Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 35 Filed: …...2012/10/03 · 23 Q. In fact, you -- you said, in one of the emails 24 that I've seen, that the real reason why we will not 25 offer

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-244-KSF

DEPOSITION OF TOM TROLAND

C. MARTIN GASKELL PLAINTIFF vs. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY DEFENDANT

Pursuant to Notice, the deposition of

TOM TROLAND was taken on behalf of Plaintiff before

Sandra L. Allyn, RPR, CCR and Notary Public in and for

the Commonwealth of Kentucky at Large, at the offic es

of Baker, Kriz, Jenkins, Prewitt & Jones, PSC, 200 West

Vine Street, Suite 710, Lexington, Kentucky, on Fri day,

March 12, 2010, commencing at the hour of 9 a.m.

The deposition was taken for purposes of

discovery and for all other purposes permitted unde r

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ACTION COURT REPORTERS 184 North Mill Street

Lexington, Kentucky 40507 859.252.4004

Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 35 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 1 of 118 - Page ID#: 1056

2

APPEARANCES

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF : Francis J. Manion Geoffrey R. Surtees AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE 6375 New Hope Road New Hope, Kentucky 40052 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: Barbara A. Kriz BAKER, KRIZ, JENKINS, PREWITT & JONES, PSC 200 West Vine Street, Suite 710 Lexington, Kentucky 40507

ALSO PRESENT: Mike Cavagnero

ACTION COURT REPORTERS


3

INDEX

DEPONENT: TOM TROLAND

EXAMINATION BY: PAGE

Mr. Manion......................... 6 Ms. Kriz........................... 117

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE.................... 118

EXHIBITS NO. DESCRIPTION IDENTIF IED 1 Gaskell employment application 19 2 Gaskell CV 20 3 Knauer employment application 20 4 8/20/07 Cavagnero/Shafer/Troland

emails 20 5 9/5/07 Troland email to committee 31 6 9/10/07 Cavagnero email to Bosworth 33 7 9/18/07 Troland email to Ferland 33 8 9/19/07 Ferland email to Troland 38 9 11/19/97 Kentucky Kernel article 39 10 9/19/07 Cavagnero email to Troland 41 11 9/20/07 Cavagnero email to Troland 45 12 9/21/07 Shafer email to Troland,

Cavagnero 48 13 Martin Gaskell's homepage 49 14 Professor profiles - Martin Gaskell 50 15 Martin Gaskell - personal page 50



4

EXHIBITS (continued) NO. DESCRIPTION IDENTIF IED 16 Martin Gaskell - Astronomy and the

Bible lecture notes 51 17 9/21/07 Cavagnero email to Shafer 53 18 9/23/07 Troland/Ferland emails 54 19 9/24/07 Troland email to the

observatory committee 55 20 10/3/07 Cavagnero email to

the committee 56 21 10/3/07 Ferland email to Cavagnero 59 22 10/3/07 Levenson email to Cavagnero 60 23 10/4/07 Cavagnero/Ferland emails 62 24 10/11/07 Cavagnero email to Ferland,

MacAdam, Levenson, Troland, Shafer, Ellis 63

25 10/15/07 Troland email to

the committee 66 26 10/16/07 Troland email to

the committee 67 27 10/17/07 Cavagnero email to

committee members 67 28 10/18/07 Troland/Ferland emails 71 29 10/18/07 Troland/Ferland emails 73 30 10/18/07 Troland/Ferland emails 74 31 10/19/07 Troland email to Ferland 76 32 10/19/07 Troland email to Ferland 77 33 10/19/07 Troland/Ferland emails 78 34 10/19/07 Troland/Ferland emails 79



5

EXHIBITS (continued) NO. DESCRIPTION IDENTIF IED 35 10/19/07 Troland email to Cavagnero 80

36 10/19/07 Troland/Ferland emails 84 37 10/21/07 Troland/Cavagnero emails 86 38 10/22/07 Troland/Ferland emails 90 39 10/21/07 Troland/Scott emails 93 40 10/23/07 Ferland email to the

observatory committee 96 41 10/25/07 Troland/Ferland emails 97 42 10/30/07 Troland email to Ferland 100 43 11/4/07 Troland/Ferland emails 102 44 11/5/07 Troland email to Ferland 103 45 11/19/07 Troland email to Bender, 105

Kovash 46 1/15/08 Troland/Gaskell emails 109 (Exhibits accompany original transcript in a separa te binder.)



6

1 TOM TROLAND,

2 the deponent herein, having first been duly place d

3 under oath, was examined and testified as follows :

4 EXAMINATION

5 BY MR. MANION:

6 Q. Could you state your name for the record,

7 please.

8 A. Thomas H. Troland.

9 Q. And, Professor Troland, my name is Frank

10 Manion. I am one of the lawyers for Martin Gaske ll in

11 a lawsuit that he has brought and that is current ly

12 pending in the Eastern District of Kentucky, alle ging

13 violations by the University of Kentucky of the C ivil

14 Rights Act of 1964, which, among other things,

15 prohibits discrimination in employment on the bas is of

16 religion.

17 We have asked to take your deposition today

18 because you are named by the university as a pers on

19 with knowledge of relevant facts concerning the h iring

20 process that occurred back in 2007 for the positi on of

21 observatory director.

22 As I understand it, you, in fact, were the

23 chair of the search committee in that hiring proc ess.

24 Is that right?

25 A. Yes.



7

1 Q. And --

2 MS. KRIZ: Just for the record, I think

3 it was called, technically, an advisory committee

4 rather than a search committee.

5 MR. MANION: Okay.

6 MS. KRIZ: And that has a distinction;

7 so...

8 MR. MANION: Okay.

9 Q. All right. You were the chair of the advisory

10 committee --

11 A. -- to the dean.

12 Q. -- to the dean --

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. -- in connection with the hiring of a director

15 for the observatory?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. And, in fact, you were the -- of the members

18 of that committee, you were the lone dissenting v ote,

19 when the vote was ultimately taken, about who the job

20 should be offered to -- or the recommendation to the

21 dean about who the job should be offered to; corr ect?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. In fact, you -- you said, in one of the emails

24 that I've seen, that the real reason why we will not

25 offer him, meaning Gaskell, the job is because of his



8

1 religious beliefs in matters unrelated to astrono my.

2 That's something you said in an email; correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. All right. Let me go over with you very

5 briefly -- I know that we're trying to get this d one in

6 as efficient manner as possible -- the rules of a

7 deposition generally.

8 Have you ever been to a deposition before?

9 A. No, I have not.

10 Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you a series of

11 questions about the process that took place in '0 7 for

12 the hiring of an observatory director and what yo u know

13 about it, what you heard, what you saw, what you wrote,

14 what other people said that you heard, things lik e

15 that.

16 All of my questions, all of your answers,

17 anything that Ms. Kriz may say as attorney for th e

18 university are being taken down by the stenograph er,

19 who's seated at the end of this table here, and s he

20 will, at a later date, prepare a transcript of to day's

21 proceedings. You understand that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Okay. This testimony is being given under

24 oath. It has the same legal force and effect as if we

25 were in the courtroom in front of Judge Forester here



9

1 in Lexington. You understand that?

2 A. Yes, I do.

3 Q. So that oath that you took has the same

4 binding effect that it would as if you were sitti ng on

5 a witness stand in a courtroom.

6 If I ask you a question that you don't

7 understand, you're to tell me that, and I will at tempt

8 to rephrase the question or perhaps ask a differe nt

9 question so that you're only answering things tha t you

10 understand. The reason that's important, obvious ly, is

11 that a person coming along and reading this trans cript

12 later will assume that if you answered a question you

13 understood it. Is that clear?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. All right. If you need to take a break for

16 any reason -- this isn't a torture session -- ple ase

17 feel free to say so. We may -- many of us may wa nt to

18 do that at certain points. That's perfectly

19 acceptable.

20 You shouldn't guess at any of my questions.

21 If you can estimate, that's perfectly acceptable as

22 long as you tell us that that's what you're doing .

23 I will say that, you know, in the discovery

24 materials that we've been provided with from the

25 university, you have some critical things to say



10

1 concerning the hiring process and concerning the

2 ultimate decision that was made, and I'm sure you 're

3 aware that it's certainly illegal for any employe r to

4 take any sort of retaliatory action against an em ployee

5 for testifying in a deposition of this nature. Y ou

6 understand that?

7 A. I do.

8 Q. All right.

9 (Discussion held off the record.)

10 Q. Now, in advance of today's deposition, did you

11 review any documents?

12 A. I looked over selected emails that I had

13 written or had access to.

14 Q. Can you recall what emails you reviewed?

15 A. No.

16 Q. All right. Were these emails that you wrote

17 to others back in 2007 concerning this whole

18 interviewing and hiring process?

19 A. Some were, yes.

20 Q. All right. Were there any others that...

21 A. There were -- there may have been some others

22 that others wrote to me. In fact, there were som e

23 others that others wrote to me, yes.

24 Q. Okay. Did you talk to anybody concerning this

25 deposition prior to coming here today?



11

1 A. I've talked to my friend and colleague, Gary

2 Ferland, about this, yes.

3 Q. Okay. Have you talked to Professor Cavagnero

4 about this deposition?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Okay. Have you talked at all to Professor

7 Cavagnero about Professor's Gaskell's deposition?

8 A. No.

9 Q. All right. By any chance, have you reviewed

10 the transcript of Professor Gaskell's deposition?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Okay. At some point in this process -- well,

13 let me back up a little bit.

14 You obviously, at some point, became aware

15 that a lawsuit had been filed by Martin Gaskell;

16 correct?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. At some point, were you asked to produce any

19 writings in connection with the hiring process?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. All right. And who asked you to do that?

22 A. I believe it was my counsel.

23 Q. And what did you produce?

24 A. I produced a number of emails that I thought

25 were relevant to this case.



12

1 Q. Did you -- did you make a search of your

2 computer or your emails in order to do that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Were there any that you chose not to produce?

5 A. There were some that I chose not to produce,

6 because I felt they were largely irrelevant: sche duling

7 details, things like that.

8 Q. Okay. So can I assume, then, that if you did

9 not produce an email that was generated in the co ntext

10 of this hiring process, it was because it was abo ut

11 things like scheduling?

12 A. In general, that's true. I went -- there were

13 many emails I went through. I did not go through the

14 emails with extreme care, I must say. I went thr ough

15 the emails, I found the ones that I thought were most

16 relevant, and those are the ones I produced.

17 Q. Okay.

18 A. I have, however, every email that I've saved

19 available on my computer. I've not deleted any e mails,

20 in fact, at all, and certainly not since the time that

21 we were informed by university counsel that we we re not

22 supposed to do that.

23 Q. Okay. And was that -- was that after the

24 lawsuit was filed --

25 A. Yes.



13

1 Q. -- or before the lawsuit was filed?

2 A. After.

3 Q. Okay. Other than emails, did you prepare any

4 other kinds of writings -- because I remember the re was

5 actually a time when people actually did write th ings

6 other than emails -- any sort of handwritten or a ctual

7 typed memoranda or notes or correspondence concer ning

8 the hiring process for the position of observator y

9 director? Did you produce anything like that?

10 A. Not to the best of my recollection.

11 Q. Okay. Like the rest of us, you do everything

12 in emails.

13 What's your current position at the

14 university?

15 A. Professor.

16 Q. And in what department?

17 A. In the Department of Physics and Astronomy.

18 Q. And your academic history from undergraduate

19 on is what?

20 A. I have a bachelor's degree from Amherst

21 College in Amherst, Massachusetts, and a Ph.D. fr om the

22 University of California at Berkeley.

23 Q. Okay. And how long have you been at the

24 University of Kentucky?

25 A. Since 1981.



14

1 Q. During the time that you've been at Kentucky,

2 how many hiring processes have you been involved in?

3 A. I would have to estimate perhaps in the order

4 of a half dozen.

5 Q. Okay. You were the chair, in this particular

6 case, of the advisory committee?

7 A. I was.

8 Q. And have you ever been the chair of a similar

9 committee during the time you've been at UK?

10 A. I believe I was the chair of a committee that

11 hired other staff members sometime approximately 15 or

12 maybe as many as 20 years ago.

13 Q. Okay. During the half dozen hiring processes

14 that you were involved in while you've been at th e

15 University of Kentucky, has the topic of an appli cant's

16 religion ever come up?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Okay. And I mean, of course, other than in

19 the case of Martin Gaskell.

20 A. Yes, uh-huh.

21 Q. All right. How did you get to be the chair of

22 this committee in the 2007...

23 A. I was appointed by the chair of the

24 department.

25 Q. And that would be Professor Cavagnero?



15

1 A. That's correct, yes.

2 Q. All right. What was your understanding of the

3 committee's function within this process?

4 A. To review applications for the job, to

5 interview candidates, to discuss the qualificatio ns of

6 those candidates, and to arrive at an advisory op inion

7 to be forwarded through the chair to the dean.

8 Q. All right. And who was on the committee?

9 A. Apart from myself, there was Professor Keith

10 MacAdam, Mr. Steve Ellis, Professor Isaac Shlosma n,

11 Professor Nancy Levenson. I believe, but I'm not a

12 hundred percent certain, that's all -- those are all I

13 recall at the moment.

14 Q. Okay. Was Professor Cavagnero technically

15 part of the committee?

16 A. He attended the meetings. However, to my

17 understanding, he was not technically a part of t he

18 committee.

19 Q. All right. And how about Professor Ferland,

20 what was his -- was he part of the committee?

21 A. No.

22 Q. What was his status in summer and fall of

23 2007? Was he on sabbatical?

24 A. He was on sabbatical.

25 Q. Where?



16

1 A. Cambridge, England.

2 Q. Okay. And do you know when that began?

3 A. It began, I believe, in the summer of 2007

4 through summer of 2008.

5 Q. Okay. Do you recall how many meetings -- how

6 many formal meetings there were of the committee?

7 A. No.

8 Q. Okay. Were they weekly? Were they monthly?

9 Were they -- what?

10 A. It varied depending upon the need to meet.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. After all the applicants came in, we had to

13 meet frequently. And it was not set on the basis of a

14 weekly basis; it was on the basis of a need to me et.

15 Q. Okay. How about -- the dean of the College of

16 Arts and Sciences at the time was Steve -- is it Hoch?

17 Hoke?

18 A. Steven Hoch, yes.

19 Q. Steven Hoch.

20 And there's reference in the discovery

21 materials to Swamy or Swammy. Is that...

22 PROFESSOR CAVAGNERO: Swamy.

23 A. Swamy.

24 Q. Swamy.




17

1 Q. Anyway, Dean Hoch. And is it Provost Swamy?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did they attend any of the meetings of the

4 committee?

5 A. No.

6 Q. All right. Were there any recordings made,

7 audio recordings, of any of the committee meeting s?

8 A. Not that I recall, no.

9 Q. Anybody make any sort of a transcript of any

10 of the committee meetings?

11 A. No.

12 Q. All right. Anybody take notes that you're

13 aware of, of what was said at the committee meeti ngs?

14 A. None that I'm aware of.

15 Q. Okay. Other than formal committee meetings,

16 did the members of the committee discuss this who le

17 hiring process privately at times?

18 A. I can't remember, to tell you the truth. I

19 imagine in the corridors occasionally people talk about

20 things, but I have no specific recollections of a ny

21 substantive discussions except during committee

22 meetings.

23 Q. Okay. Did --

24 A. And via email.

25 Q. Well, I was going to say did members of the



18

1 committee exchange emails concerning the hiring p rocess

2 from time to time?

3 A. I'm sure they did. I don't recall precisely

4 what.

5 Q. Okay. Throughout this process, from the

6 beginning of the hiring process, which may have b een in

7 June or July of '07, roughly, till November, I su ppose,

8 maybe October of '07, did you yourself ever speak to

9 Dean Hoch or the provost?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Okay. Did you yourself ever have any sort of

12 an email exchange whatsoever with either the dean or

13 the provost?

14 A. No.

15 Q. All right. Let's talk about Martin Gaskell.

16 Prior to June of '07, which is roughly when this hiring

17 process appears to have begun, had you ever met M artin

18 Gaskell before?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. When and where?

21 A. I met him on the occasion of his trip to the

22 University of Kentucky a decade or more ago when he

23 gave a public lecture.

24 Q. Okay. That would have been in approximately

25 1997?



19

1 A. I don't remember.

2 Q. Okay. Had you ever heard of him before that?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And in what connection?

5 A. Astronomer.

6 Q. Did you know his reputation as an astronomer?

7 A. Not well.

8 Q. Okay. At the time of this hiring process, had

9 you become more familiar with his reputation as a n

10 astronomer?

11 A. Somewhat.

12 Q. And what was his reputation as an astronomer

13 at that point?

14 A. He's a published astronomer. He's -- he's

15 been involved in research and teaching. He has a

16 reputation like all of us in the field if we publ ish

17 and teach.

18 Q. Okay. I'm going to start the document

19 marking.

20 (Exhibits 1 through 4 marked.)

21 Q. All right. Professor Troland, let me show you

22 what I've had marked as Exhibit 1 for today's

23 deposition. It appears to be -- and correct me i f I'm

24 wrong -- a copy of the online application filled out by

25 Martin Gaskell for this observatory director posi tion.



20

1 A. I assume that's the case. I can certainly not

2 vouch for its authenticity.

3 Q. Okay. And --

4 MR. MANION: Tell you what. Why don't

5 you do the passing around of the extras.

6 MR. SURTEES: Sure.

7 Q. And now I'm showing you what I've marked

8 Exhibit 2, which I'm calling the CV of Martin Gas kell.

9 I'm not asking you anything about it at this poin t. I

10 know that, you know, you may have seen it at some point

11 but probably don't have any great recollection of it.

12 And now I'm showing you what I've marked

13 Exhibit 3, which appears to be the online applica tion

14 of Timothy Knauer for the same position that Gask ell

15 was applying for back in '07.

16 And finally, at least finally for now, I'm

17 showing you what I've marked Exhibit 4, which is a copy

18 of an email dated August 20, 2007, 7:07 p.m., fro m Mike

19 Cavagnero to yourself and it appears the other me mbers

20 of the committee and possibly one or two other me mbers

21 of the department.

22 A. I neglected to mention something you, of

23 course, know. I see from this email a staff memb er of

24 our department, Sally Shafer, was also on the

25 committee.



21

1 Q. Okay. Okay. Is it fair to say that in the

2 end of this hiring process, the decision came dow n to

3 between Gaskell and Knauer?

4 A. That's my recollection.

5 Q. All right. And both of those gentlemen

6 applied for this job and submitted the online

7 applications, which we see in front of us as Exhi bits 1

8 and 3, I guess.

9 A. Uh-huh.

10 Q. All right.

11 MS. KRIZ: Say yes.

12 THE DEPONENT: Well, I was just, in this

13 case, confirming that, yes, this is Exhibit 3.

14 MS. KRIZ: Okay.

15 Q. Take a look at -- if you will, at Exhibit 4,

16 which is the email from Professor Cavagnero to th e

17 committee. And on the second page of that docume nt

18 that I've handed you, it appears to me, at least, that

19 we're looking at Mike Cavagnero giving the commit tee,

20 the advisory committee, certain guidelines about at

21 least what he thinks the committee should be look ing

22 for in a candidate. Do you see where I'm talking

23 about?

24 A. I see a section here, "So the committee needs

25 to consider the candidate's suitability to," etc.



22

1 Q. Right. That's --

2 A. Items a) through g).

3 Q. Right. That's the section I'm talking about.

4 In considering the applications -- just the

5 applications at this point -- of Gaskell and Knau er,

6 did you reach a conclusion that Gaskell -- Gaskel l's

7 qualifications for the job, based on those criter ia,

8 were superior to Knauer's?

9 A. Let me just review these for a moment.

10 Q. Okay.

11 A. Yes, I personally did reach that conclusion.

12 Q. Okay. And if you'll continue to look at that

13 section of that email, underneath items a) throug h g),

14 Cavagnero says, "Items (f) and (g) would probably

15 require a Ph.D." Is that what he says there?

16 A. It does say that, yes.

17 Q. And Gaskell had a Ph.D.; correct?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. Knauer did not --


21 Q. -- right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. All right. Now I'd ask you to take a look at

24 the Exhibit 2, which is the Gaskell curriculum vi tae.

25 Or "vee-tie" as those who were not trained in



23

1 Ecclesiastical Latin say.

2 At some point, did the committee members have

3 the CV of Gaskell?

4 A. I assume they did. I assume that that was

5 included in the application file that we all had access

6 to.

7 Q. Okay. Do you recall ever seeing a CV from

8 Professor Knauer?

9 A. I don't recall specifically what was in any of

10 the application files, to tell you the truth.

11 Q. Okay. Looking at the Gaskell CV today, as

12 a -- as a matter of fact, Gaskell had, in fact, b een

13 managing a facility similar to the one that Kentu cky

14 was in the process of getting up to speed; correc t?

15 A. That's my understanding.

16 Q. All right. Well, I'd ask you to take a look

17 at the CV that's in front of you.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And just at the bottom of page 2, it

20 indicates, does it not, that he was the founder a nd

21 project director for construction of undergraduat e

22 research observatory at the University of Nebrask a?

23 A. It so states.

24 Q. And that he was the coordinator of the

25 observatory from 1998 through 2006?



24

1 A. It so states.

2 Q. All right. And with regard to criteria --

3 criterion b) on page 2 of the Cavagnero email, "h elp

4 with astronomy and pedagogy and instruction in

5 191/192," I assume those are sort of astronomy fo r

6 non-astronomy student courses?

7 A. They are, yes.

8 Q. Gaskell had experience teaching those kinds of

9 courses, did he not?


11 Q. All right. Did Knauer?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. And that was when Knauer had been at

14 the University of Kentucky sometime in the '90s, I

15 suppose.

16 A. Sometime around that time, yes.

17 Q. Okay. And category c) or criterion c),

18 "supervise observatory GA's." Is that graduate

19 assistants?

20 A. Graduate assistants, yes.

21 Q. Gaskell had experience doing that, did he not?

22 A. I don't know.

23 Q. All right. If you look at his CV, page 4,

24 "Master's Students Supervised," would that indica te

25 that he had been involved in supervising observat ory



25

1 graduate assistants?

2 A. That would indicate he was involved -- I take

3 that to mean he was involved in supervising stude nts

4 who were conducting astronomical research.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. That is a different job category from a

7 graduate assistant, who, in this case here at the

8 University of Kentucky, referred to a graduate st udent

9 involved in the actual operation of the observato ry.

10 Q. Okay. So that's not necessarily the same

11 thing. I understand that.

12 A. Not precisely, no.

13 Q. "Develop a program of regional outreach in

14 K-12." That's criterion d) of the Cavagnero emai l.

15 Had Knauer ever been involved in developing outre ach

16 programs, to your knowledge?

17 A. Not to my knowledge.

18 Q. Had Gaskell?

19 A. I don't know.

20 Q. If you look at pages 4 and 5 of his CV,

21 starting at the bottom on page 4 and going throug h at

22 the top of page 5, it indicates, does it not,

23 involvement in a number of outreach programs over a

24 period of years?

25 A. It does.



26

1 Q. Going back to the Cavagnero email, criterion

2 e), "research projects with undergraduate majors, " is

3 that something Gaskell had already done, to your

4 knowledge?

5 A. I don't know.

6 Q. How about Knauer?


8 Q. All right. I think f), by definition, since

9 Gaskell was not at UK, would not apply to him, an d I

10 don't -- do you know whether Knauer had ever purs ued

11 funding for K-12 teacher education through...

12 A. I have no idea.

13 Q. Okay. And as far as g), "pursue funding for

14 undergrad research," that's something Gaskell had done,

15 is it not?

16 A. I don't know.

17 Q. How about Knauer?

18 A. I don't know for sure.

19 Q. Okay. If you look at the publications list on

20 the Gaskell CV, do you know how that compared wit h

21 Knauer's publications list at the time?

22 A. Martin Gaskell has a long list of

23 publications, and I don't know what the publicati on

24 list of Tim Knauer would be, if any, but certainl y

25 Gaskell has more publications.



27

1 Q. Okay. And if you'll just take a look at the

2 list of publications -- not being a physicist or an

3 astronomer --

4 A. What page --

5 Q. -- which may surprise you.

6 A. -- did you have in mind?

7 Q. Starting at page 9, let's say.

8 A. Okay.

9 Q. Do you recognize the citations to those

10 journals? For instance , Astrophys.J.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. What is that, for example?

13 A. Astrophys.J. is Astrophysical Journal.

14 Q. All right. And as you go through pages 10,

15 11, and so on, do you recognize, just generally, other

16 journals in your field?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And are those -- are those journals that

19 people like yourself and people in your departmen t

20 commonly try to get published in?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. All right. What level of scientific knowledge

23 and ability is generally required to get somethin g

24 published in a journal such as the Astrophysics -- or

25 Astrophysical Journal?



28

1 A. Generally a high level.

2 Q. Okay. Is it likely, in your opinion, that

3 somebody who doesn't understand or apply the scie ntific

4 method could be published in such journals?

5 A. I can't comment on that.

6 Q. Why not?

7 A. I don't feel I have any information to base a

8 comment upon.

9 Q. Well, you publish in these journals, don't

10 you?

11 A. I do.

12 Q. And you read other people's writings who are

13 published in these journals; right?

14 A. I do.

15 Q. And you don't have an opinion on whether or

16 not somebody who gets published in there probably

17 understands the scientific method?

18 A. I believe that someone who publishes in the

19 Astrophysical Journal understands the scientific method

20 as applied in astronomy.

21 Q. Okay. All right. Let's take a further look

22 at the Cavagnero email that we've been looking at .

23 There is a reference on the first page to -- let' s

24 see -- the second paragraph -- "a letter of

25 recommendation." Do you recall who that was from ?



29

1 A. The second paragraph?

2 Q. Right. "We received a letter of

3 recommendation recently, which Tom can share with the

4 committee."

5 A. No, I do not recall anything about that.

6 Q. All right. In this hiring process back in

7 '07, do you recall any letters of recommendation being

8 submitted on behalf of any of the applicants?

9 A. At the moment, no, I don't, but I expect that

10 they were.

11 Q. Okay. And the very first sentence of this

12 particular email from Cavagnero says, "Martin Gas kell's

13 clearly the most experienced"; right? Is that wh at it

14 says?

15 A. That's what it says, yes.

16 Q. Did you disagree with that?

17 A. No, I did not.

18 Q. All right. Turning the page to page 2 of this

19 email, third paragraph down, Cavagnero says, "Als o,

20 there are a few other things for the committee to

21 consider. This position is being paid for, at le ast

22 for the first couple of years, by a donor who is

23 encouraging us to spend some time on K-12 outreac h."

24 Do you know who the donor was?

25 A. No.



30

1 Q. All right. To this day, you still don't know

2 who the donor was?

3 A. Not for sure.

4 Q. Okay. Why is the observatory called the

5 MacAdam Observatory? Do you know?

6 A. It was named in honor of Professor Keith

7 MacAdam of our department.

8 Q. Do you know why it was named in honor of

9 Professor MacAdam?

10 A. My understanding is that he did make a

11 donation. He may not have been the only person w ho

12 made donations. I know virtually nothing about t he

13 financial aspects of the observatory.

14 Q. Okay. Sounds like me with my job.

15 There is a reference in that same email from

16 Cavagnero, again in the first paragraph, where he talks

17 about "Keith and I visited him" -- meaning Gaskel l --

18 "last year to learn how to build an observatory o n a

19 parking structure." Very first paragraph.

20 A. This is on the first page?

21 Q. Yes. "Keith and I visited him last year."

22 A. Oh, I see. Yes. Okay. Very good. Uh-huh.

23 Q. Were you part of that visit?

24 A. No.

25 Q. And Keith there would be a reference to Keith



31

1 MacAdam?

2 A. That's what I assume.

3 Q. Okay. Do you know why they went to Nebraska

4 to learn how to build an observatory on a parking

5 structure?

6 A. No.

7 (Exhibit 5 marked.)

8 Q. I will now show you what we've marked

9 Exhibit 5, which is an email from you to what app ears

10 to be the committee, dated September 5, '07, at

11 6:27 p.m. Is that an email that you sent?

12 A. It appears to be, yes.

13 Q. Okay. And in that email, you say, do you not,

14 "On paper, at least, Gaskell is the strongest, I

15 believe"? You say that; correct?

16 A. I believe -- I haven't read it, but I imagine

17 I did. Let's see. This is at the very beginning , that

18 first paragraph. Yes. I say, "On paper, at leas t,

19 Gaskell is the strongest, I believe."

20 Q. All right. And then the next sentence reads,

21 "He has already done everything we could possibly want

22 the observatory director to do." Is that what it says?

23 A. It so states, yes.

24 Q. And was that accurate -- was that your

25 conclusion at the time?



32

1 A. That was my conclusion at the time, yes.

2 Q. Okay. The next sentences -- the next sentence

3 refers to calling of references. Did you ever ca ll any

4 references for Martin Gaskell?

5 A. I don't recall if I did, but I may well have.

6 Q. Okay. I assume if you don't recall if you did

7 you don't remember anything about those calls --


9 Q. -- that may or may not have happened?

10 A. That's right.

11 Q. How about with Timothy Knauer, did you ever

12 call any of his references?

13 A. I do recall calling, in his case, a former

14 employer.

15 Q. Was that somebody at the University of

16 Kentucky or --

17 A. No. Someone in the private sector.

18 Q. Okay. Do you have any recollection of that

19 conversation?

20 A. Only that the individual with whom I spoke had

21 good words to say about Tim Knauer.

22 Q. Okay. What kind of job was that or --

23 A. I don't recall.

24 Q. -- what private sector job? Okay. Let's move

25 along here.



33


2 Q. I'm now showing you an email from Mike

3 Cavagnero to somebody named Louie Bosworth, dated

4 Monday, September, 10, 2007, at 9:45 a.m. To me, this

5 looks like some sort of a human resources departm ent

6 thing. Perhaps, if you understand it, you can ex plain

7 what this email means.

8 A. I know nothing about it.

9 Q. Okay. The first sentence reads, "We would

10 like to re-open the Observatory Manager search fo r a 24

11 hour period." Do you remember that happening?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Okay. Then let's move on.


15 Q. All right. Professor Troland, I'm now showing

16 you Exhibit 7, which appears to be an email from you to

17 Gary Ferland, dated September 18, 2007, at 6:01 p .m.

18 Do you see that email?

19 A. I do, yes.

20 Q. And it has a nice -- actually, it starts with

21 a nice commemoration of the Wildcats' victory ove r

22 Louisville, which I remember quite well.


24 Q. This email, if you go down to what you

25 numbered item 3, I suppose, Martin Gaskell.



34

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. You say in this item 3, in which you're

3 writing to Ferland, "Clearly, Gaskell's the most

4 experienced applicant by far." That's what you s aid;

5 right?

6 A. That's what's written here, yes. I'm sure

7 that's what I said.

8 Q. And you say, "He has already done everything

9 we would want the director to do"; correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. All right. A few lines down, you say, "But

12 Isaac is worried about the creationism matter." Do you

13 see that?

14 A. "Even Isaac" -- "Isaac is worried about the

15 creationism matter." Yes, I do see that.

16 Q. What did you mean by "the creationism matter"?

17 A. What I meant by that was the possibility that

18 Martin Gaskell might hold beliefs regarding biolo gical

19 evolution contrary to scientific evidence.

20 Q. And when was that first raised in this whole

21 process?


23 Q. Was it first raised by Isaac -- Shlosman, I

24 believe it is.




35

1 Q. Why would -- why did -- why did the issue come

2 up at this point so that you included it in an em ail to

3 Gary Ferland on September 18?

4 A. I don't recall why it came up at that time. I

5 don't recall exactly when it did come up, but it

6 obviously did come up.

7 Q. It appears from your email that Professor

8 Shlosman was someone who raised the issue in some

9 context; correct?

10 A. It appears from my email that he was concerned

11 about this issue. Whether he was the one who rai sed it

12 first or not, I -- I certainly don't remember.

13 Q. Do you know who raised it first?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Do you know if it had been raised prior to

16 September 18?

17 A. No, I don't know.

18 Q. At some point, it was raised, however?


20 Q. And when the issue was raised, did -- did you

21 have any opinion about whether that was, in fact, an

22 issue in this process?

23 A. The -- the issue came up in the context of --

24 of whether or not someone involved in science out reach

25 should be an individual who held beliefs about sc ience



36

1 contrary to best current science evidence. Some

2 members of the committee, if I recall correctly - - I

3 don't remember who, but I guess Isaac Shlosman wo uld

4 have been one -- were concerned about this. I wa s not

5 particularly concerned about this issue.

6 Q. Were you surprised when the issue was raised

7 in connection with Martin Gaskell?

8 A. Probably not, because I did attend the -- the

9 lecture which he gave on campus sometime in the 1 990s,

10 and I was aware that he had made comments that so me

11 people perhaps objected to. I don't remember wha t

12 those comments were.

13 Q. All right. So you attended the lecture he

14 gave at UK back in the 1990s?

15 A. I did, yes.

16 Q. And what do you remember him saying at that

17 lecture that would have in any way caused someone --

18 perhaps not yourself -- but someone to think ther e was

19 a creationism issue, so-called?

20 A. I don't recall much of what he said, but I do

21 recall the topic was, in general, the question of

22 science and religion, a topic of interest, actual ly,

23 but I don't recall what he said.

24 Q. Do you know if that lecture was recorded in

25 any way?



37

1 A. I have no idea.

2 Q. All right. Obviously, then, you've never

3 heard of a recording of it or seen a transcript o f it?

4 A. No, I've never seen a transcript --

5 Q. Did you attend --

6 A. -- or heard --

7 Q. Did you attend the entire lecture?

8 A. I left just before the lecture ended.

9 Q. Do you recall the question and answer period?

10 A. Well, actually, I left -- I left, I think, in

11 fact, right at the beginning of the question and answer

12 period. There -- I was aware of the fact that so meone

13 asked a question in a way as to challenge him, bu t I

14 left very shortly after that, so I have no recoll ection

15 of what was said. But I was told later that ther e had

16 been some lively questions and answers, and that' s just

17 what you hope at a -- at a presentation like that .

18 Q. Okay. But you don't remember any of the

19 details of what Gaskell said?

20 A. No.

21 Q. And I'm talking particularly about evolution

22 or the origins of life on Earth or that general i ssue.

23 A. I have almost no -- I would say very close to

24 no knowledge whatever about what Martin Gaskell

25 believes regarding biological evolution.



38

1 Q. To this day?

2 A. To this day.

3 Q. Okay. Forgive me if I repeat myself, but do

4 you recall the context in which Isaac raised this ? Was

5 it verbally at a meeting? Was it in the hallway? Was

6 it in an email?

7 A. I don't, no.

8 Q. Okay. You did, however, convey to Gary

9 Ferland, your fellow member of the department, th at the

10 issue had come up?

11 A. I did, yes.

12 Q. All right. Let's move on.


14 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 8, which appears to be

15 an email from Gary Ferland to you, dated December 19,

16 2007, 4:25 p.m. Down at the bottom of the page, it

17 appears that Ferland is replying to your statemen ts

18 about Martin Gaskell. And Ferland appears to say , does

19 he not, "You know what I know - the night at the public

20 speech and non-evolution"? Do you see that?

21 A. Yes, uh-huh.

22 Q. To your recollection, was Ferland at that

23 speech or the lecture?

24 A. Yes. I do recall that he was there.

25 Q. And then the last sentence on that page,



39

1 Ferland says, "Other than this, he is perfect." Do you

2 see that?

3 A. I see it, yes.

4 Q. Did you agree with that?

5 A. I would not have put it that way, no.

6 Q. Okay. Did you ever speak to Ferland during

7 this process? I mean, I know there's an awful lo t of

8 emailing back and forth.

9 A. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

10 Q. Did you ever speak to him by phone or Skype?

11 Whatever that is.

12 A. We did have a few Skype conversations during

13 the time he was on sabbatical, but I don't recall the

14 content of those conversations. We are scientifi c

15 collaborators as well as colleagues in the depart ment,

16 and I don't recall what we talked about.

17 Q. Okay. What is Skyping? What is Skyping?

18 A. It's a phone call over the Internet.

19 Q. Okay.

20 MS. KRIZ: You can see, if you have a

21 camera on your computer.

22 MR. MANION: Oh, okay.

23 Q. All right.


25 Q. Okay. Professor Troland, I'm showing you what



40

1 we've marked Exhibit 9. It appears to be a copy of an

2 article from the Kentucky Kernel, K-e-r-n-e-l -- very

3 cute -- dated November 19, 1997, and it appears t o

4 concern the talk that Professor Gaskell gave at U K that

5 we've just been speaking about, doesn't it?

6 A. It appears so, yes.

7 Q. Are you -- to your knowledge, did he ever give

8 any other talks at UK other than this one?

9 A. To my knowledge, no.

10 Q. All right. Gaskell is quoted in the article,

11 as is Ferland. And it indicates that the UK phys ics

12 department, Christian Leadership Ministries, and Campus

13 Crusade for Christ sponsored the event. Is that your

14 recollection?

15 A. I have no recollection.

16 Q. Okay. Do you have any reason to dispute the

17 article's statement?

18 A. No, I don't.

19 Q. Do you remember if there was any follow-up

20 article? I mean, this appears to be an article, as I

21 read it, that precedes the talk, sort of to get p eople

22 interested in going to it. Do you remember if th ere

23 was any other articles in the Kentucky Kernel or

24 anywhere else about the talk?




41

1 Q. Okay. All right.


3 Q. Showing you what we've marked Exhibit 10. An

4 email from Mike Cavagnero, dated November 19, 200 7,

5 3:56 p.m., to Tom Troland; subject, Martin Gaskel l. If

6 you'll just take a look at that for a minute and I'll

7 ask you some questions about it.

8 All right. You've had a chance to review that

9 quickly?

10 A. I have scanned it, yes.

11 Q. All right. The first line -- first two lines,

12 Cavagnero is telling you, "You may share the

13 information with the committee discussions" -- "i n

14 discussions, but please don't forward the email

15 itself." And the rest of the email talks about h is

16 discussion with the University of Nebraska at Lin coln

17 faculty member about Martin Gaskell.

18 My question to you -- I know you didn't write

19 this email or apparently have that discussion wit h the

20 faculty member -- did you, in fact, share this

21 information with the committee in discussions?


23 Q. All right. Do you remember -- the individual

24 at UNL is not identified by Cavagnero in this ema il,

25 but from any conversations you may have had



42

1 subsequently with Professor Cavagnero, do you rec all

2 the name of the person he spoke to at Nebraska?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Do you know whether he spoke to more than one

5 person at Nebraska about Gaskell?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Did you ever speak to anybody at Nebraska

8 about Gaskell?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Do you know of any other members of the

11 committee who may have spoken to Gaskell -- who d id

12 speak to Gas -- to UNL faculty members about Gask ell?

13 A. I know of no such members.

14 Q. Okay. As far as you know today -- as far as

15 you know, obviously -- the only individual who sp oke

16 with a faculty member at Nebraska about Gaskell w as

17 Professor Cavagnero?

18 A. As far as I know.

19 Q. All right. No one else said, you know, "When

20 I spoke to So-and-So at Nebraska, they said this about

21 him"?

22 A. Not to my recollection.

23 Q. Okay. You see at the bottom of this email,

24 the last paragraph, the first sentence reads, "I also

25 raised the questions of whether his personal reli gious



43

1 beliefs affected his job performance." Do you se e

2 that?

3 A. I do see that, yes.

4 Q. Do you know why Professor Cavagnero raised the

5 question of Gaskell's personal religious beliefs?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Did you ever have a discussion with him about

8 that at any subsequent time?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Did you ask him to raise the question of

11 Gaskell's religious beliefs?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Did you -- when you read this email, did you

14 think it was odd that the question of Gaskell's

15 religious beliefs had been raised?

16 A. I don't recall any specific reaction to it.

17 MS. KRIZ: I guess I'm going to object to

18 that question. I think you've mischaracterized t he

19 statement. I think the statement was that whethe r

20 the -- his religious beliefs affected his job

21 performance as opposed to a question regarding hi s

22 religious beliefs, and I think that's...

23 MR. MANION: Well, the statement says

24 what the statement says --

25 MS. KRIZ: Right.



44

1 MR. MANION: -- and it speaks for itself.

2 Q. Okay. Let's move on. As we're marking this

3 for identification, do you think -- did you think back

4 then that a person's personal religious beliefs w ere

5 something that should be considered in a hiring

6 process?

7 A. No.


9 Q. Sticking with Exhibit 10 just for a minute

10 here, in that last paragraph also, Professor Cava gnero

11 reports that the answer to his question about whe ther

12 Gaskell's personal religious beliefs affect his j ob

13 performance was largely no. Is that what it says ?

14 A. That's what it says, yes.

15 Q. And that Cavagnero's source of information in

16 Nebraska indicated that he had never read a compl aint

17 about the manner in which Martin, meaning Gaskell ,

18 discussed religious issues in the classroom. Is that

19 what it says?

20 A. So it states, yes.

21 Q. Was that information that you conveyed to the

22 committee?

23 A. I don't recall, but I could well have.

24 Q. Okay. Do you know if the committee ever got

25 -- well, strike that. I know they did.



45

1 Let me show you Exhibit 11. This appears to

2 be an email from Cavagnero to Troland, September 20,

3 2007, 4:47 p.m., does it not?

4 A. It does.

5 Q. And it concerns Professor Cavagnero's phone

6 interview with Martin Gaskell; correct?

7 A. It appears to, yes.

8 Q. All right. Were you on the phone during that

9 interview?

10 A. I was present for a phone interview with --

11 with Martin Gaskell. I can't necessarily say it was

12 this one, but I definitely was present for a phon e

13 interview.

14 Q. Okay. Was there more than one, to your

15 knowledge?

16 A. I don't recall -- well, to my -- to the best

17 of my recollection, there was only one phone inte rview.

18 I cannot exclude the possibility there could have been

19 other phone conversations. Since it says "phone

20 interview" here in the message --

21 Q. Right.

22 A. -- my presumption is that this was the time

23 when I was present.

24 Q. Okay. And Professor Cavagnero says in the

25 email that -- he characterizes Gaskell's phone



46

1 interview as "quite unlike the others," does he n ot?

2 A. He does.

3 Q. And he says that "Gaskell is clearly the most

4 accomplished and experienced of the lot, at least in my

5 mind"; correct?

6 A. That's what it says.

7 Q. In that -- well -- so you're not certain that

8 this was the phone interview that you participate d in?

9 A. Not a hundred percent, no --

10 Q. Okay.

11 A. -- but quite likely.

12 Q. All right. Do you recall any mention of the

13 dean and any concerns the dean may have had durin g the

14 phone interview?

15 A. I don't recall any such concerns, no.

16 Q. Do you recall -- well, first of all, in the

17 phone interview that you were involved in, and

18 presuming it was this one, did Professor Cavagner o take

19 the lead in conducting the interview?


21 Q. All right. Did both of you speak to Martin

22 during that interview?

23 A. All members of the committee who were

24 present -- and I don't recall who those were -- t o my

25 recollection, did speak to him, yes.



47

1 Q. Okay. So this was an interview with the

2 committee also?

3 A. Well, not necessarily all members of the

4 committee. If I recall correctly, we parsed out the

5 duties for phone interviews among committee membe rs.

6 So I -- I'm certain that not all committee member s were

7 present for all phone interviews. I believe I wa s

8 present for at least one phone interview of every

9 candidate.

10 Q. Okay. At some point it's clear, from the

11 documentary records that we've been given, both t he

12 dean and the provost expressed some concern about

13 Gaskell's website and his views -- scientific or

14 perhaps not scientific -- views on evolution; cor rect?

15 At some point.

16 A. Certainly no such views were ever expressed to

17 me directly.

18 Q. But I'm talking about even in documents, such

19 as an email.

20 A. I do recall seeing an email in which those

21 concerns were mentioned, yes.

22 Q. Do you know if, prior to the phone interview

23 with Martin Gaskell, those concerns from the

24 administration -- dean and provost -- had been ra ised?

25 A. I don't know the time sequence.



48



3 Q. All right. Showing you what I've marked

4 Exhibit 12, an email from Sally Shafer to you and

5 Professor Cavagnero, dated Friday, September 21, 2007,

6 10:03 a.m. Take a look at that, if you would. A nd

7 Sally Shafer is a member of the Physics and Astro nomy

8 Department; correct?

9 A. She's a staff member in our department, yes.

10 Q. And was she a member of the advisory

11 committee?

12 A. Yes, she was.

13 Q. All right. She addresses this email to both

14 yourself and Professor Cavagnero, and begins by s aying,

15 "I decided to see what was available about Martin

16 Gaskell on the Web, in particular about his appro ach to

17 blending of science and religion." Do you see th at

18 sentence?

19 A. I see it, yes.

20 Q. Do you know why she took it upon herself to do

21 that?

22 A. I don't know why for sure.

23 Q. Okay. She then lists a number of links to Web

24 pages that either Gaskell himself or his departme nt in

25 Nebraska had put on the World Wide Web; correct?



49

1 A. That's what I see here, yes.

2 Q. All right. And she comments on them at the

3 end. Did you ever go to those websites?

4 A. I recall going to one website in which there

5 was a document that described Martin Gaskell's th oughts

6 regarding some matters of science and religion. I

7 looked at that document very quickly. I have no

8 particular recollection of what was in it.


10 (Exhibits 13 through 16 marked.)

11 Q. All right. I'm handing you Exhibits 13, 14,

12 15, and 16. I'd ask you to peruse those exhibits for a

13 minute.

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. The very first one, which we've marked, what,

16 13, I believe, it's the...

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Okay. It appears to me that this is Gaskell's

19 Web page as part of the physics and astronomy

20 department at the University of Nebraska. Does t hat

21 appear to you to be that?

22 A. It appears that way, yes.

23 Q. All right. The -- there also appears to have

24 been -- I don't know -- well, obviously it's not there

25 anymore. At the time, there appears to have been a



50

1 link to something he calls "Personal Homepage," a nd

2 other things, "UNL Admissions Office Professor

3 Profile," and "Lincoln Contra Dances." Do you se e

4 those things?

5 A. I see them, yes.

6 Q. All right. Is there any link on this Web page

7 to his -- I mean a direct link to his lecture not es on

8 "Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation"?

9 A. Not that I immediately see, no.

10 Q. Okay. Take a look at the next exhibit, which

11 I guess is 14. This is labeled "Professor Profil es -

12 Martin Gaskell." Do you see that at the top?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Do you recall reviewing that?

15 A. No.

16 Q. All right. Now, the next exhibit, which is

17 Exhibit 15, appears to be Martin Gaskell's person al

18 homepage, with a rather odd looking picture of

19 Professor Gaskell standing in front of some music al

20 notations with names of planets. Do you see that ?

21 A. I see it, yes.

22 Q. Okay. There does appear to be a link on this

23 page, which is labeled "Personal Homepage," to "B ible

24 and Astronomy lecture notes." Do you see that?

25 A. I see that.



51

1 Q. And finally, Exhibit 16, which is labeled

2 "Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation." You see

3 that?

4 A. I see it, yes.

5 Q. And it's -- well, Gaskell refers to them as

6 "notes based on public talks I have given at a nu mber

7 of universities." Says that at the top; correct?

8 A. It does say that.

9 Q. All right. And I believe you said that you

10 did look at this.

11 A. I believe this is the document that I looked

12 at very briefly.

13 Q. Okay. Do you believe that this is the

14 document that Sally Shafer is referring to in her email

15 of September 21?

16 A. I don't know for sure.

17 Q. Okay. Other than what we're calling Exhibit

18 16, "Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation," have

19 you ever -- you yourself ever seen any writings b y

20 Martin Gaskell which touch in any way upon issues of

21 science and religion or in any way mention evolut ion?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Okay. And other than the talk that he gave at

24 the University of Kentucky back in the late '90s, have

25 you ever heard him speak about issues of science,



52

1 religion, or in any way touching on biological

2 evolution?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Do you recall anyone, throughout this process

5 and really up till today, bringing to your attent ion

6 anything in writing from Gaskell on those issues, other

7 than these lecture notes that we've marked as

8 Exhibit 16?

9 A. I don't recall, no.

10 Q. Do you recall anybody, either throughout --

11 both throughout this hiring process and up to tod ay,

12 saying to you that they ever heard Gaskell speak on

13 those issues other than at the UK lecture in the late

14 '90s?

15 A. I don't have any such recollection.

16 Q. Okay. You say that you -- you did read

17 through "Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creatio n" at

18 the time?

19 A. I -- I read it quickly, yes.

20 Q. Okay. Did you form -- well, strike that.

21 Do you recall what, if anything, Gaskell says

22 about biological evolution in this series of lect ure

23 notes?

24 A. Virtually nothing.

25 Q. Let's move on, then.



53


2 Q. Showing you, Professor Troland, what's been

3 marked Exhibit 17, appears to be an email from

4 Professor Cavagnero to Sally Shafer with a copy t o you,

5 September 21 --

6 A. It does, uh-huh.

7 Q. -- 2007, 10:22 a.m. And it begins with a

8 statement, "I was aware of these, and spoke at so me

9 length about the subject with a former Nebraska C hair."

10 Do you know who the former Nebraska chair that's

11 referred to there is?

12 A. No.

13 Q. And the last sentence of Professor Cavagnero's

14 reply to Professor Shafer is, "Certainly, the com mittee

15 should be made aware of the issues." Was the com mittee

16 ever made aware of the issues?

17 A. I recall -- it surely must have been, because

18 I do recall some discussion in the committee on t he

19 matter of whether Martin Gaskell held nonscientif ic

20 views regarding biological evolution. And the

21 particular concern was if he did, whether he woul d make

22 use of a position at the University of Kentucky t o

23 promote those views as opposed to simply holding them

24 as personal, individual beliefs.

25 Q. Okay. Do you know how the committee was made



54

1 aware of those issues?

2 A. I don't recall specifically, no.

3 Q. Okay.


5 Q. Showing you Exhibit 18, which appears to be an

6 email from you to Gary Ferland, dated September 2 3,

7 2007, at 6:32 p.m. In the second paragraph of th e

8 email, you say, "Mike asked that this text be sha red

9 with the committee but not by email."

10 A. Sorry. I haven't yet found that part of the

11 text.

12 Q. Okay.

13 A. Can you point to it in yours?

14 Q. Yes.

15 MS. KRIZ: It's here.

16 A. Oh, I see. Okay.

17 Q. Do you see the sentence, "Mike asked" --

18 A. I do see that, yes.

19 Q. How did Mike ask that? Was it verbally? Was

20 it in writing?


22 Q. Do you know why Mike asked that it be shared

23 but not by email?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Okay. And then you go on to say, "Bottom line



55

1 is that MK" -- I'm not sure who MK is -- "is the best

2 qualified applicant by far." Is that a mistake, do you

3 think, on your part?

4 A. I suspect, yeah, that surely must be a

5 mistake.

6 Q. You meant to say MG?

7 A. I meant to say MG, Martin Gaskell.

8 Q. Okay. So as of September 23, 2007, it was

9 still your view that Martin Gaskell was the best

10 qualified applicant for the job?


12 Q. All right. Let's move along.


14 Q. Looking at the next exhibit, which is an email

15 dated September 24, 2007, 7:19 p.m. This appears to be

16 the -- a summary of a committee -- an actual comm ittee

17 meeting; correct?

18 A. It so does appear, yes.

19 Q. And this is something you prepared?

20 A. Yes, uh-huh. So appears.

21 Q. And it appears to me that at the meeting the

22 candidates for the position were ranked on a scal e

23 of -- well, they were ranked according to certain

24 criteria, and they were given a score of zero, on e, or

25 two; correct?



56

1 A. That appears to be the case, yes.

2 Q. And the results of the ranking was that

3 Gaskell came in first with eight?

4 A. That's what's shown.

5 Q. And Knauer scored a five; correct?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. All right. Why was Flesch -- if that's how he

8 pronounces his name -- not one of the final two, if you

9 recall?


11 Q. Was he the one that lived far from Lexington

12 and didn't want to move or something?

13 A. There was such a candidate, but I don't know

14 for sure if he was the one.

15 Q. Okay.

16 MS. KRIZ: The email says that right

17 there.

18 MR. MANION: Okay. Oh, this one does.

19 Thank you. I knew I read it somewhere.

20 Q. All right.


22 Q. All right. Professor, showing you Exhibit 20,

23 email from Cavagnero to what appears to be the

24 committee, October 3, 2007, 11:57 a.m. In the se cond

25 paragraph, Mike Cavagnero says, "One of our facul ty



57

1 members who is not on the committee has expressed some

2 concern about Martin Gaskell's websites..." Do y ou

3 remember who that faculty member was?

4 A. No.

5 Q. And in the next paragraph, which would be the

6 third paragraph down from the top, Cavagnero says , "I

7 was concerned about this issue, and so sent an em ail to

8 the Dean and Provost, asking for their advice."

9 Did you ever see the email that Cavagnero sent

10 to the dean and provost?

11 A. No.

12 Q. All right. And "Their response is appended

13 below." And Cavagnero advises the committee to r ead it

14 carefully. Do you see that?

15 A. Yes, I do see that.

16 Q. The email from Swamy -- who's the provost;

17 correct?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. -- says, "I completely agree with Steve,"

20 which refers to Steve Hoch?

21 A. Yes, I'm sure it does.

22 Q. And Steve Hoch's reply is at the bottom of the

23 page and at the top of the next page. Do you see where

24 I'm referring to?

25 A. I see that, yes.



58

1 Q. Okay. The first line of -- well, the second

2 line, really, of Hoch's reply says, "The URL you give

3 below, in my view, is should be considered a scho larly

4 paper."

5 I'm not -- it's not referred to here, but

6 assuming he's referring to "Modern Astronomy, the

7 Bible, and Creation," the lecture notes --

8 A. Uh-huh.

9 Q. -- do you consider that a scholarly paper?

10 A. No, I do not.

11 Q. Why not?

12 A. Because it didn't appear in the peer

13 reviews -- peer review of published literature.

14 Q. Okay. The next paragraph of Hoch's reply

15 says, "For example, is the 'young earth creationi st

16 position' he advocates supportable on the basis o f the

17 standards of science?" I'm still on the first pa ge.

18 A. First page. Sorry.

19 Q. Yeah.

20 MS. KRIZ: Very bottom.

21 Q. Do you see that sentence?

22 A. I see that sentence, yes.

23 Q. Do you recall from your reading -- I

24 understand it was not necessarily terribly in dep th --

25 of the lecture notes, whether, in fact, Gaskell



59

1 advocates a young earth creationist position?

2 A. As I said earlier, I have virtually no

3 understanding of what he thinks regarding any mat ter of

4 biological evolution.

5 Q. Okay.

6 MR. MANION: Off the record.

7 (10:09 BREAK 10:16. Exhibit 21 marked.)

8 Q. Professor Troland, I'm showing you Exhibit 21,

9 an email from Gary Ferland to Cavagnero and other s,

10 looks like the committee. Ferland, at this point , is

11 in England; correct?

12 A. Correct.

13 Q. And he is -- how is he aware of what's going

14 on back in Lexington with this hiring process?

15 A. Email.

16 Q. Okay. Was he -- was he ever the chair of the

17 department: Ferland?

18 A. No.

19 Q. Who was the chair before Professor Cavagnero?

20 A. Professor MacAdam.

21 Q. Okay. In Ferland's email -- it looks like the

22 second paragraph of his actual email -- he says, "Have

23 we ever asked a staff member for their personal

24 religious or political beliefs, or made this a st andard

25 for employment?" Do you see the question he asks ?



60

1 A. Yes, I do.

2 Q. How would you have answered that question?

3 A. I would have said, to my knowledge, no.

4 Q. Okay. There was a reference in a previous

5 email to an anonymous faculty member who raised

6 concerns about the whole creationism issue. Reme mber

7 that reference?

8 A. I remember the reference we discussed earlier,

9 yes.

10 Q. Did you tell me that you don't know, as you

11 sit here today, who that was?

12 A. I do not know who that was.


14 Q. Professor, Exhibit 22 is an email from Nancy

15 Levenson to Cavagnero, copy to the committee, it

16 appears, October 3, 3:05 p.m. In the -- I guess it's

17 the last sentence of the first paragraph of her e mail,

18 Professor Levenson says, "However, as Swamy and S teve

19 argued, with an academic byline, is this now a va lid

20 subject of scholarly criticism?" Do you see that

21 sentence?

22 A. I see that sentence.

23 Q. My question is other than the comments that

24 were appended to a previous email that we looked at

25 from Swamy and Hoch, are you aware of any other p lace



61

1 where they -- either of those gentlemen would hav e

2 argued anything about Gaskell's paper?

3 A. No.

4 Q. All right. Is it your understanding and -- as

5 it was mine when I read this -- and maybe we're b oth

6 wrong -- that she's referring to those comments o n that

7 previous email when she talks about as they argue d?

8 A. I assume so.

9 Q. Okay.

10 MS. KRIZ: And for the record, I don't

11 think Dr. Troland can testify about what Dr. Leve nson's

12 mindset was at the time. Unless she made some co mments

13 that reflected what her thought pattern was, I wo uld

14 object to that question on the basis that this wi tness

15 is not qualified to answer that.

16 Q. To your knowledge, did Professor Levenson ever

17 make comments verbally about Swamy and Steve Hoch

18 arguing anything with regard to Gaskell?


20 Q. Is Professor Levenson the one who's in Chile

21 now?

22 A. She is, yes.

23 Q. Did she escape from the earthquake unscathed,

24 I assume?

25 A. She did. She's just fine. The earthquake was



62

1 far south from her.

2 PROFESSOR CAVAGNERO: It was 4.3 in her

3 neighborhood, so she felt it, but...

4 Q. Okay.


6 Q. Showing you what we've marked Exhibit 23,

7 which is an email from Cavagnero to Shafer and Tr oland,

8 subject line, "Re: biologist view?" It appears t o be

9 Mike Cavagnero replying to Sally Shafer, who is

10 suggesting that, quote, We get a biologist's take on

11 Martin's published views, specifically his websit es,

12 unquote. Is that what it appears to be?

13 A. So appears.

14 Q. Do you know what Professor Shafer was

15 referring to when she said his "published views"?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Do you know whether Martin Gaskell had more

18 than one website in which he may have placed

19 information concerning his views on science, reli gion?

20 A. I don't know.

21 Q. Okay. And Cavagnero replies, "Good idea, but

22 let me do it." Do you see that?

23 A. I see that.

24 Q. Did you think it was a good idea at the time?

25 A. I don't recall having an opinion at the time



63

1 as to whether it was a good idea or not.

2 Q. Okay. Were the -- were the views of

3 biologists in the biology department at UK solici ted,

4 to your knowledge?

5 A. My understanding is that they were, yes.

6 Q. And did you review any writings that were

7 received from the biologists concerning their vie ws?

8 A. Yes. I was sent an email in which several

9 members of the biology department expressed their

10 views.

11 Q. Did the job for which Martin Gaskell and Tim

12 Knauer and all the others were applying concern b iology

13 in any way?

14 A. Not directly, no.

15 Q. Did it indirectly?

16 A. Only insofar as part of the -- part of the

17 concept we had and still have of the observatory is

18 that the observatory director will be a science

19 outreach person principally, of course, in effect , deal

20 exclusively in astronomy, but such a person would be

21 viewed as a science expert by the public probably in

22 many fields, but, in fact, actually would be a sc ience

23 expert only in one.


25 Q. Showing you what we've marked Exhibit 24.



64

1 This appears to be an email from Cavagnero to Fer land

2 and the members of the committee, dated October 1 1,

3 2007, 11:24 a.m. Is that what it appears to be?

4 A. That does appear to be, yes.

5 Q. And it begins, "When asked about the job

6 description." Do you know what this refers to? You

7 know, when -- in other words, when was the asking done

8 and in what context?

9 A. I don't know.

10 Q. At some point, did Gaskell come to Lexington

11 for an in-person interview?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And did Professor Cavagnero interview him?

14 A. We all did, yes.

15 Q. Were you present when Professor Cavagnero

16 interviewed him?

17 A. No. Well, we -- the committee interviewed

18 him. At times, Professor Cavagnero may well have been

19 present for committee interviews, so -- so in tha t

20 sense, yes. Insofar as I was present with other

21 committee members, yes.

22 Q. Okay. So the committee interviewed Professor

23 Gaskell at some point?

24 A. That's my -- yes, that's absolutely true.

25 Q. Do you recall who was present?



65

1 A. Well, the interview process is not just a

2 single meeting. It's a process where the candida te

3 speaks individually with all members of the commi ttee,

4 if possible, meets each one of the members of the

5 department.

6 Q. Uh-huh. But do you remember whether -- when

7 you -- you individually met with Martin Gaskell f or an

8 interview, was any other member of the committee there

9 also?

10 A. I recall a meeting with him individually in my

11 office, and no other member of the committee was

12 present at that time.

13 Q. Okay. Were you present when any other member

14 of the committee interviewed him?

15 A. I don't recall, no.

16 Q. Okay. Looking at this exhibit, the

17 October 11, 11:24 a.m. email, if you look at the third

18 paragraph from the bottom, it begins with, "I als o

19 raised the general issue raised by his website." Did

20 you have an understanding of what Professor Cavag nero

21 meant by "the general issue raised by his website "?

22 A. I assume it's whatever's on the website.

23 Q. Okay. But I mean it wasn't his astronomy

24 publications, was it -- or his peer-reviewed

25 publications that was the issue; correct?



66

1 A. I'm not familiar with what's on the website,

2 so I can't say what -- what the general issue was based

3 on the website.

4 Q. Okay. Who is Michael Kovash?

5 A. Professor in the Department of Physical

6 Astronomy.

7 Q. And there's an indication in the documents

8 that he interviewed Gaskell and Knauer. Do you

9 remember that?

10 A. I believe he did, yes. He, at that time, was

11 the director of undergraduate studies, so it woul d have

12 been natural for him to be involved in the issue of the

13 observatory.

14 Q. Okay.


16 Q. Showing you Exhibit 25, which is an email from

17 yourself to -- it appears to be the committee,

18 "Subject: Observations on the Director." You te ll the

19 committee in this email that "Mike Kovash spoke w ith

20 two of the three candidates" we interviewed last week,

21 and it's clear from the context of the rest of th is

22 email that it was Gaskell and Knauer. Do you kno w why,

23 as of October 15, Kovash was interviewing only Ga skell

24 and Knauer?

25 A. No.



67

1 Q. Had it come down to those two at that point?

2 Do you recall?

3 A. I don't know.

4 Q. All right.


6 Q. Showing you what we've marked Exhibit 26,

7 which is an email from you to the committee, it

8 appears, dated October 16, 2007, at 3:26 p.m. Is this

9 a summary of what took place at a committee meeti ng --

10 it says "today," which I will assume is October 1 6,

11 2007.

12 A. Yes, it appears to be.

13 Q. All right. And summarizing this, is it fair

14 to say that you're reporting that no consensus

15 developed regarding a leading candidate?

