Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 19 (November 2), AM Session, Part 1
THE COURT: All right. Good morning to all. We are on redirect examination by Mr. Gillen.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Judge.
(Whereupon, ALAN BONSELL, having been previously duly sworn, resumed the witness stand.)
Q. Good morning, Alan.
A. Good morning.
Q. We are back on the record in connection with your testimony rendered on Monday. And this is my opportunity to ask you a few questions to address some questions that had been asked of you and for which answers are required.
The first question I'd like to ask is about things you've been interested in while you've been a school board member. And in particular, Mr. Harvey asked you some questions about an interest in creationism, which plainly you have, and we've discussed.
I want to ask you this. As you sit here today, we know now from documents, that you mentioned that word at two board retreats; one in 2002, one in 2003. Do you recall anything that you said at those meetings about creationism?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you this. There's a couple other things you've been interested in, and I want to talk about those before we go forward. At the 2002 retreat, you also mentioned prayer. As we sit here today, do you remember anything that you said at that board retreat about prayer?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever taken any step as a board member to implement prayer in the schools while you have been on the Dover Area School District School Board?
A. No.
Q. Let me ask you about something else that you've expressed an interest in, and that's the social studies curriculum. As we sit here today, do you recall anything that you said at the 2002 or 2003 board retreat about the social studies curriculum?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Since you've been a board member on the school board at Dover Area School District School Board, have you ever taken any step to require a change to the social studies curriculum?
A. No.
Q. Since you've been a board member of the Dover Area School District School Board, have you ever taken any step to implement the teaching of creationism?
A. No.
Q. Mr. Harvey has asked you a few questions about religious implications of theories, and I want to make sure that the record is straight on that point. With that in mind, I'd like you to look at an exhibit he showed you.
MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, may I approach?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. I've shown you what has been marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 127. Do you recognize that, Alan?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. It's the Dover Area School District newsletter that went out in February.
Q. Okay. There's a few portions of this newsletter that have been focused upon, and I want to ask you a few questions about that. If you look at the section, quotables, you'll see there a quotation that is attributed to someone named Anthony Flew. I want to ask you. Do you know why that quotation is there?
A. Yes.
Q. Explain that.
A. Well, Anthony flew is, what he quoted here, he was regarded as an atheist, and just trying to show that you didn't have to be religious or a Christian to believe in intelligent design.
Q. So let's talk about religious implications of theories with that in mind. As you sit here today, do you believe that intelligent design is necessarily religious?
A. No.
Q. As you sit here today, do you believe that evolutionary theory is necessarily religious?
A. No.
Q. Do you believe that evolutionary theory is necessarily atheistic?
A. No.
Q. Explain that. Why?
A. Well, you have Charles Darwin, who was a theistic evolutionist who, I believe, in one of his books wrote about God and the creator. And I believe that Plaintiffs, I think, Mr. Miller, said he was a Catholic and believed in evolution.
Q. There's another portion of the newsletter that I'd like to ask you about. You'll see in the same page you're looking at, there's a question, are there religious implications to the theory of ID? I want to ask you, do you know why that section of the newsletter is there?
A. Yes.
Q. Explain.
A. Well, basically, there was a lot of people at that time going around saying that ID was religious --
MR. HARVEY: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you. Your Honor, I can ask him why he did it, and I'll do so.
THE COURT: I think it's a close call. I'll overrule the objection so long as he doesn't repeat the exact substance of what the individual said. I'll take it in the context of the answer, so the objection is overruled. You may proceed.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. Please continue, Alan. Why is that section there?
A. It was my understanding that -- it was my understanding, basically, that it was being said that ID was religious in the fact that the designer was God. And we would just -- we were just trying to show that you could have religious implications in every theory, but it doesn't mean it has to be religious, just you can make religious implications.
Q. And when you say, theory, what kind of theory are you referring to?
A. Well, scientific theories.
Q. Okay. And was it ever your understanding, while you were a member of the school board, that whatever religious implications could be attached to a theory made it more or less scientific?
A. No.
Q. How do you view that? What's your understanding of the relationship between scientific theory and religion?
A. Well, from my understanding is, there's -- you can bring religious implications into every scientific theory, but that doesn't mean that it is religious. It's still scientific. And that's the way I view those, evolution and ID, as scientific.
Q. When you voted for the curriculum change on October 18, 2004, were you doing so because of religious implications attached to theories?
A. No.
Q. Why were you voting?
A. All I was trying to do is to make the education better for the kids.
Q. As we sit here today, do you have an understanding concerning whether intelligent design theory is consistent with your religious faith?
A. Not necessarily, no.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Well, Dr. Behe -- as my understanding of what Dr. Behe has said is that, he has no problems with 4 billion year old Earth or billions of year old Earth and the evolutionary process.
Q. Are some of the views that you -- well, do you understand those views to be views attached to intelligent design theory?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Knowing that, do you still believe that the board curriculum policy is a good measure to be in place in Dover Area schools?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now one final area I want to ask you a few questions about are the circumstances surrounding the donation of the books. Questions have been asked about that, and I want to make sure that the record is clear. First of all, whose idea was it to donate those books?
A. My father volunteered.
Q. Before your dad volunteered, had you ever spoken with Bill Buckingham about arranging a donation of the books?
A. No.
Q. At the time your dad volunteered to donate those books, had he donated other things?
A. Yes.
MR. HARVEY: Objection, Your Honor. Leading the witness.
MR. GILLEN: I can ask -- I don't really know how I can ask that. Were there other donations that your father made before this, I suppose.
THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase. I think you're getting to where you need to be, so I'll sustain the objection. It was somewhat leading. I think that was likely an appropriate question, so why don't you ask it that way.
MR. GILLEN: I will, Your Honor. Thank you.
Q. Alan, at the time that your dad volunteered to donate the Of Pandas books, had there been other occasions in which he had donated books?
A. In which he had donated?
Q. Had donated anything to the school? I'm sorry.
A. Yes.
Q. How about yourself? Prior to this time, had you engaged in any donations?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And what had you donated?
A. Books.
Q. Now we know that later Mr. Buckingham passed the check on to you, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. At any time did you know how Mr. Buckingham had collected the funds that he passed on to you?
A. No.
Q. How about where the funds had come from? At any time, do you know where he had collected the funds from?
A. No.
Q. Do you believe that the funds Mr. Buckingham passed on to you covered the cost of the books that were donated?
A. No.
MR. HARVEY: Objection, Your Honor. Continuing leading the witness in this area.
THE COURT: No, I don't think that's leading under the circumstances. I'll overrule the objection.
Q. Would you answer the question?
A. Could you repeat that?
Q. Yeah. Do you believe that the donation, the funds that were passed on to you from -- by Mr. Buckingham covered the full cost of the books?
A. No.
Q. And why is that?
A. I believe it was in July or August, there was a paper that had said that the Pandas books were approximately $25.00 apiece, and I believe there was 60 books donated, so that was almost $1500.00.
Q. All right. There's one last question. Both the Plaintiffs and the judge have asked you some questions about an answer you gave in your deposition, and I know that it troubled you, and I want to ask you a few questions about that.
First of all, I want you to describe the situation, as you saw it, when you were deposed in January of 2005.
A. Leading up to this, we, after passing this curriculum change, we didn't think that we were going to be sued. And in the middle of December, we were sued. I was very shocked by that. It came the holidays, two days after the holidays, that I was deposed. I've never been deposed before let alone being in a federal lawsuit. I was extremely nervous, to say the least. And I honestly tried to do my best and answer as truthfully as I could.
MR. GILLEN: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Gillen. Recross by Mr. Harvey.
MR. HARVEY: Yes, Your Honor, just one second.
THE COURT: All right.
Q. Mr. Bonsell, since you gave testimony here on Monday, have you spoken to anyone about your testimony or about this case?
A. My attorney.
Q. You spoke to him about your testimony?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Did you speak to him about your testimony?
A. Yes.
MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor. I'm not sure that's a proper question.
THE COURT: Well, it's a yes or no. I think there may be an objection to the question. That's a yes, no question. That's not objectionable.
MR. GILLEN: Okay.
THE COURT: The answer was, yes, I think.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: And you may proceed.
Q. When you were deposed on April 13th, April 13th, 2005, that's your second deposition, you were asked if you had had a chance to read your first deposition, isn't that correct?
A. (No response.)
MR. HARVEY: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. Turn to page 4 in your deposition, please, Mr. Bonsell, line 12. Mr. Rothschild asked you this question. Have you read the transcript of your previous deposition in this case? Answer, I have read over, I believe, most of it. Question, You don't think you've read all of it? Answer, it was right after it came out. I haven't seen it for a couple months. Question, So sitting here today, is there anything that you testified to in that prior deposition that you would like to change or modify today? Answer, I don't believe so. Isn't that correct, Mr. Bonsell?
A. That's what it says, yes.
Q. And --
MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, I object. Unless they asked him about it, there's no basis to impeach him on based on that. Did they ask him about it?
THE COURT: Ask him about?
MR. GILLEN: About the check or anything that they're questioning him about now.
THE COURT: Mr. Harvey.
MR. HARVEY: I certainly asked him about it on January 3rd, and in his deposition, we asked him if there was anything in there he'd like to change or correct, and he said, no.
THE COURT: This was the second deposition.
MR. GILLEN: That's correct.
THE COURT: Is your point, Mr. Gillen, that they didn't ask him about the check during the second deposition?
MR. GILLEN: Exactly, Your Honor. I have no recollection, as I sit here today, and I don't see how it could be impeached based on a question that wasn't asked.
THE COURT: Well, but the question that was asked by Mr. Harvey went to the previous deposition, if I understand it.
MR. GILLEN: But -- it's true, but he hadn't seen it for a couple months, and it's a general question.
THE COURT: I think that goes to weight. The question was asked, you've seen the transcript of your previous deposition, is there anything that you want to change? They can ask him that.
MR. GILLEN: They can indeed, and I agree with that. But he said, I only read most of it a couple months ago.
THE COURT: Well, again, you're not making an evidentiary objection. You're arguing the point. You're saying --
MR. GILLEN: Well, I just -- I don't see how they can impeach him based on a question they didn't ask. He was asked questions in his first deposition, and I understand that. But it's a general question, is there anything you can recall at this time that you would change. I mean, it's not even a fair question.
THE COURT: No, it's more than that. It's a question asked during a second deposition as to whether he wants to change anything he said in his first deposition. And the answer was, no. And it's been asked and answered. I mean, we have it on the record. It's not a general question. It's a specific question.
Now you may say that, and you may have an argument that, he didn't have enough time, that he wasn't able to look at it, that there were other circumstances. But that goes to weight. That doesn't go to the admissibility of the question, and this isn't impeachment necessarily. This is cross examination.
MR. GILLEN: Okay. I accept your decision, Judge.
THE COURT: Well, I'll let you argue more if you got another argument you want to make.
MR. GILLEN: Well, it seems to me, Mr. Harvey is trying to impeach him based on the fact that he didn't volunteer it at the second deposition.
