The attorney for the Pulaski County Special School District says he is certain it will take judicial intervention to settle an agreement that is key to the final approval of the proposed settlement to a 31-year-old federal school desegregation lawsuit.
Document set
School districts takeover and desegregation
- Consent judgment in Pulaski County desegregation case
- Defense of legal fees in desegregation lawsuit
- State objects to legal team's request in desegregation case
- Court: Desegregation office will close June 30
- U.S. District Court receives responses to proposed settlement
- City of Sherwood objects to deseg settlement agreement
- Sherwood ed group objects to deseg agreement
- Little Rock Chamber voices support for desegregation settlement
- NLR resident objects to proposed deseg settlement (3)
- NLR resident objects to proposed deseg settlement (2)
- NLR resident objects to proposed deseg settlement
- Stipulation by Joshua Intervenors and PCSSD regarding unitary status
- Updated draft of school desegregation lawsuit settlement
- "Transitional agreement" between PCSSD and Joshua intervenors
- Desegregation settlement draft outline, November 2013
- LR school district appeals charter school ruling
- Feb. 1 status report on Pulaski County Special School District
- Report concerning one-race classrooms
- LRSD response to ADE's motion for release
- Building fund projects numbers
- Judge's ruling on charter schools in desegregation case
- Judge's ruling for hearing in payment case
- PCSSD's memorandum in support
- PCSSD's motion for discovery order
- Judge denies PCSSD motion
- NLR schools declared unitary
- Joshua brief in support
- Joshua brief in support
- PCSSD Response
- NLRSD Response
- Brief in support of PCSSD response
- LRSD brief in support
- LRSD motion to dismiss
- Brief in support of NLRSD response
- Kimbrell's Letter
- Motion for release from settlement
- Brief in support of state
- State's Response - 3/12
- Response to facts - 3/12
- Charter Motion - 3/12
- Brief in Support
- ADE Response
- Desegregation Filing - Feb 14
- Desegregation Facts Filing - Feb 14
- Desegregation Motion Support - Feb. 14
- North Little Rock deseg documents filed in St. Louis - July 26
- PCSSD deseg documents filed in St. Louis - July 26
- Joshua Intervenor's Motion Persuant to Rules 52 (b) and 59 (e) - July 22
- Joshua Intervenors' motion filed July 22
- Joshua Intervenors' memorandum - July 22
- Joshua Intervenor's memorandum in support of motion
- Joshua Intervenor's memorandum in support of motion - July 22
- Joshua Intervenor's memorandum in support of their Rule 62.1 motion
- Desegregation case - Judge Marshall agrees not to recuse
- LRSD's brief on recusal issues in desegregation case
- NLRSD's response to recusal in desegregation case
- Desegregation case - State's response to recusal order
- Intervenors' response to recusal order - PCSSD desegretation case
- PCSSD Recusal Comments - Jacksonville
- LRSD v. PCSSD, Reply to Responses to Motion for Order
- June 19 2011 Letter from David Newbern to Dustin McDaniel
- PCSSD Financial Statements with report of accountants for June 30, 2008
- PCSSD Financial Statements for June 30, 2009
- June 10 Letter from ADE to Charles Hopson
- Letter from ADE to Charles Hopson
- Investigative Report Update #1
- Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants
- Letter from ADE to Charles Hopson
- Investigative Report Update #2
- Letter from Dept. of Education to PCSSD
- May 14 Investigative Report
- PCSSD response to recusal order
- PCSSD memo June 30
- Joshua Intervenors brief
- PCCSD Audit Part 1
- North Little Rock School District's brief in response to show cause order
- Little Rock School District's brief in response to show cause order
- Statement from John W. Walker
- PCCSD Audit Part 3
- PCCSD Audit Part 2
- Act 1467
- Letter from Tom Kimbrell to Willie Williams
- Letter from Tom Kimbrell to Vandell Bland
- Helena-West Helena School District audit
- PCSSD dissolved - School District's brief
- Elliot-PCSSD Lawsuit
- PCSSD dissolved - State's brief
- Joshua Intervenors' response to show cause
- Districts in fiscal distress
- Desegregation: 8th circuit filing response by state
- Desegregation: 8th circuit filing by LRSD Part 1
- Desegregation: 8th circuit filing by LRSD Part 2
- PCSSD dissolved - Motion for Order
- PCSSD response to motion for stay
- Desegregation state response
- Desegregation order denying stay pending appeal
- Desegregation response motion
- Joshua Intervenor's memorandum in support of motion for stay
- Motion for construction, reconstruction, consolidation
- Brief in support of motion
- Proposed Zone Changes — Jacksonville Elementary
- Letter about school facilities
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. granted a requested extension to the school district and the Joshua intervenors, giving them until Dec. 16 to either settle the disputed details about the district’s unitary status on their own or turn it over to a federal magistrate judge for mediation.