16 A. I haven't read it, so I can't say that right

17 now.

18 Q. All right. If you'll look at the first couple

19 of lines.

20 A. Okay. It certainly appears, yes, that we had

21 formed no judgment at that point.

22 Q. Okay.


24 Q. All right. Professor, showing you what we've

25 marked Exhibit 27, it appears to be an email from Mike



68

1 Cavagnero to the committee and Ferland. Is there a

2 reason why Ferland was included on so many of the se

3 emails, even though he wasn't on the committee?

4 A. Ferland is an astronomer of repute in our

5 department, and his views were considered of inte rest.

6 Q. Okay. I mean, there's no -- as I go through

7 these emails, there's not strict uniformity about who

8 gets all of the cc's. Is that --

9 A. I'm sure that's true.

10 Q. Okay. That doesn't surprise you?

11 A. No, not at all.

12 Q. All right. Anyway, this is dated October 17,

13 2007, at 10:44 a.m. And the title is "The biolog ists

14 weigh in," and it appears to be Cavagnero sending to

15 the committee the comments that he received from the

16 biologists concerning Gaskell's views on biologic al

17 evolution or related matters; correct?

18 A. So it appears, yes.

19 Q. All right. The first sentence of Cavagnero's

20 email says, "In fulfilling the charge laid upon u s by

21 the Dean and Provost..." What was your understan ding

22 of what he meant by "the charge laid upon us by t he

23 Dean and Provost"?

24 A. My understanding was that the charge laid upon

25 us by the dean and provost was to make a recommen dation



69

1 to the dean as to the candidate we felt was best.

2 Q. Okay. Do you remember reading the comments

3 from the biologists?

4 A. I have seen these comments in the past, yes.

5 Q. Okay. Do you personally know Jeff Osborn?

6 A. I have met him. I met and talked with him on

7 one occasion some time ago in a business-related

8 matter; so...

9 Q. Okay. Did it relate in any way to Martin

10 Gaskell or the hiring process --

11 A. Absolutely not, no.

12 Q. -- for the observatory director?

13 Okay. How about Jim Krupa --

14 A. No.

15 Q. -- do you know Jim Krupa?

16 A. No, I do not.

17 Q. All right. And Shelly, or Sheldon, Steiner?

18 A. No.

19 Q. The latter two are also biologists at the

20 University of Kentucky; correct?

21 A. That's my understanding, yes.

22 Q. Okay. Did you -- did you take issue with

23 anything that the biologists said at this time wh en you

24 read their comments in this email?

25 A. No.



70

1 Q. You may have answered this earlier; forgive

2 me. At the famous lecture -- famous in the conte xt of

3 this case.

4 MS. KRIZ: I was going to say --

5 THE DEPONENT: Otherwise not remembered,

6 but...

7 MS. KRIZ: -- I object to the form of

8 that question.

9 Q. -- in the late 1990s. We've -- we've heard

10 from Professor Gaskell, and actually from emails from

11 Professor Krupa, that those two individuals, Gask ell

12 and Krupa, had a -- an exchange back and forth du ring

13 the question and answer session which became

14 contentious, let's say. Were you present for tha t?

15 A. I was present for the very beginning of the

16 question and answer session, and do recall there were

17 some disagreements, but I don't recall who was as king

18 the questions at that point.

19 Q. And do you remember what the questions were?

20 A. No.

21 Q. And you left during the question and answer

22 period?

23 A. I did, yes.

24 Q. Okay. Why did you leave? Sounded like it was

25 getting fun at that point.



71

1 A. I was ready to go home.

2 Q. Okay.


4 Q. Okay. Let's see. Staying with this same

5 Exhibit 27, was there discussion about the biolog ists'

6 response at a committee meeting at any time?

7 A. I don't specifically recall, but I expect

8 there was.

9 Q. Do you remember the specifics of any

10 discussion that took place at the committee meeti ngs?

11 A. No, I do not.

12 Q. Let's see.


14 Q. All right. Professor Troland, showing you

15 what we've marked Exhibit 28, this is an email fr om

16 yourself to Gary Ferland dated October 18, 2007,

17 2:32 p.m. If you go down -- one, two, three, fou r --

18 five paragraphs -- really the last paragraph of y our --

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. -- part of the email to Ferland, you say, "It

21 does truly look as if Gaskell has been blackballe d by

22 the biologists." Do you see that?

23 A. I see that, yes.

24 Q. What did you mean by that?

25 A. I'd have to reflect on that. I haven't read



72

1 this in a long time. I had certainly seen the do cument

2 that's now Exhibit 27.

3 Q. The biologists weigh in?

4 A. The biologists weigh in.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. And my suspicion was -- this was just

7 speculation -- my suspicion was that somehow thos e

8 opinions would have some effect.

9 Q. Okay. The next sentence says, "Mike C." --

10 which I think we'll all agree is Mike Cavagnero - -

11 A. Yes, uh-huh.

12 Q. -- "implies that the Dean would never go for

13 the hire, it would create too much friction with

14 biology." My question is did he imply that verba lly to

15 you in some way?

16 A. I don't recall at this time how I received

17 that information or whether, in fact, that was hi s

18 intent in telling me that.

19 Q. Okay.

20 A. That's -- I use the word "imply."

21 Q. Right. You say, "Gaskell is head and

22 shoulders above any of the other applicants in

23 experience, and he is, as you know, a well respec ted

24 research scientist with lots of publications, cit ations

25 and successful grant proposals." That's what you said;



73

1 correct?

2 A. That's what I say, yes.

3 Q. And you say, "His CV would put to shame many

4 members of our faculty"; right?

5 A. That's what I've written, yes. That,

6 remember, is a speculative comment that may or ma y not

7 be true.

8 Q. Okay. It's what you were thinking at --

9 A. But it's what I wrote at the time, yes.

10 Q. -- the time you wrote Ferland?

11 A. That's right, yes.

12 Q. All right.


14 Q. Showing you what's been marked Exhibit 29,

15 it's dated October 18, 2007. It's an email from you to

16 Ferland, October 18, 2007, at 4:11 p.m. You -- a gain,

17 going down to the last, oh, I don't know, five or six

18 lines of your portion of the email, you say, "In the

19 end, I'm sure, enough other reasons will be found to

20 hire another candidate, and the whole matter will be

21 safely swept under the rug." Ha, ha. What did y ou

22 mean by that?

23 A. Well, it should be understand -- understood

24 that at that time, I was -- I was frustrated that other

25 members of the committee, for whatever reason, di dn't



74

1 agree with my assessment of the candidates. In f act, I

2 was quite frustrated. And this comment, I think, more

3 than anything else, simply reflects a frustration that

4 I felt.

5 Q. Okay. Did you think it was unfair for

6 Gaskell's views on biological evolution, whatever they

7 might have been or are, to be considered as part of the

8 hiring process here?

9 A. I felt that his views on biological evolution

10 should not be given very great weight, if any, in the

11 process, right. I -- other committee members fel t

12 differently. And upon reflection and thinking ba ck on

13 this, I realize that this is an issue which peopl e

14 naturally could disagree on.

15 Q. All right. Let's go on.


17 Q. I'm showing you Exhibit 30, which is an email

18 from you to Gary Ferland, October 18, 2007, at

19 6:52 p.m. In the first paragraph, the third line up

20 from the bottom of that paragraph, you say, "I fi nd the

21 biologists' responses to be a bit on the emotiona l

22 side." What did you mean by that?

23 A. If I recall correctly, I thought the text for

24 one of them seemed to be an overreaction.

25 Q. Do you remember which one?



75

1 A. No, I don't, actually, right now. I could

2 probably tell if I looked at the document.

3 Q. Would it have been the one who claimed he

4 ripped into Gaskell when Gaskell was here a few y ears

5 ago?

6 A. I think it would be, yes.

7 Q. That's the "Chuck Norris wanna-be" I see here.

8 A. Yeah, I think that's the one. Yes. Right.

9 Yes, indeed. I hadn't even read -- yeah, that's the

10 one.

11 Q. Okay. And at the beginning of the next

12 paragraph, you say, "And you are right that Gaske ll

13 would be a real leader." What did you mean by "a real

14 leader," and why was that significant, if it was?

15 A. Well, I thought that he would, if given the

16 job, take charge of the project and lead it to su ccess.

17 Q. Why did you think that about Gaskell?

18 A. It was my overall judgment based on -- on the

19 interview and all information I had available.

20 Q. Okay.

21 A. Not every member of the committee, of course,

22 agreed with that assessment, and that's why we ha ve

23 committees.

24 Q. Right.

25 A. We have difference of opinions in committees.



76

1 Q. All right.


3 Q. Showing you Exhibit 31, which is dated October

4 -- an email dated October 19, 2007, at 10:02 a.m. , from

5 you to Gary Ferland again. In the beginning of t he

6 second paragraph, you say, "If Martin were not (b y a

7 very wide margin) the most qualified applicant fo r the

8 job, then this issue would be moot."

9 Had you formed an opinion at that point that

10 Martin Gaskell was, by a very wide margin, the mo st

11 qualified applicant for the job?

12 A. I had formed that opinion, yes.

13 Q. All right. Going down to the next paragraph,

14 about four lines up, the sentence begins, "I get the

15 impression from Mike..." Do you see that sentenc e?

16 A. I haven't found it yet. Yes, I see it. Okay.

17 Q. Well, the whole sentence reads, "I get the

18 impression from Mike that a major driving force i n the

19 decision is the Dean and Provost, both of whom ma y be

20 quite disinclined to approve hiring Gaskell, espe cially

21 in light of the biologists' objections." Do you see

22 that sentence?

23 A. I see that sentence, yes.

24 Q. Do you know how you got that impression from

25 Mike?



77

1 A. I have no recollection at the present time,

2 no.


4 Q. All right. Showing you what's been marked

5 Exhibit 32.

6 A. Okay.

7 Q. This is -- purports to be an email from Thomas

8 Troland to Gary Ferland, dated October 19, 2007, at

9 10:31 a.m., and the subject is "Gaskell almost

10 certainly a dead duck."

11 It appears in this email that you're telling

12 Ferland about a meeting you had with Keith, whom I

13 assume is Keith MacAdam. Correct?

14 A. Yes, that would be true.

15 Q. Do you remember having that meeting with him?

16 A. Not specifically, but I'm sure I did.

17 Q. Okay. The email goes on to say, "Today,

18 (although he" -- referring to MacAdam, obviously --

19 "emphasized that we should discuss all these matt ers at

20 the meeting), he indicated that the public views all

21 sciences as a single entity." Next sentence, "So

22 Martin's views on biology are very relevant to ou r

23 position in astronomy, at least from the outreach

24 perspective." Is that what MacAdam expressed to you on

25 that occasion?



78

1 A. I assume it was, yes.

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. Or at least it was my understanding of what he

4 said.

5 Q. Okay.


7 Q. All right. Professor, showing you what we've

8 marked Exhibit 33, which is an email from you to Gary

9 Ferland, dated October 19, 2007, at 10:44 a.m., y ou

10 say, "Gary: Well, it is all a foregone conclusio n.

11 And, no, this matter certainly does not pass the stench

12 test." What did you mean by "the stench test"?

13 A. I think, again, this is an indication of the

14 frustration I felt that other members of the comm ittee

15 did not agree with me, and that frustration was

16 expressed using language which you would normally use

17 if you were talking to someone over a beer.

18 Q. Well, what was it about the -- the matter that

19 didn't pass the stench test?

20 A. Well, I felt that -- that my -- my personal

21 assessment of the situation was that Martin Gaske ll was

22 the best candidate by far, and another candidate, who I

23 assessed at that time to be less qualified, was g iven

24 the job, and -- which struck me as that would see m to

25 be unusual to people, perhaps, that were consider ing



79

1 this issue.

2 Q. Okay. It's a fact, is it not, at the time, at

3 least, Knauer, the individual who eventually got the

4 job, had never run an observatory?

5 A. That is a fact, to my knowledge, yes.

6 Q. And at the time had no outreach experience;

7 correct?

8 A. I don't know about that.

9 Q. All right.


11 Q. Showing you Exhibit 34, another email from

12 yourself to Professor Ferland, October 19, 2007,

13 12:08 p.m. You say, in the second and third and fourth

14 lines, "Tim's a nice guy and seemingly full of

15 enthusiasm, but he has never run an observatory, has

16 never been employed in an astronomy-related posit ion,

17 and he has no outreach experience."

18 Does that refresh your recollection as far as

19 what --

20 A. That certainly was my --

21 Q. -- you knew about him at the time?

22 A. That was my assessment at the time, yes.



25 Q. Okay. Showing you what we've marked



80

1 Exhibit 35, which is an email from you to Mike

2 Cavagnero, dated October 19, 2007, at 4:57 p.m. You

3 labeled this or you put the subject as "The Gaske ll

4 affair"; correct?

5 A. That's correct, yes.

6 Q. And you say that you are distressed about the

7 Martin Gaskell affair in the first sentence; corr ect?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And I think you've already expressed here

10 today the source of that.

11 A. I was frustrated, yes, that other members of

12 the committee didn't agree with me.

13 Q. Right. You say, in the second paragraph, it's

14 clear to you that there's virtually no way Gaskel l

15 would be offered the job despite his qualificatio ns

16 that stand far above those of any other applicant . Is

17 that what you said?

18 A. That's what I said, yes.

19 Q. And you say, "Other reasons will be given for

20 this choice when we meet Tuesday." Then you say, "In

21 the end, however, the real reason why we will not offer

22 him the job is because of his religious beliefs i n

23 matters that are unrelated to astronomy or to any of

24 the duties specified for this position." Is that what

25 you said?



81

1 A. That's what I said, yes.

2 Q. Going down to the fourth paragraph of this

3 particular email, you say --

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. -- do you not, "We could easily choose another

6 applicant, and we could content ourselves with th e idea

7 that Martin's religious beliefs played little rol e in

8 our decision"? Did you say that?

9 A. I did say that, yes.

10 Q. Okay.

11 A. That statement bears some explanation.

12 Q. Okay. Well, I'm going to ask you about the

13 next two sentences --

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. -- and you may want to...

16 A. All right. Fine.

17 Q. You go on to say, do you not, "However, this

18 is not the case. As it is, no objective observer could

19 possibly believe that we have excluded Martin on any

20 basis other than religious"? Did you say that?

21 A. That's what's written here, yes.

22 Q. What did you mean by that?

23 A. Okay. First of all, you have to understand I

24 was, as I've said before, very frustrated at that time

25 that other members of the committee did -- did no t



82

1 agree with me.

2 Q. Uh-huh.

3 A. Secondly, it is a fact, to the best of my

4 recollection, that at no time, at any committee m eeting

5 or with any individual member of the committee, w as

6 Martin Gaskell's religious beliefs ever discussed . We

7 never discussed what God, if any, he praised to; we

8 never discussed what church, if any, he goes to; we

9 never discussed any matter of his theological bel iefs,

10 anything of that sort.

11 What was discussed, as we've already

12 established, at some level, at least, was the

13 possibility that he might hold nonscientific view s in

14 the topic of biological evolution.

15 I realize, upon reflection, looking over some

16 of these emails, that I, in writing the emails th at I

17 wrote and using the language I did, was making a hidden

18 assumption. And the hidden assumption that I was

19 making was that any discussion of Martin's belief s

20 regarding biological evolution amounted, in some way,

21 to a discussion of his religion.

22 I realize now that assumption bears no

23 connection to facts. There's no way to establish that.

24 If Martin Gaskell has beliefs about biological

25 evolution that are different from that which the



83

1 scientific evidence suggests -- and I don't know that

2 he does, but if he does, I realize today I'm not

3 entitled to assume that it has anything to do wit h his

4 religion; it may or it may not.

5 So the bottom line is we never discussed, in

6 the committee, Martin Gaskell's religion.

7 Q. But you used the word "religious," did you

8 not?

9 A. I do, and for the reason I mentioned. I was

10 -- there was a hidden assumption in my thought pr ocess

11 at that time that any discussion of Martin's beli efs

12 regarding biological evolution was a de facto

13 discussion of his religion, but there was no basi s for

14 making that statement.

15 Q. Do you know, as you sit here today, why you

16 made that assumption?

17 A. No, I don't. It was a hidden assumption.

18 Actually, as I think back, it just -- it's just

19 something that people sometimes do. They make an

20 assumption and don't even reflect upon the fact t hat

21 the assumption exists.

22 Q. In the next paragraph of this particular

23 email, you say, "I fully realize that there are f orces

24 at work here far beyond my own control or even yo urs."

25 What forces were you referring to?



84

1 A. Well, I recognized that the dean was going to

2 be making the choice. We were an advisory commit tee,

3 and the dean had the authority to make the final

4 choice.

5 Q. Okay.


7 Q. All right. Showing you what we've marked

8 Exhibit 36, which is an email from you to Profess or

9 Ferland, dated October 19, 2007, at 5:51 p.m., yo u say

10 that you think Mike has tried his best to be fair . And

11 then you say, in the second and third lines, "He urged

12 us in this email" -- you're referring to an email

13 Cavagnero had previously sent -- "to put aside co ncerns

14 about the religious issue." Again you use the wo rds

15 "the religious issue," do you not?

16 A. I used the words "religious issue" there, and

17 in all cases the meaning of that term is insofar as

18 Martin Gaskell's beliefs about biological evoluti on

19 might digress from scientific evidence. Because, as I

20 said before, there was no discussion of Martin

21 Gaskell's religious beliefs.

22 Q. Well, when you say his religious beliefs, I

23 gather there was no discussion of specifics of

24 theology; a denomination he belongs to, if any; o r what

25 church he goes to, if any. But this particular e mail



85

1 and the previous one and several of the others us e the

2 phrase "religious beliefs," "religious issue."

3 A. They do.

4 Q. Quite a bit, do they not?

5 A. They do.

6 Q. And so you're telling me now, today, that that

7 was a hidden assumption and you're not sure what it was

8 based on?

9 A. Yes, I am telling you that.

10 I guess just to slightly amplify on that, it

11 is certainly the case that some people -- it's kn own

12 nationally -- some people who -- whose beliefs

13 regarding biological evolution are different from that

14 of the scientific evidence, some people have thos e

15 beliefs for religious reasons. And, at the same time,

16 I'm not entitled to assume that an individual has those

17 beliefs for religious reasons.

18 So I guess, in some sense, to answer your

19 earlier question, this hidden assumption was some how

20 based on this idea that there are such people who have

21 nonscientific beliefs about biological evolution,

22 which, as I understand, are based on their religi on.

23 I think my hidden assumption was to assume

24 that that was true for Martin Gaskell, and I have no

25 basis for saying that.



86

1 Q. Okay.


3 Q. Showing you Exhibit 37, I think it is. This

4 is an email from yourself to Mike Cavagnero, date d

5 October 21, 2007, 4:24 p.m. You say, near the to p,

6 "(Consulting the biologists, however, may have be en a

7 strategic mistake.)" What did you mean by that?

8 A. You know, I don't recall precisely what I

9 meant by that. I probably wouldn't have done it if I

10 had had the choice. But actually I don't know ex actly

11 what I meant by that at the time.

12 Q. Going further down in this particular email --

13 one, two, three, four -- the fourth paragraph, yo u say,

14 "Any argument that we are evaluating Gaskell's

15 'scholarship'" -- the word "scholarship" in quote s --

16 "in the matter of biological evolution is mislead ing."

17 What did you mean by that?

18 A. Well, my -- my particular belief, not shared

19 by all members of the committee, was that -- that

20 whatever -- well, my belief was that Martin Gaske ll is

21 not a biologist --

22 Q. Uh-huh.

23 A. -- does not publish in the biological

24 literature, and therefore it was my assessment th at he

25 had no scholarship --



87

1 Q. Right.

2 A. -- in biology. He had scholarship in

3 astronomy, does today, but that he had no scholar ship,

4 as I defined it, in biology.

5 However, that was a matter that other people

6 disagreed with. And reasonable people can disagr ee as

7 to whether or not his thoughts regarding biology are

8 scholarship or not. I felt that they were not.

9 Q. Okay. The next -- well, not the next

10 paragraph -- the next one -- two paragraphs -- th e

11 paragraph that begins with "In short."

12 A. Uh-huh.

13 Q. You say, "In short, I fear we are in troubled

14 waters ethically, and, perhaps, legally." What d id you

15 mean by that at the time?

16 A. Well, for one thing, I'm not a lawyer, so I

17 don't know what the -- what the law says. In the

18 absence of being a lawyer, I perhaps made up some ideas

19 as to what the law might say.

20 Q. I do that all the time. That's okay when

21 you're a lawyer, not when you're a scientist.

22 A. I see. Okay.

23 As I've said a number of times before, I was

24 acutely frustrated at the time because I did feel that

25 Martin Gaskell was the best choice. That opinion was



88

1 not universally shared by the committee. And I b elieve

2 that some of the words that I chose here reflecte d,

3 more than anything else, my frustration at that t ime.

4 Q. Okay. But you're not a lawyer, you weren't a

5 lawyer then.

6 A. Right.

7 Q. But you made a statement in this email that

8 you thought you might be -- "you" meaning the

9 university, the committee, whatever -- in trouble d

10 waters legally.

11 Well, even though you weren't a lawyer then,

12 you didn't think that it was somehow -- that ther e were

13 somehow legal implications in discussing or consi dering

14 somebody's scientific views on biological evoluti on,

15 did you?

16 A. Say again. Would you please repeat the

17 question?

18 Q. Sure. You didn't think then that there would

19 have been some legal or ethical problem with disc ussing

20 a scientist applying for a job's views on a scien tific

21 matter, did you?

22 A. I wouldn't think so, no.

23 Q. But you did think that there would be a

24 problem in discussing and considering an applican t's

25 religious beliefs, didn't you?



89

1 A. I thought then and I think today that it is

2 inappropriate to discuss an applicant's religious

3 beliefs.

4 Q. And isn't that why you thought you were in

5 troubled waters ethically and legally?

6 A. As I said, I -- I remember no discussions

7 whatever regarding Martin Gaskell's religious bel iefs.

8 Q. So why did you think you were perhaps in

9 troubled waters ethically and legally?

10 MS. KRIZ: Because he hadn't talked to me

11 yet.

12 A. I don't know.

13 Q. You don't know? Okay.

14 A. I was concerned about the process, as I've

15 said. I was frustrated by the fact that others d idn't

16 agree with me. I think I may have been just sort of

17 being deliberately alarmist.

18 Q. You also say in this same paragraph, "(You

19 recall the time UK legal counsel visited the Chai r's

20 office and declared us in serious violation of Ke ntucky

21 labor law.)" What was that about?

22 A. That was an issue, for one thing, entirely

23 unrelated to this, and it had to do with -- well, I

24 don't remember the details, but it had to do with

25 policies we had regarding teaching assistants.



90

1 Q. Okay. The last paragraph of this email, you

2 say to Mike Cavagnero, "I'll drop by your office

3 tomorrow. I would like to discuss these matters

4 briefly with you face to face." Did you, in fact , do

5 that?

6 A. I'm not a hundred percent certain, but I

7 probably did.

8 Q. Do you remember what was said by both of you?

9 A. No, I certainly don't.

10 Q. Okay.

11 MR. MANION: Off the record.

12 (Discussion held off the record . Exhibit

13 38 marked.)

14 Q. Okay. Showing you Exhibit 38, which is an

15 email from you to Professor Ferland, dated Octobe r 22,

16 2007, 9:29 a.m., and you say -- one, two, three,

17 four -- the fourth paragraph, "Just one final com ment

18 on the Gaskell matter." And you talk about sendi ng an

19 email to your friend Genie Scott --

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. -- "the country's best known tracker of the

22 anti-evolution/creationist movement." I am famil iar

23 with Professor Scott. I think she's the head of, what,

24 the National Center for Science Education or some thing?

25 A. Yes, correct. Yes.



91

1 Q. So you called her or you emailed her?

2 A. I emailed her, right.

3 Q. Did you speak to her?

4 A. No, I never spoke to her.

5 Q. All right. We haven't seen that email. Is

6 that an email you still have somewhere?

7 A. Actually, I have that email.

8 MS. KRIZ: You know, I have some

9 additional stuff --

10 MR. MANION: Okay.

11 MS. KRIZ: -- to share with you. Tom

12 shared that with me just this week, so we'll be

13 supplementing.

14 Q. What did you ask her in the email?

15 A. What I asked her was --

16 Q. Which will speak for itself, but...

17 A. Sure. Well, what I asked her was whether

18 Martin Gaskell had become known to her in matters of

19 the national debate regarding science versus

20 creationism --

21 Q. Right.

22 A. -- or something along those lines.

23 The concern that some members of the committee

24 had, I really -- this was not a major concern of mine

25 in any situation -- but concern that members of t he



92

1 committee had, to my recollection, was that not o nly

2 might Martin Gaskell have beliefs regarding biolo gical

3 evolution contrary to science evidence -- which, first

4 of all, it must be said is entirely his right to have

5 whatever beliefs he wishes -- but the concern was that

6 he might conceivably use a position at the Univer sity

7 of Kentucky to promote those beliefs under the ae gis of

8 the University of Kentucky. That was the concern that

9 some members of the committee had, to my recollec tion.

10 So the purpose of sending this email to Genie

11 Scott was to ask if there was any evidence that h e had

12 done that, and she said no.

13 Q. Okay.

14 A. So I was quite reassured.

15 MS. KRIZ: I'll make copies of it.

16 That's the email.

17 THE DEPONENT: Yes. Okay.

18 MS. KRIZ: I thought maybe this might

19 expedite your questioning.

20 THE DEPONENT: Sure.

21 Q. The email response that you received from

22 Eugenie Scott, did you share that with any member s of

23 the committee?

24 A. I don't recall that I did, but I'm not

25 absolutely certain. I probably shared the essenc e of



93

1 it, though, orally with the committee --

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. -- because that was really my intent.

4 Q. Okay.

5 MR. MANION: Are these copies?

6 MS. KRIZ: Let me go make some copies for

7 everybody. If you want to question him about it, we

8 can do that at the end.

9 MR. MANION: Yeah. That's true. All

10 right. Let's --

11 MS. KRIZ: He'll have to see a copy, so

12 let me...

13 (11:02 BREAK 11:05. Exhibit 39 marked.)

14 Q. Professor Troland, we have marked Exhibit

15 No. 39, and this appears to be copies of the emai l

16 correspondence you were just speaking about betwe en

17 yourself and Eugenie Scott, does it not?

18 A. So it appears.

19 Q. Okay. And you contacted her because she is

20 well known as somebody who is very much involved in

21 science education, generally, and specifically in --

22 I'm trying to characterize this in a neutral way --

23 ensuring that nonscientific views of biological

24 evolution do not make their way into science curr icula

25 throughout the country under the guise of -- of



94

1 scientific creationism or intelligent design or o ther

2 terms like that. Is that a fair...

3 A. Yes. In public schools.

4 Q. In public schools, of course.

5 A. In private schools...

6 Q. Right. Right.

7 And she, at one point, was at University of

8 Kentucky; correct?

9 A. She was. That's how I know her.

10 Q. Okay. And you wrote to her on, according to

11 this email, it appears, 10/19/2007. If you go ba ck --

12 if you go to the second to the last page of this

13 exhibit.

14 A. I'm sure that's true.

15 Q. And the subject of your email was "Have you

16 heard of Martin Gaskell?" Correct?

17 A. Yes, uh-huh.

18 Q. Okay. And you've already explained what it

19 was that you asked her. And her reply, which is on the

20 first page of this exhibit, says, as you've alrea dy --

21 as you've already indicated, that "He has not pop ped

22 onto our radar as an antievolution activist." I' m

23 quoting from her email there.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. She notes that he is very religious but



95

1 accepting of evolution; correct?

2 A. That's what she writes, yes.

3 Q. All right. She finishes that paragraph by

4 saying, "No indication that this is Gaskell's pos ition,

5 however." And it appears that she's referring to the

6 position of some other astronomer, Hugh Ross?

7 A. Hugh -- I don't know who Hugh Ross is.

8 Q. Okay. And I think you've indicated that you,

9 if not shared the actual email with members of th e

10 committee, you did somehow apprise them of the fa ct

11 that you had written to Scott, that she had repli ed

12 that she had not heard of Gaskell?

13 A. I don't specifically recall doing that, but I

14 presume I did because that surely would have been my

15 intent.

16 Q. Okay. I mean, that's the reason you emailed

17 her.

18 A. That's right, yes.

19 Q. Okay. Do you know whether her response was

20 shared with the biologists who had weighed in, to use

21 Professor Cavagnero's phrase, on this issue?


23 Q. Do you know whether there was any other input

24 from any of the biologists other than the comment s that

25 we've previously looked at and talked about that were



96

1 appended to an email from Mike Cavagnero?

2 A. None that I know of.

3 Q. Do you know whether any of the bio -- well,

4 did you ever speak to any of those three biologis ts

5 about this issue?

6 A. No, I did not.

7 Q. Do you know if Professor Cavagnero ever spoke

8 to them?

9 A. I don't know.

10 Q. How about any other members of the committee?

11 A. I don't know.

12 Q. Okay. All right. Let's look at --


14 Q. -- Exhibit No. 40, which is an email from you

15 to the committee, it appears, dated October 23, 2 007,

16 at 5:55 p.m., is it not?

17 A. It appears to be, yes.

18 Q. It appears to me that that is a summary of the

19 action the committee took regarding its recommend ation

20 for the observatory director position, does it no t?

21 A. Yes. It's clearly marked "draft," and there

22 was a later and slightly modified version.

23 Q. Right. And in substance -- the later revision

24 didn't affect the substance?

25 A. Absolutely not, no.



97

1 Q. Okay. And you report here that the vote was

2 four to one in favor of Knauer; correct?

3 A. Yes, I so report.

4 Q. And you were the one who voted in favor of

5 Gaskell?

6 A. I was.

7 Q. Okay. You also -- you summarized the

8 majority's reasons for voting for Knauer, and the n you

9 summarized the minority's reasons, yourself, in f avor

10 of Gaskell; correct?



13 Q. Showing you Exhibit 41 --

14 A. Uh-huh.

15 Q. -- which is an email from yourself to Gary

16 Ferland, dated October 25, 2007, at 5:18 p.m. Fi rst of

17 all, it -- the third paragraph down, you refer to Keith

18 as the decider. What did you mean by that?

19 A. I was aware -- and this came up in an earlier

20 question -- I was aware that Keith had made a fin ancial

21 contribution -- perhaps not by any means the only

22 one -- but anyway, made a financial contribution. I --

23 I speculated -- everything that's in this message

24 should be viewed as speculation -- but I speculat ed

25 that because he had made a financial contribution to



98

1 the observatory that perhaps his opinion might be given

2 more weight.

3 Q. Okay.

4 A. In the end, of course, the vote of the

5 committee was four to one.

6 Q. Right.

7 A. And so there were three members of the

8 committee that concurred with the final recommend ation.

9 Q. Did Nancy Levenson vote?

10 A. I don't remember whether she was present or

11 not.

12 Q. I believe I read in one of the emails that you

13 thought that she would have voted for Gaskell.

14 A. I -- actually, now that you mention that, I --

15 right. I assume from that comment -- in fact, I' m -- I

16 may actually detail it in an email that she was n ot

17 actually present at the time we met and at the me eting

18 described in this earlier email, but I had discus sed

19 the matter with her, and it certainly was my

20 recollection that she favored Gaskell.

21 PROFESSOR CAVAGNERO: I can answer that

22 question if you want me to.

23 MS. KRIZ: No, you can't.

24 MR. MANION: I'll ask it to you later.

25 PROFESSOR CAVAGNERO: Okay. That's fine.



99

1 MR. MANION: Well, we might save a little

2 time.

3 Q. Okay. The same exhibit. In item (4), you

4 talk about Isaac. Is that Isaac Shlosman?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You say, "He was put off by the religion

7 thing." Is that your recollection of something t hat

8 Isaac expressed?

9 A. Isaac, if I recall, was concerned, to some

10 extent, about the matter of nonscientific views

11 regarding biological evolution.

12 Q. Okay. And you go on to say, "Tim" -- I assume

13 referring to Tim Knauer --

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. -- "as far as we know, subscribes to all

16 evolution doctrine although we really don't know for

17 sure because we never asked him." Is that your

18 recollection that Knauer was never asked about hi s

19 position on biological evolution?

20 A. I don't recall that he was, no.

21 Q. Were any of the other candidates asked about

22 that?

23 A. I don't recall that they were.

24 Q. Is it possible that Tim Knauer is a scientific

25 creationist?



100

1 A. I know nothing about his position on such

2 matters.

3 Q. In -- well, you've got two paragraph 5s. In

4 the second one, you say, "It is unclear just how much

5 the religion issue played a role (except for Isaa c).

6 But that issue was lurking somewhere in everyone' s

7 mind." Is that the conclusion you had come to on

8 October 25, 2007?

9 A. As I explained earlier, the term "religion"

10 used in this context by me represented any discus sion

11 regarding Martin Gaskell's beliefs regarding biol ogical

12 evolution, not religion per se.


14 Q. Showing you Exhibit 42, which is an email from

15 you to Ferland, "Subject: The pot gets stirred." At

16 some point -- well, it says in this email Mike Ko vash,

17 a member of the department, contacted the UK Equa l

18 Opportunity Office regarding this hiring process;

19 correct?


21 Q. All right. And there's a reference in the

22 second sentence of this email to department counc il.

23 What's department council?

24 A. The department council is a group of faculty

25 members who meet on a regular basis with the chai r to



101

1 discuss various departmental matters.

2 Q. And at that meeting on that day, Kovash

3 brought up the issue of hiring -- or recommending

4 Knauer over Gaskell?

5 A. I wasn't present. I don't know.

6 Q. Oh. You weren't present?

7 A. No --

8 Q. How did you --

9 A. -- I don't think, at least.

10 Q. Okay.

11 A. I had been a member of the council at times in

12 the past. Let me say I -- I don't recall whether I was

13 a member of the council at that time and, if I wa s,

14 whether I was present.

15 Q. Okay. Were you, at some point, contacted by

16 the UK EEO office regarding this matter?

17 A. I recall a contact -- I recall either a

18 conversation or an email -- I think for sure an e mail

19 and perhaps a phone conversation -- with Patty Be nder.

20 Q. Okay. At some point you predicted to Gary

21 Ferland that the job search would be reopened. D o you

22 remember predicting that?

23 A. I have a vague recollection of predicting

24 that, yes.

25 Q. You were wrong, were you not?



102

1 A. I was wrong.

2 Q. Okay.

3 A. Ask my wife. Many of my predictions are

4 wrong.

5 Q. Who's going to win the game?

6 PROFESSOR CAVAGNERO: Don't answer that.


8 Q. I'm showing you Exhibit 43, which should be an

9 email from you to Ferland, dated November 4, 2007 , at

10 11:36 a.m. You say in this email, "All the

11 non-evolution reasons for favoring Tim over Marti n were

12 quite flimsy." Do you see that?

13 A. Yes, I see that.

14 Q. Was that the conclusion you had come to at

15 that point?

16 A. That was -- that was my personal conclusion at

17 that time, yes, uh-huh.

18 Q. You then, in the next paragraph, refer to your

19 dissent, which I believe is a dissent to the

20 committee's report. Correct?

21 A. I presume so, yes.

22 Q. And you make the observation that "no member

23 of the committee challenged as factually wrong." Is

24 that your recollection of the way it happened?

25 A. That is my recollection, yes.



103

1 Q. You then go on to say, "I'm surprised that the

2 Dean did not contact me for comments prior to app roving

3 the offer for Tim." Why were you surprised?

4 A. I don't know. I thought perhaps the dean,

5 reading my dissent, might have contacted me, but he

6 didn't. He was under no obligation to do so.

7 Q. Right.


9 Q. Showing you Exhibit 44, which I think is an

10 email November 5, 2007?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. At 5:47 p.m. You begin by saying, "Mike

13 reported at the faculty meeting today that the eq ual

14 opportunity folks have cleared our job search so Knauer

15 may be offered the job." Do you remember that me eting?

16 A. Yes, I do.

17 Q. Do you remember anything Mike said other than

18 the EEO folks have cleared our job search?

19 A. I don't believe he said anything other than

20 that, and certainly I don't remember.

21 Q. Okay. In the next paragraph, you say, "At the

22 same time, I am saddened that a great injustice h as

23 been done in denying the value of Martin's vast

24 experience over Tim." Is that a conclusion you r eached

25 at that time?



104

1 A. It was a conclusion I reached at that time,

2 yes.

3 Q. Why did you think an injustice had been done?

4 A. Actually, I think, as much as anything, I felt

5 the injustice had been done to our observatory ef fort,

6 because I felt that Martin would be an excellent

7 director of the observatory, and I felt the obser vatory

8 effort might suffer as a result of not placing hi m in

9 control.

10 And also I felt -- I felt that he was the best

11 candidate. And if you strongly feel someone is t he

12 best candidate and that person is not given the j ob,

13 you're likely to think that that's an injustice.

14 Q. Okay. In the next paragraph, you say,

15 "There's an element of the search process that I find

16 morally wrong." What was the element that you fo und

17 morally wrong?

18 A. You know, I -- as I look back, I can't speak

19 as to exactly what I was thinking at that time. As I

20 look back upon that time, I feel very strongly th at

21 every individual involved in the search process w as

22 acting in good faith, and I see nothing at this p oint

23 morally wrong about anything that happened, at le ast in

24 terms of my own morality.

25 I am not certain precisely what I had in mind



105

1 when I wrote those words. As I said, those words , like

2 many of them, were written at a time when I was

3 extremely frustrated about what had happened, and my

4 choice of words often reflected that frustration.

5 Q. Okay.


7 Q. All right. Showing you what we've marked

8 Exhibit 45, which is an email from you to Patty B ender

9 and Michael Kovash, dated November 19, 2007, at 6 :39

10 p.m., regarding the observatory director. In wha t

11 context was this -- context was this email sent?

12 A. Well, I had some contact with Patty Bender,

13 which -- she became involved in this matter after , as I

14 understand it, at least, Professor Kovash contact ed

15 her. I don't remember whether she then contacted -- I

16 think she must have contacted me. So this email was in

17 the context of that connection that existed betwe en

18 Patty Bender and our department regarding this -- this

19 issue.

20 Q. Was she investigating this issue?

21 A. I don't know for sure. She may have been.

22 Q. Okay. In the beginning of the second

23 paragraph, you say, "From a moral perspective, ho wever,

24 I find the decision indefensible," do you not?

25 A. I see that statement, yes, uh-huh.



106

1 Q. You say, "I was part of the entire process

2 that led to this decision. I know what observato ry

3 committee members said in meetings and privately, not

4 just their email comments." You say that?

5 A. I do say that, yes.

6 Q. Was that accurate at the time?

7 A. Well, I certainly -- I talked to observatory

8 committee members, and so I was aware of things t hat

9 they were saying, yes, sure.

10 Q. Okay. You go on to say, "I know that the

11 university (not your office) chose an applicant w ith

12 almost no relevant experience over one with immen se

13 experience in virtually every aspect of the obser vatory

14 director's duties." You said that; right?

15 A. I said that, yes.

16 Q. And you go on to say, "And I know that this

17 choice was made (to a significant extent) on grou nds

18 that have nothing to do with the job as advertise d nor

19 with the job as envisioned by our department." T hat's

20 what you said; right?

21 A. That's what I said, yes, uh-huh.

22 Q. The next paragraph, you say, "In short,

23 applicant Gaskell was judged on his personal beli efs,

24 beliefs unrelated to the job he applied for." Yo u say

25 that; right?



107

1 A. I do say that, yes, uh-huh.

2 Q. And that was a conclusion you had come to as

3 of November 19, 2007?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And the person that you're sending this to is

6 not your friend Gary Ferland; right?

7 A. Right.

8 Q. This is Patty Bender?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And her position at the time with UK -- may

11 still be for all I know -- was the -- she was the -- I

12 don't know if she was the director, but she certa inly

13 worked in the Equal Employment Opportunity office ;

14 right?

15 A. Some office like that, my understanding, yes,

16 uh-huh.

17 Q. And so you assumed, did you not, that she

18 would use what you sent her in evaluating this wh ole

19 issue, I guess originally raised by Kovash, about the

20 hiring process involving Knauer and Gaskell?

21 A. Actually, although I'm not a hundred percent

22 certain, I am fairly certain that this message wa s sent

23 to her after that evaluation process was over. T his

24 message was ill-advised.

25 Q. Why was it ill-advised?



108

1 A. Because, in the end, it expressed my

2 frustration at that time, frustration born of, as I've

3 said before, the fact that others didn't agree wi th me.

4 It used language which, upon further reflection, I

5 probably would not choose to use. And so more th an

6 anything else, it simply was a reflection of my g reat

7 degree of frustration at that point regarding the

8 choice.

9 Q. You say that -- in this email, "The choice was

10 unconscionable, and it brings shame upon all who were

11 part of it, including me"; right?

12 A. That's what I say, right. These are not words

13 I would choose today. They were ill-advised at t he

14 time I chose them.

15 Q. At the time you wrote this, had you spoken to

16 any attorneys or legal counsel for the university ?

17 A. No.

18 Q. The sentence up in the second paragraph, "I

19 know what observatory committee members said in

20 meetings and privately, not just their email comm ents."

21 A. Uh-huh.

22 Q. I'd like you to tell me what observatory

23 committee members said in meetings and privately that's

24 not in the email comments.

25 A. I may have known that. I must confess I -- I



109

1 couldn't give you any accurate description of wha t was

2 said at this point.

3 Q. Okay. Now, this email which we're just

4 referring to, Exhibit --

5 A. Forty-five.

6 Q. -- 45, was sent on November 19, 2007. I think

7 I'm going to show you one more.


9 Q. I will show you Exhibit 46, which appears to

10 be an email from yourself to Martin Gaskell --

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. -- dated January 15, 2008, at 5:17 p.m.

13 Summarizing it, it's you explaining to Gaskell th e

14 outcome of the observatory director search and

15 basically giving your take on it. Is that a fair --

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. -- summary of it?

18 A. Uh-huh.

19 Q. How did this come about that you wrote to

20 Gaskell on January 15?

21 A. I became aware in January, long after the

22 decision had been made -- I believe this informat ion

23 was conveyed to me by Gary Ferland -- that only t o an

24 oversight, Martin Gaskell had not been -- not bee n

25 informed of the results of the hiring decision.



110

1 Q. Okay.

2 A. And this was several months now after the

3 decision had been made. And I -- while I recogni ze

4 that was a human error, I, nevertheless, felt -- I felt

5 somewhat embarrassed we had waited so long to inf orm

6 him on this matter. And also having met him duri ng the

7 interview process and formed a favorable impressi on of

8 him, not only as an astronomer but as a human bei ng, I

9 just felt some need -- and also as having support ed his

10 candidacy -- I felt some need to communicate with him.

11 Q. Okay.

12 A. And this is the communication that I chose to

13 make.

14 Q. This was January 15, 2008. After that,

15 subsequent to that, have you had any other

16 communication with Martin Gaskell?

17 A. I don't recall any. It's conceivable there

18 was another email sometime in that time frame, bu t

19 certainly at no time since that time frame, and p erhaps

20 no time since January 15, have I had any communic ation

21 with Martin Gaskell.

22 Q. Okay. From -- from the time you wrote that

23 email up till today, have you had any discussions with

24 either the dean or the provost about this entire

25 matter?



111

1 A. I have never had any discussion with either of

2 them about the matter.

3 Q. Have you discussed it with Professor Cavagnero

4 since the conclusion of the --

5 A. No.

6 Q. -- process?

7 A. No.

8 Q. How about any other members of the faculty at

9 UK?

10 A. Professor Ferland and I, as I say, are

11 colleagues and friends and discuss just about

12 everything, so I have discussed the matter with h im,

13 yes.

14 Q. All right. Ferland -- when did he come back

15 from the UK to UK?

16 A. Sometime late summer 2008, I believe, because

17 he was gone just a year.

18 Q. Okay.

19 MR. MANION: All right. Let's take a

20 break so Geoff can tell me what I need to ask.

21 MS. KRIZ: I think he may have returned

22 back to the states --

23 THE DEPONENT: Well, that's true.

24 MS. KRIZ: Do you mean permanently or...

25 MR. MANION: Yeah, I just -- when was he



112

1 back in town?

2 THE DEPONENT: Well, he -- as you point

3 out, he did make one or two trips at different ti mes

4 that I don't remember back to Lexington while he was on

5 sabbatical, but he came back permanently from

6 sabbatical to Lexington, I believe, in August of 2008.

7 MR. MANION: Okay.

8 (11:29 BREAK 11:33)

9 Q. Regarding Dean Hoch, he's no longer the dean

10 there; is that correct?


12 Q. When did he leave, to the best of your

13 recollection?

14 A. I would guess sometime in the summer of 2008.

15 Q. Okay.

16 A. But I'm not absolutely certain.

17 Q. Are you familiar at all with his academic

18 background?

19 A. No.

20 Q. What field is he -- what field was his

21 expertise in?

22 A. It's a humanities field, but I don't recall

23 which one it is.

24 Q. He was not an astronomer?

25 A. No. No.



113

1 Q. Not a biologist, as far as you know?

2 A. Not a science field.

3 Q. Okay. How about Swamy? Whose name, by the

4 way, is what?

5 A. His name is Kumble --

6 MS. KRIZ: Subbaswamy.

7 A. -- Subbaswamy.

8 Q. Okay. Is he still there?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Did he leave at some point and come back

11 during this process?

12 A. Not during this process.

13 Q. But he was there throughout this hiring

14 process --

15 A. I believe so, yes.

16 Q. -- left for a position --

17 PROFESSOR CAVAGNERO: No.

18 A. No.

19 Q. No?

20 A. No. He --

21 MS. KRIZ: He left before --


23 MS. KRIZ: -- and then came back.

24 MR. MANION: Okay. Okay.

25 MS. KRIZ: So he's been here continuously



114

1 since this. Well, I shouldn't testify.

2 MR. MANION: Yeah, she's testifying.

3 That's okay.

4 MS. KRIZ: Sorry about that.

5 PROFESSOR CAVAGNERO: You made a mistake.

6 MS. KRIZ: Forgive me. Strike my

7 testimony for the record.

8 MR. MANION: Would you mind objecting

9 to --

10 THE DEPONENT: This is my show here.

11 MS. KRIZ: Tom, could you answer that

12 question, please.

13 PROFESSOR CAVAGNERO: I'm not the only

14 one who messes up.

15 MR. MANION: That's right. See.

16 Q. Are you familiar at all with the provost's

17 academic background?

18 A. Well, he was the chair of our physics and

19 astronomy department. He's a physicist by traini ng.

20 Q. Okay. Now, throughout this deposition this

21 morning, you have -- and we both have -- touched upon

22 committee meetings --

23 A. Uh-huh.

24 Q. -- generally speaking. I think you said at

25 the very outset you're not sure how many there we re.



115

1 A. No, I certainly don't remember.

2 Q. You have said, I think, that, obviously, the

3 qualifications of the various applicants for the job

4 were discussed at these meetings; correct?

5 A. Sure.

6 Q. What else would you talk about.

7 A. Right.

8 Q. What can you tell me was said by members of

9 the committee about Martin Gaskell?

10 A. I don't actually have a clear recollection of

11 who said what about him. I just don't have that

12 transcript in my head. I remember issues that we re

13 discussed. I don't remember who said what, if th at is

14 the sense of your question.

15 Q. At some point, you became aware that a lawsuit

16 had been filed; correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And subsequent to that -- well, prior to that,

19 prior to any lawsuit being filed, did you ever ha ve any

20 meetings with legal counsel on behalf of the

21 university?

22 A. No.

23 Q. Subsequent to that, have you had any meetings

24 with legal counsel on behalf of the university?

25 A. Only with counsel.



116

1 Q. Ms. Kriz?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And was that today before the deposition or

4 sometime recently?

5 A. We've met twice now.

6 Q. Okay. Any other meetings with legal counsel

7 on behalf of the university?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Okay. Hang on. Because once we let you go,

10 it's really hard to get you back.

11 MS. KRIZ: I have -- I'm going to have

12 one question; so...


14 MS. KRIZ: But go ahead. I'll wait.

15 MR. MANION: See, that's always

16 dangerous, because then her one question prompts

17 questions from me. That's all I have -- no, that 's not

18 all I have.

19 Q. At any of the committee meetings, were

20 Gaskell's views on evolution discussed?

21 A. I imagine they were. I imagine they were.

22 That was -- in fact, I'm sure they were. That wa s an

23 issue that came up.

24 Q. Do you remember what was said by whom?

25 A. No.



117

1 Q. Okay. That's all I have.

2 EXAMINATION

3 BY MS. KRIZ :

4 Q. Dr. Troland, just one question from me.

5 Throughout your testimony this morning, you've be en

6 asked about various emails that you generated dur ing

7 the course of this search process in which you ha ve

8 used the statement "religious views" and "persona l

9 beliefs."

10 Can you recall today specifically what

11 personal beliefs or religious beliefs of Dr. Gask ell

12 were discussed by the observatory committee?

13 A. I recall none were ever discussed.

14 Q. Other than his comments that he made either in

15 the public lecture he had given at the university and

16 the lecture notes or article that were found by

17 accessing his personal website, was there any oth er

18 public statements or public comments that were ma de by

19 Dr. Gaskell that were discussed, to your recollec tion?

20 A. None that I recall or am aware of.

21 MS. KRIZ: That's all I have.

22 MR. MANION: That's still all I have.

23 (Deposition concluded at 11:38 a.m.)

24

25



118

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF KENTUCKY ) ) ss. COUNTY OF MADISON )

I, Sandra L. Allyn, RPR, CCR and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Kentucky at Large, d o hereby certify that the facts as stated by me in th e caption hereto are true; that the foregoing answers in response to the questions as indicated were made be fore me by the deponent hereinbefore named, after said deponent had first been duly placed under oath, and were thereafter reduced to computer-aided transcrip tion by me; and that the same is a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings to the best of my ability.

I further certify that I am not employed by, related to, nor of counsel for any of the parties herein, nor otherwise interested in the outcome of this action.

No party to this action nor counsel for said parties requested in writing that the foregoing deposition be signed by the deponent.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature and seal this 16th day of March, 2010.


Sandra L. Allyn, RPR Kentucky CCR - 20042A001 184 North Mill Street Lexington, Kentucky 40507 859.252.4004

My Commission Expires: May 8, 2010



Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 35-1 Filed: 09/28/10 Page: 1 of 24 - Page ID#: 1174
























Gary J. Ferland

From:Sent:To:Cc:

Subject:

Mike Cavagnero ([email protected]]Monday, August 20, 2007 7:07 [email protected] H. Troland'; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]: Observatory Director position

EXHIBIT

Martin Gaskell is clearly the most experienced .. , he sent me the attached cv and experiencefiles just today (he has been in contact about this position for some time .,. since Keithand I visited him last year to learn how to build an observatory on a parking structure.)

There are plenty of people on the committee and in the department who know Tim Knauer quitewell, and we received a letter of recommendation recently, which Tom can share with thecommittee.

I have also found an email inquiry that I didn't respond to from Jan-Uwe Ness.,. I passed iton to Tom, but I don't know what ensued , .. and he hasn't yet officially applied.,

With these exceptions, I completely agree with Sally. But this is the way UK hires staffmembers! and we weren't allowed to do anything different!

So '" are there people you would like to rule out , .. on the basis of the inadequate infoyou have? Are there people you want more info about?Just let me know.

Mike C

Sally Shafer wrote:> >From the limited info from each (just the answers to the application> questions) I am disappointed overall in the lack of current or prior> commitment to outreach. Few gave any evidence of experience with or> commitment to that facet - but this could just be a comment on their current> jobs and not on them. Is this really all the info we have on them so far> no CV's for any of them? The answers to the application questions tell> more about what they have been doing but not about their interests.>> Another factor that may be important is what sort of experience level> you are looking for, I question whether anyone who is newly graduated> will have the broad range of experiences that I think are needed to do this job well,>> Sally>>>>> -----Original Message-----> From: Mike Cavagnero [mailto:[email protected])> Sent: Monday, August 2B, 2BB7 rB:24 AM> To: Thomas H. Troland> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];> [email protected]; [email protected],edu; shafer@pa,uky,edu> Subject: Re: Observatory Director position>> Observatory Committee:


Items (f) and (g) would probably require a Ph. D., at least if weexpect the Director to be a PI. How to weight all of these items is acommittee decision.

If the committee provides me a list of candidates on whom they wouldlike additional info, I will phone them personally to request a CV ...or whatever else the committee wants.

As you now know, we have11 applicants for the observatory directorposition. Here is how I suggest we proceed (subject to anysuggestions from the committee):

(Note - Gary is nearly across the Atlantic by now. While onsabbatical, he is under no obligation to participate in committeeactivities. But his input is always welcome insofar as he wishes toprovide it.)

UK'sresearch projects with undergraduate majors,pursue funding for K-12 teacher education throughPIMSER (perhaps by holding summertime workshopsfor in-service teachers)pursue funding for undergrad research.

Also, there are a few other things for the committee to consider. Thisposition is being paid for, at least for the first couple of years, bya donor who is encouraging us to spend some time on K-12 outreach.That was written into the job description.

So the committee needs to consider candidate's suitability toa) manage the physical facility (i.e. keep it working),b) help with astronomy pedagogy and instruction in 191/192

(Master's degree or better required to be a primary instructor),supervise observatory GA's,develop a program of regional outreach in K-12.

>> Tom's agenda seems good to me. I know it is a busy time of year.>> It is possible that we could do teleconference interviews, if it would> speed things up, and if the committee thinks that would be adequate.>>>>>>>>>>> c)> d)>> Other desirable qualities would be> e)> f)>>> g)>>>>>>>>>> Mike C>> Thomas H. Troland wrote:>» To the observatory committee:»»»»»»»»»»» (1) look over (by Wednesday morning) the applicant information» available at the UK Human Resources website»»> https://ukjobs.uky.edu/userfiles/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?time> =11876> 15349188>>-> (user name GU84333, Password Observatory Manager). let me know if

_._-- -.-. - .. ...---.-,.--- .. _..... _...- .. '."......_. ....... - _._.__ ... "'2'·'


r

» there are any applicants you feel are unlikely to merit further»consideration. If so, we may wish to eliminate such individuals at» the outset.»» (2) Request CVs from all applicants that make the first cut (and for» which we do not already have CVs). These CVs will be circulated to» the committee, I hope by Monday of next week.»» (3) The committee will meet next week to decide upon a short list of» 4-6 applicants. I will then assign committee members to call» selected references for these applicants and provide brief e-mail» summaries of their findings.»» (4) By Friday, August 31 (or Tuesday, September 4), I hope we will» have enough information to create a short list of about 3 candidates.» Mike says the College will provide funds to bring in several» candidates for interview. I hope we can schedule these interviews» for the second and third week of September, with a goal of making our» choice by the fourth week of September and having the new director on» board by mid October.»» Tom»»»»


Bender. Patty

From:Sent:To:Cc:

Subject:

To the Committee,

Thomas H. Troland [[email protected]]Wednesday, September 05,20076:27 PMMike CavagneroMacadam, Keith; [email protected]; Shlosman, Isaac; [email protected];[email protected]; Shafer, Sally Anne; Yates, Diane LRe: Observatory director telephone interviews - PLEASE REPLY

As you know, several committee members have suggested adding Nelson to theshort list. There is certainly no harm in doing so. He appears to havelittle experience in the use of small optical telescopes in undergraduate education (apart from his experience as anundergraduate at Williams College, possibly significant), and he has no outreach experience. However, I now realize that Iwould be hard pressed to rate him below Tim Knauer who also lacks experience in these areas, as far as J can tell. Onpaper, at least, Gaskell is the strongest, I believe. He has already done everything we could possibly want the observatorydirector to do. But phone interviews and calling of references may well bring out a number of interesting points.

As Mike says, talk is cheap! So let's give Nelson a shot.

Tom

At 05:44 PM 9/5/2007, Mike Cavagnero wrote:>1 see no problem with trying to schedule a 7th phone interview. Phone>calls are cheap. So please include Wednesday at 4 pm in responding to>Diane about your availability.>>Please try to respond soon, so we can get this ball rolling.>I will make myself available for all interviews.

>>Mike C>· >Thomas H. Troland wrote:• »To the committee,»»It is time to schedule telephone interviews for the observatory»director's position. We will do so for next week, each interview· »(together with post-interview discussion) will be scheduled for one»hour in Mike Cavagnero's office.»»1 list below the proposed interview slots. PLEASE SEND DIANE YATES AN»E-MAIL TELLING HER WHICH SLOTS ARE OPEN FOR YOU. Her e-mail address is»[email protected]»»INTERVIEW SLOTS (September 10-14)»»* Monday at 2:30p»* Tuesday at 3:00p»* Tuesday at 4:00p»* Wednesday at 3:00p»* Thursday at 3:00p»* Friday at 2:30p»»We will plan to have interviews during these slots as long as at least»three committee members are able to be present. Diane will contact»the applicants on the short list and determine which applicant is to'>be interviewed during each slot. I will provide a list of interview»questions taken from-my e-mail message of August 31.» - -

1

EXHIBIT


-' »1 have heard no objections to my proposed short list of August 31 t so; »1 assume we now have six applicants still on the list. These are as follows:: ». »Blackr »Flesch (late applicant, I assume we can still consider him) Gaskell-»Knauer Quinn Sykes». »Many thanks for replying to Diane as soon as possible so she can_»complete the telephone interview schedule.- »»Tom

r2


Gary J. Ferland

From:Sent:To:SUbject:

Gary,

Thomas H. Troland [[email protected])Tuesday, September 18, 2007 6:01 PMGary J. FerlandSeveral items

EXHIBIT

7

I hope you are continuing to live it up in Cambridge, folks here are all worked up by the bigvictory of the Wildcats over Louisville, I was so excited, I had to get badly plastered onfine old bourbon.

Now for the several items:

(1) I have spoken to Humeshkar on several occasions in the last week or two, including today.And I know you and he have skyped. To the casual observer, he seems to talk a good gameabout what he is doing. My current understanding is that he is now dealing with some dataformat issues in theChianti and in the Leiden databases. He says he hopes to run the M17model with OH by the end of the week. Of course, he made a similarprediction a week or two ago. I can't tell if he is making very littleprogress or else if he is working reasonably well on some real issues. What's your take? Isthere anything else I can do?

(2) Susan Gardner likes the idea of having one of the conference participants also give acolloquium, Any thoughts of who? Roger Hildebrand, of course, would be one option. Or Ican think of others.

(3) Martin Gaskell - We concluded out phone interviews with observatorydirector applicants today. And today's interview was withMartin. Clearly, Gaskell is the most experienced applicant by far. He hasalready done everything we would want the director to do. For example,Gaskell has done just about everything imaginable involving undergraduates and a smalltelescope, and of course, he established the Nebraska observatory. Even Isaac (who hasout of town lately) has good things to say about his research, Isaac said Gaskell gavegreat talk at a recent conference. But Isaac is worried about the creationism matter.is going to call his pals at Nebraska to get more information. So what's yourtake? Assuming nothing alarming arises from Mike's calls to Nebraska, Iimagine we will bring in Gaskell and one other candidate for interview.

beenaMike

(4) AST 191 - Beth and Erin have been good girls, attending AST 191 regularly, Beth evenbrought a new recruit to the class, a friend of hers taking AST 192 with the new string guy,Beth's friend wants to bailout of AST 192 and take my class instead, I've heard a fewcomplaints about AST 192, but I imagine it is just the normal process of breaking in a newinstructor. He is apparently covering a bit too much technical stuff. I hope he skipsbolometric magnitudes.

(5) Apollo 15 guy - Al Worden was on campus today to give a talk and hand out an astronautscholarship. I went to his talk. I had never before seen an Apollo astronaut. Not quitethe real McCoy since Worden was the Command Module pilot. But he did have a few stories totell (unfortunately, I had to leave early). He said that Apollo 15 was so heavy that theyhad to put it in a very low Earth orbit (90 miles) and leave Earth orbit after no more thanfour orbits or else risk de-orbit. He also said that there was almost no sound in thevehicle upon liftoff.


You must be into your last pint of the evening by now. I haven't even had a chance to getstarted!

(\ Your pal,

Tom


-,Gary J. Ferland

From:Sent:To:Ce:Subject:

Hi Tom,

Gary J. Ferland [[email protected]]Wednesday, September 1g. 2007 4:25 PM'Thomas H. Troland'Gary J. FerlandRE: Several items

EXHIBIT

>> (1) I have spoken to Humeshkar on several occasions in the last week> or two, including today. And I know you and he have skyped. To the> casual observer, he seems to talk a good game about what he is doing.> My current understanding is that he is now dealing with some data> format issues in the> Chianti and in the Leiden databases. He says he hopes to> run the M17> model with OH by the end of the week. Of course, he made a similar> prediction a week or two ago. I can't tell if he is making> very little) progress or else if he is working reasonably well on some real issues.> What's your take? Is there anything else I can do?

He is moving at the speed of mud. This is taking far too long.

Have you asked him how many hours he works each week? I think this is the problem. A normalstudent (Jason Ferguson, Nick Able, Gargi Shaw, or RyanPorter) would have put in about 5 hours per week to have accomplished what he has done. Heis not doing zero work, but the rate is vastly slower than it should be.

>> (2) Susan Gardner likes the idea of having one of the conference> participants also give a colloquium. Any thoughts of who? Roger> Hildebrand, of course, would be one option.> Or I can think of others.

Begin with the end in mind. Someone from the meeting might give a talk on what areas ofastro the dept might expand into. Star formation and IR/radio would be a good area, if wedismiss Isaac (a mistake that did not happen on my watch). Someone who would be a goodspokesperson for future expansion.Hildebrand builds instruments - right? That might not be the best - that is not something wewant to get into.

>> (3) Martin Gaskell - We concluded out phone interviews with> observatory> director applicants today. And today's interview was with) Nebraska) I> imagine we will bring in Gaskell and one other candidate for> interview.

You know what I know - the night at the public speech and non-evolution. If he had civilservice tenure, what would he do' If he could keep his mouth shut that would be one thing.If he teamed up with the evolution museum that would be another. Other than this, he isperfect.


>> (4) AST 191 - Beth and Erin have been good attending AST 191> regularly. Beth even brought a new recruit to the a friend of> hers taking AST 192 with the new string guy. Beth's friend wants to> bailout of AST 192 and take my class instead. I've heard a few> complaints about AST but I imagine it is just the normal process> of breaking in a new instructor. He is apparently covering a bit too> much technical stuff. I hope he skips bolometric magnitudes.

The external panel said to expand astro into particle/high energy. We are making their casefor them by having those guys teach our courses. The teaching culture within the dept is amess.

I was skyping to Peter last week - he mentioned the fact that few of his engineering friendshave had real professors in physics. They mostly get post as he did (for the mainlecture).

Gary


Documents

Case: 5:09-cv-00244-KSF-REW Doc #: 35 Filed: …...2012/10/03 · 23 Q. In fact, you -- you said, in one of the emails 24 that I've seen, that the real reason why we will not 25 offer