LITTLE ROCK — A group of Little Rock School District residents challenging the constitutionality of the School Board's plan to buy out Superintendent Roy Brooks for half a million dollars or more took their case Friday to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
John Gill, an attorney for the five school district taxpayers who are led by parent Teresa Gray, in one fell swoop on Friday filed a notice of appeal, the case record, the written argument detailing the constitutional obstacles to a publicly funded severance package and a request that the Supreme Court expedite the case.
"That's a little task that normally takes two or three weeks or months, and we've done it basically in one day," Gill said Friday evening about the submission to the state's high court.
Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox ruled Aug. 9 that the actions of the Little Rock School Board were constitutional when it exercised a provision in Brooks' contract that allows the board to unilaterally terminate the contract by giving Brooks 90 days' notice and payment of the compensation he would otherwise receive if permitted to stay on the job. Fox had earlier dismissed the case on summary judgment.
The question raised by the taxpayers about whether the state's largest school district can use public funds to buy out the remaining two years of Brooks' contract has implications for school boards and other public agencies that routinely include buyout provisions in contracts with their agency heads.
The Little Rock School Board voted 4-3 on May 24 to buy out Brooks' contract. At that point, district officials estimated the maximum payout to be $656,357, not counting any legal fees the district might also have to pay on Brooks' behalf. More recently, Brooks was offered $550,000, an amount he rejected earlier this week. He wants $656,357. Brooks is expected to leave his job by next Friday.
"The next step in any circumstance is for the School Board to respond to the brief," Gill said. "We asked the Supreme Court ... to have the School Board respond in 10 days. We want to at least let the [School Board] know that we are serious about the appeal and believe [Fox's orders] will be reversed. If they are going to continue down their road, we want them to know where we think that road is going. "
In the legal argument to the Supreme Court, the taxpayers contend that "the Arkansas Constitution prohibits the expenditure of public school funds unless that expenditure is for the operation and maintenance of the public schools.The School Board authorized the payment of approximately $656,000 of public school funds to pay the superintendent not to work. The school district will not receive any benefit as a result of this illegal expenditure."
The taxpayers further argued that during a July 27 circuit court hearing, experts testified that severance payment is not an operating expense of the district and that attorneys for the School Board did not present any evidence to the contrary.
They argued that Fox's granting of summary judgment to the defendant School Board was improper and that the Supreme Court should send the case back to Pulaski County circuit court with directions to the circuit judge to prohibit any buyout payments to Brooks.
"The factual determination of whether or not the payment of $656,000 in severance pay to the Superintendent is an operations and maintenance expenditure should have necessarily been answered before the trial court could make a legal conclusion as to its constitutionality," the taxpayers said in the written arguments.
"This Court should hold that using public schools to pay severance pay to a schoolsuperintendent to be unconstitutional, and reverse the trial court's summary judgment, and remand with instructions to enter an injunction prohibiting payment of severance pay in this case," they concluded.
Morgan "Chip" Welch, who represents the School Board in the taxpayer lawsuit, said Friday night that he had not seen the latest court filings but that he believes the arguments are wrong and that Fox's decision was well reasoned and would be upheld.
"I think it is a slippery slope when you start asking the courts to micromanage the ability of governmental entities to enter into contracts," Welch added. "I would never presume to predict what the Supreme Court will do but I would be surprised if they reversed JudgeFox.
Welch discounted the contention that the School Board plans to pay Brooks for not working.
"You can't say it's gettingpaid for doing nothing," he argued. "It's part of the consideration for the contract. Anybody who comes from out of state, has to sell their house, give up their job, drive across the country and work here for several years - he's done something, they've done something. They've worked together for a long time. It's a package deal. It's a professional contract."
The plaintiffs in the case are considered to be sympathetic to Brooks and opposed to his leaving the school district job. Gray, a parent of a Little Rock district pupil, was the spokesman last spring for the organization Little Rock Mothers for Progress in our Schools, which bought full-page newspaper advertisements calling for the community to support Brooks.
In July, Brooks sought to intervene in the case to protect his contract rights.
Fox did not allow the intervention because at the time of the July 27 hearing, not all of the parties in the case had achance to respond to Brooks' proposed involvement.
Besides Gray, other named plaintiffs in the case pending before the Supreme Court are Keith Broach, Renita L. Thompson, Steven B. Thompson, Eleanor Burress and Marnita Bisbee.
They are named in the case as individuals and as representatives of the similarly situated class of patrons and taxpayers in the Little Rock district.
Besides Gill, attorneys for the plaintiffs are Roger Fitzgibbon and Kelly NcNulty of the Gill Elrod Ragon Owen & Sherman law firm; Don Trimble of the Trimble Law Firm; and Eugene G. Sayre of the Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles & Gregory law firm.
Arkansas, Pages 13, 19 on 08/18/2007