Court Opinion

ID: 4064896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 21:40:18.7537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:44.675607
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                                            03-13-00370-CV
                                                                                                    5055113
                                                                                 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                            AUSTIN, TEXAS
                                                                                       4/28/2015 8:22:12 AM
                                                                                          JEFFREY D. KYLE
                                                                                                     CLERK
                                   CASE NO. 03-13-00370-CV

                                                              FILED IN
                                                       3rd COURT OF APPEALS
                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS      AUSTIN, TEXAS
                 FOR THE     THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT4/28/2015
                                                        AUSTIN   8:22:12 AM
                                                         JEFFREY D. KYLE
                                                               Clerk

          STATE BOARD FOR EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION and
     MICHAEL BERRY, THE ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
THE STATE BOARD FOR EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION, IN HIS OFFICIAL
                     CAPACITY ONLY,
                           Appellant,

                                             v.

                                    ERASMO MONTALVO,
                                         Appellee.

 On Appeal from the 200th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas; Cause
           No. D-1-GN-12-002991; Before the Honorable Tim Sulak

                                     APPELLANT’S BRIEF

KEN PAXTON                                  ELLEN M. SAMETH
Attorney General of Texas                   Assistant Attorney General
                                            State Bar No. 17555550
CHARLES E. ROY                              ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION
First Assistant Attorney General            OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
                                            P. O. Box 12548
JAMES E. DAVIS                              Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Deputy, Attorney General for Civil          Telephone: (512) 936-1838
Litigation                                  Facsimile: (512) 457-4608
                                            E-mail: ellen.sameth@texasattorneygeneral.gov
DAVID A. TALBOT, JR
Chief, Administrative Law Division          Attorney for Appellant, State Board for
                                            Educator Certification
April 27, 2015
                  IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

PARTIES TO THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDER:

Plaintiff/Appellant:        State Board for Educator Certification and Michael
Berry, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the State Board for Educator
Certification, in his Official Capacity Only1

Defendant/Appellee:         Erasmo Montalvo

COUNSEL:

For Appellant, State Board for Educator Certification:

              Ellen M. Sameth
              Assistant Attorney General
              State Bar No. 17555550
              OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
              ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION
              P.O. Box 12548
              Austin, TX 78711-2548
              Telephone: (512) 936-1838
              Facsimile: (512) 457-4608
              Email: ellen.sameth@texasattorneygeneral.gov

For Appellee, Erasmo Montalvo:

              Mark W. Robinett
              State Bar No. 17083600
              BRIM, ARNETT, ROBINETT,
              CONNERS & MCCORMICK, P.C.
              2525 Wallingwood Drive, Bldg. 14
              Austin, Texas 78746
              Telephone: (512) 328-0048, x110
              Facsimile: (512) 328-4814
              E-mail: mrobinett@brimarnett.com

1
 Michael Berry was released as a Defendant by Agreed Order dated March 28, 2013. See App.
C.
                                            ii
                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ........................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................................. viii
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT .....................................................................x
ISSUES PRESENTED............................................................................................. xi
STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................... xii
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................2
ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES .............................................................................3
ISSUE I. .....................................................................................................................4
        The trial court erred in failing to find substantial evidence in the
        administrative record to support the Board’s Final Decision and Order. .........4
                   A. The Board has authority to issue sanctions without Code of Ethics
                      violations. ........................................................................................4
                   B. The ALJ misinterpreted and misapplied the standard of “unworthy
                      to instruct.”......................................................................................5
                         1. The Board requires conduct to support a sanction, it does not
                              require Code of Ethics violations. .........................................5
ISSUE II. ....................................................................................................................8
        The Board properly amended the Proposal for Decision in Compliance with
        the Administrative Procedure Act.....................................................................8
                   A. The Board properly amended the Proposal for Decision to comport
                      with the findings of fact. ...............................................................8
                             1. The ALJ’s analysis supports finding poor judgment by
                                Montalvo. ...............................................................................9
                             2. The Board’s Order is not arbitrary or capricious. ................10
                             3. The Board’s interpretation of its rules is to be given
                                deference. .............................................................................12
                             4. The Board properly used the findings of fact to conclude that
                                Montalvo is unworthy to instruct.........................................13

                                                              iii
ISSUE III..................................................................................................................16
        The Board’s standard of “unworthy to instruct” is not unconstitutionally
        vague ...............................................................................................................16
                   A. The meaning and history of “unworthy to instruct.”.....................16
                            1. The “unworthy to instruct” language has been a part of
                               educator parlance since at least 1925...................................16
                            2. The “unworthy to instruct” standard, and analogous
                               standards, have been upheld in case law. ............................18
                   B. “Unworthy to instruct” applies to Montalvo despite the lack of
                      other disciplinary violations..........................................................22
ISSUE IV. ................................................................................................................24
     The trial court abused its discretion in issuing a permanent injunction. .......24
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................25
PRAYER ..................................................................................................................26
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................27
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................28

                                                             iv
                                   INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bexar Metro. Water Dist. v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality,
  185 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied) .............................. 12, 13

Brantley v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n.,
  1 S.W.3d 343 (Tex. App—Texarkana 1999, no pet.) ............................................3

Dodd v. Meno,
 870 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1994) ....................................................................................12

Gerst v. Nixon,
 411 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. 1966) ..................................................................................3

Gomez v. Tex. Educ. Agency,
 354 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. App.–Austin 2011, pet. denied) .......................................11

In re Gamble,
  71 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. 2002....................................................................................24

In re State Bd. for Educator Certification,
  No. 13-0537, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 1208; (Tex. December 19, 2014).... ix, 14, 15, 24

In re State Bd. of Educator Certification,
  411 S.W.3d 576 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, orig. proceeding) ..................... ix, viii

Jordan v. State Bd. of Ins.,
  334 S.W.2d 278 (Tex. 1960) ........................................................................ 20, 21

Key Western Life Ins. Co. v. State Board of Insurance,
 350 S.W.2d 839 (1961).........................................................................................20

Marrs v. Matthews,
 270 S.W. 586 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1925, writ ref’d) ..................... passim

Martinez v. Tex. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs,
 476 S.W.2d 400 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.) .............20

                                                       v
McHaney v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality,
 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 1903 (Tex. App.— Austin Feb. 27, 2015, no pet.)
 (mem.op.)..........................................................................................................3, 24

R.R. Comm'n v. Torch Operating Co.,
  912 S.W.2d 790 (Tex. 1995) ..................................................................................4

Rodriguez v. Serv. Lloyds Ins. Co.,
 997 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. 1999) ......................................................................... 12, 13

State Bd. for Educator Certification v. Montalvo,
  No. 03-12-00723-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 4389 (Tex. App.—Austin April 3,
  2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) ................................................................................... viii

Storey v. Cent. Hide & Rendering Co.,
  226 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1950) ................................................................................24

Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n. v. Sanchez,
  96 S.W.3d 483 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.)................................................3

Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n. v. Sierra,
  784 S.W.2d 359 (Tex. 1990) ..................................................................................3

Tex. Health Facilities Comm'n v. Charter Med.–Dall., Inc.,
  665 S.W.2d 446 (Tex. 1984) ..................................................................................3

Tex. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. Sizemore,
  759 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. 1988) ..............................................................................3, 4

TGS NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs,
 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011) ................................................................................11

Triantaphyllis v. Gamble,
  93 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied) ................24

Vista Healthcare, Inc. v. Tex. Mut. Ins. Co.,
  324 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, pet. denied) .....................................20

Zimmer US, Inc., v. Combs,
  368 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.)............................................13
                                                           vi
Statutes

Tex. Educ. Code
 § 13.046 ............................................................................................................... 18
 § 13.046(a)(2) .......................................................................................................18
 § 21.035 ................................................................................................................ xi
 § 21.041(7), (8); 19 .................................................................................................5
 §§ 21.031(a), .041(b)(1)(7)(8) ..............................................................................23
 §§ 21.031(a); 21.041(b)(1)(7).................................................................................4
 § 21.041(7) (West 2012).........................................................................................3

Tex. Gov’t Code
 § 2001.058(e) ..........................................................................................................9
 § 2001.058(e)(1) ...............................................................................................9, 26
 § 2001.175(e) ..........................................................................................................4

Other Authorities

   74th Leg., R.S. ch. 260, § 58(1), 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 2498 ..............................18

   SBEC Disciplinary Policy ............................................................................. 21, 25

   Tex. Rev. Civ. Statutes 1911, art. 2884 [2814] ...................................................18

   Tex. Rev. Civ. Statutes art. 2814 ............................................................................5

Rules

19 Tex. Admin. Code
  § 247 .......................................................................................................................7
  § 249 .......................................................................................................................7
  § 249.15 ................................................................................................................17
  § 249.15(a), (b)(3) ..................................................................................................5
  § 249.15(b)(2) ................................................................................... xi, 2, 5, 17, 22
  § 249.3(45)............................................................................................................17
  § 249.5 ..............................................................................................................4, 21
  §§ 249.15(a)(4) .....................................................................................................17
  §§ 249.3(59)............................................................................................................2

                                                              vii
                            STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Trial Court Disposition:            The trial court issued a Judgment reversing the
                                    Board’s Final Decision and Order and issuing a
                                    permanent injunction against the Board. CR2 3, or
                                    see App. A.

Trial Court:                        200th District Court, Travis County, Texas, before
                                    the Honorable Tim Sulak.

Course of Proceedings:              The Board issued a Final Decision and Order on
                                    August 10, 2012. 1 AR 67, or see App. B.

                                    A timely motion for rehearing was filed and
                                    overruled by operation of law.

                                    On September 25, 2012, Montalvo filed an
                                    Original Petition for Temporary Restraining Order,
                                    Temporary Injunction and Permanent Injunction.
                                    The trial court issued both a temporary restraining
                                    order and temporary injunction. Following the
                                    filing of an interlocutory appeal, this Court
                                    reversed and dissolved the temporary injunction
                                    for lack of a trial setting in the order. State Bd. for
                                    Educator Certification v. Montalvo, No. 03-12-
                                    00723-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 4389 (Tex.
                                    App.—Austin April 3, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.).

                                    On March 28, 2013, the trial court issued an
                                    Agreed Order Dismissing Michael Berry as a
                                    defendant. See App. C.

                                    On April 29, 2013, the trial court issued its
                                    Judgment reversing the Board’s Order and issuing
2
   “CR” refers to the Clerk’s Record. The number following refers to the page number. “AR”
refers to the Administrative Record as this matter involved administrative proceedings at the
agency level. The Administrative Record consists of nine volumes. The Administrative Record
will be cited as, e.g., 2 AR *, where “2" refers to the volume and “*” represents a page number
within the given volume. “FOF” and “COL” refer to findings of fact and conclusions of law,
respectively.
                                             viii
a permanent injunction (effective until a ruling on
this appeal) against the Board, prohibiting it from
treating Montalvo’s educator certificate as
revoked, revoking his certificate, or superseding
the court’s Judgment following payment of a bond
by Montalvo, should the Board appeal.

The Board filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus
and a Motion for Temporary Relief, both of which
the Third Court of Appeals denied. In re State Bd.
of Educator Certification, 411 S.W.3d 576 (Tex.
App.—Austin 2013, orig. proceeding).

The instant appeal was abated while the Board
sought relief in the Texas Supreme Court by filing
a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Supreme
Court denied relief. In re State Bd. for Educator
Certification, No. 13-0537, 2014 Tex. LEXIS
1208, (Tex. Dec. 19, 2014).

        ix
                      REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

      Pursuant to Rule 75, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant, State

Board for Educator Certification, requests oral argument in this case. Because the

issues involved concern the Board’s interpretation and application of a principle

central to its authority to regulate educators, the Board believes that oral argument

will assist the Court in its analysis and resolution of this case.

                                            x
                        ISSUES PRESENTED

                               ISSUE I.

     The trial court erred in failing to find substantial evidence in the
administrative record to support the Board’s Final Decision and Order.

                               ISSUE II.

      The Board properly amended the Proposal for Decision in
        compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

                               ISSUE III.

        The Board’s standard of “unworthy to instruct” is not
                      unconstitutionally vague.

                               ISSUE IV.

The trial court abused its discretion in issuing a permanent injunction.

                                   xi
                                 STATEMENT OF FACTS

       Erasmo Montalvo, Appellee, holds an educator certificate. Montalvo was

employed as a middle school teacher and served as a track and field coach at the

high school in the Rio Grande City Consolidated Independent School District at

the time the disciplinary case against him arose. 1 AR 62 (FOF #5), or see App. D.

VS was a female senior high school student, under the age of 18, and an athlete on

the track team, coached by Montalvo. 1 AR 62 (FOF #6). The Texas Education

Agency (TEA), as the administrative arm of the Board, (see Tex. Educ. Code

§ 21.035,3) opened a disciplinary complaint against Montalvo, and filed its

Original Petition with the State Office of Administrative Hearings on August 2,

2011. In its Original Petition, TEA alleged that Montalvo is unworthy to instruct

or supervise the youth of this State (hereinafter “unworthy to instruct”), as well as

four violations of the Educators’ Code of Ethics. 2 AR 75. Being “unworthy to

instruct” is not a Code of Ethics violation but is a separate finding that the Board

may make against an educator regardless of whether there are violations of the

Code of Ethics. Upon finding that an educator is unworthy to instruct, the Board

has authority to sanction the educator’s certificate, as it did in Montalvo’s case.

See 1 AR 67; 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 249.15(b)(2), attached and incorporated

herein as App. E.

3
 All references to statutes and rules refer to those in effect at the time of the conduct made the
basis of the underlying administrative proceeding.
                                                 xii
      Montalvo’s specific conduct alleged by TEA includes: allowing VS, both

alone and with other students, to use the Jacuzzi in the master bath of his home;

asking VS lie on the bed in his master bedroom so he could massage her injured

leg; engaging in sexual relations with VS on school property; exchanging over 400

phone calls with VS, including many late at night; and, engaging in inappropriate

sexual contact with VS. 2 AR 73–75. In October of 2009, after hearing from VS

what had occurred, her college counselor filed a complaint with the Starr County

District Attorney’s Office, which indicted Montalvo. Following a trial for sexual

assault, Montalvo was acquitted. I AR 64 (FOF #33), or see App. D. Between the

time that the criminal complaint was filed and the time that Montalvo was found

not guilty, he was on paid administrative leave with the school district. 1 AR 43.

Following the verdict Montalvo was allowed to resume his duties with the school

district. 1AR 43.

      The Administrative Law Judge found that Montalvo had not committed any

of the alleged Code of Ethics violations, was not unworthy to instruct, and that the

Board was not authorized to sanction him. 1 AR 64 (COL #6–8), or see App. D.

      The Board issued its Final Decision and Order on August 10, 2012, revoking

Montalvo’s educator certificate. 1 AR 68, or see App. B. In doing so, the Board

                                        xiii
adopted all thirty-three Findings of Fact in the PFD4 without change. Of the eight

Conclusions of Law, the Board modified two, and added a ninth.

       Montalvo sought injunctive relief and judicial review of the Board’s Final

Decision and Order. On September 25, 2012, the trial court issued an ex parte

Temporary Restraining Order and, on October 9, 2012, following a hearing, a

Temporary Injunction. CR 96, 113.

       The temporary injunction was overturned following an interlocutory appeal

by the Board, because the injunction was lacking a date for a trial on the merits.

After the trial on the merits, the trial court reversed the Board’s Final Decision and

Order, and issued a permanent injunction barring the Board from treating

Montalvo’s educator certificate as having been revoked.                 See App. A. The

injunction is to remain in effect pending the appellate court’s ruling on the Board’s

appeal.

4
 Proposal for Decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge following a contested hearing
before the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH).
                                             xiv
                                CASE NO. 03-13-00370-CV

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                 FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

          STATE BOARD FOR EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION and
     MICHAEL BERRY, THE ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
THE STATE BOARD FOR EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION, IN HIS OFFICIAL
                     CAPACITY ONLY,
                           Appellant,

                                               v.

                                 ERASMO MONTALVO,
                                      Appellee.

 On Appeal from the 200th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas; Cause
           No. D-1-GN-12-002991; Before the Honorable Tim Sulak

                                  APPELLANT’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

      The trial court erred in reversing Appellant State Board for Educator

Certification’s (Board) Final Decision and Order, which revoked Appellee Erasmo

Montalvo’s (Montalvo) educator certificate after finding that it is not supported by

substantial evidence, and is arbitrary and capricious. Further, the trial court erred in

issuing a permanent injunction without balancing the equities. Accordingly, this

                                           1
Court should reverse the Judgment of the trial court, and affirm the Board’s Final

Decision and Order.

                      SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

      There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s Final

Decision and Order, which found that Montalvo is unworthy to instruct. In its

pleadings before SOAH, the Board alleged that Montalvo is not only unworthy to

instruct, but also violated four standards contained in the Educators’ Code of

Ethics, as well as other standards contained in the Board’s rules. 2 AR 75; see 19

Tex. Admin. Code chs. 247, 249. The ALJ did not find rule violations, or that

Montalvo is unworthy to instruct. 1 AR 64 (COL #6–7), or see App. D. The

Board adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact without changes. 1 AR 67. The Board

further determined that, based solely on Montalvo’s conduct as found by the ALJ in

FOF #11, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23, and 26, and Board standards, policies, and prior

decisions, Montalvo is unworthy to instruct or supervise the youth of this state. 1

AR 68, or see App. A; 1 AR 62–63 or see App. D The Board has authority to find

an educator unworthy to instruct based on conduct.         19 Tex. Admin. Code

§§ 249.3(59), .15(b)(2), or see Apps. E, F.

      Furthermore, the “unworthy to instruct” standard is not unconstitutionally

vague so as to deprive Montalvo of due process, and has passed muster with Texas

                                          2
appellate courts.   Marrs v. Matthews, 270 S.W. 586, 589 (Tex. Civ. App.—

Texarkana 1925, writ ref’d).

                       ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

                           STANDARD OF REVIEW

      Review of disciplinary decisions of the Board proceeds under the APA and

the standard of review is that of substantial evidence. Tex. Educ. Code § 21.041(7)

(West 2012). Under that standard the question for the reviewing court is the

reasonableness of the Board’s Order, not its correctness. Tex. Health Facilities

Comm'n v. Charter Med.–Dall., Inc., 665 S.W.2d 446, 452–453 (Tex. 1984); Tex.

Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n. v. Sierra, 784 S.W.2d 359, 360 (Tex. 1990);

Brantley v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n. 1 S.W.3d 343, 347 (Tex. App—

Texarkana 1999, no pet.); Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n. v. Sanchez, 96
S.W.3d 483, 489 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.). The reviewing court cannot

substitute its own judgment for that of the Board. Tex. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs

v. Sizemore, 759 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex. 1988). “The true test is not whether the

agency reached the correct conclusion, but whether some reasonable basis exists in

the record for the action taken by the agency.” Charter Med.-Dall., Inc., 665
S.W.2d at 452 (citing Gerst v. Nixon, 411 S.W.2d 350, 354 (Tex. 1966)); McHaney

v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 1903 (Tex. App.—

Austin Feb. 27, 2015, no pet.) (mem.op.) (“We must sustain the agency's action if

                                        3
it is supported by substantial evidence, meaning that the evidence is such that

reasonable minds could have reached the conclusion that the agency must have

reached in order to justify its action.”). Further, the administrative order is given

deference because of the agency’s expertise with the subject matter. R.R. Comm'n

v. Torch Operating Co., 912 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Tex. 1995).

       In applying the substantial evidence standard, there is a presumption that the

agency’s order is supported by substantial evidence in the record, and the burden is

on the one challenging that order to show that it is not. Sizemore, 759 S.W.2d at

116.    Review is restricted to the administrative record.        Tex. Gov’t Code

§ 2001.175(e).

                                     ISSUE I.

         The trial court erred in failing to find substantial evidence in the
     administrative record to support the Board’s Final Decision and Order.

A.     The Board has authority to issue sanctions without Code of Ethics
       violations.

       One of the most basic functions of the Board is to regulate educator conduct

and issue sanctions. Tex. Educ. Code §§ 21.031(a); 21.041(b)(1)(7); 19 Tex.

Admin. Code § 249.5, or see App. I. The Board has promulgated a Code of Ethics,

the violation of which may result in a sanction ranging from a non-inscribed

(private) reprimand to permanent revocation of the individual’s educator

                                          4
certificate. Tex. Educ. Code § 21.041(7), (8); 19 Tex. Admin. Code, Ch. 247, §

249.15(a), (b)(3).

      But, importantly, aside from the Code of Ethics, an educator is subject to

being sanctioned if found “unworthy to instruct.”            19 Tex. Admin. Code

§ 249.15(b)(2), see App. E. As early as 1911, Tex. Rev. Civ. Statutes, art. 2882

[2814] made reference to the authority of the then-State Superintendent of Public

Instruction to cancel a certificate “upon satisfactory evidence that the holder

thereof “[ . . . ] is a person unworthy to instruct the youth of this State[.]” See App.

G.; Marrs, 270 S.W. at 588. The Marrs case (discussed in more detail in section

B, below) is squarely on point as it involves an appeal based on the vagueness and

uncertainty of the term “unworthy,” as used in Tex. Rev. Civ. Statutes art. 2814, in

effect at that time. See App. G, attached; Marrs, 270 S.W. 586, 588.

      By choosing to become part of any regulated profession, the license holder is

consciously and voluntarily making a choice to abide by the rules of that

profession.

B.    The ALJ misinterpreted and misapplied the standard of “unworthy to
      instruct.”

      1. The Board requires conduct to support a sanction, it does not require
         Code of Ethics violations.

      The Board’s complaint alleged that Montalvo’s conduct indicates that he is a

person unworthy to instruct, and that he violated various disciplinary rules of the

                                           5
Board.       2 AR 75.      The ALJ found that none of the alleged violations were

substantiated. 1 AR 63–64 (FOF # 16, 21, 24, 25, 28–30, and COL #6–7), or see

App. D. To the contrary, the Findings of Fact support the Board’s action of

revoking Montalvo’s certificate because he is unworthy to instruct, including:

                FOF #11        District protocol required that injured
                               students he sent to the trainer. (1 AR 62);

                FOF #14        VS did not visit the trainer about her injury.
                               (1 AR 62);

                FOF #18:       Following her injury, VS underwent
                               stretching, rub downs, ice baths, and
                               whirlpool use under Mr. Montalvo’s
                               direction. (1 AR 63);

                FOF #20:       Mr. Montalvo gave VS, and other students,
                               rub downs. (1 AR 63);

                FOF #22:       On two or three occasions, student athletes
                               visited Mr. Montalvo’s home to use his
                               Jacuzzi in the master bath. The athletes
                               wore sports bras or bathing suit tops, and
                               brief “bikers” shorts. (1 AR 63);

                FOF #23:       On one occasion, VS went alone to Mr.
                               Montalvo’s house to use the Jacuzzi. (1 AR
                               63);

                FOF #26:       From February through June 2008, Mr.
                               Montalvo engaged in approximately 480
                               phone calls with Student 1,5 with over 80 of
                               the calls placed after 10:00 p.m. (1 AR 63).

5
    Student 1 and VS are the same person.
                                              6
      Montalvo did not challenge these findings. It is clear that there is substantial

evidence in the record for the Board to find that Montalvo is unworthy to instruct

based on his conduct, even though the ALJ failed to find a basis upon which the

Board could sanction Montalvo. There is testimony in the record attesting to the

fact that allowing students to come to your home to use the Jacuzzi in the master

bathroom is inappropriate and “unethical” (testimony of James Meguire, Head

Athletic Trainer at Rio Grande City High School, 4 AR 275, TR 295:21–296:5),

and that it is inappropriate (testimony of Rey Ramirez, Athletic Director at the Rio

Grande ISD, 4 AR 261, TR 241:13–18). There is also testimony that engaging in

over 400 telephone calls with a student in a four month period is a “little

excessive” and inappropriate (testimony of Rey Ramirez, 4 AR 261 TR 241:23–

242:2).

      What the ALJ failed to grasp is that Montalvo’s conduct, as found by FOF

#11, #14, #18, #20, #22–23, and #26, speaks for itself in terms of demonstrating a

serious lack of judgment.     These seven findings of fact indicate Montalvo’s

conduct – he did not object to any of them. It is that lack of judgment, leading to

Montalvo’s inappropriate and unacceptable behavior as an educator, which

indicates his unworthiness to instruct; violations of the Code of Ethics are

unnecessary.

                                          7
                                     ISSUE II.

           The Board properly amended the Proposal for Decision in
             Compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

   A. The Board properly amended the Proposal for Decision to comport with
      the findings of fact.

      The Board adopted, verbatim, all Findings of Fact and the first six of the

eight Conclusions of Law, modifying two, and adding one. The two Conclusions

of Law, as found by the ALJ, that are in issue are:

             7.    The foregoing Findings of Fact do not support a
                   conclusion that Mr. Montalvo is a person unworthy
                   to instruct or supervise the youth of this state.

             8.    SBEC is not authorized to take disciplinary action
                   against Respondent’s Texas Educator Certificate.

I AR 64. The Board modified those conclusions, and added a ninth one in its Final

Decision and Order:

             7.     Based on Findings of Fact 11, 14, 18, 20, 22, 23
                   and 26, Respondent exceeded the bounds of the
                   proper educator–student relationship and is a
                   person unworthy to instruct or supervise the youth
                   of this state.

             8.    SBEC is authorized to take disciplinary action
                   against Respondent’s Texas Educator Certificate.

             9.    Respondent’s     educator   certificate   should   be
                   sanctioned.

                                          8
        Based on Montalvo’s conduct as found in the Findings of Fact, there is

nothing arbitrary or capricious about the Board’s Final Decision and Order. It is

reasonable, given the Findings of Fact, for a state licensing board charged with

regulating educator conduct in an effort to ensure the safety of schoolchildren, to

find that Montalvo’s judgment and subsequent actions placed those children at

risk.

        Further, the changes were made by the Board in compliance with Tex. Gov’t

Code § 2001.058(e); they are supported by substantial evidence in the record (as

noted by the references to the specific findings of fact relied upon); were made, as

permitted under Tex. Gov’t Code section 2001.058(e)(1), because the ALJ

misinterpreted and misapplied the Board’s rule regarding “unworthy to instruct;”

and were explained in the Board’s Final Decision and Order, tying the findings to

the Board’s philosophy and perspective. I AR 67–69, or see Appendix B.

