TSPC MINUTES
January 13-14, 2005
Page 35
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission465 Commercial Street NE
Salem OR 97301 / January 13-14, 2005
MINUTES - TSPC MEETING
Willamette University, Putnam University Center, Alumni Lounge
900 State Street, Salem OR 97301 97223
THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 2005
Call to Order
On Thursday, January 13th, at 7:00 a.m., the Executive Committee met in the Parents Room at Willamette University, Putnam University Center. From 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. that morning, the Discipline Committee met in Executive Session before the full Commission. From 11:30 to noon, the full Commission met to consider discipline issues in Public Session. Following lunch, the full Commission considered Preliminary Business; several items under Reports, Presentations and Discussion; and a Public Hearing to receive oral and written testimony on administrative rules. On Friday, January 14th, the full Commission considered Program Approval issues, Licensure issues and the remaining agenda items.
Commission Members PresentAurora Cedillo (Thursday only)
Pat Evenson-Brady (absent Friday am)
Cathy Gwinn
Charleen Hoiland
Anne Jones
Carol L. Mack
Katrina Myers (Thursday only)
Carolyn Ortman (absent Friday pm)
Gary Peterson
Mary Lou Pickard
Marit Pierce
Peter Tromba
Leslie Walborn
Nancy Watt
Commissioner Elects
Greg Bell (Thursday only)
Roger Whitaker
Karen Weiseth
Commissioners Absent
Susan DeMarsh
Debra Robinson
Richard Steiner
Commission Staff Present
Vickie Chamberlain
Keith Menk
Pam LaFreniere
Melody Hanson
Joe McKeever (Thursday only)
Susan Nisbet (Thursday only)
Cameron Lane (Thursday am only) / Observers
Heather Stanhope, Eastern Oregon University
Teresa Ferrer, Oregon Education Association
Tom Greene, University of Portland
Sharon Chinn, Lewis and Clark College
Martha Chamberlain, Oregon State University
Bob Hamm, University of Phoenix
Sherri Carreker, Lewis and Clark College
Holly Lekas, Beaverton School District
Serenna Brown, Portland Public Schools
Daryl Martin, general public
Yvonne Martin-Gelissen, general public
Mark Ankeny, George Fox University
Gary Adams, George Fox University
Mary Chamberlin, Oregon State University
Margaret Mahoney, University of Oregon
Nancy Wolfe, Lesley University
Yvette Webber-Davis, Oregon University
Linda Samek, Oregon Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and
Western Baptist College
Maureen Musser, Middle-Level Consortium
and Willamette University
Dew Anna Brumley, Warner Pacific College
Brenda Simpson, Umatilla-Morrow ESD
Deb Miller, Portland State University
Steve Williams, OSPA
Gordon Munck, COSA
Dana Barbarick, Cascade College
Nan Willis, Northwest Christian College
1.0 DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATION REPORTS (EXECUTIVE SESSION)
The Commission holds executive (non-public) sessions on the following matters: 1) receiving and discussing preliminary investigation reports on complaints and charges against certified educators; 2) taking action to dismiss the complaint or to charge the educator; 3) deliberating the hearing record in disciplinary proceedings; 3) consulting with counsel with regard to current litigation under ORS 192.660(1)(h); 4) considering records that are exempt by law from public inspection under ORS 192.660(1)(f). Adoption of an order resulting from a hearing must be done in public session. See ORS 192.660(1)(b) and ORS 342.175 to 342.190.
Representatives of the new media and designated staff are allowed to attend the executive session. Representatives of the news media are specifically directed not to report on any of the deliberations during the executive session, except to state the general subject of the session as announced.
1.1 Proposed Orders/Actions
Five stipulated orders, two default orders and one final order were considered in non-public session.
1.2 Preliminary Investigation Reports and Action to Charge or Dismiss
Following discussion and deliberation on twenty preliminary investigation reports in non-public session, the Commission directed the Executive Director to charge four educators with violation of standards and dismiss complaints against sixteen educators. Also considered was one Settlement Agreement.
1.3 Reports Requiring No Further Action Under OAR 584-020-0041(2)
The Commission considered nine preliminary investigation reports in non-public session to dismiss complaints against educators.
1.4 Applications for Reinstatement
Two applications for reinstatement were considered.
1.5 Report of Cases Pending Before the Commission
Marit Pierce reported in non-public session there are 65 cases pending before the Commission. Of those, seventeen are cases pending a hearing and seven are pending disposition in another venue.
1.6 New Cases Since Last Meeting
Marit Pierce reported in non-public session that the Commission received new complaints against 37 educators. District superintendents, under OAR 584-020-0041, submitted 25 of those reports.
2.0 FULL COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF DISCIPLINE ISSUES (PUBLIC SESSION)
2.1 Post Notice of Hearing on Amendments/Adoption of Administrative Rules:
584-019-0003, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing
584-019-0010, Discovery and Subpoenas
584-020-0040, Grounds for Denial, Suspension, or Revocation of License, or Other Disciplinary Action
584-020-0045, Factors for Imposing Disciplinary Sanctions
584-019-0003, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, is a new rule proposed by Joe McKeever, Senior Assistant Attorney General (AAG). This rule results from an argument presented by an educator’s attorney challenging the ability of the AAG or the Executive Director to amend the “Notice of Opportunity for Hearing” if, during the course of preparing for the disciplinary hearing, we notice that there are charges that should have been listed or perhaps removed. The AAG does not have the time to review every proposal to the Commission with regard to charges prior to Commission meetings. Until recently, it has been common practice for us to “update” the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, with notice to the educator, if the charges on the original document needed changing. This administrative rule would make it clear that the Commission is delegating the authority to either the Executive Director or the AAG when we find the charges may need to be amended. Otherwise, we will need to bring each instrument back to the Commission for “reaffirmation” of the amended charges.
584-019-0010, Discovery and Subpoenas. The amendments proposed clarify the scope of discovery for disciplinary administrative hearings. The proposed amendments add two other forms of discovery for TSPC disciplinary administrative hearings. (Discovery is the process of gathering information in preparation for the hearing.) Generally, depositions of witnesses are common, but the use of interrogatories is used less frequently and may save costs. (An interrogatory is any one of a numbered list of written questions submitted in a legal proceeding to an opposing party to a legal action as part of discovery.) A request for “admissions” is the process of requesting that a party to the legal action voluntarily acknowledge acts that are important to the legal proceeding, or “admit” certain facts or deeds.
584-020-0040, Grounds for [Denial, Suspension, or Revocation of License or Other] Disciplinary Action. The amendments clarify several issues:
1. Subsection (1): Makes the first paragraph more clear;
2. Subsection (2): Eliminates “misconduct” for the more appropriate term “unfitness” as defined in subsection (5);
3. Subsection (3): Housekeeping change;
4. Subsection (4)(c): Clarifies that intentionally working without proper licensure is subject to discipline;
5. Subsection (4)(h)(j)(o)(p): Housekeeping change;
6. Subsection (5): Clearly allows TSPC to discipline for conduct on or off school premises and clarifies that “when” it happens isn’t relevant.
584-020-0045, Factors for Imposing Disciplinary Sanctions. These amendments conform the numbering system to the accepted administrative rule format. Additionally, they add the factor of issuing discipline to deter others from the same or similar acts.
MOTION, to adopt the printed resolution.
Moved by Pierce on behalf of the Discipline Committee / Carried *
Absent / DeMarsh, Evenson-Brady, Gwinn, Peterson, Robinson, Steiner
The printed resolution states:
RESOLVED, that the Commission post notice for hearings for adoption or amendments to: OAR 584-019-0003, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing; 584-019-0010, Discovery and Subpoenas; 584-020-0040, Grounds for Denial, Suspension, or Revocation of License or Other Disciplinary Action; and 584-020-0045 Factors for Imposing Disciplinary Sanctions; to be heard at the March 2005 meeting.
2.2 Review proposed amendments to Division 050
This agenda item was removed from consideration via the Addendum to Agenda.
2.3 PA-1 Procedures
The PA-1 form is the form that universities submit to TSPC with student teacher fingerprints indicating which term the university plans to place the student teacher in a practicum or other assignment.
Prior to early 2004, the procedure for processing fingerprints was relaxed. The fingerprints would be received, then submitted to the Oregon State Police (OSP) and the FBI sometimes after the student’s practicum experience had begun or even been completed. If a “hit” came back on them, sometimes months after the placement, depending on the “severity” of the information, the file would be placed in “pending” or it would go to the Executive Director for consideration. The universities were never notified about when the fingerprints had been processed and rightfully assumed that silence from our office was acceptance of the applicant. Student teachers applicants would also submit an explanation of any “yes” answers to character questions and would be required to resubmit a new explanation when they applied for licensure.
By statute, TSPC must collect fingerprints from student teachers. The early thinking of the agency was that unless the student teacher applied for licensure, we should not worry too much about what the fingerprinting information told us. The problem that arises is as follows: A student teacher with a criminal record may contact TSPC and ask whether they are still eligible for licensure. It was thought advisable not to determine whether someone was eligible for licensure (on the criminal background basis only) prior to the person actually making application for licensure. It was also thought that we may not have “jurisdiction” to make determinations about “non-licensure” applicants. But that position begged two issues: 1) If the Legislature thought TSPC should fingerprint student teachers, surely they would not want us allowing student teachers into classrooms if we would not allow them in the classroom as a licensed educator; and 2) These folks are enrolled in “licensure” programs. This policy of “hands off” until we received a licensure application allowed some people with egregious criminal conduct to be placed in classrooms with children. After a few “discoveries” of these student teachers, a new procedure for processing the fingerprints was begun.
Beginning in early 2004, TSPC has a new policy for student teacher fingerprinting. The fingerprints are submitted to OSP and FBI upon receipt. It can take anywhere from ten days to eight weeks to get results from the FBI. The OSP gets us responses much faster. Plus TSPC is a member of the Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS) which gives us “up to the minute” information on Oregon criminal history backgrounds. If the fingerprints come back with a “hit” or if the student answers “yes” on any of the character questions on the application, they are treated exactly the same way as a new license. The student teacher’s file, with the explanation for the criminal history or other character event, is sent to the Executive Director for “clearance”. If the character questions are cleared, the file is then ready for processing, much more quickly unless something new has arisen, if the student teacher applies for licensure. If the character questions cannot be cleared, the opportunity exists to talk with the student teacher and the university to see if the issues around the character questions can be resolved. This has allowed TSPC and the universities to make early determinations about students who may not have been forthcoming with their university or who may not be able to “cure” their criminal background. TSPC is attempting to notify programs whenever the fingerprints have been cleared. Barring staffing shortages, TSPC has been successful in getting these cleared way in advance of a student being placed in a program.
One example of a case that arose recently is: A student teacher had a prostitution charge against her many years earlier when she was a very young adult. Prostitution is a “mandatory” crime under TSPC statutes, in other words, by statute we cannot license someone who has been convicted of that crime in Oregon or anywhere else. As it turned out, due to her young age, she was able to get her record expunged. This legally means that the crime goes off her record. We were able to clear her record early and the university was able to allow her to complete her program. Had we not been able to clear the record in this example, we would have had to advise her and the university that we would be unable to license her, even if she completed her preparation program.
This procedure has worked out well. On rare occasions, an investigator is asked to dig more deeply into a student teacher issue. However, this “early warning” system seems to be most fair to future applicants and the universities that intend to recommend them for licensure.
The applicant is supposed to respond to the character questions, not the program. How the program handles knowledge of what the applicant has or has not done is a little different at each institution and needs to be worked out at each institution. There have been situations where the program was not aware of particular responses on the PA-1. Some programs submit their PA-1 forms in a batch and others allow their student teachers to submit their own PA-1 form. It is extremely critical that student teachers disclose information. They should not consult with a campus security officer or a police officer about whether or not to disclose. It really matters very little if applicants have been advised by an attorney not to disclose when they should have. Programs should advise their students to err on the side of disclosing. If the situation is forgivable, excusable or nonreportable, TSPC will inform them immediately.
A concern expressed was that even before student teachers are placed in a classroom, they may be taking coursework in the program. Should programs inform students to submit their PA-1 form at that time or wait until they are actually ready to be placed in a classroom? That decision is up to the universities. The law that says TSPC can fingerprint student teachers was intended to capture the group of people that wouldn’t necessarily be captured for fingerprinting who are having direct contact with students. For TSPC, it is an issue that they should be fingerprinted and cleared before they are placed in contact with students. The districts are relying on TSPC to be the first line of looking at those placements. If they are late being submitted, that is a fairly egregious breach of that reliance. Some programs submit PA-1 forms up front before students are admitted in case any issues arise. However, if their fingerprints and PA-1 form become older than three years, the student will be required to resubmit.