the serious coneems raised in the pending litigation through Joshua's motion\nthe evidence and testimony presented at the hearing on October 38, 1995\nthe P . 06 concerns expressed by this Court prior to recessing the October 28 hearing\nand, the independent review and assessment of the facts, circumstances and applicable law by the District, its agents. representatives, and counsel, the board of directors of the District, on Tuesday, October 31, 1995, met in a special meeting and passed a motion directing its counsel to negotiate a settlement ' of. the pending litigation with the appropriate parties,  accordance with 5 14.12 of the Agreement. in NOW, THESSF0R2, the Joshua Intervenors and the Little Rock School District have decided and agreed to resolve their differences and to request the Court to enter an order on the pending Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from entering into the agreement  on terms which are 9d mutually satisfactory to all parties to the *Mii I' nfii-j nxLiT s- Udi J Mtn AbnidJ 26/ T0 33111/30/1995 17:22 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 07 pending litigation such to prevent any negative impact on the District's desegregation obligations and to avoid any state law violations, to-witi a. The Joshua Intervenors do hereby agree to the entry of an order by the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, on their Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service agreement which terminates the District's liability under the Agreement to ServiceMaster as well as terminating the District's liability on all matters which were brought or could have been brought in that pending litigation\n'o. The District acknowledges that it had no intent to enter into and would not enter into a contract with ServiceMaster had it known that the terms thereof would violate the terms and conditions of the Court-approved desegregation settlement plans, laws of the State of Arkansas, or both. Joshua contends that the Court- approved desegregation plan requires timely involvement of Joshua, the office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Court in matters which may substantially affect the operations of the Little Rock School District as it relates to the District's ability to fund, implement and ca'Ty out its desegregation programs and activities. To the extent that such is required by the Court-approved desegregation plan, the District reaffirms its commitment to do SO\nand, c. The Joshua Intervenors have raised questions relating to the possibility that the District has failed to follow prescribed processes and procedures, possibly violated the laws of the State of Arkansas by virtue of the Agreement, and possibly placed the District in the position of negatively impacting its ability to carry out Its desegregation obligations. This Court has likewise Agreement raised concerns regarding the legality o the Agreement pursuant to the laws of the state oS Arkansas. Because of these questions and concerns as well as the Distriet's own independent investigation and assessment of the facts, circumstances and applicable law, both Joshua and the District agree that thia Court should enter an Order pursuant to f 14.12 of the Agreement declaring the Agreement to be null and void and terminating the District's liability thereunder in accordance with the release agreed to by ServiceMaster therein. Because fcl|ll.lHl*HTl.llJ.IT -6-11^30X1995 17:23 FROM JOHN W.UfiLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P . 08 On the basia o the foregoing agreement, acknowledgements and recitals* the Joshua Intervenors and the Little Rock School District do hereby respectfully request that this Court enter an Order terminating any and all of the District's liability under, . pursuant to, or otherwise relating to the Agreement with ServiceMaster and. affirming the validity of the release of liability by ServiceMaster, all as contained in t 14.12 of the Agreement, Both Joshua and the District agree and acknowledge that any proposed settlement of this litigation is intended to comply '.with the provisions of 1 14.12 of the Agreement which gives the LRSD the right to terminate or modify its liability thereunder through order of this Court, settlement or otherwise. Therefore, any such settlement is expressly conditioned upon the entry of an order by the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, recognizing the District's right to terminate or modify its liability under the Agreement by order of this Court, settlement or otherwise\nterminating the Agreement with ServiceMaster and the pending litigation\nand, terminating the District's liability under the Agreement by declaring the Contract to ba void or otherwise unenforceable in accordance with 1 14.12 of the Agreement. Should the Court decline to do so, be unable to do _ so, or for whatever reason such cam not be accomplished, it is the ** agreement of the parties hereto that this proposed settlement will .become null and void to the same extent as though it had never existed, to the extent that such is necessary to prevent contractual, equitable or other liability being imposed upon the fi'riiihitimj.ur -7- AM11/30/1995 17:24 FROM JOHN W.UflLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P . 09 1 District by ServiceMaster or any other party or person by virtue of this settlement or any actions of the District, Its agents, representatives, counsel, er assigns. Further, should the Court decline to so terminate the District's liability, be unable to do so, or for whatever reason such can not be accomplished, Joshua would retain its right to proceed with evidence and testimony in support of the motion as though Chis settlement never existed. Neither party (LRSD, Joshua or ServiceMaster) would be permitted to utilize this settlement or any of its recitals as - admissions, concessions or other evidence in the proceedings on Joshua's motion, should the hearing resume. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P,A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3753 ATTORNEYS FOR JOSHUA INTERVENORS By: John w. Walker Bar I. D. No. . FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK. Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, ikrkansas 72201-3493 (SOD 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF . LITTLE ROCK 3CSOGL DISTRICT By: Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 MMcnwruur -8-I * ' 11^30/1995 17:25 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 10 ! CERTIFICATE QF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foreooing Sectlement of Pending Litigation has been eerved by U, 3. Mail. Dostage prepaid, except as otherwise indicated, on November 1995, upon the followings Mr. John C. Everett EVERETT, MARS \u0026amp; STILLS Attorneys at Law 3822 N. Parkview Drive Post Office Box 1646 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703-1S4S Mr. Joseph s. Mowery GIROIR i GREGORY Attorneys et Law 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr, Samuel M, Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 worthan Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol a Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 73301 Mr. Richard W, Roache11 ROACHSLL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered as per Order by the Court) Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation . Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone teMKatManuuT -9- MM waij pn AJdQiaj wdBSsza se, ta oaa12/07/1995 10:25 FROM JOHN U.UPLKER P.P. TO 3710100 EASTS  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COD^jgg by EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION i3y\n, e-=. -T P. 02 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFS V. LR-C-32-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS I-. I SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership MOTION FOR COKTINUANCE INTERVENOR The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request a continuance of the hearing scheduled for December 8, 1995. respectfully show the Court as follows\n1. For cause, they On November 29, 1995, intervenor Servicemaster Management Services filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer to the Joshua Intervenors motion to enjoin the Little Rock School District from entering into a contract with Servicemaster. This motion, amended answer and memorandum brief was not received by undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors until December 4, 1995. Therefore, additional time is needed in order for undersigned counsel to prepare a response to said motion, answer and memorandum brief. 2. In preparation tor the hearing on Friday, December 8, t  1995, undersigned counsel did not anticipate any additional12/07/1995 10:26 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 03 pleadings being filed by either plaintiff, defendant or the other intervenors in this 'case. Intervenor Servicemaster^s filing can be construed as surprise given the pending hearing scheduled for Friday of this week. Further preparation by Joshua is now necessary 3, in view of this filing. In addition, on December 4, 1994, the Joshua Intervenors approved the proposed settlement agreement between the Dxstrict and Joshua which was prepared by the school district. That document effectively resolves the controversy between Joshua and the LRSD. 4. In view of the settlement agreement, which Joshua awaits school district counsel to file with the Court, the case should be dismissed except to the extent that the Court wishes to afford Servicemaster a hearing. Joshua, however, has not filed any action against Servicemaster. 5. A continuance would afford the parties, time to prepare their respective positions more fully in the event that the Court finds for example, that Servicemaster is entitled to proceed in this matter. 6. The LRSD and Servicemaster are not prejudiced by this request for delay. WHERJ^ORJS, the Joshua Intervenors pray that this matter be continued pending the filing of further submissions by the LRSD and, if necessary, if the Court declines, to approve the submission, after full further oppoirtunity for preparation by the Joshua Intervenors.12/07x1993 10:27 FROM JOHN U.URLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 04 Respectfully subiaitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501)Z374-3758 72206 By\nCBRTiyiCATB OF SERyiCB I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoi via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this /- December, 1995. has been sent J\u0026gt; W. Walker day of 12/07/1995 10!24 FROM JOHN W.URLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P. 01 \u0026lt; REASONS G K E E T I N G Q John W. Walker, PX I7B Broadway Littlt tod, M 72206 (501)374.0 fajc (501)3744187 fax transmittal to: fax: fronu date: re: pages: 1-6 ( / / //V , inciuding cover sheet J NOTES: 3-.. i: A riia  f' ei*a.LA,Zi^ RECE DEC 1 J 1995 . ,AS Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION r-. }5y5 I l\n' ...-ex. Cl j.K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER Now on this day of s.. 1995, this matter comes on to be heard upon the motion of the Intervenor, ServiceMaster Management Services, for leave to file an amended answer in this case. After consideration of such motion, the Court doth find that such motion should be, and hereby is, granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 4' Hon. Susan Webber Wnght, United States District Court Judge mis DOCLVE^ .ED ONDCCKET SHEET IN COMPLIA ON 2. .3 r.r BY VOR 79(a) FRCP Ad 2 5 8C ' 1 6^ cm/ EO I DEC 1 ,31995 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION i i 1595 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Py:V .y. ClL^' JC ClE.-.X CEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTERVENOR ORDER The issue before the Court concerns a contract that the vs. I 0 b Superintendent of the Little Rock School District, Dr. Henry Williams, entered into with Servicemaster Management Services, L.P. on September 20, 1995.' The contract (Ex. 359) provides that ServiceMaster will provide management services to the district for a period of five years for $98,659 per month. subject to adjustment. The district sought the advice of counsel before entering into the contract, which was drafted by ServiceMaster, and several contract modifications were made pursuant to the advice of district counsel. On August 31, 1995, the district board of directors held a hearing at which it authorized Dr. Williams to negotiate and enter into the contract on behalf of the district. Board member Pat Gee testified at a hearing before this Court that she asked the board to review the final contract before Dr. Williams signed it. However, the board did not review the final document before Dr. Williams signed it. I 2 5 86 IThe minutes for the August 31, 1995 meeting of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors reflect that the board was aware that the Joshua Intervenors had filed a motion with this Court for a preliminary injunction asking the Court to enjoin LRSD from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster. Joshua alleged the following grounds for issuance of the injunction: (1) that the district had not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors\n(2) that the proposed contract has potential adverse racial effect and impact\n(3) that the contract has not been let for bids in accordance with Arkansas law\n(4) that the expenditures required of the district under the contract would inhibit the district in meeting its desegregation obligations\nand (5) on Joshua's belief that the contract was not negotiated at arms' length. Aware of the pending motion for a preliminary injunction, LRSD and ServiceMaster included the following clause 14.12) in their contract: Pending litigation. Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement, a motion to enjoin school from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled \"Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al.\". No. LR-C- 82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereinafter have arising out of or in anyway relating directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. liability hereunder will Further, the be subject to the School's outcome -2-(through either settlement, otherwise) of that litigation. order of the Court or The Court set the matter for a hearing on Saturday, October 28, 1995. ServiceMaster filed a motion to intervene, which the Court granted. During the hearing the Court noted from the bench that Joshua had a difficult burden of proof with respect to establishing that the contract would interfere with the district's ability to carry out its desegregation obligations, as the district maintained that it would spend no more money on the contract than it already spends on maintenance and custodial services. The Court further noted, without deciding, that Joshua might be more likely to succeed on its argument that state law had not been followed because the district had not followed the bidding procedures established by Ark. Code Ann.  6-21-301 et seq.^ The Court recessed the hearing before the Joshua Intervenors had completed their proof. However, Joshua did establish that bidding procedures were not used and that neither the superintendent nor anyone else from the LRSD administration consulted with Joshua prior to entering into the contract. The hearing was continued until December 8, 1995. On October 31, 1995, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors discussed the ServiceMaster contract in absence of their attorneys. The board passed a motion with respect to settlement of 2 ServiceMaster contends that the contract is one for professional services, exempt from the bidding requirements set forth in the statute. -3-the ServiceMaster issue. The minutes for the October 31 meeting (Ex. 378) read as follows: III. ACTION ITEMS ServiceMaster Contract: Ms. Pondexter called for a motion on the ServiceMaster contract. Dr. Daugherty stated that he would prefer to question District attorneys about the contract prior to making a motion, but attorneys for the District were not present. Dr. Daugherty made a motion that the Board ask the attorneys to settle the contract with the appropriate parties. r \" \" ' __\n____1 __ He stated that his motion was based on the pending litigation and the fact that Judge Wright had stated a belief that the contact [sic] violation of Arkansas law. is a possible Ms. Gee seconded the motion. Ms. Magness, opposition to Mr. the Riggs, and Dr. motion. Mitchell spoke in They suggested a more appropriate action would be to allow the District's attorneys to work within the court system to settle the litigation and to then abide by any rulings made by Judge Wright. Ms. Pondexter spoke in favor of the motion and indicated that the District's attorneys were being instructed by the Board to seek a reasonable settlement to save the cost of litigation. instructed to The attorneys are not being motion. \"give away the company store\" by this She stated that an Attorney General's opinion found the contract to be a violation of State law. The attorneys' responsibility is to return to the Board if they are unable to reach a settlement, in which case the litigation would continue. She then called for the vote. The motion passed 4-3 with Ms. Pondexter, Ms. Gee, Ms. Strickland and Dr. Daugherty voting \"yes. II Magness, Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Riggs voting and Ms. \"no.\" At the continuation of the hearing on December 8 counsel for Joshua tendered into evidence a document entitled \"Settlement\" (Ex. 3 73) , which Joshua maintains constitutes a settlement offer by LRSD that was accepted by Joshua (Ex. 374) with respect to the -4-ServiceMaster contract. ServiceMaster was not a party to this H settlement\" even though it would have a considerable impact upon ServiceMaster's contract with the LRSD. This \"settlement\" was delivered by fax to counsel for Joshua by counsel for the LRSD on or about December 1. Counsel for Joshua, Mr. John Walker, claims that this constitutes an offer by LRSD to settle the matter with Joshua by having the court issue an order enjoining the LRSD from entering into the ServiceMaster agreement and terminating the district's liability pursuant to Paragraph 14.12 of the contract. Little Rock contends that this document was not intended as an offer to settle, in that it is stamped \"Draft\" (illegible on the court's copy) and is not signed by any party or the attorney for any party. LRSD has also implied, by questioning of witnesses. that Mr. Jerry Malone, the LRSD attorney who apparently drafted and sent this \"settlement\" document, did not have authority from the board to settle with Joshua. Linda Pondexter, President of the LRSD Board of Directors, testified on December 8 that it was her understanding that on October 31, the Board was authorizing its attorneys to settle with the Joshua Intervenors, not with ServiceMaster. Pat Gee, another board member, testified on December 8 that the motion regarding settlement was intended to get the district out of its contract obligations without liability. This Court declines to rule on whether this \"settlement It constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into -5-it with Joshua. The Court finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, public policy prohibits this type of settlement. This \"settlement\" purports to create a situation in which this Court, by agreement of Joshua and LRSD, would by court order declare the agreement to be non-binding on the part of LRSD and would relieve LRSD of any liability. Indeed, Paragraph 14.12 of the ServiceMaster contract provides an If escape clause\" for LRSD should this Court terminate or modify the ServiceMaster agreement. It provides that LRSD shall have no obligation to appeal decisions affecting the contract. Therefore, it implies that LRSD will in good faith abide by the terms of the contract and will not contract with Joshua or anyone else to procure a court order allowing it to escape liability. It would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. This Court finds that ServiceMaster and LRSD did not intend that this clause would permit Little Rock to escape liability without a ruling by this Court on the merits. Therefore, the Court holds that this purported settlement cannot be enforced against ServiceMaster. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of December 1995. \"^jnitedstatesdistrictTjudg JUDGE -6- rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN WJTl COMPLIANCE WJ' ON 12/1(1 ULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP aC- ' DEC 1 a 1995 Office of Desegregaiion Motmofing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U3 L 'if-G .\\ i ' 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. LR-C-82-866 -xf-iS Dy: ClL.' CURK I T X E . 1/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL ORDER Joshua's motion for continuance of the hearing scheduled for December 8, 1995, was denied in open Court during hearings conducted on December 8, 1995, and should be removed as a pending motion. The clerk is directed to make the proper entry to remove this motion [#2579] from the motions' list. IT IS SO ORDERED this // day of December, 1995. SUSAN vj: 'EBBER WRIGHT United States District Judge mis D\nCf...\\\nPL\nA.NCE VViTi- ON iN DOCKET SHEET IN T.O/CR 79(a) FRCP BY 2 5 8 5IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS DEC 2 2 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. V. LR-C-a3-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL. JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By\nPLAINTIFFS-- DEP CLERK RECEn^ DEFENDANTS DEC 2 7 1995 INTERVENORS Office of Oesegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ANETTOR COMPLETION-OF HEARING The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") respectfully move for reconsideration of this Court's Order of December Ilf 1995, addressing the issues arising in the course of consideration of the Joshua motion to enjoin the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster Management Services, L. P. (\"ServiceMaster\"). Joshua Intervenors further request that the Court schedule an additional hearing to complete consideration of the Joshua's motion. This motion is based upon the accompanying brief, the record in this case and the following allegations\n1. As the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, reveals (at 2), the Joshua Intervenors alleged multiple grounds in support of their motion. Joshua Intervenors have not completed their presentation in support of their motion. and the Court has not ruled on the substantive grounds which it sets forth. See December 11, 1995, Order at 3, 6. 2. The safeguarding of the system's resources in order to / 1permit the LRSD to satisfy the reguirements of federal law is an important element of the current phase of this case. 3. The current desegregation plan of the LRSD emphasizes voluntary choice of schools. The LRSD's relevant \"business case\" of August 24, 1995, cites a relationship between the maintenance of schools and enrollment (at 2 \"Problem Definition\"\nat 7-8 \"Impact Analysis\"). The business case indicates that the contract would be \"paid for\" by: Position reductions over time through attrition 21 PTE custodians 14 PTE building substitutes Consideration of the implications of these reductions is not complete. 4. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying brief, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that the Court's reliance on grounds of \"public policy\" in the December 11, 1995, Order,(at 6) was in error. 5. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying brief, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that the Court's * * interpretation of the contract (Order at 6) was in error. 6. Based upon our research, there are substantial grounds to doubt that the Order of December 11, 1995, is an appealable Order. 7. The amount of in-court time needed to complete consideration of the motion can be minimized by the taking and use of depositions. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors motions this Court to reconsider its December 11, 1995, Order and to allow the Joshua 2Intervenors to proceed with their presentation to support their motion and for all other relief deemed proper and necessary by the Court. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little (501)/ Rock, AR 74-3758 72206 By\n_____ W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that copy of the sent to all counsel of record via U.S. foregoing was postage prepaid on this day of em, . mail with 95. J, .n W. Walker a 3FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS nF n 2 21935 EASTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. By.-. - PLAINTIFFS.. . CLERK V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. RECEJVEr DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. DEC 2 7 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL. Office of Doseoregation Monnenng INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF  MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND COMPLETION OF HEARING The Plaintiffs, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), entered into a contract with ServiceMaster Management Services, L.P. (\"ServiceMaster) on September 20, 1995.' The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion to enjoin the contract on the grounds that the contract was in contradiction of the intent of the desegregation plan and it violated state laws of the bidding process. The contract was drafted by ServiceMaster and modifications were made by counsel for the LRSD. Despite the modifications. ServiceMaster signed the contract with the LRSD. A hearing on Joshua's Motion to Enjoin was held on December 10, 1995. ServiceMaster filed a motion to intervene, which was granted. At issue in the hearing was and is paragraph 14.12 of the LRSD  The LRSD board of directors authorized Superintendent Dr. Henry Williams to negotiate and enter a contract on behalf of the The LRSD board did not have an opportunity to review the district. final document before Dr. Williams signed it. / 1Management Services Agreement with ServiceMaster (at 12) which is entitled \"Pending Litigation.\" The Pending Litigation provision reads as follows: Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School [LRSD] from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Western Arkansas, Division, styled Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.. No. LR-C-82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge al., causes of School from any and all actions, action, damages, claims demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out or directly or of or in any way relating, indirectly from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or School is under no modify this Agreement, obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. Representatives of the LRSD and ServiceMaster signed the contract on September 20, 1995. Thus, a binding contract was created between the parties. It is the position of the Joshua Intervenors that a settlement was reached between the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. Pursuant to paragraph 14.12 of the contract between the LRSD and ServiceMaster, such a settlement would terminate the contract with ServiceMaster without liability to the LRSD. In its December 11, / 1995, Order the Court refused to rule on whether this \"Settlement\" constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into 2it with Joshua. The Court went on to say that it \"finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, public policy prohibits this type of settlement. Indeed, Paragraph 14,12 of the ServiceMaster contract provides an 'escape clause' for LRSD should this Court terminate or modify the ServiceMaster agreement. It would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party.\" The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held to the contrary. The Eighth Circuit has held that while a termination clause may indicate willingness to engage in cold-hearted economic a competition, it simply does not violate any recognized Arkansas public policy. Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988). Union National Bank and Federal National Mortgage Association (\"FNMA\") entered into contract which contained a unilateral termination clause. The clause read as follows: We may [FNMA] terminate the provisions of this Contract covering the servicing under this Contract of any or all mortgages that we This may be done by following entirely own. the procedure outlined below. 1. Termination without cause. We [FNMA] may terminate by giving the Lender 30 days notice of the termination, and by paying the Lender a termination fee. This termination fee will be specified in our Guides as we may modify them from time to time. Union. 860 F.2d at 849. FNMA sought to terminate the contract and Union argued that to a / 3allow FNMA the right to terminate the agreement without cause was unenforceable as contrary to public policy. The Eighth Circuit analogized this situation to an \"at will\" or \"without cause\" termination right in employment contracts. The right to terminate \"at will\" or \"without cause\" is not against public policy unless the reason alleged for the discharge is so repugnant to the general good as to deserve the label 'against public policy'.\" Union. 860 F.2d at 853 (citing Lucas v. Brown \u0026amp; Root, Inc.. 736 F.2d 1202 (8th Cir. 1984)). Similarly, the contract between LRSD and ServiceMaster contained a pending litigation clause which is the equivalent of a termination clause. The clause requires Servicemaster to release and forever discharge the LRSD from \"any and all actions and damages that may arise from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify the contract.\" It has been held by the Eighth Circuit that this clause does not violate any Arkansas public policy. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is not alone in this holding. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the power to refuse to enforce contracts on the grounds of public policy is therefore limited to occasions where the contract would violate \"some explicit public policy\" that is \"well-defined and dominant, and [which] is to be ascertained 'by reference to the / laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests'.\" St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Duke University. 849 F.2d 133 (4 th Cir. 1988) (citing United 4Paperworkers International Union v. Misco Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 108 S.Ct. 373, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987) citations omitted). The Court went on to state that the usual and most important function of courts of justice is rather to maintain and enforce contracts, than to enable parties thereto escape from their obligations on the pretext of public policy, unless it clearly appears that they contravene public right or the general welfare. St. Paul. 849 F.2d at 135 (citing Smithy Braedon Co. V. Hadid, 825 F.2d 787, 790 (4th Cir. 1987)). Finally, the Court concluded that it was the court's duty to enforce the contract as written unless enforcement was forbidden by an existent state policy. St. Paul. 849 F.2d at 136. In the case at bar, it is the Court's duty to enforce the contract between the LRSD and ServiceMaster as written since it does not violate any established Arkansas public policy. ServiceMaster entered into the contract with the LRSD with full knowledge of the meaning of paragraph 14.12. As a result. ServiceMaster cannot argue unconscionability. The Eighth Circuit in Union stated that the district court also ruled that, despite a substantial inequality in the bargaining power of the parties, the Contract was not unconscionable. Union. 