THE COURT: I don't think that's impeachment. I think you may call it impeachment. It's a question that is legitimate on recross, because you raised it on redirect, that has to do with the answer that he gave. He gave testimony now on redirect that during his first deposition he was nervous, he had never been involved in a federal lawsuit, he had difficulties.
Now Mr. Harvey is saying to him, you were redeposed in April, and did you make a correction with respect to your first deposition? I think that's a fair question. It flows from your redirect.
MR. GILLEN: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. Lost in the shuffle, was there an unanswered question? I'm not sure.
MR. HARVEY: I think he answered.
THE COURT: I thought he did. So it won't be stricken. The objection is overruled. You may proceed.
Q. Mr. Bonsell, at your first deposition, when Mr. Rothschild asked you who donated the books, your first response was not, my father, or my father had anything to do with it. Your first response was, I don't know, isn't that correct?
A. It could have been.
Q. Please turn to page 13 in your deposition on January 3rd, line 6. Isn't it true that Mr. Rothschild asked you the following questions, and you gave the following answers. Question, Are you aware that 60 copies of this book were donated to the school district? Yes. Question, Who donated those books to the school district? Answer, I don't know. That was your testimony at that time?
A. That's what it says on that answer, yes.
Q. And then later after --
A. But I --
Q. Then Mr. Rothschild asked you several more questions?
THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.
THE WITNESS: I later on went on to correct that to the person that, and then I named my father.
Q. That was after Mr. Rothschild asked you several follow-up questions, correct?
A. I believe so, yes.
MR. HARVEY: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. That concludes the examination of this witness. Sir, you may step down. And we'll take your next witness, Mr. Gillen.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. GILLEN: The defense calls Sheila Harkins.
THE COURT: While Ms. Harkins is taking the stand, we can take up the exhibits for Mr. Bonsell. We have on the Defendant's examination, we have the D-44, which is the memo and plan and instruction curriculum guide; D-46, which is the memo regarding the 10/7/04 meeting; D-50, the minutes of 10/7/04; D-187 is the memo and curriculum guide; D-184 is the history of the teachers edits of the biology statement; and D-119 is the press release by the Discovery Institute.
First of all, did I miss any exhibits? And Mr. Gillen, I may have gone through them too rapidly. But did you get those?
MR. GILLEN: I did get those. I believe they're all proper, and I would move for their admission. If you would, Judge, I'd ask you to leave the door open. I didn't bring my list.
THE COURT: That's fine. We'll let you pick it up later. Let's get as much as we can, and that will be acceptable, and if during the break you identify others, we can double back and take those.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: What's the Plaintiffs' position on those exhibits?
MR. HARVEY: No objection to any of those exhibits, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Then they are all admitted. On the Plaintiffs' side, we have a number of articles that we have not yet ruled on, and we're going to rule on those at some point soon. They constitute P-54, 44, 45, 46, 54, and 797.
We then have P-134, which is the Thomas More Law Center web page; P-822, which is the updated website; and P-824, which is the intelligent designer article posted on the website.
MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, we're not moving to admit 824, the article from the website. We are moving to admit the website itself.
MR. GILLEN: And I object to that, Your Honor. I don't think it has any relevance to the dispute. You know, as I say, my position on that is, our clients are responsible for their words and deeds, the way in which whatever we say has nothing to do with this case. I would never dream of bringing to bear anything --
THE COURT: You're making a relevancy argument?
MR. GILLEN: Yeah, relevancy, and also I think it wasn't truly -- the way it was used in the questioning, it's not admissible for any purpose. He asked him specific questions about how Mr. Bonsell viewed the representation. Those answers were given. That's the evidence.
THE COURT: Mr. Harvey, we didn't -- although there was an objection to relevancy, as you went through your questions, which was overruled, and we allowed you to ask the questions, it would appear to me that there could be extraneous matters on the website that would go to their admissibility. I gave you latitude to ask the questions. I would not be inclined to admit the web pages as exhibits. I don't think we need to do that under the circumstances.
MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, P-134, I believe, is only one page from the website, and as we established in the testimony, it was dated right around the time he engaged Thomas More, so I would think --
THE COURT: And he was asked questions regarding specific portions of that, that you directed him to, and I understand that, and that's on the record. But I don't have instantly a memory of what else is on that page, and I do agree with Mr. Gillen, that it's possible that there -- there it is through the magic of electronics.
But I don't -- I'm not inclined to necessarily admit that if there are -- Mr. Gillen, I'm going to ask you that you look at this as well. What specifically on that is objectionable, having asked the questions of the witness.
MR. GILLEN: Well, again, Your Honor, I think, you know, it is, of course, hearsay. But on top of that, it's improper to try and -- what shall I say. I don't know what the purpose of it is.
THE COURT: Yeah, you know, I have to agree with Mr. Gillen under the circumstances. You know, I think that having given some latitude, having given some latitude on the questions, I'm not inclined to admit that, and I will not admit the website page. I think that's extraneous.
MR. HARVEY: So P-134 and P-821 are not admitted?
THE COURT: Well, I guess all of the exhibits, the non, if you will, article exhibits, as they pertain to Mr. Bonsell, would be the website pages, and so I will not -- one of them, you withdrew anyway. The other two would be the website and the updated website. They're not admitted.
MR. HARVEY: Yes, Your Honor. Then the remaining, there was another one, P-63, which was the minutes from the July the 12th meeting.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear what you said.
MR. HARVEY: P-63, I don't believe, has been admitted.
THE COURT: Okay. I missed that.
MR. HARVEY: That's the minutes from the July the 12th meeting which shows that the minutes from the June board meetings were approved that day.
THE COURT: That's P-63?
