“He has fear of what can happen. He has fear.”

With those words, Gail Orndorf-Sperry explained why she believes Carsten Geisel should not be forced to attend school in SAD 22. Orndorf-Sperry, a special education teacher at Brewer Middle School who befriended Geisel while he was her pupil last year, was the first witness to testify Tuesday in a Department of Education due process hearing that will determine the educational future of Geisel and his brother, Raymond.

The Geisel brothers never returned to the classroom this fall after Linda Geisel of Winterport refused to send her sons to any SAD 22 school. Geisel claims tensions between her and the district, which erupted after her efforts to ban the use of the “timeout room” as a disciplinary method, resulted in the harassment of her sons by administrators, teachers and other pupils. That harassment frightened her boys, she said, and made it impossible for them to get a good education there. Geisel launched her fight after Carsten spent a half-day in the timeout room in November 1993.

Eric Herlan, SAD 22’s attorney, has said there is “no basis” for Geisel’s harassment charges, and that “we really do believe that [the boys] can be safely and well-educated” in the district.

Last year, Carsten and Raymond both were transferred to the Brewer schools as a temporary measure while Geisel and SAD 22 worked to resolve their differences. Geisel asked for a due process hearing after several mediation attempts, the most recent in July, failed to produce results.

The case may test what is now known as Maine’s “angry parent ruling,” which held that a parent’s hostility toward a district, or a student’s fear of a particular school, can justify a student’s transfer out of their home district.

Orndorf-Sperry’s testimony came after opening statements by Geisel, who is representing herself, and Herlan, who is representing SAD 22. Geisel began by saying that she and her husband, John, along with the boys, “don’t feel they can be educated in SAD 22.” She also said she had “documents of accusations” between her and the school district that date back to 1991, the most “damaging” after Carsten’s 1993 timeout room incident.

Her words were punctuated at times by tears and deep sighs, and at other times by smiles. Geisel covered a lot of ground in her statement, including a detailed list of what she wants from the district: a permanent transfer to Brewer for both boys, just less than $10,000 in transportation and other costs incurred trying to resolve the dispute, compensatory education for the days Carsten and Raymond have missed, and payment of past and future medical bills for both boys, specifically psychological exams.

Herlan opened by calling the case a “difficult” one with “a long history” that “calls out as much as any case for a large dose of truth and accuracy.” Using a controlled and even tone, he said that for several years the case has been hidden behind a “cloud of misunderstanding and illusions” about past events, beginning with the timeout incident and its aftermath.

“We cannot let the cancerous stories sit there and contaminate the system,” he said.

Herlan said he hoped for a finding that would show that the district has, in fact, dealt “appropriately, caringly and safely” with Carsten and Raymond. He said he could find “virtually nothing” in the record, from an educational standpoint, that supported placing Raymond outside SAD 22, but acknowledged that Carsten’s situation was more difficult because the “illusions” have taken on a life of their own within the family. Herlan stressed that educational services have always been available for the boys within SAD 22 but, “for reasons only they know,” the parents have kept the boys away.

Orndorf-Sperry, who sat beside Geisel and helped her find documents and phrase questions, was the first of four witnesses called Tuesday by Geisel. She said she was taking a “risk” in being there because people might misinterpret her role, but she hoped for “some sort of resolution,” for Geisel’s sake, for the district’s sake and for Carsten’s sake.

When hearing officer Stephen Ulman asked her what she felt would be the “least restrictive educational environment” for Carsten, she replied: “Not Hampden. He hasn’t resolved any of the pain in that district.”

An emotional Geisel next called SAD 22 Superintendent Richard Lyons, who for more than two hours answered her questions, and those of Herlan and Ulman, quietly and deliberately. Lyons said that despite a difficult history, his district could provide a good education for the boys. He said that negotiations with Geisel have previously come close to producing a workable agreement, none more so than July’s mediation agreement, which both Geisel and the district signed. That agreement addressed elements of each boy’s educational program, and included counseling for the family. But Geisel subsequently rejected it.

“If that covenant had been fulfilled,” Lyons said, “I believe it would have been successful.”

Testimony resumes today. Approximately 20 witnesses are expected to be called before the hearing ends.