Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Trial transcript: Day 17 (October 28), PM Session, Part 1
THE COURT: Be seated, please. All right, based on our discussion before lunch, we want to take some exhibits, I guess, first things first.
Taking them in order of presentation, we would have first Dr. Nilsen's exhibits. Now, have you had an opportunity to look at that?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: We have, Your Honor.
MR. GILLEN: We have.
THE COURT: Do you want to -- do you have them marked up or do you want to read off what you can agree to?
MR. GILLEN: Yes, Your Honor. We ve got agreement, we're moving in everything except defendant's 84, which is the Atlanta Journal article.
I would ask your indulgence with respect to 172 -- oh, actually Eric helped me, and I'm only moving in from defendant's 172, the documents with Bates pages 359, 360 and 341.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: And, Your Honor, I have no objection to any of the exhibits. I just wanted to make sure the record was clear on D-153, transcript of the October 18 meeting, that that transcript is not a complete transcript even of the portion of the meeting that was reported. I think we are in agreement on that.
MR. GILLEN: We are.
THE COURT: Say that again, Mr. Rothchild.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: The transcript of the October 18 , 2004 meeting, which is defendant's 153, is only a portion of what was actually record -- there was some that was not recorded.
THE COURT: I recall that, that was the secretary transcribed partial transcript.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: That's right. And just to be clear, it's a partial transcript even of what was properly recorded.
THE COURT: I understand. And I did understand that. But as far as it's marked and what I get, your comment goes to what it's labeled, not what I'm going to get.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Correct.
THE COURT: All right. So let's just -- let's just review then. It appears then on the defendant's side -- well, let me backup. How about on cross, we have a number of exhibits on the master list here on cross and then one on recross.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: On the list for cross, Your Honor, we are moving in P-1 -- P-26. We will move in P-44, 53, 54, which are articles, and I think they're reserved for your later ruling.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: We're moving in P-70, P-109, P-120, P-752, P-753 and P-758, and P-81. We are not moving in at this time P-757, which was on Liz's list. And I withdrew P-785, so we're not moving that in.
THE COURT: And there's no objection to the exhibits as named then?
MR. GILLEN: Correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. And I don't think under the -- under Dr. Nilsen's defendants exhibits there were no articles referenced that I can see. So we'll admit then by agreement of counsel, and check me on this so you make sure that I have it, D-1 -- this is as to Dr. Nilsen, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-6, D-8, D-14, D-15, D-22, D-23, D-26, D-28, D-30, D-45, D-48, D-51, D-65, D-67, D-63, D-70, D-71, D-81, D-83. D-84 is in controversy, is that correct?
MR. GILLEN: It's not being moved, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It's not moved -- not being moved then at all? All right, so we're not going to argue that. D-101, D-102, D-103, D-105, D-106, D-127, D-133, D-134, D-135, D-137, D-138, D-139, D-142, D-153, D-172 Bates 359, 360 and 341 only.
MR. GILLEN: Correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is that correct?
D-193, D-283 and D-288. Those are defendants exhibits and they are admitted.
On cross, plaintiffs exhibits P-26, P-70. We re reserving argument and we will not admit at this time P-44, P-53, P-54. As I noted, P-70 is in. P-109, P-120, P-752, P-753 and P-758 and P-81, all are admitted without objection.
Does that cover all of Dr. Nilsen's exhibits?
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And, again, we'll reserve the issue of the admissibility of the articles.
Now, with respect to Mr. Buckingham, if we take out the articles, do we have an agreement on the other exhibits for Mr. Buckingham?
MR. HARVEY: We do, Your Honor, with one exception. The defendants are objecting to the admission of the Fox 43 clip. And it's our position that it's clearly authentic, as no issue of authenticity was raised prior to trial, although we listed it. Further, Mr. Buckingham admitted that was him on the tape speaking, and he admitted that he was speaking to a television reporter from Fox 43, and therefore it's an admission as well. So there's no basis to exclude that from evidence.
THE COURT: Well, let's take the other ones and we'll come back to that then. P-43 would be the minutes. Then the articles follow; we'll hold back on the articles. P-67, P-68, P-80, P-81, P-88, we're going to argue P-145; P-821, P-819 -- no, that's an article as well, so we ll reserve that. So the listed exhibits, am I correct?
MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, you missed P-82, which was a second copy of the October 7 document.
THE COURT: Yeah, I didn't have that on my master list. P-82 is the second copy of what, again?
MR. HARVEY: It's actually just the second copy of P-81 with some handwriting on it.
THE COURT: All right. So with the addition of P-82, the other named exhibits will be admitted without objection now, and not the articles, and I did not name the article exhibit numbers, there's no need to do that at this point.
All right, Mr. Gillen what's your argument then on P-145?
MR. GILLEN: On the news clips, simply, I don t think there's any limitation on my ability to raise the authenticity objection. I mean, it is a tape. I don't know if it's a complete tape. Mr. Buckingham says that he did talk to the reporter, but it's -- it's obviously edited and cut. All of his comments are not on it, and therefore it s a hearsay statement, it's out of court, the filming is, and it's incomplete, so we object to it.
THE COURT: Well, your -- let me ask you this. You had the ability, or have had the ability to get the whole tape, is that correct?
MR. GILLEN: Conceivably, Your Honor, although our efforts to get the materials from the reporters, you know, met with little success. So --
THE COURT: Well, I think this is a little different. You know, the materials you wanted from the reporters were notes and e-mail transmissions. This is something that was broadcast over the air. And if stations have this material, they typically give it to you. I mean, it's the same as getting a news article, as far as I m concerned.
MR. GILLEN: It's -- it's incomplete, though. His voice has been cut off. They only selected -- there's the same editing -- it's evident from looking at it that there's -- he's speaking and they're not giving him the sound, so you don't know everything he said.
THE COURT: Are you saying the comment was taken out of context?
MR. GILLEN: Yes.
MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, to be clear, the entire portion that was on the news was not played in evidence here. We just played a portion of it. And that entire portion is in the exhibit, if they want to look at it. And furthermore, he testified at his deposition that that was everything he said. And they had an opportunity to ask him if he said anything else that wasn't played, and they didn t.
THE COURT: See, I don't think there's any authenticity argument that you can make, unless you try to tell me that the pixels were scrambled and it's not a fair depiction of Mr. Buckingham.
MR. GILLEN: No.
THE COURT: I know you're not. And he admitted -- I heard nary a peep from Mr. Buckingham yesterday as far as whether or not that was --
MR. GILLEN: Not at all, you're quite right, Your Honor.
THE COURT: -- Mr. Buckingham on the video, and nor did I hear him controvert it, and in fact he admitted that he said it.
So, you know, under the circumstances, this is a bench trial. You'll have to give me something better to not have that admitted. I mean, he attempted during his testimony to explain, of course, why he said it, but he didn't deny that he said it. And I'm wondering why we shouldn't let it in on that basis.
MR. GILLEN: Well, I mean, his point was he was ambushed. And if you look at the clip, the sound is suppressed from his voice. He's speaking but you can't hear what he's saying. That was his whole --
THE COURT: Well, the purpose of the tape in the context of the presentation made was that he referenced the word creationism, we all know that; he said that. He admitted that he said that. You know, whatever else he said is not particularly helpful -- or not helpful to me, unless you're telling me that if there was an expanded version of the tape that, as Mr. Harvey said, exists, that he said some qualifying statement that was omitted; and if he did, you re certainly free to provide that to me. But I didn't hear that.
MR. GILLEN: No, no, not at all. My objection is to point to the lack of completeness, because he's talking on the tape. His statements yesterday are to the effect that I did say that, but that's not what I meant, that's not all I said. And so -- and what I'm trying to get at is the tape shows him talking but you're not getting the sound of his voice.
THE COURT: I guess I'm confused by what that means. What do you mean, you're not getting the sound of his voice?
MR. GILLEN: If your look at the clip, his --
THE COURT: You mean there's a cutaway?
MR. GILLEN: Yes, there's a cutaway.
THE COURT: Well --
MR. GILLEN: There's a cutaway where the narrator narrates while Mr. Buckingham is still talking. What he was trying to get at is that's not all I said.
THE COURT: Well, I accept that. I understand that. And I guess the remedy for that is, if there was something that was not presented, that's preserved, and you want to show that to the Court, I'll not prevent you from doing that, to take the statement in context. But I think this, a common sensible approach is that he said that the -- the portion presented was precisely what he said; that was what his testimony was, and then he explained why he said it. And, you know, I take it as that. And I think we re splitting hairs, you know, under the rather liberal, as you know, Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly as it goes to these types of presentations. I just can't -- unless you have a technical argument, and I know you don t, as to the fact that it was doctored or it doesn't represent his voice or his picture or something like that. And it sounds absurd when I say that, but if you had that argument, I would hear it.
But not once did I hear him say that that excerpted portion wasn't precisely what he said. Now, to be sure, he may have said more. But he had the opportunity, and you had the opportunity during your examination to elicit from him what more he said, to the extent that he recalls it.
MR. GILLEN: No, squarely it was taken out of context as he recalls. That's the nature of his objection to the clip.
THE COURT: Well, I don't know that he said -- I didn't take his testimony to say that it was taken out of context, necessarily; I hear you saying that now. I took his testimony to say I said it, but the word I think he used was that I ambushed and I misspoke. I think that s something different than taken out of context. But it may be a distinction without a difference, I'm not sure, but I m inclined to admit 145, just to cut to the chase. And, you know, subject to your objection, and I understand your objection, so we'll admit 145.
I think that covers then Mr. Buckingham and Dr. Nilsen, save for the articles, and we ll, as we said, reserve argument on that.
Have we missed any exhibits up to this point, other than the articles, for any other witnesses?
MR. HARVEY: We also have the four compilations of letters and editorials, but I assume that you --
THE COURT: Yeah, and I note that I just received a written memorandum from the plaintiffs on that point. And you probably haven't even had an opportunity to read it yet.
MR. GILLEN: No.
THE COURT: And I think that's why we need to reserve this for next week. And certainly you should feel free if you want to, although you're not required to, if you want to submit something in writing, an argument on that Mr. Gillen or Mr. White, you're free to do that after you ve had the opportunity to look at, having spent the week in trial I'm sure you'll want to spend the weekend looking at the plaintiffs submission --
MR. GILLEN: Oh, joy.
THE COURT: -- trying to craft an appropriate response.
All right. Are you prepared to present then your first witness?
MR. GILLEN: Yes, Your Honor. The defense would call Heather Geesey.
HEATHER GEESEY, called as a witness on behalf of the defendants, having been duly sworn or affirmed according to law, testified as follows:
THE DEPUTY CLERK: State your name and spell your last name for the record.
THE WITNESS: Heather Geesey, H-E-A-T-H-E-R, G-E-E-S-E-Y.
Q Good afternoon, Ms. Geesey. How are you?
A Nervous.
Q I understand. Well, let's discuss a few preliminary matters to try and make you less nervous.
A Yes.
Q Are you married?
A Yes.
Q What's your job?
A Full-time mommy.
Q So you have children?
A Yes.
Q How many?
A Three.
Q And what grades are they in?
A Eighth, third and kindergarten.
Q Do they attend Dover Area schools?
A Yes.
Q And am I right in understanding that you're a school board member?
A Yes.
Q When did you join the board?
A I was elected in November of 03.
Q You say you were elected. When did you run?
A I first started December of 03.
Q Okay. Did you have a platform when you ran?
A Yes.
Q What was that?
A That I was an elementary mother.
Q What did you mean by that?
A That I was -- I knew their concerns, I was the only one at the time with young children.
Q Were you endorsed by anyone when you ran for office?
A Yes.
Q Who was that?
A Jeff Brown.
Q You say you were elected in November 2003. When did you actually join the board as a working member?
A December of 03.
Q So what was your first full year of work on the board?
A 2004.
Q Do you have --
A Did I miss the question?
Q Don't be nervous, it's really just your chance to tell your part of the story here.
A Okay.
Q Does the board have a policy for training new members?
A No.
Q Did you have a mentor for your first year?
A Yes.
Q Who was that?
A Casey Brown.
Q How was your relationship with Mrs. Brown?
A Difficult.
Q And why was that?
A She had strong opinions, and if you disagreed with her, it was just her way or no way.
Q And did you disagree with her at times?
A Yes.
Q And what was the result?
A She ignored me, didn't return my calls, didn't give me advice.
Q Can you give a specific example of a disagreement?
A Yes.
Q Please do so.
A Once, as President Allen asked before the summer if we could only have one board meeting instead of two. And I agreed with him and I voted yes, and she was mad and she stormed out.
Q And what was your relationship with Mrs. Brown like after that?
A Not good.
Q And how did you know that?
A She wouldn't return my phone calls.
Q Did she advise you as a mentor after that time?
A No.
Q Were you on any committees in 2004?
A Yes.
Q Which ones?
A Policy and LIU.
Q How did you get on these committees?
A I was appointed. I believe I just filled in for Mrs. Callahan.
Q You referenced filling in for Mrs. Callahan. Did you replace her on the board?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever speak with Mrs. Callahan about that?
A Yes.
Q Based on that conversation, did you have an understanding concerning her assessment of your character?
A I understood it to be that she thought I was dishonest.
Q And why was that?
A Because I said I was running by myself, and I was endorsed by Jeff Brown.
Q Did you have a conversation with Mr. Brown about why he endorsed you?
A Yes.
Q What was your understanding of Mr. Brown's purpose in endorsing you?
A I -- it was my understanding that he did not want Mrs. Callahan back on the board.
Q You referenced a conversation with Mrs. Callahan. What was the tone of that conversation?
A It was rude.
Q Well, later on as you were serving as a school board member, were there occasions when Mrs. Callahan addressed the board?
A Yes.
Q And what were your thoughts in the matter when she addressed the board?
A Starting trouble.
Q Well, let me ask you this. You mentioned some committees you were on in your first year. You mentioned the policy committee. What is the purpose of the policy committee?
A To set the policies for the school district.
Q Did you work on policies during the 2004 school year?
A Yes.
Q Give us some examples.
A Dress code, cellphone, Internet usage.
Q Does the policy committee deal with curriculum?
A No.
Q Were you appointed to the board curriculum committee during 2004?
A No.
Q You ve referenced LIU, what is that?
A It's Lincoln Intermediate Unit, it's the special education.
Q Did you do any work in that committee in 2004?
A No, we shared a seat with another school district and it was their turn.
Q All right. Since 2004 was your first year, let s take a look at that year as it unfolds from your perspective and as it relates to the issues in this case.
If we take the first part of the year from January through, say, the end of May, did any issues relating to the biology text or biology curriculum come to your attention during that period?
A No.
Q Let's look at June. Do you remember the biology text being discussed at board meetings during the June period?
A Yes.
Q Do you have a specific recollection of two meetings in June or one?
A They all run together to me. They're all blurry.
Q Okay. Well, let me ask you this. Do you remember discussion of the biology text and other theories in the June meetings?
A Yes.
Q Tell us what you can recall.
A I remember Mrs. Callahan coming up and saying that students need their books.
Q And did that observation on her part illicit a response from anyone on the board?
A Yes. Yes.
Q Tell us what you recall about that.
A Mr. Buckingham and Mrs. Callahan then were arguing.
Q Do you recall any specifics of their arguments?
A No.
Q Well, when Mrs. Callahan came up and said students needed books, what was your reaction?
A It wasn't true, I knew that they had books.
Q Do you remember anything else about the exchanges with Mrs. Callahan and Mr. Buckingham?
A No.
Q Do you remember them arguing?
A Yes.
Q Did you pay attention to the exchanges?
A No.
Q And why not?
A I was reading, I was preparing to move onto the next motion.
Q Do you remember the term "creationism" being used during these June meetings by board members?
A No.
Q How about, do you remember the term "creationism" being used by members of the public during these June board meetings?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember anything specific?
A I know the teachers brought it up. I know Mrs. Buckingham brought it up.
Q Okay. Well, we're going to talk a little about that. Let me ask you though first, did you read the daily papers during this period of 2004?
A No.
Q Do you get them?
A No.
Q Do you get any paper?
A The Sunday, I buy the Sunday paper.
Q And do you read that?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember any discussion of reporting among board members during this June period?
A Yes, I remember board members discussing that the newspapers were inaccurate and they couldn't believe how inaccurate they were.
Q Do you remember any specific observations?
A No.
Q You ve mentioned Charlotte Buckingham. Do you understand that she's related to Bill Buckingham?
A Yes.
Q You remember her speaking at a board meeting?
A Yes.
Q Tell us what you remember Mrs. Buckingham saying.
A She was talking about creationism, Genesis 1 of the Bible.
Q And what was your reaction when Mrs. Buckingham made those statements?
A I tuned her out because I didn't see the point. We weren't -- we weren't discussing that so I started reading and. . .
Q When she mentioned creationism, what is creationism to you?
A Genesis 1.
Q And at any time during your tenure as a school board member did you understand the purpose of the board to provide for the teaching of creationism?
A No.
Q If we look at this period here in the summer of 2004, did you believe that intelligent design was creationism?
A No.
Q Why not?
A Because when you talk about intelligent design they don't bring up the Bible.
Q Did you have any other information you were relying on during this period?
A Yes.
Q What was that?
A Bill and Allen, they said it was a scientific theory.
Q Did you have an understanding based on what they said about whether scientists supported it?
A Yes, that's what they said, other scientists -- a lot of other scientists believed this.
Q Did you yourself ever do any research on intelligent design?
A No.
Q Why not?
A It wasn't my committee; wasn't my job.
Q Well, what do you mean by that? How does the board operate, from your perspective?
A Everybody is assigned to committees. It's their responsibility to do the work and then bring it back to the full board; and that wasn't my committee.
Q Do you rely on other committee members?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Now, Heather, a letter that you directed to the editor of a newspaper has been raised in this litigation, so I'm going to ask you a few questions about that.
MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, may I approach?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you.
Q Heather, I ve just handed you two documents that have been marked plaintiffs exhibit 56 and plaintiffs exhibit 60. I'd ask you to direct your attention to plaintiff's exhibit 56. Do you have it?
A Yes.
Q Do you recognize that document?
A Yes.
Q What is it?
A It's a letter to the editor from Beth Eveland.
Q And editor of what paper?
A York Sunday News.
Q And what is the date?
A June 20 .
Q Did you read this letter?
A Yes.
Q Did you do anything as a result of reading the letter?
A Yes, I did.
Q What did you do?
A I wrote a letter -- a letter to the editor as well.
Q With that in mind, I'd ask you to look at plaintiffs exhibit 60. Do you have it?
A Yes.
Q Do you recognize that document?
A Yes.
Q What is it?
A It's my letter to the editor.
Q Editor of what paper?
A York Sunday News.
Q And what is the date?
A June 27 .
Q I know that you wrote this letter now, but before we begin talking about it let me ask you this. When you wrote this letter, did you have an understanding concerning whether you were speaking for the Dover Area School Board?
A Yes.
Q What was that understanding?
A That I was not speaking for the Dover Area School Board.
Q And why do you say that? How does the board speak?
A We didn't vote on it. They speak through votes, resolutions, and we did not do any of that official stuff.
Q But look at how you signed the letter. Read how you signed it for the record.
A "Dover Area School Board director."
Q And why did you sign it that way?
A Because I wanted it printed.
Q And was it printed?
A Yes.
Q Let me ask you, why did you write this letter?
A She was attacking Bill, attacking the board, saying we were going against our mission statement; and I knew we were not.
Q Okay. And what do you mean by "we"?
A The board.
Q And against the mission statement, explain a little more what you mean by that. Well --
A She was saying that we were doing -- going against our mission statement. And I knew we were not doing that.
Q All right. Well, let's take a look at it this way. If you would, I would ask you to look at the first paragraph of Ms. Eveland's letter and read that for the record.
A Okay. "As a parent in the Dover Area School District I must convey my shock and utter dismay at William Buckingham's comments regarding the search for a new biology textbook for the high school. I am especially upset with Mr. Buckingham's comments as quoted in Wednesday's York Daily Record. This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught at such. "
Q There's a statement there that's been attributed to Mr. Buckingham. Do you remember Mr. Buckingham making that statement?
A No.
Q Why did you respond to this letter?
A She was saying how Bill was making these outrageous statements, and I was just telling her that it wasn't so outrageous.
Q Did you see -- I'm sorry. Did you see the letter as an attack on you as well?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Let me ask you this. Was there a specific portion of your letter designed to respond to the part of Mrs. Eveland's letter that you just read for the record?
A Yes.
Q If you would, please read the portion of your letter to which you're referring, for the record.
A "This letter is in regard to the comments made by Beth Eveland from York Township in the June 20 , York Sunday News. I assure you that the Dover Area School Board is not going against its mission statement. In fact, if you read the statement, it says, To educate our students so that they can be contributing members of society. I do not believe in teaching revisionist history. Our country was founded on Christian beliefs and principles. We are not looking for a book that is teaching students that this is a wrong thing or a right thing, it is just the facts."
Q So Heather, what was your point in writing that text?
A Again, she was attacking Bill saying he was outrageous, and I was just showing her that it wasn't that outrageous because our country did have a lot of Christian influences.
Q Well, what is this part here about revisionist history; what's your point there?
A That that's not what we were doing. We weren t looking for a history book; that's beside the point.
Q Were you trying to say anything else in the paragraph you ve just read?
A No.
Q Now, let me ask you to direct your attention to the second paragraph of Ms. Eveland's letter, and if you would read that for the record.
A "This statement is in direct contradiction to the mission statement for Dover schools. In partnership with family and community, to educate students, we emphasize sound basic skills and nurture the diverse needs of our students as they strive to become lifelong learners and contributing members of our global society. What a slap in the face to many of the parents and taxpayers of the Dover area. How sad that a member of our own school board would be so closed minded and not want to carry on the mission of Dover schools. His ignorance will not only hold back children attending Dover Area schools, but also reinforce other communities views that Dover is a backwards, closed-minded community."
Q Was there a specific portion of your letter designed to respond to the portion of Mrs. Eveland's letter which you just read?
A Yes.
Q If you would please read the portion of your letter to which you're referring, for the record.
A "All we are trying to accomplish with this task is to choose a biology book that teaches the most prevalent theories. The definition of theory is merely a speculative or an ideal circumstance. To present only one theory or to give one option would be directly contradicting our mission statement."
Q Okay. What was your point in writing that text?
A I was just telling her what we are doing, we are choosing a biology book that teaches the most prevalent theories.
Q Now, this letter is dated June 27, 2004. Do you remember discussions of other theories at the board meetings in June?
A Yes.
Q What theory do you remember?
A Intelligent design.
Q Did you believe that intelligent design was a scientific theory?
A Yes.
Q How did you know that? How did you come by that belief?
A Bill and Allen.
Q When you wrote this portion of the text here that deals with "to present only one theory would be directly contradicting our mission statement," what was your point there?
A Our mission statement is to educate our students. And I thought by giving them more than one theory, that that was making them aware; so that, to me, was educating them. If we didn't do that, then we would be contradicting ourselves.
Q Does that kind of sum up the point of that paragraph of your letter?
A Yes.
Q Let's look at the last paragraph of Ms. Eveland s letter and I'd ask you to read that for the record.
A "If this was simply a matter of selecting a text that gives two contradicting scientific theories equal time, that would be an entirely different matter. But it's not. Creationism is religion, plain and simple. Mr. Buckingham s comments offend me not because they are religious in nature, but because it is my duty to teach my children about religion as I see fit, not the Dover Area School District during a biology class."
Q Now, when you read this paragraph of this letter, did you believe that the board was contemplating teaching creationism?
A No.
Q When you read this paragraph of this letter did you believe that the board was contemplating teaching religion?
A No.
Q Was there a portion of your letter that was designed to respond to the claim that you were -- the board was contemplating teaching creationism or religion?
A Yes.
Q Which part was that?
A In the third paragraph where I tell her what we were doing, that we were choosing a biology book that teaches the most prevalent theories.
Q Was there any other part of your letter that was designed to respond to this last paragraph of Ms. Eveland s letter?
A Yes.
Q I would ask you to read the part to which you re referring for the record.
A "You can teach creationism without it being Christianity. It can be presented as a higher power. That is where another part of Dover's mission statement comes into play. That part would be In partnership with family and community. You, as a parent, can teach your child your family's ideology."
Q This was written on -- your letter that is, was written on June 27 , 2004. Do you remember any other developments in June relating to the biology text?
A (No response.)
Q How about July? Do you remember any developments in July relating to the Biology text?
A They were able to get a newer version of the book for the same price. I believe that was July.
Q Do you remember the board -- the Biology text recommended by the science teachers was approved in July?
A No.
Q Well, let's look at August. Do you remember any board meetings in August of 2004?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember the Biology text coming up on the agenda at that time?
A Yes.
Q Well, do you remember the text Of Pandas coming up in connection with the board meeting in August?
A Yes.
Q Tell us what you remember about Of Pandas?
A That it was not on the agenda, and Bill was upset that it wasn't there.
Q Did he say why?
A He just wanted both books together.
Q When you say he wanted both books together, how were the books on the agenda? Do you remember what the issue was relating to the Biology text?
A He wanted them to balance each other out. He just -- he wanted them together.
Q Do you -- did you vote to approve the Biology text recommended by the science faculty at the August 2004 board meeting?
A No.
Q Why not?
A There were still unresolved issues.
Q And what do you mean by that?
A Well, Bill was unhappy because of the Panda book. The teachers were unhappy. And this was my first book purchase and, to me, that was a lot of money; now I know better.
Q Well, when you voted not to approve the Biology text recommended by the science faculty for purchase in August of 2004, was it your intent not to approve that text at any time?
A No.
Q What was your purpose?
A Just to hold it up for a while to get the issues resolved.
Q Do you remember anything else that happened in connection with the voting on approval of the Biology text recommended by the science faculty at that meeting?
A In August?
Q Yes. How about other board members, do you remember their reaction or voting?
A Yes. Jeff Brown was upset, and Angie changed her mind, and that's how it got approved.
Q Okay. When you say it got approved, what do you mean?
A The textbook.
Q Okay. And when you say text, what text are you referring to?
A The Biology book.
Q And is that the Miller and Levine 2004 edition?
A Yes.
Q Now, this meeting we're talking about now is in early August, it's actually August 2 , 2004. Let me ask you, from that date, August 2 , 2004, through October, were you personally involved in any developments that related to the Biology text or biology curriculum?
A No.
Q Did there come a time when issues relating to the biology curriculum came to your attention as a board member?
A October.
Q Okay. And can you be more specific?
A When it came time to vote.
Q Okay. And are you referring to the October 18, 2004 board meeting?
A Yes.
Q Let's look at what you recall about that board meeting. Starting with the public comment, can you tell us anything you remember from that meeting?
A Bert Spahr came up to the podium, Jenn Miller --
Q Do you remember anything that either of them said?
A Bert Spahr was afraid that we were going to make her teach religion. She wasn't happy with intelligent design. She -- there was a lot.
Q How about the role of the teachers in the process, did she address that?
A Right, right. Yes, she said they weren't a part of the process, right.
Q And as you sat there as a board member, what was your reaction to her statement?
A I didn't believe her because I knew that they were a part of the process, and that -- I knew intelligent design wasn't creationism, and I knew we weren't making them teach that. So I -- I didn't --
Q Let's look at that piece by piece. You say you knew teachers were part of the process. How did you come to understand that teachers had been involved, if you yourself weren't involved?
A I was told that they were.
Q Who gave you that information?
A Administration.
Q How about the notion that intelligent design was not religion, how did you come by that understanding?
A I knew that it wasn t. Bill and Allen would have told me. You know, that was their committee, they would have come back and said that it wasn t.
Q How about the threat of liability; how did you come to know teachers had that concern?
A Bert Spahr had said.
Q Do you remember anything that Jenn Miller said?
A No, but I knew she was in agreement.
Q Do you remember anything else that was said by way of public comment at the outset of the meeting?
A After the vote there was something that I do --
Q Okay. Well, let's take it piece by piece for the sake of making a logical story.
Is that all you remember about public comment at the beginning of the meeting?
A At the beginning, yes.
Q Okay. What's the next thing you remember about the meeting that bears on this biology curriculum issue?
A Taking the vote and Noll changing it about a dozen times.
Q Say that again.
A We took the vote, and Noll changed it about a dozen times.
Q Did you have a sense for the purpose of Noll s parliamentary maneuvers?
A That he didn't want it to pass.
Q And what was your reaction to that?
A That surprised me because I thought he was for intelligent design.
Q Do you remember any motions being made by Mr. Bonsell?
A Yes.
Q Tell us what you remember about that.
A He took the one part from the teachers proposal, the origins of life will not be taught, and he added it to what the board had come up with, and combined it.
Q And is that the final version that was approved by the board?
A Yes.
Q Did you understand or have an understanding concerning Mr. Bonsell's purpose in offering that amendment?
A Yes, that --
Q What was that?
A So they wouldn't be sued, that's why he added that.
Q Did you vote to support the amended curriculum change proposed by Mr. Bonsell?
A Yes.
Q And why did you do that?
A I agreed with it. It goes with our mission statement to educate the students, it made them aware of something else.
Q When you voted for the proposed curriculum change, did you do so because you believed that you would be teaching religion?
A No.
Q Is there anything else that happened at this meeting that affected you personally?
A Yes.
Q That's come up before also, so tell us about that from your perspective.
A I was misquoted.
Q Okay. Give us the background for the misquoting you're referencing.
A I had said they should be fired, and everyone misunderstood. Jeff Brown was saying, if "they," meaning the teachers, are sued, then "they" should be able to use our lawyers. So then I had said well, if "they" are sued, meaning the teachers, then "they" should be fired, meaning the solicitors, because they had told us, the solicitors had told us what we were doing was okay.
Q Let's not get too much into that because I don t want to get bogged down in claims that might be privileged. But was your statement misunderstood?
A Yes.
Q How did that come to the attention of -- your attention?
A The next morning people were telling me, did you see the paper. It was just a frenzy with, you know, my friends.
Q And did you look at the article they were referencing as a result of these calls?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what did you see?
A I saw it said that they should be fired, and in like brackets, he wrote, the faculty; he added to my quote.
Q So when you read the quote in the paper, what was its thrust?
A Excuse me?
Q When you read the quote in the paper, what was its thrust?
A That meaning I said they should fire the teachers.
Q And is that what you had said or meant, at least?
A No.
Q Okay. Did you look at who wrote the article you re referencing?
A Yes.
Q And who was that?
A Joe Maldonado.
Q Did you do anything as a result of this article?
A Yes.
Q Tell us what you did.
A I called Dr. Nilsen and asked him to send an e-mail to the teachers from me saying I didn't say it. I asked him for a transcript of the meeting to prove that I didn't say it.
Q Did you do anything with respect to the author of the article?
A Yes.
Q What did you do?
A I did speak with Joe. And I told him I did not say that, and he knew -- knows I didn't say that.
Q And did you have any sense for whether Mr. Maldonado was concerned by the inaccuracy of the reporting?
A He did not care. And I got the sense that he knew, but he didn't care.
Q There's a few other, what should I say, high points in this controversy here, and I just want to see whether you have anything to do with those for the record.
There was a press release that was put out by the district on November 19 , 2004. Did you have any significant role in drafting that press release?
A No.
Q How about the donation of the books Of Pandas, did you have any knowledge about that?
A No.
Q There was a newsletter that was subsequently put out that related to this controversy, did you have any role in formulating that newsletter?
A Nothing meaningful, no.
Q And there were some books that were donated by another group, Debunk Creation. Did you have any role in reviewing those books?
A No.
Q When we started here you indicated that your kids attend schools in Dover.
A Yes.
Q And why do you send your children to the schools in Dover Area School District?
A When it was time to send my oldest to school, I checked into a private Christian school, and at the time they still were not teaching everything. They still had a narrow-minded view, and I wanted to give them more exposure to other things.
Q Is evolutionary theory among the things you want your kids to be exposed to?
A Yes.
MR. GILLEN: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Gillen.
Who will conduct cross examination. Mr. Walczak?
Q Good afternoon, Mrs. Geesey.
A Hello.
MR. WALCZAK: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
Q Mrs. Geesey, I ve just handed you a copy of your deposition transcript from I believe it was March the 10 .
A Yes.
Q And you recall that deposition?
A Yes.
Q I just handed it to you now because we might be referring to it.
I'm not sure I heard the last point you made. You say you did not want your children being exposed to evolution?
A No, I do.
Q You do want them?
A Um-hum.
Q And what was it about the Christian school that you didn't like as much as you like about the Dover schools?
A At the time that -- he's in eighth grade now, so when he was going to kindergarten they did not teach everything, they didn't teach different views.
Q What do you mean "everything" and "different views"?
A They didn't teach evolution, you know, it was Christian, they just taught one thing.
Q What was the one thing they taught?
A Genesis, you know, Genesis.
Q And you don't have a background in science, do you?
A No.
Q And your educational background involves finishing high school?
A Yes.
Q And you haven't had any science courses since then?
A No.
Q You attended all of the board meetings in March -- I'm sorry, in 2004 except one?
A I believe it was two; I was certain of one.
Q And you were not on the curriculum committee in 2004?
A No.
Q And you weren't involved in curriculum committee discussions?
A No.
Q So you wouldn't have been involved in any of the curriculum committee discussions about the Miller and Levine textbook?
A No.
Q And you weren't involved in the committee discussions about Pandas?
A No.
Q And you weren't involved in the committee discussions about changing the curriculum to include intelligent design?
A No.
Q Now, in the summer of 2004, you didn't do anything to learn more about the Miller and Levine textbook, did you?
A No.
Q And you didn't take any steps to learn more about the whole concept of intelligent design?
A No.
Q Now, you testified earlier that intelligent design was discussed by the board in June.
A Yes.
Q And you're saying that that was a theory that was identified at a board meeting?
A Yes.
Q And that was identified by whom?
A It would have been Allen or Bill.
Q So you're saying that they raised -- they actually said intelligent design at a board meeting in June?
A I believe so, yes.
Q And you're saying that they said that, that intelligent design would be a good alternative theory to teach along with evolution?
A Yes.
Q So they specifically identified the theory that would be taught to balance evolution?
A Yes.
Q If you could turn to page 31 of your transcript there, please. Do you have that, Ms. Geesey?
A Yes.
Q And actually if you go back to the 30 , page 30, they're talking about the June 7 --
A Okay.
Q -- meeting there.
Then beginning on page seven you were asked -- I believe Mr. Schmidt handled your deposition, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And starting on line seven of page 31 -- actually let me go back. Ms. Schmidt asked you, "Do you recall him saying that the textbook that was under consideration was laced with Darwinism?" And you replied "No." Correct?
A Correct.
Q And as you sit here today do you remember Mr. Buckingham saying that the Miller and Levine textbook, I guess it was the 2002 then, was laced Darwinism?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember him saying that?
A Yes.
Q And --
A Wait a minute, wait, wait, no, laced with Darwin -- no, no. I was jumping ahead. But laced with Darwinism, no.
Q Are you saying he didn't say it or you just don t remember?
A I don't remember.
Q And then it goes on and says, "What did he say he wanted to balance Darwinism with at that meeting?" And then your answer on line nine is, "At that meeting I don't know. He wanted another theory at that time. At that time I don t think he knew."
"Question. Did he say any theory would do, it just has to be another one or something to that effect?
"Answer. Just another theory, another scientific theory.
"Question. What was your understanding of what he was talking about at that meeting at June 7?
"Answer. That they were going to continue looking for another book until they found one that had more than one theory.
"Question. What was your understanding of what the candidates were for another theory?
"Answer. I didn t. It wasn't my -- that is not my committee, so I didn't have to understand.
"Question. Did you ask any questions?
Was that your testimony in March of 2005, this year?
A In March, yes, it was.
Q And you were under oath then?
A Yes.
Q And you swore to tell the truth?
A Yes.
Q And you did tell the truth?
A Yes.
Q So in March you didn't know what theory he wanted to introduce to balance evolution, but today you do?
A I believe I was saying that I could not tell the meetings apart. But in preparing, I read both articles that I wrote, and mine is June 27 , and then I -- I must have known, it must have come up because I wrote that. Then I was telling -- that's what I had remembered.
Q So you didn't know in March what he was talking about, but you know now what he was talking about?
A Because of reading the article, yes, I would have had to.
Q Could you turn to page 49, please. Are you there?
A Yes.
Q Could you look at line 20. Do you see it?
A Yes.
Q Okay, the question there is, "Do you recall a discussion by anyone or a statement by anyone at the June 14 meeting involving the words intelligent design?
A Yes.
Q So in March you testified under oath again that you did not recall any statement at the June 14 meeting about intelligent design.
A Yes, because it says June 14 , and I -- meetings run together.
Q So in March your testimony was that intelligent design was not used at the June 7 meeting, and it was also that intelligent design was not used at the June 14 meeting. Were there any other meetings -- board meetings in June?
A Not that I -- no, no.
Q Now, you said you voted for the October 18 curriculum change because you liked it.
A Yes.
Q You supported the change.
A Yes.
Q It -- because it gave a balanced view of evolution.
A Yes, I mean . . .
Q It presented an alternative theory?
A Yes.
Q And the policy talks about gaps and problems with evolution?
A Yes.
Q Yes. You don't know what those gaps and problems refer to, do you?
A No.
Q But it's good to teach about those gaps and problems?
A That -- yes, that's our mission statement, yes.
Q But you have no idea what they are?
A It's not my job, no.
Q Is it fair to say that you didn't know much about intelligent design in October of 2004?
A Yes.
Q And you didn't know much about the book Of Pandas and People either, did you?
A Correct.
Q So you had never participated in any discussions of the book?
A No.
Q And you made no effort independently to find out about the book?
A No.
Q And the administration had made copies of the book available to board members.
A Yes.
Q But you never read the book.
A No.
Q And no one ever explained to you what intelligent design was about.
A No.
Q And you never got any instructional materials or tapes about intelligent design.
A No.
Q And you never viewed any or read any books about intelligent design.
A No.
Q And you didn't study it independently.
A No.
Q You didn't go on the Internet and look it up.
A No.
Q So you didn't really think too much about intelligent design.
A No.
Q You just knew it was something else that the kids were going to learn?
A Yes.
Q And it was a theory that was different from Darwin's view.
A Yes.
Q And what you testified earlier is that you were relying on the recommendation of the curriculum committee.
A Yes.
Q And that was their job.
A Yes.
Q And because they were recommending the introduction of intelligent design, you were going to go along with that.
A Yes.
Q And you thought it was a good idea to introduce an alternative to evolution.
A Yes.
Q Now, it wasn't the entire curriculum committee that was recommending this change, correct?
A I don't know.
Q Well, who was on the curriculum committee?
A Bill, Allen, and I can't remember the other one.
Q Was Sheila Harkins on it?
A I don't know.
Q Do you know if Sheila Harkins was supportive of intelligent design?
A I don't know that. I don't know. I never really thought about it.
Q So the two people you were really listening to and talking to about this were Bill Buckingham and Allen Bonsell.
A Yes.
Q And Casey Brown, I'll just tell you, Casey Brown was the last member of the curriculum committee. Does that sound right?
A Yes.
Q And she was not supportive of this change.
A No.
Q In fact, she was adamantly opposed to introducing intelligent design into the curriculum.
A Yes.
Q But you weren't listening to her, were you?
A She wasn't -- she was ignoring me, she wasn t mentoring me, so . . .
Q But she was there advocating against introduction of intelligent design, so it wasn't like the curriculum committee was unified?
A Right.
Q But you chose to listen to Mr. Buckingham and Mr. Bonsell?
A Correct.
Q Now, I know you said you don't have any background in science, correct?
A Correct.
Q And do you know whether Mr. Buckingham has a background in science?
A No, I do not.
Q Do you know that in fact he doesn't have a background in science?
A I don't know. He's law enforcement, so I would assume he had to take something along the way.
Q Did he ever tell you he knew something about biology?
A No.
Q How about Mr. Bonsell, do you know what his background is?
A No.
Q Do you know what he does for a living?
A He's a business owner, I believe.
Q He's not a scientist, to your knowledge?
A Not to my knowledge, no.
Q He's not a science teacher?
A No.
Q Now, there are people employed by the school district who do know a little something about science, correct?
A Correct.
Q And that would be the teachers.
A Yes.
Q And you know Ms. Bertha Spahr?
A Yes.
Q And she's been with the school district a long time.
A Yes.
Q And she's head of the science department.
A Yes.
Q And you know Ms. Miller.
A Yes.
Q And you know Mr. Eshbach.
A Yes.
Q And you know Mr. Lanker?
A I don't -- I wouldn't be able to place him, but I know the name, I know he's a teacher.
Q And he's a science teacher?
A Yes.
Q And you knew that the science teachers were all opposed to introducing intelligent design?
A Correct.
Q And the teachers had in fact told you that they were concerned about introducing intelligent design because they were worried that they would get sued.
A Correct.
Q And specifically they were worried about teaching from the Pandas book, correct?
A I don't -- I don't know.
Q Do you recall in August of 2004 you had a discussion about approving the new Biology book?
A Yes.
Q And at that time Mr. Buckingham did not want to vote to approve the Biology book unless Of Pandas and People was approved?
A Correct.
Q And do you recall Ms. Spahr making any comments about Of Pandas and People?
A No. No.
Q Could you look at page 63 of your deposition, please. Are you there?
A Yes.
Q Let me read to you starting on line seven, and this is Mr. Schmidt asking a question.
"And I understand that the afraid of being sued referred to something that she said about teaching religion in the science curriculum.
"Answer" -- that's you -- "correct."
"Question. Can you tell me any more about your understanding of what she meant when she said that?
"Answer. She thought we were going to make them teach religion.
"Question. Again, what did you understand her to be referring to when she said that?
"Answer. I don't know because we weren t, we weren't doing that, so to me it was an unfounded statement.
"Question. What do you think she was referring to?
Now, did I read that accurately?
A Yes.
Q So your understanding in March, when you were deposed, was that in fact they were concerned that teaching the Pandas book would be teaching religion?
A It says "at some point during the summer of 2004," and right now, I answered the way I did because I'm thinking that she did all this in October.
Q So does this refresh your recollection?
A It does, I know she said that. I would have to sit here and really think to see when she said it, but that was -- that's how it happened.
Q But you're not disputing now, after you ve looked at this, that in fact the teachers were concerned about teaching Pandas because they thought it was religion?
A No, I was just -- I was thinking it was October, that's why I answered your question the way I did.
Q And you didn't frankly agree with the teachers that Pandas was teaching religion, right?
A No, no, I did not agree with the teachers, no.
Q And you thought their position that Pandas taught religion was unfounded?
A Right.
Q But you never read Pandas, right?
A No.
Q Now, prior to the October 18 vote to change the curriculum, do you recall the science teachers explaining that intelligent design was not science?
A Yes.
Q And you never asked them any more questions about their position why they didn't think this was science?
A No.
Q And you will recall also that Ms. Spahr expressed concerns that she thought intelligent design was religious?
A Yes.
Q And you knew that the teachers were opposed to introducing this intelligent design change because they were afraid they were going to get sued for teaching religion?
A Yes.
Q And so the only people in the school district that you're aware of that have a science background were opposed to introducing intelligent design; they thought it wasn t science, they thought it was religion, and you ignored that?
A Yes.
Q And you voted for the proposal because Mr. Buckingham and Mr. Bonsell encouraged you to do so?
A I agreed with them, that's why I voted for the proposal.
MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, I have about ten more minutes, but if we want to take a break, we could do that now or we could finish up.
THE COURT: Why don't you finish up. Why don't we push on. Maybe we can conclude this witness before we break, if you don't mind.
Q I want to direct your attention to the two exhibits that Mr. Gillen handed you during your direct testimony. One is plaintiffs exhibit 56, and that would be Ms. Eveland's letter, and plaintiffs 60, which is your reply.
Now, when you wrote your response letter, you didn't consult with anyone before you wrote it, did you?
A No.
Q You didn't talk to the administration.
A No.
Q You didn't talk to the -- your fellow board members.
A No.
Q But you did sign it as a member of the Dover Area -- as a Dover Area School Board director.
A Yes.
Q Now, to the best of your knowledge, what was printed is what you submitted to the paper.
A To the best of my knowledge; I know the title wasn t.
Q They put the title on?
A Right.
Q But the text of the letter is what you actually sent.
A To the best of my knowledge, yes, it was.
Q Now, let's look at the second paragraph of your letter, and could you read that, please; that's plaintiffs exhibit 60.
A "I do not believe in teaching revisionist history. Our country was founded on Christian beliefs and principles. We are not looking for a book that is teaching students that this is a wrong thing or a right thing, it is just a fact."
Q And that paragraph was responding primarily to Ms. Eveland's first paragraph, correct?
A Yes.
Q And you were upset that your colleague Bill Buckingham had been attacked, I believe was the word that you used in direct testimony.
A Part of it, yes.
Q And you didn't at any time say that wasn't said, right, you were simply expressing support for Mr. Buckingham's views?
MR. GILLEN: Objection, Your Honor, it mischaracterizes her testimony.
MR. WALCZAK: She can answer that; she can deny that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I think it's fair cross. I'll overrule the objection. I don't know if it's a mischaracterization. She'll tell us if it is.
THE WITNESS: I didn't understand the question, so you'll have to repeat it.
THE COURT: Joan, do you want to read the question back, please.
THE WITNESS: No, that's -- in my letter? I don t understand.
Q You were upset that Ms. Eveland had apparently attacked your colleague, correct?
A Yes.
Q And you were coming to his defense.
A Yes.
Q Because you -- you didn't want to teach revisionist history.
A Correct.
Q Right. This, as you say, our country was founded on Christian beliefs and principles.
A Correct.
Q And you were not looking for a book to contradict that.
A Well, we weren't looking for a history book. It was all besides the point what she was saying. That has nothing to do with anything else.
Q But here in this letter you're talking about creationism.
A Yes.
Q Yes?
A Yes. I mean in the -- I'll agree, she was so I referred to what she was saying, I was answering her questions.
Q Now, in that last paragraph you used the word creationism.
A Yes.
Q You say you can teach creationism without its being Christianity?
A Correct.
Q And I believe you testified that in your religion creationism refers to the first book of Genesis?
A Yes.
Q But you're not aware of any use of the term creationism that isn't associated with some religion?
A Correct.
Q And you didn't use the term intelligent design in this letter either, did you?
A No.
Q Now, you also talked about being misquoted at the October 18 board meeting?
A Yes.
Q And I believe you said that Mr. Maldonado had written something implying that you had said that if the teachers asked for legal representation they should be sued, correct?
A Something --
Q And you -- you deny that you meant the teachers.
A Correct.
Q So you were really upset by that?
A Oh, of being misquoted, yes.
Q And so you didn't want to let that stand, you wanted to correct the record.
A Yes.
Q And so in fact you contacted the administration.
A Yes.
Q And at least you claim you talked to Mr. Maldonado.
A Yes.
Q You didn't seek him out, did you; you didn't call him in his office?
A I had planned to at the next meeting, but I ended up seeing him before then.
Q So you didn't -- it wasn't like the next day you re on the phone calling the York Daily Record?
A It was that day or the day after that I had seen him at school.
Q So you happened to run into him somewhere when you were out and about town?
A I saw him, and I turned around and went back and talked to him, yes.
Q So you were really upset, so you wanted to make a point that in fact he had misquoted you and that the newspaper was wrong.
A Yes.
Q You didn't do that any other time, did you, specifically speak to a reporter about being misquoted?
A I'm trying to think if that was the first time. It's like an ongoing thing. I don't know if that was the first time or not. I mean, it's with Joe and everyone, it s like, hi Joe, you misquoted me, yes.
MR. WALCZAK: Thank you. No further questions.
THE COURT: All right. Redirect.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q Heather, I ve just got a few questions by way of follow up on the questions that Mr. Walczak has asked you.
He asked you whether in your letter you were talking about creationism, and I'm not sure what was your response to that question. Were you talking about creationism?
A At the bottom when I was referring to her. But at the beginning when I was telling her what we were doing, no, I was not.
Q Okay. And at the beginning what were you talking about?
A What we were doing, intelligent design, prevalent theories.
Q And then you say at the bottom you were talking about creationism; what do you mean by that?
A She had said that we were teaching religion or creationism, whatever, and I was telling her we were not, the school does not teach that, but you can, you can do it, that's part of our mission statement, that in partnership with family. So I was telling her what she could do.
Q What -- let me ask you this. There's -- you know, it's hard to remember, there's been some back and forth about the dates, and Mr. Walczak asked you a few questions about your deposition testimony. Did you understand that the text Of Pandas addressed intelligent design?
A Yes.
Q With that in mind, I would ask you to look at your deposition testimony, page 56. And I would ask you to review your testimony there beginning on line six, and I m just going to make sure that this is understood.
Mr. Schmidt asked you, "Have you heard of the book Of Pandas and People in connection with your being a member of the school board?" And what was your answer?
A "Yes."
Q And then Mr. Schmidt asked you, "How did you hear it?" And what was your answer?
A "That is a book that Bill brought up so we can use it as a reference book to balance the curriculum."
Q And Mr. Schmidt asked you, "When did he bring it up?"
MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, I'm going to object. This is hearsay. I don't believe --
MR. GILLEN: It's a prior consistent statement which is being used to rebut a charge. She's just offered an inconsistent statement.
THE COURT: The question -- the question was, and Mr. Schmidt asked you, "When did he bring it up?" Your objection?
MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, I'm not sure why she s testifying from her deposition here. I mean, if it's to complete context for something I did on impeachment, that s one thing, but I'm not sure how this is completing the context.
MR. GILLEN: That's precisely the purpose. There has been an inference created that Mrs. Geesey has offered inconsistent testimony based on her deposition. What I m trying to do is demonstrate right here that her deposition testimony is in fact consistent.
THE COURT: All right, I'll allow it for that purpose. The objection is overruled.
Q Mr. Schmidt asked you, "When did he bring it up?" And what did you respond?
A "I don't know."
Q And then you said -- Mr. Schmidt asked you, "Well, did he bring it up at a board meeting or in some other context?" And how did you answer?
A "A board meeting."
Q And Mr. Schmidt quite carefully asked you, "I m just trying to put it together, so far we have had two meetings in June and one in July. Did he discuss the book Of Pandas and People at any of those three board meetings?" And what was your answer?
A "Yes."
Q Today when you were discussing intelligent design being brought up, when do you recall it being brought up?
A In June.
Q Is there anything that has come to your attention in connection with your preparation that has allowed you, has refreshed your recollection and allowed you to date with somewhat more precision when you first heard the term intelligent design being used?
A Yes.
Q Please explain what that is.
A These two letters, one is dated June 20th, one is June 27; mine is June 27 .
So, you know, by reading it I know that I knew.
MR. GILLEN: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any recross, Mr. Walczak?
Q Ms. Geesey, if you could look on page 56 again, and Mr. Gillen was reading to you about -- asking you about Pandas being discussed at those meetings. And you said, two meetings in June and one in July. He said, did he discuss the book Of Pandas at any of those three meetings, and your answer was yes, is that correct?
A That's what it says there, yes.
Q And just reading on three more lines, Mr. Schmidt asked you, "Do you remember which one?" And your answer was "No."
A Correct.
MR. WALCZAK: Thank you. No further questions.
THE COURT: I have a question before you step down, Mrs. Geesey, because I'm confused.
THE WITNESS: So am I.
Q Well, it's more important that I'm not confused than you're not confused. But the question is this: I read your deposition testimony as it was presented, and it appears to me that your deposition testimony -- I'm reading it as clearly as I can -- indicates that you answered in the negative, that is you said no, that intelligent design was not mentioned at either of the June meetings. Is that what happened or not?
A No. By refreshing my memory with my article, it was June 27 .
Q But you use the word article. Are you talking about the two letters, the letter and the letter by -- is it Mrs. Eveland?
MR. WALCZAK: Eveland.
THE COURT: What is it?
MR. WALCZAK: Mrs. Eveland, is one of the plaintiffs.
Q Are you talking about Mrs. Eveland's letter and your letter in response? That refreshes your recollection, how?
A Because I read it and, I mean, I know that --
Q What in those letters -- what particular area of either of those letters, or both, leads you to believe that intelligent design was discussed at the June meeting?
A I just --
Q What? Point me to what in the letter, not generally, but specifically.
A That I thought --
Q I asked you that question because I don't see the words intelligent design.
A Right. The part where it says "what we are doing." I -- since all the meetings run together, I didn't realize back then that I knew everything that was going on because it's not my committee. But by me saying that what we were doing was to choose a book that teaches the most prevalent theories, I mean that -- that's what I was talking about.
I mean, I already knew that they were doing something, and before I couldn't tell the meetings apart. So I kept saying, no, I don't remember, because I couldn t tell them apart when they would say did it happen then, and I wasn't sure of when it happened.
Q I don't recall prior testimony that Of Pandas and People was discussed at the June meetings. I'll stand corrected if it was.
Is it your testimony that Of Pandas and People was raised at the, either or both of the June school board meetings; is that what you're saying?
A It was raised some time, but again --
Q Well, we know that; I'm asking when.
A I know it was August because I know Bill was upset that it wasn't on the agenda. So I'm for sure that it was by then. But I don't know.
Q You don't know when it was before August?
A Right, it all runs together. I just know that is what his concern was in August, that's why it sticks out then, because it wasn't on the agenda with the other book.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WALCZAK: Your Honor, if I might just ask --
THE COURT: I'm going to allow both in fairness, I'm going to allow both counsel. Let's start with, since I asked the question, if you have a follow up to my question, it's your witness, do you have any follow up to my question?
MR. GILLEN: Sure.
Q Heather, the Judge's questions are fair, but I mean, it's hard to put it together, but do you as you sit here today believe that intelligent design was brought up at the June -- during the June meetings?
A Yes.
MR. GILLEN: No further questions, Your Honor.
Q Ms. Geesey, at your deposition in March of 2005.
A Yes.
Q That was closer to the events in question than we are now, correct?
A Yes.
Q You were shown both of Ms. Eveland's letter and your letter, correct?
A I was shown mine. I -- I don't know if I was shown hers. I don't know.
Q But you were shown your letter?
A I believe so, yes.
Q And in fact Mr. Schmidt asked you numerous questions about your letter.
A He did ask me questions, yes.
Q And at that time you didn't say anything about it prompting your memory that intelligent design was taught (sic) in June or July.
A No, it was four or five hours and no, everything was all together, so I could not separate it for him.
MR. WALCZAK: Thank you.
MR. GILLEN: One question. Redirect. Judge, one question, please.
THE COURT: I don't know what you could possibly hope to achieve, but I'm going to give you one question and one only.
MR. GILLEN: Thank you.
Q Heather, do you recall whether you were shown that letter before or after the testimony that Mr. Walczak focussed on?
A I would believe after, because that's how it works.
MR. GILLEN: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You get one more to be fair, and this is the last round.
MR. WALCZAK: I guess I have to be very careful about how I use my one question.
THE COURT: Choose carefully.
MR. WALCZAK: Wish for more wishes.
Q Mrs. Eveland (sic), in preparation for your deposition you looked at both Ms. Eveland's letter and your letter?
A I don't know.
THE COURT: Nice try. All that time, you get an "I don't know."
All right, that will complete your testimony, ma am, you may step down.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE COURT: Do we have any exhibits with this witness?
THE DEPUTY CLERK: No exhibits, they would --
THE COURT: I think the exhibits referred to are already in.
Now, we're going to take a break. After we return from the break, are we going to resume Mr. Baksa's testimony or what is your pleasure? What do you want to do?
MR. GILLEN: Judge, given the hour, my preference would be not to break him again. I would like to just get him moving and finish it when I do put him on. I ve got someone coming in from Florida on Monday I want to get done, and then Mr. Bonsell, so I would prefer to wrap it up.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: I'm going to be a strong advocate for the other position. I think --
THE COURT: Why don't you approach, counsel, please.
(Whereupon, sidebar conference held between Court and counsel off the record.)
THE COURT: All right, what we're going to do is we'll take a 15 minute break, and now a little bit shorter break, and we will resume with another portion of Mr. Baksa's testimony on direct. We will not finish the direct examination today, but we'll spend some remaining time. I would guess that we'll go approximately no later than 4:15, let's say, this afternoon. We'll -- and if you see a break point earlier than that, you can finish earlier than that, but I think we should spend the time, as we said at sidebar, to pick up a little bit more of Mr. Baksa s testimony and then we'll break for the weekend. So we ll take a 15 minute break.
THE DEPUTY CLERK: All rise.
| Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links |
| The FAQ | Must-Read Files | Index | Creationism | Evolution | Age of the Earth | Flood Geology | Catastrophism | Debates |
