He still believes the Dover Area School District can undo the intelligent design curriculum that landed the district in federal court.
Last month, Napierskie tried to garner support from fellow outgoing school board members to reverse the decision, saying it could save the taxpayers from potential legal fees.
However, Napierskie -- one of eight incumbent board members who lost the Nov. 8 election -- couldn't find support, and his motions died for a lack of second.
This month, Napierskie is making the same appeal to
the newly elected board, which will be seated Monday.
"My point is, bottom-line, it's never too late," Napierskie said last night. "I don't care how small that door is, you should try to go through it."
In an open letter to the board, which was also submitted to the superintendent, both York newspapers and The Patriot-News in Harrisburg , Napierskie writes that the "Board has the responsibility to minimize the amount of money spent by the District, as the money being spent is that of the taxpayers."
He also writes, "The new board won the recent general election on the premise that it would rescind the policy, but is now telling the media and public a different story."
Napierskie hired Carlisle attorney Andrew Shaw for an independent opinion about walking away from the intelligent design case. A memo from Shaw indicates a "significant risk" the court will rule against the district. "If the
Opposing characterization: Several newly elected board members reject Napierskie's characterization of the campaign, saying intelligent design was not their main priority.
"Communication was our biggest issue, not intelligent design," said Bernadette Reinking.
New board members have also said they believe they should wait for the judge's decision before taking any action.
"I think that the judge is determined to reach a verdict. I think a verdict will bring closure; it gives a more definitive answer. Much more definitive than anything we, even as public officials, could say. I think it's very important; within two years there will be another election, and they may want to come back with this," said Judy McIlvaine.
McIlvaine added it is probably too late to dismiss the case, as "the lawyers' fees are already out there."
But Napierskie said the new school board shouldn't assume it is too late:
"I want all the board members to talk to their solicitors. Don't just say, 'David is full of it.' Go and do your own research," Napierski said.
A new member's impres sion: McIlvaine said the issue did come up during a board orientation and that her impression from the district's solicitor, Stephen Russell of Stock and Leader, was that "it doesn't seem that it could be turned back."
McIlvaine and Reinking said they would seek more information from Russell before making any decision.
"We have to be sworn in, and then we can discuss things. Right now, we are just learning and gathering information. I think that we need one meeting to get ourselves in order," Reinking said.
For his part, Napierskie said he feels everyone is trying to do the right thing, but he is "going to ask the board to clarify where they stand on this."
The requirement that intelligent design be mentioned in high school biology classes spurred a federal lawsuit against the district and its school board.
Intelligent design says living things are so complicated they had to have been created by a higher being, that life is too complex to have developed through evolution as described by Charles Darwin.
Eleven parents, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, sued, saying the board had religious motives for putting the policy in place.
Board members who voted to include intelligent design in the curriculum have said it is a scientific theory and does not promote religion.
The trial ended Nov. 4. U.S. Middle District Judge John E. Jones III is expected to deliver a decision on the case by the end of the year or early January.
-- Reach Heidi Bernhard-Bubb at 854-1575 or hbubb@yorkdispatch.com.
Font Resize
