LITTLE ROCK — On the eve of today's court hearing on whether to temporarily stop the Little Rock School Board from using public money to buy out the remainder of Little Rock Superintendent Roy Brooks' contract, Brooks has asked to be allowed to intervene.
Jess Askew III, an attorney representing Brooks in a dispute with the School Board over his job, on Thursday asked Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox to allow Brooks to intervene in a lawsuit filed June 13 by five school district residents against the board and the district. The lawsuit argues that it is a violation of state law and the Arkansas Constitution to use taxpayer funds to pay Brooks notto work.
The School Board voted 4-3 on May 24 to exercise a clause in Brooks' contract that permits the board to unilaterally terminate his contract. The contract calls for90 days' notice to the superintendent and payment of all compensation that he would otherwise earn if he remained on the job for the duration of the contract.
Officials estimate the buyout will cost the district more than in $600,000, not including any legal fees that the district might have to pay on Brooks' behalf.
Brooks is scheduled to leave his job in late August.
Fox has scheduled a hearing for 1:30 p.m. today on whether to issue a temporary injunction against a publicly funded buyout of Brooks' contract.
In the motion to intervene, Askew said the lawsuit challenges the validity of Brooks' contract and, as a result, Brooks has an interest in the case that is not adequately represented by the existing parties in the suit.
Brooks' contractual right to payment would be impaired if the injunction is granted to stop the payment, Askew said. And, while both Brooks and the school district want the lawsuit dismissed, Askew noted in the motion that the School Board has taken well-publicized steps to attempt to suspend Brooks and fire him for cause. Theboard ultimately decided to buy him out instead.
"Dr. Brooks remains adverse, in the legal sense, to the Little Rock School Board in connection with the termination of the employment," the motion states.
Brooks' intervention, if permitted, is not expected to delay the case, Askew said Thursday. Brooks is seeking to be aligned with the defendant School Board in the case and "will present arguments to uphold his employment contract and to secure his rights and benefits flowing from that contract," Askew wrote.
Brooks and his attorneys anticipate arguing that the plaintiff taxpayers are incorrectly relying on Arkansas Code Annotated 6-13-620, which states that annual contracts to school district personnel shall include the duration of employment, specific duties and annual salary.
Since Brooks has a threeyear contract, those requirements do not apply to his situation, they will argue. Instead, Arkansas Code Annotated 6-13-301 permits hiring school district administrators for three years but does not specify the elements of an administrator's contract, they say.
Arkansas, Pages 19 on 07/27/2007