Freshwater: Hearing testimony ends!

| 32 Comments

After 21 calendar months, 39 (by one count) actual days of sessions, and over $700,000 in expenses and still counting, the administrative hearing on the termination of John Freshwater finished taking testimony today. We fell a day short of the length of the Kitzmiller v. Dover ASD trial but we may yet exceed its $1M total cost–the $700K doesn’t include Freshwater’s legal costs and there’s still a goodly amount of attorney work yet to do before it’s over.

Today concluded the Board’s rebuttal case. The sole witness was Steve Short, Superintendent of the Mt. Vernon City Schools. However, the day couldn’t start without one last attempt to stir up a pseudo-controversy by R. Kelly Hamilton, Freshwater’s attorney. Before the hearing started this morning he asked the referee to close the hearing to the public on the grounds that some unidentified person was surreptitiously recording the proceedings in violation of the referee’s order (from October, 2008) against electronic recording. The referee declined to do so, contenting himself with reiterating the earlier prohibition.

More below the fold

Recall that the purpose of the rebuttal phase is to enable the Board to address specific allegations or claims raised by the defense in the course of its presentation. Today’s testimony was basically a walk-through of defense claims about the treatment of Freshwater in the period preceding his April 16, 2008, appearance on the public square; about alleged discriminatory treatment of Freshwater as compared with the treatment of other teachers; and about the handling of the materials taken from Freshwater’s classroom after he was suspended in July 2008, along with some miscellany.

Steve Short Direct

David Millstone, the Board’s attorney, began Short’s direct examination by tracing the course of materials removed from Freshwater’s classroom in August, 2008, following the Board’s Jul 2008 suspension (pdf of meeting minutes) of Freshwater’s teaching contract. Short testified that he instructed the head of maintenance to have the material packed in boxes and removed, and approximately four custodians did the job, moving the stuff to the former director of business administration’s office in the central office building. After it was moved, Short asked the maintenance supervisor if everything had been moved, and was told there was some “junk” in what has been called the “rat hole,” a space below a staircase in the middle school. Short gave instructions that it be also moved to central office, and a day or two later it was. Some time back Hamilton had made a big deal about Freshwater’s stuff in the “rat hole” being accessible to anyone for some time, and hence hinted that the evidence had been tampered with. Short’s testimony rebuts those claims.

We went on to the numbering of the boxes, also claimed by Freshwater to indicate tampering. It turns out they were numbered by the legion of lawyers tramping through them, an explanation bolstered by an affidavit from one of the lawyers involved at that time. Discrepancies between the date of claimed boxing up and packing slip dates on two boxes were explained by repacking after the original boxes deteriorated due to the load of contents. Another Hamiltonian conspiracy theory bit the dust.

Short also explained why two documents marked “bd ex 22” and “bd ex 99”, both exhibits introduced during the hearing as Board Exhibits, were later found in the boxes with those stamps. Turns out the documents had been removed from the boxes to be entered into evidence, but copies weren’t made before they were returned to the boxes and thus copies with the markings were put back in the boxes. An oversight, to be sure, but not ‘tampering’ in the sense Hamilton wanted.

We heard about several documents entered into evidence that Hamilton and Freshwater said they couldn’t find in the material when they examined it in January 2010. In all cases Short testified that the documents came from that material.

Millstone asked Short about the 5 “armloads” of material he gave to Freshwater from the material in the central office. Short testified that Freshwater called him to ask for his personal property from his room. Short went through the room full of materials and got the 5 armloads to give to Freshwater. Millstone introduced an inventory Short made as he removed material from that stored.

In a series of questions, Millstone had Short compared the inventory to photographs claimed to be of the material that had been submitted as part of an affidavit from Freshwater, photographs that purported to show the materials returned to Freshwater by Short. In many cases the objects and documents in the pictures did not appear on Short’s inventory. We walked through 22 photographs. Of those, Short recognized just a few objects–3 or 4–as having been inventoried and returned to Freshwater. Millstone had Short identify a long list of objects and documents on his inventory that did not appear in the photographs in Freshwater’s affidavit.

Based on the foregoing, Millstone asked Short if he had an opinion regarding the accuracy of Freshwater’s affidavit. Short replied, “I don’t believe it is accurate.”

Turning to the anonymous letter he received from the mystery source enclosing copies of some documents, Short testified that on receiving it he consulted with counsel, Sara(h?) Moore, who was at the school at the time. Short and Moore went through the central office building and the middle school looking for the originals of the copies, but didn’t find them. Asked, Short testified that he wanted to find them as much as anybody, and denied that he was concealing anything. Hamilton has been trying to make the case that the material supplied by the anonymous source had been in the custody of the school administration and had been withheld from Freshwater. Short’s testimony is that not only was that material not in the custody of the administration, they tried and failed to find it.

Millstone referred to Freshwater’s testimony that he could not remember his role in the Will Graham evangelical event at Kenyon College in October, 2007. Short testified that on a Facebook page associated with that event he found Freshwater listed as “Student Ministry Director.” My Facebook search ability is nil, and I couldn’t find that page. Anyone else? (It’s here under More Info.)

We then considered notes Freshwater kept for an April 2, 2008, meeting with White and Short, or so the notes claimed. Short testified that on April 2, 2008, he was at a meeting in Columbus and did not meet with White and Freshwater. He said he did meet with them on April 9. At that meeting the discussed (a) Freshwater explaining the meaning of Easter in class, (b) Freshwater passing out Bibles, and (c) Freshwater’s use of the “Here” code. Short testified that Freshwater acknowledged that he explained Easter and passed out Bibles. So, Millstone asked, if Freshwater’s notes indicated an April 2, 2008, meeting and he claimed that he made the notes on April 2, 2008, would that be inaccurate? Short replied, “Yes.”

Millstone asked if Short had done research on the newspaper publication of photos of Zach Dennis’s arm and the association of Zach’s name with the photographs. Short replied that he had checked all the issues of the Mt. Vernon News and the Columbus Dispatch, and none had published the photographs identified as Zachary Dennis’s arm. All the photographs of the arm had been published prior to the start of the hearing (And breech of the federal court’s anonymity order) in late October, 2008. That raises problems for Ben Neilson’s testimony regarding his exclamation that “That’s not Zach’s arm” on seeing the newspaper photo: Zach was not identified in association with the photos published before the hearing started.

Millstone turned to the Bible and “Jesus of Nazareth” book Freshwater checked out from the middle school library. In his testimony earlier Freshwater tried to imply that the due date of the books wasn’t a reliable indicator of when they were checked out, since the librarians would renew them on a phone call. Short testified that he checked with the librarian and she said the books were due on May 13, and had been checked out on April 14, two days before Freshwater’s appearance for the media on the public square in Mt. Vernon.

Millstone then turned to the 15 affidavits Freshwater claimed he had prepared (with Hamilton) in May 2008 for use in the second interview with HR OnCall, the interview that was canceled. These are the affidavits for which billing records were ordered in the Dennis family’s suit against Freshwater and which were lost in the Flood when Hamilton’s computer was drowned and he didn’t have the smarts to engage a data recovery firm but just threw it away on his local computer store guy’s say-so. Short testified that he never saw the affidavits, that Freshwater did not give them to him or the Board of Education, and did not give them to the investigators or ask that they be given to the investigators. As far as Short knows, Freshwater didn’t tell anyone concerned with the investigation that he had prepared a “comprehensive response” as allowed by the master contract.

Millstone asked if Short had been aware that other teachers had Bibles on their desks. Not at the time, he replied, but he learned it later. Asked, he said they were not required to remove them because there were not complaints that they used them or referred to them in class, as there had been with Freshwater and that Freshwater had confirmed to him in the April 9, 2008, meeting with Short and White. He said that Freshwater’s room was “different” from the others in that it had the 10 Commandments posters, Answer in Genesis references, the motivational posters with Bible verses, and so on.

Asked, Short testified that other teachers were found to have religious displays, but removed them without demurral when instructed to do so. He testified that there were no refusals from the other teachers, and no complaints from parents regarding their materials.

Short Cross Examination

Hamilton asked about the complaints referred to. Was there just one complaint or multiple complaints? Multiple. From one family or more than one family? One. The Dennises? Yes.

Regarding Short’s testimony that no other teacher had refused to remove their Bibles from sight, Hamilton read from the transcript of the tape Lori Miller made of her meeting with Principal White and Superintendent Short on August 24, 2008. In it, when Short asked if she had any problems with the request to remove materials, she replied she had a problem with the Bible being removed. Short advised her to remove it and if she thought it was wrong, to file a grievance so they could go that route. Asked by Hamilton, Short testified he did not interpret Miller’s “problem” comment to be a refusal.

Asked, Short testified that as far as he knew no one had given Freshwater similar advice about complying with a directive and then filing a grievance if it’s thought to be unjust.

We went yet again to the question of what a religious “display” is. Short said it was a display of an item or items “that could be religious in nature depending on whether someone perceives it as religious.”

Asked, Short agreed that “religious display” was not defined anywhere in Mt. Vernon School District policies.

We then spent some time with Hamilton trying to establish that Freshwater couldn’t possibly be expected to know the terms and conditions of the master contract under which he worked, and that it was surely someone else’s responsibility to take him by the hand and gently show him how to read the forking contract. This is as kindly as I can describe Hamilton’s line of questioning here: ‘My client is a drooling idiot and someone else has to be responsible for him not knowing the terms and conditions of his employment.’

Asked whether anyone had asked Freshwater if the 10 Commandments posters were a religious display, Short replied that he believed Principal White had that conversation with Freshwater, as he did also with respect to the Bush/Powell poster. Asked if that was in writing, Short replied no.

Turning to the Facebook page on the Will Graham event, Short agreed that it wasn’t Freshwater’s Facebook page and that someone else could have put the information on it. (Again, anyone find it? I’ve emailed Millstone, but he’s recovering from pneumonia and was not at all well today. It’s here under More Info,) Hamilton asked if it meant that Freshwater actually served as Student Ministry Director., or if someone else put that up is it taking it out of context. I have no more idea than you what Hamilton meant by that, and Short didn’t know either. We went back and forth about taking things out of context to no clear line or resolution. Hamilton sometimes chases invisible rabbits.

Then we moved to the Board of Education’s most recent evaluation of Superintendent Short’s performance, from August 2009. In it, apparently individual Board members can list things they think need attention or are noteworthy. Hamilton focused on a few from one member, which said something to the effect that Short could do a better job of regularly updating the Board on the hearing, and that Short should exercise “firmer control” over the Board’s attorney.

We spent some time on the evaluation, with Hamilton picking out points of critique, mostly in an apparent effort to make Short look like an incompetent. Recall that’s one of Hamilton’s defense themes: administrative incompetence.

We spent a little time on who had keys to the rooms where the material from Freshwater’s classroom was stored. For the first 30 or so days, Short and one custodian had keys, with the custodian instructed to stay out of the room. Subsequently, just Short and his secretary had keys.

Hamilton asked Short if he could have done a better job handling the situation. Short replied that he thought he did a good job; “I’m comfortable with the job I did.”

Hamilton then focused on Short’s inventory of the material he’d returned to Freshwater. Hamilton had made a Public Records Request asking among other things for any inventories. Further, that inventory list has turned up in a filing in the federal case (pdf) of the Dennis family vs. Freshwater. Why, Hamilton asked, wasn’t the inventory turned over in response to the PRR? Short replied that he regarded it as a work product for counsel, and is thus immune from such requests. Asked, Short testified he had no idea how Doug Mansfield, the Dennis’s attorney, got a copy for the May 14, 2010, filing in the federal case.

We chased a few other random rabbits–could one of the maintenance guys who packed up Freshwater’s classroom have taken the materials subsequently found in the black bag? It’s possible. Whose handwriting was on one of the boxes? “Who knows?” And so on.

Was Short aware that one of the allegations against Freshwater was that he was promoting the Christian religion in his classroom? Yes. Why then did Short return a couple of Christian CDs to Freshwater when they could have been kept to support the Board’s case? “I was trying to get his property back to him.”

We slogged through the inventory for a while looking for discrepancies. None were apparent.

Short redirect

Cross meandered to an end, and we had a short redirect in which Short identified 14 photos of the “motivational posters” with Bible verses. Then Millstone asked about how Freshwater and Miller differed, and Short again said there were no complaints about Miller, that she had chosen to comply with the administrator’s directives, and she did not “make a statement” that she wasn’t going to comply. Further, he said, the administration was attempting to ensure that the school was in compliance with the law regarding the 1st Amendment, and she cooperated.

The “statement” referred to was not Freshwater’s public statement on the square on April 16, 2008, but to a written statement he attached to his response to Principal White before that.

Short recross

An even shorter recross in which Hamilton established that there were not photographs of around 6 of the roughly 20 “motivational” posters.

The schedule from here on out

That ended testimony in the hearing, and both sides agreed they had no more to present. We avoided a potential steel cage match when both sides agreed to the admission of all the exhibits offered by both sides. Hamilton had earlier objected to many of the Board’s exhibits (in late 2008), and I anticipated a battle here, but the attorneys agreed to admit everything and let the referee sort it out.

The referee gave both sides until July 26, 2010, to submit their summary statements, and until August 2, 2010, to file their replies to the other side’s summary. Referring to the state statute that requires the referee to submit his recommendation to the Board of Education with 10 days of the hearing termination, the referee defined “hearing termination” as ‘when I have finished reviewing everything submitted to me.’ That means that we have no idea when the recommendation will be submitted to the Board of Education except that it will be later than 10 days after August 2. The two reporters and I pressed the referee on whether the summaries from the two sides would be subject to a public records request, and he said he regarded them as private until his recommendation goes to the Board of Education. One or the other (or both) newspapers may press on that. I hope they do.

Sometime in the next week or so I will attempt a summary post, though finding a narrative theme for it is going to be really hard and I have no idea now what it will be.

The last thing that Joan, the court reporter, said to me as we exited the hearing room for the last time was “Where’s the cast party?”

32 Comments

I found what appears to be Freshwater’s Facebook page, but I can’t seem to post the link here. He has about 398 “fans” listed there.

Directly linked to that is another page for “C Facts”. Its description reads:

Creation Facts is a creation ministry started in 2007 by Levi Stickle. Creation Facts’ mission is to promote the fact that God created the world in six 24 hour days about six thousand years ago using Science, History, and the Bible.

What a load of bull$#it! It too mostly barks about Freshwater’s plight.

Yeah, I found that page. It has a disclaimer that it’s not actually Freshwater’s page. It’s apparently maintained by the Stickle brothers, Sam and Levi, strong supporters and regular attendees at the hearing.

  We then spent some time with Hamilton trying to establish that Freshwater couldn’t possibly be expected to know the terms and conditions of the master contract under which he worked, and that it was surely someone else’s responsibility to take him by the hand and gently show him how to read the forking contract. This is as kindly as I can describe Hamilton’s line of questioning here: ‘My client is a drooling idiot and someone else has to be responsible for him not knowing the terms and conditions of his employment.’

Why didn’t Hamilton do this at the time he was taking $10,000.00 from Freshwater for the affidavits. Then he could have put those affivaits to good uses. . 

I’ve asked this before, and RBH answered as best he could, regarding the likely sympathy or not, of the ref toward Freshwater. But just a further note, is the reluctance of the ref to make the summaries available to public scrutiny, cause to think he would like to go easy on the troglodite?

I want to thank you Richard for staying with this story. My daughter starts 7th grade in the Lakota (West Chester, OH) schools and I’m hoping that nothing remotely like this happens here. I am keeping am eye out for it though.

dpr

Thanks for staying in the story all these months.

Through a brief search I did find what might be of interest to the readers here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyon[…]letic_Center Use in 2007 Will Graham celebration

From 5 to 7 October 2007, the KAC was rented out to Will Graham of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association for the 2007 Will Graham Celebration,[13] which was attended by approximately 5,000 people.[14] The event was met with some controversy among the mostly liberal–progressive Kenyon College community, as Graham’s father Franklin Graham had been accused of making discriminatory anti-Islamic statements;[15] numerous students and faculty called the choice to host the event “inappropriate”[16] and criticized Kenyon’s administration for having allowed it.[15]

Several weeks before the Celebration, about 300 residents of Knox County, Ohio, in which Kenyon is located, gathered near the Kenyon Athletic Center for a “Surround the KAC” event to “form a shield of protection” around the property in preparation for the Celebration.[13] The event was also intended as an outreach to the non-Christian community.[13] In order to avoid trespassing on college property, the group used the public roads around the athletic facility to surround and “bath[e] the building in prayer”.[13] [edit]

Does this mean the Rapture is imminent?

Marion Delgado said:

Does this mean the Rapture is imminent?

I think if the Rapture took place, most of us Panda’s Thumb readers would be driving new cars and living in new homes.

Given the badness of many religious people (and the original quota system being filled long ago anyway!), a rapture might not be noticeable.

Dale Husband’s site above, which I also found, is the source of the information. We didn’t dig deep enough. Under Info we find this:

The 2007 GREATER KNOX COUNTY WILL GRAHAM CELEBRATION John served as the Student Ministries Director. He worked with the BGEA staff and the area youth pastors/leaders for more than 10 months leading up to and following the Celebration.

Seriously fantastic job throughout this ordeal, Richard! Thanks again!

I just wanted to pile on the thanks to you, Richard, for your hard work keeping us updated on the proceedings. Too bad we still won’t know the outcome for quite a while yet.

robert van bakel said: I’ve asked this before, and RBH answered as best he could, regarding the likely sympathy or not, of the ref toward Freshwater. But just a further note, is the reluctance of the ref to make the summaries available to public scrutiny, cause to think he would like to go easy on the troglodite?

I think not; this is standard procedure in administrative hearings on personnel issues. I also think that the papers’ putative requests to get copies of the closing statements before the hearing officer is done with them are ill-considered and due to fail.

A personnel-matters hearing is not a public hearing in the same way as is a court hearing. At least in theory, the hearing officer would have been within his rights to close everything to the public and just release the bloody transcript and written submissions when he issues his administrative findings. So long as the hearing officer releases them in a timely manner (that is, with the findings), that will satisfy both federal and Ohio open records law while simultaneously protecting any privacy issues. Given Mr Hamilton’s past submissions in this and the federal matter, I strongly suspect that there will be substantial privacy matters raised in there that the hearing officer will need to resolve… and the best way to minimize them is to hold those submissions back until issing the administrative findings.

N.B. I’m inferring the above from general experience, including time as a hearing panel officer on federal personnel matters — not from specific knowledge of how the underlying collective bargaining agreement treats these matters in Ohio. For all I know, the collective bargaining agreement that requires this hearing in the first place puts other restrictions (either way!) on public access to attorneys’ closing statements.

I think if the Rapture took place, most of us Panda’s Thumb readers would be driving new cars and living in new homes.

Not we English readers. Creationists over here are a pretty miserable bunch being mainly uneducated and uneducatable. Decent people but poor. So no fine cars for us. Apart from which there aren’t many of them.

For those interested, uneducatable = uneducable.

Your mistake, my neologism.

Although sitting across the Pond and watching all of this with a detatched air of someone (almost) confident that this couldn’t occur here, I have to say that Richard Hoppe, you’re doing an awesome job here. I can’t begin to imagine all the tongue biting that must be going on as you have to sit through this all, but it’s really appreciated that this is being properly reported on.

Thank you C.E.Petite for the fulsome reply. Really, what I’m trying to get at is a rehabilitation/retribution, answer.(Rehabilitation naturally being impossible) That is, apart from termination, what can this ‘toothless’ court do? I want the prick fired, at the very least, I want a slamming indictment of their ‘science’ such as in Dover. I WANT BLOOD. Chances?

RBH, The Facebook page is NOT maintained by Sam Stickle he is not an administrator on the page, although he has posted links to his site on it.(as anyone could)

RBH said “Before the hearing started this morning he asked the referee to close the hearing to the public on the grounds that some unidentified person was surreptitiously recording the proceedings in violation of the referee’s order”

Two people had reported seeing what they believed was someone videotaping. Although the referee did not mention the name of the person allegedly recording in the hearing, R. Kelly Hamilton did provide the name of the person to the referee and to David Millstone.

The person, Dean Narciso, responded by saying that while he did experiment with the camera on his notebook, during a delay in the hearing, he did not actually record anything.

RBH: Freshwater hearing testimony ends!

Dude! More than anyone on this planet, for hanging in there for 39 day of yammering nonsense, YOU deserve a drink.

I’ll buy. Hell, I bet half this blog will buy you one!

mountvernon1805 said: The person, Dean Narciso, responded by saying that while he did experiment with the camera on his notebook, during a delay in the hearing, he did not actually record anything.

I’ll note that Dean Narciso is the Columbus Dispatch reporter who has been covering the hearing.

mountvernon1805 said:

RBH said “Before the hearing started this morning he asked the referee to close the hearing to the public on the grounds that some unidentified person was surreptitiously recording the proceedings in violation of the referee’s order”

Two people had reported seeing what they believed was someone videotaping. Although the referee did not mention the name of the person allegedly recording in the hearing, R. Kelly Hamilton did provide the name of the person to the referee and to David Millstone.

The person, Dean Narciso, responded by saying that while he did experiment with the camera on his notebook, during a delay in the hearing, he did not actually record anything.

Ok, so then I’m not really sure than what your point is. It was my understanding the one or both of the Stickle brothers had laptops that also had the potential to record and/or videotape and there was no mention of that during the hearing. Do you dispute that?

Richard, another big thumbs up from me on your sterling efforts. A lot of self professed “good people” could learn something from your incredible patience through all this.

C.E. Petit said:

A personnel-matters hearing is not a public hearing in the same way as is a court hearing.

Pure speculation, but does anyone think that Hamilton would have acted any differently during this whole debacle if he hadn’t been able to play up to the gallery, pimping himself out for a position with the IDiots?

I imagine that the hearing could have been brought to a close much earlier, saving public money on school board lawyers fees…

seabiscuit, The laptop I use in the hearing does not have a camera built in, and using an external one would be very obvious to everyone in attendance. Dean Narciso, however, has one built into the laptop he was using.

Levi:

If your laptop (or your brother’s) has the capability to record the hearing than it doesn’t matter if you could videotape or not. A recording would also be a violation. The ruling was that no one was to videotape or record the proceedings.

And that was my point.….

That Freshwater page on Facebook.com may not be “owned and operated” (or whatever) by John Freshwater but the Info section does contain a lot of personal information that JF must have given the person who did create the page… including baptising new believers in their bathtub.

Let me clarify the range of views on this here by adding mine:

I don’t think freshwater is a bad guy, or even entirely a bad teacher. The only reason I would want this to go very badly for him and his attorney is simply that if they don’t, this blackmail strategy of either allow creationism or we’ll drain the school budget forcing you to get rid of us will spread, and it will kill 2 birds with one stone, because creationists tend to hate the public school system and want it replaced with a private and theocratic one.

Marion Delgado said: …creationists tend to hate the public school system and want it replaced with a private and theocratic one.

Actually, they want it replaced by a public theocratic system. Makes for a larger captive audience for proselytization.

seabiscuit said:

Levi:

If your laptop (or your brother’s) has the capability to record the hearing than it doesn’t matter if you could videotape or not. A recording would also be a violation. The ruling was that no one was to videotape or record the proceedings.

And that was my point.….

Just because a computer has capability does not mean the person is recording, however in Dean Narciso’s case two people reported seeing him using video recording software during the hearing.

Sorry, Levi, but there has been significant speculation (based on observation) as well that you and your brother have recorded parts of the hearing as well.

But this argument is pointless and I don’t expect this discussion to come to a reasonable resolution just like the situation that began this whole fiasco.

I also believe someone told me that one of the Stickle brothers had their camera taken due to taking a picture of a minor witness in the hearing area. So I am not sure of the point of all this.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on June 23, 2010 2:28 AM.

Early indications of bipedalism in A. afarensis was the previous entry in this blog.

ICR hits a snag is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter