Dover boots board

Board members who made changes to science class received the fewest votes.

By MICHELLE STARR
Daily Record/Sunday News
Wednesday, November 9, 2005

Dover CARES candidates swept the race for school board Tuesday, defeating board members who supported the curriculum change that was challenged in federal court.

After months of fierce campaigning that included some mudslinging from both sides, new members of the board are Bernadette Reinking, Rob McIlvaine, Bryan Rehm, Terry Emig, Patricia Dapp, Judy McIlvaine, Larry Gurreri and Phil Herman.

The challengers defeated James Cashman, Alan Bonsell, Sherrie Leber, Ed Rowand, Eric Riddle, Ron Short, Sheila Harkins and Dave Napierskie. Results are not official until certified by the county.

"We're still in shock because we were expecting to have some wins," said Dapp, who won a two-year term. "We weren't expecting to have all eight."

Dapp said "we recognized very quickly that we were a very cohesive, well-working team. I think that is one of our many strengths of what we will bring to the board."

Candidates weigh in

Board members Bonsell and Harkins, who had voted in favor of adding intelligent design into the ninth-grade science curriculum, received the fewest votes, with 2,469 and 2,466, respectively. Bonsell and Harkins did not return phone calls about the results Tuesday.

Reinking, who was running for a four-year term, received the most overall votes with 2,754.

"It's a nice thing," she said. "I'm very flattered and very humble about the whole thing."

During the campaign, the eight Dover CARES candidates had questioned the incumbents' truthfulness and fiscal responsibility, while the eight incumbents touted their achievements in keeping taxes in line and the ability to provide quality education.

Cashman, who was running for a four-year term, had said during the day Tuesday that "I expect to win, but it's not a big celebratory thing."

About the loss, Cashman said, "We put our effort into this, and we tried to manage the school district as conservatively as we could. I have nothing to be ashamed about."

Rehm said he believed the voters responded because of the challengers' combined efforts. It wasn't one thing. They went door to door, held public meetings and didn't exclude anyone, said Rehm, who won a four-year seat.

A major topic in this year's race was the 2004 curriculum change that added a statement about intelligent design to the ninth-grade science curriculum.

The elected board members oppose mentioning intelligent design in science class. Rehm was one of 11 parents who sued the board in U.S. Middle District Court. The trial concluded Friday, and Judge John E. Jones III hopes to have a decision before the year's end.

Effects on intelligent design case

Regardless of the election results, those six weeks of the trial have not been lost, according to attorneys on both sides.

"The suit goes on," said plaintiffs' attorney Steve Harvey of Pepper Hamilton. "The mere election of a new board does not change anything."

Harvey and defense attorney Richard Thompson of Thomas More Law Center said Jones has a set of facts to use to determine his ruling.

Harvey said he did not want to speculate on the fallout of what the new board might do. Thompson gave several scenarios.

The new board could change the policy and determine how it will handle legal appeals. It could keep Thomas More or choose another firm if it wishes to continue the case to keep intelligent design in the curriculum.

If the judge rules against the board, Thompson said, the new board could decide not to fight and could therefore be stuck with the plaintiffs' legal fees, as requested in the suit.

"What is done is done," Reinking said about the court proceeding, "but to take it to the Supreme Court? To me that won't be an issue."

ACLU attorney Witold Walczak said if the board abandons the intelligent-design statement, the plaintiffs want a court order stating the new board won't reinstitute it.

"It actually is a way to conclude the litigation," Walczak said. "The parties sign essentially a contract that says they will stop the unconstitutional conduct."

It's so nice to see the voters weighing in on the side of rationality and reasonableness, and doing so with such definitiveness.

Update: How will this effect the outcome of the Dover trial? Ed Brayton has the answer.