860 F.2d at 853 (footnote 12) . There does not seem to have been any inequality in the bargaining power between the LRSD and ServiceMaster. Therefore, there are no grounds for an argument of unconscionability. Additionally, ServiceMaster voluntarily agreed to release and discharge the LRSD from \"any and all actions, causes of actions, damages, claims or demands which may arise from orders issued by / 5R the United States District Court which may terminate or modify the agreement. ( Contract, Paragraph 14.12.). The Arkansas Court of Appeals has held that subject to public policy considerations, a party may voluntarily agree to hold another harmless against loss by whatever cause it might be sustained. Weaver-Bailey Con'trs v. Fiske Carter Const.. 9 Ark.App. 192, 657 S.W.2d 209 (1983) . As previously stated. there is no Arkansas public policy which prohibits the inclusion of a unilateral termination clause in a contract between two parties even if the parties are of unequal bargaining power. Therefore, ServiceMaster voluntarily waived its ight to hold the LRSD liable for breach of contract and damages r resulting therefrom. The Court may not rewrite the contract to provide relief to ServiceMaster. Arkansas law states in the absence of violation of some clearly established public policy, the courts will not remake a contract between the parties to devise a basis of relief where none exists under the contract. M.B.M. Co. V. Counce. 268 Ark. 269, 569 S.W.2d 681 (1980). Pursuant to Arkansas law, the Court may not rewrite or modify the contract to grant relief to ServiceMaster when ServiceMaster entered into the contract with full knowledge of the impact of the Pending Litigation clause. In conclusion, ServiceMaster did not assert that the Pending Litigation clause violated public policy nor inclusion of the clause was unconscionable. did it assert that The clause is valid / and does not violate any established Arkansas public policy. Therefore, if is found that a settlement was reached between the 6LRSD and Joshua Intervenors, the pending litigation clause should be effectuated to render the contract between the LRSD and ServiceMaster discharged without liability to LRSD. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S^ Little I Ri (501) By:__ Jo] \u0026lt;7 iroadway bk, AR 7220 W .\" Walkfer CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE a copy of the I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that foregoing was sei] to all counsel of record via U.S. mail postage paid on this day of December, 19^. o n'W. Walker I 7 RECEIV filed JAN 19 1996 **) atassB Ofiice ot Desefltegavon MonAofii'S 'JAN 1 7 1995 JAMES W. JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT \u0026lt;Q^T EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ^\u0026lt;^CORMACK, ClRK OEP CURK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to afford them any opportunity to respond to the submission filed herein on behalf of Servicemaster Management Services dated January 8, 1996. The response raises and addresses several cases which were not raised and discussed in our brief and motion for reconsideration. There is no prejudice to the Little Rock School District or Servicemaster by allowing such a submission. We also note that the LRSD has taken no position regarding wither the position of Servicemaster or Joshua. We further request five days beyond the date of an order granting permission to submit a reply in which to file our response.\u0026gt;1.1 \u0026gt;* ,I Undersigned counsel is authorized to say that counsel for LRSD and Servicemaster have no objection to this request. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501^374-3758 72206 Ji Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE th I do hereby state that a copy of the forego^g was delivered via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this l^h day of January, 1996. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN I 3 1996 JAMES/W. By\nES/M(jC^ORMACK, CLERK ''1 ' DEP CCLLEERRKK PLAINTIFF RECEIVE' DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS JAN 1 9 1996 INTERVENORS Office of Desefiregation f'^\u0026amp;nito.-ifqiNTERVENORS ORDER Upon motion of the Joshua Intervenors, and there being no objections. the time for filing a reply to the Servicemaster submission dated January 8, 1996, is hereby extended to and vs. including January 26, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January 1996. RED ON DOC:\u0026lt;ET SHEET IN I .1 R^/jT JUDGE Odis DOCUMEfiT Ef.'T COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP _gY -L 2 6 0 4 LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 431 P02 JfiN 19 96 12:52 91^ Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 18, 1996 Mr. John Walker, Attornev 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: Once again I find it necessary to respond to one of your letters which tells a half truth supports what you wan. e Board. Ann Brown, andLtheXheL taow wnat actually occurred. You have an uncanny way of distorting the truth. or think, and not Yes, you were present at the meeting, and yes, you wanted to raise questions and issues that st\",'! \"iied by Le Cour,. I rcfuald L actaX!X ' on Md no'pL.T.' belief that your presence at die meen'ngwas to gaUierinforLL P meeting that was designed to answer questions and address litigators. Your concerns and questions as a litigator currently being litigated and studied by the Court. concerns ServiceMaster contract should be addressed --  questions as a litigator regarding the in Court, not in a meeting of emplovees. In response to your contention that I condition with regard to the misrepresented the Board or the Districts fiscal J  amount of money the District has to spend on new custodial equipment and supplies, as well as salary increases, is absolutely not true. What I said, and made very clear, was that if we, equipment for custodial as a District, had to replace all of the wtherrnei ietoh thie^uch as the ServiceMastesr upgegoepstleed atrhea td iof iwngf tthhaatt wwee would indeed have to have increased salaries for custodians \\xra\u0026lt;/ oe T^ ... \u0026gt;*w**w. revenue tVhUrioVuUgXhU \u0026lt;a* UmlUilIldaSgCe increase. By the IT c?aLn oLnliy mTake recommendations in this regard.  milla=g e incr ease ccaammppaaiiggnn. Also. I would like to know when aU of the District custodians became provide me with all records which indicate that your clients. Please custodians to represent their interest As far as I know, that ^oup attomw that ft.., *__ 1_____ Of you were contacted and retained by the attorney that represents the teacher group. IS represented by the Sincerely, \u0026lt;J Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 431 P03 JAN 19 96 12:53 January 18, 1995 Page 2 cc: Chris Heller Ann Brown Linda Pondexter LRSD Board Members f.JOHN W. WALKER. PA 3 Uiija Vxi? ^'x:3 I* JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JAN 1 9 1996 Office cf ^eseg.-egaacn Modiicnng January 17,1996 [DELIVERED BY FAX \u0026amp; U.S. MAIL] Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: I represent a number of custodians. Today, I requested an opportunity to address the group meeting were you were present and to be allowed to ask some questions regarding comments made by you or Service Master representatives. I also reduced my request to writing in a letter to Mr. Fred Smith. You both declined my request. I now wish to state that you made representations to the group to the effect that the district was financially unable to provide custodian equipment and supplies and, therefore, that an outside group was required to do so. You specifically held the school board responsible for the financial condition of the district stating that a mileage was needed in order to provide wage increases for the employees and other needs of the district. I believe you misrepresented the district's financial condition as well as the necessity for Service Masters management services, supplies and equipment. Would you kindly, therefore, make available a tape of the meeting to the school board members so that they may independently appraise your comments as well as those of the Service Master representative. Would you also explain why I could not raise issues on behalf of my clients. Please recall that cleanliness issues are an integral part of the desegregation plan.Page Two January 17,1996 Please let me hear from you by return fax to this letter and my hand-written letter to Mr. Fred Smith. Very truly yours, [Original Signed By Uni John W. Walker signed Counsel] wCc Ld- JWW-.lp cc: Mr. Fred Smith Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Linda Pondexter LRSD Board Members [DICTATED BUT NOT READ]JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 .MN 2 2 1996 Office of Desegregaiicn Monnoring K. January 19, 1996 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: This letter is a seriatim response to your letter to of January 18, 1996. You indicated that you declined to allow me to speak to the custodians or raise questions regarding the Servicemaster (1) matter. So that it will not be regarded as a \"half truth\", please acknowledge that I neither said or did anything during that meeting other than to raise my hand. Would you also please acknowledge that we did not exchange any words at that meeting and that your beliefs which were written in your letter were not publicized at the meeting. (2) You indicated that the Board's fiscal condition did not allow for the purchase of 1.2 million dollars in equipment, supplies and services. Please acknowledge that you indicated that the District could not afford to meet its custodial needs within its existing budget and that the only way of meeting the custodial needs of the District was by outsourcing. Now, for my position for purposes of discussion, neither you nor Mr. Fred Smith have been in a position to state what the District's actual for financial position is. Moreover, there are means available within the ADE to allow school districts loan funds for equipment purchases and meet other exigencies. What you have done with Servicemaster is simply to accept a loan which, I submit, you will repay many times over with interest and for services rendered. I might further add that if the buildings were in such bad condition, then Mr. Doug Eaton necessarily had some responsibility for that circumstance. The District practice has been to transfer, demote or terminate unsatisfactorily performing administrators. Mr. Eaton has been rewarded, rather than \"punished\", by having had his budget and staff substantially increased while his responsibilities for custodians have been diminished. This is giving him time to use his skills in educational policy making, an area for which he is not trained, certified or experienced.(3) You did indicate that the only way that the custodians could receive pay raises is by a millage increase. As a party representative in the desegregation case, I would like to know how you can make this statement in view of the transfers that you have made of people into higher level positions. The examples that I would like for you to address are those of Ms. Griffin, your personal secretary and Ms. Keathley, Dr. Mayo's personal secretary, though titled otherwise, each of whom received pay raises over a two year period of between 10 and 15 thousand dollars or more. Their raises alone I submit, if directed toward approximately 300 custodians, would have allowed each custodian a raise of $100.00. With the other raises of similarly situated people, it is easy to see that this group of employees could have been easily afforded, within the present budget, a 3 or 4 percent raise without a millage increase. I am sure you could sense the low morale of the custodians and their great sense of distrust which they had of you and Servicemaster. Surely you must know that low morale of this group of employees will necessarily result in lower levels of work performance and will accordingly reflect upon the desegregation plan. Please reflect on this. (4) You indicate that I contend that I represent all district custodians. did, let me hasten to correct that. If I suggested that, which I don't think I I do not. I do represent a number of them with respect to issues which are presently pending. I am withholding legal action against the District because of my December commitment to you which extends through the end of January. I had hoped that there would have been some substantive manifestation of reciprocity during this interval. It appears that I was wrong, but today is January 19, 1996\nwe still still have 12 days to go. Pardon the pun, please.) I still have hope (being from Hope - Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Linda Pondexter LRSD Board MembersALED COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAW 2 6 tqo-s EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DISTRICT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By.-------------------- DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL.  IAN 3 0 1996 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Office of Desegregation SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership -__ Momoring INTERVENOR JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REPLY BRIEF The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion and a Brief in Support of Reconsideration and Completion of Hearing regarding settlement between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and Joshua Intervenors. ServiceMaster has intervened in the matter as a party of interest since its contract with LRSD is involved. A hearing was held in December of 1995 and the Court issued a subsequent Order on December 11, 1995 in which it refused to rule on the merits of whether a settlement between LRSD and Joshua Intervenors existed. Instead the Court ruled that a provision in the contract between ServiceMaster and LRSD was against public policy and could not be enforced. Joshua Intervenors then filed its Motion for Reconsideration. ServiceMaster responded that the provision was not a terminationclause and the Court should examine the intent of the parties as to the provision in question. The provision in question, Section 14.12 entitled Pending Litigation, reads as follows: Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School from entering this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District No. 1, et. al.. No. LR-C-82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out of or in any way relating, directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. (emphasis added) School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. The Court stated this provision allowed one party to unilaterally escape its obligation without a similar provision to the other and was against public policy. The Court did not address the merits of whether there was a settlement between LRSD and Joshua Intervenors. Joshua Intervenors have requested that the Court reconsider its ruling on the grounds that the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that clauses in contracts that allow termination without cause are not against any established Arkansas public policy. ServiceMaster responded that Joshua Intervenors analogized thei 5S^ case improperly. Review of Joshua Intervenors' Brief in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration will show that Joshua cited the case for the law and not for the facts. The law was simply that a party may unilaterally terminate a contract and it does not go against any established Arkansas public policy. Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847, 853 (Sth Cir. 1988) . The termination without clause did provide for a termination fee to be paid to Union. Union, 860 F.2d at 849. Next, ServiceMaster argued the intent of the parties was to be bound to the contract. The dominant rule IS that the interpretation of a contract is controlled by the intention of the parties, and it is the duty of the courts to ascertain and give effect to the meaning and intent of the parties as expressed in the language used. Les-Bil V. General Waterworks, 256 Ark. 905, 511 S.W.2d 166 (1974). The express language used in the provision made \"the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation\" namely the motion in the school case concerning the ServiceMaster contract. When ServiceMaster entered into this Agreement it was fully aware of pending litigation. With full knowledge, ServiceMaster expressly agreed to be bound until a settlement or Court order terminated the contract. It is clear that ServiceMaster intended to be loound until a settlement or Court order terminated the contract. The Arkansas Court of Appeals has held that parol evidence isnot admissible to show subjective intent of the parties. Thi rule does not allow a party to prove by oral testimony that clear and unambiguous words were subjectively intended to have a meaning not fairly attributable to them. Martin v. Martin, 6 Ark.J^p. 18, 637 S.W.2d 612 (1982) . ServiceMaster cited a case which held that\" [i]t is a well- established principle of law that. in the interpretation or construction of the contract. the construction the parties  themselves have placed on the contract is entitled to great weight. and will generally be adopted by the courts in giving effect to its provisions. This is especially true in cases of ambiguity in the written contract.\" Worthen Bank \u0026amp; Trust Co. v. Adair, 15 Ark.App. 144, 151, 690 S.W.2d 727, 731 (En Banc 1985) . There is no ambiguity in the provision. The intent of the parties is clearly expressed in the provision. Section 14.12. The construction is that settlement or an order from the Court will terminate the contract. The objective manifestation of intent, not subjective manifestation, is what the court examines. The Court ruled that the provision. Section 14.12, was against public policy and refused to rule on the merits of the case. Joshua Intervenors motion that, in light of case law stating a provision which allows termination, even by only one party, is not against any established Arkansas public policy, the Court reconsider its ruling. In addition, Joshua Intervenors request that the Court determine whether LRSD and Joshua Intervenors entered into settlement which serves as grounds for termination of the contract between LRSD and ServiceMaster. In addition. since ServiceMaster was not a party to the litigation when the contract was entered, it is unreasonable to interpret the last sentence of 14.12 to include ServiceMaster as a party involved in any settlement. For the foregoing reasons, the reasons advanced by Servicemaster in oposition to reconsideration should be rejected. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 By:^ in W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was delivered to all counsel of record via U.S. mail on this January, 1996. day of in W. Walker LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Februar)' 22, 1996 TO: Board of Directors FROM\nFred L.^ Smith. Manager of Support Services III. Ily j^^iik^rfis. THROUGH: Henn/ i. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: ServiceMaster Questions The following information is being provided in response to concerns raised by Ms. Gee (list anached) and Ms. Pondexter\n Section 6.6 of the ServiceMaster contract is attached.  Item #2 of Ms. Gees list - ServiceMaster will receive no more than the contract amount. Any additional savings below the SI0.8 million budget amount will remain with the District.  Item #3 of Ms. Gees list - It was agreed that within 40 days no adjustment to the 1995-96 budget would be made since we would only be charged a pro-rated amount for the first year of the contract.  Item #4 of Ms. Gees list - Four (4) payments have been made to ServiceMaster for the months of October, 1995, through January, 1996.  Item #5 of Ms. Gees list - The 571,213 per month is the amount to satisfy the guarantee since ServiceMaster is required to provide actual documentation to support the supplies and equipment cost.  Item #6 of Ms. Gees list - Based on actual expenditures for the past several years, the 1995- 96 budget amount provides a realistic baseline.  Item i7 of Ms. Gees list - Attached is a schedule that shows the $10.8 million. With respect to the energy savings, the effect of the energy savings programs has already been included in the 1995-96 budget. It is true that a mild winter would have a positive impact on guarantee compliance. The converse is also true. A harsh winter would have a negative impact on guarantee compliance. Item #8 of Ms. Gees list - It is probably not possible to list all potential points of concern. However, we do have a detailed budget and Exhibit A is a part of the contract.  Item #9 of Ms. Gees list - The OEM system would oniy enhance, not conflict with, the Distncts system. cc\nDoug Eaton Jerry Compton FLS:caLittle Rock School District 1995-9S Budget Analysis Function Function Descriotion 2539 Other Facilities Acq \u0026amp;Co 2542 Upkeep of Buildings 2541 Service Area Direction 2544 Upkeep of Equipment 2545 Vehicle Maintenance 2548 Asbestos Program Magnet Schools Substitutes Amount $240,213 8,924,431 201,085 12,800 53,200 61,338 1.076,870 200,000 Total $10.779,937LRSD ADMIN. EULDING I Fax:1-bO1-324-2032 Mar 14 96 11:32 P. 02/02 If IriTLE Rock School Distioci' SPECr\\L board meeting March l-l, 1996 For more information. Suellen Vann. 324-2020 Ihe Board of Directors of the Liuie Rock School District (LRSD) will hold a spec?! Board meeting tonight at 5:00 p.m. in conjunction with the monthly agenda meeting. The special meeting wail include 'eports on trie old Forest Heights building. ServiceMaster, custodian turnover, substitute office business case, approval of the 1996- 97 proposed budget, student hearings, and a personi.el issue. Both meetings will be held in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. SilO Wc'il Markliam Sirc*\n! Liltle Kock, Vrkan!,i4\u0026gt;i 73301  {,=501)334^-3\u0026amp;0n LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 14, 1996 CONriDENTIAL TO: Board of Directors FROM: Hej Imams, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: ServiceMaster Contract As requested by the Board at the February meeting, ServiceMaster will be responding to concerns raised by custodians at tonights meeting of the Board. District staff responsible for administering the ServiceMaster contract has expressed some concern to me about the administration of this contract. I have attached a copy of a memo from Mr. Eaton and Mr. Smith that details those concerns. I agree that if the ServiceMaster contract is to fail, it should be ServiceMasters fault and not the Districts. This way, we will have the full force of the contract in our favor. cc: Fred Smith Doug Eaton Charlie NealTO\nFROM: throug\nSUB J\nDATE: I am LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 SOUTH BRYANT STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS (501) 570-4020 72204 CONFinCNTlAL r. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools iaton, Director, Plant Services \u0026gt;Fred Smith, Manager of Support Services ServiceMaster Contract February 23, 1996 writing to state the position, as one of the Districts contract administrators, that the vocal objections presented by the Board of Directors with regard to the ServiceMaster contract is placing the administration in a most precarious situation with regard to the legal enforcement of this contract. While it is a matter of record that the Board did not vote unanimously for this contract, it is also a matter of record that the Board did approve the entering of this contract, and in doing approved its clauses and stipulations. so. While the Board most certainly reserves the right of insuring that the administration enforces the contract that they have approved, that right must be exercised in a manner which will allow us to do it within the legal parameters of contract administration. Objections to the contract, raised by Little Rock School District employees are, of course, a are, concern to those of us who are trying to administer this Board directed contract. without full investigation being provided to the Board, with regard to concerns raised by employees, the Board must adequately hear all sides of the issue before However, providing further guidance. It is difficult for us to understand what direction that they would like us to proceed. If this contract is to succeed, it must succeed with a cooperative effort between the Little Rock School District and ServiceMaster Corporation. If this contract is to fail, it must fail because of the efforts of ServiceMaster and not the Little Rock School District and if we are put in a precarious situation of not having the support to administer this contract. equally at fault in the failure. then we could be heldPage Two CONFIBCN^'*^ Continued The Board's subtle messages are being interpreted by some of our principals as non support for this contract\nand that if they hold out long enough, it will go away. administer the Boards desires for this contract, For those of us trying to it is putting us in a precarious situation of having to administer a contract and to be as responsive to the school districts needs Sometimes there is a dichotomy in that situation. as possible. Unless full one hundred percent support for trying this contract exists, it is not going to be successful. I would like the opportunity to meet with you and discuss how we can proceed in administering this contract. DCE/apl/smc cc: Charlie Neal, Director, ProcurementGtroir \u0026amp; Gregory PROFESSIONAL ASSOOATiON ATTORNEYS AT UAW SUITC 1800 in CENTER STREET little rock. ARKAN\u0026amp;AS 73201 TVLCPHONC (5On 373-3000 RUfiSCLUViLUe OmCK! Ttuccewc* \u0026lt;\u0026amp;O|} (SOU 373.3A7S ti iowc3T*e- STRcrr KU^SCLLVlLLe. ARKANSAS 72801 rCLCFKONb \u0026lt;9011 887.7080 TELCCOAICR \u0026lt;8011 7 r078 March 15,1996 Mr. Jerry Malone Mr. Jim Clark Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: School Board Action Regarding Custodians Schedules Thursday, March 14,1996 Gentlemen: As you may know, last night the Little Rock School Board passed a resolution that plant services employees should return to their old schedules. The motion Jor this action came following comments from several custodians regarding their new work schedules under the School Districts agreement with ServiceMaster. A discussion by the Board focused on a sentence in section 3.2(a) of the Agreement between ServiceMaster and e School which states: ServiceMaster will, upon request by the School, make recommendations in connection with wage and wage related matters, but ServiceMaster shall not make any decisions with respect to wages, hours or other working conditions for Service Employees. In taking this action, the Board has misinterpreted the contract provision with regard to the management of the service employees. When the word hours is used in the reference which is bolded above, it relates to the total hours of the service employees and in no way means the shift or assignments which ServiceMaster gives to the service employees in its duty to manage them. As it states in section 2.1(a): ServiceMaster agrees to train, manage and direct the Schools employees in the support service departments of School which are identified in Section 3.2 below (the Service Employees). conij KHIJ AVaiHH 9e/8T/cn a  :ftMr. Jerry Malone Mr. Jim Clark March 15, 1996 Page 2 As has been reported, School District officials who negotiated the Agreement wdth ServiceMaster are well aware of the fact that the ServiceMaster Guarantee (as provided for in Section 6.6 of the Agreement) was agreed to only in conjunction with the Schools agreement to allow ServiceMaster to control scheduling so as to provide for more efficient operations. The Board in taking this action has caused the School District to be in breach of its obligations under the Agreement. If the scheduling issue is of such importance to the Board and it is interested in amending the Agreement to the mutual satisfaction of the parties, then my client is certainly willing to discuss possible solutions. Otherwise, this letter shall serve as notice of the existing breach pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Agreement Consistent with said Section 12.1, if the breach of the Agreement is not cured to ServiceMasters satisfaction within 60 days, ServiceMaster fully intends to provide notice of termination at said time which would result in it being relieved of its duties under the Agreement 30 days thereafter. Please be advised that if ServiceMaster is forced to follow this course of action, it will also pursue all other remedies available to it under law. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you want to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Joseph S. Mowe JSMjm cc: Mark Himel, ServiceMaster Management Services John Talley, Esq., ServiceMaster Management Services rno ij KHiH nvi Ava:aj O 9S Cl ge.'ST.co IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL \u0026lt;996 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership a' FILED U S OI3T\".iCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKA.NSAS MAR 1 1 1996 JAMES By\n\"-'.to .54W. McQQRMACK, ClIRK OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS vs. AM.? 1 Q 'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court are a number of motions (listed in the order filed) which the Court now addresses: (1) motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481]\n(2) motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for partial unitary status [doc.#2483]\n(3) motion of the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of Joshua [doc.#2506]\n(4) motion of PCSSD to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]\n(5) motion of Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]\n(6) motion of PCSSD for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]\n(7) motion of LRSD for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD, and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") [doc.#2573]\n(8) motion of Joshua for reconsideration of 2 6 4 the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing (doc.#2594]\nand (9) motion of PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction. dated October 25, 1995 (doc.#2612]. I. The Court first addresses PCSSD's. motion to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan (doc.#2481] and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status (doc.#2483]. The PCSSD states that it has substantially complied with plan provisions regarding library media services, staff development and counseling services, while the LRSD states that it has substantially complied with LRSD plan provisions regarding Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (\"HIPPY\"), Rockefeller Early Childhood Program, Parkview Science Magnet Program, and Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (\"JTPA\"). Both the PCSSD and the LRSD argue that the Court should withdraw supervision from these areas of the respective plans. The PCS\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":723,"next_page":724,"prev_page":722,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":8664,"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}}]}}