Near the conclusion of what was the last official meeting for a majority of the board, including himself, Napierskie asked the outgoing school board to reverse its October 2004 decision to include intelligent design in the district's biology curriculum.

He moved that theboard reverse the intelligent design curriculum, adopt a resolution stating they would not adopt any intelligent design curriculum in the future, direct district counsel to file a motion to dismiss the case and pay the plaintiffs $1 in damages.

Napierskie was appointed to the board more than two months ago to fill the seat vacated by board member William Buckingham, who moved out of the district.

Napierskie said that after "reviewing the election results" and in an effort not "to waste any more resources or incur any further costs or legal expenses," he believed there was "sufficient reason to revoke the policy and pursue resolution of the case."

Napierskie's motions died for a lack of second. Board members did not respond to Napierskie and did not comment on the motion.

Incumbents out: District voters last week ousted eight school board members running for re-election in a race that attracted 16 candidates. Those candidates were split into two camps -- the incumbent board members who favor the mention of intelligent design in biology class, and Dover CARES candidates, who believe that if intelligent design is discussed in school, it should be in a class other than science.

After the meeting, Napierskie said that while he personally supports intelligent design, the results of the election made him believe that "it is not the correct time to continue this fight; let's minimize the cost now while we can."

Napierskie said he "was a little surprised that there was no second" for his motion, but said he did not discuss his motion with any of the board members before the meeting.

Lawsuit: The mention of intelligent design in science classes spurred a federal suit against the district and its school board.

Intelligent design says living things are so complicated they had to have been created by a higher being, that life is too complex to have developed through evolution as described by 19th-century English biologist Charles Darwin.

Eleven parents, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, sued, saying the board had religious motives for putting the policy in place.

Board members who voted to include intelligent design in the curriculum have said that it is a scientific theory and does not promote religion.

The trial ended Nov. 4. U.S. Middle District Judge John E. Jones III is expected to deliver a decision on the case by the end of the year or early January.