“I don’t think it will go to a magistrate; I know it will,” the school district’s attorney, Allen Roberts, said in a phone interview Tuesday.
The extension comes after a request for more time was filed Monday by Roberts and John Walker, the attorney representing black students in Pulaski County’s three school districts known as the Joshua intervenors.
The letter to Marshall on Monday said that the initial deadline for that very day was “simply too ambitious.”
“Should I say it was self-evident? It was kind of a plea. I think John [Walker] and I kind of simultaneously looked up and realized that the Dec. 2 date was there. We were left in a position of agreeing amongst ourselves. We realized there was still some progress that we could probably make - bringing our people together - before we dropped it in the magistrate’s lap,” Roberts said.
At the heart of the “transitional agreement” between the two entities are the steps the school district will take to attain unitary status in nine areas, including facilities, student-discipline procedures and student achievement. According to the document, any disputes between the district and the Joshua intervenors will be referred to a federal magistrate judge.
Walker said in a phone interview Tuesday that everything is still on track, but he was mum on the details.
“I wouldn’t discuss that with you. There was nothing sinister going on. There was just not enough time,” Walker said.
Roberts said he was optimistic that they could come to an agreement on at least five of the elements of unitary status, but that still leaves “four that are going to require a lot of work.”
It will take a magistrate, he said, to “help us through the more cumbersome ones.”
The biggest hurdle is equalizing the condition of the district’s facilities, Roberts said. There is just simply too much to do in too little time, he said.
“We’ve obviously got to replace some school buildings. I don’t even know if you can build a high school in one year, two years. It is a long process. If you’re talking how long it will take us to get a construction plan approved, that can be measured in months. But to actually get it finished will take a few years to finance and build,” Roberts said.
The tentatively approved settlement of the 1989 case was negotiated last month by attorneys for the state; the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts; the Joshua intervenors; and the class of all employees in the three school districts known as the Knight intervenors.
Under the agreement, the state will pay a total of $65.8 million a year through the end of the 2017-18 school year in desegregation aid to the three districts. In the final year, the money can be used only for construction and renovation of academic facilities.
The agreement also calls for the state to pay $250,000 to each of the three districts to reimburse them for their legal fees, and $500,000 to the Joshua intervenors and $75,000 to the Knight intervenors for legal fees.
Marshall has given his preliminary stamp of approval on the settlement, but a final ruling will not be made until after a Jan. 13-14 “fairness hearing.”
The judge has scheduled a March hearing on the motion for release in the event that the proposed settlement doesn’t get final approval.
Last week, Marshall required the parties to the case to publicize the terms of the agreement and to publicly notify individual members of the Joshua class or their attorneys that they are entitled to address the judge with evidence and objections about the proposed agreement at the January hearing.
Objections must first be submitted in writing to the federal court by Dec. 23.
Members of the Joshua class who have questions about the lawsuit, the settlement or the fairness hearing can put their questions in writing to John Walker, the lawyer for the Joshua intervenors. His address is 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, Ark. 72206, or [email protected].
Members of the Knight intervenors can direct questions to their attorneys, Mark Burnette or Clayton Blackstock, 1010 W. Third St., Little Rock, Ark. 72201, or [email protected] or [email protected] .
Front Section, Pages 1 on 12/04/2013