Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 06 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:82-cv-866-DPM,4:82-cv-866-DPM |
| Parties | LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. PLAINTIFFS v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE/NORTH PULASKI SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. DEFENDANTS EMILY McCLENDON, TAMARA EACKLES, VALERIE STALLINGS, TIFFANY ELLIS, and LINDA MORGAN INTERVENORS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Is it time? Yes. With the exception of some facilities issues, the Pulaski County Special School District has substantially complied in good faith with Plan 2000. Subject to the ongoing implementation of its 2018 master facilities plan as previously modified by the Court, the Jacksonville/North Pulaski School District has also substantially complied in good faith with Plan 2000. It is therefore time for both Districts to continue their important and challenging work of educating all students without oversight from this Court, except as specified on facilities.
Background. It has been a decade since this Court held a compliance trial in this case. Doc. 4507, 2011 WL 1935332, affirmed in part and reversed in part, LRSD v. Arkansas, 664 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2011). The Court therefore convened a three-week bench trial in July 2020 on the four areas in which PCSSD remains under supervision. Fifteen witnesses testified, some several times on various areas, and two-hundred fifty-five exhibits were received. In October 2020, the Court held a two-week trial on JNPSD issues. There were twelve witnesses and two-hundred thirty-five exhibits. Tours of many school facilities in both districts were also informative. The Court has measured the witnesses' credibility in reaching its factual conclusions.
Much has happened in the decade since my Brother Miller presided over the last trial. There was a settlement about state desegregation funding. With the Court's approval, PCSSD, Arkansas, the Little Rock School District, and the North Little Rock School District resolved that branch of the case. Doc. 4980 & 5063. Across several years, state funding was phased out. This was a substantial change because each of the central Arkansas districts was receiving millions of dollars each year pursuant to the 1990 settlement agreement. The deal also opened the possibility of creating a new district for Jacksonville and north Pulaski County. The affected voters agreed. In due course, JNPSD was detached from PCSSD. This was a big lift by many hands. There was some contention, too.
Soon after the settlement on state funding, and before the JNPSD detachment, Arkansas took over PCSSD because of that District's long-running fiscal problems. The State appointed Dr. Jerry Guess as superintendent. And the Director of the Arkansas Department of Education acted as PCSSD's school board. ARK. CODE ANN. § 6-20-1909(a). The Joshua Intervenors, representing the class of black children and their parents, and PCSSD also embarked on what one of the lawyers has aptly called a slow-motion settlement. Between January 2014 and June 2017, the Court approved stipulations that PCSSD was unitary in various areas governed by Plan 2000:
In 2014, the Court approved a modification to Plan 2000 Section M about student achievement. This modification launched the Dr. Charles W. Donaldson Scholarship Academy. Doc. 5018. The Donaldson Academy figures in the current academic achievement issues. In 2015, the Court also approved a supplement to Plan 2000 about PCSSD facilities. Doc. 5084 & 5091. That supplement is a root of a current facilities dispute.
At the end of 2016, Arkansas returned PCSSD to a newly elected school board. The following year Dr. Guess stepped down as superintendent. The Court doesn't know the particulars, but there's a reasonable inference some tension existed between him and the new PCSSD board.
By late 2017, it became clear that the slow-motion settlement had stopped. Trials were needed to evaluate the Districts' Plan compliance in the areas remaining under Court supervision. By that point, too, JNPSD had stood up. The new district had inherited PCSSD's Plan 2000 obligations. Doc. 5088. JNPSD was included in all the parties' stipulations about partial unitary status except for the one about staffing. The Court therefore started with a February 2018 trial about JNPSD's compliance in staffing and facilities. Thereafter, the Court declared the new district unitary on staffing, except for a slice about incentives in minority recruiting, and unitary in facilities contingent on JNPSD's completion of its 2018 master plan as modified. Doc. 5445. No appeal was taken. JNPSD has provided the Court annual reports about its building program. There are some lingering questions about the amount of available State partnership funding. To its credit, JNPSD has accelerated its already ambitious building schedule to maximize Arkansas's contributions. The Court has toured many of these facilities. JNPSD's efforts here continue to be nothing short of extraordinary.
