Davis v. Franks

Filing 97

ORDER granting 95 Motion for Approval of Option 4 of School Board District Re-zoning and granting 96 Motion to Approve Consent Order as set forth. The parties are directed to respond in writing within forty-five days to issues not resolved by the consent order. The Court shall continue to exercise jurisdiction over this matter until it finds that HSD should be released from Court supervision. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on May 3, 2013. (mfr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ROSIE L. DAVIS, et al
VS.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:88-cv-4082
Member Case 4:99-cv-4012

WILLIAM DALE FRANKS

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion for Approval of School Board District Re-zoning filed on behalf
of Separate Defendant Hope School District No. 1 of Hempstead County, Arkansas (“HSD”). (ECF
No. 95).1 Also before the Court is HSD and Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion of Defendants and Plaintiffs
to Approve Consent Order. (ECF No. 96).
The parties jointly request that the Court approve Option 4 which was passed by the Board
of Directors for HSD on June 11, 2012. Option 4 provides for the redrawing of districts for HSD
school board positions in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 6-13-631, and provides for a sevenperson school board rather than an eight-person board in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. §
6-13-606(g).
Upon consideration, the Court finds that the motions should be and hereby are GRANTED.
The Court adopts the consent decree agreed to by Plaintiffs and Defendants in their joint motion.
The Court approves Hope School District’s action in changing its governance to a seven member
board of education elected from single member districts with the specific election zones identified
as Option 4 in defendants’ motion for approval. The term length of individual board members will
1

The Court notes that HSD is not explicitly listed as a Defendant in the present case.
William Dale Franks, the former HSD superintendent, is included as a Defendant in his official
capacity. By virtue of Franks’ inclusion in his official capacity, HSD is properly characterized as
a Defendant in this case.

be three years, except for those persons elected in the September 2013 school election who will draw
by lot for two 1-year terms, two 2-year terms, and three 3-year terms.
The parties are directed to respond in writing within forty-five days to issues not resolved by
the consent order. The Court shall continue to exercise jurisdiction over this matter until it finds that
HSD should be released from Court supervision.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of May, 2013.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge