Opinion ID: 1119858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: alternative basis for affirmance

Text: The majority notes, correctly, that TSPC concluded that any of three grounds, standing alone, independently provided a basis for the decision to deny reinstatement of petitioner's teaching license. TSPC drew these conclusions of law: 3. Petitioner's repeated acts of inappropriate contact with female students, his discussion of inappropriate sexual topics, and his employment of sexually suggestive words, gestures, and expressions constitute gross neglect of duty and a serious and material breach of professional responsibilities. Petitioner's actions demonstrate a serious failure to employ professional judgment in violation of OAR 584-20-010(5). This conduct also constitutes gross unfitness. 4. Petitioner's sexual contact with Leasa    constitutes gross neglect of duty and gross unfitness. 5. Petitioner is guilty of gross neglect of duty and gross unfitness based on his efforts to persuade female students from his class, including Leasa   , to withdraw the allegations against him. This conduct also violates OAR 584-20-035(1)(b)[,] which requires an educator to refrain from exploiting professional relationships with any student for personal gain, or in support of persons or issues. 6. Any of these specifications in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 above, are sufficient alone to support the conclusion that Petitioner is guilty of gross neglect of duty and gross unfitness. The majority errs, however, in making the unwarranted assumption that the repeated acts of inappropriate contact with female students listed as one of several items in Conclusion No. 3 relied on or encompassed Conclusion No. 4, concerning sexual contact with Leasa. 312 Or. at 420, 822 P.2d at 1182. A fair reading of the order as a whole demonstrates that Conclusion No. 3 and Conclusion No. 4 relate to different events, not the same events. By its unduly restrictive interpretation of TSPC's order, the majority is able to bypass what otherwise would be an insurmountable barrier to its result: the findings that underlie Conclusion No. 3 are not based entirely on hearsay. 312 Or. at 419, 822 P.2d at 1181 (emphasis in majority). Many of the pertinent findings are supported by nonhearsay evidence, such as petitioner's own testimony. (1) In Finding No. 7, TSPC found that petitioner had put his arm around female students. Petitioner admitted hugging students, male and female. He also admitted that a prior principal had admonished him for hugging a female student. (2) In Finding No. 8, TSPC found that petitioner stood close to female students in his classroom and hovered over the backs of his students, with his hands on their desks, in a way that made them uncomfortable. Petitioner admitted standing behind a female student, leaning over and placing his hands on her desk. He also acknowledged that he had been admonished by his most recent principal for that type of act; the written warning to him was introduced as an exhibit. (3) In Finding No. 9, TSPC found that petitioner used sexual words, gestures, and winks toward his students. He admitted winking at students and standing so close to other people that they sometimes took a step back. He admitted telling the investigating officer that these girls all seem to be, you know, they are very interested in sex and in heat half of the time. (4) In Finding No. 10, TSPC found that petitioner discussed french kissing with his students and asked whether they had sucked face. Petitioner testified that he had discussed the topic of french kissing twice with his students. He testified that he did not initiate the first such conversation but that he could not remember whether he initiated the second one. He testified that [t]he entire classroom was there.    We talked about it in the classroom[,] about `trading spit'  we talked about it in the classroom  it came out again, you know, about `sucking face' and I don't remember if I did it or, I mean if I brought on the conversation or somebody else brought on the conversation as to say that so-and-so was sucking face somewheres [ sic ]. (5) In Finding No. 11, TSPC found that petitioner tapped a student on the buttocks with a yardstick, commenting that she was looking nice. Petitioner admitted slapping a female student on the buttocks with a yardstick during show-and-tell one Monday morning. (6) In Finding No. 15, TSPC found that petitioner touched Michelle, his sixth-grade student, on the breast and that the act was intentional. Petitioner admitted that he touched Michelle's breast. The only dispute was whether he did so intentionally. Petitioner had various explanations for each of those events and various arguments about why none of them constituted a failure to employ professional judgment or an instance of gross unfitness. The crucial point, however, is that the findings concerning those events are based in part on admissions, as well as on hearsay. The majority's sweeping dismissal of all of TSPC's findings as grounded on hearsay is a distortion of the record. Because TSPC denied relicensing on three independent grounds, we should affirm its order if any of the three was proper. As demonstrated above, even if nonhearsay evidence is required to support the findings in this case, the findings that relate to TSPC's Conclusion No. 3 are supported by substantial evidence. TSPC explained the connection between the findings and the conclusion. Conclusion No. 3 is a permissible conclusion of law based on the pertinent findings and the applicable statutes and rules. Accordingly, any error in the findings concerning Leasa, affecting Conclusion No. 4, is harmless. In summary, the majority pays lip service to the right legal principles but applies them wrongly in this case. For that reason, I dissent except as stated in the opening paragraph of this opinion.