Arkansas Blog

When all of this is over(sooner is better than later), I think it is time for the parents of the LRSD to start petitioning for School Board Term limits. The past decisions of the school board and old vendettas are fueling this fire and it must stop.......or kids of every color and socioeconomic variety will suffer.

Mitchell overstepped. The line about asking administrators to become involved in the dispute is what did it. The letter was a threat, period. That, AND the "secret" meeting between her and Daugherty.

I don't care one way or another if Brooks stays or goes. But to me, it's clear who overstepped on this particular issue.

I'd have filed suit too.

ARK. BLOG: The letter was a mistake. I've been clear on that since Saturday.

To be fair to Brooks, though, he probably thinks that he is just protecting himself from a democratically elected school board that is overreaching. His argument is that his contract calls for specific due process in the event of attempted dismissal, and that Mitchell and Daughtery are acting to refuse him that due process. I think that most of us would do the same to protect our interests under similar circumstances, and even democratically elected representatives must abide by laws and contacts. I'm not passing upon the merits of his accusations, but I can understand his point of view.

Plus, the "Brooks is taking the LRSD back into court" stuff is a bit overblown here. This lawsuit is not going to be anything like the desegregation saga, and, considering the issues, it shouldn't linger very long at all.

ARK. BLOG: I hope that prediction is correct. The irony remains inescapable. My point is only that federal court is not always the ogre many people hold it up to be. It is a protector of cherished rights and far more often a force for good than evil.

Brooks wouldn't be filing the suit if inappropriate actions weren't taken by Mitchell in writing that letter and conducting private conversations with Daugherty. She made it easy, essentially showing she's not suited for her job.

Brooks can't effectively work with the board and he had to be let go, I understand that. Still, I think a letter of censure on behalf of the board dictating that he make an effort to work with the board and respect them would've been a better start and a compromise that might've achieved unilateral support. Then if he failed to modify his interactions, which I bet he would've, the board would have very strong grounds to fire him without pay.

I'm with Max now, Mitchell (not the board, she apparently IS the board) should've just paid Brooks the $500,000. The legal fees and hassles we'll likely see over the next year would easily make it worth it. Let alone the medical fees from the black eye the city and LRSD are getting.

"My point is only that federal court is not always the ogre many people hold it up to be. It is a protector of cherished rights and far more often a force for good than evil."--AT Blog

I agree with that proposition completely. Plus, federal court is generally much more efficiently run with much more capable judges than state court (no offense to a certain blogger's spouse, who is a much better judge than the typical state court judge). I'm not sure that federal court supervision of school districts over many decades is a good thing necessarily, but having an enforcement mechanism for important rights is always beneficial.

Will this lawsuit put a halt to the suspension/dismissal hearings?

ARK. BLOG: He doesn't specifically request an inunction to halt those proceedings. But if he succeeds with getting Daugherty and Mitchell removed, he's effectively killed them.

With regard to Curious's question about a stay of the suspension/dismissal hearings, Brooks's complaint does not specifically request that relief. Instead, it seeks an order mandating that Mitchell and Daughtery recuse from any matters pertaining to Brooks' employment with the LRSD. This relief is requested as "preliminary and permanent injunctive relief," which indicates that the court will have to decide it fairly soon. As a practical matter, I would suspect that Brooks would want some sort of stay of the termination proceedings until the court decides whether to grant his requested injunctive relief with regard to the recusal of Mitchell and Daughtery.

So, if Mitchell and Daugherty are excluded from those personnel hearings, it effectively returns the board to a white majority???????

Yeah, that's right, Curious, at least with regard to Brooks's termination proceedings or other job actions. The forced recusal wouldn't affect their participation in other issues that the board addresses.

And if the injunction isn't granted, there is always the possibility that the FOIA violations will be prosecuted. Those violations are Class C misdemeanors, punishable by a fine of up to $100 and / or 30 days in jail. If Mitchell and Daugherty are in jail for 30 days, the board majority becomes the board minority and the possibile official, legal actions of the new majority would be legion.

ARK. BLOG: No way this is a criminal FOI violation under the prevailing standards. If so, city councils all over Arkansas better turn off their phones.