The Intervenors have been on the scene through all this. Because there were now two Districts, and Lorene Joshua had passed away, the Court requested nominations for new class representatives. Without objection, Emily McClendon, Tamara Eackles, and Valerie Stallings were appointed to represent the PCSSD class. In its trial brief, PCSSD now makes a passing challenge to these representatives. After some wrangling, Tiffany Ellis and Linda Morgan were appointed to represent the JNPSD class. John W. Walker, who had valiantly led the team of lawyers for the intervenors for more than three decades, passed away in October of 2019. M. Samuel Jones III, who had matched Walker step for step as PCSSD's lawyer since the case began in 1982, shifted to an advisory role. All the members of the current legal teams, some veterans and some new, have done exemplary work.
PCSSD remains under this Court's supervision in four areas: discipline, facilities, student achievement, and monitoring. JNPSD remains under supervision in those areas, too, with the caveat on facilities—the Court's role is limited to ensuring implementation of the District's master plan. The Court looks forward to future annual reports of continued progress. Doc. 5445 at 7. Though mostly unitary on staffing, JNPSD is also under supervision on minority-hiring incentives, Plan 2000 Section L(3). All this ground was covered during the July 2020 and October 2020 trials.
Preliminary Issues. There are five important general points.
First, the deep question is whether the Districts have complied in good faith with Plan 2000, eliminating the traces of past discrimination insofar as practicable. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 492 (1992); LRSD v. Arkansas, 664 F.3d at 744. The shorthand is substantial compliance. A careful assessment of the facts is required. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 474. PCSSD proposed Plan 2000; Intervenors did not oppose its substance; and this Court adopted it as a consent decree. Doc. 3309, 3337 & 3347. As Judge Richard S. Arnold put it, Plan 2000 is the "particularization of federal law applicable to these parties." Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997). It is a contract that, with this Court's imprimatur, became an Order. In procedural terms, the Districts seek relief from this Court's Order based on changed circumstances pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5). This Court sits to ensure that the United States Constitution and other federal law is enforced in full measure for every person. In institutional-reform cases, such as this one, the Court must also be mindful that our Constitution creates a compound republic, vesting substantial authority in states and their arms, including local school districts. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 490; Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447-50 (2009). Though it is a relative term, as this case's almost four-decade history shows, a consent decree like Plan2000 is "a temporary measure[.]" LRSD v. Arkansas, 664 F.3d at 745 (quotation omitted).
Second, who must prove substantial compliance? The parties agree that the Districts have the burden on facilities and staffing. Speaking through Judge J. Smith Henley, this Court held long ago in the Zinnamon case, a predecessor to this one, that PCSSD had violated the Constitution in those areas. Zinnamon v. Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District, E.D. Ark. No. LR-68-C-154, Memorandum Opinions (17 August 1970 & 22 July 1971) & Decree (4 June 1973); see also Doc. 5664. Not so, the Districts say, on the other remaining areas—discipline, student achievement, and monitoring. According to PCSSD and JNPSD, parts of Plan 2000 were simply matters of contract, on which the Intervenors have the burden of showing a breach, as in any contract case. The Districts draw their argument from many cases, in particular Horne, Jenkins v. Missouri, 216 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2000) (en banc), and Jackson v. Los Lunas Community Program, 880 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2018).
The Intervenors disagree, contending that the Districts have the evidentiary burden in all Plan 2000 areas. They point out that the Districts' burden has been an accepted premise of prior litigation. E.g., Doc. 4160 at 5-9; LRSD v. Arkansas, 664 F.3d at 744-45. In the run-up to Plan 2000, PCSSD argued for a split in the burden of proof. Doc. 3253 at 29-30. My Sister Wright rejected this position, noting thatthe District had bound itself to the full desegregation plan. Doc. 3304 at 6 & 29. Intervenors compare LRSD's plan, which specifically allocated the burden to the party challenging that District's substantial compliance. LRSD v. PCSSD, 237 F. Supp. 2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial