RationalWiki:Kitzmiller v. Dover annotated transcript/P009

← Previous page

Next page →

Day 2 (27 Sept 2005): Morning Session - Direct of Aralene Callahan

Section 1 MR. HARVEY: Plaintiffs call to the stand Aralene B. Callahan. (Aralene Callahan was called to testify and was sworn by the courtroom deputy.) COURTROOM DEPUTY: Please state and spell your full name. THE WITNESS: My name is Aralene Joan. Callahan. My nickname is Barrie. A-R-A-L-E-N-E, C-A-L-L-A-H-A-N. Barrie is B-A-R-R-I-E. MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, I have a notebook of exhibits, all of them that are just a complication of some of the exhibits in the binder. I'd like to give it to the witness. THE COURT: You may, sure. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Mrs. Callahan, please tell us where you live. A. (Home address in Dover, PA stated, redacted by RationalWiki) Q. How long have you lived there? A. About thirty years. Q. Are you married? A. Yes. Q. Tell us your husband's name, please. A. Frederick Brian Callahan. Q. Do you have children? A. Yes. Q. How many children do you have? A. Three. Q. Please tell us their names and their ages. A. Arie is 23, Danny's almost 21, and Child 1 is almost 17. (Note: the names of all minors have been redacted by RationalWiki) Q. Do any of them attend school in the Dover area school district? A. Yes. Q. Which child? A. Katie. Q. And what school does she attend? A. Dover area high school. Q. What grade is she in? A. 11th. Q. Please tell us what high school you went to. A. Lower Marion High School. Q. Do you have any formal education beyond high school? A. Yes. Q. Please tell us what formal education you have. A. I have a B.S. from Ursinus College. Q. What do you have a B.S. in? A. Psychology.	Section 1 notes
Section 2 Q. And did you at any time serve on the Dover area school district board of directors? A. Yes. Q. Please tell us what years approximately to the best of your recollection you served on the board of directors. A. I think it started in `93. I know it ended in 2003. Q. Do you know what month of 2003? A. November of 2003 would have been my last meeting. Q. During the time that you were on the Dover area school district board of directors did the board have retreats? A. Yes. Q. What's the first board retreat that you can remember? A. The first board retreat using the word retreat was in January of 2002. Q. And can you remember specifically what happened at that retreat? A. Specifically at that retreat I don't know. Q. What's the next board retreat that you recall after the retreat in January of 2002? A. That would have been March of 2003.	Section 2 notes
Section 3 Q. Do you know Allen Bonsell? A. Yes. Q. Who is Allen Bonsell? A. Allen Bonsell at that time was a school board member also. Q. And did Mr. Bonsell have at that point in March of 2003, did Mr. Bonsell have any positions with respect to committees on the board? A. He I believe the entire time that I served on the board with him he was chairman of the curriculum committee. He may have had other committee positions, but I can't recall. Q. Now, do you remember a part of this retreat in March of 2003 where the board members went around the room and expressed issues that were of concern to them? A. Yes. Q. And tell us what you remember just generally about how that process worked. A. Each board member had some time to talk about issues that were of concern to them at that time.	Section 3 notes
Section 4 Q. Do you remember what Allen Bonsell identified for as issues of concern to him at that time? A. Yes, I do. He expressed that he did not believe in evolution, and he also said that if evolution was part of a biology curriculum, creationism had to be shared 50/50. Q. Did you take notes during that board meeting? A. Yes. Q. What did you write down generally during that board meeting? A. Just different notes that people had said. I wrote down a couple of things that were concerns of mine also. Q. When did you take these notes? A. As I was attending the meeting. Q. And as the people were speaking? A. Yes.	Section 4 notes
Section 5 Q. Now, I'd like you to take a look at what's been marked as P-641. It's in the notebook in front of you. Do you recognize P-641? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what it is. A. It's the agenda from the board administration -- excuse me, board administrative retreat from March 26th, 2003. Q. And do you know where this document came from? A. It came from my home. Q. And how was it that, tell us how it came to be in your home. A. Well, it was in a pile of board information that I still had. Q. And is there anything written on this document about what Allen Bonsell said at that meeting in March of 2003? A. It has, "Allen - American history, founding fathers." Then "50/50 evolution versus creationism," and then an arrow from evolution, "Does not believe in evolution." Q. Now, do you remember anything else that Mr. Bonsell said at that meeting? A. No.	Section 5 notes
Section 6 Q. I'd like you to look at the second page of what's been marked as P-641. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And what's that? A. These were the school board members' issues from the previous year. Q. And was it part of the first page of P-641? A. It was on the back of that document. Q. And do you know who created this? A. I believe Dr. Nielsen created it. Q. Do you know how he created it? A. I believe what he did as school board members were talking about their issues, he jotted them down and then kept them and distributed them. Q. And there's a note on there under the name Allen Bonsell? A. Yes. Q. Do you see that? A. Yes.	Section 6 notes
Section 7 Q. Can you please read what it says under number 1 and 2 under Allen Bonsell? A. Creationism number 1. Number 2, prayer. Q. And do you remember him saying that? A. Not at that time, but I do remember him talking about creationism. I remember him talking about creationism, because that spurred me to go to the high school to go talk to administrators about it. Q. And tell me the circumstances under which you went to the high school and talked to administrators about that. A. It was after I heard Allen Bonsell speak about creationism I talked to Bob Hamilton, who at that time was the principal of the high school, and Larry Reading, who was the assistant principal at the high school, and I was expressing my amazement that a school board member would want creationism as part of a biology curriculum. Q. And if you'd just please turn to the first page of 641 again, those notes that you read? A. Yes. Q. Whose handwriting is that? A. That's mine. I'm not proud of that.	Section 7 notes
Section 8 Q. Now, we're going to move off that exhibit for just a minute now, and I'd like to ask you about a different subject. Did the board approve funds for a biology textbook in 2003? A. Yes. Q. Were you on the board at the time? A. Yes. Q. Did this approval for funding cover any other textbooks? A. Yes. Q. What textbooks did it cover? A. It covered all the textbooks that were going to be bought that were part of the science curriculum, and also family and consumer sciences. Q. Was there any schedule for buying textbooks? A. The now superintendent Richard Nielson, who had been when he was the assistant superintendent had established a 7-year curriculum cycle, which was very beneficial in terms of budgeting I thought. Q. What month of 2003 was it that the funding for the science textbooks was approved? A. June. Q. Now, after that approval for the funding of the science textbooks did the board approve the purchase of a biology textbook? A. No. Q. Did you raise the issue at any time when you were on the board? A. Yes. Q. How did you raise it? A. I repeatedly asked what the status was of purchasing the biology book, and not only the biology book. There were some chemistry books that hadn't been ordered, and there were also some family and consumer science books that hadn't been ordered, and I know at one point, and I believe it was August of that year, I even made this motion myself to approve those books since they had already been approved in the budget, but they died, that motion died for lack of a second. Q. And did anybody on the board tell you why the approval of the purchase of the textbook was not passing? A. No.	Section 8 notes
Section 9 Q. Did this affect your daughter? A. Yes. Q. What grade was your daughter in at the point? A. My daughter was in 9th grade September of 2003. Q. How did this affect your daughter? A. She didn't have a biology book to take home. There were biology books on the shelf, but they were merely used as reference. It was my understanding that they weren't matching the curriculum, and the teachers were hoping to get their new biology books that they had reviewed and had been approved in the budget. Q. Now, your time on the board I believe you testified was over in November of 2003? A. Yes. Q. Did you raise the issue of the approval of a purchase of a biology textbook after your term on the board expired? A. Yes. Q. And how did you raise it? A. I would approach the school board at a public session during public comments and ask the status of the biology books. Q. How many times did you raise that concern? A. I think altogether when I was on the board and off the board it may have been five or six times. Q. And what happened when you raised it with the board in those cases? A. I would pretty much get a non-answer.	Section 9 notes
Section 10 Q. Did you attend a meeting of the Dover area school district board of directors on June the 7th, 2004? A. Yes, I did. Q. Why did you go to that meeting? A. It was still, the major area of concern was these books hadn't been approved. I mean, my daughter had already gone through biology and didn't have a biology book. Well, the chemistry books hadn't been approved yet, and she was going to be taking chemistry. I was really going to be upset if she was going to be in a class that didn't have a chemistry book to take home. Q. Now, I'd like you to take a look at what's been marked as P-42 in your notebook. Matt, can you please put it on the screen? Take a look at P-42 and tell us what it is. A. This is the school board planning agenda meeting from June 7th, 2004. Q. I'd like to focus on the language that I'm going to have highlights in bold from P-42. Do you see those words "planning meeting"? A. Yes. Q. What does that mean? A. That means that it's scheduled as a planning meeting, and what the practice of the school board had been, the first meeting of the month typically was a planning session. I mean, there might be an action item, but that would be if there's for instance like an emergency appointment, typically that was the planning meeting. Then the second meeting of the month was the action meeting. Q. I just got a glass of water and you're actually doing more talking than me. Would you like a glass of water? A. Please. Thank you.	Section 10 notes
Section 11 Q. Now, did you see this agenda at or around June 7th, 2004? We're on P-42, ma'am. A. Yes. Just to make sure, yes. Q. Can you tell us if this agenda shows that the board was scheduled to consider approval of any textbooks? A. Yes. Q. Which textbooks was it scheduled to consider approval of? A. Chemistry, and family and consumer science. Q. What about approval for biology? Was that -- A. No. Q. Did you speak at that meeting? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what you said at that meeting. A. As far as I can remember, when I'm looking at the agenda and I see that well, there were science books, chemistry and family and consumer sciences ready to be approved, but there was no biology books. So I felt that I just had to approach the board one more time and ask them why the biology books were not scheduled for approval. Q. And is that what you said? A. Yes.	Section 11 notes
Section 12 Q. And do you recall what the board said back to you? A. I do recall that Bill Buckingham said to me, "Well, the biology book is laced with Darwinism." Q. Who is Bill Buckingham? A. Bill Buckingham was a school board member at the time. Q. Did he have responsibility for any particular committee on the board at that time? A. At the time he would have been chair of the curriculum committee. Q. What did you do after Mr. Buckingham made that comment about laced with Darwinism to you? A. I said, "So this is about evolution." Q. Did you say anything else? A. No. Q. And did he say anything else? A. At that time I don't recall that he said anything else.	Section 12 notes
Section 13 Q. Tell us what happened next. A. I sat down, and there might have been some kind of conversation going on, because I sat down, and as I was sitting down a student who had graduated with my son was sitting at that same table, and he was alarmed by what had just happened, and he said to me, "Mrs. Callahan, would it be okay if I got up to address the school board?" And I said, "I would think so. It's still public comment and, you know, go ahead." And he did then approach the school board. Q. And what did he say? A. He started questioning them, he explained actually that he was a biology major at Penn State, and he started to explain to them how important evolution is to a biology curriculum. And as he was explaining things to them, several of the board members were talking back to him. So it was an exchange. Q. What did they say back to him? A. They said that, "Well, okay, fine, evolution, but we need to teach creationism." They were pretty much down playing evolution as something that's credible. Bill Buckingham talked about creationism. Allen Bonsell talked about creationism. And as it went back and forth, at one point I thought Max was doing a really good job. He was staying calm and he was just repeatedly trying to explain to them what the meaning of biology was, what the meaning of evolution was, and he was getting this bantering back and forth. So at one point Bill Buckingham seemed to be getting pretty frustrated, and he said, "Well, you're a perfect example of what happens to students when they go to college. They get brainwashed."	Section 13 notes
Section 14 Q. Do you remember anything else that was said in that exchange between the board and this student? A. I also remember Noah Renwick explaining what a scientific theory was, and he explained that a scientific theory becomes a theory by repetition. In other words, if you just keep repeating it and repeating it and repeating it, whatever it is, that's how science becomes a theory. Q. I'm not sure if I asked you, can you tell us the name of this student? A. Oh, Max Pell. Q. When you say he was a student, he was a college student? A. He was a college student, yes. Q. What was his demeanor during this exchange? A. He stayed calm. I was really impressed how he was handling himself. I mean, he was a young man and these were adults kind of theatering him. They were rude at times I thought. Q. Now, do you recall Mr. Buckingham showing Mr. Pell a picture at any time during that exchange? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what you remember. A. I remember Mr. Buckingham stood up and went over to Allen Bonsell and showed him what appeared to be a picture and whispered something, there was a little exchange between the two of them, and then sat back down and started talking about this picture to Max. Q. And what did he say? A. He said something to the effect of, "you Can't expect me to believe that I was ever descended from apes and monkeys." Q. Do you recall anything else that happened at that board meeting? A. No.	Section 14 notes
Section 15 Q. Do you read a local paper? A. Yes. Q. Which paper? A. We receive the York Dispatch at our home, and any time there's a Dover issue I make sure I get the Daily Record. Q. Were you in the practice of reading the news, the local papers at that time? A. Yes. Q. Now, I'd like to show you what's been marked as P-44. Do you have that in front of you? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell us what it is? A. It's from the York Dispatch, June 8th. It's an article. Q. Who's the author? A. The author is Heidi Bubb. Q. Have you read that before now? A. Yes. Q. When did you read it? A. I know I read it within the last couple of days. Q. Did you read it at or around that time? A. Yes. Q. Now, I'd like you to look at that and tell us if that helps you remember anything else that happened at the meeting. A. Well, yes. I mean, then it became apparent that they were still going to be looking at a book that teachers and board members could approve, but it gave me a sense that they were still going to continue looking for a book that had creationism in it.	Section 15 notes
Section 16 Q. Does it help you remember anything else that happened at the meeting on June 7th of 2004? A. Yes, because when Max started talking about the issue that he was concerned that religion was going to be in the biology class, Bill Buckingham made it perfectly clear that he thought the idea of separation of church and state to be mythical. Q. Do you remember anything, does looking at this Exhibit P-44 help you remember anything else that was said at that meeting? MR. GILLEN: Excuse me, Your Honor. Just to the extent that the witness is testifying from memory, memory is one thing, but reading from the article is another. I'd request that she not read from the article as evidence of -- THE COURT: I think the objection is well founded. What you're being asked to do is look at the article and to see whether or not it refreshes your recollection as to what happened at the meeting, and you can do that. But you shouldn't refer to the article in your answer. That's inappropriate for you to do that. So if you want to take a moment and read the article, we'll give you the opportunity to do that. Or if you want to take a moment as you get asked the question you can read the article, but you must answer from your own memory. Don't recite something that you're reading from the article. THE WITNESS: All right. THE COURT: It's your memory that controls. If it's refreshed it is. If it's not, fair enough. THE WITNESS: Thank you. But I do remember when Max was showing his concern about religion as part of the biology curriculum that Bill Buckingham, you know, in an exasperated tone did say, "You know, hey, the separation of church and state is just a myth." MR. HARVEY: Do you remember anything else about that? MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, I don't want to belabor the process and I want to be fair to both parties, but it's not appropriate when the witness is asked whether she remembers for her to look at that, at the article first. She should first say she doesn't remember, and then if she doesn't and she wants to look, I understand. MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, I think I've established that the witness doesn't remember anything else, and I just want her -- THE COURT: Well, I understand Mr. Gillen's objection. It's not an inappropriate objection under the circumstances. How long is the article? THE WITNESS: I think that was it. I don't remember anything else. The last thing I remembered when I looked at the part of the separation of church and state was when Bill was so exasperated about it at that meeting. THE COURT: Then I think the answer is no to the question, and Mr. Gillen, no harm, no foul, and we can move on. MR. GILLEN: Fair enough. BY MR. HARVEY:	Section 16 notes
Section 17 Q. Now, I'd like you to turn to what has been marked as P-46, please, and can you tell us what is that? A. This is a June 9th newspaper article from the York Daily Record. Q. Who's the author? A. Joseph Maldonado. Q. Did you read this article at or around that time? A. Yes. Q. Have you reviewed it more recently? A. Yes. Q. And by looking at this article, does this help you remember anything else that happened at the meeting that you aren't already told us about? (Brief pause.) A. I don't think so, except that there was an ongoing mention of that it's really important for fairness and balance, therefore creationism needed to be taught along with evolution.	Section 17 notes
Section 18 Q. Now, after that meeting, or shortly after that meeting I should say, did you have a conversation with Mr. Bacsa about looking for a textbook? A. Yes, I did. Q. Who is Mr. Bacsa? A. Mr. Bacsa is the assistant superintendent of the Dover area school district. Q. Tell us what you can recall of that conversation with him. A. What I can recall, and I was in the administrative office area and I was saying to him, "Well, Allen Bonsell at least has finally said publicly that he's interested in creationism being part of the school district," and Mr. Bacsa said to me, "Well, I don't think you'll have to worry because they'll never find a book that includes evolution and creationism in it."	Section 18 notes
Section 19 Q. Did you attend any other -- did you know that there was a school board meeting scheduled for June 14th? A. Yes. Q. Did you attend that meeting? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Because I was out of town. Q. Did you attend any other board meetings that summer? A. No. Q. Why not? A. I was out of town. Q. And did you follow issues relating to those biology texts? A. Yes. Q. How did you do that? A. My husband would bring the newspapers to me.	Section 19 notes
Section 20 Q. And did you, in September did you attend any meetings of the Dover area school district board of directors? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember a meeting on September the 7th of 2004? A. Yes. Q. And did you attend that meeting? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what you remember about happening at that meeting. A. I remember approaching the school board during public comments, and I spoke briefly about the book "Of Pandas and People," because at that time I had read it and I was very concerned about the book being considered at all as a reference book, and because I was so concerned, and I guess at the time there's certain, there had been a lot of comment about the book, I was encouraging Allen Bonsell to follow past practice of the board, which is to allow public comment or to have a planning meeting the first meeting of the month and an action meeting the second meeting of the month, so whatever action the school board was planning to take on this issue there would be plenty of time for the faculty and the community and even board members to find out about as much as they could about whatever they were going to decide to do. Q. Why did you raise that issue? A. Why? Q. Yes. A. Well, because I was really concerned about this book being part of the biology curriculum. Q. Do you remember anything else that happened at the meeting on September the 7th? A. On September 7th? Is that what you said? Q. Yes. A. No, only that I basically didn't get an answer from Allen when I was trying to have him make a commitment that yes, he would strive to follow past practice.	Section 20 notes
Section 21 Q. Now, I'd like to ask you to look at what's been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 679. Can you tell us what that is? A. It's a news article on September 8th from the York Daily Record. Q. And who's the author? A. Lori Lebo. Q. Does looking at that article help you remember anything else that happened at the board meeting on September the 7th, 2004? (Brief pause.) A. I mean, I remember saying that to Lori that this is just one more embarrassment for Dover, because I really was appalled by that book "Of Pandas and People." Q. Anything else you recall from that meeting after reviewing that article? A. No.	Section 21 notes
Section 22 Q. Do you remember a meeting on September the 13th of 2004? A. Yes. Q. And did you speak to the board on that occasion? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember what you said? A. I remember I wrote out a statement with what I wanted to say, because I really wanted to try to make an impression on the board of how inappropriate I thought the course of action they looked like they were taking was. Q. Did you save your notes on that statement? A. Yes. Q. Please turn to what's been marked as P-668. I'm not going to ask you to look at all of this. It's a series of, a collection of handwritten note, and I'd just like to ask you to turn to page 1033 in that document. It's actually the last page of the document. A. Okay. Thank you. Q. Are you at that page? A. I am. Q. Can you tell us what that is? A. These are the notes, or the written statement I brought with me to that September meeting to read to the school board. Q. And looking at that, does that help you remember what you said to the board on September the 13th of 2004? A. Yes.	Section 22 notes
Section 23 Q. Please tell us what you said. A. May I read it, or do you want me to -- MR. GILLEN: No, Your Honor. I mean, she may not read the statement. If she can remember, that's fine. But it is hearsay. THE COURT: What counsel is attempting to have you do is to have you look at that to refresh your recollection as to what you said. You don't have to recite it verbatim. If it refreshes your recollection you can, with your recollection refreshed you can paraphrase or summarize if that refreshes your recollection what you said at the school board meeting. But you shouldn't read it from the note. THE WITNESS: So do you need me to read the entire thing first and then say what I said, or may I look at it and comment -- THE COURT: You certainly may have all the time you need to take a look at it, and if it refreshes your recollection then you can answer the question as to what it is that you said. This is not a test to have you recite it verbatim. If it refreshes your recollection then you can summarize or answer the question, but Mr. Gillen's objection is that you cannot read the note into evidence. That's quite right. So if you do it for that purpose, that's appropriate. THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. THE COURT: And while she's doing that let me ask counsel, it looks like you're going to be in with this witness for a while. MR. HARVEY: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: While don't we cover this question and then we'll break for lunch, or if you have several questions in this area, why don't you finish this area as to what you said at the meeting and then -- MR. HARVEY: I was, I was just going to ask her this question, ask her to tell us what she can remember saying, and I believe, Your Honor, that that does come in as a past recollection recorded, so that she could read the statement. And if she remembers reading the statement I believe she could read it. MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, she's testified that these are notes of the statement she was going to make. I think that by any reasonable measure that's not recollection recorded. It's something she believes that she took with her to the meeting. THE COURT: We could debate the finer points of what is past recollection recorded and we might not resolve it, but we're going to get a summary of the statement I suspect after she reads it. So I'll choose not to do that. MR. GILLEN: And I wouldn't deprive the witness of a recollection. THE COURT: All right. So we won't go to the more, to the finer points of past recollection recorded. We'll use the reference. THE WITNESS: I absolutely remember reading this statement at the school board meeting. MR. HARVEY: And would you please read it for us? I'm sorry, Your Honor, Mr. Rothschild had spoken to me when you last spoke, and I didn't hear your last comment. THE COURT: It's always a problem when you have co-counsel. MR. HARVEY: I know, I know, and I'll talk to him about that over lunch, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Rothschild goes to the penalty box. You can restate the question. BY MR. HARVEY: Q. That document that you're looking at that has the Bates number P-01033 on the bottom, can you tell us what that is? A. This is a document, this is a copy of the papers that I brought with me that I read at the school board meeting. Q. And did you read that verbatim? A. I read it verbatim. Q. Would you please read that for us? A. I have -- MR. GILLEN: Your Honor? THE COURT: No, it's not, we're not going to read the statement in. So that my ruling is clear, I don't view it -- if you want to break here and we want to debate this and you want to give me some time and you want to do it that way, I don't see it as necessarily past recollection recorded for the argument that Mr. Gillen made. However, we can do this two ways. We can break here, hold the thought, I'll come back and I'll rule, or alternatively you can have it refresh her recollection and she can having had the recollection refreshed testify as to generally what she said. In other words paraphrase or summarize what she said, your choice. BY MR. HARVEY:	Section 23 notes
Section 24 Q. I'd be happy for you to summarize what you said at that meeting based on your review of the statement now. A. The first thing that I did say is that the book was absolutely not appropriate for 9th grade. I then said that the book claimed to refute scientific biological origins, but I thought it was absolutely religiously based. And the third thing I said was that I urged the school board to really consider this strongly and to remember the oath of offices they took that they were sworn in as school board members, because I thought that this could lead to an expensive and protracted lawsuit and it would be harmful to the students and the district. Q. Do you remember anything else you said? And you can look at it again. A. Oh, I remember mentioning also that this had absolutely nothing to do with balance and fairness, but that it was merely introducing religion into the biology curriculum, and to pretend otherwise was pretty preposterous. MR. HARVEY: Thank you, Your Honor. I have no further -- I mean, I have more questions. THE COURT: For the witness. MR. HARVEY: But on this line of questioning I'm done, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. That will mark an appropriate time to break for lunch. We will break until approximately 1:45. We'll reconvene at that time for our afternoon session. We'll continue with this witness at that time.	Section 24 notes

Day 2 (27 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Direct (continued) of Aralene Callahan

Section 25 THE COURT: All right. We'll continue then with this witness on direct. (Whereupon, ARALENE CALLAHAN, resumed the witness stand.) DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. HARVEY: Q. Mrs. Callahan, did you attend a meeting of the Dover Area School District Board of Directors on or about October the 4th, 2004? A. Yes, I did. Q. I'd like you to take a look at what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 78 in the binder before you. Have you had a chance to look at it? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me what it is? A. It's the planning meeting agenda for Monday, October 4th. Q. And can you please tell me whether there's anything on the agenda for the meeting about a change to the biology curriculum? A. No. Q. Is there anything there under curriculum at all? A. Yes, there is an FYI from Dr. Nilsen. Q. Are you looking at page 1 of the page that has the base number 135? A. Yes.	Section 25 notes
Section 26 Q. Please tell us what it says there about, under curriculum? A. It says, the superintendent has approved the donation of two classroom sets, 25 each, Of Pandas and People. The classroom sets will be used as references and will be made available to all students. Q. Now I'd like to ask whether you attended the meeting of the board on October the 18th, 2004? A. Yes. Q. And why did you attend that meeting? A. Because I was concerned about the curriculum change that I knew was supposed to happen on October 18th, not for anything that was on the planning meeting, but because Mike Baksa had given me a sheet of paper with potential curriculum changes on it because I was a member of the district curriculum committee. And that was a few days before the October 18th meeting. Q. Please take a look at what's been marked and is in your notebook as Plaintiff's Exhibit 87. Do you have that in front of you? A. Yes. Q. What is it? A. That's the agenda for the board meeting of October 18th, 2004. Q. Now please tell us what's listed on that agenda under curriculum? A. Under the heading of curriculum is the addendum. Q. What does it say? A. It says, to approve changes to the biology I, grade 9 planned course curriculum guide for the 2004-2005 school year. In the background information, copies of the changes have been sent to the district curriculum advisory council and the science department.	Section 26 notes
Section 27 Q. Was this curriculum change on the planning meeting agenda? A. No, and that's why it's in bold print and it's an addendum item, to indicate it was not part of the planning meeting. Q. Was this a concern to you at the time? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. Because -- I mean, I really thought it was always an important practice to have items brought up at a planning meeting so there would be enough time for the faculty and community members to respond to anything that was going to be changed. And, I mean, this was even bigger because there certainly had been a lot of attention to it. There were a lot of people who had a tremendous amount of problems with -- well, what end up happening and what was happening in the district at the time. Q. Now there's a reference there to the district curriculum advisory council. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And do you know what that is? A. Yes, that's a committee that's made up of board members, administrators, faculty, and community members. Q. And were you on that committee at that time? A. Yes. Q. Were you on that as a board member or as a parent? A. As a parent.	Section 27 notes
Section 28 Q. And did you receive a copy of the changes as referred to in the curriculum -- excuse me, the agenda? A. Yes, a few days before the meeting. Q. How did you receive that? A. I don't remember if they were mailed to me or if Mike Baksa handed them to me at some point. Q. Was a meeting held of that committee? A. No. Q. Did you respond in any way to receiving that proposed curriculum change? A. Yes. It was verbal, but I said to Mike Baksa, I am formally making a request that this change be turned over to the district curriculum committee because it's the district curriculum committee that reviews changes in curriculum and gives it approval for those changes.	Section 28 notes
Section 29 Q. Did you speak at the meeting on October 18th? A. Yes. Q. Can you remember what you said, and please tell us? A. I know I spoke about urging, strongly urging the board to return this change, potential change to the district curriculum committee so it could be reviewed. And also, I thought it was important to give the public time to respond to it, like I had said before. I also -- I know I read a paragraph from the book Of Pandas and People, and I asked the board at that time if the paragraph that I read was still accurate. And the reason I wanted to know that was because that particular paragraph that I read had been footnoted from 1977 and -- 1977 is pretty old in a science book, and I wanted to make the point that virtually all the footnotes seemed to be 20 or 30 years old. And I think anybody who's familiar with science realizes that when you publish a science book, you run the risk of the day it's out, that it's going to be outdated. And the thought of -- I mean, that was just one example that I wanted to drive home to the school board, that you couldn't possibly consider this a valid science reference book when you had so many footnotes that were 20 and 30 years old. I then -- I had with me many comments from scientists regarding the book Of Pandas and People, and I went down and I read just a few of them. But I did inform them there were certainly many more, and I could go on and on, that I had not found any scientist who considered this worthy of being called a scientific reference book. I might have said some other things, but I don't remember. Q. Do you remember if you said anything about you being on the district curriculum committee? A. Yes, because that's, you know, part of the reason that I was on the district curriculum committee, and I was urging it because I knew the practices of the district curriculum committee, and changes that happened within the district concerning curriculum went through that committee.	Section 29 notes
Section 30 Q. What did you tell the board about that on October the 18th? A. That I thought they were bypassing a step that had been past practice, and I really felt like it was starting to look like they were just railroading this through the district, and they actually didn't want any input from any scientists or science -- scientists or any of the science teachers or even any of the community members at that point. Q. Do you remember anything else you said at that meeting? A. No. I might have said something else. I don't remember. Q. Do you remember what else happened at the meeting? A. I know. Also during public comment, there were quite a number of community members who stood up and spoke. They spoke about the legal issues. They spoke about their concerns for the science behind the book Of Pandas and People and also this curriculum change. There were maybe a dozen people who spoke, all of them very, very concerned about this book being introduced and this curriculum change. And I do believe there was one person who did speak in favor of it. Q. Do you recall any discussion among the board members about their reason for making the curriculum change? A. No, because people did ask about that. I mean, I know there was one person -- there could have even been several people who asked about the scientific method behind intelligent design, and there was no answer to that. There were never -- most of the questions or the concerns that anybody brought up were really not responded to by the board.	Section 30 notes
Section 31 Q. Do you remember board member Heather Geesey saying anything at that meeting? A. I do remember Heather Geesey saying that they should be fired. Q. And what was your understanding at the time of what she was talking about? A. That she thought the teachers should be fired if they didn't follow the direction of the board. Q. Now do you remember there was some voting at the meeting? A. Yes. Q. Do you remember the outcome of that? A. That's the vote was made to make the change in the curriculum.	Section 31 notes
Section 32 Q. Did you attend the meeting of, the next meeting of the board which, I believe, was on November the 1st? A. Yes. Q. Why did you attend that meeting? A. In between that October 18th meeting and the November 1st meeting -- excuse me. I asked if I could listen to the tapes of the October 18th meeting. And I was told only board members were permitted to listen to those tapes. So, again, I addressed the board in public comment saying I was concerned that I was not given the opportunity to listen to this tape. I thought that they were a public record that should be accessible to people in the public, and I believed that it was a violation of the freedom of information law. Q. And did anyone -- you said that at the board meeting? A. Yes. Q. And you said that you had made a request prior to the board meeting -- A. Yes. Q. -- to listen to the tape. Who did you make that request to? A. I believe I talked to Karen Holtzapple. Q. Who's Karen Karen Holtzapple? A. She's the secretary to the business manager.	Section 32 notes
Section 33 Q. What was the policy about listening to tapes when you were a member of the board? A. I know my experience had been with the tapes that we were open about people in the public listening to those tapes. I had been with people when they had listened to the tapes. I mean, one person I remember in particular. Q. Do you know whether the board had a policy about retaining tapes when you were a member of the board? A. I know certainly at the beginning -- when I was first on the board, I mean the tapes were destroyed shortly after the minutes were taken. And then there was a discussion at one of the board meetings -- this was several years ago -- where board members were saying, you know, why can't we keep these tapes maybe six months to a year? I don't remember if the board took a vote about that. But I was left with the impression that the tapes were going to be kept six months to a year. The problem before has always been that there's not a lot of space in the district office, so that space was a consideration. But I certainly walked away from that meeting thinking those tapes are going to be kept six months to a year. Q. Do you remember at the board meeting on November the 1st whether Alan Bonsell said anything about the tapes or tape of the October 18th meeting? A. I do remember Alan Bonsell saying something to the effect, well, of course, we would destroy the tapes. We might be involved in a legal matter.	Section 33 notes
Section 34 Q. Do you remember anything else that was said on that meeting of November the 1st, 2004? A. No. Q. Do you remember Noel Weinrich saying anything? A. Not that I can -- I mean, that might have been the meeting that he got really upset and left the meeting because he was -- that might have been the meeting that he got really, really angry and because apparently Bill Buckingham had said something about his patriotism and his religious faith, and it had something to do with, you know, his religion is between his God and himself. Q. Please turn to Exhibit, Plaintiff's Exhibit 669. Do you have that in front of you? A. I do. Q. Have you seen it before? A. Yes. Q. What is it? A. It's an article by Joseph Maldonado from the York Daily Record dated November 2nd, 2004. Q. Did you read it on or about that time? A. Yes.	Section 34 notes
Section 35 Q. Now I'd like you to look at that and tell us whether -- read it first, please. And when you're done reading it, just put it down for a second, and then tell us if it helps you remember anything else that happened at that meeting. A. Yes, I do remember a few more things after seeing this. Q. Please tell us what you remember. A. I do remember Casey Brown making the suggestion that certainly this would be appropriate in a world religion class. I don't remember exactly what she said. Or something like that. And I remember Larry Schnook asking who had donated the books. I also remembered something else that I now forgot. Q. You can look at it again. A. I'm sorry. Oh, Brian Rehm also asked about listening to the tapes. Q. Now if you would please turn from that exhibit to what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 127. Do you have that in front of you? A. Yes. Q. What is that? A. That's the district newsletter that was sent to the households in Dover. Q. Did you receive a copy of that? A. Yes. Q. How did you receive that? A. In the mail.	Section 35 notes
Section 36 Q. Now Mrs. Callahan, I just want to ask you a couple other questions. Do you believe the actions of the Dover Area School District Board of Directors have caused you harm? A. Yes. Q. How? A. I think in several ways. First was that my daughter, in 9th grade, did not have a biology textbook to take home because there were board members looking for textbooks that excluded Darwinism or included creationism. Secondly, I had seen an e-mail from a professor in Texas that warned that, if Dover continued on this path of including intelligent design in their biology curriculum, he would have a hard time considering Dover students into his program, which made me think, okay, if that's in Texas, what about some of the very competitive schools in our area? What would they consider? You know, would students about to graduate have a more difficult time getting accepted in those colleges? Another area that I think it is extremely harmful to all the students, I mean, not just my daughter, but all the students who are attending the high school. I think it's clearly an attempt to change the definition of science. One, by introducing intelligent design, saying that is a scientific theory, but also by demeaning, if you will, the theory of evolution. When you introduce -- so there's students that will be graduating from Dover not having a clear understanding of what science really is. And then when you introduce intelligent design into the biology curriculum, it says, okay, it's so complex at this point, it's an intelligent designer. Well, that really stops a student from thinking more about that subject. I mean, I think it's really absurd to think that a school district could hinder a student's natural curiosity into researching an area further. And then the area also that's important is intelligent design is clearly religious. It's not my religion. I am very upset about the idea of a public school trying to influence my daughter's religious beliefs. And that probably is the most harmful. MR. HARVEY: I have no further questions. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Harvey. Mr. Gillen, cross-examine. MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor.	Section 36 notes

Day 2 (27 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Cross of Aralene Callahan

Section 37 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GILLEN: Q. Good afternoon, Mrs. Callahan. A. Good afternoon. Q. Pat Gillen. We met at your deposition. A. Yes. Q. I'm going to ask you a few questions today. Mrs. Callahan, you've testified that you had attended a board retreat for Dover Area School District in January of 2002, correct? A. Yes. Q. But you don't remember anything from that particular board retreat? A. I can't remember anything specifically about that board retreat. Q. You attended a board retreat in March, March 26th, 2003, correct? A. Yes. Q. These retreats were not deliberations made -- well, they weren't for the purpose of deliberating on district policy, is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. No votes were taken? A. I'm sorry. I'm having trouble hearing you. I'm sorry. Q. That's quite all right. No votes were taken? A. Right. Q. They were not official meetings of the school board? A. No.	Section 37 notes
Section 38 Q. Now you've testified that there was a portion of that board retreat on March 26th, 2003, where Richard Nilsen invited comments from the Board members? A. Yes. Q. And he solicited issues that might be of interest to the Board members, correct? A. I'm sorry. Q. He solicited input from the Board members about issues that might be of interest to them, is that correct? A. Yes, the board members knew to bring their issues or concerns to that board retreat. Q. And that go-around session took about two minutes, correct? A. Possibly. I remember that the administrators were each given three minutes. They took a little longer. Q. All right. But the go-around session from the board members was about two minutes? A. Probably. Q. Okay. I believe you've testified in deposition that you don't recall any comments that were made concerning the issues raised by Alan Bonsell at that March 26th, 2003, retreat? A. No, I do remember comments Alan Bonsell made at the March 26th, 2003, meeting. Q. Yes. Forgive me if my question was not precise. You don't remember other board members discussing the issues he raised? A. No. Q. I believe you've also testified that you don't remember any discussions that you had with Alan Bonsell about creationism in 2003? A. Correct. Q. You don't remember any mention of creationism at public meetings in 2003? A. Correct. Q. You don't recall Alan Bonsell doing anything to implement any desire to have creationism taught during 2003? A. Not to my knowledge.	Section 38 notes
Section 39 Q. I think you've testified that you have a Bachelor's of Science? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now if I'm correct, you were not re-elected in 2003, correct? A. Correct. Q. Is it true that several persons who ran for office in 2003 are currently on the Board? A. I think so. Q. Okay. Now you've testified that the purchase of the biology textbook was not approved in 2003, correct? A. The approval to purchase the book was not in 2003, is that what you said? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you said that you made a motion for the purchase of the biology textbook? A. All of those textbooks in August of 2003. Q. Well said. You say that that motion died for lack of a second? A. Yes. Q. At the time you made that motion, Casey Brown was on the Board, correct? A. Yes. Q. And Jeff Brown was on the board, correct? A. Yes. Q. And Angie Yingling was on the Board, correct? A. Yes. Q. They did not second your motion? A. No one seconded the motion that I recalled. I don't recall any vote being taken. My memory is, it just died for lack of second.	Section 39 notes
Section 40 Q. That's fine. Do you recall expressions of fiscal concerns surrounding the purchase of textbooks in 2003? A. No. Q. Do you recall -- can you say there were none? A. I can't say that there were none. I know that I don't recall any conversation about that because, subsequent to that time, I believe it was Dr. Nilsen, and I believe it was $50,000.00 was the amount that was allocated for the purchase of those books was set, put in a separate fund, so that if the books weren't approved in that current fiscal year, at least the money that had already been approved could be used in a subsequent year, and that might help not -- that might help the curriculum cycle from not getting really messed up. Q. Okay. So money was put aside, escrowed, I believe is the term you used in your deposition? A. Okay, thank you. Q. For the purchase of biology books? A. Yeah, and chemistry and the family consumer sciences. Q. Do you recall a discussion that the books being used for the instruction of biology in 2003 weren't current? A. I don't remember a discussion. I mean, I don't remember a discussion about it, no. Q. Okay. You've testified that the books didn't match the curriculum, correct? A. That's what was my understanding, that the books -- that there had been a curriculum change because of standards, and I think maybe what was now being taught in the middle school, it changed to the high school, that it didn't match the curriculum was my understanding as to why, at least in part, why the science department was recommending a more current science book. And it's been repeated and repeated and repeated. It's always good to have a more current science book. Q. And the change in standards that were reference is the change in the Pennsylvania academic standards? A. I believe so.	Section 40 notes
Section 41 Q. Now you've testified that you attended the first board meeting in June of 2004, correct? A. The June 7th meeting? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. And at that time, you asked why the text had not been purchased? A. Why they weren't on the agenda when the chemistry books and the family consumer science books were on the agenda to be approved at the next meeting. Q. Okay. And I believe you testified you recall some comments by Bill Buckingham? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall any comments by Sheila Harkin? A. No. Q. Any comments by Jane Cleaver? A. No. Q. Any comments by Angie Yingling? A. No. Q. I believe you testified that you didn't attend a second board meeting in June, you were out of town? A. Yes. Q. And you came back in August, correct? A. Right before school started, when that was. Q. Okay. And by that time, the textbook had been purchased, correct? A. Yes, it's my understanding that the textbook had been purchased at that time.	Section 41 notes
Section 42 Q. Now you've testified that you informed the Dover Area School District School Board that your research had not uncovered any credible science -- scientist who were willing to vouch for intelligent design theory, is that correct? A. Well, I didn't exactly do research, but I had not seen any credible scientists who had confirmed that Pandas and People book. Q. Good enough. So when you made that statement to the Board, it was based on your personal reading, correct? A. My personal reading and also information that had been sent to me. I mean, it was primarily from information that had been sent to me. I don't recall reading anything on my own about the critiques Of Pandas and People. Q. Okay. And I think you've testified, you had the sense that the Board ignored you? A. Excuse me? Q. You had the sense that the Board ignored you, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever ask them why they might be doing that? A. No. Q. Do you recall commenting that the Board had spent public money on legal fees in connection with the curriculum issue? A. Yes, I may have mentioned that it was my understanding that they had already spent $900.00 looking into this, and because it was my thought at that time, $900.00 can be a significant amount of money when you're cuttings things from the budget.	Section 42 notes
Section 43 Q. You said that you were on the district curriculum advisory committee in 2004? A. Yes. Q. And you received communications from Mike Baksa regarding the contemplated curriculum change? A. Yes. Q. Based on your personal reading, you've testified that you do not believe that intelligent design theory is a scientific theory, correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever ask other board members about whatever reading they did? A. I know at one of the Board members -- board meetings, I did distribute at least the first part -- it was a copy of the first part of the National Geographic article that came out about a year ago, and it had the definition of theory in it. I did distribute that to all board members because I was thinking, you know, maybe the problem was that the school board members just really didn't understand the scientific definition of the word theory. And also at one of those meetings, now that you're asking me, I'm remembering that I had a copy of an article from the -- a New York Times Sunday magazine. I think it was the Genesis Project was the name of that article. And it talked about all -- a lot of the scientific discovery behind origins of life. I mean, I can go a little bit into that, if you would like, what they were referring to. If you'd like me to, I can.	Section 43 notes
Section 44 Q. No, that's all right. That's fine. I know that you did some reading and you brought some reading to the attention of the Board. That's fine. Do you object to the book of Pandas being in the library? A. No. Q. If I'm correct, no child of yours has actually attended a biology class at which the statement was read, is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. I believe you've testified that you don't recall Mr. Buckingham making any statement that this country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution? A. I know I don't recall him saying anything about the Muslim beliefs part. Q. There's been at least one occasion in which you personally have called a reporter and asked for a retraction, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Mrs. Callahan, it's your belief, based on what you know, that intelligent design is religion, correct? A. Yes. Q. Do you still have your book of exhibits in front of you? A. The ones that -- Q. Yes. A. Yes.	Section 44 notes
Section 45 Q. Mrs. Callahan, I ask you to look at Exhibit 679, which was shown to you earlier today. Would you look that over, please? If you look at that article, Mrs. Callahan, you'll see that it attributes a statement to Bill Buckingham which says, board members are still fine tuning matters, including any potential legal issues that might arise from using Pandas in the classroom. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Have you looked at that? A. Pardon me? Q. Have you looked at that? Do you remember Mr. Buckingham saying that at that -- on or about September 8th, 2004? A. I do recall him saying something about fine tuning. Q. Do you recall him saying anything about consulting legal counsel? A. No. Q. But you can't say he didn't say that? A. Oh, no, I can't say he didn't say that. MR. GILLEN: I have no further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Gillen. Mr. Harvey, any redirect? MR. HARVEY: No redirect, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Ma'am, thank you. You may step down. WITNESS STEPS DOWN	Section 45 notes

Discussion of Exhibits

THE COURT: And let's take the exhibits that we have for this witness. MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, P-641. THE COURT: All right. 641 is the exhibit that had to do with the retreat information, I guess, with the inner lineations in her handwriting, is that correct? MR. HARVEY: With the exception of the handwriting, Your Honor -- oh, yes, that's correct. Yes, we move that entire exhibit into evident. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. GILLEN: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. 641 is admitted. P-42, I have next, is the June 7th, 2004, planning meeting agenda. Are you moving for the admission of P-42? MR. HARVEY: We are moving for the admission of that, Your Honor. MR. GILLEN: I object, Your Honor. There are handwritten notations which have no foundation. THE COURT: All right. Let's look at 42. MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, we're not moving for admission on the handwritten notation, just the exhibit on -- THE COURT: Now wait. MR. HARVEY: We're not moving for admission of the handwriting, just the exhibit itself. THE COURT: Well, isn't the handwriting on the exhibit? MR. HARVEY: Your Honor, it is -- the handwriting is on the exhibits. It wasn't this witness's handwriting. And so I did not authenticate it or ask her to look at it. THE COURT: Well, that's the problem, unless you want to redact it. MR. HARVEY: I'm perfectly willing to redact it. MR. GILLEN: From my part, Your Honor, I believe that we have in evidence between us a clean copy of the official document, which is the planning meeting agenda for June 7th, 2004. I have no objection to admission of that document without handwritten notations. THE COURT: All right. Well, somehow you're going to have to redact 42 so that it becomes a clean copy. We'll call it P-42. So it will come in as P-42 without the handwriting. So that's admitted. All right now. P-44, P-46, and P-679 respectively are the June 8th, June 9th, and September 8th, 2004, records -- I'm sorry, articles from the York newspapers. Now I don't know if you want to move them in. MR. HARVEY: We do want to move them in. THE COURT: You're doomed to fail if you do at this point. MR. HARVEY: Actually, we don't intend to move them in for the truth of the matter asserted right now. We intend to move them in. This witness testified she read them, so we would move them in, not for the truth of the matter asserted, but we do reserve the right to move them in for that purpose later in the proceeding. MR. GILLEN: No legitimate purpose has been given for admission of the exhibit. THE COURT: No, I won't admit them at this point. I won't deny you the opportunity to go back and do it. I see no purpose of admitting them, particularly in a bench trial, at this point. So I will not admit those. They were properly used to refresh her recollection. Talk to co-counsel. MR. HARVEY: I actually don't need to talk to co-counsel. We're not -- she testified that she -- THE COURT: Are you sure? MR. HARVEY: I'm quite sure. She testified that she read these at the time. One of the issues in this case is the harm that's been sustained by these Plaintiffs. That goes to her knowledge of what happened. She read them. And it's all part of background knowledge, and that's why I say we're not offering them for the truth of the matter asserted. There's going to be other witnesses who are going to testify. THE COURT: I understand that. But what Mr. Gillen is obviously doing is, he's protecting the record because there is an issue as to the truth of the matter asserted in the articles, and how do you unring the bell on the articles? MR. HARVEY: Well, the Court has seen -- the finder of fact has seen the articles because we referred to them in the testimony. In other words, there's no way to unring the bell necessarily, but -- THE COURT: That's my job. MR. HARVEY: That's your job, exactly. They're not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. THE COURT: You can unring this bell. I don't know how else we do it. Mr. Gillen, what did you want to say? MR. GILLEN: The law observes a distinction between what's shown and what's admitted. THE COURT: I have to agree with Mr. Gillen as to that. I'll revisit the articles. You know, I gave you latitude in allowing you to have her refer to them. If you have a better argument than that, I'll hear it. MR. HARVEY: I have only one other argument, Your Honor. THE COURT: I was going to say, if you don't want to assert it now, I'll hear it later. MR. HARVEY: I think I'll let you know. That is that, we're offering them for the effect on the community. One of the issues in this case is endorsement of religion, and these were published to the Dover community, and there will be testimony that they were seen by others. And I think they are relevant for that purpose. Again, that's not a hearsay purpose. THE COURT: Well, as we know, there remains an issue as to whether or not you're going to be able to have testimony by the reporters who you've called as fact witnesses. I think the testimony of those reporters could allow the articles to be admissible under the residual exception in Rule 807. We're not there yet. So rather than chew this up at this point, that's why I say, I'm not going to admit them on the effect prong under Lemon at this point, but I'll -- we'll revisit that if and when that's what you're left with. Now you may not be left with that, depending on what you get. Based on what I'm hearing, I don't know. I want to talk to counsel at the break about that issue. But that's another issue altogether. All right. So we'll not admit them at this time, but without prejudice to reassert that argument. I'll rely on you to to reassert the argument unless and until you have some other mechanism to get them in under 807. All right. That leaves then P-668, which is the notes and statement, which I assume you're not moving that in. MR. HARVEY: I am not moving that into evidence. THE COURT: All right. P-78 is the October 4, 2004, planning meeting agenda. Any objection to that? MR. GILLEN: If you'll forgive me, Your Honor. Let me take a look at it. THE COURT: Likewise, P-87, you can check that, is the October 18th, 2004, board meeting agenda. MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, we have no objection to the admission of P-78. THE COURT: How about 87 then? MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, we have no objection to P-87. THE COURT: All right. P-78 and P-87 are admitted. Finally, I have, subject to Mr. Harvey, if I didn't get everything, I have P-669, which is likewise the article. I would intend to rule the same way. MR. HARVEY: Understood. THE COURT: As to the York Daily Record, November 2, 2004, article that makes up P-669. Again, without prejudice, we'll not admit it at this time, but we'll allow counsel to argue that point later. MR. HARVEY: Understood, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MR. HARVEY: I don't believe we addressed P-127, which I used with Ms. Kitzmiller. THE COURT: P-127 is? MR. HARVEY: That's a copy of a newsletter that was sent. THE COURT: Well, actually you put it up, my recollection is. MR. HARVEY: I'm sorry. It came in through Mr. Miller. Never mind. THE COURT: Like wise, I don't recall you asked a question. You put it up, and I don't think you ask a question anyway. Well, it's in, I think. COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. THE COURT: All right. Anything further, Mr. Harvey? MR. HARVEY: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, just for your information, I understand the reporters have appeared for the depositions but refused to comply. THE COURT: Well, we'll take that up. I want to talk to you at the break at that because I want to clarify exactly what the circumstances are, unless you feel that we need to -- are they assembled and waiting for something now? MR. GILLEN: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Have they adjourned? MR. GILLEN: The deposition has been adjourned due to the witnesses' failure to comply. THE COURT: We'll take it up at the break then. Mr. Harvey.

Exhibits notes

← Previous page

Next page →