Posted on 11/08/2005 11:05:11 PM PST by jennyp
Dover CARES swept the race for school board Tuesday defeating board members who supported the curriculum change being challenged in federal court.
After months of fierce campaigning that included some mudslinging from both sides, new members of the board are Bernadette Reinking, Rob McIlvaine, Bryan Rehm, Terry Emig, Patricia Dapp, Judy McIlvaine, Larry Gurreri and Phil Herman.
The challengers defeated James Cashman, Alan Bonsell, Sherrie Leber, Ed Rowand, Eric Riddle, Ron Short, Sheila Harkins and Dave Napierskie. Results are not official until certified by the county.
“We’re still in shock because we were expecting to have some wins,” said Dapp, who won a two-year term. “We weren’t expecting to have all eight.”
Dapp said “we recognized very quickly that we were a very cohesive, well-working team. I think that is one of our many strengths of what we will bring to the board.”
Candidates weigh in
Board members Bonsell and Harkins, who had voted in favor of adding intelligent design into the ninth grade science curriculum, received the least amount of votes, with 2,469 and 2,466, respectively. Bonsell and Harkins did not return phone calls about the results Tuesday.
Reinking, who was running for a four-year term, received the most overall votes with 2,754.
“It’s a nice thing,” she said. “I’m very flattered and very humble about the whole thing.”
During the campaign, the eight Dover CARES candidates had questioned the incumbents’ truthfulness and fiscal responsibility, while the eight incumbents touted their achievements in keeping taxes in line and the ability to provide quality education.
Cashman, who was running for a four-year term, had said during the day Tuesday that “I expect to win, but it’s not a big celebratory thing.”
About the loss, Cashman said, “We put our effort into this and we tried to manage the school district as conservatively as we could. I have nothing to be ashamed about.”
Rehm said he believed the voters responded because of the challengers’ combined efforts. It wasn’t one thing. They went door-to-door, held public meetings and didn’t exclude anyone, said Rehm, who won a four-year seat.
A major topic in this year’s race was the 2004 curriculum change that added a statement about intelligent design to the ninth-grade science curriculum.
The elected board members oppose mentioning intelligent design in science class. Rehm was one of 11 parents who sued the board in U.S. Middle District Court. The trial concluded Friday and Judge John E. Jones III hopes to have a decision before the year’s end.
Effects on ID Case
Regardless of the election results, those six weeks of the trial have not been lost, according to attorneys on both sides.
“The suit goes on,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Steve Harvey of Pepper Hamilton. “The mere election of a new board does not change anything.”
Harvey and defense attorney Richard Thompson of Thomas More Law Center said Jones has a set of facts to use to determine his ruling.
Harvey said he did not want to speculate on the fallout of what the new board might do. Thompson gave several scenarios.
The new board could change the policy and determine how it will handle legal appeals. It could keep Thomas More or choose another firm if it wishes to continue the case to keep intelligent design in the curriculum.
If the judge rules against the board, Thompson said, the new board could decide not to fight and could therefore be stuck with the plaintiffs’ legal fees, as requested in the suit.
“What is done is done,” Reinking said about the court proceeding, “but to take it to the Supreme Court? To me that won’t be an issue.”
ACLU attorney Witold Walczak said if the board abandons the intelligent design statement, the plaintiffs want a court order stating the new board won’t re-institute it.
“It actually is a way to conclude the litigation,” Walczak said. “The parties sign essentially a contract that says they will stop the unconstitutional conduct.”
Outside ID
Though intelligent design has captured international attention, it was not the only issue in the election.
For example, Dapp said looking at the district budget is one of the new board’s first challenges.
Property taxes, fiscal responsibility, a teachers contract and full disclosure of board members’ actions arose during the campaign.
Roughly 200 teachers attended the board meeting Monday night to show their support for a new contract. Their old contract expired in June.
Sandi Bowser, president of the teachers union who lives outside of the district and didn’t vote for board members, said the union didn’t officially support one group, but the teachers who have been vocal supported Dover CARES.
“I think that the people who are working with Dover CARES have children in the district and are concerned about some of the things that are going on including intelligent design in the science classroom,” she said.
Many elections are decided by less than two percent, including presidential elections.
But I would agree it was the perjury that turned this one. A similar phenomenon is emerging in Kansas. People with long histories of promoting creationism are claiming no religious motives.
I find this odd, since the major ID proponents do not dispute the fact of evolution.
The Supreme Court ruling of 1987 against "Creationism" in
schools forces the mental gymnastics of ID as an end run against that ruling. (You mean the "G" word without using the "G' word). Its sad to live in a country where courts
are banning the use of the word "God" like the Supreme
Court did in the 1987 Creationism ruling and most recently
the 9th Circus Court in California and others regarding
the Pledge of Allegience. These rulings come from the minds of people who want us to believe that the government is God, so we must ban the use of the "G" word and call it
"separation of church and state." (a phrase that does not
appear in our constitution, but in Communist ones)
Creation can be taught in religion classes, which are not illegal, in philosophy classes, in history classes, in history of science classes.
But theories that require supernatural intervention are not part of science.
ID circle jerk:
Dembski: "I dont have any, maybe Behe has some."
Behe: "I dont have any, maybe Minnich has some."
Minnich: etc...
<< Actually, it was a serious question. Seems to me, Theistic Evolution is basically Intelligently Designed Evolution. >>
I was holding out hope that you were just mistaken -- and that is why I suggested you read up on it. But since then I looked at another thread and noticed that you included a link to some ID articles yourself.
That tells me you were deliberately equivocating, as I suspected but couldn't say for sure. Now I can. You knew before claiming to be "serious" in your question that ID is not the same as "theistic evolution" -- yet you continue the charade.
As I teach my logic students -- there is no point in trying to reason with someone who has decided to be deliberately unreasonable.
Thats Harlem right?
Sure, but this is a place where the Republicans outpolled the Democrats by almost 2-1, in the races where the Dems even bothered to run someone!
The York papers' data on the election results is frustratingly spotty. I wish someone in York County could get the full data & do a comparison between the results in Dover for the school board vs. all the other races, & between this year's school board races vs. the previous ones. (I expect that this year's school board vote totals should be higher than the previous school board election.)
Wow. That's amazing. Like most bizarre tinfoil conspiracy theories, it's nice and neat and pat (the lack of evidence for it is somhow characterized as evidence itself).
The problem is that it's absurd on its face. Surely any scientist who would be able to provide the smallest evidence to substantiate ID would be rewarded with instant fame, if not a much better job offer.
I'm sorry, pal, but the "worldwide atheist scientist conspiracy" can't take credit for this one. ID falls flat all on its own.
Well...say some dude came in and said that leaves fall because they have a vengeance against humans and want to cause them...dandruff. Would you agree with that? What would be your reasoning against it?
An example. Mind you, a silly one, but...still. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.