The spin by much of the mainstream media was that the Mount Vernon school board had really accomplished something. In reality, the “settlement” reached with the “Doe” family states that the school is still liable for the teacher at the center of their lawsuit.
The settlement also creates a couple of unusual obligations for the board even if this November election changes the makeup of the board. At the end of the administration hearing for teacher John Freshwater, the board is to make a public statement using wording contained in the settlement. The board also is to have an individual, who is named in the settlement, speak to Mount Vernon City School administrators and staff about church and state issues. (Click here to view copy of the settlement.)
The speaker is Melissa Rogers who is to give a presentation to school administration and staff on “1st Amendment, Religion, and Public Education.” Rogers is director of the Center for Religion and Public Affairs at Wake Forest University Divinity School. She was appointed by President Obama to the President’s Advisory Council for the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
The settlement states that if Rogers is not available to speak then a “nationally recognized speaker” with “similar credentials” is to give the presentation.
The second unusual obligation the board has entered into is the public statement they have to make regardless of the outcome of the administration hearing:
“Throughout this process, the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education has been concerned about elements in this community who decided to attack the student and family who reported concerns about John Freshwater. It is critical for our students to be able to come forward with concerns or issues so they can be addressed. The Board applauds [name redacted on document] for the courage he had in coming forward.”
After the referee makes his recommendation at the completion of the hearing, the board is responsible for deciding if Freshwater keeps his job. Board members have not been attending the hearing.
Although the name of the student was redacted on the copy of the settlement provided by the school, his name was released last October. He is Zachary Dennis; his parents are Stephen and Jennifer.
Only $5,500 for the student, plus one dollar for each parent, is being given directly to the Doe family. The rest—$115,500—is going to their legal costs. The attorney representing Freshwater in the administrative hearing, R. Kelly Hamilton, described the low amount the family is receiving as telling. “The merits of the allegations are reflected in the nuisance value of the settlement,” Hamilton stated. “John Freshwater counterclaimed against the Doe family because the allegations were false and defamatory"
The settlement has to be approved by the Knox County Probate Court. Due to one of the claims made in their lawsuit being that of an injury, the settlement may fall under the court’s “Rule 68.4” regarding an injury settlement with a minor. If the court finds that the settlement does involve an injury claim and the dollar amount of the settlement is $10,000 or less, the injury will have to be examined by a physician. “The application shall be accompanied by a current statement of the examining physician in respect to the injuries sustained, the extent of recovery thereto, and the physician’s prognosis,” court rules state.
During the time that the burn injury was alleged to exist on the arm of the student, no physician examined the area. Presumably, any examination now will result in the prognosis that he has no injury.
Only the Doe family has claimed to have seen the burn—no classmates, neighbors, or teachers have stepped forward during the hearing and claimed to have seen it. The student’s mother said she spoke with Superintendent Steve Short the day after the alleged incident happened but at the time did not want a big deal to be made out of the incident.
The middle school principal, Bill White, testified last October that he was asked by Short to investigate Freshwater’s side of the story. White, however, was not permitted to look at the student’s arm. “At the point when Mr. Short gave me the pictures, he said the parents didn’t want anybody to know who they were,” White testified. “And other than going through a thousand arms at school, I wouldn’t have.”
The alleged burn was the most sensational part of the statements made by the Doe family. They also claimed the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was violated within the school district.
Attempts to get a response from legal representation for the school, in regards to why Freshwater was not included in the settlement, have been unsuccessful. Attorney Sarah Moore did not respond to a request for comment. Attorney David Millstone stated that he was not involved in the settlement.
Hamilton, attorney for Freshwater in the administrative hearing, did state that Freshwater was not asked to be a part of the recent settlement. “The last time John Freshwater was offered a settlement was in March 2009,” Hamilton stated. “John Freshwater wants the TRUTH to be revealed. John Freshwater is not looking for a settlement that simply gets him out of the legal action - he wants TRUTH which will vindicate him.”
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
School Board Votes To Give Teacher’s Accusers $121,000
Editorial
In a strange move—but perhaps one that should not come as any surprise—the Mount Vernon City School Board voted Wednesday to give the Dennis family $121,000. Had this been any other school board, you might expect that they had reached a settlement. Not so for this board.
The lawsuit will continue in spite of giving thousands of dollars—through the board’s insurance company—to the suing family. The headline in the Mount Vernon News would have you believe that the lawsuit has been settled—the News went so far as to title their article “School board resolves federal lawsuit.”
In return for the money, the Dennis family is supposed to drop as defendants: the board, superintendent and middle school principal. The lawsuit will continue but with the pretense of only including the teacher, John Freshwater.
The News quotes the board as making a statement that implies the payment to the Dennis family will help the school district focus on educating the students. “Being in the business of educating children, the board recognizes the need to remain focused on what is best for the students of this district,” the board stated, according to the News.
The payment, when it is made, will in effect help fund the family's continued lawsuit against the teacher. Does this help the district focus on educating the students? Would the students, and tax payers, been better served if the board had only agreed on a payment—if there really was a need to pay the suing family—on the condition that the lawsuit IN ITS ENTIRITY be dropped?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
A Questionable Science: New Book Takes On Evolution
Book review.
Supporters of prohibiting evolution from being questioned in the classroom like to evade the problems with the theory by turning the debate’s focus onto creationism. Author Lisa A. Shiel takes evolutionists to task for this type of evasiveness in her new book The Evolution Conspiracy: Vol. 1 Exposing Life’s Inexplicable Origins & The Cult of Darwin.
Shiel approaches the evolution controversy from a secular viewpoint. She points out that it is not just those trying to promote creationism that have serious doubts about evolution as legitimate science.
In confronting the status quo, Shiel will undoubtedly receive rebuttals that go no deeper than name calling. Some critics will probably point to the subject matter of her previous book Backyard Bigfoot: The True Story of Stick Signs, UFOs, & the Sasquatch as reason to dismiss what she has to say. This book is not for them. Shiel has written for a lay audience that is willing to listen to the facts about the “science” of evolution.
In this book, Shiel delves into the ambiguity surrounding definitions of the scientific terms involved in the study of evolution and other disagreements in the science community. (Topics include punctuated equilibrium and gradualism.) The consensus among scientists is that evolution took place—somehow.
Scientists offer the “explanation” that evolution works by gradual change through mutations and natural selection—somehow this led a single cell over billions of years to produce humans. Try testing that in the laboratory. Shiel says that scientists have skipped over the scientific method in their hast to conclude that evolution is true.
Let’s not forget the fossil record. Darwin even recognized in his day that the absence of numerous links posed the biggest challenge to his idea. Punctuated equilibrium—which Shiel abbreviates to “punk eek”—attempts to sidestep the problem by stating that evolution occurs in occasional spurts that don’t make it into the fossil record. (Would anyone like a miracle with that explanation?)
Paleoanthropologists, for their part, sift through the fossil record looking for any evidence they can find of the missing links. Shiel says that their finds often consist of just a few bones or a partial skeleton reconstructed from bits of bones that were scattered across a wide area. As an example, Shiel points to the famous “Lucy” skeleton. Only 40% of the skeleton was recovered but it is still sometimes referred to as “almost complete.”
The 132 page book cuts through the confusion in the science community and offers readers explanations that get as close as possible to what scientists are thinking. Readers, however, will be left with one big question: Why would anyone think evolution is a fact?
The book, to be released September 1, is available for pre-order at Amazon.com.
Friday, August 7, 2009
John Freshwater Files Writ of Mandamus with Supreme Court of Ohio
The ongoing dispute over the legality of school board members quashing subpoenas, issued to fellow board members, has been taken to the Supreme Court of Ohio. On Tuesday, suspended Mount Vernon Middle School teacher John Freshwater filed a Writ of Mandamus requesting that the court order two board members to testify in an ongoing employment hearing.
The matter was previously taken before the Knox County Common Pleas Judge Otho Eyster who ruled in July that he had no jurisdiction to force board members to testify. Eyster implied in his ruling that the board had the authority to quash subpoenas but gave no explanation as to the legal reasons.
In a subsequent interview with Eyster by Mount Vernon News reporter Pamela Schehl —“Judge explains denial in Freshwater case”— the judge gave additional details. “Since the matter is an administrative hearing, the judge said, the board has the legal authority to issue and quash subpoenas,” Schehl wrote.
Neither in Eyster’s ruling or in statements credited to him in the News article did the judge cite the applicable law or judicial precedent that gives the board the authority to quash subpoenas.
The board did not seek to have a judge quash the subpoenas. The minutes of the May 4, 2009 school board meeting show that the board voted to quash the subpoenas of Margie Bennett and Ian Watson.
In addition to the disagreement over authority to quash subpoenas, the board and Freshwater disagree over who was originally subpoenaed. The “Application to compel attendance of witnesses in the employment hearing of John Freshwater” that Freshwater’s attorney, R. Kelly Hamilton, filed in June also lists Jody Goetzman as a board member who was subpoenaed.
The petition filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio includes a copy of an email allegedly sent by board attorney David Millstone to Hamilton. In the email, Millstone informs Hamilton of two subpoenas being quashed and a third one not being issued. “There is no person known as Jodi Fair to the Board and therefore no subpoena was issued,” the email states.
An affidavit by Freshwater, included with the recent petition, alleges that Goetzman’s name was included in the request for subpoenas. “On or about April 28, 2009, me and my attorney submitted another specific Request to Issue Subpoenas to the BOE’s attorney seeking to have subpoenas issued to the BOE’s Watson and Jody Goetzman to appear for testimony and produce specific documents,” Freshwater stated.
Board member Bennett is not included in the recent petition as someone being requested to appear to testify. Only Watson and Goetzman’s names are included. The board’s attorneys had raised the concern earlier that if three or more members were required to testify, and if they had to subsequently disqualify themselves, there would not be a quorum when it came time to vote on whether or not to retain Freshwater as a teacher.
As support for why Freshwater wants the two board members to appear to testify, the petition cites testimony from the hearing that the two individuals who brought the primary complaints against Freshwater, that led to an investigation, spoke with board members multiple times about the allegations.
The petition claims that by the board members refusing to testify they are depriving Freshwater of his due process rights:
“As set out hereinafter, Respondents, collectively and or individually and or in concert with one or more of each other, have refused and continue to refuse to perform mandatory statutory duties, have engaged in non-permissive action and refuse to proceed with legal process whereby Respondents thwart and deny Relator Freshwater due process of law.”
(Click here to go to the Supreme Court of Ohio website for documents in the case State of Ohio ex rel. John D. Freshwater v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education et al.)
For further information, see past articles on this topic:
“School Board ‘quashed’ Subpoenas in the John Freshwater Hearing.” (6-12-09)
"School Board Gives Reason for Not Complying With Subpoenas." (6-18-09)
"Subpoenas in John Freshwater Hearing -- School Board Says Judge Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction" (6-20-09)
" Judge Says He Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction " (7-9-09)
UPDATE 8/9/2009:
The portion of this article that dealt with “Rule 24(A) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure” was deleted due to the probability that it was not actually being used by the board as support for being able to quash subpoenas. It was probably only cited by them as the basis to submit their reply to the original document filed at the county courthouse.
UPDATE:
See the following Mount Vernon News article regarding the resolution of this matter before the Ohio Supreme Court: “Ohio supreme court rules in school board’s favor.”
The matter was previously taken before the Knox County Common Pleas Judge Otho Eyster who ruled in July that he had no jurisdiction to force board members to testify. Eyster implied in his ruling that the board had the authority to quash subpoenas but gave no explanation as to the legal reasons.
In a subsequent interview with Eyster by Mount Vernon News reporter Pamela Schehl —“Judge explains denial in Freshwater case”— the judge gave additional details. “Since the matter is an administrative hearing, the judge said, the board has the legal authority to issue and quash subpoenas,” Schehl wrote.
Neither in Eyster’s ruling or in statements credited to him in the News article did the judge cite the applicable law or judicial precedent that gives the board the authority to quash subpoenas.
The board did not seek to have a judge quash the subpoenas. The minutes of the May 4, 2009 school board meeting show that the board voted to quash the subpoenas of Margie Bennett and Ian Watson.
In addition to the disagreement over authority to quash subpoenas, the board and Freshwater disagree over who was originally subpoenaed. The “Application to compel attendance of witnesses in the employment hearing of John Freshwater” that Freshwater’s attorney, R. Kelly Hamilton, filed in June also lists Jody Goetzman as a board member who was subpoenaed.
The petition filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio includes a copy of an email allegedly sent by board attorney David Millstone to Hamilton. In the email, Millstone informs Hamilton of two subpoenas being quashed and a third one not being issued. “There is no person known as Jodi Fair to the Board and therefore no subpoena was issued,” the email states.
An affidavit by Freshwater, included with the recent petition, alleges that Goetzman’s name was included in the request for subpoenas. “On or about April 28, 2009, me and my attorney submitted another specific Request to Issue Subpoenas to the BOE’s attorney seeking to have subpoenas issued to the BOE’s Watson and Jody Goetzman to appear for testimony and produce specific documents,” Freshwater stated.
Board member Bennett is not included in the recent petition as someone being requested to appear to testify. Only Watson and Goetzman’s names are included. The board’s attorneys had raised the concern earlier that if three or more members were required to testify, and if they had to subsequently disqualify themselves, there would not be a quorum when it came time to vote on whether or not to retain Freshwater as a teacher.
As support for why Freshwater wants the two board members to appear to testify, the petition cites testimony from the hearing that the two individuals who brought the primary complaints against Freshwater, that led to an investigation, spoke with board members multiple times about the allegations.