MR. HARVEY: That's correct.
THE COURT: We missed that. I apologize.
MR. GILLEN: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Then P-63 is admitted. Anything else we've missed?
MR. HARVEY: I don't believe so, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Then we'll proceed with the examination of this witness.
having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
COURTROOM DEPUTY: State your name, please, and spell it for the record.
THE WITNESS: Sheila Harkins. S-H-E-I-L-A. H-A-R-K-I-N-S.
Q. Good morning, Ms. Harkins.
A. Good morning, Pat.
Q. As you know, you're here in court today to give testimony in this case, which is basically your side of the story, your perspective on what happened. And as a preliminary matter, I'd like you to just introduce yourself. Are you married?
A. Yes, I am married.
Q. And do you have children?
A. I have a daughter, which I'm very proud of. She went through the Dover school system. After that, she graduated, went to college. And I'll brag, if I can a minute. She then went on to Penn State to get her master's degree with a 4.0 average. And she came back to Dover and has been a teacher in the Dover Area School District for 15 years.
Q. And what about your education? Give us some sense for your educational background.
A. I have a high school diploma, and I've taken some college courses.
Q. And are you currently employed?
A. I consider myself a homemaker, but I do buy properties on the side and rehab them and sell them.
Q. Are you currently a member of the Dover Area School District School Board?
A. I am a member of the Dover Area School Board. I am a member of the York County High School Board. And I'm also a member of the York County Probation Department Dover Youth Aid Panel.
Q. When did you first become a school board member?
A. I became a school board member eight years ago.
Q. And were you elected or appointed?
A. I was elected.
Q. So you ran for office?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And why did you do that?
A. I was interested in education. I had volunteered in my daughters's classrooms and in other classrooms, and I have always been interested in kids.
Q. Now when you ran the first time, was there any religious dimension to your platform?
A. No, none.
Q. Did you have a specific issue that brought you out and that you used in campaigning?
A. The first time?
Q. Yes.
A. No, huh-uh.
Q. You mentioned the first time. If you were elected, how long is a term for a school board member?
A. Four years.
Q. And did you run for election for another term?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And how about, let's look at that decision to run. Why did you do that?
A. Well, when I first came on the board, I found the board was not as fiscally conservative as I was. And I found myself in the minority with Casey Brown. There then was a building project that came up, and Casey and I was the minority members at that time in the building project.
Q. Let me go back for a minute to your first race. When you ran the first time, did you run with anyone?
A. No, I did not.
Q. When you ran the second time, for your second term, did you run with anyone?
A. I ran with Casey Brown, Alan Bonsell, and Angie Yingling.
Q. You've mentioned Casey Brown, and there's a few questions I want to ask her -- you about her as we get started. There's been some discussion in this case about discussions of religion with Mrs. Brown, and I want to ask you, did there come a time when you discussed religion with Mrs. Brown?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. How did that happen?
A. Casey knew I attended Quaker meetings, and she was interested in the Quaker faith, and so she asked me what the Quakers believe, and I told her, Quakers didn't have a dogma or a doctrine.
Q. Did she bring it up or did you bring it up?
A. She asked me what Quakers believe.
Q. And then when she asked you the question about the Quaker doctrine, did you explain?
A. Well, she then asked me, she said, we talked a little bit, and then she said, well, Quakers, do they believe the Bible is an inherent word of God? I told her that wasn't necessary --
MR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, let me interpose a hearsay objection now. I understand that the subject matter of the conversation can be identified, but I believe it's improper for the witness to testify to what Mrs. Brown just said to her.
THE WITNESS: All right. Can I just say, we discussed religion?
THE COURT: Ma'am, when there's an objection, you don't talk until I finish talking -- those are the rules -- and/or until Mr. Gillen finishes talking. So we'll let Mr. Gillen talk.
MR. GILLEN: The objection is proper, and let me rephrase.
THE COURT: All right. We'll strike the answer and sustain the objection.
Q. You've testified that you had a discussion with Mrs. Brown. As a result of that discussion, did you provide her with material responsive to her concerns or questions?
A. Yes, I did. I bought her a book on Quaker faith and doctrine and gave it to her.
Q. She asked you about Quakerism. Do you have reason to believe she acted on the information that you provided to her?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What is that?
A. Her and her mother showed up at a Quaker meeting.
Q. Did she ever speak with you about that later?
A. Yes, she did. She told me she enjoyed it.
Q. Let's go back to board business again and the building project, this issue you discussed about fiscal responsibility. What was the issue, as you saw it, for the second term of the board?
A. What do I see the issue as? Was the building project.
Q. Yes.
A. The building project was the main issue of the four of us.
Q. And you've indicated, there was a division on the board. What was the basis for the division?
A. They wanted a much more expensive project than we did. Theirs was, I think, 30 some million, and ours was about 19.
Q. Were there specific members of the board with whom you differed in judgment with respect to the building project?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us who they are.
A. Lonnie Langioni, Larry Snook, Barrie Callahan. I'm trying to think who else. And I think Shirley Harnish was for it also.
Q. Was the building project the big issue of the election or were there others for your second term?
A. The building project was the big issue.
Q. Did you run with others for this second term?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you run with?
A. I ran with Angie Yingling, Alan Bonsell, myself, and Casey Brown.
Q. Okay. Let's look at each of those members, and I want you to describe whether you have any relationship with them prior to?
A. I'm sorry.
Q. Do you have water?
A. Could you restate that?
Q. Yes. Do you have water?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay.
A. I'm sorry, Pat. Yes.
Q. That's all right. Did you run with Mr. Bonsell?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And why did you choose to run with him?
A. Alan Bonsell had attended several meetings and spoke out against the building project that they had planned, and he was fiscally conservative, obviously.
Q. Was there any discussion of religion when you decided to run with Mr. Bonsell?
A. No.
Q. Did you know Mr. Bonsell beforehand when you decided to run?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. How about Angie Yingling? Why did you run with her?
A. Same thing. She came to the board meetings and was opposed to the building project.
Q. Was there any discussion of religion when you decided to run with Angie Yingling?
A. No, none.
Q. And how about Casey Brown?
A. Casey and I were the minority members on the board and was a good fit.
Q. When you decided to run with Casey and your deciding whether you have a shared interest and can run together, was there any discussion of religion?
A. No.
Q. I want to talk briefly about your impression of the impact of the building project on the community, on the board, the school. How did you see the impact of the building project on the Dover Area community?
A. I saw it as it would increase taxes, you know.
Q. Okay. How about in terms of board meetings and controversy? Was it a big issue or small?
A. It was very divisive. The meetings were extremely divisive.
Q. Was there -- were there comments directed at the board?
A. Yes, there were. There were many comments directed at the board. They were adamantly against the board.
Q. Okay. How about the, when you got on -- well, let me ask you this. Did the election that you've referenced for your second term have an impact on the make-up of the board as it related to the building project?
A. Yes, it did. It turned the board around to six that were no longer in favor of the building project and three who were still in favor of it.
Q. Who were they?
A. Lonnie Langioni, Larry Snook, and Barrie Callahan.
Q. Did the election results quell criticism of the board or did it continue?
A. On the board, did you say?
Q. Of the board. Did people still show up at meetings to discuss the project?
A. No, not -- no, huh-uh.
Q. How about in terms of the individuals you've mentioned? Did the election results affect their continued participation on the board?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Tell us how.
A. Excuse me. Larry Snook and Lonnie Langioni resigned from the board. Barrie stayed.
Q. And did Barrie stay on the board for a long time or did she later leave?
A. Barrie stayed for the remaining two years, to her credit. I have to give her that.
Q. Now when Mr. Snook and Mr. Langioni resigned, what action did the board take? Did they take any action in response to the vacancies?
A. Yes, we replaced those two vacancies, of course.
Q. And do you remember who they were?
A. Yes, Bill Buckingham and Janey Cleaver.
Q. Okay. I want to look briefly at your relationship with them before they came to the board. Did you know Bill Buckingham --
A. Yes, I did.
Q. -- when he applied to fill the vacancy on the board?
A. I'm sorry. I didn't wait until you finished. I apologize.
Q. That's all right. Did you know Bill Buckingham when he applied to fill the vacancy on the board?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. How did you know him?
A. Jeff Brown started the tax payer group. I went to his meeting he had, and there were only two other people that showed up. One of them was Bill Buckingham.
Q. And did you have any discussions with Mr. Buckingham about change in the curriculum or bringing religion to bear in the curriculum when you met him?
A. No, none.
Q. Had you had any such discussions with Mr. Buckingham when he applied to fill the vacancy on the board?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Had you had any discussions of that nature relating to the curriculum or bringing religion into the schools when he applied to fill the vacancy on the board?
A. No, none.
Q. Did you vote to approve Mr. Buckingham?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And why did you do that?
A. Well, I knew from him going to Jeff's tax payer group, he would be a fiscally conservative person.
Q. How about Jane Cleaver? Did you have a personal relationship with Jane at the time she applied?
A. No, but Janey had attended many meetings, and I knew her that way.
Q. Had you asked Jane Cleaver to apply for the position when she did?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Had you asked Bill Buckingham to apply for the position?
A. No. In fact, I believe it was Jeff Brown that asked him to join the board.
Q. Did you vote to appoint Jane Cleaver?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Why did you do that?
A. I thought she would be a good fit for the board. She knew the vast majority of the people in the community.
Q. There's been some testimony about board retreat --
A. I'm sorry. I apologize.
Q. That's all right. There's been some testimony about board retreats in 2002 and 2003. And I want to ask you, as you sit here today, do you remember anything specifically from those two board retreats?
A. Not at all. I shouldn't say, not at all. You know, slim to none.
Q. Do you remember anything generally about the retreats?
A. I remember the whole process of the retreat. First, we came, we got our food, ate. Then the administrators all have their couple minutes. And then the board had their quick impressions. I'm sorry.
Q. Let's focus your attention on the 2002 retreat. And I don't want to spend too much time on this. But do you remember anything that Alan Bonsell said about creationism at that retreat?
A. I don't remember a word he said at all that I know of.
Q. How about prayer?
A. Huh-uh, no.
Q. Well, do you remember anything you said about --
A. No.
Q. Do you remember any discussion --
A. Nobody has reminded me yet.
Q. How about the 2003 retreat?
A. 2003 retreat?
Q. 2003 retreat. There was one held in March. As you sit here today, do you remember any discussion of creationism at that retreat?
A. No, none.
Q. How about prayer?
A. No.
Q. How about the social studies curriculum?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember a portion of the retreat in March of 2003 where Dr. Nilsen solicited input from board members?
A. He generally does that always at the end of the retreat.
Q. Okay. Just give me a description of that portion of the meeting. How long was it roughly?
A. They're all -- you mean, the board part.
Q. Yes.
A. It's just a quick go around. You just quickly say anything that's on your mind.
Q. Okay. And about how long is that quick go around?
A. One to three minutes. He doesn't stop you usually. But it's very quick. It's late in the evening, you understand. You want to get home.
Q. All right. Let me ask you this. Let's focus your attention on the 2003 period and on the biology text and curriculum. And I want to ask you, do you remember any information that you received in 2003 that related to the biology text?
A. I'm trying to think. I do remember getting something in 2003.
Q. Let me be more specific. Do you remember comments being made at board meetings about the biology text?
A. Yes. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay.
A. Should I tell you about them?
Q. Yes, please.
A. I remember Mrs. Callahan. I think there was another parent also that came and complained about the kids not having biology texts.
Q. At this period, did you believe that students in Dover did not have biology textbooks?
A. No. As far as, I had spoke to Bert Spahr before, and it was my impression the issue with the biology text was, they had texts, but they really weren't using them hardly at all, because they really didn't fit the curriculum well.
Q. Okay. Let me ask you this. Were the biology texts purchased in 2003?
A. No, they were not.
Q. And do you have an understanding -- well, did you vote to approve the text?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Did they come up for a vote?
A. No, they did not.
Q. Okay. Why?
A. Well, one, they weren't on the agenda ever. I know they weren't. There wasn't money for them, I don't think. I think money might have been set aside for them, but somehow -- I'm not sure how it worked exactly.
Q. Let's look at the 2003 period, and let me ask you, did you ever obstruct purchase of the biology text because of some objection to evolution or evolutionary theory?
A. No.
Q. Are you aware of any board member who tried to obstruct purchase of the biology text because of an objection to evolution or evolutionary theory?
A. No.
Q. Let's look at 2004. And let's look at your committees. Did you serve on any committees in 2004?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Can you remember which ones?
A. I think here we're talking about the curriculum committee.
Q. Okay. How did you get on the curriculum committee?
A. Alan Bonsell assigned me there.
Q. Do you know why you were put on the curriculum committee?
A. I didn't ask.
Q. Did either Alan Bonsell or Bill Buckingham tell you that they wanted to work intelligent design or creationism into the curriculum?
A. No, they did not.
Q. Let's look at 2004, and take it from January to the end of May. And I want to ask you, do you remember any developments relating to the biology text or curriculum in that portion of 2004, from January to the end of May?
A. If I may, May and June, there were two curriculum meetings I attended, and they both sort of go together. So if I can go May and June.
Q. Okay. Well, do you have any specific recollection of one in May and one in June or can you separate them?
A.
A little bit, yeah.
Q. Well, can you tell us anything that you recall specific to a meeting in May?
A. The first one, as I recollect, is when they presented books they had, I think -- they had family consumer science book, I think, purchased chemistry book, and the biology book there.
Q. Did you do anything as a result of this meeting?
A. Yes, I asked if I could have a copy of the new book and a copy of the old book. That's what I usually did. I usually liked to look at both books.
Q. Why was that?
A. Just to compare them sort of.
Q. And did you come to a conclusion based on your review of the books?
A. I came to a conclusion that the chemistry book. She needed a new one. It was worn out. And the family consumer science book looked new, and so did the biology book.
Q. Let's look at the biology book. Did you have an objection to the biology book based on its presentation of evolutionary theory?
A. No.
Q. And this has been raised as an issue here. Is evolutionary theory in any way inconsistent with your religious convictions?
A. No, it is not.
Q. Do you remember anything else about the meeting in May?
A. I remember the teachers talked a little bit about the books. I think there was in, I don't remember more than the books that they wanted to buy for family consumer science and chemistry, but I recollect there was a couple different biology books there.
Q. You've mentioned two meetings during this period, and I know you can't distinguish them. If what you said is proper to the May meeting, tell us what you can recall about these meetings in the spring period?
A. The second meeting, as I recall -- like I say, this is, take it as my recollection, and it's not firm, you understand. Bill came with a list of issues that he had with the book. I also -- I'm not sure -- we discussed curriculum, too. I'm not sure if we discussed them at both or just the last meeting. And Bill went through his list of concerns in the biology book.
Q. Do you remember any specific concerns that he raised?
A. They were pretty much all evolutionary concerns.
Q. Did the teachers respond to Mr. Buckingham?
A. Yeah, I felt they were very understanding and very supportive and wanted to work with him.
Q. You've mentioned some discussion of gaps and problems. Actually, let me strike that, because you haven't. You've mentioned some discussion of the curriculum. Can you recall any specifics about that discussion?
A. Can I go back once? I do remember the second meeting. Bill did say a few things that -- the teachers were nicer than Bill was at that meeting. How's that? Is that fair?
Q. I guess you could describe the tone, but let me ask you. You've mentioned curriculum. Do you recall any specific changes --
A. Excuse me.
Q. Do you recall any specific changes being discussed to the curriculum?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Tell us what you recall.
A. We talked about the gaps, other theories of evolution.
Q. And how was the tone of the meeting? Was it strained or was it generally cordial? How would you describe it?
A. No, the first meeting, I remember, was extremely cordial. The second meeting was okay. But I wouldn't say it was as good as.
Q. Let's look at the board meetings in June. Do you have any specific recollection of those board meetings?
A. Yes, I do. I was going to say, the two though, there were two, a planning meeting and a board meeting. And they sort of go together, you know what I mean. One is a planning and one is a board meeting.
Q. Let's look at them together then, and let me ask you. Do you remember any discussion of the biology text at the board meetings in June?
A. I do. I'm trying to think what all I remember.
Q. Well, let's look at it from your standpoint. Do you recall making comments about the biology text during this June period?
A. Yes, I did. I said that I thought the books looked new and had a little reservations on that issue.
Q. Excuse me?
A. And had some reservations on that issue.
Q. Well, describe them. What do you mean by that?
A. Well, this was a '98 -- we had a '98 textbook. This was a 2002 textbook. And that's only four years difference. And we generally go seven years. So even though I didn't understand, they said we were up on the cycle, but to me, that four years isn't seven years.
Q. Well, let me ask you. Do you remember creationism coming up at board meetings in June?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember how?
A. Well, I remember -- I'm trying to think. There are people in the audience talking about creationism. It seems to me -- it seems to me, Jeff was talking intelligent design, but he was also talking creationism, I think. That's my recollection of the board. I'm trying --
Q. Do you remember other board members discussing creationism when it was brought up?
A. No, no, I don't remember any other ones.
Q. Do you recall intelligent design being brought up at board meetings?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. Do you recall discussion of intelligent design?
A. Yeah. My recollection is, it seems to me -- I was thinking Jeff was the first one to bring up mention of intelligent design. And in the conversation, Alan and Noel and Bill got in on the conversation.
Q. Okay.
MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, if you'd bear with me for a second, I've got to look for an exhibit.
THE COURT: That's fine.
MR. GILLEN: Forgive me. I apologize, Your Honor. I omitted to prepare this. May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
Q. Now I know, since this trial began, you've actually come across something that you recollect, and I want to look at that. I've shown you what has been marked Plaintiffs' Exhibit 149.
A. Yes.
Q. Now let me ask you. Do you recognize that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And tell us, what is it?
A. It's views on the origins of the universe and life.
Q. Okay. And have you seen this before?
A. Yeah, I did. I didn't remember I saw it until it was up on there.
Q. Okay. Well, tell us about it. What do you know about that document?
A. I got it. I'm not exactly sure who gave it to me. And I had conversations with Jeff and Casey, and I gave this to Casey.
Q. Do you recall approximately when you gave it to Casey Brown -- is that Casey Brown?
A. Yeah, uh-huh. I'm sorry. Yes, sir.
Q. And about when did you give it to her?
A. It was around that time, around June.
Q. And what was your point in giving her this document?
A. Well --
THE COURT: Give me the exhibit number again, Mr. Gillen.
MR. GILLEN: Yes, it's Plaintiffs' 149.
THE COURT: P-149. I'm sorry.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, would you like it on the screen?
THE COURT: Why don't you. That would be helpful to me. I have approximately 500 binders sitting next to me. All right. You may proceed.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: This is the second page of that exhibit, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: All right. The point was, if you go to the first column, second down, it's intelligent design of the world. Right. If you go -- even -- then if you go down that column to the bottom, even to Charles Darwin. So the point is that, according to this sheet, of course, this is -- this isn't fact. This is just information that somebody gave me. Okay.
Q. Okay. But I'm interested in your point.
A. My point was, here was someone that viewed Charles Darwin believing in intelligent design.
Q. And did you pass this on to anyone?
A. Yeah, Casey and Jeff. I was going to say also, if you want to look -- if you look, the second column at the bottom is the intelligent design movement. Okay.
Q. Okay.
A. I view those as different views.
Q. Okay. But your point to the Browns was what?
A. My point to the Browns was that, according to this, that Charles Darwin himself believed in intelligent design.
Q. And why did you give it to the Browns? Had that come up? Was there a discussion of it?
A. Yes.
Q. When you gave her this document, were you giving it to her in an effort to persuade her to accept intelligent design for religious reasons?
A. Not at all.
Q. What were you trying to do?
A. We just had discussions. They viewed differently than I did.
Q. Well, did you really know that much about intelligent design?
A. Not at all, no.
Q. Did you try and acquaint yourself with it?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you do?
A. I Googled.
Q. Excuse me?
A. I Googled. Googled.
Q. Oh, okay.
MR. GILLEN: It's been a long trial, Your Honor?
THE COURT: It certainly has. It wouldn't have made sense 10 years ago. It makes better sense today.
MR. GILLEN: I'm glad my kids aren't here.
Q. Okay. Let's go on then. When you Googled it, did you learn much by way of the substance of intelligent design?
A. You just see what's there.
Q. Did you reach conclusion as a result of your Googling?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Let's look at July. And I want to ask you, do you recall --
A. Understand, I did not reach a conclusion from this sheet either.
Q. No, I understand. I thank you for making that plain. And again, this is something that someone passed on to you?
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you remember who?
A. I think. And I don't want to swear to this, all right. But I believe it was Dan Singlinger.
Q. And how do you know him?
A. Just a friend.
Q. Let's look at July then and action on the text?
A. I'm sorry. Repeat that.
Q. Let's look at July then and any action on the biology text. Do you recall any board action relative to the purchase or approval of the biology text in the July 2004 period?
A. Yes, I do. I remember -- is seems to me, it was Bert that came up to the podium and -- I'm not sure, but it seems to me, Bert said she had just received a 2004 edition of the biology text and they were going to review it.
Q. Do you remember another text coming up during this July 2004 period?
A. Yes, Pandas book.
Q. And can you tell us what you remember about how that book came up?
A. It seems to me, Bill had a copy there, and he said it was on intelligent design.
Q. Bill had a copy there. Where do you mean?
A. At the board meeting. I'm not sure if it was the first or second board meeting though in July.
Q. Do you have any specific recollection of two board meetings in July?
A. No. But I mean, they go -- planning meetings and board meetings, in my mind, run together all the time.
Q. Did you see the text at the time?
A. There, no. He had -- he only -- you know what I mean. He didn't have any books to share with us.
Q. Okay. Did you later get a copy of the book?
A. Yes, I did. I called Mike Baksa and got a copy.
Q. Did you review the text?
A. Can I elaborate on this?
Q. If you'd like to explain your answer, go ahead.
A. Yes, I did. I got the book from Mike. But as I recall, until I got home, Jeff had gone up for the book at the same time. And when he found out I had the book, I had a message already, Jeff wanted to look at the book. And so I called him, and I told him I would look at it quick. And --
Q. Did you pass it on to him?
A. Passed it on to him, yeah. Yes, I did. So I only looked at it very briefly.
Q. Okay. Did you have any discussion of the text with Mr. Brown prior to the August board meeting?
A. Well, when he came to pick up the book, he wanted to know what I thought of it, and I wouldn't tell him.
Q. Why was that?
A. Just -- I just, you know, I wasn't telling him what I thought. I wanted him to form his own opinion.
Q. Okay. And did Mr. Brown take the book from you?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Did Mr. Brown take the book from you?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Did he later contact you?
A. Can we go back? When you said about any other discussion. We did have discussion then afterwards. I apologize.
Q. Based on that discussion, did you get an understanding of Mr. Brown's position on the text?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was --
A. He felt it was -- I think his words were, it offended his religion.
Q. And did you agree with Mr. Brown?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Why?
A. I didn't see any religion in it. I thought it looked like science to me.
Q. Well, based on your review of Pandas, did you think it was a text that addressed creationism?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you think it was a religious text?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. When you got this book and looked it over, you've mentioned that Bill Buckingham brought it up at a board meeting. Had you ever discussed the book with anyone prior to that time?
A. Excuse me. Say it again, Pat.
Q. Sure. You mentioned that Mr. Buckingham brought up the book in July?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Prior to that first mention, had you ever discussed the book Of Pandas with anyone?
A. Before he brought the book to me?
Q. Yeah.
A. I never heard of the book before.
Q. Okay. You've mentioned a discussion with Mr. Brown. Had you ever discussed with Mr. Buckingham the text prior to your discussion with Mr. Brown?
A. When I discussed the text with anyone else?
Q. Yeah.
A. Is that what you're asking?
Q. Yes. Had you discussed it with Mr. Buckingham prior to passing it on to Mr. Brown?
A. Huh-uh, no.
Q. Had you discussed it with Mr. Bonsell prior to passing it on to Mr. Brown?
A. No. Understand, from when I picked the book up to when Jeff came and got it was maybe an hour and a half, two hours.
Q. Okay.
A. It wasn't long in my possession.
Q. Okay. And let's look at that. You've already mentioned reviewing the Miller and Levine text. About how long did you spend reviewing that text?
A. About, I'm going to say, three nights. When I say -- right before I go to bed, I take something with me and look at.
Q. What would be -- can you give us an estimate concerning the total amount of time you spent reviewing the Miller and Levine text?
A. Maybe six hours.
Q. Okay. Did there come a time when the Miller and Levine text, recommended by the teachers, came up for a vote by the board?
A. Yes, it did. It came up in August.
Q. Okay. And let's -- let me ask you what you recall about that meeting. Do you recall it coming up for a vote?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And do you remember the vote?
A. Yes, it was four-four.
Q. And did you vote with Mr. Buckingham?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now prior to voting at this meeting on the text, had you spoken with Mr. Buckingham about the voting?
A. No, I didn't talk to him about voting.
Q. Do you recall the first vote that was taken on approval of the text recommended by the faculty?
A. That was the one we were just talking about?
Q. Yeah. Do you recall the vote, the vote outcome?
A. Yeah, it was four-four.
Q. Okay. Now let me ask you. Why did you cast your vote?
A. We had x amount of dollars. We bought the chem books, which we had to have for Bert. They then bought the family and consumer science books, which I didn't want to buy. And we didn't have enough money left. We were like $5000.00 short for that year for -- these were the science books.
Q. You happened to mention Of Pandas. Were you voting with Bill to link approval of the science text recommended by the faculty with approval of Pandas?
A. No, no.
Q. Prior to casting that first vote, had you spoken with Heather Geesey about the way you were going to vote?
A. No.
Q. Prior to the first vote, had you spoken with Angie Yingling?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall what happened when the results of the first vote came in, four-four?
A. Yeah, there was a big discussion.
Q. Do you recall any specific comments that were made?
A. Yeah. How can you do this? They need their books. They got to have their books. It was like it was a world-ending crisis if they didn't have books.
Q. What was your view on that concern?
A. This was 2004. We didn't quite have enough money. We could have taken it out of the fund balance. But we still were only six years -- we weren't at seven years, in my mind. And we had spent the money on the family and consumer science books, which I didn't feel we should have spent it on there. We should have spent it on the biology books instead.
Q. How about your sense for whether the texts were essential to classroom instruction? Did you have an impression or opinion on that when you voted in August?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. How about -- you've mentioned that you believed at one point the texts weren't being used. When you voted in August, did you think they were essential for instruction?
A. No, because they already -- I know they didn't fit the curriculum, and that was my impression from Bert, that they didn't. And I felt, one more year isn't going to hurt them.
Q. Well, do you remember what happened after the tie vote? Was there another vote?
A. Yes, there was. Angie said, well, she felt they needed their books. And since she was one of the dissenters, she put it back up.
Q. Do you recall the outcome of that vote?
A. It was five-three.
Q. And --
A. I think.
Q. What was the implications of the vote for the approval of the text?
A. What do you mean? I'm sorry.
Q. Was the text approved or not?
A. The text was approved.
Q. Okay.
MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, is this a good time for a break?
THE COURT: I think we could take a break at this point. Why don't we take a 20-minute break, and we will return and pick up your direct examination with the witness after that. We'll be in recess.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken at 10:15 a.m. and proceedings reconvened at 10:37 a.m.)
| Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links |
| The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates |
