State asks judge to step aside in LR district suit

The state Department of Education has asked Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen to recuse himself from a lawsuit over the state takeover of the Little Rock School District.

The agency wants him to step aside from the case because Griffen wrote a statement opposing the takeover before he had been randomly assigned to the case.

"In light of the Court's January 28, 2015, comments made prior to the Arkansas State Board of Education's decision to assume authority over the Little Rock School District, we respectfully request that Your Honor recuse from the above-styled case," department attorney Jeremy Lasiter wrote in a Monday letter to Griffen.

Griffen was randomly assigned the case, which was filed nearly two weeks ago by a group of residents, including three recently displaced members of the Little Rock School Board. They are suing state Education Commissioner Tony Wood, the state Board of Education and Baker Kurrus, an attorney and a former School Board member who was named as the head of a committee that will evaluate and make recommendations about the Little Rock School district's finances.

The suit was filed after the Education Board voted 5-4 to take control of the state's largest district, removing the seven-member board and and leaving Dexter Suggs as superintendent, but now on an interim basis. The Education Board based its decision on six of the district's 48 schools that are labeled as academically distressed because fewer than half of the students at those schools scored at proficient levels on state math and literacy exams during a three-year period.

Earlier, on Jan. 28 -- the day the Education Board took over the nearly 25,000-student district -- Griffen sent a statement addressed to state board members opposing the takeover. The Arkansas Times blog posted it that day.

"I urge you to reject the attempt to disenfranchise the voters who have entrusted the Little Rock School Board with responsibility for governing the Little Rock School District," Griffen wrote. "First, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Little Rock School District is not lawfully governed by the presently composed Little Rock School Board."

He added: "Any action which divests governance of the Little Rock School District from its democratically elected Board will amount to impeachment of each Board member."

There also is "no credible evidence" that the School Board "has failed to discharge the legal obligations to govern" the district as required by state and federal laws, Griffen wrote.

"The presently constituted LRSB, to its credit, is laboring to overcome the cumulative effect of race discrimination, poverty, and willful actions by many political leaders and private actors bent on noncompliance with the legal and moral obligation to provide free public education to every student in an efficient and fair manner," he wrote.

Initially, the Education Department made a request for recusal in a letter to the court Monday, but the judge asked the state Tuesday to make a formal motion instead.

In a letter Tuesday to Lasiter and Lori Freno, another Education Department attorney, Griffen asked them to "promptly file" the recusal motion.

"Counsel for Plaintiffs should file their response to the recusal motion not later than five days after the motion is filed," he wrote. "Defendants' reply should be filed not later than five days after the filing date of the Plaintiffs' response."

When reached Tuesday, Griffen reiterated he could not comment on a pending case.

"I don't discuss rulings in cases that are pending before me," he said.

When asked specifically if he would recuse from the case, he said that it went "to discussing rulings."

Marion Humphrey, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said he would not support a recusal.

"The issue of recusal is left to the discretion of the judge," Humphrey said. "We will not support it. We don't have anything to do with their strategy. I don't know how that will play out. We believe that all the judges in Pulaski County Circuit Court who hear these types of cases can consider the evidence we will present and rule in our favor."

The plaintiffs are arguing in part that state officials violated state law by failing to submit to legislators the reasons for the takeover of the district. They've also said that state officials had no authority to take over the entire district.

State law says that within 10 days of the Education Board assuming authority over a school district, the education commissioner must send a statement to chairmen of the House and Senate education committees explaining why it took over a district and what steps the district can take to resume local control.

Education Department spokesman Kimberly Friedman has said officials sent notice to the legislators in compliance with Arkansas Code Annotated 6-13-112.

But Humphrey said the Education Board members aren't just supposed to send a notice.

"They are supposed to outline what steps can be taken for reinstatement of the school district," he said.

Humphrey pointed to that same law, under subsection C, that states: "A person appointed by the state board or the commissioner to operate a school district under the authority of the state board or the commissioner shall not have previously been an administrator responsible for a school district that was placed in fiscal distress, academic distress, facilities distress, or in violation of the Standards for Accreditation of Arkansas Public Schools and School Districts."

Under that law, he said the Education Board should not have appointed Suggs as the interim superintendent. The plaintiffs have asked for a preliminary injunction on the takeover, which would temporarily halt the state's control over the district.

No date has been set for a hearing on that matter.

A Section on 03/04/2015