The petition claims that by the board members refusing to testify they are depriving Freshwater of his due process rights:
“As set out hereinafter, Respondents, collectively and or individually and or in concert with one or more of each other, have refused and continue to refuse to perform mandatory statutory duties, have engaged in non-permissive action and refuse to proceed with legal process whereby Respondents thwart and deny Relator Freshwater due process of law.”
(Click here to go to the Supreme Court of Ohio website for documents in the case State of Ohio ex rel. John D. Freshwater v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education et al.)
For further information, see past articles on this topic:
“School Board ‘quashed’ Subpoenas in the John Freshwater Hearing.” (6-12-09)
"School Board Gives Reason for Not Complying With Subpoenas." (6-18-09)
"Subpoenas in John Freshwater Hearing -- School Board Says Judge Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction" (6-20-09)
" Judge Says He Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction " (7-9-09)
UPDATE 8/9/2009:
The portion of this article that dealt with “Rule 24(A) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure” was deleted due to the probability that it was not actually being used by the board as support for being able to quash subpoenas. It was probably only cited by them as the basis to submit their reply to the original document filed at the county courthouse.
UPDATE:
See the following Mount Vernon News article regarding the resolution of this matter before the Ohio Supreme Court: “Ohio supreme court rules in school board’s favor.”
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Cattywampus and Teaching Critical Thinking
I recently came across an old article from Life magazine about a teacher who sounds a lot like Mount Vernon Middle School teacher John Freshwater. The article, by David Owen, was titled “The Best Teacher I Ever Had.”
The author’s science teacher encouraged his students to use critical thinking and to be willing to question not only the textbook but also the teacher. The students even had a code word they would say aloud when they questioned the validity of something—Cattywampus.
(Click her to read the full story.)
The author’s science teacher encouraged his students to use critical thinking and to be willing to question not only the textbook but also the teacher. The students even had a code word they would say aloud when they questioned the validity of something—Cattywampus.
(Click her to read the full story.)
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Once Again - Letter to the Mount Vernon News
The following “letter to the editor” was submitted to the Mount Vernon News on July 30, 2009 in response to an editorial published by the News on July 28.
Editor, the News:
Once again, the Mount Vernon News editorial writers have focused on what they perceive as the time-wasting thoroughness of John Freshwater’s attorney. The July 28 “Our opinion” described Freshwater’s attorney, R. Kelly Hamilton, as using “trivial entries” in Ohio law to buy more time while he appeals to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the subpoenas of school board members.
Why is the News more concerned about finding fault with Hamilton’s methods of representing his client than with the ways the school board and administration failed to protect Freshwater’s rights? Does the News consider the due process portion of the U.S. Constitution to be trivial?
A better use of the editorial writers’ time would be looking into the process the school used to investigate Freshwater. Was the decision of the school board to suspend Freshwater without pay valid if they didn’t follow the investigative process in the Master Contract?
The contract states that all witnesses identified by the teacher will be interviewed, written statements will be obtained from the witnesses if possible and the teacher will be given the opportunity to give a comprehensive written response to the complaint being made against him.
David Millstone, attorney for the school board, made the recommendation to the school that they use H.R. On Call to do the investigation. Considering that Millstone had worked with HROC on prior occasions, he would have been familiar with their investigative methods. Does any of the fault for the current mess the school is in rest on Millstone?
The News credited Hamilton with pulling a “magic trick” in delaying the hearing while he seeks to have several board members testify. It would seem that Millstone has pulled a magic trick of his own—in the eyes of the News’ editorial team he can do no wrong.
—Sam Stickle
(Click here to read previous letter to the editor.)
Editor, the News:
Once again, the Mount Vernon News editorial writers have focused on what they perceive as the time-wasting thoroughness of John Freshwater’s attorney. The July 28 “Our opinion” described Freshwater’s attorney, R. Kelly Hamilton, as using “trivial entries” in Ohio law to buy more time while he appeals to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the subpoenas of school board members.
Why is the News more concerned about finding fault with Hamilton’s methods of representing his client than with the ways the school board and administration failed to protect Freshwater’s rights? Does the News consider the due process portion of the U.S. Constitution to be trivial?
A better use of the editorial writers’ time would be looking into the process the school used to investigate Freshwater. Was the decision of the school board to suspend Freshwater without pay valid if they didn’t follow the investigative process in the Master Contract?
The contract states that all witnesses identified by the teacher will be interviewed, written statements will be obtained from the witnesses if possible and the teacher will be given the opportunity to give a comprehensive written response to the complaint being made against him.
David Millstone, attorney for the school board, made the recommendation to the school that they use H.R. On Call to do the investigation. Considering that Millstone had worked with HROC on prior occasions, he would have been familiar with their investigative methods. Does any of the fault for the current mess the school is in rest on Millstone?
The News credited Hamilton with pulling a “magic trick” in delaying the hearing while he seeks to have several board members testify. It would seem that Millstone has pulled a magic trick of his own—in the eyes of the News’ editorial team he can do no wrong.
—Sam Stickle
***
(Click here to read previous letter to the editor.)
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Author of Second Helpings Responds to Book Controversy
Books such as Second Helpings provide an opportunity for parents to discuss the challenges of adolescence with their teens, according to author Megan McCafferty.
McCafferty’s novel was brought up during the last Mount Vernon, Ohio, City School Board meeting. Jeff Cline spoke about the book briefly and gave the board a list of words he said were in the book and that he deemed to be inappropriate. (See article about the last board meeting.)
Although McCafferty stated banning a book was probably not the best way to deal with a controversial book, she did agree that parents should be involved in the reading choices their teens make. McCafferty said the first step should be for the parent to read the book. “If a parent finds the content problematic then it is by all means his/her right to discourage his/her child from reading it,” McCafferty said.
McCafferty’s novel was brought up during the last Mount Vernon, Ohio, City School Board meeting. Jeff Cline spoke about the book briefly and gave the board a list of words he said were in the book and that he deemed to be inappropriate. (See article about the last board meeting.)
Although McCafferty stated banning a book was probably not the best way to deal with a controversial book, she did agree that parents should be involved in the reading choices their teens make. McCafferty said the first step should be for the parent to read the book. “If a parent finds the content problematic then it is by all means his/her right to discourage his/her child from reading it,” McCafferty said.
Author Megan McCafferty posted a “Tweet” on her website about Jeff Cline’s comments concerning her book.
The following is the complete text of McCafferty’s response to an email query from AccountabilityInTheMedia.com:
“Whenever someone asks whether my books are appropriate for his/her teen, I **always** recommend that he/she read it first. If a parent finds the content problematic then it is by all means his/her right to discourage his/her child from reading it. (A great benefit to the teen book boon is that there are plenty of other options to choose from.) However, it's been my experience that the majority of parents don't object to the language because they understand that my books reflect how teens actually act and speak, rather than how some adults wish they did. The older readers often see themselves in the realistically-drawn characters and they appreciate the series for revealing how we all make mistakes and (hopefully) learn from them. I've been thanked by countless mothers for opening up a dialogue with their daughters. My books have provided a means for discussing uncomfortable--and universal--aspects of adolescence. Having that conversation, however awkward, seems more beneficial than banning.”
For more information on McCafferty’s books, visit her website.
Monday, July 13, 2009
The Politics of Scientists and the Media
It isn’t news that the media has a liberal bias—but what about scientists? According to a recent survey by Pew Research Center, 87% of scientists identify themselves as being either moderates or liberals while only 9% of scientists are conservatives.
Promoters of Darwinian evolution don’t like it when they are confronted with the public’s desire that both sides be taught on the issue of origins science. They often defend the exclusion of other views by stating that science isn’t a democracy.
It sure isn’t—it sounds like they think they are an aristocracy.
The survey found that the public’s views on the issue of evolution was “strongly linked to religion.” “The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public,” the survey stated.
Among scientists, 51% believe in God or a higher power while 95% of the general public believes in God or a higher power.
Should the “aristocracy” decide what is taught in the PUBLIC classroom?
Promoters of Darwinian evolution don’t like it when they are confronted with the public’s desire that both sides be taught on the issue of origins science. They often defend the exclusion of other views by stating that science isn’t a democracy.
It sure isn’t—it sounds like they think they are an aristocracy.
The survey found that the public’s views on the issue of evolution was “strongly linked to religion.” “The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public,” the survey stated.
Among scientists, 51% believe in God or a higher power while 95% of the general public believes in God or a higher power.
Should the “aristocracy” decide what is taught in the PUBLIC classroom?
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Judge Says He Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction
Knox County Common Pleas Judge Otho Eyster said he only has jurisdiction to compel the attendance of a witness when the person refuses to comply with a subpoena. In the case of Mount Vernon school board members, they were not refusing to comply because they had already “quashed” their own subpoenas, Eyster stated.
In his ruling on Tuesday, Eyster gave no explanation as to the legal reasons for the board being able to dismiss their own subpoenas.
(Click here for copy of ruling.)
For further information, see past articles on this topic:
“School Board ‘quashed’ Subpoenas in the John Freshwater Hearing.” (6-12-09)
"School Board Gives Reason for Not Complying With Subpoenas." (6-18-09)
"Subpoenas in John Freshwater Hearing -- School Board Says Judge Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction" (6-20-09)
UPDATE: 7-11-09
Mount Vernon News reporter Pamela Schehl has written an article—“Judge explains denial in Freshwater case”—that gives further details on the judge’s decision. “First, he explained, to quash a subpoena means it’s as if it never existed,” Schehl wrote.
The judge is credited as saying that his ruling had nothing to do with the appropriateness of the board choosing to quash the subpoenas—it’s a matter of them simply being able to quash. “Since the matter is an administrative hearing, the judge said, the board has the legal authority to issue and quash subpoenas,” Schehl wrote.
UPDATE 7/14/09:
R. Kelly Hamilton, Attorney for John Freshwater, stated that he plans to appeal the decision made by Judge Eyster. Hamilton said that there will probably not be a decision on that appeal until close to the time when the two related federal cases go to trial—the hearing will be on hold until that time. (Source: “John Freshwater interview” 7-10-09 Bob Burney Live Programs.)
UPDATE:
See the following Mount Vernon News article regarding the resolution of this matter before the Ohio Supreme Court: “Ohio supreme court rules in school board’s favor.”
In his ruling on Tuesday, Eyster gave no explanation as to the legal reasons for the board being able to dismiss their own subpoenas.
(Click here for copy of ruling.)
For further information, see past articles on this topic:
“School Board ‘quashed’ Subpoenas in the John Freshwater Hearing.” (6-12-09)
"School Board Gives Reason for Not Complying With Subpoenas." (6-18-09)
"Subpoenas in John Freshwater Hearing -- School Board Says Judge Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction" (6-20-09)
UPDATE: 7-11-09
Mount Vernon News reporter Pamela Schehl has written an article—“Judge explains denial in Freshwater case”—that gives further details on the judge’s decision. “First, he explained, to quash a subpoena means it’s as if it never existed,” Schehl wrote.
The judge is credited as saying that his ruling had nothing to do with the appropriateness of the board choosing to quash the subpoenas—it’s a matter of them simply being able to quash. “Since the matter is an administrative hearing, the judge said, the board has the legal authority to issue and quash subpoenas,” Schehl wrote.
UPDATE 7/14/09:
R. Kelly Hamilton, Attorney for John Freshwater, stated that he plans to appeal the decision made by Judge Eyster. Hamilton said that there will probably not be a decision on that appeal until close to the time when the two related federal cases go to trial—the hearing will be on hold until that time. (Source: “John Freshwater interview” 7-10-09 Bob Burney Live Programs.)
UPDATE:
See the following Mount Vernon News article regarding the resolution of this matter before the Ohio Supreme Court: “Ohio supreme court rules in school board’s favor.”
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Evolution – Is It More Speculative Philosophy than It Is Science?
Darwinian evolution pushes the boundaries of science—maybe to the breaking point. It falls into the category of “origin science” and attempts, like intelligent design (ID), to answer the philosophical question of “Where did we come from?”
Those that advocate teaching evolution in the public school system, at the exclusion of other views, do so claiming that it is scientifically testable. The irony is that those same people often do not want the tenets of evolution to be challenged in the classroom.
Back in 2003, Mount Vernon Middle School science teacher John Freshwater submitted a proposal to the school titled “Objective Origins Science Policy.” If the school had adopted the proposal, it would have expanded the teaching of evolution to include information on any “assumptions which may have provided a basis for the explanation being presented.”
John Freshwater’s 2003 Proposal
The focus of the proposal was on keeping bias out of science and encouraging the students to use critical thinking when learning about evolution. The proposal, in part, read:
“It is the intent of this board that to enhance the effectiveness of science education and to promote academic freedom and the neutrality of state government with respect to teachings that touch religious and nonreligious beliefs, it is necessary and desirable that science which seeks to explain the origins of life and its diversity (origins science), be conducted and taught objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumptions… .”
The language of the proposal did come from the website of an ID organization— intelligentdesignnetwork.org (IDN). The proposal, which makes no mention of creationism or ID, was voted down by the school board. (See copy of the proposal and the Science Curriculum Committee response.)
IDN says that while the language of the proposal “would permit appropriate discussions about design theory, it does not require that schools teach design theory.”
Science Curriculum Committee
The letter written by the Science Curriculum Committee—on why they did not recommend the board adopting Freshwater’s proposal—addressed the proposal as if the proposal had been to teach ID. (A copy of the letter was provided to AccountabilityintheMedia.com by John Freshwater.)
The only thing in Freshwater’s proposal that comes close to inclusion of ID is this statement: “understand the full range of scientific views that exist regarding the origins of life and its diversity, and understand why origins science may generate controversy.”
The language of the proposal contained no statement that ID was part of “the full range of scientific views.” For the Science Curriculum Committee to come to the conclusion that the proposal was to teach ID, they first had to accept ID as science. However, in their own words they said it was not science:
“Intelligent Design is not science: not repeatable, measurable, etc. (belongs perhaps in social studies).”
AND
“Intelligent Design is basically a religious issue—how do we account for all other religions not represented [...]?”
The committee acknowledged that some portions of the proposal was appropriate and in fact was already a part of school policy:
“Proposed mentioned critical thinking skills—redundant, we’re already doing this.”
AND
“The board of education policy addresses controversial issues—Freshwater proposal is already addressed.”
Is Evolution Controversial?
While the proposal was under consideration, Rev. Donald Matolyak wrote a letter to the superintendant and the board about the issue. One of the reasons that Matolyak gave for why the board should support the proposal was its consistency with school policy on controversial issues:
“The policy states that ‘consideration of controversial issues has a legitimate place in the instructional program of the schools. Properly introduced and conducted, the consideration of such issues can help students learn to identify important issues, explore fully and fairly all sides of an issue, weigh carefully the values and factors involved, and develop techniques for formulating positions.’”
The committee stated in their letter that eighth grade science did not have anything controversial in it, even though the standards for that grade did include evolution.
According to a list supplied by Freshwater, one of the members on the committee was Bonnie Schutte. During Schutte’s testimony at Freshwater’s employment hearing, she acknowledged that evolution was a controversial topic in society but said that it should not be. “If evolution was taught in a scientific manner, they would no longer think evolution was controversial,” Shutte said.
Andrew Petto, in an article for The National Center for Science Education—an organization dedicated to promoting evolution—agrees with Schutte’s assessment. “Biological evolution is a scientifically settled theory,” Petto states. “Among scientists, this means that its fundamental principle —the shared ancestry of living organisms —has overcome all scientific challenges.”
Not everyone agrees with Petto. Ken Ham, in an article for Answers in Genesis—a creationist organization—argues that evolutionists have failed to prove that mutations can produce the diversity of life that now exists:
“Most students in evolutionary-biased education come to believe that mutations and natural selection result in one kind of creature changing into a totally different kind over long periods of time. The fact that mutations do not add new information to the gene pool is rarely mentioned. All we have ever observed is variation within a kind. Science has never observed a change from one kind to another kind.”
Legal Issues
One of the eight reasons the committee gave for not approving the proposal was ominous—it simply said “Illegal.”
The IDN website gives some information on legal issues raised by the evolution controversy. It cites the Supreme Court in the case of Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968):
“Government in our democracy, state and nation, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, or foster or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”
IDN argues that origin science is a religiously charged issue:
“Although the State should avoid involvement in religious issues, when it decides to provide information to children about where they come from, the State has chosen to encounter a religiously charged question. Once in this arena, it must remain constitutionally neutral. The best way to maintain this neutrality is to see that the subject is taught objectively.”
On An Editorial Note
Writing as a journalist about the debate between evolution and ID is difficult. Both sides have strong opinions—and journalists are not immune from seeing the claims being made by one side or the other as being more credible.
I could almost swear that the most avid supporters of Darwinian evolution are lying about their views not being speculative philosophy. It presents a challenge for me to take the evolutionists seriously, when every time I have heard them speak or read their literature they were unable to scientifically support their view.
Those that believe in creationism or ID admit that although they claim some scientific support for their view, the interpretation of data related to origins science is often influenced by a scientist’s assumptions.
To what extent should the agenda of avid evolutionists be patronized? Should the government continue to back down in face of their demands that they be given exclusive control of the science classroom?
Those that advocate teaching evolution in the public school system, at the exclusion of other views, do so claiming that it is scientifically testable. The irony is that those same people often do not want the tenets of evolution to be challenged in the classroom.
Back in 2003, Mount Vernon Middle School science teacher John Freshwater submitted a proposal to the school titled “Objective Origins Science Policy.” If the school had adopted the proposal, it would have expanded the teaching of evolution to include information on any “assumptions which may have provided a basis for the explanation being presented.”
John Freshwater’s 2003 Proposal
The focus of the proposal was on keeping bias out of science and encouraging the students to use critical thinking when learning about evolution. The proposal, in part, read:
“It is the intent of this board that to enhance the effectiveness of science education and to promote academic freedom and the neutrality of state government with respect to teachings that touch religious and nonreligious beliefs, it is necessary and desirable that science which seeks to explain the origins of life and its diversity (origins science), be conducted and taught objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumptions… .”
The language of the proposal did come from the website of an ID organization— intelligentdesignnetwork.org (IDN). The proposal, which makes no mention of creationism or ID, was voted down by the school board. (See copy of the proposal and the Science Curriculum Committee response.)
IDN says that while the language of the proposal “would permit appropriate discussions about design theory, it does not require that schools teach design theory.”
Science Curriculum Committee
The letter written by the Science Curriculum Committee—on why they did not recommend the board adopting Freshwater’s proposal—addressed the proposal as if the proposal had been to teach ID. (A copy of the letter was provided to AccountabilityintheMedia.com by John Freshwater.)
The only thing in Freshwater’s proposal that comes close to inclusion of ID is this statement: “understand the full range of scientific views that exist regarding the origins of life and its diversity, and understand why origins science may generate controversy.”
The language of the proposal contained no statement that ID was part of “the full range of scientific views.” For the Science Curriculum Committee to come to the conclusion that the proposal was to teach ID, they first had to accept ID as science. However, in their own words they said it was not science:
“Intelligent Design is not science: not repeatable, measurable, etc. (belongs perhaps in social studies).”
AND
“Intelligent Design is basically a religious issue—how do we account for all other religions not represented [...]?”
The committee acknowledged that some portions of the proposal was appropriate and in fact was already a part of school policy:
“Proposed mentioned critical thinking skills—redundant, we’re already doing this.”
AND
“The board of education policy addresses controversial issues—Freshwater proposal is already addressed.”
Is Evolution Controversial?
While the proposal was under consideration, Rev. Donald Matolyak wrote a letter to the superintendant and the board about the issue. One of the reasons that Matolyak gave for why the board should support the proposal was its consistency with school policy on controversial issues:
“The policy states that ‘consideration of controversial issues has a legitimate place in the instructional program of the schools. Properly introduced and conducted, the consideration of such issues can help students learn to identify important issues, explore fully and fairly all sides of an issue, weigh carefully the values and factors involved, and develop techniques for formulating positions.’”
The committee stated in their letter that eighth grade science did not have anything controversial in it, even though the standards for that grade did include evolution.
According to a list supplied by Freshwater, one of the members on the committee was Bonnie Schutte. During Schutte’s testimony at Freshwater’s employment hearing, she acknowledged that evolution was a controversial topic in society but said that it should not be. “If evolution was taught in a scientific manner, they would no longer think evolution was controversial,” Shutte said.
Andrew Petto, in an article for The National Center for Science Education—an organization dedicated to promoting evolution—agrees with Schutte’s assessment. “Biological evolution is a scientifically settled theory,” Petto states. “Among scientists, this means that its fundamental principle —the shared ancestry of living organisms —has overcome all scientific challenges.”
Not everyone agrees with Petto. Ken Ham, in an article for Answers in Genesis—a creationist organization—argues that evolutionists have failed to prove that mutations can produce the diversity of life that now exists:
“Most students in evolutionary-biased education come to believe that mutations and natural selection result in one kind of creature changing into a totally different kind over long periods of time. The fact that mutations do not add new information to the gene pool is rarely mentioned. All we have ever observed is variation within a kind. Science has never observed a change from one kind to another kind.”
Legal Issues
One of the eight reasons the committee gave for not approving the proposal was ominous—it simply said “Illegal.”
The IDN website gives some information on legal issues raised by the evolution controversy. It cites the Supreme Court in the case of Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968):
“Government in our democracy, state and nation, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, or foster or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”
IDN argues that origin science is a religiously charged issue:
“Although the State should avoid involvement in religious issues, when it decides to provide information to children about where they come from, the State has chosen to encounter a religiously charged question. Once in this arena, it must remain constitutionally neutral. The best way to maintain this neutrality is to see that the subject is taught objectively.”
On An Editorial Note
Writing as a journalist about the debate between evolution and ID is difficult. Both sides have strong opinions—and journalists are not immune from seeing the claims being made by one side or the other as being more credible.
I could almost swear that the most avid supporters of Darwinian evolution are lying about their views not being speculative philosophy. It presents a challenge for me to take the evolutionists seriously, when every time I have heard them speak or read their literature they were unable to scientifically support their view.
Those that believe in creationism or ID admit that although they claim some scientific support for their view, the interpretation of data related to origins science is often influenced by a scientist’s assumptions.
To what extent should the agenda of avid evolutionists be patronized? Should the government continue to back down in face of their demands that they be given exclusive control of the science classroom?
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Ian Watson Responds to Doing It Right
President of the Mount Vernon City School Board, Ian Watson, acknowledged Monday that the book Doing It Right had been in the school’s library, but said that it was removed at the start of last school year. During public participation at the board’s previous regular meeting, Jeff Cline read a portion of the book aloud.
The book Doing It Right is intended as a sex education book for the ninth grade level. (See Amazon.com for description of the book.)
Watson stated—at the July 6, 2009 board meeting—that individuals need to first use the system in place for making complaints about objectionable books before taking those complaints to the school board. “[The system] won’t work if nobody uses it,” Watson said. (See copy of the procedure for making complaints.)
Cline said he would try to set up a meeting with the principal of the high school to discuss the books that he finds objectionable. He said that a woman from his church has tried going through the school’s procedure for making complaints but that each time it did not work.
The book that Cline spoke to the board about at this month’s meeting is Second Helpings by Megan McCafferty. This time, Cline said he checked just before the start of the meeting to make sure it was still in the school library. He gave the board a list of words that he said were in the book.
Cline has spoken about the content of books in the school system on several prior occasions (YouTube videos):
(Jeff Cline reads Doing It Right-- June 15, 2009)
(Jeff Cline Speaks About Books in School-- April 06, 2009)
(Community disagreement with the school board's decision. 9/8/08 Part 2 of 2)
(John Freshwater August 4th 2008 (part 6)) (Cline is at 2:30 in video.)
UPDATE 7-9-09:
Pam Schehl reported—in an article for the Mount Vernon News, “Volleyball team feted by MV school board,” on July 7, 2009—that Ian Watson stated the book Doing It Right is not in the school library. (The article makes clear which book is being referred to, for those that have been at the school board meetings, but does not include the name of the book in the article. The title of the book Jeff Cline spoke about on July 6, 2009 is included.)
The article by Schehl does not include the fact that Watson did acknowledge that the book had been in the library.
UPDATE 7-16-09:
For a response from Megan McCafferty, author of Second Helpings, see the article: “Author of Second Helpings Responds to Book Controversy.”
The book Doing It Right is intended as a sex education book for the ninth grade level. (See Amazon.com for description of the book.)
Watson stated—at the July 6, 2009 board meeting—that individuals need to first use the system in place for making complaints about objectionable books before taking those complaints to the school board. “[The system] won’t work if nobody uses it,” Watson said. (See copy of the procedure for making complaints.)
Cline said he would try to set up a meeting with the principal of the high school to discuss the books that he finds objectionable. He said that a woman from his church has tried going through the school’s procedure for making complaints but that each time it did not work.
The book that Cline spoke to the board about at this month’s meeting is Second Helpings by Megan McCafferty. This time, Cline said he checked just before the start of the meeting to make sure it was still in the school library. He gave the board a list of words that he said were in the book.
Cline has spoken about the content of books in the school system on several prior occasions (YouTube videos):
(Jeff Cline reads Doing It Right-- June 15, 2009)
(Jeff Cline Speaks About Books in School-- April 06, 2009)
(Community disagreement with the school board's decision. 9/8/08 Part 2 of 2)
(John Freshwater August 4th 2008 (part 6)) (Cline is at 2:30 in video.)
UPDATE 7-9-09:
Pam Schehl reported—in an article for the Mount Vernon News, “Volleyball team feted by MV school board,” on July 7, 2009—that Ian Watson stated the book Doing It Right is not in the school library. (The article makes clear which book is being referred to, for those that have been at the school board meetings, but does not include the name of the book in the article. The title of the book Jeff Cline spoke about on July 6, 2009 is included.)
The article by Schehl does not include the fact that Watson did acknowledge that the book had been in the library.
UPDATE 7-16-09:
For a response from Megan McCafferty, author of Second Helpings, see the article: “Author of Second Helpings Responds to Book Controversy.”
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Re-teaching John Freshwater’s Ace Students
The following testimonies took place on 10/30/08—this article relies on the official hearing transcript for details of the testimonies.
At least one high school teacher claimed that she had to “re-teach” students that came to her from the eighth grade science class of John Freshwater. During the 2007-2008 school year, Freshwater’s students passed the Ohio Achievement Test at the highest rate for the school—meeting and exceeding state standards.
An investigative report commissioned by the school stated that multiple high school teachers complained of having to “re-teach” Freshwater’s students—but the report did not give the names of the teachers allegedly making that claim.
Freshwater is on unpaid administrative leave pending an ongoing hearing into his performance as a teacher. (Following his refusal to remove a Bible off his desk, allegations emerged that a student was burned during a science demonstration and that he taught creationism in class.)
High School Principal Kathy Kasler
The report by H.R. On Call (HROC) included the statement that the high school principal, Kathy Kasler, received complaints about Freshwater from the teachers. “The High School Principal said that Mr. Freshwater has caused issues for her high school teachers in having to reeducate students from his teachings,” the report stated.
Kasler never sat in on any of Freshwater’s classes. She acknowledged that she has no firsthand knowledge about the allegations against Freshwater.
Freshwater’s students performed well on the OAT, Kasler said.
The complaints Kasler said she received were from four teachers including ninth grade teacher Bonnie Schutte. Kasler said that Schutte was the only person to bring “surveys” from the students.
The surveys were conducted at the beginning of the year and covered the topics of what the students “dislike about science”, “like about science” and “what they want to be in future.” Kasler said that Schutte had been bringing those surveys to her for all of the eight years they had known each other.
The HROC report quoted from some of the surveys. The comments included: “Evolution, and why that isn’t probable and how it is.” “The Big bang theory was the most important concept I learned in science.” “Studying evolution out of the book because it is all opinion. Not proven facts.”
Freshwater taught about 100 students per year—Schutte would bring surveys from about 20 students, Kasler said. Of the three or four times that Freshwater’s name would be mentioned in one year’s batch of surveys, the comments students would put down were “I liked when he taught, he showed us how to view (sic), that we should not believe everything,” Kasler said.
Some of the surveys did not have a student name on them, but of the ones that did, Kasler said she checked and found out who their teacher from the eighth grade had been. She said the names checked out as being former students of Freshwater.
Attorney for Freshwater, R. Kelly Hamilton, asked Kasler if she knew what Schutte may have said about Freshwater in her classroom. Kasler was not aware of Schutte saying anything about Freshwater, but she had not asked Schutte about that.
Kasler said she had passed the complaints on to the principal of the middle school.
When Kasler had a child in the eighth grade, she said she requested to not have her child in Freshwater’s class:
“[Because of the subject of creationism] my husband had told us if anything like that gets pulled and my child has him, I will in a heartbeat call the ACLU, and I don't care where you work. So in order to keep peace in my family and life simpler, I made a request.”
Schutte said that she probably would have made the same request even without her husband’s prompting.
Ninth Grade Science Teacher Bonnie Schutte
Student Surveys
Bonnie Schutte said that the surveys she had the students fill out were not intended to be scientific surveys. She acknowledged that the surveys did not isolate variables such as where the student learned the information that they wrote down.
Attorney Hamilton stated for the record that he objects to the surveys as evidence—describing them as hearsay. (It is very likely that the referee, R. Lee Shepherd, will agree. He has even declined to allow sworn affidavits from people unless they appear in person.)
Schutte said that she has never been in Freshwater’s classroom and does not know firsthand what he teaches.
During her testimony, Schutte gave conflicting information as to how long she had been conducting the surveys and turning in information about Freshwater’s students.
The first time she was asked, she said it had been for the last 19 years—she even gave names of some of the principals she made the complaints to: Ms. Kasler, John Kuntz, Blain Young and that there was another principal that she could not remember the name of.
The second time, Hamilton worded the question as “You've been focused on John Freshwater for 19 years in this regard, correct?”
“No, sir. I go about my daily teaching,” Schutte replied.
Schutte said that it would have actually been around the year 2002 that she started making her complaints to administration.
Re-teaching
The term “re-teaching” had at least two different meanings for Schutte: First, that the students already knew the material so they were re-learning it. Second, that they were disagreeing with her in class and needed to learn to accept what she was telling them.
Schutte described students that came to her from Freshwater’s class as “bored”:
“[S]ince Mr. Freshwater had one third of the students I teach, then those students think they already know about chemistry, so I have to have them, you know, kind of cool their heels a little bit while I explain to the other students what an atom is and that type of thing. They're bored. They think they know everything already. They don't know why we use the periodic table or that you don't memorize it and you don't know why we learn it. They've memorized it so they're done.”
The other problem Schutte ran into was students speaking up in class—she said that they would say things like: “that's not what Mr. Freshwater said or that's not true” , “carbon dating isn't true or isn't accurate” , “There's no evidence for Big Bang” and “The reason there are dragons in so many cultures is that people and dinosaurs lived at the same time.”
Schutte said that students can have their own opinions but that they need to learn the material.
Controversy Among Scientists
Attorney for the school board, David Millstone, asked Schutte about controversies in the scientific community over theories, to which she replied:
“I don't know that there would -- I can't think of a situation where there would be a controversy in the scientific community about a theory.”
AND
“They literally gather data, write to each other, now they can email each other and discuss everything. They get together and talk about it and they agree, okay, this is a body of evidence that's supporting all this, yeah, we're on the right track.”
Schutte acknowledged that there are some disagreements among scientists—such as disputes over the age of things. “There’s arguments as to 4.3 or 4.5, the universe 13 or 20 billion years,” Schutte said.
On the subject of evolution, Schutte said that there is “discussion” among scientists over punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism.
Scientific Definitions
Attorney Hamilton shared with Schutte an excerpt from an “observation form” about Freshwater’s class that was filled out by former principal Jeff Kuntz:
“The lesson began with Mr. Freshwater giving three statements to his pupils. A hypothesis is an educated guess. A theory is an established fact that scientists believe to be true. To infer is to get an idea from your observation. These statements were shared one at a time from student to student around the room. Mr. Freshwater timed each activity.”
Hamilton then asked if Schutte agreed with the definitions.
On “hypothesis”: “I think by telling students a hypothesis is an educated guess, it gives them the wrong interpretation. It's not guesswork. You have to have background information before you can make a hypothesis, so you're not really guessing. But that's what most people tell -- how most people teach it.”
On “theory”: “But the thing -- theory is an established fact that scientists believe to be true. The word believe. […] The term believe I don't think should have been used, but I can see why somebody would say it that way.”
On “infer”: “[T]hat's fine.”
Schutte agreed that, based on the form, former principal Kuntz found Freshwater’s teaching on the matter to be acceptable.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Watching the movie Expelled, and then writing about it, was one option on an extra credit assignment given by Freshwater. Attorney Millstone asked Schutte if she was familiar with the movie and if she would consider it something that related to the science standards.
Schutte said that she had not seen the movie but had watched an interview of the movie’s producer, Ben Stein, and had read descriptions of the film. She said that it did not relate to the science standards.
The movie includes the claim that people in the education profession have lost their jobs because they expressed belief in Intelligent Design. Schutte said that claim was false. “So it wasn't because they were intelligent design people,” Schutte said. “They weren't researching. So the implication that they were fired because they're creationists isn't true. I know that's part of the movie and that's from the National Science Teachers Association.”
A search of the NSTA website (using the search term “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”) turned up two entries—an article and a podcast. Both items relied on the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) for their information on the movie.
The mission statement on the website of the NCSE says that the organization is “dedicated to keeping evolution in the science classroom and creationism out.”
At least one high school teacher claimed that she had to “re-teach” students that came to her from the eighth grade science class of John Freshwater. During the 2007-2008 school year, Freshwater’s students passed the Ohio Achievement Test at the highest rate for the school—meeting and exceeding state standards.
An investigative report commissioned by the school stated that multiple high school teachers complained of having to “re-teach” Freshwater’s students—but the report did not give the names of the teachers allegedly making that claim.
Freshwater is on unpaid administrative leave pending an ongoing hearing into his performance as a teacher. (Following his refusal to remove a Bible off his desk, allegations emerged that a student was burned during a science demonstration and that he taught creationism in class.)
High School Principal Kathy Kasler
The report by H.R. On Call (HROC) included the statement that the high school principal, Kathy Kasler, received complaints about Freshwater from the teachers. “The High School Principal said that Mr. Freshwater has caused issues for her high school teachers in having to reeducate students from his teachings,” the report stated.
Kasler never sat in on any of Freshwater’s classes. She acknowledged that she has no firsthand knowledge about the allegations against Freshwater.
Freshwater’s students performed well on the OAT, Kasler said.
The complaints Kasler said she received were from four teachers including ninth grade teacher Bonnie Schutte. Kasler said that Schutte was the only person to bring “surveys” from the students.
The surveys were conducted at the beginning of the year and covered the topics of what the students “dislike about science”, “like about science” and “what they want to be in future.” Kasler said that Schutte had been bringing those surveys to her for all of the eight years they had known each other.
The HROC report quoted from some of the surveys. The comments included: “Evolution, and why that isn’t probable and how it is.” “The Big bang theory was the most important concept I learned in science.” “Studying evolution out of the book because it is all opinion. Not proven facts.”
Freshwater taught about 100 students per year—Schutte would bring surveys from about 20 students, Kasler said. Of the three or four times that Freshwater’s name would be mentioned in one year’s batch of surveys, the comments students would put down were “I liked when he taught, he showed us how to view (sic), that we should not believe everything,” Kasler said.
Some of the surveys did not have a student name on them, but of the ones that did, Kasler said she checked and found out who their teacher from the eighth grade had been. She said the names checked out as being former students of Freshwater.
Attorney for Freshwater, R. Kelly Hamilton, asked Kasler if she knew what Schutte may have said about Freshwater in her classroom. Kasler was not aware of Schutte saying anything about Freshwater, but she had not asked Schutte about that.
Kasler said she had passed the complaints on to the principal of the middle school.
When Kasler had a child in the eighth grade, she said she requested to not have her child in Freshwater’s class:
“[Because of the subject of creationism] my husband had told us if anything like that gets pulled and my child has him, I will in a heartbeat call the ACLU, and I don't care where you work. So in order to keep peace in my family and life simpler, I made a request.”
Schutte said that she probably would have made the same request even without her husband’s prompting.
Ninth Grade Science Teacher Bonnie Schutte
Student Surveys
Bonnie Schutte said that the surveys she had the students fill out were not intended to be scientific surveys. She acknowledged that the surveys did not isolate variables such as where the student learned the information that they wrote down.
Attorney Hamilton stated for the record that he objects to the surveys as evidence—describing them as hearsay. (It is very likely that the referee, R. Lee Shepherd, will agree. He has even declined to allow sworn affidavits from people unless they appear in person.)
Schutte said that she has never been in Freshwater’s classroom and does not know firsthand what he teaches.
During her testimony, Schutte gave conflicting information as to how long she had been conducting the surveys and turning in information about Freshwater’s students.
The first time she was asked, she said it had been for the last 19 years—she even gave names of some of the principals she made the complaints to: Ms. Kasler, John Kuntz, Blain Young and that there was another principal that she could not remember the name of.
The second time, Hamilton worded the question as “You've been focused on John Freshwater for 19 years in this regard, correct?”
“No, sir. I go about my daily teaching,” Schutte replied.
Schutte said that it would have actually been around the year 2002 that she started making her complaints to administration.
Re-teaching
The term “re-teaching” had at least two different meanings for Schutte: First, that the students already knew the material so they were re-learning it. Second, that they were disagreeing with her in class and needed to learn to accept what she was telling them.
Schutte described students that came to her from Freshwater’s class as “bored”:
“[S]ince Mr. Freshwater had one third of the students I teach, then those students think they already know about chemistry, so I have to have them, you know, kind of cool their heels a little bit while I explain to the other students what an atom is and that type of thing. They're bored. They think they know everything already. They don't know why we use the periodic table or that you don't memorize it and you don't know why we learn it. They've memorized it so they're done.”
The other problem Schutte ran into was students speaking up in class—she said that they would say things like: “that's not what Mr. Freshwater said or that's not true” , “carbon dating isn't true or isn't accurate” , “There's no evidence for Big Bang” and “The reason there are dragons in so many cultures is that people and dinosaurs lived at the same time.”
Schutte said that students can have their own opinions but that they need to learn the material.
Controversy Among Scientists
Attorney for the school board, David Millstone, asked Schutte about controversies in the scientific community over theories, to which she replied:
“I don't know that there would -- I can't think of a situation where there would be a controversy in the scientific community about a theory.”
AND
“They literally gather data, write to each other, now they can email each other and discuss everything. They get together and talk about it and they agree, okay, this is a body of evidence that's supporting all this, yeah, we're on the right track.”
Schutte acknowledged that there are some disagreements among scientists—such as disputes over the age of things. “There’s arguments as to 4.3 or 4.5, the universe 13 or 20 billion years,” Schutte said.
On the subject of evolution, Schutte said that there is “discussion” among scientists over punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism.
Scientific Definitions
Attorney Hamilton shared with Schutte an excerpt from an “observation form” about Freshwater’s class that was filled out by former principal Jeff Kuntz:
“The lesson began with Mr. Freshwater giving three statements to his pupils. A hypothesis is an educated guess. A theory is an established fact that scientists believe to be true. To infer is to get an idea from your observation. These statements were shared one at a time from student to student around the room. Mr. Freshwater timed each activity.”
Hamilton then asked if Schutte agreed with the definitions.
On “hypothesis”: “I think by telling students a hypothesis is an educated guess, it gives them the wrong interpretation. It's not guesswork. You have to have background information before you can make a hypothesis, so you're not really guessing. But that's what most people tell -- how most people teach it.”
On “theory”: “But the thing -- theory is an established fact that scientists believe to be true. The word believe. […] The term believe I don't think should have been used, but I can see why somebody would say it that way.”
On “infer”: “[T]hat's fine.”
Schutte agreed that, based on the form, former principal Kuntz found Freshwater’s teaching on the matter to be acceptable.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Watching the movie Expelled, and then writing about it, was one option on an extra credit assignment given by Freshwater. Attorney Millstone asked Schutte if she was familiar with the movie and if she would consider it something that related to the science standards.
Schutte said that she had not seen the movie but had watched an interview of the movie’s producer, Ben Stein, and had read descriptions of the film. She said that it did not relate to the science standards.
The movie includes the claim that people in the education profession have lost their jobs because they expressed belief in Intelligent Design. Schutte said that claim was false. “So it wasn't because they were intelligent design people,” Schutte said. “They weren't researching. So the implication that they were fired because they're creationists isn't true. I know that's part of the movie and that's from the National Science Teachers Association.”
A search of the NSTA website (using the search term “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”) turned up two entries—an article and a podcast. Both items relied on the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) for their information on the movie.
The mission statement on the website of the NCSE says that the organization is “dedicated to keeping evolution in the science classroom and creationism out.”
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Jewish Student Finds Ten Commandments Offensive
The following testimony took place on 10/29/08—this article relies on the official hearing transcript for details of the testimony.
The student—testifying in a hearing that will determine if his former teacher keeps his job—said that the teacher kept two copies of the Ten Commandments displayed in the classroom. “I didn’t like being in that classroom and being Jewish,” James Hoeffgen said.
Hoeffgen said that there were other items in the classroom that he deemed to be “Christian” but the Ten Commandments was the only item he could name or describe.
The student—a high school senior during the time of his testimony—was called as a witness by the school board in the hearing for Mount Vernon, Ohio, eighth grade science teacher John Freshwater. The hearing began in October of 2008 and has yet to be completed.
Freshwater removed the Ten Commandments from his classroom when requested to do so, in writing, by school administration.
Hoeffgen said that the topics Freshwater covered in class included the age of things. “[W]e were taught such things such as the earth may have been around for only a few thousand years,” Hoeffgen said, “and that carbon dating was inaccurate and things like dinosaurs lived with humans and, for instance, the Loch Ness Monster existed still today.”
One of the handouts he received in class was titled “Survival of the Fakest,” Hoeffgen said. He said that handout, or another handout, contained information about faked drawings of animal embryos that originated in the 1800’s—the handout said that the drawings were still being used in textbooks.
There was an article published in the Dec2000/Jan2001 of American Spectator with the same title and that covered the same subject that Hoeffgen described. (For those that have access to OhioLink, here is the article “Survival of the Fakest” from American Spectator.)
Freshwater never used the words “Intelligent Design” or “Creationism,” Hoeffgen said.
Hoeffgen said he believed that some of the things being taught in class were based out of Christianity. He said he did pass his proficiency test for science.
The student—testifying in a hearing that will determine if his former teacher keeps his job—said that the teacher kept two copies of the Ten Commandments displayed in the classroom. “I didn’t like being in that classroom and being Jewish,” James Hoeffgen said.
Hoeffgen said that there were other items in the classroom that he deemed to be “Christian” but the Ten Commandments was the only item he could name or describe.
The student—a high school senior during the time of his testimony—was called as a witness by the school board in the hearing for Mount Vernon, Ohio, eighth grade science teacher John Freshwater. The hearing began in October of 2008 and has yet to be completed.
Freshwater removed the Ten Commandments from his classroom when requested to do so, in writing, by school administration.
Hoeffgen said that the topics Freshwater covered in class included the age of things. “[W]e were taught such things such as the earth may have been around for only a few thousand years,” Hoeffgen said, “and that carbon dating was inaccurate and things like dinosaurs lived with humans and, for instance, the Loch Ness Monster existed still today.”
One of the handouts he received in class was titled “Survival of the Fakest,” Hoeffgen said. He said that handout, or another handout, contained information about faked drawings of animal embryos that originated in the 1800’s—the handout said that the drawings were still being used in textbooks.
There was an article published in the Dec2000/Jan2001 of American Spectator with the same title and that covered the same subject that Hoeffgen described. (For those that have access to OhioLink, here is the article “Survival of the Fakest” from American Spectator.)
Freshwater never used the words “Intelligent Design” or “Creationism,” Hoeffgen said.
Hoeffgen said he believed that some of the things being taught in class were based out of Christianity. He said he did pass his proficiency test for science.
John Freshwater Wanted Hearing To Be Before School Board
One year ago today, John Freshwater requested that the school board hear his case instead of taking it to a referee. “I request the hearing be a public hearing before the school board,” Freshwater wrote in a letter dated June 30, 2008.
Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education voted on June 20, 2008 to start the process of firing Freshwater. By law, Freshwater had ten days from receiving receipt of the board’s resolution to request a hearing. His attorney, R. Kelly Hamilton, said that Freshwater received the notice by certified mail “on/or about June 24.”
Ohio revised code 3319.16 states that a teacher may request the hearing to take place before the school board.
The board elected to have the hearing take place before a referee—with the board being able to make the final decision on retaining Freshwater after receiving the referee’s recommendation.
Attorney for the board, David Millstone, did not respond to a request for comment.
Freshwater spoke to the board during their meeting on August 4, 2008. In his comments to them, he responded to their choice to have the hearing before a referee. “Why not you?” Freshwater asked. “I want you, I don’t want a referee. That’s who should hear it, not a referee, not someone we don’t even know.”
Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education voted on June 20, 2008 to start the process of firing Freshwater. By law, Freshwater had ten days from receiving receipt of the board’s resolution to request a hearing. His attorney, R. Kelly Hamilton, said that Freshwater received the notice by certified mail “on/or about June 24.”
Ohio revised code 3319.16 states that a teacher may request the hearing to take place before the school board.
The board elected to have the hearing take place before a referee—with the board being able to make the final decision on retaining Freshwater after receiving the referee’s recommendation.
Attorney for the board, David Millstone, did not respond to a request for comment.
Freshwater spoke to the board during their meeting on August 4, 2008. In his comments to them, he responded to their choice to have the hearing before a referee. “Why not you?” Freshwater asked. “I want you, I don’t want a referee. That’s who should hear it, not a referee, not someone we don’t even know.”
Sunday, June 28, 2009
School Overlooked Key Information
The following testimony took place on 4/2/09—this article relies on the official hearing transcript for details of the testimony.
Six days after the investigative report came out—that he was not interviewed for—teacher Andrew Thompson spoke with the school’s superintendent about concerns he had with the report. Thompson would later publicly describe the report as an “incomplete, biased, and all-out lie investigation.”
During the 2006-2007 school year, Thompson served as an intervention specialist with the Mount Vernon City School System. He spent approximately 180 days in John Freshwater’s classroom that year. The job required following a group of 15 students—who were on individual education plans (IEP)—around to their classes and then following up with them at the learning center.
Thompson was a student in Freshwater’s class in 1998.
H.R. On Call (HROC)
Thompson said he went through the report making notes—he then decided to talk with Superintendent Steve Short. “I felt if I had stayed back and not have shared anything,” Thompson said, “then I would be letting a good man and a good teacher be falsely accused.”
The meeting with Short—on June 26, 2008—lasted for about an hour, Thompson said.
One of the things brought up was a discussion Thompson had with Riley Swanson, one of the students interviewed by HROC. “He was very frustrated with the investigation,” Thompson said, “from the standpoint he would try to answer a question and he felt like he was interrupted and could not share what he was wanting to say and the words were twisted around and used in a way in which he didn't in any way intend.”
Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA)
Thompson attended approximately 69 FCA meetings in 2006-2007 and about the same amount in 2007-2008.
One thing that both Thompson and HROC agreed upon was that there was no evidence that Freshwater violated the school’s policy requiring students to have attendance slips before gaining admittance to FCA meetings.
Thompson said that Freshwater did not even voice any complaints about the policy that began in 2007. Attendance did begin to dwindle following the implantation of the policy—and there are currently no FCA meetings being held at the Mount Vernon Middle School, according to Thompson.
The report made mention of two boxes of Bibles that were previously in Freshwater’s classroom. Thompson said that those Bibles were placed there by students who were a part of FCA. Freshwater’s classroom was used by the students for FCA leadership meetings—the regular meetings were held in the band room.
HROC stated that Freshwater had exceeded the role of a monitor and had actively participated—Thompson countered that by saying Freshwater did not do a lot of talking in the meetings and did not give the impression of trying to lead the meetings.
A guest speaker would often be brought in to FCA to give a short devotional—there were times when students would bring videos to show. One of the videos was The Watchmaker, Thompson said.
Religion in the classroom
The HROC report claimed that Freshwater “engaged in teaching of a religious nature.”
Thompson said that he did not hear Freshwater speak about religion in the classroom—either when he was a student or later as an intervention specialist.
The HROC report claimed that Freshwater taught “creationism and related theories and call[ed] evolution into question.”
Thompson also did not hear creationism taught in class.
The word “here”
The word “here” was used in Freshwater’s class by students when they came across something in the textbook that was not necessarily fact, Thompson said. He did not get the impression that the word “here” had any religious meaning.
The word was used in connection with the age of things. “200 billion years ago would be an example,” Thompson said, “versus maybe something that happened 150 years ago that's been reported and observed.”
Thompson said that having the students use the word “here” was effective in engaging the students in the content of the textbook. It showed that they were not just “off into space” but were actively listening, Thompson said.
At the beginning of the school year, Freshwater would spend time explaining to the students the scientific process and helping them to understand the difference between fact and hypothesis, Thompson said.
The HROC report included a complaint from a “ninth grade science teacher” that alleged having to re-teach students. The example in the complaint: “mis-teaching science (i.e. that there’s some sort of ‘difference between facts and hypotheses’).”
Bible on the desk
The HROC report stated that “Freshwater was insubordinate in failing to remove all of the religious materials from his classroom.” Those items, according to HROC, were Freshwater’s “personal Bible on his desk and one checked out of the library” and “at least one poster.”
Thompson said that when he was a student he did not notice Freshwater’s Bible. He did notice it when he was in the classroom as an intervention specialist but it was not prominent. He described Freshwater’s desk as having two levels and that the Bible was not on the top. “I hate to say that the book was insignificant,” Thompson said “but, visually, it was insignificant compared to other things on the desk.”
Thompson said he never saw Freshwater teaching or preaching from the Bible.
When Thompson discussed the HROC report with Short, he mentioned that he also had a Bible on his desk and that it had been there during the time Freshwater was being told to remove the Bible. Thompson said that Short did not give any comment on that statement.
“George Bush/Colin Powell” poster
The HROC report reference to “at least one poster” is the “George Bush/Colin Powell” poster.
Six days after the investigative report came out—that he was not interviewed for—teacher Andrew Thompson spoke with the school’s superintendent about concerns he had with the report. Thompson would later publicly describe the report as an “incomplete, biased, and all-out lie investigation.”
During the 2006-2007 school year, Thompson served as an intervention specialist with the Mount Vernon City School System. He spent approximately 180 days in John Freshwater’s classroom that year. The job required following a group of 15 students—who were on individual education plans (IEP)—around to their classes and then following up with them at the learning center.
Thompson was a student in Freshwater’s class in 1998.
H.R. On Call (HROC)
Thompson said he went through the report making notes—he then decided to talk with Superintendent Steve Short. “I felt if I had stayed back and not have shared anything,” Thompson said, “then I would be letting a good man and a good teacher be falsely accused.”
The meeting with Short—on June 26, 2008—lasted for about an hour, Thompson said.
One of the things brought up was a discussion Thompson had with Riley Swanson, one of the students interviewed by HROC. “He was very frustrated with the investigation,” Thompson said, “from the standpoint he would try to answer a question and he felt like he was interrupted and could not share what he was wanting to say and the words were twisted around and used in a way in which he didn't in any way intend.”
Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA)
Thompson attended approximately 69 FCA meetings in 2006-2007 and about the same amount in 2007-2008.
One thing that both Thompson and HROC agreed upon was that there was no evidence that Freshwater violated the school’s policy requiring students to have attendance slips before gaining admittance to FCA meetings.
Thompson said that Freshwater did not even voice any complaints about the policy that began in 2007. Attendance did begin to dwindle following the implantation of the policy—and there are currently no FCA meetings being held at the Mount Vernon Middle School, according to Thompson.
The report made mention of two boxes of Bibles that were previously in Freshwater’s classroom. Thompson said that those Bibles were placed there by students who were a part of FCA. Freshwater’s classroom was used by the students for FCA leadership meetings—the regular meetings were held in the band room.
HROC stated that Freshwater had exceeded the role of a monitor and had actively participated—Thompson countered that by saying Freshwater did not do a lot of talking in the meetings and did not give the impression of trying to lead the meetings.
A guest speaker would often be brought in to FCA to give a short devotional—there were times when students would bring videos to show. One of the videos was The Watchmaker, Thompson said.
Religion in the classroom
The HROC report claimed that Freshwater “engaged in teaching of a religious nature.”
Thompson said that he did not hear Freshwater speak about religion in the classroom—either when he was a student or later as an intervention specialist.
The HROC report claimed that Freshwater taught “creationism and related theories and call[ed] evolution into question.”
Thompson also did not hear creationism taught in class.
The word “here”
The word “here” was used in Freshwater’s class by students when they came across something in the textbook that was not necessarily fact, Thompson said. He did not get the impression that the word “here” had any religious meaning.
The word was used in connection with the age of things. “200 billion years ago would be an example,” Thompson said, “versus maybe something that happened 150 years ago that's been reported and observed.”
Thompson said that having the students use the word “here” was effective in engaging the students in the content of the textbook. It showed that they were not just “off into space” but were actively listening, Thompson said.
At the beginning of the school year, Freshwater would spend time explaining to the students the scientific process and helping them to understand the difference between fact and hypothesis, Thompson said.
The HROC report included a complaint from a “ninth grade science teacher” that alleged having to re-teach students. The example in the complaint: “mis-teaching science (i.e. that there’s some sort of ‘difference between facts and hypotheses’).”
Bible on the desk
The HROC report stated that “Freshwater was insubordinate in failing to remove all of the religious materials from his classroom.” Those items, according to HROC, were Freshwater’s “personal Bible on his desk and one checked out of the library” and “at least one poster.”
Thompson said that when he was a student he did not notice Freshwater’s Bible. He did notice it when he was in the classroom as an intervention specialist but it was not prominent. He described Freshwater’s desk as having two levels and that the Bible was not on the top. “I hate to say that the book was insignificant,” Thompson said “but, visually, it was insignificant compared to other things on the desk.”
Thompson said he never saw Freshwater teaching or preaching from the Bible.
When Thompson discussed the HROC report with Short, he mentioned that he also had a Bible on his desk and that it had been there during the time Freshwater was being told to remove the Bible. Thompson said that Short did not give any comment on that statement.
“George Bush/Colin Powell” poster
The HROC report reference to “at least one poster” is the “George Bush/Colin Powell” poster.
(The photograph was taken January 28, 2003. © Brooks Kraft/CORBIS. The poster was printed by Freeport Press, Inc.)
Thompson stated that he did see the poster in Freshwater’s classroom but that the Bible verse—James 5:16—across the top of it was covered up.
The poster to him was not a religious item. “I saw it as a poster of our leadership,” Thompson said. “It would be no different than our office in the middle school as soon as you go in has a – has several pictures of President Obama.”
When the HROC report refers to the poster by name, it calls it the “Colin Powell poster.” Thompson observed that Freshwater was not asked to remove the poster but that it was still mentioned in the report. “[I]t was put in as if Mr. Freshwater was guilty of being insubordinate for not taking down the Colin Powell poster,” Thompson said.
“Expelled”
The HROC report included in the summary of their findings a reference to the movie “Expelled.” “Freshwater gave an extra credit assignment for students to view the movie ‘Expelled’ which does involve intelligent design,” the report stated.
Watching the movie “Expelled,” and then writing about it, was one option on the extra credit assignment. Students were not required to go and watch the movie.
In the meeting Thompson had with Short, he showed Short the content standards that Freshwater was supposed to be teaching. Thompson said that Freshwater even kept a copy of the content standards up on the classroom door and visible to students as they walked in. “And one of the key things that are in the science standards is ethical practices,” Thompson said. “And it says, ‘Explain why it is important to examine data objectively and not let bias affect observations.’”
Supplemental resources
Thompson said that not only are teachers allowed to use supplemental resources, but that they are encouraged to do so. “Our administrators have, I feel, done a good job of letting us know that good teachers are ones who make the classroom come alive, and that's not just of the textbook,” Thompson said. “So what we need to do is go teach those standards.”
Tesla coil
While Thompson was in the classroom as an intervention specialist, he saw Freshwater demonstrate the Tesla coil. About 18 students out of a class of 23 participated in a static electricity daisy chain.
Freshwater also ran the spark across his own arm to make a mark—after which about three students asked to have the same thing done to their arm, Thompson said.
No student was harmed or made any complain about the Tesla coil, Thompson said.
Attorney for Freshwater, R. Kelly Hamilton, showed Thompson the photos that have purported to be of a student allegedly burned by the Tesla coil. Thompson had seen the photos in the newspaper but said that he never saw what was depicted in the photos on a child’s arm.
Thompson said he shared his experiences with the Tesla coil with Short and asked why only one person would be burned if multiple people had used it. He also asked Short if there was any way that the photo could be validated—considering the extent that photos can be manipulated with modern technology.
Thompson reported that Short—although he did listen—said he was not able to say a lot about the matter or ask many questions.
Ohio Achievement Test (OAT) scores/re-teaching
The HROC report included the statement that Freshwater’s students had to be re-taught. “During interviews with high school science teachers expressed frustration and concern regarding having to ‘re-teach’ concepts that in their opinion had been improperly taught by Mr. Freshwater at the eighth grade level,” the report stated.
Thompson said that he had no knowledge that Freshwater’s students needed re-taught—to the contrary, Freshwater’s students passed the OAT at a rate of 77 percent. For the “Life Science” portion of the test, which included evolutionary theory, they passed at a rate of 89 percent. Freshwater’s student passed at a higher rate than any other Mount Vernon Middle School eighth grade science class—Freshwater met and exceeded state standards.
(Also see the article "Head Teacher at High School: Never Said Freshwater’s Students Needed Re-taught.")
“Peanut butter and jelly”
One of the demonstrations Freshwater would do to help students understand how scientists work is to have the students help him make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, Thompson said:
“Mr. Freshwater brings in loaves of bread and a big thing of peanut butter and a big thing of jelly. And you ask the kids how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. You think it would be simple. He follows word for word what the kids say. It ends up being all over his hands and all over the place. They have a hard time correctly telling him what he has to do.
“His point was, going with the scientific theory, you have to follow step by step by step. As a scientist, you have got to document. You've got to be able to go step by step and follow directions to a T.”
Dr. Lynda Weston
Thompson spoke to the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education on August 4, 2008 during the public participation portion of the board’s meeting. It was at this time that he described the HROC report as an “incomplete, biased, and all-out lie investigation.”
(Thompson is the first person to speak on the video.)
Following the board meeting, Dr. Lynda Weston emailed Thompson and requested a meeting with him, Thompson said.
(Weston, formerly Director of Teaching and Learning at Mount Vernon City Schools, was in administrative work with the school for ten years. Weston is cited multiple times for information in the report by HROC.)
Thompson said that the initial subject of the meeting with Weston only took five minutes but that the rest of the meeting took about an hour. The conversation turned to what Thompson said at the prior board meeting. “[S]he asked me why I thought I needed to go to the Board and present what I did at the board meeting,” Thompson said.
According to Thompson, Weston told him that in the future he was supposed to get her permission before speaking to the board.
Weston expressed her belief as to why Thompson was supporting Freshwater as being because they “share the same religion,” Thompson said. He said he then felt the need to defend his reason for speaking out about the Freshwater matter. “[I]f it were another teacher that I felt was being wrongly accused of something and I had knowledge of that,” Thompson said, “and they may or may not share the same religion as me, […] my actions would be the same.”
The conversation then took another turn. Thompson said that Weston mentioned the name of his brother-in-law and asked Thompson, “Well, what do you think about his decision to leave the school district?”
After Thompson explained his brother-in-law’s reason for leaving, he said that Weston then asked, “Well, are you going to do the same?”
He replied, “No.”
Weston’s next question, according to Thompson, was, “Are you considering going into the ministry? I think you would make a good minister.”
Thompson said that eventually Weston understood that he had no plans of switching careers. They then discussed the possibility of Thompson getting into a master’s program and Thompson said that Weston helped him with some of the details for that.
Thompson was unsure of how to take Weston’s comments during their hour discussion—some things were complementary but made him feel unwanted as a teacher. “I felt like […] if I said the wrong thing, that I would lose my job,” Thompson said.
Thompson said that there have been a few times, since the controversy with Freshwater started, that he has questioned working for the Mount Vernon school system. He said he is concerned about what he described as a “slippery slope”—teachers losing their sense of being free to be creative and effective in their teaching over concerns that someone might complain over the smallest thing.
For Weston’s version of this conversation, see the article “School Administrator: Dishes It Out, but Can’t Take It ” the section titled “Andrew Thompson.”
Jody Goetzman
Thompson said that he had a parent/teacher conference with newly elected board member Jody Goetzman last year in which she made a comment about the middle school: “she said one of her top priorities was to fix the mess in the middle school.”
(Goetzman was elected in November, 2007, and took office in January, 2008.)
Thompson did not know what Goetzman meant by the statement.
(Request for comment from Goetzman has been made—if and when she replies, this article will be updated with her response.)
Does a teacher have to believe in Darwinian Evolution?
One of the questions Thompson said he posed to Short was, “Do you have to be a Muslim to teach Islam?”
A teacher at the high school, who teaches a class on world religions, teaches about Islam but—as far as Thompson knew—does not follow the Islamic religion. Thompson understood the teacher to still be effective without believing in the religion he was teaching about.
Thompson explained why he brought up the subject:
“My point with that is […] there's been allegations brought up about the way Mr. Freshwater taught evolution. And my thought was, well, not knowing exactly what his feelings are about evolution, what if maybe he didn't necessarily agree with exactly word for word what the textbook said? He still taught it. Does that mean that he has to believe word for word what the textbook says in order for him to be an effective teacher?”
John Freshwater
Thompson said that Freshwater had a good attitude throughout the ordeal of the accusations and investigation:
“From the time this whole thing came out and even now, I don't see a difference in Mr. Freshwater, and the students didn't see a difference in Mr. Freshwater. I just ... It's amazing to me, the attitude. I felt that he was not condemning towards the School Board, towards Mr. Short, towards our principals.”
Superintendent Steve Short
Thompson said he considers both Freshwater and Short to be mentors and friends of his. He said his intent in talking with Short about the HROC investigation was not to attack him, but to share concerns. Thompson wanted Short to talk to the board and ask that they reinstate Freshwater.
The HROC report is dated June 19, 2008. The board voted June 20, 2008 to start the process of firing Freshwater. The board placed Freshwater on unpaid administrative leave.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Subpoenas in John Freshwater Hearing -- School Board Says Judge Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction
Mount Vernon school board members do not want to appear to testify in the hearing for the teacher they placed on unpaid administrative leave last summer. In a brief filed on Friday, they said the county judge cannot make them testify:
“The statue is clear – this Court’s jurisdiction to compel attendance at a hearing is limited to the instance where a person fails to comply with a subpoena. As the subpoenas have been quashed by the Board, Petitioner does not have a vehicle to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, Petitioner’s Application should be rejected in its entirety.”
This second document from the school board’s attorneys appears to have been submitted along with the one on Wednesday, but it had to receive special approval from Judge Eyster before officially being “filed.” It goes into greater detail than the previous document—including citing specific court cases and providing affidavits from three of the school board members.
In this brief, it says that if board members testified “they would necessarily have to disqualify themselves from participating in the ultimate adjudication of this matter.” In the document filed on Wednesday, it only said it was “likely.”
As support for their position, the brief cites the case of Wilson v. Okla Horse Racing Comm’n:
“…[T]he actions of [the board member] in initiating and taking an active role in the matter for which [a horse trainer] was suspended, coupled with his presiding over the three-person Board and testifying in the case created a situation in which he should have disqualified himself.”
When the board voted to start the process of firing Freshwater last summer, they gave four reasons that they said were “independently sufficient ground for termination of employment.”
During the 20 days of testimony in the ongoing hearing, the evidence for many of the original allegations has been challenged. The brief filed Friday included a summary of the original four reasons as “Background” information:
The “failing to follow a directive” in item number four is a reference to Freshwater’s Bible. The “further compounding” most likely refers to Freshwater bringing a Bible and another book from the school’s library into his classroom.
The school board members have not been attending the hearing. Those present at the hearing have been their attorney, David Millstone, and Superintendent Steve Short.
The affidavit of school board President Ian Watson states that he does not have firsthand knowledge of the “alleged acts of Mr. Freshwater.” He does acknowledge having talked with the Dennis family—who brought complaints against Freshwater—and that he also did try the Tesla coil out on his own arm to see what it would do:
“Prior to issuance of the Amended Resolution, I had several conversations with Steve Dennis and Jennifer Dennis involving concerns and complaints they had about Mr. Freshwater’s class and activities at Mount Vernon Middle School. I referred those concerns and complaints to the Superintendent of the Mount Vernon Schools, Steve Short. After the Mount Vernon Schools received a written letter from counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Dennis, the Board of Education decided to have an independent investigation made into the various concerns and complaints they had raised.”
AND
“At some point in April 2008, I asked to see a demonstration of the Tesla coil, an instrument Mr. Freshwater is alleged to have used to burn or mark a student and then applied it to myself to see if it would a (sic) cause a burn. Subsequently, Steve Dennis came to my office and saw the mark it had made on me. I had not scheduled Mr. Dennis to come to my office.”
The affidavit of board member Jody Goetzman also stated that she did not have any firsthand knowledge. She does acknowledge having talked with Jennifer Dennis about her complaints, but said that it was prior to taking office as a school board member.
The conversation Goetzman had took place sometime between November 2007 and January 2008. “She expressed concerns and raised issues concerning Mr. Freshwater and her son,” Goetzman stated. “I advised her that I was not yet a Board member and that if she had concerns as a parent, she should go to school authorities including the Middle School Principal and the Superintendent, to pursue or (sic) concerns.”
The affidavit of board member Margie Bennett also stated that she did not have any firsthand knowledge. She acknowledges being subpoenaed “to appear to testify and to produce certain documents.” She has been on the board since January 1988 and currently serves as its vice-president.
The brief filed Friday argues that Freshwater does not have a legal right to force anyone to turn over documents. “[The law] does not provide any right to the discovery of documents as sought by Petitioner,” the brief stated. “The statute only provides that the parties require witnesses to be under oath and subject to cross-examination.”
***
For more information, see the last two articles on this topic:
“School Board ‘quashed’ Subpoenas in the John Freshwater Hearing.”
"School Board Gives Reason for Not Complying With Subpoenas."
UPDATE 7/1/2009:
The minutes of the May 4, 2009 school board meeting are now online.
In this meeting, it was voted—by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education—to quash the subpoenas of Margie Bennett and Ian Watson.
The board believes that only these two members were subpoenaed. Attorney for John Freshwater, R. Kelly Hamilton, filed an “application to compel attendance of witnesses” that says that Jody Goetzman was also subpoenaed.
The relevant portion of the board’s minutes are below:
Mrs. Fair moved, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to quash Dr. Bennett’s subpoena to testify at the Freshwater termination hearing on May 7 and May 8, 2009.
Call of votes: Mrs. Fair, Yes; Mr. Hughes, Yes; Dr. Bennett, Abstain; Mrs. Goetzman, Yes; Mr. Watson, Yes.
Motion carried.
Mrs. Goetzman moved, seconded by Mrs. Fair, to quash Mr. Watson’s subpoena to testify at the Freshwater termination hearing on May 7 and May 8.
Call of votes: Mrs. Goetzman, Yes; Mrs. Fair, Yes; Dr. Bennett, Yes; Mr. Hughes, Yes; Mr. Watson, Abstain.
Motion carried.
UPDATE:
“Judge Says He Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction”
“The statue is clear – this Court’s jurisdiction to compel attendance at a hearing is limited to the instance where a person fails to comply with a subpoena. As the subpoenas have been quashed by the Board, Petitioner does not have a vehicle to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, Petitioner’s Application should be rejected in its entirety.”
This second document from the school board’s attorneys appears to have been submitted along with the one on Wednesday, but it had to receive special approval from Judge Eyster before officially being “filed.” It goes into greater detail than the previous document—including citing specific court cases and providing affidavits from three of the school board members.
In this brief, it says that if board members testified “they would necessarily have to disqualify themselves from participating in the ultimate adjudication of this matter.” In the document filed on Wednesday, it only said it was “likely.”
As support for their position, the brief cites the case of Wilson v. Okla Horse Racing Comm’n:
“…[T]he actions of [the board member] in initiating and taking an active role in the matter for which [a horse trainer] was suspended, coupled with his presiding over the three-person Board and testifying in the case created a situation in which he should have disqualified himself.”
When the board voted to start the process of firing Freshwater last summer, they gave four reasons that they said were “independently sufficient ground for termination of employment.”
During the 20 days of testimony in the ongoing hearing, the evidence for many of the original allegations has been challenged. The brief filed Friday included a summary of the original four reasons as “Background” information:
“Petitioner’s use of a ‘Tesla’ coil, an electrical device, on multiple 8th grade students in science class, burning a mark on at least one of them.
“Petitioner’s teaching outside the approved curriculum, including teaching Creationism and Intelligent Design and including teaching religion in his eighth grade science class.
“Petitioner’s failure to stay within the statutorily imposed duties for a school employee monitor of a religious organization, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and serving as a participant rather than a non-participant in his role there.
“Petitioner’s acts of insubordination by failing to follow a directive of school administrators and further compounding the insubordination by taking further action to highlight that insubordination.”
The “failing to follow a directive” in item number four is a reference to Freshwater’s Bible. The “further compounding” most likely refers to Freshwater bringing a Bible and another book from the school’s library into his classroom.
The school board members have not been attending the hearing. Those present at the hearing have been their attorney, David Millstone, and Superintendent Steve Short.
The affidavit of school board President Ian Watson states that he does not have firsthand knowledge of the “alleged acts of Mr. Freshwater.” He does acknowledge having talked with the Dennis family—who brought complaints against Freshwater—and that he also did try the Tesla coil out on his own arm to see what it would do:
“Prior to issuance of the Amended Resolution, I had several conversations with Steve Dennis and Jennifer Dennis involving concerns and complaints they had about Mr. Freshwater’s class and activities at Mount Vernon Middle School. I referred those concerns and complaints to the Superintendent of the Mount Vernon Schools, Steve Short. After the Mount Vernon Schools received a written letter from counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Dennis, the Board of Education decided to have an independent investigation made into the various concerns and complaints they had raised.”
AND
“At some point in April 2008, I asked to see a demonstration of the Tesla coil, an instrument Mr. Freshwater is alleged to have used to burn or mark a student and then applied it to myself to see if it would a (sic) cause a burn. Subsequently, Steve Dennis came to my office and saw the mark it had made on me. I had not scheduled Mr. Dennis to come to my office.”
The affidavit of board member Jody Goetzman also stated that she did not have any firsthand knowledge. She does acknowledge having talked with Jennifer Dennis about her complaints, but said that it was prior to taking office as a school board member.
The conversation Goetzman had took place sometime between November 2007 and January 2008. “She expressed concerns and raised issues concerning Mr. Freshwater and her son,” Goetzman stated. “I advised her that I was not yet a Board member and that if she had concerns as a parent, she should go to school authorities including the Middle School Principal and the Superintendent, to pursue or (sic) concerns.”
The affidavit of board member Margie Bennett also stated that she did not have any firsthand knowledge. She acknowledges being subpoenaed “to appear to testify and to produce certain documents.” She has been on the board since January 1988 and currently serves as its vice-president.
The brief filed Friday argues that Freshwater does not have a legal right to force anyone to turn over documents. “[The law] does not provide any right to the discovery of documents as sought by Petitioner,” the brief stated. “The statute only provides that the parties require witnesses to be under oath and subject to cross-examination.”
***
For more information, see the last two articles on this topic:
“School Board ‘quashed’ Subpoenas in the John Freshwater Hearing.”
"School Board Gives Reason for Not Complying With Subpoenas."
UPDATE 7/1/2009:
The minutes of the May 4, 2009 school board meeting are now online.
In this meeting, it was voted—by the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education—to quash the subpoenas of Margie Bennett and Ian Watson.
The board believes that only these two members were subpoenaed. Attorney for John Freshwater, R. Kelly Hamilton, filed an “application to compel attendance of witnesses” that says that Jody Goetzman was also subpoenaed.
The relevant portion of the board’s minutes are below:
Mrs. Fair moved, seconded by Mr. Hughes, to quash Dr. Bennett’s subpoena to testify at the Freshwater termination hearing on May 7 and May 8, 2009.
Call of votes: Mrs. Fair, Yes; Mr. Hughes, Yes; Dr. Bennett, Abstain; Mrs. Goetzman, Yes; Mr. Watson, Yes.
Motion carried.
Mrs. Goetzman moved, seconded by Mrs. Fair, to quash Mr. Watson’s subpoena to testify at the Freshwater termination hearing on May 7 and May 8.
Call of votes: Mrs. Goetzman, Yes; Mrs. Fair, Yes; Dr. Bennett, Yes; Mr. Hughes, Yes; Mr. Watson, Abstain.
Motion carried.
UPDATE:
“Judge Says He Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction”
Thursday, June 18, 2009
School Board Gives Reason for Not Complying With Subpoenas
The employment hearing for suspended Mount Vernon teacher John Freshwater has been held up by the refusal of several school board members to turn over documents and to appear to testify. On Wednesday, two attorneys for the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education filed a document at the county courthouse giving as their reason that it was “likely” that if their clients appeared to testify they would have to disqualify themselves from the Freshwater matter.
The document—filed with the Court of Common Pleas Knox County, Ohio—gave no specific legal reason why board members were, in their words, “likely” to have to disqualify themselves. The concern is raised in the document that if there was a need for more than two members to disqualify themselves, the board would not have quorum.
The filing of the document came just two days after a public school board meeting in which residents expressed disappointment with the board's handling of the controversy. One of those that spoke at that meeting urged the school board members to comply with the subpoenas. “So as a young person I find myself questioning the people elected to office in our community and the process of the law,” Levi Stickle said. “Please, for the sake of other young people like myself, for this community and to simply get to the truth stop the charade and testify!”
Requests made to school board attorney David Millstone last week—seeking a clear legal explanation for the board’s refusal to testify—were not returned.
The document cites “Rule 24(A) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure”: *
“Intervention of right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of this state confers an unconditional right to intervene; or […](2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.”
(The document left out those portions that I’ve put in bold. They also inserted “…” where I’ve indicated.)
The documentstates that the board quashed their own subpoenas:
“In response to the receipt of their subpoenas, the two Board members requested the Board quash the subpoenas as neither Board member had direct knowledge of the facts related to the allegations contained in the Board resolution, and the Board did so in May 2009.”
The document by the board only lists two members as being previously subpoenaed—but does not give their names. It also says that a third member has previously been “requested to bring certain documents.” It goes on to say Freshwater “has indicated he intends to subpoena a third Board member and through his petition has indicated the possibility of subpoenaing a fourth Board member.”
The “Application to compel attendance of witnesses in the employment hearing of John Freshwater”—that was filed by the attorney for Freshwater, R. Kelly Hamilton, on June 2—says that more than two board members were subpoenaed. (See the last article on this topic “School Board ‘quashed’ Subpoenas in the John Freshwater Hearing.”)
The matter has yet to be ruled on by Judge Eyster.
* Note: “Rule 24(A) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure” was probability not being used by the board as support for being able to quash subpoenas. It was probably only cited by them as the basis to submit their reply to the original document filed at the county courthouse.
UPDATE 6/20/2009:
"Subpoenas in John Freshwater Hearing -- School Board Says Judge Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction."
The document—filed with the Court of Common Pleas Knox County, Ohio—gave no specific legal reason why board members were, in their words, “likely” to have to disqualify themselves. The concern is raised in the document that if there was a need for more than two members to disqualify themselves, the board would not have quorum.
The filing of the document came just two days after a public school board meeting in which residents expressed disappointment with the board's handling of the controversy. One of those that spoke at that meeting urged the school board members to comply with the subpoenas. “So as a young person I find myself questioning the people elected to office in our community and the process of the law,” Levi Stickle said. “Please, for the sake of other young people like myself, for this community and to simply get to the truth stop the charade and testify!”
Requests made to school board attorney David Millstone last week—seeking a clear legal explanation for the board’s refusal to testify—were not returned.
The document cites “Rule 24(A) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure”: *
“Intervention of right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of this state confers an unconditional right to intervene; or […](2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.”
(The document left out those portions that I’ve put in bold. They also inserted “…” where I’ve indicated.)
The documentstates that the board quashed their own subpoenas:
“In response to the receipt of their subpoenas, the two Board members requested the Board quash the subpoenas as neither Board member had direct knowledge of the facts related to the allegations contained in the Board resolution, and the Board did so in May 2009.”
The document by the board only lists two members as being previously subpoenaed—but does not give their names. It also says that a third member has previously been “requested to bring certain documents.” It goes on to say Freshwater “has indicated he intends to subpoena a third Board member and through his petition has indicated the possibility of subpoenaing a fourth Board member.”
The “Application to compel attendance of witnesses in the employment hearing of John Freshwater”—that was filed by the attorney for Freshwater, R. Kelly Hamilton, on June 2—says that more than two board members were subpoenaed. (See the last article on this topic “School Board ‘quashed’ Subpoenas in the John Freshwater Hearing.”)
The matter has yet to be ruled on by Judge Eyster.
* Note: “Rule 24(A) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure” was probability not being used by the board as support for being able to quash subpoenas. It was probably only cited by them as the basis to submit their reply to the original document filed at the county courthouse.
UPDATE 6/20/2009:
"Subpoenas in John Freshwater Hearing -- School Board Says Judge Doesn’t Have Jurisdiction."
John Freshwater Didn’t Call Media for Gathering on Square
The following testimony took place on 3/27/09—this article relies on the official hearing transcript for details of the testimony.
The Mount Vernon middle school teacher who refused to remove the Bible from his desk has been criticized by some as trying to seek attention. During testimony in March in an ongoing hearing, information came to light that it was another local resident who called the media.
Jeff Cline, who described himself as one of John Freshwater’s “Christian brothers,” said that he was the one who called the media. The television stations he said he called were “Four, six, and ten.” He also said he thought he was the one who contacted the Associated Press.
The gathering was held April 16, 2008 on the public square of downtown Mount Vernon, Ohio. Freshwater read a statement explaining why he was not going to remove his personal Bible off his classroom desk. Mount Vernon News reported on the gathering in the article “Crowd shows support for MV science teacher.”
(It wasn’t until after the gathering that other allegations against the teacher emerged. See Mount Vernon News article “Teacher conduct subject of investigation” )
Attorney for Freshwater, R. Kelly Hamilton, asked Cline what his impression was—based on observation, experience and discussion—of whether or not Freshwater would have participated if he knew the media would be there. “John wouldn't have been there that day,” Cline said. “John wouldn't have put that together.”
Cline also stated that Freshwater had no role in inviting people to attend the gathering. Cline said he had no knowledge of whether or not it was Freshwater who wrote the statement that Freshwater read to the crowd.
It was from having a conversation with Freshwater that Cline learned Freshwater was being ordered to remove his Bible.
On the day of the gathering, Cline described Freshwater as not being his usual cheerful self. “John's always pretty much happy, smiling, just very upbeat and positive type person,” Cline said. “That day I could tell just the -- he looked terrible. The sight of him, just the tears in his eyes and the quivering in his voice, just a total different John that I'd ever seen. He was fearful.”
Cline explained the reason for Freshwater’s demeanor as being the concern over the Bible. “[He was fearful of] Losing his Bible from his desk, somebody taking that prize possession of his, that Bible,” Cline said.
The Mount Vernon middle school teacher who refused to remove the Bible from his desk has been criticized by some as trying to seek attention. During testimony in March in an ongoing hearing, information came to light that it was another local resident who called the media.
Jeff Cline, who described himself as one of John Freshwater’s “Christian brothers,” said that he was the one who called the media. The television stations he said he called were “Four, six, and ten.” He also said he thought he was the one who contacted the Associated Press.
The gathering was held April 16, 2008 on the public square of downtown Mount Vernon, Ohio. Freshwater read a statement explaining why he was not going to remove his personal Bible off his classroom desk. Mount Vernon News reported on the gathering in the article “Crowd shows support for MV science teacher.”
(It wasn’t until after the gathering that other allegations against the teacher emerged. See Mount Vernon News article “Teacher conduct subject of investigation” )
Attorney for Freshwater, R. Kelly Hamilton, asked Cline what his impression was—based on observation, experience and discussion—of whether or not Freshwater would have participated if he knew the media would be there. “John wouldn't have been there that day,” Cline said. “John wouldn't have put that together.”
Cline also stated that Freshwater had no role in inviting people to attend the gathering. Cline said he had no knowledge of whether or not it was Freshwater who wrote the statement that Freshwater read to the crowd.
It was from having a conversation with Freshwater that Cline learned Freshwater was being ordered to remove his Bible.
On the day of the gathering, Cline described Freshwater as not being his usual cheerful self. “John's always pretty much happy, smiling, just very upbeat and positive type person,” Cline said. “That day I could tell just the -- he looked terrible. The sight of him, just the tears in his eyes and the quivering in his voice, just a total different John that I'd ever seen. He was fearful.”
Cline explained the reason for Freshwater’s demeanor as being the concern over the Bible. “[He was fearful of] Losing his Bible from his desk, somebody taking that prize possession of his, that Bible,” Cline said.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Time for school board to stop charade — John Freshwater controversy
Community members expressed their disappointment with the Mount Vernon City Schools, Ohio, Board of Education at their June 15, 2009 meeting.
In the last nine months only one person—Ron Meharry—has spoken out in the meetings in favor of the school board’s handling of the controversy.
School board members did not give any response in the meeting to what the public had to say.
The Mount Vernon News has posted an article about the meeting, "Citizens square off with MV school board."
Opinions expressed are those of the individuals expressing them.
Steve Thompson
Levi Stickle
Click here for the text of Levi Stickle's comments.
Dee Briggs
Bob Brayton
Jeff Cline
Click here to view the video of Jeff Cline’s comments. (I removed it as an embedded video because I wasn’t sure that it was related to the topic of Mount Vernon Middle School.)
In the last nine months only one person—Ron Meharry—has spoken out in the meetings in favor of the school board’s handling of the controversy.
School board members did not give any response in the meeting to what the public had to say.
The Mount Vernon News has posted an article about the meeting, "Citizens square off with MV school board."
Opinions expressed are those of the individuals expressing them.
Steve Thompson
Levi Stickle
Click here for the text of Levi Stickle's comments.
Dee Briggs
Bob Brayton
Jeff Cline
Click here to view the video of Jeff Cline’s comments. (I removed it as an embedded video because I wasn’t sure that it was related to the topic of Mount Vernon Middle School.)
Friday, June 12, 2009
School Board “quashed” Subpoenas in the John Freshwater Hearing
Three members of the Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education have refused to comply with subpoenas to testify and turn over documents in the John Freshwater hearing, according to a document obtained from the Court of Common Pleas Knox County, Ohio.
Those named in the document—“Application to compel attendance of witnesses in the employment hearing of John Freshwater”—are Ian Watson, Jody Goetzman and Margie Bennett. In addition to those already subpoenaed, the application requests that board member Sharon Fair be required to testify and turn over documents.
The application—dated June 2, 2009—was submitted to the court by R. Kelly Hamilton, attorney for Freshwater. It states that the subpoena for documents from Watson was as early as February 27, 2009. The three board members—Watson, Goetzman and Bennett—were submitted with subpoenas, to testify, in March and April of 2009, according to the application.
Freshwater, according to the application, was told in May that the board members would not be appearing to testify:
“In an email dated May 6, 2009, legal counsel for employer advised Petitioner John Freshwater the school board had ‘quashed those subpoenas and neither individual will be appearing.’ On May 7, 2009, counsel for Petitioner and counsel for the school board discussed the statutory process for compelling the presence of witnesses desired by Petitioner with acknowledgment by referee who was appointed by the the (sic) superintendent of public instruction. Counsel for the parties, with acknowledgment by the referee, agreed Petitioner John Freshwater would make this Application pursuant to R.C. 3319.16 seeking to compel the production of documents and appearance of witnesses.”
The application cites portions of the Ohio Revised Code 3319.16:
“Both parties may be present at such hearing, be represented by counsel, require witnesses to be under oath, cross-examine witnesses, take a record of the proceedings, and require the presence of witnesses in their behalf upon subpoena to be issued by the treasurer of the board.
“In case of the failure of any person to comply with a subpoena, a judge of the court of common pleas of the county in which the person resides, upon application of any interested party, shall compel attendance of the person by attachment proceedings as for contempt.”
At this time, it is not known why the school board members mentioned above are refusing to comply with the subpoenas. (Request for comment from them has been made—if and when they reply, this article will be updated with their response.)
The application submitted to the court by Hamilton makes no mention of the school board members submitting a request to have their subpoenas quashed by the court. Presumably, if the school board had submitted a quash request to the court, Hamilton’s document would have been identified as a response instead of “Application to compel attendance of witnesses in the employment hearing of John Freshwater.”
Did the school board members try to “quash” the subpoenas themselves instead of requesting a judge to do it?
UPDATE 6/18/09:
For the school board’s side of the story, see the article “School Board Gives Reason for Not Complying With Subpoenas.”
Those named in the document—“Application to compel attendance of witnesses in the employment hearing of John Freshwater”—are Ian Watson, Jody Goetzman and Margie Bennett. In addition to those already subpoenaed, the application requests that board member Sharon Fair be required to testify and turn over documents.
The application—dated June 2, 2009—was submitted to the court by R. Kelly Hamilton, attorney for Freshwater. It states that the subpoena for documents from Watson was as early as February 27, 2009. The three board members—Watson, Goetzman and Bennett—were submitted with subpoenas, to testify, in March and April of 2009, according to the application.
Freshwater, according to the application, was told in May that the board members would not be appearing to testify:
“In an email dated May 6, 2009, legal counsel for employer advised Petitioner John Freshwater the school board had ‘quashed those subpoenas and neither individual will be appearing.’ On May 7, 2009, counsel for Petitioner and counsel for the school board discussed the statutory process for compelling the presence of witnesses desired by Petitioner with acknowledgment by referee who was appointed by the the (sic) superintendent of public instruction. Counsel for the parties, with acknowledgment by the referee, agreed Petitioner John Freshwater would make this Application pursuant to R.C. 3319.16 seeking to compel the production of documents and appearance of witnesses.”
The application cites portions of the Ohio Revised Code 3319.16:
“Both parties may be present at such hearing, be represented by counsel, require witnesses to be under oath, cross-examine witnesses, take a record of the proceedings, and require the presence of witnesses in their behalf upon subpoena to be issued by the treasurer of the board.
“In case of the failure of any person to comply with a subpoena, a judge of the court of common pleas of the county in which the person resides, upon application of any interested party, shall compel attendance of the person by attachment proceedings as for contempt.”
At this time, it is not known why the school board members mentioned above are refusing to comply with the subpoenas. (Request for comment from them has been made—if and when they reply, this article will be updated with their response.)
The application submitted to the court by Hamilton makes no mention of the school board members submitting a request to have their subpoenas quashed by the court. Presumably, if the school board had submitted a quash request to the court, Hamilton’s document would have been identified as a response instead of “Application to compel attendance of witnesses in the employment hearing of John Freshwater.”
Did the school board members try to “quash” the subpoenas themselves instead of requesting a judge to do it?
UPDATE 6/18/09:
For the school board’s side of the story, see the article “School Board Gives Reason for Not Complying With Subpoenas.”
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Freshwater Press Release: “Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Mount Vernon City School Board”
The following press release was provided today (6-10-09) by John Freshwater’s media contact person, Don Matolyak:
Federal Lawsuit Filed Against
Mount Vernon City School Board
A federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of John Freshwater, 8th grade science teacher at Mount Vernon Middle School against The Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education, as well as select members of the board, and administrators. Also included in the suit are Thomas and Julia Hurlevi, principals of H.R. on Call, Inc., and unnamed John and Jane Does.
The lawsuit, filed in US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, cites free speech and equal protection violations under the US Constitution. Violations of Ohio Public Policy, religious harassment, retaliation, conspiracy, defamation, and breach of contract are also addressed in the claim filed Tuesday.
"The truth needs to be heard and I look forward to resolving this situation so I can get back to teaching science." Freshwater said, "I miss teaching and want to get back in the classroom."
The civil action shows Freshwater followed the directives given by the administration regarding items located in his classroom in April of 2008, but for the removal of his personal Bible from his desk. While the board continues to claim that this is ‘not about the Bible on his desk’, it was Freshwater’s public statements and refusal to remove his Bible from his desk which prompted the board’s actions and caused the chain of events that lead to this lawsuit.
The claim shows that Freshwater was discriminated against because of his personal religious beliefs and has been treated differently than other teachers in the district. The action shows a concerted effort was made by members of the MVCSDB and the administration to pose Freshwater in a bad light. The administration ignored their duties in following the appropriate process with Freshwater and was negligent in their own knowledge and training of board policy.
Throughout the course of the public hearings it became obvious that many of the assumptions presented against Freshwater were inaccurate, fabricated, unsubstantiated, or simply untrue, yet these accusations were used as the premise for Freshwater’s dismissal.
The lawsuit explains how investigators, hired by the board, failed to interview key individuals who had relevant information, refused to follow-up on leads which could have acquitted Freshwater, misrepresented documents within their report, and inserted inflammatory statements and personal bias.
Attorney for the MVCSD Board of Education, David Millstone, and members of the board conspired with others to alter the investigation and bias the hearing process. Attorney Millstone knowingly crossed lines of separation by reviewing drafts of the ‘independent’ investigative report in advance and providing information to H.R. on Call causing them to revise and further bias the report. Millstone also repeatedly collaborated with the Doe family, and their legal counsel, against Freshwater even while the Doe family had an action against the MVCSD.
The suit demonstrates how the MVCSD mishandled this situation by choosing to single Freshwater out and tarnish his reputation rather than investigate the facts.
Superintendant Steve Short, Middle School Principal William White, former school administrator Lynda Weston, school board members Ian Watson and Jody Goetzman, and the Hurlevi’s are all named individually, as well as in their official capacities, in the claim while Millstone is named only in his capacity as an agent for the MVCSDBOE.
According to Freshwater’s attorney R Kelly Hamilton, the preference was to complete the public hearing before filing any action, but the refusal of board members to testify has delayed the hearing and pushed against the statute of limitations requirements.
Federal Lawsuit Filed Against
Mount Vernon City School Board
A federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of John Freshwater, 8th grade science teacher at Mount Vernon Middle School against The Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education, as well as select members of the board, and administrators. Also included in the suit are Thomas and Julia Hurlevi, principals of H.R. on Call, Inc., and unnamed John and Jane Does.
The lawsuit, filed in US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, cites free speech and equal protection violations under the US Constitution. Violations of Ohio Public Policy, religious harassment, retaliation, conspiracy, defamation, and breach of contract are also addressed in the claim filed Tuesday.
"The truth needs to be heard and I look forward to resolving this situation so I can get back to teaching science." Freshwater said, "I miss teaching and want to get back in the classroom."
The civil action shows Freshwater followed the directives given by the administration regarding items located in his classroom in April of 2008, but for the removal of his personal Bible from his desk. While the board continues to claim that this is ‘not about the Bible on his desk’, it was Freshwater’s public statements and refusal to remove his Bible from his desk which prompted the board’s actions and caused the chain of events that lead to this lawsuit.
The claim shows that Freshwater was discriminated against because of his personal religious beliefs and has been treated differently than other teachers in the district. The action shows a concerted effort was made by members of the MVCSDB and the administration to pose Freshwater in a bad light. The administration ignored their duties in following the appropriate process with Freshwater and was negligent in their own knowledge and training of board policy.
Throughout the course of the public hearings it became obvious that many of the assumptions presented against Freshwater were inaccurate, fabricated, unsubstantiated, or simply untrue, yet these accusations were used as the premise for Freshwater’s dismissal.
The lawsuit explains how investigators, hired by the board, failed to interview key individuals who had relevant information, refused to follow-up on leads which could have acquitted Freshwater, misrepresented documents within their report, and inserted inflammatory statements and personal bias.
Attorney for the MVCSD Board of Education, David Millstone, and members of the board conspired with others to alter the investigation and bias the hearing process. Attorney Millstone knowingly crossed lines of separation by reviewing drafts of the ‘independent’ investigative report in advance and providing information to H.R. on Call causing them to revise and further bias the report. Millstone also repeatedly collaborated with the Doe family, and their legal counsel, against Freshwater even while the Doe family had an action against the MVCSD.
The suit demonstrates how the MVCSD mishandled this situation by choosing to single Freshwater out and tarnish his reputation rather than investigate the facts.
Superintendant Steve Short, Middle School Principal William White, former school administrator Lynda Weston, school board members Ian Watson and Jody Goetzman, and the Hurlevi’s are all named individually, as well as in their official capacities, in the claim while Millstone is named only in his capacity as an agent for the MVCSDBOE.
According to Freshwater’s attorney R Kelly Hamilton, the preference was to complete the public hearing before filing any action, but the refusal of board members to testify has delayed the hearing and pushed against the statute of limitations requirements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