              1. The ALJ’s analysis supports finding poor judgment by
                 Montalvo.

        In her analysis of the evidence, the ALJ noted the following:

              “A coach’s talking to a student by telephone 480 times
              over five months is certainly a matter to trigger concern.”
              I AR 59 (App. D);

              “Mr. Montalvo unquestionably exercised bad judgment
              in opening his master bath to students, and especially to
              one female student alone—even if Mr. Montalvo’s wife
              was at home at the time.” 1 AR 61 (App. D).

                                           9
       Thus, the ALJ found at least two of Montalvo’s decisions to be of

questionable judgment and a cause for concern despite the conclusion in the PFD

that the Board has no basis upon which to sanction his certificate.      Based on the

totality of Montalvo’s questionable actions, the Board, as the final arbiter of the

sanction, properly determined that Montalvo is unworthy to instruct or supervise.

       The Marrs decision is instructive, because it speaks to educator “qualities.”

See Marrs, 270 S.W. at 588. In fact, what the Marrs Court opines is that there are

“many characteristics which may and should be considered in passing upon the

issue of unworthiness in a teacher” and that they are too many and varied to

enumerate. Id. at 588. The judgment of an educator is integral to that educator’s

worthiness, or unworthiness, to instruct or supervise the youth of this state.

             2. The Board’s Order is not arbitrary or capricious.

       As shown by both the Findings of Fact and the concerns found by the ALJ in

her analysis of Montalvo’s conduct, there is clearly a basis for reasonable minds to

come to the same conclusion that the Board came to, that is, to find that Montalvo

is unworthy to instruct.      The Board, as was the ALJ, is concerned about

Montalvo’s judgment and behavior but, unlike the ALJ, the Board also correctly

interpreted and applied the Findings of Fact to find that Montalvo is unworthy to

instruct.

                                          10
      Reiterating the standard involved in a substantial evidence appeal, the

question is not the correctness of the agency’s order, but its reasonableness. To be

“arbitrary and capricious,” there must be a lack of guiding principles:

             When there is vagueness, ambiguity, or room for policy
             determinations in a statute or regulation, we generally
             defer to the agency's interpretation unless it is “plainly
             erroneous or inconsistent with the language of the statute,
             regulation, or rule.” TGS NOPEC Geophysical Co. v.
             Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432, 438 (Tex. 2011). But this
             deference to the Board's interpretation is not conclusive
             or unlimited—we defer only to the extent that the Board's
             interpretation is reasonable.

Gomez v. Tex. Educ. Agency, 354 S.W.3d 905, 912 (Tex. App.–Austin 2011, pet.

denied). The Board’s “unworthy to instruct” determination is rationally related to

Montalvo’s conduct; even the ALJ expressed concern about that conduct in her

analysis of the evidence. It is reasonable for the Board to be concerned about

Montalvo allowing students to use the Jacuzzi in his master bath, including on one

occasion VS, a female under the age of 18, alone. It is equally reasonable for the

Board to be concerned about hundreds of phone calls having taken place during a

four–month period between VS and Montalvo. Those facts are just two of the

many taken into account when the Board found Montalvo to be unworthy to

instruct. Moreover, Montalvo did not appeal any of the findings of fact in his suit

for judicial review. Montalvo’s conduct goes beyond the fact that he did not

                                         11
violate the Code of Ethics; what matters is that the inappropriate conduct itself

occurred.

             3. The Board’s interpretation of its rules is to be given deference.

      The “unworthy to instruct” standard is broader than Code of Ethics or other

standards. As a result, whether or not Montalvo violated the Board’s rules is not

dispositive of whether or not he is “unworthy to instruct.” The ALJ’s conclusion

that the Board cannot sanction Montalvo’s certificate is an incorrect interpretation

of the Board’s rules, philosophy, and Disciplinary Policy. The Board has expertise

and a central role in protecting the welfare of schoolchildren and educators.

Because of that, Board’s conclusion finding Montalvo lacking in the judgment

necessary to be a role model for students and to protect them, must be given

deference.

      The Board’s interpretation of its statutes and rules is to be given “serious

consideration, as long as the construction is reasonable and does not contradict the

plain language of the statute.” Dodd v. Meno, 870 S.W.2d 4, 7 (Tex. 1994); Bexar

Metro. Water Dist. v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality, 185 S.W.3d 546, 550 (Tex.

App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied) (“We give great weight to the agency's

interpretation of its own rules and regulations, although such interpretation is not

binding on this Court.”). Administrative rules are ordinarily construed in the same

manner as statutes. Rodriguez v. Serv. Lloyds Ins. Co., 997 S.W.2d 248, 254 (Tex.

                                        12
1999). “Unless a rule is ambiguous, we follow the rule's clear language; when

there is vagueness, ambiguity, or room for policy determinations in a rule, we

defer to the agency's interpretation unless it is plainly inconsistent with the

language of the rule.” (Emphasis added). Zimmer US, Inc., v. Combs, 368 S.W.3d
579, 583 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.). Further, agencies “must be afforded

sufficient flexibility to determine and carry out [their] clear legislative mandate.”

Bexar Metro., 185 S.W.3d at 551.

       There is nothing inconsistent or unreasonable about the Board’s

interpretation of the “unworthy to instruct” language. To force the Board to wait

for a proven injury to a student is asking it to abandon its duty to protect

schoolchildren. Because Montalvo’s judgment and behaviors as an educator are

questionable, the Board’s determination that Montalvo is unworthy to instruct

should be accorded deference and upheld upon the evidence contained in the

record. The fact that the ALJ concluded that no ethical standards were violated

and that Montalvo is not unworthy to instruct is irrelevant to the Board’s

determination, based on the facts recited in the PFD, that Montalvo is unworthy to

instruct.

             4. The Board properly used the findings of fact to conclude that
                Montalvo is unworthy to instruct.

       It is clear from the discussion of the evidence in the PFD that the ALJ

analyzed each piece of evidence in terms of whether or not it demonstrated a
                                         13
violation of a particular rule or standard, and if it indicated that Montalvo is

unworthy to instruct. But from the Board’s perspective, unworthiness to instruct is

not necessarily based on individual findings indicating poor judgment or ethical

violations but, rather, on the totality of findings. The fact that the ALJ found at

least two categories of behavior by Montalvo (excessive phone calls, and allowing

students to use the Jacuzzi in his master bath at home) to be questionable but not

indicative of Montalvo’s being unworthy to instruct, is not the end of the analysis.

         In her concurring opinion in In re State Bd. for Educator Certification, No.

13-0537, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 1208 (Tex. December 19, 2014), Justice Guzman

wrote:

               I also write separately today because I believe the record
               before us fails to affirmatively indicate that the trial court
               considered the potentially significant harm to
               schoolchildren before effectively reinstating Erasmo
               Montalvo's educator certificate pending the outcome of
               the appeal.

2014 Tex. LEXIS 1208 at *20. Justice Guzman further opined:

               But of at least equal import is the interest of
               schoolchildren in not being exposed to the harm of
               interaction with a teacher who fails to understand the
               proper bounds of the student-teacher relationship. The
               record before us reflects the trial court gave only cursory
               (if any) consideration to the safety and welfare of Texas
               students, declaring only that “[t]he competing equities
               favor granting the injunction.” But evidence undisputedly
               indicates that Montalvo, a high school track and field
               coach and an elementary school physical education
               coach, allowed a teenage female student—wearing only a
                                            14
             sports bra and biker shorts—to use the Jacuzzi in the
             master bathroom of his home while no one else was
             present, called that female student over 480 times over a
             four-month period (with over 80 calls occurring after
             10:00 p.m.), gave several female athletes “rubdowns”
             and ice baths, and failed to follow district protocol to
             send an injured athlete to the trainer. The State Board for
             Educator Certification determined these actions
             exceeded the bounds of the proper educator-student
             relationship and violated the trusted position of authority
             afforded to Texas school teachers. Allowing Montalvo to
             continue teaching after willingly exceeding the bounds of
             the proper student-teacher relationship could
             substantially harm the safety and welfare of Texas
             schoolchildren.

Id. at *23–24 (emphasis added).        While Justice Guzman was discussing the

issuance by the trial court of its injunction against the Board while the case is on

appeal, her observations clearly relate equally as well to the merits of this case and

go to the heart of the “unworthy to instruct” issue.

      The Board has experience, expertise, and a thorough understanding of what

it means to find an educator to be unworthy to instruct.           It is the Board’s

interpretation of the phrase, “unworthy to instruct,” which dictates whether or not

the pieces of evidence, as found by the ALJ, support such a finding. In this case,

there are no specific Code of Ethics or other rule violations. And, while individual

facts may not support a finding that Montalvo is unworthy to instruct, the Board

has explained that it is all of those findings together that indicate to it, that

Montalvo is unworthy to instruct. I AR 68–69, or see App. B. The Board’s Final

                                          15
Decision and Order cites to seven findings of fact – the findings that speak to

Montalvo’s conduct and that went unchallenged in the trial court – found by the

ALJ that support its conclusion that Montalvo is unworthy to instruct.

         In summary, the Board found that, based on the totality of circumstances,

Montalvo exceeded the boundaries of an appropriate educator-student relationship,

and is unworthy to instruct.

                                      ISSUE III.

               The Board’s standard of “unworthy to instruct” is not
                             unconstitutionally vague.

   A. The meaning and history of “unworthy to instruct.”

         1. The “unworthy to instruct” language has been a part of educator
            parlance since at least 1925.

         The standard of “unworthy to instruct” is not unconstitutionally vague or

otherwise a violation of Montalvo’s due process rights. The standard has a long

history with educators, in both law and case law. In fact, other professions have

analogous standards which have also been upheld.

         The “unworthy to instruct” language appears in several places in the Board’s

rules.    It is first referenced in § 249.3, the “Definitions” section relating to

disciplinary proceedings:

                                          16
            Unworthy to instruct or to supervise the youth of this
            state—the determination that a person is unfit to hold a
            certificate under the TEC, Chapter 21, Subchapter B,6 or
            to be allowed on a school campus under the auspices of
            an educator preparation program.

19 Tex. Admin. Code § 249.3(45), or see App. F. The next reference is contained

in § 249.15(b)(2):

            § 249.15. Disciplinary Action by State Board for
            Educator Certification
            (a) Pursuant to this chapter, the State Board for Educator
            Certification (SBEC) may take any of the following
            actions:
            ...

            (4) revoke or cancel, which includes accepting the
            surrender of, a certificate without opportunity for
            reapplication for a set term or permanently; or
            ...

            (b) The SBEC may take any of the actions listed in
            subsection (a) of this section based on satisfactory
            evidence that:
            ...

                (2) the person is unworthy to instruct or to supervise
            the youth of this state;

19 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 249.15(a)(4), (b)(2) (emphasis added), or see App. E.

Thus, § 249.15 expressly authorizes the Board to revoke an educator certificate

based on being found “unworthy to instruct.”

6
 Chapter 21, Subchapter B of the Texas Education Code is the chapter governing
the certification of educators.
                                       17
      Section 13.046 of the Texas Education Code (now repealed), in noting when

an educator certificate is subject to cancellation, referenced “unworthy to instruct”:

             (a) Any teacher's certificate issued under the provisions
             of this code or under any previous statute relating to the
             certification of teachers may be suspended or cancelled
             by the state commissioner of education under any one or
             more of the following circumstances:

             ...

              (2) on satisfactory evidence that the holder is a person
             unworthy to instruct the youth of this state; or

(emphasis added). Tex. Educ. Code § 13.046(a)(2) (Repealed by Acts of May 30,

1995, 74th Leg., R.S. ch. 260, § 58(1), 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 2498. When the

Board came into existence, in 1995, various statutes were repealed, including

§ 13.046, and others promulgated. Even prior to § 13.046, reference can be found

to the authority of the then-State Superintendent of Public Instruction to cancel a

certificate “upon satisfactory evidence that the holder thereof “[ . . . ] is a person

unworthy to instruct the youth of this State. Tex. Rev. Civ. Statutes 1911, art.

2884 [2814]. See App. G.

      2. The “unworthy to instruct,” and analogous standards, have been
         upheld in case law.

      Case law in Texas referencing “unworthy to instruct” also goes back at least

as far as 1925:

                                          18
            The contention is that the term “unworthy,” as used in
            article 2814, is too vague and uncertain to legally define
            a disqualification to further hold a teacher's certificate.

Marrs, 270 S.W. at 588.      Thus, in addressing Montalvo’s assertion that the

standard of “unworthy to instruct” is vague and ambiguous, the Marrs case is

directly on point. The Court opined:

            The word “unworthy,” as used in common parlance, has
            a well-defined signification. As here used, it means the
            lack of “worth”; the absence of those moral and mental
            qualities which are required to enable one to render the
            service essential to the accomplishment of the object
            which the law has in view. It may also include those
            positive traits of character which, notwithstanding
            excellent educational attainments, unfit one to impart
            proper instruction to the young. To call one “unworthy”
            is to impute moral delinquency to a degree of unfitness
            for the work in hand. There are many characteristics
            which may and should be considered in passing upon the
            issue of unworthiness in a teacher in the public schools.
            Different minds might reach different conclusions as to
            what qualities of character should render one unworthy
            to hold a certificate to teach. But there can be no
            difference of opinion about the fact that an unworthy
            person should not be permitted to teach in the public
            schools. What qualities, or lack of qualities, should
            render one unworthy would be difficult for legislative
            enumeration.      They are so numerous, and their
            combinations so varied in different individuals, that a
            statute which undertakes to be more specific would either
            be incomplete, or so inflexible as to defeat the ends
            sought. In the very nature of the subject there must be
            lodged somewhere a personal discretion for determining
            who are the “unworthy.”

                                        19
(Emphasis added).     Id.   Aside from its detailed explanation of “unworthy to

instruct,” this passage in Marrs makes it clear that it is impossible to legislate all

circumstances in which one may be found unworthy to instruct. The Marrs case

has not been overruled.

      Other cases upholding language that is analogous to “unworthy to instruct”

in that the language is not susceptible to exact definition and has been attacked as

too vague and ambiguous to be upheld, include: Jordan v. State Bd. of Ins., 334
S.W.2d 278, 280 (Tex. 1960) (“Further the idea embodied within the phrase

[unworthy of the public confidence] is reasonably clear and hence acceptable as a

standard of measurement. And in this lies the true constitutional test.”); Martinez v.

Tex. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 476 S.W.2d 400, 404 (Tex. Civ. App.—San

Antonio 1972, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (“The idea embodied within the phrase ‘grossly

unprofessional or dishonorable conduct of a character which in the opinion of the

Board is likely to deceive or defraud the public’ is reasonably clear.”); Key

Western Life Ins. Co. v. State Board of Ins., 350 S.W.2d 839 (1961), (authorizing

disapproval of a policy form if it "encourages misrepresentation"); Vista

Healthcare, Inc. v. Tex. Mut. Ins. Co., 324 S.W.3d 264, 274 (Tex. App.—Austin

2010, pet. denied) (“ . . . no requirement here that every detail of what constitutes

‘fair and reasonable’ . . . be set out by rule to provide Vista with fair notice of the

standards by which individual fee disputes will be adjudicated.”).         And, as in

                                          20
Marrs, these opinions support the proposition that the fact situations to which civil

statutes might apply are simply too numerous to legislate.

      In Jordan v. State Bd. of Ins., 334 S.W.2d 278, 281 (Tex. 1960), the Texas

Supreme Court includes in its opinion a list (citing to K. Davis, Administrative Law

Treatise, § 2.03 (1st ed. 1958)) of various “general” phrases – i.e., the same genre

as “unworthy to instruct” – which have passed muster with the United States

Supreme Court;

             [T]he standards the Supreme Court [of the United States]
             has held adequate include ‘just and reasonable,’ ‘public
             interest,’ ‘unreasonable obstruction’ to navigation,
             ‘reciprocally unequal and unreasonable,’ ‘public
             convenience, interest, or necessity,’ ‘tea of inferior
             quality,’ ‘unfair methods of competition,’ ‘reasonable
             variations,’ ‘unduly or unnecessarily complicate the
             structure’ of a holding company system or ‘unfairly or
             inequitably distribute voting power among security
             holders.’”

The Jordan case also specifically cites to Marrs. See Jordan, 334 S.W.2d at 281.

      As evidence of just how central the concept of “unworthy to instruct” and

the Marrs case is to the Board and disciplinary actions, the Board cites to Marrs in

its Disciplinary Policy.   7 AR 688–690, or see App. J. Portions of the Board’s

Disciplinary Policy are now stated in rule (although this was not the case until

December 23, 2013), including its explanation of “unworthy to instruct.” 19 Tex.

Admin. Code 249.5.

                                         21
B.    “Unworthy to instruct” applies to Montalvo despite the lack of other
      disciplinary violations.

      The allegation that Montalvo is “unworthy to instruct or supervise the youth

of this state” stands as a separate basis for sanctioning an educator certificate and

does not rely on a violation of the Code of Ethics.         19 Tex. Admin. Code

§ 249.15(b)(2); I AR 64 (COL #5). The ALJ’s Findings of Fact, adopted verbatim

by the Board in its Final Decision and Order, support a finding of “unworthy to

instruct.”   Thus, for example, while the ALJ did not find any romantic

underpinnings in the 480 phone calls over a four month period between Montalvo

and VS and therefore no violations of the Code of Ethics, the Board took exception

to the fact that there were 480 calls, determining that such an excessive number of

calls crossed the bounds of an appropriate educator-student relationship. I AR 67–

68. As another example, the fact that the ALJ failed to find that Montalvo had

sexually abused or assaulted VS when she went alone to Montalvo’s house to use

the Jacuzzi did not sway the Board, which, instead, took exception to the fact that

Montalvo allowed VS come to his home alone to use the Jacuzzi in his master

bathroom. 1 AR 67–68.        The Board found that this conduct makes Montalvo

unworthy to instruct by “crossing the bounds of an appropriate student-teacher

relationship.” I AR 69, or see App. B

      There is no doubt that allowing VS, a female high school student, into his

master bathroom to use the Jacuzzi, illustrates a lack of judgment on Montalvo’s
                                         22
part. Additionally, the occurrence of 480 telephone calls during a four-month

period, with over 80 of them taking place after 10:00 p.m., further illustrates

Montalvo’s lack of judgment.

      Montalvo’s conduct, as found by the ALJ’s Findings of Fact, exceeds the

bounds of a proper educator–student relationship. The Board relied on those

findings illustrating his conduct to find Montalvo unworthy to instruct.

      Ultimately, whether or not improper conduct—beyond the ALJ’s Findings

of Fact—took place is not the issue. Thus, it does not matter whether the content

of the phone calls was romantic in nature. Stated another way, it is immaterial

whether the content of the phone calls implicated a Code of Ethics violation for the

Board to find that the conduct exceeded the bounds of an appropriate student-

teacher relationship and thus at least implicates the standard of “unworthy to

instruct.” Instead, the ultimate issue for the Board is the fact that Montalvo

engaged in these behaviors. That conduct alone demonstrates how Montalvo fails

to meet the expectations of the Board in protecting the welfare of students and

educators.

      The legislature has given broad authority to the Board to carry out its

functions. Tex. Educ. Code §§ 21.031(a), .041(b)(1)(7)(8). The Board determined

that Montalvo’s judgment and behavior speaks louder than whether or not specific

standards in the Code of Ethics were violated. Reasonable minds could certainly

                                         23
reach the same conclusion as the Board concerning Montalvo’s judgment. “The

substantial-evidence standard does not require ‘a large or considerable amount of

evidence’—in fact, the evidence may even preponderate against the agency's

finding—but requires only ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion of fact.’” McHaney, 2015 Tex. App.

LEXIS 1903 at *11.

                                    ISSUE IV.

       The trial court abused its discretion in issuing a permanent injunction.

       The trial court improperly issued a permanent injunction, prohibiting the

Board from treating Montalvo’s educator certificate as having been revoked. See

App. A.

       In issuing an injunction, the trial court must look not only at the elements

needed to support issuance, but it must also balance the equities. Triantaphyllis v.

Gamble, 93 S.W.3d 398, 401–02 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet.

denied). Because an injunction is an equitable remedy, the equities on both sides

must be taken into account prior to issuance. In re Gamble, 71 S.W.3d 313, 317

(Tex. 2002); Storey v. Cent. Hide & Rendering Co., 226 S.W.2d 615, 618-19 (Tex.

1950). A failure to do so is an abuse of discretion, as here. In re State Bd. for

Educator Certification, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 1208 at *20; Triantaphyllis 93 S.W.3d at

402.

                                        24
       As noted above in Justice Guzman’s concurring opinion, the trial court

failed to balance the equities prior to issuing its injunction and disallowing the

Board from superseding its ruling on appeal. See App. H (Trial Court’s Findings

of Fact and Conclusions of Law). Instead, the trial court looked only at the effect

on Montalvo if it did not grant his request for relief, and failed to look at the risk to

schoolchildren in allowing Montalvo to remain an educator pending any appeal by

the Board.

      The trial court, in issuing an injunction against the Board without weighing

the equities, has abused its discretion and allowed Montalvo to continue in his role

as an educator, despite being found unworthy to instruct.             As a result, the

schoolchildren that the Board has a duty to protect, have been put at risk.

                                   CONCLUSION

      The Court should reverse the trial court’s Judgment, including the

injunction, and affirm the Board’s Final Decision and Order revoking Monalvo’s

educator certificate, for the following reasons:

             1.     The ALJ misinterpreted and misapplied the standard of
                    “unworthy to instruct” as used in educator parlance;

             2.     There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the
                    Board’s finding that Montalvo, due to his judgment and
                    conduct, is unworthy to instruct;

             3.     No violations of the Educators’ Code of Ethics or other Board
                    rules are necessary to support a finding of “unworthy to
                    instruct;”
                                           25
              4.   The Board’s changes to the ALJ’s Proposal for Decision
                   comply with the requirements of the APA, § 2001.058(e)(1),
                   because the changes were made based on legal reasons
                   explained in its Final Decision and Order;

              5.    All changes to the Proposal for Decision are supported by
                    substantial evidence; and

              6.    The issuance of a permanent injunction against the Board was
                    an abuse of discretion.

                                     PRAYER

       Appellant, State Board for Educator Certification, respectfully requests that

this Court affirm the Board’s Final Decision and Order in SOAH Docket No. 701–

11–8468.EC in all respects and deny all relief sought by Appellee, Erasmo

Montalvo. Appellant prays for such other and further relief to which it may be

justly entitled.

                                Respectfully submitted,

                                KEN PAXTON
                                Attorney General of Texas

                                CHARLES E. ROY
                                First Assistant Attorney General

                                JAMES E. DAVIS
                                Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation

                                DAVID A. TALBOT, JR.
                                Chief, Administrative Law Division

                                         26
                               /s/ Ellen M. Sameth
                               ELLEN M. SAMETH
                               Assistant Attorney General
                               Texas State Bar No. 17555550
                               OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
                               ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION
                               P.O. Box 12548
                               Austin, Texas 78711-2548
                               Telephone: (512) 936-1838
                               Facsimile: (512) 457-4608
                               E-mail: ellen.sameth@texasattorneygeneral.gov
                               ATTORNEYS FOR STATE BOARD FOR
                               EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION

                       CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
      I certify that this Appellant’s Brief submitted complies with Tex. R. App. P.

9 and the word count of this document is 5,796. The word processing software

used to prepare this filing, and calculate the word count of the document, is

Microsoft Word 2010.

Date: April 27, 2015

                               /s/ Ellen M. Sameth
                               Ellen M. Sameth
                               Assistant Attorney General

                                        27
                       CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
      I hereby certify that on April 27, 2015, a true and correct copy of the

foregoing document was served via the Court’s ECF system to all counsel of

record:

Mark W. Robinett                          Via: Electronic Service
BRIM, ARNETT, ROBINETT,
CONNERS & MCCORMICK, P.C.
2525 Wallingwood Drive, Bldg. 14
Austin, Texas 78746
mrobinett@brimarnett.com

                             /s/ Ellen M. Sameth
                             Ellen M. Sameth
                             Assistant Attorney General

                                     28
                            CASE NO. 03- 1 3-00370-CV

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
              FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

          STATE BOARD FOR EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION ANd
     MICHAEL BERRY, TIIE ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
THE STATE BOARD FOR EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION, IN HIS OFFICIAL
                     CAPACITY ONLY,
                            Appellant,

                                         V

                             ERASMO MONTALVO,
                                  Appellee.

On Appeal from the 200th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas; Cause
         No. D-1-GN-12-00299I; Before the Honorable Tim Sulak

                               APPELLANTS' BRIEF

                                APPENDIX A
                                                                                                           2
                                                                                    har
                                                                                    ó9
                                                                                    (J ,!
                          CAUSE NO. D-I-GN-12-002991                                 +J l'''
                                                                                     (J

                                                                                      LT,   :         ü>
ERASMO MONTALVO,                          $     IN THE DIS'|RICT COURT OF            rlÕ() :{
                                                                                      ,u
      Plaintffi                           $
                                                                                       -í       ¿:¡   É
                                                                                          --Õ         ^4
                                          $                                               f) t-'
v                                         $     TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS                       :¡ ir_
                                                                                                               4

                                          $
THE STATE BOARD FOR                       $
EDUCATO R CERTIFICATION,                        $
      Defendant,                          $     2OOTH     JUDICIAL DISTRICT

                                    JUDGMENT

      On the 2l't day of March, 2013, the Court heard the merits of the above-

entitled and numbered cause on the claim ofjudicial review brought by Plaintiff,

Erasmo Montalvo, complaining of the administrative order of Defendant, State

Boarcl for Educator Certification, which was subject to substantial evidence review

on the adrninistrative record. Plaintiffs Original Petition included a request for

injunctive relief, heard on    April 25,2013, Plaintiff   Erasmo Montalvo appeared in

person and by his attorneys of record, Mark Robinett and Corey Tanner, on both

dates; Defendant State Board for Educator Certifrcation appeared in person and by

its attorney of record, Ellen Sameth, Assistant Attorney General, on both dates.

      After considering atl briefs, arguments, the adlninistrative record             and

applicable rules and law, the Court finds that Defendant's Final Decision and Order

in SOAH Docket No.70l-ll-8468.8C is not supported by substantial evidence and

is arbitrary and capricious,

      IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Final Decision and Order

is REVERSED,

                                                                             Page   I ofZ
      The Court FURTHER FINDS, after considering the evidence adduced and

argument of counsel during the   April 25,2013, hearing for injunctive relief, that Plaintiffi

Erasmo Montalvo, is entitled to a permanent injtrnction prohibiting the State Board for

Educator from treating as revoked or revoking the educator certificate of Plaintiff based

on the facts and allegations made the basis of Defendant's complaint in SOAH Docket

No. 701-ll-8468.EC, which injunction is to.remain in effect until, in the case of          any

appeal taken by Defendant, a ruling from the appellate cotlrt issues'

       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 2a.2@)(3) of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure, that any appeal taken of this Judgment by Defendant State Board

for Educator Certifrcation will not supersede this Judgment during the pendency of such
                                                                        *¡    oQo.qoto secure
appeal. Plaintiff is ORDERED to post security in the amount of

the Defendant against any loss or damage caused by the relief granted Plaintiff           if   an

appellate court determines, on final disposition, that relief was improper.

       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all taxable costs of court be           assessed against the

party who incurred them.

       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that alt remedies not specifically granted are herein

denied.

          signed on the   21Ë, * APÉtc            20t3.

                                                                 ETIMS

                                                                                     Pagc2 ol2
                            CASE NO. 03-1 3-00370-CV

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
              FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

          STATE BOARD FOR EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION ANd
     MICHAEL BERRY, THE ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
THE STATE BOARD FOR EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION, IN HIS OFFICIAL
                     CAPAÇITY ONLY,
                           Appellant,

                                         V

                             ERASMO MONTALVO,
                                  Appellee.

On Appeal from the 200th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas; Cause
         No. D-1-GN-12-00299I; Before the Honorable Tim sulak

                               APPELLANTS' BRIEF

                                APPENDIX B
                                  soAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX.8C
TEXAS EDUCÂTION AGENCY,                             $       BEFORE THE STATE OF'FICE
EDUC^'IOR CERTIFICI\TION AND                        $
STANDARDS DIVISTON,                                 $
  Petitioner                                        $
                                                    $
V,                                                  $                           OF
                                                    $
ERASMO MONTALVO,.IR.,                               $
     Respondent                                     s       ADMINISTRATIVE TIEARJNGS

                                    FINAL DECISION A¡{D ORDER

Came on for consideration on the l0rl'clay of Augusl2012 the above-styled matter.

After proper notice was given, the above-styled case was heard by an Administrative Law Judge
who made ancl hled a Proposal for Decision containing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law. This      Proposal     for Decision was properly       served on   all parties, who were givcn        an

opport¡nity to file exceptions and rcplies     as part   ol the administrative record.
The State Board for Educator Certification, ("Board" or "SBEC"), after review and consideration
of the   Proposal for l)ecision, as well as the exceptions and replies fìled,             if   any, adopts the

Findings of Fact Nos.      I   through 33 and Conclusions of Law Nos.       I   through 6 in the Proposal tbr

Decision, as   if fully   set out herein. The Board modifies and adopts Conclusions             of Law Nos.   7

and 8, as set out below, and aclds Conclusion of Law 9,              All   proposed Findings      of Fact and
Conclusions of Lnw not specifically adopted herein are hereby denied.

Respondent, a rnale coach, engaged in conduct which exceeds the bottnds of the ¡lroper educator-

stulent relarionship during the spring semester of 200tì by iailing to tbllow district protocol and
s,.-nd V.S. ro the trainer for her ongoing iniury, (Findings ot'Fact ll and la); by rttbbing dowrr

ancl/gr nrassaging V.S., (Finrlings      of Fact l8     and 20); by treating V.S.'s initrry himself rvith

stretching, ice baths, antl rvhirlpools, (F-inding of Fact l8); by allolving V.S, to use thc Jttcttzz'iin
thc r:rastcr bedroom ot'his homc 'uvhile no one else was present, (Fírrdings of ["act 22 and 23); and
by cngaging in approximately 480 phone calls rvith V.S, during a .l nronth pcriocl, rvith over 80
trf those crrlls being placed atler l0:00 p.nr. lFinding of l?act 26)'

                                                                                                           MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                           0067
Conclusion of Law 7l

Basecl on Findings of Fttct    ll,   14, 18,20,22,23 and26, Respondent exceeded the bounds of the
proper educator-student relationship and is a person unworthy to ínstruct or supervise the youth
of this state.

Conclusion of Law     8:

SBEC is authorized to take disciplinary action against Respondent's Texas Educator Certificate'

Conclusion of Law 9:

Respondent's educator certificate should be sanctioned'

'l'hese additions and modifications are permissible pursuant                   to Texas Government Code              g

2001.058(e) and are necessary because the Administrative Law Judge failcd to appropriately
                                                    'fexReg 5421'22, Marrs v' lufulthews,270
interpret.and apply SBEC policies and rules. See 34
S.W. 586 (1925), l9 Tex. Admin. Code 5 249,15(b)(2)'

protecting the safety and welfare of Texas schoolchildren and school personnel is a primary

purpose of the SBEC. A certified educator holds a unique position of public trust, and
                                                                                       therefore,

the contluct of an edttcator must be held to the highest standard'

The nroral titness of an educator must be deternlined from an examination of all relevant
                                                                                          conduct

and is not limited to conduct that constitutes a criminal violation or results in a criminal
              'Ihe rcsponsibility ancl discretion to make this weighty detern'rination is vested in               the
conviction.
SBEC.

ÌVIr. Ivfonralvo held a rrusted position      ol authoríty that provided him a ttnic¡ue opportttnity to
expl.it vulnerable tèmale athleres.        Eclucator.s nrttst clearly understand the hortndaries of the
                                                                                      any violatiott
educator-stt¡dent relationship that they are trustcd not to cross. The SBEC considers

tif that trust to bc cQnduct that may result in permanent revocalion olln educator's certific¿ìte'

i\llorving a f'emale stutlerrt tt: use the   iactrz,'t-i   in lhe lnaster batltroo¡n ol'his h0llre rvlrile trtl   trlre

                                                                              ()\'ur (ì lt¡ur tnonlh pcriod. itnd
else is l)resL.nt. cirlling a strrrlcn( ovcr {81) tinres in the late evcnirrg

                                                                                                                   MONTALVO V, SBEC
                                                                                                                   0068
a male corch giv¡ng a t'emale athlete rubdowns and ice baths, tàiling to follorv district protocol to

send an injured athlete to the trainer is conduct that the SBEC consiclers to cross the bounds     of

lhe appropriate student-teacher relationship and is sa¡rctionable conduct.

Respondent's uctions crossed the bounds      of an appropriate   cducator'student relationship anrl
                                               'Iexas educator celificate,
show that he is not presently worthy to hold a

NOW, THEREFORE, lT IS ORDERED by the Board pursuant to the Texas Education Code
Sections Zl.O3l and 2t.041(b)(7) and the Board's rules promulgated in accordance with these
statutes thar Respondent ERASMO MONTALVO, JR.'S Texas Educator Certifrcate Ntrmber
XXX-XX-66-13 is herebY      ?o,. '^rrL¡¡ d
On behalf of the State Board l'or Educator Certification:

                                                                     lo-
         L. CAIN, Ed.                                 DATE

 Note: Pttrstrctnt to Board order No. 990705DP' issued under I9 Tex. ldmin' code $
                                                                                             249'7(u),
                         the       Boardþr   Edtrcalor  Certificttlion may       sn order on hehuUof
the presiding oflìcer of     Sfate                                         'sign
                           møking  thetìnul decision on q case'
lhe majority of members

                                                                                                   MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                   0069
                            CASE NO. 03- 1 3-00370-CV

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
              FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

           STATE BOARD FOR EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION ANd
      MICHAEL BERRY, TIü ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
TI{E STATE BOARD FOR EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION, IN HIS OFFICIAL
                      CAPACITY ONLY,
                            Appellant,

                                         v

                             ERASMO MONTALVO,
                                  Appellee.

On Appeal from the 200th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas; Cause
         No. D-1-GN-12-002991; Before the Honorable Tim Sulak

                               APPELLANTS' BRIEF

                                APPENDIX C
                                                                                                                    O- *l v
                                                                                                          En
                                                                                                          Ã$
                                                                                                                                  _9
                                                                                                                                  o
                                                                                                          ciã
                                                                                                          el-       :È.1 ño        ií

                                   CAUSE NO. D-1-cN-12.002991                                             ()
                                                                                                          ''r= >\
                                                                                                                    -rl
                                                                                                                    ñ¡l            =
                                                                                                          UD
                                                                                                          LJo
                                                                                                             =      æl
                                                                                                                    \,¡           =NÐ
 ERASMO MONTALVO,                                            IN TTIE DISTRICT COURT                       o¡O                 I   :)
         Plaintiff
                                                      $
                                                                                                          Ë,s       æ,        I
                                                                                                                                  U'
                                                      $
                                                                                                                    :Et           úõo
                                                      $                                                   EF
                                                                                                          0)F                     ó
 v                                                           TRAVIS COIJNTY, TEXAS                                            I
                                                      $                                                   u               i       E

                                                      $
 THE STATE BOARD FOR                                  $
 EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION AND                           $
 MCHAEL BERRY, THE ACTING                             $
 CHIEF OF THE STATE BOARD FOR                         $
 EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION, IN                           $
 HIS OFFICIAL CAPAC]TY ONLY                           $      2OOTH   ruDICIAL DISTRICT

                     AGREEI' ORDER DISMISSING MICHAEL BERRY

         on this   &uv            of     HÀ,4CH ,zot3, the Court considered the Agreed
Order Dismissing Míohael Berry as a Defendant in the instant cause, Afrer reviewing the

pleadings and this Agreed Order,             jointly fíled by counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants, thc

Court is of the opinion that the Agreed Order Dísmissing Michael Berry should                       be

granted and that Michael Berry, The Aoting Chief                     of the State Board for Educator

Certification, In his Off¡cial Capacity Only, should be dismissed from this lawsuit. The

Court finds that Michacl Berry ís not the Chief                   of the State Board for Educator
Certification, and that the only proper defendant to this lawsuit is the State Board for

Educator Certi ficati on,

        IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Michael Berry, The Acting Chief of the State

Board for Educator Certification, In his Official Capacity Only ís hereby DISMISSED                  as

a Defendant    with prejudice to re-filing same.

C/N D-l -CN- l2-002991   ; Montalvo v   SBEC and Mtchael Berry

                                                    Page I o/2
       SIGNED on the       &uro¡             M AÈc      Èl-          .20-É

                                                                Tì          SU
                                                                     '.1.
AGREED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:

EllenM. Sameth                                                    Mark W. Robinett
State Bar No. 17555550                                            state Bæ No. 17083600
OTrICE OF THE AI.TORNEY GENERAL                                   BRIMM, ARNETT, ROBINETT
AovIuISrR¡TIVE LAW DIvISION                                       CONNERS & MCCORMICK, P.C.
P.O. Box 12548                                                    2525 Wallingwood Drive, Bldg. 14
Austin, Texas 78'l ll'2548                                        Austin, Texas 78746
Telephone; (5 I 2) 936- t 83 I                                    Telephone: (5 12) 328'0048
Faosimiler (512) 320'0167                                         Facsimile: (5 I 2) 328'48 14
E-mail: Ellen.Sameth@.oag.statc,fx.us                             E-mail: mrobinett@brimarnett,com
ATTORNEY     NOR   DETENDANTS                                     ATIOR¡IEV FOR PLAINTIFP

C/N D- I -GN- t 2-00299 I ; Montalvo v SBEC ond Mlchael Berry

                                                   Poge 2   ol2
                            CASE NO. 03- 1 3-00370-CV

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
              FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTTN

          STATE BOARD FOR EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION ANd
     MICHAEL BERRY, TIIE ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
THE STATE BOARD FOR EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION, IN HIS OFFICIAL
                     CAPACITY ONLY,
                            Appellant,

                                         V

                             ERASMO MONTALVO,
                                  Appellee.

On Appeal from the 200th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas; Cause
     -    No. D-l-GN- 12-002991; Before the Honorable Tim sulak

                               APPELLANTS' BRIEF

                                APPENDIX D
                                      SOAH DOCKET NO. 701.1 I-8468.8C

 TEXÄS EDUCATION AGENCY                                             $           BEFORE THE STATD OFFICD
 DDUCATOR CERTIFICATION AND                                         $
 SÎANDARDS DIVISION,                                                $
 '    Petitioner                                                    $
                                                                    $                                  or
 v                                                                  $
                                                                    $
 ERASMO MONTALVO, JR.,                                              $
          Respondettt                                               $          ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

                                                TABI,E OF CONTENTS

I.   JURISDICTION, NOTICE, AND PROCEDLJRAL IIISTORI                                                þiiârìü¡r¡)rïr¡r,¡f¡i,?,qr'¡r:,.¡.,'?'r,    I

     A.   Undisputed Background                   Fac1s,..,.......                                                            ,..,.,,,,.,....2

     B.   The AIlegAtiOnSír)t¡Ìii.ì¡ri..iËt ¡r¡tí'.ir1jii¡aaia¡i¿ir¡¡ih;ir.ii..¡¡¡ir'.¡lïi.aiì¡¡i¡ôli¡¡ir.ïr¡är!:a¡ir¡Ì¡¡iìt"ii¡:iris¡r.3

          1.      Allegations Set X'orth in StafPs                  Pleacling.....                                            .............'.3
          2.      Unpled M¿tters..,..,                                                                                       ,,,,,,,,,',,,,,,4

          l.
          .,
                  Statements by V.S. (Student 1)                                                                                               8
                           V.S.'s    Testimony,.                                                                                      .......' 8
                  ^,
                  b.   V.S-ts Statenrent at thc Child Advocacy Ccnter¡,.-.;-;                                j.ri.,.¿r.1ai,i.i.,4..>¡;it*ó.   14
          3.      Testimony t¡f Erasmo Mr¡ntalvo                                                                                ..,,.'..... 16
          4.      Telephone Records......             .....................                                                           .....,20
          5.      Testimony of Other
                                     'Witnesses                                                                             ..""".".'.'       21
                  a.       .Student     I's Parents                                                                                           21
                  b.       Diana Garzn-Louis,              LPC.......,                                          ....,.24
                  c.       Rio Grande City CISD Teachers nnd Colches.....................-...'.............26
                  d.       Rio Grandc CirJ* IIS Students and Itarents ¡;¡ìjìi¡';..¡'¡,r.1ir.,¿.;iz'¡,'t,,.¿,',,,;.,..34

                                                                                                                             MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                                             0008
                                        TAtsLE OF CONTENTS                  I'AGE 2
soAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX.8C

        1.   \ilitness Credibility                                       """"""'    43

             Sexual Impropricty and Assault
                                                                                    45
        2,                                                                """"""
        3,   Telling V.S. Not to Go to the Trainer                  """""""""""'    48

        4,   Telephoue Cat1s..........'                                      """'   50

        5.   Student IIse of Mr. Montalvo's Jacuzzi'.'..'.,"""""'    -;'*--"""""' 52
        6.   Sunrmary and Resomnrendttiorr                                 """""'52

                                                                          MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                          0009
                                  SOAH DOCKDT NO. 70I-1I-8468.8C

 TEXAS EDUCATION ÄGENCY                                   $         BEFORE THD STATE OÍ'FICD
EDUCATOR CERTIIÍICATION ANI)                              $
STANDARDS DIVISION,                                       $
     Petitioner                                           $
                                                          $                            OF
 Vi,                                                      s
                                                          $
 ERASMO IVIONTALVO, JR.,                                   $
            Respondent                                     $       ADMI NI STRATIVTi, HEARINGS

                                       PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

       The staff (SIr¡fÐ of the Texas Education Agency, Educator Certification and Søndard-s
Division (TEA), on behalf of the State Boa¡d for Educator Certification (SBEC or the Board),
brought this {isciplirìary action against Erasmo Montalvo, Jr,, to permanently revoke his Texas
Educator Certificate.r Staff âlleges that Rcspondent engagcd in sexual contact r'vith a fcmale
high school student and otherwise treated her in a neglectful or harmful filanner' The
Actministrative Law Juclge (ALJ) fìrrds tbe eviclence fails to prepottderate ìn suppott of StafPs
allegations. 'fhe AL,J recommends that no sanction be assessed against Mr. Montalvo.

                 I.   JURISDICTION, NOTICE, AND PROCEDUR.AL HISTORY

                     of notjce or jurisdiction are acldressed in the findings of fact. Issues
        General issues
concerning the scope of the case, as determinecl by the pleaclings, are discussed below in
connection witli Staff s allegatiorrs'

        The hearing was held January g-12, 2012, before ALJ Shannon Kilgore at the State
Officc of Administrative I'Iearings (SOAIÐ in the'Williarn P. Clements Brrilding,300 West l5rr'
Street, pourth Floor, Austin, Texas. Staff was represented by atforneys Richard J. Ybarra
                                                                                          and

lr4erle Hoffnlan Dover, Mr. Montah,o appeared ancl was represented by attorneys lr4ark Robinett

                                                                                            'lex. Educ. Code $ 21,015.
        '   TEA is authorizeii fo prot,ide adrninistrative fonctions and scr.liccs to SBEC.

                                                                                                         MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                         001 0
soÄH DocKIlT NO, 701-ll-8468.8C                                   PROPOSAL FOR DECISION                                   PAGE,2

and CoÌey Tanner. The recorcl closed on lvlarch 9,2012, with the parties' submission of reply

briefs,'?

                                                        II. DISCUSSION

A.          Llndisputed Background fiacts

            Mr, Montalvo holds a Texas Educator Certificate issued by the Board. In the spring of
2008, Mr.lr4ontalvo was a track and field coach at the Rio Grande City High School
(Rio (hande City I-IS), part of the Rio Grande City Consolidated Independent School District
(Rio Grande City CISD). He was also the physical education coach at a CISD elementary
school,

            $tudent     I   (also r.feo"A to as "V.S."),3 afemale seniorunder the age of 18, was on the
hìgh school tlack team coached by Mr. Montalvo. Dulirrg the 2008 ûack season, she suffered                                        a

ha¡rstri¡g injur.y. Student 1 received a track and field scho)arship to attend college in
Corpus Clristi the following year, She graduated from high school in May 2008 and lefl for
college that August.

            Ar some point during the 2008-2009 academic year, V.S. told a c.ounselor at her college
and her family that tvlr. Montalvo had sexually assaulted her                            in the spring of 2008, In 2009,
Mr.Montalvo was chargecl with trvo counts of secottd-degtee'felony improper relationship
between educator and student. He was indicted in October 2009, and acquitted of both counts
following a jury trial.'l

            2 The parties' blieîs included proposed findilgs offact and conclusions of !aw, Proposed              1-rndings   offäct
an¿ conr:lusi¡rns of law not spe(:ifirally adopted in this proposal for clecision (PFD) are ovenuled.
            3
                This srudort was rcl'crcd to   i¡   Staft's pfeadings as "Súudent   l"   ìrul in the henring mostly as "\'.S." The
AL-,| therefo¡e uscs boih rnethods    of referring to the sludent.
            4 Rcspondcnt's Exhibits l-3.

                                                                                                                    MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                                    001   I
soAH DOCKET NO. XXX-XX-XXXX.8C                               PROPOSAL FOR DECISION                             PAGE    3

R.      The Allegations

           L,             Allegations Sct X'orth in StafPs Pleading

           Tlre primary altegation             of Slaffs Original Petition is that, in the spring of            2008,

lvfr. Montalrro engaged              in unwarrted sexual contact with Stude¡lt        I   ort a number of occasions,
StafPs specific aJlegafiorrs of sekual inrpropriet¡' are as follows:5

           a              Res¡rondent [nrassaged] Stuclent I's leglhamstring area and would move farther
                          and farther up her leg as he massaged her. Ultimately, Respondent's touchíng
                          became inappropriate, moving up into Student I's genital area,

           a              Stuclent 1, along with other 1'emale students on the girls' track team, would go to
                          Respondent's home to soali jn his "hot tub," wbich was actually a Jacuzzi-style
                          batlrtub in the master bedroom of his home. On one of these occasions when
                          Student I was alone with Respondent in his home, in or arouncl April 2008,
                          Respondent invited Student I to use his "hot tub." He then asked her to lie on his
                          bed so thal he could nrassage her leg. At that time, Respondent then proceeded to
                          engage in oral sex witlr Student L

           a              Subsequently, Respondent ÈnBaged in sexual telations witb Student              I   on school
                          property in the Field House.

           a              Continuing on through the spring semester of 2008, Respondent would engage in
                          inappropriate touching of Student l, sometimes occttrring on school propefly,

           Staff asserts tbat Mr. Montalvo told V.S. that                if   she lold the athletic trainer she was

injured,       the.     trainer would not let her run in the district and regional track meets, Furthet, Staff
alleges that, during the spring of 2008, Mr. Montalvo engaged in approxjrnately 480 phone calls
witb Studeot l, with over              B0 of the calls placed after   l0:0(l p.m.

           lvfr. Montalvo denies all allegations ol'sexual nrisconduct. He denies any assertion that
he told V..S, not to go to the trainer. He admits lhat there were plrone calls with Student                      l,   but

assefls that he does not know the numbel of calls. He' cie¡ic.s                 tlut the calls were inappropriate,d

           r 'l'hc allcgations are taken 6'om Steff's Original Petition at 2"5, as amended through an unopposed oral
rnotion at thc   hearing. I 'I'r. at 4-5.
           6            Monlalvo's .Answer at 2,
                N,lr.

                                                                                                         MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                         0012
soAH DOCI(E',t' NO. 701 -lr-8468.8C                                        PROPOSAL FOR DECISION                          PAGE 4

                  2.        Unpled Matters

        In iis opening sratementT and closing zugnrnenls. Staffhas made amunber of additional
assertions, including that Mr. \4ontalvo: gave V,S, rides home; rubbed down and massagcd

female athletes, inclucling V.S,; stretched female athletes                              in a way that looked inappropriate;
allowed female athletes, including V,S., to take ice baths in the field house without a I'emale
coach present to supervise; was alone with female athletes, including V.S., in a hotel room; gave
female athletes, including V.S., gifts; lailed to refer V.S. for counseliug in conuection v"ith ber
suicidal thoughts; slappecl girls on                       tleir   backsides; and took V.S, to be massaged by a female

coach who rvas not licensed or certified to give mâssages.8 Staff specificalty argues that                               manyïf
these assertions constitute bases for sanction,e

                  There are no factual allegations in Staff s pleadinglo to support any of these contentions,
rühile there are mùty factual assertions in Staffls pleading, there is uo mention of rides home,

stretching of female athletes, ice baùs, being alone with female athletes, gifts, handling of an
athlete with suicidal thorrght.s, Slapping of backsides, or a massage by an uncertified female
coach. As to massages, Staff s pleadirig alleges that Respondent massaged V'S. imrnediately
after ¡.er hamstring injury, that a massage on a later date became sexual, and that he told V-S.
that he needed                 to continue to massage her due to her injury.ll However, there is no allegation
that Mr. Montalvo should not have been engaged in non-sexual massages or rub dow¡rs of female

athletes, as Staff argues.

                  At hearin-r, Søff orally amended                    the. factual assertions   in its pleading, but did ttot move
 to include factual allegations going to arry of the matters describecl above, In his reply brief.
.Mr.lvlontalvo objected to Staft's going beyond the confines of itspleading'¡z The objection is

    ,   ,,(L-..              .;¡,.   -      t.
,

                  1 Tr, at 19.
                  *   Peticioner's Clo.sing Argtrtnent   a¡'   62o.
                  e Petitioner's Closing Ârgumcot at 20.
                  r0 Stafl--s Original Petition, as orally anrerrded at hearing.
                  rr Stafls Originaì Petition    at 3-4,
                  r2 Respontlent's Post-l'leaLing repìy Brief at 7'

                                                                                                                      MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                                      001 3
                                                                   PROPOSAL FOR DECISION                                      PAGE    5
soAH DoCKU',l' No. ?0I -l l-8468.I1C

sustained; those matters zrrenot considered as possibl" ina.p"ndent bases tbr sanction.l3
Holvever, the ALJ does consider the svidence relevant to those lnatters in light of whether it
supports the allegations actually plècl by Søff-

C.           Applicable Legal Standards

        SBÉC may take disciplinary action against an educator who is unrt'ofthy to inslruct or
supervise lhe youth of this state or u'ho has violaæd olÌe or more provisíons of the
                                                                                     Eduoatots'
                                                                                           youth
Code of Ethics,r{ In this case, Staff contenId. at ll2.
         !ç Tr. at 22-21   .   Thc ALJ as.sunrcs that "pìarr   B"   is lhe brand nar¡re or   colloqIial expt'essiort lor   a "tttot'ning-
afìer" contraceplive.

-

                                                                                                                      MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                                      0024
soaH DOCKET NO. 701 -1 l-8468.EC                                PROPOSAL F'OR DECISION                         PACE   16

to V.S., he took her bla off, then put it back on, and he touched various private parts of her body
and engagcd         ill oral sex.       She said intetcourse did not occu¡.óo

         When talking about the state track meet in Austin in May of her senior year, V,S, said
that Mr. Montalvo brought in each other girl                   1o   his hotel room to talk for about l5 minutes, but
t¡at he kept V,S. in there for 2 hours. She said that he made her hug                     ancl kiss him.Úl

         In the interview, Stuclent I                 said the first person she told about these events was her
counselor at        college. She told the counselor                 because   of the emotional shain, she indicated.
Then, she said, she told her parents in February 2009,62

         3.           lestimony of llrasmo l\lontalvo

         Mr. Montalvo began working as a teacher                      fi   1992. At first, he was a "ltolcling teaoher"
r.vithno cerlifrcation or benefits. Then, in about 1995, he received emergency certit'ication,
followed by full certification in 1997. He has been working as a full+ime teacher ever since'd3

         V.S. and Mr, Montalvo fi¡st met                      il t}e sunrmer before she entered ninth grade.
According to Mr. Monralvo, he never touched V,S. in any inappropriate way or in a way that
could have been misinterpreted as inappropriate.#

         In thc summer of V.S.'s freshman year, said lvlr. Montalvo, her doctor told her she had a
heart condition that could make                  it   dangerous for her    to run. Mr. Montalvo stated that he told
V,S.'s mod:er that,               if   she were his child, he rvould not let her       run,     IJowever, V.S.'s nrotber

replied that she was goin-e lo let her daughter do what she loved to                    do.65

         'û lcl. at 14-16, 43-46;
         6' lrí. a|34.
         6! td. at    38-39   .

         ó3
              Tr, at 725-72':.
         óa
              Ir,   at '12"1-728.
         65
              Tr. at 3'1)-3'¡2.

                                                                                                             MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                             0025
                                                     PROPOSAL FOR DECISION                              PAGE ]?
soAH DocKET' NO. 701-l l-8468.8C

        lvl¡. lvlontalvo was asked about the occasion of V,S,*s injury at the Doma meet'
                                                                                            He said

that he did not touch of massage V,S.'s hamstring because he was busy with
                                                                                all [he other events

at the meet.66 LIe stated that Assistant Coach      I¡   checkcd out V,S.'s      injury. Hc fur'ther said that
v,s.'s falher approached him       at tbe rneet after V-S. was injured. According to Mr. Montalvo,
                 .,I wanr to handle this.    I will take her to the cloctors. I clon't want bet seeing           a
her father sâid,
                                                                                       trainer, but
traineL.,, Mr, Montalvo said he told V,S.'s thúer he woulcl prefer for V'S. to see the
                                                                                      paleuts rvere
tbe father saicl the trainer rvould make her sit out. In Mr. r\4ontah,o's words, "Her
extreme on having her perform," According to             Mr. Motrtalvo, V.S,'s iather said he woulcl takc
V.S. to a doctor in Mexico.67

         Tlre college recrurter gave V.S. a scholarship contract at the Donna meet' lvfr' Montalvo
                                                                                       I 's parents, and
testified that, after the rneet, he looked over the contract at the request of Student
totd them he thought it was a good deal.68

        Mr. Montalvo furlher testified that, following the meet, back at home, he told V'S. tç
                                                                                                                go

 to the Uainer, but she refused, as she hacl in the past. Mi. lvlontalvo said that she told him
                                                                                                 she

                                                                                   he stated thât he
 was seeing a doctor in Mexico. Hcilever, at anofher point in his testilnony
                                                                                      and he also soid
 shoulcl have sent her to see the trainer, but he could not recall whethe¡ he did-so,

 that he did ¡rot send her, saying that she refused to go. According to lVIr. lvlont¿lvo, V,S' was

 afrairJ of not being allowed to participate at district in her senior        year' Mt' Montalvo also         saicl

. that, once V.S. regained her range of motion about
                                                     two weeks following her injury, he would rub

 down her hamstring. Hoyever, he statecl, he would never give ller more extensive
                                                                                                  0r

 inappropriate nìassages, He said he gave other girls ntb do$'trs, too, ovetall,
                                                                                     he aclclressecl

 V.S.,s injury with'stretching, rub down.s, ice baths, and the whirlpool. FIe denied
                                                                                     telling her to

 go to Mexico for injections. I{e said that V.S. was able to restllne competing, and in
                                                                                           lacl shc

 competed at clistrict, qualifying for regionals, lvlr. Montalvo stated that he never
                                                                                      told V'S' she

                                                            SOr\H's proceclural rules to 3o, Mr. Montalvo filed an
 arlswer                                                     allegation: "ln or around February of 2008, Student I
 injured                                                    ndeni took Srudent I to a bus and massaged hel leg at
 rhat tilx                                                  of Hearing, filed rvith SOÄH), There is no allegation or
 evideltc                                                in anY waY sexual'
         ó?
              Tr. at 355,35'l-158,360,366,369,3J0,J89,736-13s,'154,796-197'825-826'
         68
              Tr. al '194-'795.

                                                                                                      MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                      0026
soAH DOCKET NO, 70t-ll-8468.8C                               PROPOSÄL FOR DECISION                             PAGE I8

could lose her schola¡ship            if   she ,vvent to the tmirter. FIe said he just told her Ìhat the college's

conlract said if a student clid anything that might embatrass the school, the student could lose the
scholarship.6e

         As to being alone after practice with V,S. at the fìelct house,I\4r. Montalvo testified that
he dict not thínk that had ever happened. He said that he sometimes, but not frequcntly, had V'S,

or other girls stay after practice if they needed to work on something partioular. He said most of
the hamstring rub dowrs he administered occuned in the lield, and he could not recall u'hethcr
he ever rubbed her leg down in the field house, but he never rubbed her down alone in the
                                                                                          field

house after                     else had left.7o He also saicl that he occasionally gave V.S. rides home late
               "u"rylo"
at night after track meers ilr her senior year, so he was alone with her for a few minutes on those

ocsasions.?l

         Mr. Montalvo testifiecl about the students' use of his Jacuzzi. FIe statecl that there rvere
two occasions: one over spring break and one during Easter break, During those times, he said,
the whirlpools and ice baths at school were unavailable because the school persoturel responsible

for untocking the training room were not inctined to do that during school bleaks. Around the
time of spring break, Mr. Montalvo testified, V.S. was just starting to jog and participate in
practice follorving her injury, and she wanted to use the lacuzzi, She came r,vith two other girls,
Mr. Moptalvo said his wit'e was pressrt in the house while the girls used the Jac.uzzi.?2 On the
seconcl occasion, V.S. came alone during Easter break. According to Mr. Montalvo, his wife and

children were present in the bouse on that occasion, too.73

         6' 'lr.   ut 342-349,3-\8,3ótl, t'l},394.402-403,736"738-14r,'150,'l52-753,799'
         ?0                  -348,384:386, 409, 411'412, 741-742, 800-801'
              Tr. at   347
         ?r
              Tr, at 830,
          ?2 Mr, lr4ontalvo titrlJrer lestified tllaf, Id. nI440.
          tct 'l'r. al 422.
          !02 Tr. al   ,123-428,429'13l'
          iur Tr. al 42&-429.

                                                                                                                 MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                                 0034
soAH DOCKET NO. 701-ll-8468.8C                                PROPOSÂL FORDECISION                           PAGE ?6

situation    in    an atternpt to correct      it ps¡rhologically.l0a Also,         N4r. N4ontah,o's popularity and

standing in the community do not meân that he was incapable of c.ornnritting sexual abuse,l0s

      Ms, Garza-Louis saw no motivation fbr V.S. to make up these charges. She said that
some people may fabricate charges in orderto gain attention, but she sav/ no sign of that inthis

case. In fact, she noted, the attention V.S dial receive as a result of her accusations was negative.
in that she suffered rejection in the community'106

       On cross-examination, Ms. Garza-l,ouis ackltowledged that there ale indications in the
materials she reviewed that V.S. is not considered a trustworthy person! and that she had lied in
the past in a manipulatit e mannçr.107

                                  Rio Grande City CISD Teachers and Coaches

          Rey RamireT, has þeen            with the Rio Grande City CISD for 16 years, and is presently in
his sixth year as alhletic director for the rlistrict. He has served as a coaçh for 13 years,lo8

          Aócording to Mr, Ramirez, while CISD coaches                      *.   no* tolcl not to n¡b down    students

ancl   to let the trainers do it, no such policy existed in 2008.rot              FIe testifiçd that the. coaches have

been told that        if   an athlete is injured,   it is protocol that   the trainer be contacted, so that the hainer

can refer the athlete to the doctor ot provide first aid'rl0

          roa
              Tr. at 43 I 433.
          tts Tr, at426.
          l's Tr. ar 433-435.
          ro7    Tr. at 439-4,10,442. The ALJ sur¡¡ises tbat the nlaterial to which lvls. Garza-Lottis refert'ed was, at
leasr in par1,   V,S.'siestimony utrdet cross'examillation at the crin:inal trial'
          ro8
                 Tì-. at   210-zJl.
                                                                              cannot stretch atl]let€s, but that they
          'oe Tr. ur 2i4,246,254-255. He said therc Ìs no policy that coaches
shoutdjnstusetheirbestjudgmentanddoitinarvaythatdoesnolapp€a¡inappropriate.                    Tr.at246'
          t'o 'fr. aÌ 234-235,242.

                                                                                                           MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                           0035
soAn DocKIJT NO. 70l-tl-8.168.8C                                PROPOSAL FORDE,CISION                       PAGE 27

        Mr. Raurirez stated that coaches are acìvised rrol to give students rides home,lll and he
cloes not believe it is appropriate for a coach to allow a stuclent ðthlete to use a Jasuzzi in the

master bath of the coaclì's Jrouse.l12 I-Ie,stated tlrat over 400 calls with a stucfcnt in a four'month
period is excessive and not appropriate, although he further said that the only thing that would
make phone calls problematic is inappropriate content, He explained that                   if the coach is trying to
help the student progrcss as an athletc, phone calls wor¡ld not be a problem, although he said he
was a "little bit concerned" about carrying out this kind of rvork on a daily basis outside the
context of practice sessiolts.l13 Mr- Ranlirez stâte that, rvhile there is no n¡le against it, a coach's
being alone in a hotel room with a student is not a good idea, and a student could make a false
accusation about impropriety in such a circumstance,l!4

        ì\{r. Ramirez said that he has worked with Mr. Montah'o for about five years, and                        has
                                                    j
never seen him clo anything improper,rr

        Esther Guerra Pena was a coach with the Rio Grande City CISD for l0 years, her last
year being     2007. She clid not           ooaoh with   Mr. Morrtalvo in 2008. She is now the head secretary
for the athletic departrnent of the juniol and high schools.r16

        Ms. Pena testified that, through her coaching, she knetv V.S.                  a¡rcl   had daily oontact with

her in,2007, although i\4s- Pena stated,                 "l   didlr't k¡ow her-klrow her. I just..,knolv her as a
coach," Ms, Pena believes that V.S. is a trtrthful person.llt

        Ms. Pena also lcnows Mr. lvfontalvo, having coached with hirn for four years''It She said
thaf he was a .strict coach, and respected, especially because he had so many athletes he had
,+-+-;Æ
        )tt Tr. at232.
        tti    'l'r. ar z,fl   .

        rrt Tr. at 241-242,247,256-25v,
        tta 'I'r. at24l- 242,245,252'253'
        trt 1r. at 248-251.
        tt'i 1'r, al26 l, 2b8-269.
        t   t''fr.   ut 261 -262,   27 8.

        ltt   Tr. a¡262,

                                                                                                         MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                         0036
soÄH DOCKET NO. 701-11'8468.8C                               PROPOSAL FOR DECISION                              PÅGE 28

known since they were very young. People obeyed him.)19 However, she said Mr. Montalvo's
neth<¡d of stretching the legs of some female athletes ditl not look appropriate ('even though the
mechanics of the stretching rvere fìne). z\ssistant coaches nrentiolled it to lvlr. Montalvo. Sone
girls refused to be stretched by him, but the girls he had coached sirice they were very young
were comforlable with it'120 Ms' Pena also said that vh. Montalvo would slap girls "not on their
btrtt/burtt," bnt    "in   betr,veen the   hip and the butt" or "ncar" the butt, in a ma¡rner that said "Go            get

thern" or "Good luck, good job," He did this ',vhen the parents were present, but a coach from
another school once said it looked bad. Ms. Pena indicated that tlre propriety of this conduct was

something that people could have different opinions about.l2l

         James Meguire is the head athletic trainel at Rio Grande City                         HS.    He has held the
position since 1998, and is presently licensed by the Stale of Texas as a trainer,r22 His job is to
recognize, assess, treat, manage, rehabilitate, and recondition athletic injuries under the direction
of a licensed physician,           Þle knows Mr, Montalvo, rvho started working                 for the district in    the

early nineties. Mr. lvfeguire testified that Mr. Montalvo, although an educ.alor, is not a licensed
trainer and therefore cannot prâctice athletic training.tzl

        Mr, Meguire testified that it has always been the Rio Grande City CISD's policy to repofi
injuries to the athletic trainer. He said that the coaches are supposed to talk to the parents. If the
trainer is uravailable ancl the parents want the child to be seen iurmediately, they can take the
child to the doctor, but the coache.s usually harre the children go to the trainer first for the
coordination of insurance papenvork, Parents can clecide to take the child to the doctor instead
of to the rrainet', take the child to Mexico f'or shots (which, Mr,lr{eguire said, is conrmon), ordo
nqthing at all. According to Mr, lvleguire, Mr. Montalvo is arvare of procedure.s and usually calls
the trainer when a snråent athlete gets              hurt. If a student with       an injury is not reported to the

         I.re
                Tr. at 263-264.
         f   2t Tr. at 264:26i,2'10,2'12. Ms.   Pena said tbat, after about 2005, there were no student trainers to stretch
athietes, so lhey vrould ask thc coachçs to do it,

         '2r fr,    at 26'1-268,272-275.

         "'     Tr. at 284-285. Mr. Meguire also worked as a lrainer for the Rio Grande Ciry CISD from 1990 to        1991
ld, at 284.
         ti! -lr.   at286-258.

                                                                                                             MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                             0037
                                                            PROPOSAL FOR DECISION                     PAGE 29
so^H DOCKDT NO. 701-ll-8468.8C

trainer, the afhlete may not get adequate medical attention, may not be able to conrpete at
ma-rimum ability, antl may suffet from prolonged injury'l2a

        According         to lvlr. it is not appropriate to treât athletes at home' He
                                        Meguìre,
oharacterized such a practice as wìethicàI, stating that it l'opens you up to liability and
accusations, and     it's     an inappropriate place to clo treatments."l2s FIe stated, however, that there is

no actual rule against it.126

       In general, said Mr. Meguire, he is careful in the way he treats female athletes, limiting
his physical contacl and avoicling stretching and rub dorvns to head off any accusations of
inrpropriety. He uses stuclent t¡ainers or his female aide for muc,h of the necessary physical
contact, This polioy is not written, however.l2T

        Ar     one point, Mr. lvfeguire talked               to Mr,   Montalvo about stretching the girls,

¡4r. lvleguire had never seen Mr, lvlontalvo stretch his athletes, but two assistant coaches
rnentione¡l to Mr. Meguire that             it   lookecl inappropriate. Mr. I\4eguire indicated that there ltad

bee¡ an earlier inciclent with a Rio Grande City CISD assistant trainer who had inappropriate
relationships with female students, and there was a need for caution because the athlstic staff was

under scrutiny. lvfr. Meguire's corlcern was the possìbility that sonreone rvbo did not like the
coach could make an accusation that he was doing something                     \\rong. Mr' Meguire    saicl that

stretching the hamstring rnuscle involves pulling tlre athlete's leg up, putting the sEetcher's head
near the athlete's groin area, and it looks inappropriate even when done properly, Mr. Meguire
tokl Mr. I\,lontalvo to be careful,         ancl he repliecl that he woulcl take the matter under advìsement.

Mr, Meguire. said that he is not Mr. lvlontalvo's supervisor. He also noted that the stretching was
part of lvfr, lr4ontalvo's rouline as a coach, and coaches do not easily change tlteir routines.
lr4r. Meguire said thele was no written rulc about male coaches stretcbing female athletes'128

        r24
              Tr. at 288-294,328.
         rzi Tr. at 295-296.
         t2Á Tr. at 327   .

        r'? Tr.   at 296-291    ,332.
        '2ß Tr. at 301-303, 318,320-323.

                                                                                                    MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                    0038
                                                                PROPOSALFOR DECISION                            PAGE 30
   so^H DocKET             NO. 701-ll-84ó8'IìC

                                                                                                            n¡b
               With respect to rub clorvrs in particular, ìt4r. Meguire said that it is fine for a coach to
              an athlete before a competition, but it is not appropriale for a coach to massage
                                                                                                        or ntb
   down
                                                                                              of a
   down an injurcd area as a fonn of therapy. He stated that someone lvithout the expertise
                                                                                          and that
   trainer would lack the ability to discern whether an injured a¡'ea should be massaged,
   massaging an acute.ly injured tlr inflarned alea call delay healing and
                                                                           prolong                  pain' He also     saicl

   that, in his clepartment, females rub down females,l2e

               Mr, Meggire testifiecl that       the.re were   whirlpools available for Mr' Montalvo's use at all

   times.¡3o Flowever, the faining room is not open to the coaches over spting heak and
                                                                                               Easter

                                                                               the room up,l3l
   break, although the coaches cur call and get the trailtels to come and open

               Mr. Meguire is familiar rvith V.S. because she was one of the top athletes at Rio Giande
       City HS.' She came to the trainer for treatment of an injury to her "quad," a calf injwy, and
                                                                                                     shin

       splints, She came to the h'aincr on April 1,2008, and received some attention to her
                                                                                                quad and

       shin splints. She did nor come to the tfainer for a hamstring injury.l32

               Llnrla Lu is presently a teacher in Mission, in the          Sharylzurcl Independent School       District'
                                                                              years, including the
       She had previously been employed at the Rio Grânde City CISD for three
       2007-2¡0¡acaclemic year, where she coached track as zut assist¿nt to lvlr' Morrtalvo.r33

                  Ln testified that she knew V.S. According to Ms. Lu, V.S. was not lrustworthy
               i\,Ís.

       bec¿use "her stories ,¡,ould alWays change." Further, said Ms. Lu, V'S' had
                                                                                   a reputation for
                                                                                        i:rappropriate
       being untnrtht'ul,r3a Ms, Lu stated that she never saw Mr. Montalvo do anytlring
       with V,S, or any of the other girls-li5

.ffi
                tze f'r. at à01-301. He statecl that it is an unrwitten rule in hís depafitnent (the traíners'departrnent at
       Rio Granr.le City HS) that lnals rrainers not be atolle rvith female alhlstes. Icl' al313-120,
                iro Tr. a( 3lo-312,

                '3r Tr. at 329,     lî   t.
                t12 ^lr
                        . at 29't -300    .

                tr3 'l'r', at 49?-499.
                ¡3n
                    Tr. at 5oo
                i3r 'l'r, at 5oo.

                                                                                                              MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                              0039
so/{H DocKET               NO. 701-l l-8468.8C                 PROPOS,,\L FOR DECISION                          PAGE 3I

         r\s to st¡etching, Ms. Lu said that she saw Mr, Montalvo stretch girls, which rvas not
inapplopliate, She heard no complaints about it.l36

         Ms. Lu also saw Mr. Montalvo give girls rub dowrts, and saw no prob-lem with the
practice.l3T Ms, Lu further stated that she had seen Mr. Montalvo give V.S. rubdowns at the fìeltl
                                               138                                      ptactice until the last girl letl,
house, on thc mats, once a week,                     Ms, Lu said that she stayed   aû

but then saicl she did not stay every single time.l3e lvls. Lu herself gave V,S. massages while she
was injured, after she told Ms. Lu that she was seeirrg a doctor in Mexico.la0

         Vy'ith respect              to phone oalls, Ms. Lu rvas aware that Mr. lvfontalvo spoke with V.S.
Ms.   Lu thought it might have been daily                    because Student   t   had     "a lot of   issues," wanted

attentiou, and had voíced an intent to commit surcide, As a result, said Ms, Lu, she did not
believe there was anything wr.orig with Mr. Montalvo's talking                     1o   V.S. orr a daily basis and for
long times, She statecl that coaches use positive reinforcement to help their student athletes
succeed, a¡d commtmication is                  key,lal Mr. Montalvo would read inspiring quotations to V.S.
ancl discuss them rvith her; Ms.              Lu said, "I thought it was great."l42 Fr.rther, she suggestecl,        âs to

tþe length of the calls, V.S. corild lixate on sonrethittg, at times going "to the extreme."l43 And,

according to Ms. Lu, Mr. Montalvo lived in a rural area with poor telephone sen'jce and frequent
                                                              l4
intenuptions in service during a convet:satiott.

         13ó
               Tr. at 500-501.

         '3t
               'fi.   ur 501-502.

         '10 Tr. at        5   ! 8-520.
         t1' Tr.      øL   520.

         'to Tr. al 520-522.
         ;'r
           Tr, at 502-503, 5l t, 5t4-5 15. Ms, Lu said that, when a student spcoks of suicide. it should be reported
to solneone. I-lorvever, she also indicatsd that she Cid not ltnow whether to believe any slatetllenls by V.S. to
M¡. Montalvo about suicide, becausc V.S. "cons¡antly chauges her stot7" and says things just to get attention /d. at
5t2-5 13. Ms.LLr thoughttharMr.Montalvo'sworkwithV.S.wasenoughtomakcsurcshcdidnotcotnmitsuicidc.
Id.al5l5.
         lt2 Tr. ¡t 515.
         rcr
               Tr. ar 513.
         roa   'l'r. at 514.

                                                                                                             MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                             0040
soAll DocKRT            NO, 701-l l-8468.8C                                  PROPOSAL FOR DF,C¡SION                ,   PAGE 32

        Ms. Lu recallecl V.S.'s hælstring injury at the. I)onna rneet in 2008. She said that she
went to t[e school bus and checked the irijury. lvfs. Lu stated that she concJuclecl V'S, needed to
see the trainer', and she tolcl tbis to                    V.S, Ms, Lu          sajd she was nol present when Mr. Montalvo

discussed the matter with V.S,'s parents) rvho rvere in the bleachers. V,S, went trp into the
bleachers and spoke to her parents, Ms. I-u said that Mr. Montalvo referred \¡.S' to the trainer,

However, V.S. did not, saitl Ms. Lu, seek out the trainers. lvls, Lu said that she did no[ lollorv
V.S, to make sure she went to the trainers. She stated, "[W]e just say, 'Go to the fraincr.'
Whether or not she shows up or not, it's out of my hands." She said it was protocol to refer an
injured shrdent to the trainer, but it was up to the student ancl the pat'ents to acnlaily decicle to go
or not.laS

           Ms. Lu stated she never notiçed a change in V,S,'s cletneanor toward Mr. Montalvo in the

spribg of 2008, The following yerir, in the spring of 2009, Ms. Lu said, she wâs present at a
track meet at Mission. She stated that V.S. was there, having apparently come on her orvn'
Ms,   Lu   stnted that V.S. was              "riglrt next to" Iúr, Morrtalvo, seeking attention frorn hirn                 ancl

others.la6

        ln       a   written statement, Ms. Lu said that Mr, lvlontalvo was prol'essional, conscientious,                     a

role model to his colleagues, attd meticulous as to rules.laT

        Ricardo Snenzis in his 12ü'yeat                             as the   principal at Nortb Grarnmar Elementary School in
Rio Grande City.r48 Mr, Montalvo has been a P,E, coach at the school throughout Mr. Saenz's
tenure there. Mr. Saetrz stated that there has never been an occasion at the elementary school in

whir:h Mr. Montalvo engagecl irr misconcluct or clispla¡'ccl a lack                                  of integrily'¡4e    About

           rai Tr. at
                      -s04-508, 515-5 18,        521   ,   52'1 ,

           rao
                 Tr. at 508-5 I 0.
           I"r   Re.sponde.ut's   Exhibit I l.
           t'8 Tr, at   620-621   .

           tat 'l'r.
                     at 622.

                                                                                                                  MONTALVO V. SBEC
                                                                                                                  0041
                                                                 PROPOSAL FORDDCISION                                  PAGE 33
soArr Docl(ET NO. 70I-t l-8468.8C

Mr, Monmlvo, Mt', Saenz stated, "[-l]e's a good man...I'Ie ukes his
                                                                    job very seriously and                                  he

does a good job."l50

      Furt¡er, stâted Mr. Sacnz, all three of his childreu have been coached by Mr. Montalvo.
Mr, Saenz's daughler, K.S,, who is also a witness in this case, was coached by Mr. Montalvo,
Mr, Saenz st¿ìted that he tlusts lvlr. Vlontalvo arouncl his daughter,lsl

      Mr, Saeua is accluainted with V,S, She was alound ûre eleméntary school in the sunrnrer
of 2008, working out ancl preparing f'or college track. He stated that V'S' seemed very
comfortable with Mr' Montalvo during that time.l52

         rilhen asked about phone call.s between Mr. Montalvo                       ancl students,   Mr'   Saeuz stafed that

there were phone calls betu,een his daughter and Mr. N4ontah,o, but not over 400 calls. He
                                                                                              noted

                                                                                             fo call
that, when he t¿lkecl lo Mr, lvlontalvo, the phone sornelimes got discÒrulected and they had
each other back. Accorcling to                  Mr. Saenz, lvfr, Montalvo lived in an area whete the               telephone

gets clisconnected fiequently.               Mr.   Saenz stated that so many phone calls seem excessive, but to

assess   if there was impropriety, he would want to know what they were about.l53

        Ofelía Guena and Catherine Rubin are Rio Grande City CISD employees who
participated in two pfayer meetings organize270 S.W. 586
     (gZS),"unworthy to instruct" "means the lack of 'worth'; the absence of
    ihor. moral and mental qualities which are required to enable one to render
     the service essential to ttre accomplishment of the object which the law has
     in view." Therefore, the moral fitness of a person to instruct the youth of this
     state must be determined from an examination of all relevant conduct, is not
     limited to conductthaloccurs while performing the duties of a professional
     educator, and is not limited to conduct that constitutes a criminal violation or
    results in a criminal conviction.
  5.   Educators have positions of authority, have extensive access to students
       when no other adults (or even other students, in some cases) are present, and
       have access to confidential information that could provide a unique
       opportunity to exploit student vulnerabilities. Therefore, educators must
       clearly understand the boundaries of the educator-student relationship that
       they are trusted not to cross. The SBEC considers any violation of that trust,
       such as soliciting or engaging in a romantic or sexual relationship with any
       student or minor, to be conduct that may result in permanent revocation of
       an educator' s certificate.
  6.   The SBEC recognizes and considers evidence of rehabilitation with regard
       to educator conduct that could result in sanction, denial of a certification
       application, or denial of an application for reinstatement of a certificate, but
       must also consider the nature and seriousness of prior conduct, the potential
       danger the conduct poses to the health and welfare of students, the effect of
       the prior conduct upon any victims of the conduct, whether sufficient time
       has passed and sufficient evidence is presented to demonstrate that the
       educator or applicant has been rehabilitated from the prior conduct, and the
       effect of the ôónduct upon the educator's good moral character and ability to
       be a proper role model for students.

Mission Statement    (ßnck to tt¡p)

Ensure the highest level of educator preparation to promote student achievement
and to ensure the safety and welfare of Texas school children
Adopted February 6, 2009