Well, isn't this just one mell of a hess!

As the Blog has strongly hinted, Brooks won't need a stay of the suspension or terminiation if his request for a court-mandated recusal on his personnel matters is granted. If these two are removed from voting on Brooks' (Brooks's) employment then the 4-3 majority against him becomes a 3-2 majority in his favor and votes to remove his suspension and halt the termination process would presumably follow on those margins.

And would a Class C misdemeanor with suspended jail time warrant removal from office?

No, it takes a felony.

My comment about a stay tended more toward a situation where the board majority tried to quickly act before the court could rule on the requested injunctive relief. A temporary stay against any action might be appropriate under those circumstances. Such a move would be patently stupid on the board's part, but such considerations haven't stopped them yet.

Doesn't a hearing on the suspension have to take place within 5 days of the vote, according to the super's contract? Can that proceed with Mitchell and Daugherty since there is no ruling as of yet? How long do Mitchell and Daugherty have to reply to the lawsuit? When could a hearing be scheduled? Will the case automatically go to the court that oversaw the LRSD case? I've got soooooo many questions!

I am curious about something, though. In 1959, two segregationist LRSD board members were removed in a recall election. I wonder what the mechanism was for the recall election then?

"Will the case automatically go to the court that oversaw the LRSD case?"

The Brooks case has been assigned to Judge Eisele, not Judge Wilson. A related case would have gone to Wilson, but this case is not related to the deseg case for those purposes.

This looks like it could get interesting...

Does this mean that Dr. Mitchell made a procedural error in her haste to terminate Dr. Brooks?

A correction is in order to the headline, "Brooks puts LR back in federal court."

It was the irresponsible behavior of Ms. Mitchell that resulted in a justified response.

"Mitchell puts LR back in federal court."

ARK. BLOG: I don't support what she did. I'm also not ready to believe Brooks has a legitimate cause of action in this case -- yet. In any case, he filed the suit. Precision says HE put the case in federal court. He's seeking succor from the very institution that he's painted as such a wonderful thing to be shed of. Too much fun to miss a poke at that.

Excellent point, Doc.

If a drunk driver kills a member of my family, and I sue him/her, would I be taking that person's money or would they have lost it?

And, you say that you didn't support what Ms. Mitchell did, but you turn the blame for the lawsuit on him. Just talkin' the talk?

ARK. BLOG: I don't like the procedure. I think they should move slowly and deliberately in public session. I don't mind if they get rid of Brooks. But I think how you do it is important for public confidence and perception. That doesn't mean he has a legal ground to sue. Small point: Nobody has taken anything from Brooks yet, hence my doubt whether he currently has a cause of action.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Mitchell wan't happy with the hiring of Brooks in the first place.

Brooks' subsequent actions incurred Mitchell's and the CTA ire.

Their ire fueled a successful push to change the make-up of the school board.

The change in the school board membership led to the decision to fire Brooks with cause.

Firing him with cause drew a great deal of attention from the public.

That attention put a great deal of focus on the actions of Mitchell.

Her using the LRSB letterhead when informing some administrators of the possibility of not renewing their contracts may have incorrectly implied that the notification (and threat) were from the board as a whole.

The fact that this was not from the entire board struck many as not being quite kosher, and possibly left Mitchell open to litigation.

Brooks didn't want to lose his job, but he sure doesn't want a "fired with cause" on his record.

Just as Mitchell is determined to show everyone that she is in the right, Brooks is going to do what he can to show she is in the wrong.

Seems like the LRSB is back to the business as usual. We can all play the game in which we argue who said what first, and who did what to whom, ad nauseum. Hell, my young kids are masters at it. But what does it really accomplish?

Remember in "The Lord of the Flies" when the boys started chanting "Eat, Piggy?" What if it is neither Mitchell or Brooks that is Piggy in this case? What if it is our schools? And, what are we going to do about it?

Nice summation, BeckiS. As to your query about which came first, the chicken or the egg, I think the question should rather be: Who bombed the hen house? Right now, everything is scrambled.

By the way: when are we going to get to see the list of charges? Enquiring minds want to know?

To paraphrase Churchill: Never before have so few confused so many.

Who is paying the legal bills for this?

If Brooks sued Mitchell, and not the LRSB, can she use the LRSB attorney?

Or is she now forced to risk personal funds (as well)?

I still, and always, have a question. Who is responsible for ensuring State policies and deadlines are followed, when the Superintendent is voted by a majority of a duly elected Board for suspension? I don't want opinion, I want a law, Board policy, something legal to explain my question.

Brooks instructed principals to terminate teachers with whom he (Brooks) assumed did not support his agenda. Will those teacher able to file a federal lawsuit against Brooks and the LRSD? As granny used to say, "fair exchange is not robbery".

Curious, good evening.

That is the problem, there is no legal procedure. It is assumed that districts will have a superintendent or an interim superintendent.

If a district suspends or terminates a superintendent, an interim or replacement is named. The board doesn't assume responsibility, ever.

The board's role is legislative ... they make policy, that is all.

The CEO/Superintendent enacts those policies.

IF the vote to suspend takes place before the FED court hearing, can that vote be set aside? Also, if the vote to fire Brooks takes place before the ruling, can that also be set aside? I know, y'all are tired of my questions, but I am trying to learn something here. We have jumped dramatically from Board policy to State standards to Fed court, and I still don't know who would be in charge of a district if the super was recommended for suspension.

Curious, good evening. That is the problem, there is no legal procedure. It is assumed that districts will have a superintendent or an interim superintendent.

If a district suspends or terminates a superintendent, an interim or replacement is named. The board doesn't assume responsibility, ever. The board's role is legislative ... they make policy, that is all. The CEO/Superintendent enacts those policies.

There is more to this story than the press knows. My sister-in-law is one of the administrators that received a letter over the weekend. All I can say is that things will not look good for Dr. Brooks. Be patient.

OAZ, thanks so much for responding. So, if the suspension of a super's contract requires 5 days to go into effect, after a hearing, then a school district is headless for 5 days until that issue is resolved? Is this an issue that needs to be legislated? Has this happened before? This is such a mess! Thanks to any of you who can help me understand the statutes, procedures - or lack of them. OAZ, thank you so much for trying to help me understand.

Hey, I have the answer. Why don't we all make a concerted effort to get the NAACP to come down and represent Dr. Brooks. Some of my liberal blogging friends could also solicite the Rev. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton to come down and give one of their canned speeches to "free this man of color from the evils of government repressionisms" or something of the sort.

That would make for some interesting bed mates on this issue!

If "things will not look good for Dr. Brooks" - STATE YOUR CASE! I can tell you what is divisive. a group with power ramming decisions down a community's throat without clearly stating the reasons?

What is up with the freakin' secrets? If you have a good case, does it need to be a sneak attack? I would happily argue for his removal if someone would state provable facts rather than asinine arguments of "he talks down" & "he's divisive."

Both are common boss complaints. Don't rehire him issues. They do not warrant this circus.

I am curious what else Mitchell is pushing to change quickly. I don't trust her. I wouldn't be surprised if she is working to change more policy? Anyone know what else is on J Walker's mind. or the CTA? I think Walker likes the LRSD in court & the CTA clearly wants any teacher (skilled or not) to keep their jobs.

After the way Mitchell has acted can all the blame be Brooks' fault?

"Be patient."

New subject

Margarita or daquiri

Why and how do you like it...

Do the math. Three hundred and 4 million divided by 28,000 is almost 11,000. $11,000 per student per year could buy a quality education. Why can't the LRSD ? Is it the administration or the system that needs changing? I say change the system. Do what Love My Kids suggested, run it llike a business.

Sqwheel,
The way you figured the per pupil expenditure is falacious at best.
Districts receive funding from local millages, State, and Federal funds. Districts control all of the funds. The "per pupil expenditures" are different from the State formula because they include items like facility maintenance, salaries of school personnel, cost of supplying necessary items to run the school, etc. Each principal submits a budget to the district for items such as technology, daily operations, Principal's Discretionary Fund, etc. (Monies raised by the PTA and/or school fund raisers are not taken into consideration.) Then, the budget is approved, altered, or disapproved. If a certain percentage of the children in a building are on Free and Reduced Lunch (FED guidelines), then extra monies are available from the Title I. The same is true for the education of Exceptional Children and English as a Second Language as those funds are expended by the individual responsible with principal approval and according to the guidelines of each program.
I don't know if grant awards are included in the per pupil expenditures.
This is the short form of the long form of explanation. Clear as mud? I used to think, and still do, it was meant to be that way.

"I think Walker likes the LRSD in court & the CTA clearly wants any teacher (skilled or not) to keep their jobs."

Hasn't Walker been invovled in a lot of Little Rock Schools disputes? Does he work for free or is he paid?

"...the CTA clearly wants any teacher (skilled or not) to keep their jobs."

I didn't take the time to see who made this comment, Soundman, but it is completely off the mark. The CTA does not nor never has supported bd teaching or teachers in the wrong for being wrong or doing bad.
What they have done for ALL teachers is to insure that rules and guidelines are followed in a fair dismissal for cause, much like your seeing with the Brooks endeavor. In other words, are all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed.
The comment you cited, Soundman, is misleading and spurious, made either out of ignorance or an attempt to deceive.

"The comment you cited, Soundman, is misleading and spurious, made either out of ignorance or an attempt to deceive."

I find your remarks ignorant too. It's only
a observation, but walker's name does seems to always come up when talking about little rock schools. I was just wonder if he was getting paid for his endeavor or was he doing this for free.
I thought I was pretty clear with my question. You've seem to imply more in your accusation than I was asking.

Well, Sound Off, you see my observation is of the actual occurrences involving school members who were CTA members in trouble for misconduct, etc. They got fired and it was by the books. We did not hesitate to tell them they were in trouble and that it would probably be best for them to seek a new profession. We did make sure rules and procedures were followed. If they were and the teacher in question was guilty of a serious infraction, we had no problems with the decisions but had a lot of regrets for that person and for the children who had to experience such behavior.

I only referred to the CTA comment and not the Walker comment. Yes, your question was clear but I was not addressing it. Look again carefully and you'll see that I never mentioned Walker in my correction. You are entitled to your opinion about him and you are not alone in having such. Max has offered some pretty good comments about Walker and his background with the district. I really don't want to get into an argument about Walker since by now everyone is quite firm in their opinion about him and nothing short of a miracle will change that. I ain't in the miracle business.

So, I'm ignorant. But, I ain't stupid. I do know I ghave you the straight facts about how the CTA handles bad teachers. We don't want bad teachers in the profession either. We also don't want administrators abusing the rules to fire someone. Do it by the books and we're satisfied that justice was done.

I stand by my statement both from observation, experience, and discussions of this issue with fellow officers in the CTA. We do not defend bad teachers or bad teaching, but we do defend everyone against violations of due process and fairness.

People need to realize that Walker is a handy scapegoat that deflects them for realizing what the true underlying problem is to LRSD's troubles. I'll say no more. I'll simply say it's as plain as black and white.

"Well, Sound Off, you see my observation is of the actual occurrences involving school members who were CTA members in trouble for misconduct, etc."

Again, not talking about CTA. Obviously touched a nerve. Mr. Snake

Somehow I think a wire is mixed up here. You put two comments in quotes, apparently from a previous missive, and, yes, you only discussed the Walker part.

When I referred to the quote you used, I did not criticize you in any of my statements. I simply pointed out the errors contained in the CTA portion of the comment.

Possibly the confusion is that I didn't make it clear enough to you that I was only labeling the CTA portion of that statement you cited as being in error. I thought I cleared that up in my second missive. Must've crossed another wire or two there.

Any comment that is false and misleading about an organization I spent many years with will naturally hit a nerve. So, I can comfortably plead guilty to that. People should stand up against purveyors of falsehoods and errors. It's the right thing to do.

And as I said, make all the comments you want about Walker. I don't particularly care about that issue anymore and feel it's basically irrelevant to the current troubles with the board and Dr. Brooks.