RationalWiki:Kitzmiller v. Dover annotated transcript/P017

← Previous page

Next page →

Day 4 (29 Sept 2005): Morning Session - Direct of Carol Brown

Section 1 THE COURT: Be seated, please. All right, we remain in the plaintiff's case, and your next witness? MR ROTHSCHILD: Good morning. Your Honor. Plaintiffs call Carol Brown to the stand. (Carol Brown was called to testify and was sworn by the courtroom deputy.) COURTROOM DEPUTY: Please be seated and state your name and spell your name for the record, please. THE WITNESS: My name is Carol Honor Brown. That's C-A-R-O-L, H-O-N-O-R, Brown, B-R-O-W-N. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR ROTHSCHILD: Q. Good morning, Ms. Brown. A. Good morning, sir. Q. You spelled your name Carol Brown, you stated your name Carol Brown, but you also go by another name? A. Yes, sir. I'm also known as Casey Brown. Q. Thank you. I've put a binder of exhibits in front of you that we'll be referring to during your testimony. They will also be projected on the monitor before you and on the large screen over to my right. A. Thank you, sir. Q. Where do you live, Mrs. Brown? A. (Address in Dover PA supplied, redacted by RationalWiki) Q. How long have you lived there? A. Since 1983. Q. Can you describe your educational background? A. I'm a college graduate, sir, with some post graduate work. Q. Where did you go to college? A. I attended several college, including Millersville, Trenton State College, and Rutgers State University. Q. What did you take your degree in? A. Secondary education, sir. Q. And you said you did some graduate work? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Can you describe that? A. I did graduate work pursuant to archaeology, but I didn't complete my work. Q. Are you married? A. Yes, sir, I am. Q. And what is your husband's name? A. My husband's name is Jeffrey Allen Brown, that's capital J-E-F-F-R-E-Y, A-L-L-E-N. B-R-O-W-N. Q. And we can get some of the spellings later if the court reporter needs it, but that's quite all right. He'll be glad you got it right. Do you have any children? A. Yes. We each have a child from a previous marriage. Q. And did those children attend schools in the Dover area school district? A. They both did, sir. Q. Do you work? A. No, sir.	Section 1 notes
Section 2 Q. Have you ever worked? A. Yes, sir, I have. Q. Prior to retiring what was your last job? A. I was a correspondent, a newspaper reporter for the York Dispatch, the York Sunday News. Q. Why did you retire from that job? A. I realized that I was in a position of conflict of interest when I was sworn on to the board. Friends of mine who were fellow reporters sometimes asked me questions that I could not in good conscious answer unless I broke the oath I took as a school board director. Q. When did you become a school board director or a member of the Dover school board? A. 1995, sir. Q. And how did you become a member of the school board? A. I ran a write-in campaign to fill out the uncompleted two-year portion of a four-year term. Q. And did you have further elections? A. Yes, sir. I was reelected two more times. Q. What were the complete dates of your service as a member of the Dover area school board? A. December of 1995 until October 18th of 2004.	Section 2 notes
Section 3 Q. And why did your tenure end on October 18th, 2004? A. I resigned. Q. Why did you resign? A. I resigned because I was not in agreement with the direction the board had chosen to go in, and I realized that I could no longer fulfill my obligations to the members of the community and to the students. Q. Was there any specific issue that you disagreed with the direction of the board? A. It was the issue of intelligent design, sir. Q. The change in the biology curriculum? A. Yes, sir. Q. Has your husband ever been a member of the board? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what were the dates of his tenure on the board? A. I will be honest, sir. I'm not sure. He was on the board for five years. Q. And when did his tenure end? A. His tenure also ended the same night as mine. October 18th, 2004.	Section 3 notes
Section 4 Q. During your tenure on the school board did the school board have committees? A. Yes, sir. Q. And do those committees have chairpersons? A. Yes, sir, they do. Q. How are those chairpersons selected? A. The chairpersons are selected by the sitting president of the school board, sir. Q. Do the committees of the Dover school board, and you know, we can confine this to the time you were on the school board, did that include a curriculum committee? A. Yes, sir.	Section 4 notes
Section 5 Q. I've heard in this litigation actually multiple curriculum committees. Can you distinguish between the various kinds of curriculum committees that were in operation in the Dover area school district? A. Yes, sir, there are three basic kinds of committees in general and the curriculum committees in particular. The first is a citizens advisory committee for the curriculum. That is comprised of interested members of the community who wish to volunteer their time, usually under the aegis of an administrator of district, very often the assistant superintendent, sometimes the superintendent, sometimes the building principal. Then there is the district curriculum committee which is comprised of teachers and department heads. Also under the assistant superintendent, curriculum is part of his job, and then there is the board curriculum committee. It is comprised of a committee chairperson, and no more than three members of the board. The president, the current president of the board is ex officio member of all four committees. Q. Have you ever served on the board curriculum committee? A. Yes, sir, I have. Q. Were you serving on the board curriculum committee at the time of your resignation? A. Yes, I was, sir. Q. And were you serving on it throughout the 2004 year? And I mean calendar year, not school year. A. Until the point of my resignation, sir.	Section 5 notes
Section 6 Q. Can you describe how each of these three committees figure into the development of curriculum in the Dover area school district? A. Curriculum is put together by a combination of people. It usually begins with the district committee comprised of the teachers and any involved administrators. The curriculum may be revised because of changes mandated by the state or changes in the subject matter itself. Also going along with that would be changes in textbooks, the need for new textbooks or additional textbooks. The district committee would get input from the citizens advisory committee. They're very much a part of this, and the recommendations would then come back to the board and the board would meet both in conjunction with the teachers of the district committee as well as by itself, and then the members, the chairperson of the curriculum committee would bring any needed changes or textbooks to the full board for a vote during a regularly scheduled board meeting. Q. In the case of this curriculum advisory committee, this citizens committee, would they have meetings to discuss proposed curriculum changes? A. Yes, generally they do, sir, in the fall of the year. Q. And would they communicate their views on proposed curriculum changes to the other committees? A. Yes, sir, they do.	Section 6 notes
Section 7 Q. At the time of your resignation who besides yourself was on the board curriculum committee? A. The chairperson was Mr. William Buckingham, Mrs. Sheila Harkins, who was then board vice president, and myself, with Mr. Alan Bonsell, the president of the board as ex officio member. Q. And based on what you said in your earlier testimony Mr. Bonsell appointed Mr. Buckingham to chair that curriculum committee? A. Yes. That is one of the duties of the president. Q. Who were the other members of the board? I think you've mentioned yourself and your husband, Mr. Bonsell, Mr. Harkins, Mr. Buckingham. Who else was on the full school board as of the time of your resignation? A. Mrs. Jane Cleaver, Ms. Angie Yeungling, Mrs. Heather Geasey, and Mr. Noel Renwick. Q. Do you consider any of these people your friends? A. I did, sir. Q. All of them? A. Yes, sir.	Section 7 notes
Section 8 Q. Did you ever run with the other, any of these other members of the board on a slate of candidates? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Who did you run with? A. I ran with Mr. Alan Bonsell, Mrs. Sheila Harkins, and Mrs. Angie Yeungling. Mrs. Harkins and I were running for re-election at that point. Q. Did your husband Jeff Brown run with a slate of candidates? Actually let me just withdraw that for a moment. What year was that that you ran with this slate? A. Around 2001, sir. Q. Did your husband Jeff Brown ever run on the slate of, with a slate of candidates? A. Yes, sir. It was more informal however. Q. Who did he run with? A. I'm sorry, sir, I blinked. Q. I'm sorry. A. He ran with Mr. William Buckingham, Mrs. Jane Cleaver, and they endorsed Mrs. Heather Gessey, who was running as an independent candidate.	Section 8 notes
Section 9 Q. During your tenure on the school board did the administration have retreats? A. Yes, we did, sir. Q. Did the board have a retreat in January of 2002? A. Yes, we did, sir. Q. Where was it held? A. In the teachers lounge of the North Salem Elementary School. Q. At what time of day? A. It would have been early evening, somewhere around 6:30 to 7:00. Q. Who attended that meeting in January of 2002? And if you can name them best by position or type of position, that's fine. A. All of the administrators, that would be the senior administrators, including the interim superintendent, the building principals, and all of the assistant principals. I believe we then had two, the language arts supervisor, the technology coordinator, the supervisor of buildings and grounds, the supervisor of food services, the supervisor of transportation, and the supervisor of language arts. I think I have them all. Q. Did the board members also attend? A. And the board members, sorry.	Section 9 notes
Section 10 Q. Who was the superintendent in January of 2002 for the Dover area school district? A. Dr. Richard Nilsen was then our interim superintendent, sir. Q. And who was the assistant superintendent at that time? A. We did not have an assistant superintendent at that time. Q. At this retreat in January of 2002 did the members of the board get an opportunity to the identify issues that were important to them? A. Yes. Q. Can you describe how that happened, where the seating was, and how each board member had received that opportunity? A. We began by helping ourself to a buffet. Carol Stambaugh, our food services supervisor at that time, and her workers put out a buffet for us. So everyone helped themselves and found places around a large group of tables, grouped together in a large rectangular form, and Dr. Nilsen tried to seat us so that a board member was seated between an administrator, that was kind of every other one, and as we ate we had opening remarks. I had the honor to be the president of the board at that time, and I made a few remarks and Dr. Nilsen did as well. The gist of the remarks really was desire to air out some of our differences and also some of the issues in which our newer board members were interested in taking on, both praise and blame from different members.	Section 10 notes
Section 11 Q. Can you explain how the board members communicated the issues that were important individually to them? A. We took turns. Initially we had reports from each of the administrators, concerns they might have, achievements that they were very proud of that had been attained over the previous part of the school year or the previous school year, and then our board members took turns. Q. In preparing for your testimony today did you look at any documents to refresh your recollection about what you and other board members said at that January 2002 retreat? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. And what was that? A. You presented me with copies of the minutes from two different re,treats sir. Q. And when you're describing these minutes, do you remember, do you have an understanding of who prepared them? A. Dr. Nilsen had taken notes, and then he presented copies of the minutes to us at a subsequent board meeting. Q. Could I ask you, Matt, to pull up Exhibit 21? Plaintiff's Exhibit 21? And that's also on your monitor in front of you. Is this the document that you're referring to? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. Was Alan Bonsell a member of the board at the January 2002 meeting? A. Yes, sir. He had been sworn in in December. Q. And was this his first tenure on the board? A. Yes, sir, it was. Q. So he had been on the board for about three weeks at the time? A. Yes. So had Mrs. Angie Yeungling.	Section 11 notes
Section 12 Q. Do you remember what issues Mr. Bonsell identified at the January 2002 meeting? A. He and I shared some issues. One of them was policy. We had discussed uniforms. He also was very concerned with the state of morality, and he expressed a desire to look into bringing prayer and faith back into the schools. Q. Do you remember him identifying any other issue? A. He mentioned Bible, sir, and he mentioned creation, creationism. Q. What did he say about creationism? A. That he felt it should be a fair part of the, there should be a fair and balanced presentation within the curriculum. Q. Did he say what aspect of the curriculum he wanted creationism included in? A. I don't recall that he did, sir.	Section 12 notes
Section 13 Q. Was there a board retreat in the subsequent year in 2003? A. Yes, sir, there was. Q. And when was that held? A. That was in March of 2003. Q. And where was it held? A. That was also held in the teachers lounge at North Salem Elementary School. That was our normal meeting place. Q. And was it at the same time of day and evening? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did the same type of people attend the meeting, board members? A. Yes, sir. Q. Administrators? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was Dr. Nilsen the superintendent at this time? A. Yes, he was, sir. Q. And now the full superintendent, not an interim superintendent? A. Yes. Q. Was there an assistant superintendent by the time of this meeting? A. Yes, sir, Mr. Michael Baksa. Q. Did he attend the meeting? A. I believe he did, sir. Q. Did Dr. Nilsen attend the meeting? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did the board members also again attend the meeting? A. Two of the board members were absent, sir. Q. Who was that? A. I believe Mr. Buckingham and Mrs. Yeungling were absent, sir.	Section 13 notes
Section 14 Q. Did the board members identify important issues in the same manner that they had in January of 2002? A. Yes, they did, sir. Q. And did Dr. Nilsen again take notes of what the board members said? A. Yes, sir, he did. Q. Did he subsequently circulate a typed up version of those notes? A. Yes, he did, sir. Q. I'd like you to look at Exhibit 25, which will again appear on your monitor. Do you recognize this as the typed version of Dr. Nilsen's notes? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. Did you also look at this in preparation for your testimony today? A. Yes, I did. Q. But you had seen it shortly after the retreat as well? A. Yes, I had. Q. At this time Mr. Bonsell was still on the board? A. Yes, sir, he was. He was then vice president of the board. Q. Did he have any role on the curriculum committee? A. He was chairperson of the curriculum committee.	Section 14 notes
Section 15 Q. Do you remember what issues Mr. Bonsell identified at this meeting? A. Some of the same issues, but in addition we were also upgrading our technology and working on the web site for the school district, and he had some concerns about keeping the site current because we were going through growing pains at that point, sir. One of the issues was coordinating -- I'm sorry, one of his issues which had been mentioned in the previous year but which he was stronger on the second time around was the importance of teaching our students about the Founding Fathers, about early American history, and the role of faith in the founding of America. Q. Prior to this time was the Dover High School teaching students, or all Dover schools teaching the students about Founding Fathers and our early colonial period? A. Yes, but not to, there was not the emphasis that I believe Mr. Bonsell wanted to see. Q. And what specifically was that emphasis? A. His emphasis was more on making our students aware of the importance of faith in the early history and founding of our country, sir. Q. Did Mr. Bonsell say anything about creationism at this meeting? A. I believe there was a brief mention, sir. Q. And what do you remember him saying? A. He reiterated some of the same concerns he had the previous year, but his emphasis was more on faith in our Founding Fathers, sir. Q. Did he say anything at this March meeting about how he wanted creationism taught in relation to evolution? A. I believe he mentioned the sciences this year, sir. For that year, I'm sorry.	Section 15 notes
Section 16 Q. Did there come a time when the school science department requested that the board approve the purchase of new science textbooks? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what textbooks were they recommending the school district purchase? A. We were looking at changes in our chemistry, physics, and biology textbooks on the high school level, sir. Q. When did this happen? A. The first time had occurred in the 2002/2003 school year, sir. Q. In the case of biology what book did they request? A. The Miller-Levine biology published by Prentice Hall. Q. What happened with that request during the 2002/2003 school year? A. We had an extremely tight budget, not that we always didn't, but it was very much so that year. And even though it was the cycle time for science books, we put off purchase for one year.	Section 16 notes
Section 17 Q. Did the teachers renew their request for science books in the 2003/2004 school year? A. They most certainly did, sir. Q. In the case of biology did they request the same book? A. Yes, sir. Q. At the time that this request was renewed who was the chair of the board curriculum committee? A. Mr. William Buckingham, sir. Q. And Mr. Bonsell was the president? A. Mr. Bonsell was the president. Q. Who were the other members of the curriculum committee at this time? A. As I stated earlier Mrs. Sheila Harkins, who was then board vice president, Mr. William Buckingham, myself, and Mr. Bonsell, Bonsell as president of the board. Q. And you certainly did say that, thank you. A. Okay.	Section 17 notes
Section 18 Q. Were there meetings of the full board of directors for the Dover area school district in June 2004? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many? A. Two, sir. Q. Did the board have a practice at this time in the 2004 time period of having two board meetings each month? A. Yes, normally the first and second Mondays of the month, sir. Q. Were there different functions for each of those meetings? A. The first meeting of the month was what we called a planning meeting wherein we have the same agenda that we would have for the action meeting, but we took the time and discussed the items that needed discussion, questions might be raised that would then be answered prior to the vote at the action meeting. Also items wherein we were in agreement, became part of the consent agenda, which required only one vote rather than multiple votes. Q. So it's fair to say when there was a new item that was going to be voted on in a given month, you talked about it a lot in the first meeting and you voted on it in the second meeting? A. Yes, sir. The only exceptions to that would be retroactive hiring or student discipline hearings, because you're under time constraints.	Section 18 notes
Section 19 Q. In these meetings in June was there discussion of a biology textbook? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there discussion in one of the meetings or both? A. Both of the meetings sir. Q. Let's start with the first meeting. That would have been the planning meeting? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you tell us what you remember about discussion about the biology textbook in the first June meeting, the planning meeting? A. I believe Mrs. Callahan, Mrs. Aralene Callahan, who's also known as Barrie Callahan, brought the subject up during the public comments section first and questioned whether or not we were going to be voting on the biology textbook. Q. What happened in response to, if anything in response to -- A. Mr. Buckingham indicated he was not prepared for that.	Section 19 notes
Section 20 Q. Did he say anything about the biology textbook? A. He viewed the biology textbook as in his words laced with Darwinism, sir. Q. Did you understand what he meant by that comment? A. To the best of my understanding I believed that he meant he felt there were too many mentions of Charles Darwin in the textbook. There was not a balance of material. Q. Did he say anything else on the subject of biology textbook or biology? A. Yes, sir. Q. What else did he say? A. There were a number of things that were said, sir. There were questions and comments, and Mr. Buckingham stated that, "Two thousand years ago someone died on the cross for us. It is time for us to stand up for him," and he said it in the context of wanting to include creationism side by side with Darwin's theory of evolution, with a small "E," sir. Q. Do you remember him saying anything else? A. That's the most vivid recollection I have, sir.	Section 20 notes
Section 21 Q. Do you read any newspapers as a regular matter? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. What newspapers do you read? A. The York Dispatch and the York Daily Record and -- Q. What, I'm sorry? A. And the New York Times. Q. Was it your practice to read those newspapers during the June 2004 time period? A. Yes, it was, sir. Q. Do you remember reading articles about what was going on in the school board meetings, particularly on the subject of biology textbooks? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q. Would reading those articles refresh your recollection about whether Mr. Buckingham said anything else at the June meetings on this topic? A. Yes, sir.	Section 21 notes
Section 22 Q. I'm going to ask you to look in your binder at Exhibits 45 and 46. There are two -- MR. GILLEN: Your Honor, may I have permission to voir dire the witness? THE COURT: On what point, Mr. Gillen? MR. GILLEN: On the point of whether she's seen the article prior to her testimony here in court today, and if so when. THE COURT: If that's an objection that she hasn't seen them, you can interpose the objection. I think that would be the more appropriate way to do it. MR. GILLEN: Can we have a side bar, judge? THE COURT: You may. (Side bar at 10:07 a.m.)	Section 22 notes
Section Sidebar 1 MR. GILLEN: This just occurred to me, and I don't want to surprise these guys, so I apologize for that because just occurred to me. Did she look at them yesterday? And if I asked her, the judge allows me to voir dire did she look at them yesterday? MR ROTHSCHILD: I'll ask her. I mean -- MR. GILLEN: Because this is my, this is the only concern I have. We all know that there's an exceedingly fine line between refreshed recollection and recitation. If she looked at them yesterday and they refreshed her recollection, but she can't remember today, I think that that would be crossing the line. THE COURT: You lost me, but I'm admittedly dense on occasion. MR. GILLEN: Well, what I'm saying is this. I fully acknowledge you can look through documents to refresh your recollection in genuine refreshed recollection -- THE COURT: So you're positing that she may have looked at the article yesterday, and that entails what ? MR. GILLEN: No, I'm not, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying, judge, is if it refreshed her recollection yesterday -- THE COURT: She shouldn't be able to look at it today? MR. GILLEN: Right, because what is she doing today? If she can't remember it for 24 hours, you got to wonder whether it's recollection or recitation. THE COURT: Well, you know, here's what we'll do, because -- MR ROTHSCHILD: May I respond, Your Honor? I mean, it's very common for a witness to just under the pressure of testimony to forget something that is very familiar to her, and I mean it's, you know, he can certainly ask her the question whether she looked at this article yesterday and whatever evidentiary effect that has, but I could have shown her it just today. THE COURT: Well, I think this. I think the defense has raised is a valid concern that when you use these articles that there's a strong temptation on the part of a witness to, and I think that's human nature, to look down and to read from something that they just refreshed their recollection. So let's do this in an effort to be fair. Why don't you ask her to review the article, take the article from her when you do the questioning. Then she's suitably refreshed her recollection, that she can't use it, and that will take care of the objection in a Solomon-like way. I know of no better way to do it, because I don't know that the distinction that she looked at it yesterday as opposed to today, it might make logical sense, I'm not sure that there's any thought as to that, but -- MR. GILLEN: And truly it just occurred to me and it just seems -- and that's all I'm trying to do, make sure it's genuine refreshed recollection. I know that you're a judge and you'll be mindful of that. I just want to, I think the things you've sketched out is fair. THE COURT: Why don't we just have henceforth and, you know, as a rule when you're going to use articles to refresh recollection, why don't you have them read it, give them all the time they need, tell them that they have all the time that they need to read it, then snatch it from their hands. MR ROTHSCHILD: Can I have them close the notebook? Would that be sufficient? THE COURT: Or close the notebook, you know, whatever you do, because there is a natural temptation to look down. I think we all have that when it's right in front of us, and I think that will take care of Mr. Gillen's concern. MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor. (Side bar concluded at 10:14 a.m.)	Section Sidebar 1 notes
Section 23 THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Rothschild. BY MR ROTHSCHILD: Q. Mrs. Brown, have you had a chance to look through Exhibits 45, which is an article by Heidi Barnhart-Bubb in the York Dispatch dated June 9, 2004, and an article that we've marked as P-46 by Joseph Maldonado in the York Daily Record, also dated June 9th, 2004? A. May I have a moment? Q. Yes. Certainly. (Brief pause.). A. I'm sorry, sir, what was the second one? Q. Exhibit, I think I said first P-45 and the second one would be P-46. A. P-46? Thank you. (Brief pause.) A. I'm sorry, sir, I can't read the second one. I'm familiar with the gist of it, but I can't read it. Q. Just too hard to read? A. Yes, sir. The printing is too small. Q. I apologize for that. A. That's fine. Q. Could you now close your notebook? Thank you. Has that reading the article you could read, P-45, I got one of them right, refreshed your recollection about anything else that Mr. Buckingham said at the first meeting in June? A. He repeated his statement he had made in late fall of 2003 regarding his disbelief in the separation of church and state. He referred to the separation of church and state as being a myth, and he stressed the importance of teaching creationism because he felt we were doing our students a disservice. Our board president agreed with him that there were only two theories of the origins of life, and it should be taught side by side, evolution and creationism. Q. And when you're referring to the board president now, you're not referring to Mr. Buckingham but Mr. Bonsell? A. My apologies. President Alan Bonsell.	Section 23 notes
Section 24 Q. Do you remember board member Noel Renwick saying anything at this discussion? A. Mr. Renwick agreed with the concept of teaching creationism in school. Q. Did the topic of the biology textbook and the general subject matter of evolution or biology curriculum come up again at next board meeting in June? A. Yes, it did, sir. Q. And that would be typically the action meeting? A. Yes, sir. Q. What do you remember, again focusing on this subject, about what was, what was said at this board meeting? A. Mr. Buckingham continued his objection. There were comments from the audience, including what I can only describe as a Chautauqua by Mr. Buckingham's wife, Mrs. Charlotte Buckingham. Our normal public comment is limited to five minutes per person, and Mr. Bonsell as board president chose to allow her to continue on for between ten and fifteen minutes, sir. Q. Educate me, what's a Chautauqua? A. Sorry, sir. A Chautauqua to me as I grew up is an old time Christian tent revival. Very often they were held at the York Fairgrounds. I mean no disrespect, but the quote was come to Jesus meetings.	Section 24 notes
Section 25 Q. That's not an expression that Ms. Buckingham used at the meeting? It's just how you're describing these tent revivals? A. Actually she described how to accept Christ as your personal savior. She read portions of scripture and lectured us on our responsibilities to teach our children the truth. Q. Did she talk about the subject of evolution or creationism in this talk? A. She spoke very vehemently in favor of creationism and against evolution, and she exhorted us as a board to do whatever it took, even to the point of taking it to the Supreme Court, which her husband had also stated. Q. How did the board members besides yourself react to Charlotte Buckingham's statement? A. There were muttered amens, sir. Q. Do you know who said them? A. I can't tell you every one who said them, but I heard them on either side of me. Q. Who was sitting on either side of you? A. To my left was Ms. Heather Gessey, to my right was Mr. William Buckingham. Q. Did you understand Mrs. Buckingham to be speaking in support of her husband's position on this issue? A. Very definitely, sir. Q. Why did you come to that conclusion? A. She made it abundantly clear in her language, sir.	Section 25 notes
Section 26 Q. Do you remember anything said by board members at this second meeting in June relating to the subject of the biology book, evolution, creationism. A. There was disagreement between my husband and Mr. Buckingham. We were concerned about the legality. When I say we, my husband and I had discussed this at home. We were concerned that we could get into trouble if we brought in the idea of creationism and did not give equal time if you will, sir, to all faiths, to all beliefs in the origins of life. It was one of the first times that I proposed offering an elective course called comparative world religions on the high school level so that our students could be introduced to the major world faiths and the way in which they're the same and the way in which they differ, in particular the fact that every major world religion has at its core what we Christians call the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The words may vary, but the intent is the same. Q. You described I guess sort of verbal jousting between your husband and Mr. Buckingham. What did Mr. Buckingham say in that interaction? A. Mr. Buckingham in essence accused my husband of cowardice because my husband expressed concern that he didn't think we should be doing this. Verbatim he told my husband that he was glad he had not been fighting during the American Revolution because we would still have a queen on the throne ruling our country. Q. Do you remember anything else Mr. Buckingham said at this meeting on the subjects that we're talking about, the textbook, evolution, education? A. He was not concerned about us getting into any legal trouble, and he felt that in taking the position he did in desiring to go beyond our normal duties, to go into areas that had previously been ruled upon by the Supreme Court, that he was not violating his oath of office. Q. Do you remember anything else he said? A. Not one specific thing, sir. I know that when I quoted from the Treaty of Tripoli of 1787, I believe it's Section 13, to whit where president John Adams makes the point that we do not have a state religion, Mr. Buckingham was not favorable in his response, sir. Q. And is that everything that you remember? A. To the best of my recollection, sir.	Section 26 notes
Section 27 Q. Were you reading the York papers during this time period after the second meeting? A. I did at that time. Q. Do you believe that reading those articles would refresh your recollection about what occurred at this second board meeting in June? A. Probably, sir. I'm sure I've missed things. Q. Could you turn to, and I hope these are more readable than the ones I previously handed to you, I think they are, Exhibits 53 and 54 in your notebook? And again I would ask that you read them, and then close the notebook and I'll ask you some more questions. (Brief pause.) Q. Ms. Brown, are you able to read those? A. To some extent. Sorry. (Brief pause.) Q. Ms. Brown, a suggestion was made actually by everybody in the room that we can put this on the monitor and that Matt can actually make it more readable, and so let's try that and let me -- A. I'm sorry. Q. You just tell him when you're done reading that and you can go to the next page. A. Thank you. THE COURT: Take your time. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I have a vision impairment. THE COURT: I understand that, and this is not a test. You just take all the time you need to read it. THE WITNESS: I don't know how to turn it, sir. (Brief pause.) THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir. BY MR ROTHSCHILD: Q. Just let me know when you're done reading this article and we'll go on to the next one. A. I'm finished, sir. Q. Did you get all the way to the bottom there? In could you pull up P-54 and do the same for Ms. Brown, and I'll try to remember that for future documents. A. Thank you, sir.	Section 27 notes
Section 28 Q. Having read the two articles, and just for the record that's P-53, which is a July 15th article by Joseph Maldonado in the York Daily Record, and P-54, which is a June 15th, 2004 article in the York Dispatch written by Heidi Barnhart-Bubb, do those refresh your recollection about anything else that Mr. Buckingham said at this second meeting in June? A. Yes, there were a combination of things, and my apologies for mixing up the comments when they were made. The comments reported in the newspaper articles were accurate in all respects, sir. Q. Are you describing something you mixed up? A. The comments concerning two thousand years ago, and at the first meeting I had forgotten the fact that there was a representative from the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State present, and he took exception to Mr. Buckingham's stance and stated comments in very strong terms stating that we would find ourselves in legal difficulty if we continued on this path. And there was also a voice of reason. Pastor Warren Eshbach, who's a retired pastor at the Church of the Brethren, discussion on this had been going on in the community for some time, and it is obvious that there were strong feelings on all sides. That was apparent in both meetings from comments, not only from my former fellow board members but from members of the audience. Mr. Eshbach, Pastor Eshbach urged us to find a compromise position. Unfortunately by the second meeting we had not reached a compromise position since that had solidified. Q. And what do you remember about that second meeting after having reviewed the two exhibits? A. They did quote me more than I recall. Q. Let me just try and refine the question. Do you remember anything more about what Mr. Buckingham said at the second meeting after having reviewed -- A. Again he was adamant in his statements, and he apologized for some somewhat insulting remarks that he had made at the prior meeting. I personally took offense at his apology because of his tone, but he did make the apology. Q. One of the things that you testified about is that this two thousand year ago statement, I think you said it was in the first June meeting. Does reading these articles refresh your recollection about which meeting it occurred? A. I switched the meeting, sir. Q. When was that comment? A. It would have been at the second meeting, sir.	Section 28 notes
Section 29 Q. Thank you. Mr. Buckingham has testified in a deposition in this case that he didn't say that comment in either of the June meetings, he had said it at a much earlier meeting. Based on your recollection is that accurate? A. No, sir, it is not accurate. The comment that he made at the June meeting that he had made previous, there were two. One was that the separation of church and state is a myth, and the other related to anyone, anyone who does not agree with bringing faith into the schools is un-American and should return to the place from which he or she came. Those two statements verbatim, they are not exact, I know that, were first made by Mr. Buckingham at the November 10th, 2003 board meeting, and it was an entirely different subject, sir. Q. And they were repeated again in the June meeting? A. They were indeed. Q. But the two thousand years ago statement, that you recall as having being said at a June meeting? A. Most definitely, sir. There is no doubt in my mind.	Section 29 notes
Section 30 Q. Was the purchase of a biology book resolved at either of these June meetings? A. No, sir, it was not. Q. Were any other biology books under consideration at the time of these June board meetings? A. Not at that point in time, sir. We had already discussed a number of texts in curriculum meetings with the teachers. Q. And their recommendation at this time was the Miller-Levine book? A. They felt, and I would have to agree that it fits, it fit the best of any of the textbooks available into our curriculum instructional guide and also with the then current state academic guidelines. Q. After these meetings in June did the board curriculum committee meet to discuss the biology books? A. I'm sorry, sir. Yes, it did. Q. When was that? A. It was that same week I believe, and I had been in error on the date, but I believe it was that same week. Q. After the -- A. The second meeting in June. Q. And before or after the second meeting in June? A. After the second meeting in June, sir.	Section 30 notes
Section 31 Q. Where did this occur? A. To the best of my recollection it occurred in the conference room at the high school, but I may be in error. It may have been in the conference room in the administration building. Q. Who initiated this meeting? Who asked that it be had? A. I believe it was a combination. We all wanted to resolve the issue, sir. Q. Who attended the meeting? A. Representatives from the science department at the high school. To the best of my recollection Mrs. Bertha Spahr, who was then head of the science department, and ninth grade biology teachers Mrs. Jennifer Miller and Mr. Robert Eshbach who, is the son of Pastor Eshbach. Mr. Michael Baksa, the assistant superintendent. Mrs. Sheila Harkins, Mrs. William Buckingham, and myself. And Mr. Bonsell might have been there. But I cannot be certain.	Section 31 notes
Section 32 Q. What happened at that meeting? A. Basically Mr. Buckingham presented a list of his objections to the text, and we then reviewed them one by one. Q. How many objections are we talking about? A. I recall somewhere around twelve, fourteen. Q. Did these objections have any common theme? A. All of the objections, all of the page numbers that he objected to were listed in the index under Charles Darwin or Darwin's theory of evolution. Q. I'm going to ask you, Matt, to pull up Exhibit 31, please. Do you recognize this as being the Prentice Hall biology textbook that was under consideration? A. Yes, I do, sir. Q. And Matt, could you turn to page 12 of the document? And actually pull up page 13 as well. Can you these those two pages on your monitor? A. I recognize them, sir. I cannot read them. Q. And what do you recognize them to be? A. This was part of the introductory guidelines of science. Mr. Buckingham objected to Mr. Charles Darwin's inclusion, I believe it's 1859 when he first published his findings on theories of natural selection and related materials. Q. Your Honor, may I approach the witness? THE COURT: You may. Q. I'm going to hand you a copy of the book if you want to refer to that, in addition to the page on the monitor. A. Thank you, sir. This is a standard time line, sir.	Section 32 notes
Section 33 Q. And was this one of the pages that Mr. Buckingham objected to? A. Yes, sir, it was indeed his first page that he objected to. Q. And what was his objection about this page or pages of the textbook? A. There were no mentions of creationism or of God. Q. Did he object to the mention of Charles Darwin on the time line at 1859 when he published origin of species? A. He felt that we were misleading our students, not telling them the truth. Q. By putting Mr. Darwin on the time line? A. Yes, and by not including mentions of the theory of creationism and God as creator. Q. Matt, could you turn to page 408 in the textbook? And Ms. Brown, if you want to take a minute and turn to that page? A. I'm getting there. Yes, sir.	Section 33 notes
Section 34 Q. This is a page that begins with the heading "Speciation in Darwin's finches." Was this among the items in the book that Mr. Buckingham objected to? A. That was his last objection, sir. Q. And what was his objection to the page about Darwin's finches? A. Because the finch had been named for Charles Darwin. Q. Did he say anything else about what he was objecting to? A. That was his objection, sir. Q. Darwin's name precedes finches, and that made the textbook objectionable? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he say anything else about why he objected to the textbook? A. He felt that it didn't give a balanced presentation. I don't believe that he had thoroughly read the text because he made reference of man ascending from lower species of anthropoids, and that is not part of the text material, sir.	Section 34 notes
Section 35 Q. Did he say anything about what was missing that deprived the book of balance? A. The theory of creationism with God as creator of all life. Q. Did the teachers say anything in response to Mr. Buckingham's critique of the biology textbook? A. We discussed each of his objections in great length. I say we advisably because I was part of the committee. The teachers explained that in the case of the science time line that this is just standard part of any text in the sciences. It basically gives the students a reference point. They explained in great detail that they do not nor have they ever taught the origins of life. We did not have a policy concerning this, but we had custom. This was what the science teachers in conjunction with one another had to come up with in response to any student question. If a student asked about the origins of life, our teachers made it a custom to refer the students to their parents or their pastors in their home churches. They indicated they did not feel qualified to cover this subject, nor was it part of our curriculum. Q. Did Mr. Buckingham bring up any other subjects relating to evolution? A. I believe he may have mentioned some kind of tape or CD or a tape. I'm not certain if it was that meeting, sir.	Section 35 notes
Section 36 Q. Did he say anything about a mural that used to be displayed in the high school? A. Yes, sir, he did. Q. Give us some background about the mural that was in the high school. What was the mural? A. The mural was a senior art project by one of our former students. It was a wall-sized mural, and it depicted the ascent of man in a very graphic fashion, there was nudity, but it was his perception the way human beings have evolved based on his studies. Q. And was this displayed in the high school? A. When he donated it to the school it was placed on one of the walls of the science section. Q. What happened to that mural? A. When we began our building project many things were removed, and the wall, the mural was taken down. It was to be removed to safety. Our then current supervisor of buildings and grounds was deeply offended by the mural and took it upon himself to burn it. Q. Do you know why he burned it? A. He told me himself he felt that it was full of lies and it offended his religious faith, and he had a granddaughter who was coming into the high school at this point in time into the ninth grade and he did not want her or any other student to be exposed to the obscenity, sir. Q. What happened to this individual as a result of destroying the mural? A. He was reprimanded and subsequently retired.	Section 36 notes
Section 37 Q. What did Mr. Buckingham say about the mural at this curriculum committee meeting? A. He knew Mr. Reeser, they attended the same church. He was in sympathy with Mr. Reeser's actions. He felt Mr. Reeser had done the correct thing and that we were wrong to accept donations of this nature from our students or anyone. Q. Did he say why Mr. Reeser had done the right thing? A. He had removed an offensive obscene thing. Q. Did anyone respond to that statement by Mr. Buckingham at this meeting, this curriculum meeting? A. I did, sir. Q. What did you say? A. I said that it was not Mr. Reeser's place to make that decision. Q. Did Mr. Baksa say or do anything at this meeting to respond to board members' concerns about the textbooks? A. That came later in the meeting, sir. As part of our ongoing discussion I believed Mrs. Harkins, and I may be mistaken, but I think she first mentioned the idea of investigating what other districts, non-public schools were using in terms of science textbooks. By the end of the meeting to the best of my recollection Mr. Baksa had volunteered to do such research and bring the reports back to us, sir.	Section 37 notes
Section 38 Q. Did there come a time during the summer of 2004 when another book was being proposed for the high school biology class? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what was that book? A. Of Pandas and People, sir. Q. How did the book Of Pandas and People first come to your attention? A. During a phone conversation with Mr. Michael Baksa the last weekend in July of 2004. Q. What did he communicate to you? A. It was just prior to the weekend, he communicated the fact that Mr. Buckingham had proposed an adjunct alternative text. Q. And did he say it in that -- was this in a phone call or a face-to-face meeting? A. That was a phone call, sir. Q. And did he say what that book was? A. He did indeed, and told me that we had several copies within the district. Q. And did he say the name? A. Of Pandas and People.	Section 38 notes
Section 39 Q. Was this the first you had heard about Mr. Buckingham's interest in adding Pandas to the high school biology class? A. Yes, it was, sir. Q. What did you do when you heard this from Mr. Baksa? A. My husband was home, he and I discussed it and felt that we needed to try and read as much of the material as we could prior to the following week's board meeting so that we were at least cognizant of what was inside the book. Q. Were you able to get a copy of the book? A. Yes. They did not have any copies available at the district administration office, but we learned that Mrs. Harkins had borrowed one of the copies, so she was finished with it, my husband picked it up from her home. Q. Did you read it? A. Yes, sir. My husband and I took turns reading it that weekend.	Section 39 notes
Section 40 Q. Did you do anything else at this time to investigate the book? A. Yes, sir, I did, because I was totally unfamiliar with the publisher and did not know the authors of the text. I researched on-line sir. Q. What kind of on-line sites did you go to to find out information about the book? A. I researched through scientific reviews, scientific journals, and the publishing houses themselves. I was looking for reviews of this, any other text materials, textbooks that this particular publishing house had brought forth, and I found none. I also wanted to know where it was being taught within America, and in my research I learned that it was not intended for the high school level, that it was written as a college level text, and I was unable to find any high schools, public or non-public, anywhere in the United States who were using the text. Q. What conclusions did you draw about the book based on your own reading of it? A. I said it at the meeting that I found it to be poor science and worse theology. Q. And what meeting did you say that at? A. The first meeting, the meeting in August, sir.	Section 40 notes
Section 41 Q. And before we get to that meeting, what caused you to come to that conclusion upon reading the book? Why don't owe start with the poor science and we can switch to poor theology. A. Reading the material, the authors obviously had some scientific background. They had some impressive letters behind their name, but they took exhibits, facts, and seemed to twist them around to fit what they were proposing as an explanation for the origins of life, intelligent design. At no point in the text did they use the term God or creationism but, it would have been very, very easy throughout the entire text to replace intelligent design with the word creationism without changing the meaning in my opinion. Q. Did this book Pandas come up as an issue at the next school board meeting? A. Yes, sir, it did. Q. That was in August? A. Yes, sir.	Section 41 notes
Section 42 Q. Did you gain an understanding about how Mr. Buckingham wanted the book Pandas be used at Dover High School? A. Mr. Buckingham stated at that meeting that he would give us our biology book if we gave him Of Pandas and People to be used side by side. Q. When you say gave it to you, what do you mean gave it to you? A. Mr. Buckingham made it very clear that he had the votes to prevent us from passing the motion to purchase the textbooks we so desperately needed unless we were willing to agree to purchase Of Pandas and People at the same time. Q. So -- A. In essence what he said was if we voted for Of Pandas and People, he would release his votes to give us our biology text. Q. So Mr. Buckingham was going to deprive the students at Dover High School of the biology textbook that their science faculty was recommending unless he got his Pandas book? A. Yes, sir.	Section 42 notes
Section 43 Q. Was there a vote taken on the biology textbook? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what was the result of that vote? A. It was a four-four tie. We lost. Q. Because I take it a tie goes to the defense? A. Yes, sir. Mrs. Jean cleaver was not present for the meeting. Q. If it's a four-four tie the book is not approved? A. Yes, sir. Q. Same way the Supreme Court works? A. Yes, sir. I think. Q. Duly admonished. Ms. Brown, who were the people who voted for the approval of the -- let me just back up. When we're talking about approve the vote here, this is on the Miller-Levine book? A. Yes, sir.	Section 43 notes
Section 44 Q. And who voted for the approval of the Miller-Levine book? A. Mr. Alan Bonsell, the president of the board. Mr. Noel Renwick. My husband, and myself. Q. And who voted against the approval of the book? A. Mr. William Buckingham, Mrs. Heather Gessey, Mrs. Jean Cleaver, and Mrs. Angie Yeungling. I'm sorry, not Mrs. Jean cleaver, she was not present. I'm going across the table. Mrs. Sheila Harkins. Q. Thank you. A. My apologies. Q. Was there a second vote? A. Yes. Q. How did that happen? A. A person who was on the winning side of the vote has the right to ask for a revote to be taken, and after much discussion Mrs. Angie Yeungling chose to ask for a revote, and she changed her vote because as she put it, "We have to let the kids have their books." Q. So at that meeting the Miller-Levine book was approved? A. Yes, sir, it was.	Section 44 notes
Section 45 Q. Was there any vote taken on Of Pandas and People? A. No, there was not a direct vote taken. Q. What happened after that in the school district on the subject of Pandas? A. One of the things that we had done to work through a compromise on the text, and we thought we had a compromise going into the meeting regarding approval of the Levine text was to change our policy on gifts and donations. As policy chair I brought a revised policy forth on this to allow our superintendent Dr. Nilsen to have the primary responsibility of choosing to accept or reject gifts and donations. If he chose to reject, he was required to give a reason in writing. And by this time we had approved that and we did not purchase Of Pandas and People. They were donated, between fifty and sixty copies were donated anonymously to the school district, and according to that policy Dr. Nilsen accepted them. Q. You said they were donated anonymously. Did the board or the school district ever announce publicly who donated the books? A. Not to my knowledge. My only recollection on that point is that Dr. Nilsen stated they were donated anonymously. Q. Was Dr. Nilsen asked who donated them? A. Yes, he was. Q. Did he disclose that information? A. They wished to remain anonymous is I believe the way he put it.	Section 45 notes
Section 46 Q. Do you know who donated the books? A. I have heard rumors, sir. Q. You have no personal knowledge? A. Only through rumors. Q. Can you tell us who you heard donated the books? A. My understanding from various friends is that contributions were solicited in Mr. Buckingham's church, that was also Mrs. Cleaver's church, and they purchased some of the books. I understand or I heard rumors to the effect that Mr. Alan Bonsell's father, Mr. Don Bonsell, who had served on the board prior to his son, also donated some of the texts. Q. Was it your understanding that the donated books were to be placed in the school science classrooms? A. They were placed in the school science classrooms, sir.	Section 46 notes
Section 47 Q. Was there a meeting of the curriculum, the board curriculum committee, in August of 2004? A. Late August, sir. Q. Did you attend that meeting? A. Part of it, sir. Q. Who else attended that meeting? A. Because I was not there for the whole meeting I can't be totally certain, but to the pest of my knowledge science teachers were present, Mrs. Miller, Mr. Eshbach, and I believe Mrs. Spahr, and I believe all of the aforementioned board members were there. Mrs. Harkins, Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Bonsell, and Mr. Baksa. Q. And yourself? A. And myself, part of the meeting. Q. At that meeting were materials handed out? A. Yes, sir, we received materials from Mr. Baksa. Q. And would you turn to page 660 in your binder? And Matt, if you could pull up the first page of 660? And actually if you can, it may be easier just to flip throughout binder initially, Ms. Brown, just to look at the contents of the document, and when I ask you specific questions we'll use the monitor. A. Yes, sir.	Section 47 notes
Section 48 Q. Do you recognize the documents that are in your binder at Exhibit 660 as the materials Mr. Baksa handed out to you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And there are four pages to that document? A. Yes, sir. Q. The first is, it says, has the heading "Dover area school district survey of biology books used in area schools"? A. Yes, sir. Q. And there's handwriting at the top of the page in rather large letters and numbers. Whose happened writing is that? A. That's my handwriting. Q. And that depicts the date of August 27th, 2004? A. To the best of my recollection. It coincided with the curriculum meeting I had noted on my calendar at home. Q. Did you have a practice of dating the documents you received as a member of the school board? A. Yes, sir, I did, and I evidently had made, I don't recall, but to the best of my knowledge based on past practice I made an error in the date, and the date was corrected. Q. And there's also handwriting under the heading "Textbooks used," it says Modern Biology if my reading is correct. Do you know whose handwriting that is? A. Mr. Michael Baksa's sir.	Section 48 notes
Section 49 Q. Can you describe -- what do you know about this document? What is it? A. To the best of my recollection this was some of the information Mr. Baksa had obtained in talking with in this case non-public schools in the York-Lancaster area, and he explained that he had only that morning received the name of the text being used by the Christian School of York, and that this had already been typed up and that's why he hand lettered the name of the book. Q. So these were results from the investigation or survey Mr. Baksa had offered to do back in June? A. Yes. Q. And each of the schools that are listed here, Christian School of York, Delone Catholic, and York Catholic, these are religious schools? A. Yes, sir. Delone Catholic is in Lancaster I believe. Q. By this time students had a textbook, right? Miller & Levine's Biology? A. I think we had already received them by then, yes, sir. We had approved them. Q. Certainly approved them. Why was this information Mr. Baksa was circulating here still relevant? A. I'm not really sure, sir. I found this by accident. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Baksa was still looking for a supplemental book for the biology curriculum? A. It is possible, sir, he was.	Section 49 notes
Section 50 Q. Could you turn to the next page of the document? A. Yes, sir. Q. And just to be clear here, there's four pages under Exhibit 660. A. Yes, sir. Q. And that group of four documents, were they handed out together by Mr. Baksa? A. Yes, sir. Q. And were they clipped or stapled in any way? A. They were stapled, sir. Q. And were these materials handed to everybody who was in attendance at that meeting? A. To the best of my knowledge they would have been. Q. And that included fellow board members, Ms. Harkins? A. Anyone present at that meeting. That was the usual practice, sir. Q. And the board members in attendance were Ms. Harkins, Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Bonsell, and yourself? A. To the best of my recollection.	Section 50 notes
Section 51 Q. Can you tell us what this second page in this document is? A. This second page is information related to a text for Christian schools. Q. And if you look at the second paragraph of the document, does it indicate what title of that book is? A. It is Biology for Christian Schools. Q. And the publisher of that book? A. Bob Jones University. Q. Was there discussion about this page of the document? A. I don't recall any discussion, but I was not there for the entire meeting, sir. The only discussion I recall was related to the first page and the books.	Section 51 notes
Section 52 Q. Could you turn to the third page of the document, which is depicted in a landscape format, and I'd just like you to take a look at the document, I realize the writing is small, and we will, maybe you could pull up the heading on the document. A. I can read the heading, sir. Q. And why don't you read the heading of that document into the record. A. "Views on the origin of the universe and life." Q. And this was in the materials Mr. Baksa handed out? A. That was the third page, sir. Q. Do you know who had created this document? A. No, I do not, sir. Q. Matt, could you pull up the next line? And this document seems to define various propositions, "Young earth creation, or creation science; progressive creation (old earth creation); evolutionary creation, (theistic evolution); deistic evolution ('theistic' evolution)," and I'm sure I'll mispronounce this, but "deistiological evolution (atheistic evolution)." Is that accurate? A. Yes, sir.	Section 52 notes
Section 53 Q. And I want to focus now on the first two columns in this document, which are young earth creation and progressive creation, and I just want to go over -- this document seems to identify certain aspects of each of these propositions? A. I believe it does, sir. Q. And if you could, Matt, we're going to be just looking at young earth creation and progressive earth creation, and Matt, if you could go to the second row where it says "Intelligent design in the world," and in the case of intelligent design of the world this document suggests that young earth creation and progressive creation are the same, they both point to a designer? A. Yes, sir. Q. Then we get to age of the universe, and in this case there is a difference. Young earth creation ten thousand years, progressive creation ten to fifteen billion years? A. Yes, sir. Q. Going on to evolution of life, here we're back in agreement again. Both reject macroevolution, but accept microevolution? A. Yes, sir. Q. God's activity in the origin of the world? A. Yes. Q. And both say direct, but in the case of young earth creation intervention over six days, progressive creation interventions over billions of years. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And going on to origin of humanity, we're back in agreement here. Both young earth creation and progressive creation accepted Adam and Eve, accepts image of God, accepts sin? A. Yes, sir. Q. And do you understand those to be basically biblical references? A. Yes, sir. Q. And then going to the last row, which is examples of each, in the case of young earth creation the examples are Institution for Creation Research, Henry Morris, Duane Gish, answers in Genesis, and Ken Hamm, and the examples under progressive creation are the intelligent design movement, Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Hugh Ross, Bernard Ramm? A. Yes, sir.	Section 53 notes
Section 54 Q. And this is all contained in this document that the board members received? A. Yes. Q. And do you remember any discussion about this document? A. No, I do not, but as I stated I was not present for the whole meeting, sir. Q. Then there's a fourth document. If you could turn to that, Matt? And that's called "Beyond the Evolution Versus Creation Debate"? A. Yes, sir. Q. Again something that all the board members at that meeting received? A. To the best of my knowledge, sir, yes. Q. Sort of on the left-hand side of the page halfway down you see religion and philosophy? A. Yes, sir. Q. It says "Ultimate beliefs," and then for science, observations and experiments, theories and laws, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And board members got all of this? A. Yes, sir. Q. The board members at that meeting? A. When I found it, it was together. That was how we received it.	Section 54 notes
Section 55 THE COURT: If you're going to move on to a new topic -- MR ROTHSCHILD: This would be a perfect time to break. THE COURT: Yes, why don't we take a break now. Let's try to hold it to fifteen minutes. I think we'll go to about 12:15 and we'll break for lunch at that time, just to give you a notice. We'll be in recess. (Recess taken at 11:04 a.m. Testimony resumed at 11:20 a.m.)	Section 55 notes

Day 4 (29 Sept 2005): Morning recess

THE COURT: Be seated, please. We continue with direct examination by Mr. Rothschild.

Section 56 DIRECT (CONTINUED) BY MR ROTHSCHILD: Q. Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning again, Ms. Brown. A. Good morning. Q. Did there come a time when you learned that there was a proposal to modify the biology curriculum at Dover High School? A. The curriculum instructional guide, yes, sir. Q. And how did you find out about that? A. Initially from Mr. Baksa, sir, by a memo. Q. By a memo? Could you turn in your notebook and also look on the monitor, whatever is better for you, at Trial Exhibit P-73? If you could look at the first page, is this the memo that you're referring to? A. Yes, sir, it is.	Section 56 notes
Section 57 Q. And it says, "Attached is a recommended curriculum change for biology. The changes were reviewed by the science department," and did you receive that at or around September 20th, 2004? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. And on the second page is a draft change to the curriculum guide? A. Yes. Q. Or a page of that? A. Yes, sir.	Section 57 notes
Section 58 Q. And on the page that is stamped Exhibit 29 it says at the bottom, and I'm going to read it to you, because I know I'm also going to ask Matt to blow it up, but it says, "Students will be made aware of gaps in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution." A. Yes, sir. Q. And is that the recommended curriculum change that you remember receiving from Mr. Baksa at this time? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. And did you -- was this the first time you were aware that a curriculum change was being proposed? A. It was the first proposal I was aware of, yes. Q. Did you respond to Mr. Baksa? A. Yes, I did. I offered a couple of alternative wordings. Q. If you could turn to P-681, and that will appear on your monitor, were these the suggested changes in the wording of what Mr. Baksa had sent you that you proposed in return? A. Yes, it is. Q. Did you tell him anything when you gave this to him? A. We spoke very briefly, and I asked if the curriculum advisory committee was involved in the process, and he told me that Mr. Buckingham told him that it was not necessary to call a meeting of the curriculum advisory committee. Q. And that's the citizens committee? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. And did you agree with that statement by Mr. Baksa, or what he was reporting Mr. Buckingham had said? A. I didn't agree with what he was reporting. I felt that the curriculum advisory committee as per our normal pattern should be part of it. They're an integral part of the whole process.	Section 58 notes
Section 59 Q. Did you receive subsequent to this exchange a memorandum indicating that there would be a meeting of the board curriculum committee to discuss the biology curriculum? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. And Matt, could you turn to Exhibit P-75? And blow up the text, please. Is that the memorandum you remember receiving? A. Yes, sir, it is. Q. Did you attend that meeting? A. No, sir, I did not. Q. And why was that? A. I had an appointment with my ophthalmic surgeon, sir.	Section 59 notes
Section 60 Q. What was the next thing you found out about the biology curriculum? A. I learned that the teachers were not involved with the proposed changes. They were not part of the discussion. Q. And when you're referring to the discussion, are you referring to the meeting of the biology curriculum, of the curriculum -- A. Subsequent to that I know that Mr. Bonsell was there, and they came up with changes in wording beyond what had originally been proposed on the 20th I believe. Q. Did you receive any materials from Mr. Baksa with proposed curriculum changes? A. We did indeed as part of our board materials just prior, the Thursday prior to the meeting. Q. If you could turn in your notebook to Exhibit 84? And we have marked these exhibits as P-84-A, B, and C to correspond with how they were indicated as enclosures on the documents. You'll see the first is enclosure 11- A. If you could just look at P-84- A and P-84-B, were these materials you received on October 13th, 2004? A. To the best I can read they are. Q. Okay, and -- A. It's a little small. Q. And the first one says that it is, 84-A says that, "Attached are the recommended changes to biology curriculum from the board curriculum committee," is that right? A. Yes, sir. Q. And there's an attachment to that memorandum? A. Yes, there are attachments to those.	Section 60 notes
Section 61 Q. And I'm going to -- if we could go to the next page which has the attachment, and I'm going to read from the bottom section of that page. It says, "Students will be made aware of gaps, problems, in Darwin's theory and in other theories of evolution, including but not limited to intelligent design." Is that the change to the curriculum proposed by the board curriculum committee that you remember hearing about at or around October 13th, 2004? A. Yes, to the best of my recollection it is, sir. Q. And then if we could turn to 84-B, which also indicates enclosure B, it says, "Attached are the recommended changes to the biology curriculum from the administration and staff." A. Yes, sir. Q. And in that, in the bottom section of that there's an attachment to that memorandum? A. Yes, sir. Q. And in the bottom section of that, and again I'll read to make this a little easier, it says, "Students will be made aware of gaps in Darwin's theories and of other theories of evolution." A. Yes, sir. Q. And do you remember that as being the change to the biology curriculum that Mr. Baksa represented to be the recommended changes from administration and staff? A. Yes, sir. Q. Thank you. A. The difference, sir, in the main is the inclusion of under materials and resources under the previous, C, I'm not sure, the previous one is the inclusion of the reference to Of Pandas and People. Q. And is another difference that the board curriculum committee's recommendation included mention of intelligent design? A. Yes. Q. And the one represented to come from administration and staff did not? A. Correct. It used only the terms theories of evolution with a small "E," sir.	Section 61 notes
Section 62 Q. Was this the first time you became aware of the board curriculum committee's recommendation that intelligent design and the text Of Pandas and People become part of the curriculum? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there a board meeting on October 18th, 2004? A. Yes, sir, there was. Q. Did the board vote on a change to the biology curriculum at that meeting? A. They voted on specific changes to the planned instruction curriculum guide, yes, sir. Q. For biology? A. For biology. Q. Had there been an earlier meeting in October? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was that the planning meeting? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was the subject of a curriculum change for the subject of biology discussed at that planning meeting? A. I don't recall the greater amount of the discussion, sir, but it was, there were many comments made.	Section 62 notes
Section 63 Q. Let me just be clear. At this, not at the October 18th meeting but at the earlier meeting in October, the planning meeting, was there any discussion about the changes to the biology curriculum to include intelligent design at that meeting? A. Not at that, not that part of it. There was ongoing discussion about the placement of Pandas and People in the classroom. My husband and I both had objected to the placement of it in the classroom. We felt it belonged in the reference section of the library. Q. Was an actual curriculum change part of the discussion at this planning meeting? A. Not that I recall, sir. Q. Was that a deviation from custom and practice for the board not to discuss something that would be voted on at a subsequent meeting like a curriculum change at this planning meeting? A. Sir, anything related to curriculum changes at this time of the school year was unusual. Q. What do you mean by that? A. There is a normal pattern related to curriculum specifically. We begin planning for changes to the curriculum the fall of the school year before. So in planning for changes for say the 2004/2005 school year we would begin meeting, discussing, researching in fall, the fall of 2003, and this was not the case. The normal procedures were not followed at all in making this change. Q. And one way is that it happened after the school year was already underway? A. Yes, and I had never experienced that during my entire tenure on the school board. Q. And just to be clear, when school was underway for something that was to be implemented that school year? A. That's correct, sir.	Section 63 notes
Section 64 Q. And was it also unusual, putting aside the year, for something like this, a curriculum change to be voted on, when it hadn't been discussed at the planning meeting? A. It was unheard of in my experience for all of the stakeholders not to be involved in any kind of change to our planned instructional curriculum guide. Q. Do you know if the curriculum advisory committee citizens committee was made aware of this change to the biology curriculum prior to the vote on October 18th? A. It is my understanding from Mr. Baksa that he did make telephone calls to a number, if not all, of the committee, the advisory committee members. I do not know how many people with whom he spoke. Q. Do you know whether the curriculum advisory committee had a meeting about this proposed change? A. No, they did not. Q. Do you know whether they provided any input at all prior to the vote about the proposed curriculum change? A. We received a sheet containing two or, I believe two comments that Mr. Baksa had prepared. They were comments that he had received from I believe telephone calls he made to advisory committee members. I do not know who.	Section 64 notes
Section 65 Q. Could you pull up Exhibit P-151, Matt? Is this the document that you received with comments from the curriculum advisory committee? A. It is, sir. Q. And do you remember when you received it? A. We received it just prior to the beginning of our board meeting on October 18th. Q. Do you know who created this document? A. To the best of my knowledge it was Mr. Baksa. Q. And do you understand this to be his recording of what was told to him over the phone? A. Yes. That is how he explained it to us. Q. The heading is "Dover area school district curriculum advisory committee comments, comments on proposed biology curriculum changes from curriculum advisory committee." And could you read the entry for number 1? A. "According to policy, curriculum advisory committee should review changes first before going to the board." Q. And did you feel like that had not been followed in this case? A. Most definitely it had not. Q. Could you read with, there's a second statement. A. "I disagree with the highlighted statement. Maybe we should meet as a curriculum committee." Q. Did you have any understanding of what highlighted statement was being referred to? A. To the best of my understanding it was the changes in the last sentence or two sentences in the biology curriculum guide.	Section 65 notes
Section 66 Q. So just to summarize, the way this curriculum change came to a vote was irregular in the fact that the curriculum advisory committee had not been involved in the normal fashion? A. Correct, sir. Q. It was unusual in the fact that it was voted on during a school year to be implemented in that school year? A. Yes, sir. Q. It was unusual in that the teachers were not involved in that process, at least in meeting with the curriculum committee to come up with the proposed language? A. To my understanding the final wording that came from the board curriculum committee, the teachers have no part at all in that. They only learned of it the morning of October 18th. The meeting would have been that night. They met hastily and made their own comments, but they were not involved in preparing any of it, no, sir. Q. And it was also unusual in that it had not been the topic of discussion at the planning meeting, the meeting before the vote? A. That is correct, sir.	Section 66 notes
Section 67 Q. At the board meeting on October 18th did you bring these procedural problems to the attention of the board? A. Not in so many words, sir. We tried to amend what was being proposed. The minutes of the meeting do reflect that I think there were something like eighteen amendments proposed. The only change that was finally added was the teachers' note concerning, "Origins of life will not be taught." Q. And I will ask you about that aspect of the event in a moment, but did anybody communicate in the board meeting or among board members separately can we slow down here, we haven't done this right? A. My husband was very forthcoming in suggesting that we table this. We voted on tabling it. That was defeated. There were a variety of tabling motions that were defeated. Mr. Renwick was our parliamentarian extraordinaire, and he offered many of those proposed amendments. Q. But that was not successful? A. No, sir. None of them were.	Section 67 notes
Section 68 Q. If you could turn in the binder, and we'll also pull this up on the screen under Exhibit 84, we have 84-C, and it says Enclosure C, and it's dated October 18th. It says, "Attached is a second draft of the recommended change to the biology curriculum from the administration and staff." Is this something that you received as a member of the school board? A. Yes. We received it the night of the meeting, sir. Q. Okay, and there's an attachment to that document? A. Yes, there is. Q. Another draft curriculum guide? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay, and if you could turn to that page? And this is virtually impossible to read, but it says, "Students will be made aware gaps, problems, in Darwin's theory and other theories of evolution. Notice, the origin of life is not taught," and here it does indicate the reference to Pandas and People. Do you remember that as the document, the attachment to the document you received on October 18th? Is that the language you remember? A. Yes, sir.	Section 68 notes
Section 69 Q. This document uses the expression "origins of life," and you brought it up in your testimony. When you use that term in the context of the biology curriculum and the teaching of evolution, what's your understanding of what that means? A. How life began. Not simply on the earth, but in all of the universe that we know. From my own faith I believe in God the creator. Q. I just want to -- I want to get your understanding of what the term meant as it was being used in the discussion of the biology curriculum. So your understanding as it pertained to this issue. A. What the teachers did was to take custom and wanted to make it part of policy. Heretofore when students asked, as I testified earlier, when students ask about the origins of life, the teachers' custom was to refer them to discussion with their parents, to their pastors, their home churches. This had been custom, not written, and I believe from talking with some of the teachers later on that what they were trying to do was to keep this just this side of the line legally by making it written policy. You don't get into trouble with custom. It's when you get into written policy that you can get into trouble. Q. Did you understand the term as it was being used in these discussions to include for example the origin of species, including the human species? A. Yes, you could interpret it that way, sir. Q. Did you interpret it that way? A. When I say all of life I mean all of life, from the smallest single cell to the greatest galaxy, sir. That's my understanding. Q. Did you have any conversations with other board members about this specific language, what it means? A. There had been conversations through a couple of years discussing faith versus science, sir. Q. Ultimately there was a vote on the change to the biology curriculum? A. Yes, sir, there was a vote.	Section 69 notes
Section 70 Q. And I'm going to ask you -- actually let me back up for a second. You said, testified earlier when we were talking about the June meeting that one of the things you advocate is that the concepts that they were talking about like creationism should be taught in for example a comparative religions class. A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Rather than science. A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you renew that advocacy subsequently? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Did you do that -- A. At just about every meeting. Q. Did you do that at the October 18th meeting? A. Yes, I did, sir.	Section 70 notes
Section 71 Q. Was that, when you said that, were you saying that intelligence design should be taught in that arena rather than science class? A. Biology is a physical science. It is based on teaching our students about the physical senses, the world around them. Intelligent design, like any other hypothesis, is a matter of faith to me, and it does not belong in science class. It belongs in, I believe the term would be a softer class, a softer discipline, such as comparative world religions, world philosophy, ancient philosophy, but that type of subject. Q. And you made that point at the October 18th meeting? A. Yes, I did, sir. Q. There was a vote? A. Yes, sir, there was. Q. I understand there were a lot of amendments before a vote on what finally was passed occurred, but I'd like to focus on what was actually voted into the curriculum. If you can turn to Exhibit 209, Plaintiff's Exhibit 209? And this document is really the entire biology course curriculum guide, and you can look in your notebook if you want to flip through it. A. Yes, sir. Q. On page P-1646, and those are page numbers that the plaintiffs have affixed to these documents during the course of this litigation, there's a section that reads -- and do you need a minute to flip through? It will also be on the screen, but take your time. (Brief pause.) A. Yes, sir. Q. And at the top of the guide where it talks about unit, content, concepts, process, the chapters listed include 10, Natural Selection; 11, the Mechanism of Evolution; and 12, the Origin of Biodiversity. A. Yes, sir. Q. And going all the way to the bottom of the page, under the unit, content, concepts, process -- just we need the bottom section there, Matt. Do you recognize this, and actually, Matt, if you could pull in the note at the bottom as well? A. Yes, sir, I do.	Section 71 notes
Section 72 Q. And is this what was actually voted in on October 18th? A. That was approved on October 18th. Q. That says, "Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution, including but not limited to intelligent design." Then it has a note below it, "The origin of life is not taught." A. Yes, sir. Q. And it includes the instructional strategy lecture? A. Yes, sir. Q. And under materials and resources the reference Of Pandas and People? A. Yes, it does, sir. Q. And what I just read to at the bottom of the page there, that is what the board voted into effect on October 18th? A. The final vote was for this.	Section 72 notes
Section 73 Q. Who were the board members who voted for that change? A. Mr. Alan Bonsell, Mr. William Buckingham, Mrs. Jean Cleaver, Mrs. Heather Gessey, Mrs. Sheila Harkins, Mrs. Angie Ziegler-Yeungling. Q. And who voted against the change to the curriculum? A. Mr. Noel Renwick, Mr. Jeffrey Allen Brown, and myself. Q. After this vote, what happened? What did you do? A. At the end of the meeting, sir, when we opened for final public comment I requested recognition from the chair from president Bonsell, and I resigned. Q. At the meeting did you explain why you resigned? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Do you remember what you said? A. Not verbatim, sir. Q. Did you read from a prepared text? A. Yes, I did, sir.	Section 73 notes
Section 74 Q. Matt, could you pull up Exhibit 688? Is this the first page of your resignation speech on October 18th, 2004? A. It is, sir. Q. I'm going to ask, Matt, could you turn to page 2 of the document? And this is what you read to everybody in attendance, "Fellow board members and the community"? A. Yes, it is, sir. Q. I'd like you to, starting at the second to last paragraph, to read what you said to the board and the community when you resigned. It's in your book as well on Exhibit 688. A. I can read it. "We as board members serve as the representatives of our community to our district. We are responsible for making policy, for seeing that the district is in compliance with and remains in compliance with all applicable state and federal guidelines mandates and laws. We are here as representatives of all of the members of our community and to represent all viewpoints of our community, and we cannot favor one segment or one viewpoint over another." Q. Could you continue reading, please? A. "Sometimes in order to fulfill the requirements of our office we must put aside our personal feelings and beliefs. It is not always an easy thing to do, but it is what we must do in order to properly perform the duties and responsibilities of our office. In the past year regretfully there seems to have been a shift in the attitudes and direction of this board. "There has been a slow but steady marginalization of some board members. Our opinions are no longer valued or listened to. Our contributions have been minimized or not acknowledged at all. A measure of that is the fact that I myself have been twice asked within the past year if I was 'born again.' no one has, nor should have the right, to ask that of a fellow board member. An individual's religious beliefs should have no impact on his or her ability to serve as a school board director, nor should a person's beliefs be used as a yardstick to measure the value of that service. "However, it has become increasingly evident that in the direction the board has now chosen to go, holding a certain religious belief is of paramount importance. Because of this, it is quite clear that I can no longer effectively function as a member of this board, that I can no longer properly represent the members of this community, and I apologize to them for this failure. "Accordingly, effective immediately, and with deepest regret, I am stepping down from the Dover school board, as well as from the board and authority of the York County School of Technology. I shall pray for you all, pray that you will find the wisdom to separate your personal beliefs and desires from the proper fulfillment within the law of the duties and responsibilities of your office. I shall pray that you will learn to represent all of the members of our community and all of their viewpoints with impartiality and with grace."	Section 74 notes
Section 75 Q. Thank you, Ms. Brown. Does the speech that you read reflect your view about how the change in the biology curriculum came about? A. Yes, it does. Q. Does it reflect your views about the general environment on the board at this time period? A. With deepest regret I must say that it does. Q. After this vote had occurred did any members of the board say anything to impugn your religious beliefs or religious faith? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many board members do you recall doing that? A. Two board members, sir. Q. Who were they? A. One was William Buckingham. Q. Who was the other one? A. Mr. Alan Bonsell.	Section 75 notes
Section 76 Q. What did Mr. Buckingham say to you? A. He decried my beliefs, called me an atheist. Q. When did that happen? A. That was just after my stepping down from the board. Q. When did Mr. Bonsell say something to you that you that you felt impugned your religious faith or your religious beliefs? A. It was later on, a couple of months later, sir. Q. And what was the setting when this occurred? A. It was during a recess during a regular board meeting. Q. What did he say to you? A. He accused me and my husband of destroying the board, and he impugned my faith. Q. What did he say? A. He told me I would be going to hell.	Section 76 notes
Conclusion of direct MR ROTHSCHILD: I have no further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right, thank you, Mr. Rothschild. Cross examination by Mr. Gillen? MR. GILLEN: Judge, just if you want to go on until 12:15 that's fine, but I might take a good bit of time -- THE COURT: Well, you think you will? MR. GILLEN: Yes. THE COURT: All right. Well, then it's probably an appropriate place to stop rather than interrupt you at mid cross examination. So contrary to what I said why don't we take our lunch break now, even though we've had a rather abbreviated session. So we'll break, why don't we break until let's say 1:15. I think that should give us plenty of time, and we'll reconvene -- actually let's say, there's some matters I must attend to. Let's say 1:30, and we'll reconvene at 1:30. MR. GILLEN: Thank you Your Honor. (End of Volume 1 at 11:53 a.m.)

Day 4 (29 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Cross of Carol Brown

Section 77 THE COURT: All right. Now, Mr. Gillen, cross-examine. MR. GILLEN: Thank you, Your Honor. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GILLEN: Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Brown. A. Good afternoon, Mr. Gillen. Q. Pat Gillen for the Defendants. A. I remember, sir. Q. Thank you very much. I'm going to ask you a few questions about your testimony here in court today. Towards the closing portion of your testimony, you testified that two members of the board had asked you if you were born again, is that correct? A. Actually, there were three, but two within the past -- the last year I served on the board. Q. Who were they? A. The two who asked me within the last year of my tenure? Mr. William Buckingham and Mrs. Jane Cleaver. Q. And those are the two you referenced in your departing speech from the board, correct? A. Yes, they were.	Section 77 notes
Section 78 Q. I want to ask you a few questions about that. You testified today that the people on the board were your friends, correct? A. They had been my friends. Q. Okay. Now the conversation with Jane Cleaver, isn't it true that, that took place in her home? A. Yes, it did, sir. Q. And you had come over to her house to speak with her because she was a new board member, correct? A. Yes. Q. You invited the conversation, didn't you, Mrs. Brown? A. I most certainly did. I so indicated in my deposition, sir. Q. That's right, that's right. And I want to place that statement in context today. In fact, you went to her home, and you saw a beautiful carving of the Lord's Supper, correct? A. The Lord's Last Supper, yes, sir.	Section 78 notes
Section 79 Q. You began to talk to Mrs. Cleaver about religion, didn't you? A. No, I did not speak to her directly about religion. What I spoke to her about was my liking for the carving. I had never seen such a beautiful carving. And I did make reference to the fact it was of the Lord's Last Supper. And the conversation segued from there. Q. You concede that conversation about the art is not about a religious object? A. It most certainly is within that context. Q. Okay. And it was in that context that Mrs. Cleaver discussed her religious convictions, correct? A. Yes, it began with her discussion of a trip, I believe, that she and her late husband had made to the Holy Land, sir. Q. And it was during that discussion of her religious convictions that she asked you? A. Yes, she did, sir.	Section 79 notes
Section 80 Q. So your friend asked you about your religious convictions in her home, correct? A. Yes, she did, sir. Q. And that conversation was not for business, correct? A. Yes, it was, in one sense, sir. MR. GILLEN: Well, Your Honor, may I approach the witness? THE COURT: You may. MR. GILLEN: Thank you. BY MR. GILLEN: Q. Mrs. Brown, I'm giving you a copy of your deposition. A. Oh, thank you. I can read it. Thank you. Q. Yeah, I have the full pages, and I truly regret any inconvenience. A. That's all right. Q. If I could have, I would have adjusted -- A. What did you wish me to look at, sir? Q. I would ask you to look at page 67 of your deposition testimony, Mrs. Brown. A. What portion of the page, sir?	Section 80 notes
Section 81 Q. I would ask you to begin looking at the page on line 13. I will read the question that I asked you during your deposition. Let me see, if you have this discussion with Mrs. Cleaver, and you say, it was kind of a -- just an exchange between the two of you? Would you read your answer, Mrs. Brown? A. I said, beyond the school board business, yes. Q. So the discussion was beyond the school board business, correct, Mrs. Brown? A. Yes, but it was within the framework of school board business that I was at her home, sir. Q. But you told me that it was beyond the school board business, correct? A. It was beyond the scope of what I was there for, yes, sir. Q. Okay. Now you've also testified that Mr. Buckingham once asked you if you were born again, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. I'd like to place that comment in context as well. Now you said Mr. Buckingham was your friend today in court, is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. I would ask you to turn to page 86 of your deposition, Mrs. Brown. And if you would, just -- don't worry. If you would, just take a moment and look over from pages 86 through 88. A. Yes, we were referencing a policy committee meeting.	Section 81 notes
Section 82 Q. Now if I'm not mistaken, Mrs. Brown, in your deposition, you testified that you did have a discussion with Mr. Buckingham on one occasion where he was kind enough to offer you a ride home from the school board meeting, correct? A. From the policy committee meeting. He was a member of the policy committee, sir. Q. Okay. And while he's giving you a ride home, he did ask you about your religious convictions, correct? A. Yes, he did. Q. And that is the occasion in which Mr. Buckingham asked you if you had been born again, correct? A. Yes, that is correct. Q. So Mr. Buckingham, who you've testified is your friend, is kind enough to drive you home from a board meeting. You're having some discussions about the current state of culture and morality? A. Yes, sir. Q. And he asked you about your religious convictions, correct, Mrs. Brown? A. That is correct, sir.	Section 82 notes
Section 83 Q. So on the day that you resigned from the board, and you read your speech, and you said two people asked you if you were born again? A. Yes. Q. And you thought that was inappropriate, correct? A. Yes, I did, and I still do, sir. Q. You think it's inappropriate for a friend to ask you about your religion? A. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. You don't ask anyone about religion? A. No, I do not, sir. Q. Is religion something that shouldn't be discussed at all? A. I would not presume to discuss religion under normal circumstances except within my own family, sir. Q. Did you ever tell Mrs. Cleaver that you were offended? A. No, I did not, sir. Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Buckingham that you were offended by his question to you while he was taking you home? A. I did say to him, I don't think we should be discussing this. But, no, sir, I did not tell him I was offended.	Section 83 notes
Section 84 Q. Mrs. Brown, I believe you testified that you came on the board, and you were elected president, correct? A. That was during my third term, yes -- beginning. Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead. A. It was at the beginning of my third term, yes, sir. Q. Okay. Now I believe you said, subsequently, Mr. Bonsell became president, correct? A. Yes, two years later, sir. Q. Then you were nominated for vice president, correct? A. Yes, I was. Q. But you were not elected? A. No, I was not. Q. Isn't it true, Mrs. Brown, that from that day forward, you didn't get along with the board? A. No, it is not true, sir. Q. Isn't it true that from that day forward, you had recriminations for your fellow board members? A. No, sir, that is not true. Were that the case, sir, I would have resigned immediately after that election.	Section 84 notes
Section 85 Q. Let's talk about your participation in the board, please. I believe that you said that you ran for the board, along with some of these people who are currently on it; Mr. Bonsell, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. You ran for the board with him, correct? A. That is true, sir. Q. And your platform was one of fiscal responsibility, correct? A. Fiscal responsibility, academic accountability, among other things, sir. Q. You had also worked with his father, Don Bonsell, correct? A. Yes, I did, sir. Q. Both of you and Don Bonsell shared a concern for fiscal responsibility while you shared terms on the school board, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Later you ran with Sheila Harkins, correct? A. Yes. But I must correct, you sir. I did not run with Mr. Bonsell, Sr.	Section 85 notes
Section 86 Q. No, no, correct. I didn't mean to create that impression. You ran with Alan Bonsell, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Sheila Harkins? A. And Angie Zeigler Yingling, sir. Q. So that's a yes to Sheila Harkins? A. Yes, sir. Q. You didn't run on a religious platform, did you? A. Most certainly not, sir. Q. Now when you were first elected president of the board, it was a contentious proceeding, wasn't it? A. Yes, it was. Q. In fact, Barrie Callahan and two other board members stepped out, isn't that true? A. That is true. Q. They refused to come in until you had been selected president? A. Very true. Q. And some of the people who selected you president were Alan Bonsell, Sheila Harkins, and Angie Yingling, correct? A. Yes, sir.	Section 86 notes
Section 87 Q. You've referenced a contentious board meeting that had to do with the pledge of allegiance, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And during that -- the issue in that meeting was whether or not the board should pass a resolution in favor of keeping under God in the pledge, correct? A. To pass a resolution to send a letter of support to the Supreme Court. Q. Support for what? A. To keep under God in the pledge of allegiance, sir. Q. Thank you, Mrs. Brown. And you read an address at that meeting, didn't you? A. I did, sir. Q. And that address mentioned the founding fathers, correct? A. It did, sir. Q. Is there anything wrong with Mr. Bonsell's references to the founding fathers? A. No, sir. Q. You voted in favor of the resolution keeping under God, supporting keeping under God in the pledge? A. Yes, I did. As I stated in my deposition with you, it is one of two votes that I deeply regret.	Section 87 notes
Section 88 Q. Let's look at the biology text issue here. The text was not purchased in 2003, correct? A. No, sir, it was not. Q. And that was because of fiscal concerns, correct? A. Yes, it was. Q. In fact, there was discussions that the teachers weren't using the book that they had at present? A. Yes. It did not match the academic standards put forth in Chapter 4 from the State Department of Education, sir. Q. So there was a discussion that the teachers weren't using the book that they presently had, correct? A. Yes, because it did not fit the new science standards, sir. Q. They weren't using it, Mrs. Brown? A. That's correct, sir.	Section 88 notes
Section 89 Q. Barrie Callahan wanted to buy the books? A. Yes, she did. Q. You saw that Barrie Callahan is pretty much a spender, didn't you? A. Yes, more so than I was, sir. Q. And that was her general attitude toward school board budget matters, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. So you differed with Mrs. Callahan on that issue? A. Yes, I did. Q. In 2003, Mrs. Callahan was joined by other board members, Larry Snook and Lonnie Langione, in criticizing the board, correct? A. Yes. Q. You believed that they were politically motivated, correct? A. At one point in time, I did, sir. Q. In fact, you've testified that you say, when the three of them came up to the podium, you shut your ears? A. Very often, I did, sir.	Section 89 notes
Section 90 Q. You've testified to meetings with the teachers about the selection of the text, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. At those meetings, other texts, including consumer sciences, were also at issue? A. Yes, sir, I believe there were three texts. Q. And Bill Buckingham has head of the curriculum committee in 2004 when these discussions took place? A. Yes, he was, sir. Q. Now Mr. Buckingham was in a new position because he hadn't been on the board curriculum committee before, sir? A. He had been appointed to the board, sir. Q. Board curriculum committee? A. He had been appointed to the board itself prior to running for election, sir. Q. I didn't ask you about that, Mrs. Brown. I just asked you -- A. I misunderstood, sir.	Section 90 notes
Section 91 Q. Okay. Then forgive me if my question was imprecise. I asked you if this was the first time Mr. Buckingham had served on the curriculum committee, correct? A. In 2003, yes, sir. Q. In 2004, he was the head of the committee? A. Yes. Q. He was in a new position? A. Yes, sir. And I believe my answer was imprecise. The end of 2003 or the very beginning of 2004 when the president made the committee selections. My apologies. Q. I appreciate that accuracy. And he said at that meeting, he didn't have a chance to review the text? A. To which meeting are you referring, sir? Q. The meeting of the board curriculum committee on -- in June of 2004? A. I believe it was prior to that, sir. I may be incorrect. But he did indicate his unfamiliarity with the text. Q. And this is the meeting at which the teachers gave their recommendation of the Miller Levine text? A. Are we referring to a board meeting, sir, or a curriculum meeting? Q. The board curriculum committee meeting and the teachers are discussing the pros and cons of the Miller and Levine text. Do you recall that discussion? A. Among others, yes.	Section 91 notes
Section 92 Q. Now when Mr. Buckingham said that, there was subsequently a board meeting in June, the first meeting in June? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Mr. Buckingham indicated that he couldn't bring the book up to a vote because he hadn't had a chance to review it? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Barrie Callahan was in the public comment section or the seating for the public? A. Yes, sir. Q. And she voiced objections, correct? A. She brought it up at the public comment section at the beginning of the meeting, sir. Q. So did Larry Snook, correct? A. Yes, sir.	Section 92 notes
Section 93 Q. Now you've testified about a meeting in which Mr. Buckingham made a, what should I say, as you testify, an unkind comment to your husband, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you've said at that point, you felt like hitting him, didn't you? A. Yes, I did. I said that in my deposition. Q. And during these discussions in June, it was evident to you that Mr. Bonsell was interested in intelligent design, correct? A. That was not the term that was used, sir. Q. Mrs. Callahan, I ask you to look at your deposition. A. I beg your pardon? Q. If you look at your deposition, on page 144 -- THE COURT: I think you have the wrong name. I beg your pardon. MR. GILLEN: Forgive me, Mrs. Brown. 144. Thanks, Judge. THE COURT: You've been so polite to each other, I thought I'd help things along. MR. GILLEN: It's been a long week. It's been a long week, and it's only Thursday, Judge. THE COURT: Right. THE WITNESS: Which portion of the page, sir? BY MR. GILLEN:	Section 93 notes
Section 94 Q. I want to make sure I give you enough to look at so you've got some context. If you look at 143, and take a quick look over that, you'll see it's in reference to the June meeting? A. I'm sorry. I thought you said 144. Q. I did, but upon reflection, if you would start at 143, it will give you the date I'm talking about, that's June 2004? A. Yes, sir. Q. And if you would read over onto page 144. I direct your attention to line 6? A. On which page, sir? Q. 144. A. My response to Mr. Bonsell's reference point? Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir.	Section 94 notes
Section 95 Q. The question I asked you at that time was, Do you remember Mr. Bonsell saying anything at these June 2004 meetings? If you would, Mrs. Brown, if you'd read your answer beginning on page 6 -- or line 6 at page 144? A. Mr. Bonsell's reference point, I believe, was intelligent design. I may be in error. I believe from what I heard that Mr. Bonsell favored giving the two viewpoints of intelligent design and, as they termed it, Darwinism. Do you wish me to continue, sir? Q. No, thank you. Now after that, there was another meeting between the board curriculum committee and the teachers, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And at that time, the teachers expressed that they taught evolution, as you said this morning, with a small e? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you understood that to mean, teachers focused on adaptations more of the animal and plant world, correct? A. Yes, sir, Darwin's theory of natural selection, sir. Q. And they told Bill that in 20 odd years of experience, they had perhaps half a dozen questions about origins? A. That is correct, sir. Q. And all the teachers were very clear that they did not teach the origin of life? A. Yes, sir.	Section 95 notes
Section 96 Q. Teachers said it was their custom to tell students who asked questions about that to talk to their parents, their family, their pastors, correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Bert Spahr indicated at that meeting, as you have today, that the text didn't jive with state standards, correct? A. The text we had at that time, sir. Yes, sir. Q. Now at the conclusion of this meeting, Mr. Buckingham indicated that he could deal with that, correct? A. Yes, he did. Q. And you believed that the text would be purchased, correct? A. I did indeed, sir. Q. And the text was purchased, Mrs. Brown, correct? A. Eventually, sir, it was.	Section 96 notes
Section 97 Q. Around this time, you heard of a supplemental text that was under consideration, Of Pandas and People, correct? A. Approximately one month later, sir. Q. That would be July? A. The latter part of July, sir. Q. That's your recollection? A. To the best of my recollection. Q. And it was your understanding that Mr. Buckingham wanted the text Of Pandas used side-by-side with the biology text recommended by the teachers, correct? A. Yes, it was. Q. And when you heard of Of Pandas, you picked up a copy -- let me ask you this. Mike Baksa called you and told you that Of Pandas was being discussed among the board curriculum committee, correct? A. I believe that's correct. Q. And you went down and picked up a copy and took a look at it, correct? A. No, I did not. My husband picked up a copy from Mrs. Harkins.	Section 97 notes
Section 98 Q. Oh, okay. Good enough. So you got a copy, and you and your husband looked it over, correct? A. We read it. Q. And as you noted, it didn't contain any reference to God, correct? A. No, it did not, sir. Q. Or creationism? A. No, sir, it did not. Q. Or a literal interpretation of the Bible? A. No, sir, it did not. Q. But you did see it as giving a supernatural explanation, correct? A. Yes, I did, sir.	Section 98 notes
Section 99 Q. Now the next meeting was in August 2004, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you testified today that, in your opinion, the text that were flashed up here on the screen was being considered for purchase, is that correct? A. I'm sorry, sir. I don't understand. Q. Well -- and I'm trying to understand your testimony today here, Mrs. Brown. Documents were flashed on the screen with your handwritten notation, August 27th, 2004? A. Yes, sir. Q. And those related to biology texts, correct? A. There was a reference to one text on the second page, sir. Q. Well, how about that first page? Wasn't that a list of three base texts that were used at private schools? A. Non-public schools, according to that. Q. So you had the first page with three texts listed, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And then, as you've noted, there was a second page with another text? A. Yes, sir.	Section 99 notes
Section 100 Q. Is it your testimony that people were considering purchasing another textbook on August 27th, 2004? A. No, sir, it is not my testimony. Q. So what was discussed? A. To the best of my recollection, as I said, sir, I found that material by accident, and I turned it over immediately. I didn't even know it still existed. In trying to place it in context, looking back on my calendar, I have a curriculum committee meeting list for that date, which is the date at the top of the material. It was clipped -- it was stapled together. I remember a discussion of the text listed on the front page. Mr. Baksa gave us the information. These were samples of texts that were in use in neighboring districts or non-public schools, to the best of my recollection. I was not there for the whole meeting. I do not remember any discussion of the subsequent pages. It may well have occurred when I was not at the meeting. But I do not remember a discussion of that material, sir. Q. Okay. And I want to be fair to you, but I want to be clear as well. The text that was recommended by the science faculty was purchased on August 2nd, 2004, correct? A. In the ballpark. It was approved. Q. Okay. And I won't hold you to the dates. But in early August, the text was purchased? A. Yes.	Section 100 notes
Section 101 Q. Okay. Now what I want to be clear on is the date on that piece of paper, Mrs. Brown. The date that was on that piece of paper that was flashed on the screen was August 27th, 2004? A. Yes, sir. Q. Those documents relate to textbooks, and my question to you is, is it your testimony -- MR ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. It mischaracterizes the evidence. MR. GILLEN: You want to flash them up on the screen? MR ROTHSCHILD: If he is referring to all of the documents, that's not an accurate characterization of the evidence. MR. GILLEN: Forgive me if I was imprecise. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection to the extent that it might have been too broad. Why don't you rephrase? MR ROTHSCHILD: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. GILLEN: Sure.	Section 101 notes
Section 102 BY MR. GILLEN: Q. Mrs. Brown, forgive me if I was unclear. We're talking about the first two documents that was flashed up. The first one had the date of August 27th, 2004, on it and referenced three textbooks that were being used in private schools? A. Yes, sir. Q. You remember that document? A. Yes. Q. And the second was another text? A. Yes. Q. Is it your testimony here today that those texts were discussed at the August 27th, 2004, meeting? A. I have tried to be clear. To the best of my knowledge, that was the day, and I extrapolated that, very honestly, based on the dated material, which I always date, and the fact that I had a curriculum committee meeting listed for that day. I believe it was a curriculum -- the curriculum committee meeting where I left early. I was unable to stay. So the only recollection I have of that material is receiving it from Mr. Baksa and a discussion related to the textbooks he had found in use. I have no memory, no recollection, sir, of the subsequent pages of the document. I only know that they were stapled together in my file. Q. So you don't know if those texts were discussed on August 27th, 2004, correct? MR ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. He mischaracterized the testimony. THE COURT: No, I'll overrule the objection. That's appropriate cross. You can answer the question. THE WITNESS: Would you repeat it, sir? MR. GILLEN: Certainly.	Section 102 notes
Section 103 BY MR. GILLEN: Q. You don't know if those texts were discussed on August 27th, 2004, correct? A. To the best of my recollection, I believe they were. Q. Based on what? A. Based on knowing who was using them, remembering the explanation that Mr. Baksa gave for the handwritten portion, the title Modern Biology from the Christian School of York, based on the fact that I had dated it August 27th, and when I checked my calendar to try and frame the reference, sir, I found a notation that stated there was a curriculum committee meeting. As I have stated, sir, there were two curriculum committee meetings where I was only present for part of the meeting, and I believe that was one of the two. That is to the best of my recollection. I have no recollection of discussion relating to the second, third, or fourth pages, sir. Q. Did you discuss at the meeting the texts that were listed on the first two pages? A. Only -- my recollection is that Mr. Baksa made a report simply telling us what was being used. I believe the texts he referenced were also in use by some other schools. That is the best of my recollection. I may be in error, sir. Q. Okay. Good enough. You learned about a possible change in the biology curriculum in September 2004, correct? A. Yes, sir.	Section 103 notes
Section 104 Q. And Mike Baksa gave you some potential language, correct? A. Yes, some proposed language. Q. And you didn't like the language that was proposed, correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. And you suggested changes, correct? A. I made suggestions, yes. Q. And as we saw today, the language you suggested referenced gaps in Darwin's theory, correct? A. Yes, I did. Q. And it referenced a variety of explanations for the origins of life, right? A. Yes, it did, sir.	Section 104 notes
Section 105 Q. Now on the night of the October 18th, 2004, meeting, the board voted on the proposed curriculum change, correct? A. Yes, it did, sir. Q. And Angie Yingling voted for the change, didn't she? A. Yes, she did. Q. She later told you that she was afraid that her business and personal life would be affected if she didn't? A. Yes, sir, she did. Q. You think or you've offered your opinion that board members were voting on the curriculum change for religious reasons, correct? A. That is my opinion, sir. Q. Now you know that Noel Weinrich has been someone who's expressed support for creationism, correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. And Sheila Harkins has made it clear that she believes in evolutionary theory as a scientific theory, correct? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Now Noel voted against the curriculum change, correct? A. Yes, he did. Q. And Sheila voted for it, correct? A. Yes, sir.	Section 105 notes
Section 106 Q. So aren't you just speculating? A. No, sir. Q. Why not? A. Mr. Weinrich told me why he voted against it, sir. Q. Did he tell you he was voting against it for religious reasons? A. He voted against it on principle. Did you wish an explanation, sir? Q. No. I just find it odd that you think you know why people voted on that night? A. Sir, I have never claimed to know why Mrs. Harkins voted the way she did. I only know Mr. Weinrich told me personally why he chose to vote the way that he did. I cannot give you a reason why Mrs. Harkins voted the way she did. Q. I'm sorry. Continue. A. I'm finished, sir.	Section 106 notes
Section 107 Q. Okay. Mr. Weinrich told you on more than one occasion that he believes in creationism, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And he voted against the curriculum change, correct? A. Yes, he did, sir. Q. Mrs. Brown, I'm going to ask you to take another look at the chart that you were shown today that you turned over reasonably, and I thank you for that, which, along with that packet of documents that's referenced August 27th. And in consideration for your eyesight, the Plaintiffs have kindly agreed to project that chart again. A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall seeing this document on or about the curriculum meeting that you seem to recall toward the late summer of 2004? A. Sir, I have told you. The only recollection I have is of the packet of the information, in the first page of that packet, I remember discussion of that. I do not recall any discussion on the second page, the third page, I believe this is the third page, and the fourth page. I only remember discussion on the first page itself. When I found it, I didn't recall anything at all and I still do not, sir. Q. Okay. Let me see if I can jog your memory. If I can't, I'll stop here. If you would direct your attention to the one, two, three, fourth column over and the second down. If you'd look at that. Do you remember any discussion of people saying that Darwin believed in a designer? A. No, I don't, sir. Q. All right. Let me just ask you to look down at the last part, in case it may prompt your recollection. Do you recall anyone talking about Darwin and intelligent design as being different theories of evolution? A. As relates to this particular page, no, I do not, sir.	Section 107 notes
Section 108 Q. How about generally? Do you recall people discussing intelligent design as another theory of evolution? A. Another theory of evolution? Q. Do you recall any discussion along those lines? A. Not as another theory of evolution, sir. Q. Today you referenced that Mr. Bonsell had expressed an interest in prayer in the schools and the Bible, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there ever any policy put in place requiring prayer in the schools? A. No, sir, there was not. Q. Was there any policy put in place requiring Bible readings in the schools? A. No, sir, there was not.	Section 108 notes
Section 109 Q. You testified that you spoke about the founding fathers, correct? A. Yes, I did, sir. Q. And, in fact, you referenced the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams, when you discussed the pledge, correct? A. Yes, sir, November 10th, 2003. Q. When you left the board, Mrs. Brown, you indicated that you would pray for everyone? A. Yes, I did, sir. Q. Did you regard that as an inappropriate expression of religious conviction at a public school board meeting? A. Given the tenor of what had happened, no, sir, I did not.	Section 109 notes
Section 110 Q. Today you testified that Bill Buckingham said you were an atheist? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mrs. Brown, I took your deposition on May 16th, 2005? A. Yes, sir. Q. And I wanted to get your side of the story. You were under oath when I took your deposition, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And I asked you about comments directed to your religious convictions? A. Yes, sir. Q. As we know, you told us about your conversation with Jane Cleaver in her home, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. You told me how Bill Buckingham asked you a question after he was kind enough to give you a ride home? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Today you reference a comment that you attribute to Mr. Bonsell, right? A. Correct, sir.	Section 110 notes
Section 111 Q. Mrs. Brown, you never told me on May 16th, 2005, that Bill Buckingham called you an atheist. MR ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor. What question is he referring to in the deposition? It depends how the question was asked. THE COURT: Are you trying to impeach her? MR. GILLEN: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Well, that's not the right way to do it, so you're going to have to go to the deposition and do it that way. MR. GILLEN: That's fine. THE COURT: The objection is sustained. MR. GILLEN: Thank you. BY MR. GILLEN: Q. Mrs. Brown, I direct your attention to page 216 of your deposition. A. Could you give me a line, sir? Q. Sure. Start looking at page 216, line 6, and you'll see we're referencing your speech. And there you mentioned the comments, if you look at 216 and 217, you'll see that you told me there about the comments you attributed to Mrs. Cleaver and Mr. Buckingham, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you'll see there's -- if you'll turn then to page 220, line 22. And the question on line 22 is, Apart from this comment which you've mentioned, were there any other comments? You asked me, By this individual? And I asked you, Well, from board members directed to your religious beliefs? A. And I answered, yes. Q. Right. And then I asked you, You have mentioned two; one by Mr. Buckingham and one by Mrs. Cleaver. Besides those, any additional ones? And you said, One in the hallway. And that's what you testified today about Mr. Bonsell, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. That's all you told me, Mrs. Brown, is that correct? A. That is correct, sir. MR. GILLEN: I have no further questions, Your Honor.	Section 111 notes

Day 4 (29 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Redirect of Carol Brown

Section 112 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rothschild, any redirect? REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR ROTHSCHILD: Q. Hello again, Mrs. Brown. Did Mr. Weinrich explain to you why he voted against the curriculum change that was voted in on October 18th? A. Yes, he did, sir. Q. And what did he tell you? What did he tell you about his views? A. We had an extensive conversation. I believe it was within two or three days of October 18th. Q. What did he tell you? A. He told me that, while he viewed -- he favored creationism, that is his belief, he felt that what the board was trying to do was wrong and illegal, sir. Q. Did he explain why he thought it was wrong? A. Here, I'm attributing, okay. Mr. Weinrich was a very strong believer in the separation of church and state as to constitutionality of things, what was in the constitution and what was not. He took his oath as a municipal officer very seriously, as did I. We often had conversations about that. School board directors are considered municipal officers. Q. This is what he conveyed to you? A. Yes, sir, to both my husband and to myself.	Section 112 notes
Section 113 Q. Did Mr. Weinrich oppose the policy at the October 18th meeting, speak up against it? A. He did indeed, sir. Q. You spoke up against it as well? A. Yes, I did, sir. Q. And did one or more of the teachers speak up about what their position on the policy? A. They were very concerned about it. They felt, because it was to be included in the curriculum instructional guide -- excuse me -- the curriculum planned instructional guide, that they were being asked -- they were being put into a position where they might be in violation of the law. Q. At that meeting, did anyone who voted for the change in the curriculum explain why that change was a good thing for the students? A. No, sir, no one did. Q. Did anyone in the board at that meeting explain what intelligent design is? A. No, sir. Q. Did anyone who voted for the curriculum change explain why intelligent design is good science? A. No, sir.	Section 113 notes
Section 114 Q. Were any outside speakers brought in to inform the board on the subject of evolution -- I'm sorry, the subject of intelligent design or the other proposed changes to the curriculum guide? A. Not that I am aware of prior to the policy being implemented, sir. Q. So that's at the meeting or prior? A. Correct, sir. Q. The October 18th meeting? A. Yes, sir. Q. Other than Pandas, did the board members receive any materials explaining intelligent design before they had to vote? A. Not that I am aware of, sir. Q. Did anyone describe what the problems in evolution were that were being referred to in the curriculum change? A. At no time, sir.	Section 114 notes
Section 115 Q. Ms. Brown, at the beginning of your cross examination, Mr. Gillen asked you about the two conversations you recalled about being asked whether you were born again? A. Yes, sir. Q. And in the case of Mr. Buckingham, it was a conversation that occurred on a ride home from a, I think you said, a curriculum committee meeting? A. A policy committee meeting, sir. Q. So that's not -- that's different from the curriculum committee meeting? A. Very much so, sir. Q. He actually asked you to refer to pages of your deposition where you gave testimony on that subject, correct? A. Yes, I did. Q. Could you turn to page 86 of your deposition? And tell me when you're there, please? A. I'm there, sir. Q. Matt, you can put it up on the screen as well. Ms. Brown, I'm going to read the questions that Mr. Gillen asked you, and I'd like you to read the answers. A. Yes, sir.	Section 115 notes
Section 116 Q. Beginning at line 22. Now if I understand you correctly, Mrs. Brown, it was some discussion of the biology text outside of this April meeting? If you could please answer? A. I'm getting there. Mr. Buckingham and I had a discussion. He had -- okay. There are a couple words missing there. He had occasion to drive me home. I did not drive that day. He was kind enough to offer me a ride home. And during that ride, we discussed the role of faith in the schools. Q. Do you recall what Mr. Buckingham said to you on that topic? A. He felt that it was important to bring God back into the classroom. Q. And when you had this conversation, did you have a sense for what he meant by that? A. I am not sure how much clearer one can be, other than to say, we want to bring God and faith back into the classroom. What exactly do you want? Q. That's what I'm trying to get. Did he make any specific recommendations for a course of action? Did he say the kids should pray again in school? A. Yes, he did.	Section 116 notes
Section 117 Q. Anything else, did he mention? A. He felt that we should bring prayer and Bible reading back into the schools. It so happens that Mr. Buckingham and I are the same age. So we both remember that time period. And there was a discussion relating to the breakdown of society and morality. And Mr. Buckingham attributed that to the removal of prayer, the Bible, etc., from our school systems. Q. And I take it, you had a discussion with him, and I'm sure that he did not hear just plain yeses from you. How did you respond to Mr. Buckingham? A. I said very little. I responded when necessary because I was frightened. Q. Just so that I understand you correctly, when you say frightened, did you mean you felt uncomfortable with this sort of -- A. I was physically frightened of what he was saying. Q. Okay. What do you mean by that, Mrs. Brown? Did you feel threatened? A. No, I wasn't in fear of him. I was frightened of what he was saying and what I saw as a possibility of what could occur. Q. Is what actually occurred in Dover with the change of the biology curriculum the kind of thing you were frightened of? A. Yes, sir, it was the beginning. MR ROTHSCHILD: I have no further questions.	Section 117 notes

Day 4 (29 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Recross of Carol Brown

Section 118 THE COURT: Mr. Gillen, recross. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GILLEN: Q. Mrs. Brown, you said no one explained what the gaps were in Darwin's theory, correct? A. Yes -- MR ROTHSCHILD: Objection, Your Honor, mischaracterizes the testimony. That was not what she said and that was not my question. THE COURT: Well, she answered the question. MR ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, if I could clarify? I asked her whether anybody identified the problems in Darwin's theory. THE COURT: I'll give you one more round on redirect if you want to clarify the answer. I'll overrule the objection. The answer stands. You can proceed. BY MR. GILLEN: Q. Didn't -- didn't the language you suggest have to do with gaps in Darwin's theory? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you proposing language that you thought you had no basis for? A. What I was trying to do was clarify to the best of my ability. I knew that we would be having a discussion on this, and I was trying to give a starting point of suggestions. If you notice, I did not mention intelligent design, sir. Q. Do you know that the final statement passed by the board includes a reference to gaps in Darwin's theory? A. Yes, I do, sir. It was not my original language though, sir.

Section 118 notes

Section 119 MR. GILLEN: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Now we'll break my general rule of two rounds each. Do you have any clarification you want -- MR ROTHSCHILD: I won't let you break that rule, Your Honor. No reredirect. THE COURT: Rules are sometimes made to be broken, but I appreciate that, Mr. Rothschild and Mr. Gillen. All right. That will complete your testimony. Ma'am, you may step down.

Section 119 notes

Day 4 (29 Sept 2005): Afternoon Session - Discussion of Exhibits

Exhibits Section THE COURT: Let's take the exhibits for this witness. They are as follows: P-21 and P-25 are the board issues. Are you moving for the admission of those? MR ROTHSCHILD: I am, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. GILLEN: No objection. THE COURT: They're admitted. P-45, P-46, P-53, and P-54 are all articles. I assume we'll hold admitting the articles subject to additional testimony, is that correct? MR ROTHSCHILD: That's right, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. So you're not moving for the admission of those. P-660 is the packet of documents provided at the 8/27/04 board meeting. Are you moving for the admission of P-660? MR ROTHSCHILD: I am, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. GILLEN: We only object to the handwritten notation on the top. THE COURT: You'll have to refresh my recollection. The handwritten notation? MR. GILLEN: Sure. I have no problem with -- she was given the documents. We object to the handwritten notations, which is hearsay, and we don't believe that it was -- and there's no evidence so far as I can tell. THE COURT: Was that the date, do you recall? MR. GILLEN: Yes. THE COURT: Do you want to redact it for the record? MR ROTHSCHILD: I don't. THE COURT: No, I know you don't. I knew that, Mr. Rothschild. It may be after lunch, but I'm relatively quick in the uptake. Mr. Gillen, are you saying you want to redact it? MR. GILLEN: Yes, because it is a hearsay statement. She has testimony in trial that's been subject to cross examination about her dating, but the statement itself is hearsay. MR ROTHSCHILD: Your Honor, the declarant was on the stand and verified this. I mean, I really don't understand -- THE COURT: I find it reliable. She said she got her date mixed up. She interposed another date. You had the opportunity to cross-examine her on a change in the date. I'm going to admit it. I don't think there's any reason to exclude it, so that's admitted without any necessity of redacting the exhibit. All right. P-73 is the memo regarding the biology curriculum dated 9/20/04. MR ROTHSCHILD: I move that in. MR. GILLEN: No objection. THE COURT: All right. That's admitted. P-681 is the letter dated from the witness, dated September 22, '04. MR ROTHSCHILD: We would like to move that in. THE COURT: Or statement from the witness, I guess, better characterized, I think. Was it a statement or a letter? MR ROTHSCHILD: I think it was actually a -- it was 681, you said? THE COURT: Yes. MR ROTHSCHILD: That was Mrs. Brown's memorandum of September 22nd in which she responded. THE COURT: Yeah, it's a memo. I mischaracterized it both ways as a memorandum. Are you moving for admission? MR. GILLEN: No objection. THE COURT: P-681 is admitted. P-75 is the memo from Baksa dated 9/28/04. MR ROTHSCHILD: We are moving that in. MR. GILLEN: No objection. THE COURT: That's admitted. P-84, A, B, and C, the memo to the board, again, from Baksa, with attachments. MR ROTHSCHILD: We are moving that into evidence. MR. GILLEN: No objection. THE COURT: That's admitted. P-151 is the Dover curriculum advisory committee comments. Moving for admission of that? MR ROTHSCHILD: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any objection? MR. GILLEN: I lost track of the number, Your Honor. THE COURT: 151, Mr. Gillen. We're going rapidly. MR. GILLEN: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. 151, P-151 is admitted. P-209 is the Dover biology curriculum guide. Are you moving for the admission of that? MR ROTHSCHILD: I am, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's P-209 then. Mr. Gillen. MR. GILLEN: No objection. THE COURT: That's admitted. P-688 is the -- that is actually the resignation speech, as read into the record by the witness. Are you moving for that, admission of that? MR ROTHSCHILD: I am, Your Honor. THE COURT: No objection. MR. GILLEN: Make it easier to read. No objection. THE COURT: All right. That's admitted. P-688 is admitted. Now I have no other Plaintiffs' exhibits. Do I have them all? MR ROTHSCHILD: You do have all of the exhibits that we would like to admit through this witness. There was an Exhibit 42 from either yesterday or the day before that we did have to redact. We have now provided redacted versions of P-42 to the Court, and we would like to move that into evidence. THE COURT: Identify just what P-42 is for the record. MR ROTHSCHILD: It's the agenda from the June 7th board meeting. THE COURT: All right. You took the handwriting off it, is that correct? MR ROTHSCHILD: That is correct, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any objection to the redacted -- MR. GILLEN: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: -- copy. All right. P-42 is admitted. Then no other Plaintiffs' exhibits for this witness. And then I show no exhibits referred by you, Mr. Gillen, on cross. MR. GILLEN: That's correct. THE COURT: So we have nothing else. So that will complete all the exhibits for this witness. And we are prepared then for your next witness?

Exhibits notes

← Previous page

Next page →