Lawrence A. LOCKETT, Petitioner,
v.
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION, Respondent.
Argued
and submitted November 8, 2016
Teacher
Standards and Practices Commission 1403874
Blair
Henningsgaard argued the cause and fled the briefs for
petitioner.
Keith
L. Kutler, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for
respondent. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney
General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Michael S.
Shin, Assistant Attorney General.
Before
DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.
[*]
Case
Summary: Respondent, who was the principal of Astoria High
School from 2000 until he retired in 2012, seeks judicial
review of a final order of the Teacher Standards and
Practices Commission (TSPC) revoking his teaching and
administrator licenses. Among other things, respondent
challenges TSPC's conclusion that he committed gross
neglect of duty under ORS 342.175(1)(b), based on a violation
of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n), for failing to investigate
allegations of an inappropriate relationship between a
teacher and a student at the high school in 2004.
Held: Because the order did not demonstrate why
TSPC's determination in that regard reasonably followed
from the facts that it found, it lacked substantial evidence
and reason.
[289
Or.App. 594] DEHOOG, P. J.
Respondent,
a long time Oregon educator, seeks judicial review of a final
order revoking his teaching and administrator
licenses.[1] The Teacher Standards and Practices
Commission (TSPC) revoked those licenses in 2015, several
years after respondent retired as principal of Astoria High
School. TSPC concluded that respondent had committed gross
neglect of duty 11 years earlier, in 2004, for failing to
investigate allegations of an inappropriate relationship
between a teacher and a student at the high school.
Respondent raises three assignments of error. We write to
address only the second assignment, in which respondent
challenges TSPC's determination that respondent committed
gross neglect of duty under ORS 342.175(1)(b), based on a
violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n).[2] As explained below, we
conclude that TSPC's order lacks substantial evidence and
reason; accordingly, we reverse and remand. We reject
respondent's other assignments of error without
discussion.
We take
the facts from the administrative law judge's (ALJ)
proposed order, which TSPC affirmed without modification, and
from uncontroverted evidence in the record. Talbott v.
Teacher Standards and Practices Coram., 260 Or.App. 355,
358, 317 P.3d 347 (2013). To place those facts in context,
however, we first set out the applicable regulatory
framework.
ORS
342.175(1)(b) authorizes TSPC to suspend or revoke the
license of a teacher or administrator based on "[g]ross
neglect of duty." OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n), in turn,
provides that "[g]ross neglect of duty" means
"any serious and material inattention to or breach of
professional responsibilities, " including,
"[s]ubstantial deviation from professional standards of
competency set forth in OAR 584-020-0010 through
584-020-0030." Two of those professional standards of
competency are at issue here. The first, OAR 584-020-0010(5)
provides that "[t]he educator demonstrates a commitment
to *** [u]se professional judgment." The [289 Or.App.
595] second, OAR 584-020-0025(3)(a), provides that
"[t]he competent administrator demonstrates ***
[leadership skills in managing the school, its students,
staff, and programs as required by lawful and reasonable
district policies, rules, and regulations, state and federal
laws and regulations, and other programs as assigned, and
assures that staff is informed of these
requirements."[3]
Returning
to the facts of this case, respondent has been licensed in
Oregon as an educator since 1974 and as an administrator
since 2000. In September 2000, he became the principal of
Astoria High School, and he continued in that position until
he retired in 2012. As principal, his performance evaluations
were "overwhelmingly positive" and he was
"very highly regarded" as an administrator.
In
approximately August 2013, H, a former student of Astoria
High School, told a counselor that, in 2004, when she was a
17-year-old student, she had had a sexual relationship with
M, a science teacher and coach at the school. The counselor
reported that allegation to the police, who conducted an
investigation and sent a report of the investigation to
Hoppes, who was then the district
superintendent.[4]Hoppes, in turn, sent a letter to TSPC, in
which he reported "a possible violation involving a
licensed administrator." The letter stated that Hoppes
had received information from the police that a teacher had
allegedly had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a
student in 2004 and that the administrator (respondent) had
been aware-at the time- that the student had moved in with
the teacher while the teacher's wife and children were
out of the country. Hoppes also stated that the district
"does not have any documentation showing [that
respondent] attempted to communicate with the student's
parents or Children Services regarding [289 Or.App. 596] the
living arrangements." Subsequently, Hoppes spoke to two
instructional assistants at the school-Belleque and
MacDonald-who each stated that they had, in the spring of
2004, expressed their concerns about the relationship between
M and H to respondent.
TSPC
also conducted an investigation and, in April 2014, charged
respondent with gross neglect of duty, ORS 342.175(1)(b), in
violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n), specifically as that
rule incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5) and OAR
584-020-0025(3)(a).[5] In short, respondent was charged with
substantially deviating from professional standards of
competency in his (1) use of professional judgment and (2)
demonstration of leadership skills in managing the school as
required by district policies and state and federal law.
The
notice alleged that the charges were based on the following
"conduct": that TSPC had received a report about a
police investigation into an alleged inappropriate sexual
relationship that took place in 2004 between M and H; that in
the spring of 2004, school employees Belleque and MacDonald
had reported to respondent concerns about inappropriate
behavior on the part of M-specifically, that they had
witnessed M alone with H in his classroom during lunch and
tutorial times with the lights off and the door locked; that,
"[a]ccording to School District records, there is no
evidence that [respondent] addressed these complaints in any
manner with [M] or other authorities"; that H had
reported to authorities that she had engaged in sexual
conduct with M in his classroom in 2004; that M and H had met
with respondent prior to H moving into M's house,
purportedly to help care for M while he recovered from ...