BEFORE THE
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF: ) FINAL ORDER
)

ANTHONY VILLANUEVA ) OAH Case No.1 1001765

This matter came before the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission during
its public meeting of February 10, 2011, and February 16, 2011. Licensee filed
exceptions to the Proposed Order on January 19, 201 1. Afler considering the case, the
Commission finds that Licensee’s exceptions are not persuasive and hereby adopts the
attached Proposed Order as the Final Order.
The Commission further finds that immediate revocation of Licensee’s license is
necessary in order to protect the safety and well-being of students.

Now therefore, the Commission revokes Anthony Villanueva’s Standard
Teaching License effective immediately.

It is so Ordered this Z 7 day of February 201 1.

W
eith enk, Deputy Dir ctor
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission

NOTICE: You are entitled to judicial review of this order. Judicial review may be
obtained by filing a petition for review within 60 days of the service of this order.
Judicial review is pursuant to the provision of ORS 183.482 to the Oregon Court of
Appeals.
In the Matter 0f Anthony Villanueva
Page 1 of 2

On February 2 7, 2011, I mailed the foregoing Final Order in OAH Case N0. 1001765 to:
By: First Class Mail and email
Ralph E. Wiser

Attorney at Law

1 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 570
Lake Oswego OR 97035

Heidi Sipe

Superintendent

Umatilla School District

1001 6"‘ Street

Umatilla OR 97882

By: Shuttle

Office of Administrative Hearings
4600 25‘h Avenue NE, Suite 140
Salem OR 97301

Raul Ramirez

Senior Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice

1162 Court Street NE

Salem OR 97301-4096

Melo Hanso

Direc r of Pro sional Practices
In the Matter of Anthony Villanueva
Page 2 of 2

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF OREGON
for the

TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF: ) PROPOSED ORDER
)
ANTHONY VILLANUEVA, ) OAH Case No.: 1001765
Licensee )
HISTORY OF THE CASE

On May 5, 2010, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (Commission) issued
a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Anthony Villanueva (Licensee), proposing to discipline
Licensee. On May ll, 2010, Licensee requested a hearing. On June 22, 2010, the Commission
referred the hearing request to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Senior
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Dove L. Gutman was assigned to preside at hearing.

On August 24, 2010, a pre-hearing telephone conference was held. ALJ Gutman
presided. Ralph Wiser, Attorney at Law, represented Licensee. Assistant Attorney General Raul
Ramirez represented the Commission. On August 24, 2010, ALJ Gutman issued a Pre-Hearing
Order.

On August 26, 2010, Licensee filed a Motion to Dismiss Charges for Lack of Adequate
Notice and/or To Make Charges More Definite and Certain, and To Provide Information and
Documents Requested by Villanueva (Motion to Dismiss and/0r Make More Definite and
Certain). On September 7, 2010, the Commission notified the OAH that it would be issuing an
amended notice in response to the Motion to Dismiss and/or Make More Definite and Certain.
On September 10, 2010, the Commission issued an Amended Notice of Opportunity for Hearing
to Licensee.

On October 1, 2010, Licensee filed a Motion to Compel Production of Information
(Motion to Compel). On October 5, 2010, ALJ Gutman issued a Ruling, denying Licensee’s

. Motion to Dismiss and/or Make More Definite and Certain. On October 14, 2010, the
Commission filed a Response to the Motion to Compel. On October 20, 2010, ALJ Gutman
issued a Ruling, denying Licensee’s Motion to Compel.

On November 8, 2010, an in-person hearing was held in Salem, Oregon‘ ALJ Gutman
presided. Mr. Wiser represented Licensee. Mr. Ramirez represented the Commission. George
Finch appeared on behalf of the Commission. Licensee, Jean Wilson, TLL, Cameron Lane,
Dianna Veleke7 Heidi Sipe, Paul Cimino, and Mike Pells all provided testimony.

On December 9, 2010, the hearing continued in Salem, Oregon. ALJ Gutman presided.
Mr. Wiser represented Licensee. Mr. Ramirez represented the Commission. Jeff Van Laanen
In the Matter ofAnthony Villanueva, OAH Case N0. 1001765
Page 1 of 15

appeared on behalf of the Commission. Heather Villanueva, Licensee, Chris Sak, TLL, and Mr.
Pells all provided testimony. The record closed on December 9, 2010.
ISSUES

1. Whether between 1988 and 1992, Licensee engaged in a sexual relationship with a
student, TLL, which constitutes gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b), OAR
584-020-0040(4)(f), and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5).

2. Whether on January 28, 2008, during an interview with a Commission investigator,
Licensee denied knowing TLL, having any direct dealing with her, or knowing her name, which
constitutes gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(1)fl>), OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c),
and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5).

3. Whether Licensee’s license should be revoked. ORS 342.177.

EVIDENTIARY RULING

On November 8, 2010, the Commission’s Exhibits A1 through A5 were admitted into the
record without objection. Licensee’s Exhibit R1 was admitted into the record without objection.‘
On December 9, 2010, the Commission’s Exhibits A6 through A7 were admitted into the record
without objection.

PRELIMINARY MOTIONS

On November 8, 2010, at the start of the hearing, the Commission made a Motion to Exclude
Witnesses and Members of the Public. The Motion was granted. Licensee made a Motion to
Dismiss Charges for Lack of Adequate Notice and/or To Make Charges More Definite and Certain,
and To Provide Information and Documents Requested by Villanueva. The Motion was denied.

MOTION TO REVIEW THE COMMISSIONS FILE

On November 8, 2010, during the hearing, Licensee made a Motion to Review the
Commission’s File. The Commission objected to the Motion on the basis that the file contained
confidential and protected information. At Licensee’s request, ALJ Gutman conducted an in-
camera review of the Commission’s File. Following the review, ALJ Gutman denied Licensee’s
Motion and sustained the Commission’s objection.2

CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION

A witness testifying under oath or affirmation is presumed to be truthful unless it can be

demonstrated otherwise. ORS 44.370 provides, in relevant part:

I Exhibit R1 is the cover page of Mr. Cimino’s investigative report. lt was prepared by an investigative

assistant. It was not prepared by Mr. Cirnino. (T est. of Cimino.)

Z Throughout the hearing, Licensee asserted that the Commission had failed to provide him with all of its

discoverable material. I found absolutely no evidence of Licensee’s assertion.

In the Matter ofAnthony Villanueva, OAH Case No. 1001765

Page 2 of 15 "

A witness is presumed to speak the truth. This presumption,
however, may be overcome by the manner in which the witness
testified, by the character of the testimony of the witness, or by
evidence affecting the character or motives of the witness, or by
contradictory evidence.

A determination of a witness’ credibility can be based on a number of factors other than
the manner of testifying, including the inherent probability of the evidence, internal
inconsistencies, whether or not the evidence is corroborated, and whether human experience
demonstrates that the evidence is logically incredible. T ew v. DM V, 179 Or App 443 (2002).

Testimony of TLL, Licensee, and Mr. Pells

TLL testified that she moved into Licensee’s home while she was still attending high
school because her mother moved out of the area. TLL’s testimony was logical, credible, and
corroborated by the testimony of Ms. Sak; by the prior statement that Mrs. Villanueva made to
Mr. Ramirez, admitting that TLL moved into her household before she graduated from high
school; and by Exhibit A7, TLL’s signature card from the Schools Plus Credit Union,
establishing that TLL resided in Licensee’s home prior to graduation.

Licensee, on the other hand, testified that TLL moved into his home after she graduated fi'om
high school. However, Licensee’s testimony was not logical and was contradicted by the testimony
of Ms. Sak, the prior statement that Mrs. Villanueva made to Mr. Ramirez, and Exhibit A7.3

Mr. Pells testified that he helped TLL move into Licensee’s home after she graduated
from high school. However, Mr. Pells testimony was contradicted by the testimony of Ms. Sak,
the prior statement that Mrs. Villanueva made to Mr. Ramirez, and Exhibit A7.

I find, more likely than not, that TLL moved into Licensee’s household while she was
still attending high school. I further find that the testimony of Licensee and Mr. Pells will not be
relied upon when it contradicts the evidence presented by the Commission.

Testimony of Mrs. Villanueva

Mrs. Villanueva testified that she could not recall when TLL moved into her household.
However, Mrs. Villanueva’s testimony was contradicted by the prior statement she made to Mr.
Ramirez, admitting that TLL moved into her household before she graduated from high school.

In addition, on cross-examination, Mrs. Villanueva admitted that afler she spoke with Mr.
Ramirez and before she was scheduled to testify, Licensee came to her house and discussed the
case with her, including the testimony already given. Mrs. Villanueva also admitted that on the
advice of Mr. Wiser, she spoke with Mr. Pells about the case before she was scheduled to testify.
3 When confronted with Exhibit A7, Licensee testified that TLL opened the account at Schools Plus
Credit Union prior to moving into his home, despite the fact that the document establishes that TLL was
already residing in Licensee’s home when she opened the account. (Test. of Licensee; Ex. A7.)

In the Matter ofAnthony Villanueva, OAH Case No. 1001765
Page 3 of 15

I find, more likely than not, that Mrs. Villanueva’s testimony was tainted by Licensee and
Mr. Pells. Therefore, except for the initial statement that Mrs. Villanueva made to Mr. Ramirez
and the testimony regarding when she was married to Licensee, Mrs. Villanueva’s testimony will
be disregarded in its entirety.

Testimony of Mrs. Sipe

Mrs. Sipe testified that she had many conversations with TLL about Licensee. However, Mrs.
Sipe’s testimony was contradicted by Exhibit A3 at 1, the prior statement Mrs. Sipe gave to Ms.
Wilson and Ms. VeLeke about the “conversation” that she had with TLL about the sexual relationship.

TLL, on the other hand, testified that she told her friend, Mrs. Sipe, one time about the
sexual relationship that she had with Licensee because she was uncomfortable talking about the
situation. TLL’s testimony was logical and was corroborated by the testimony of Ms. Wilson,
and Exhibit A3 at 1.

I find, more likely than not, that TLL told Mrs. Sipe one time about the sexual relationship
that she had with Licensee. I further find that the testimony of Ms. Sipe will not be relied upon
when it contradicts the testimony of TLL or the other evidence presented by the Commission.

Testimony of Cameron Lane

Mr. Lane testified that he interviewed Licensee by telephone on January 28, 2008,
regarding the allegations, and that immediately following the phone interview, he prepared his
investigative report. Mr. Lane also testified that during the interview, Licensee denied knowing
the student or who the student was, and denied having any direct dealing with her. Mr. Lane
further testified that if Licensee had admitted to knowing the student or having sex with the
student afier graduation, he would have asked Licensee additional questions. Mr. Lane’s
testimony was logical, credible, and corroborated by Exhibit A5 at 2, the investigative report
attributed to Mr. Lane.

Licensee, on the other hand, testified that Mr. Lane asked him five questions: (l) Do you
know [TLL]; (2) What kind of student was she; (3) Did you have sexual relations with [TLL];

(4) Did you have sexual relations with her as a student; and (5) Do you want to admit. Licensee
testified that in response to the questions posed, he told Mr. Lane that TLL was a student of his;
that she was a normal student; that he did not have sexual relations with TLL; that he did not
have sexual relations with her as a student; and that he did not want to admit.

However, Licensee’s testimony was not logical and was contradicted by Exhibit A5 at 2.
Moreover, even if I accept Licensee’s version of the questions posed, by his own admission,
Licensee lied to Mr. Lane when he said that he did not have sexual relations with TLL.4
4 In the hearing, Licensee admitted that he had a sexual relationship with TLL. However, Licensee
claimed that it began in August 1992, after TLL turned l8 and graduated from high school. (Test. of
Licensee.)

In the Matter ofAnthony Villanueva, OAH Case No. 1001765
Page 4 of 15

I find, more likely than not, that on January 28, 2008, during an interview with a
Commission Investigator, Licensee denied knowing TLL or who she was, and denied having any
direct dealing with her. I further find, as stated previously, that the testimony of Licensee will
not be relied upon when it contradicts the evidence presented by the Commission.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Background

l. Licensee has been teaching at Umatilla High School (UHS) since 1980. He has taught
career education, economics, personal finance and U.S. history. He has also been the head
football coach, Athletic Director, and Principal at UHS. (Test. of Licensee, Pells; Exs. A5 at 1,
R1 at 2.)

2. Licensee holds a license in basic health education, basic social studies and standard
physical education. He is currently the Dean of Students at the Clara Brownell Middle School.
(Test. of Licensee; Exs. A5 at 1, R1 at 2.)

3. Licensee was married to Heather Villanueva from 1980 to 2002. They had two
children. During the relevant time period, Licensee and his family resided at 702 Chinook in
Umatilla, Oregon. Licensee and his wife were members of the Schools Plus Federal Credit

i Union. (Test. of Licensee, Mrs. Villanueva, TLL.)

4. TLL was born in April of 1974. She attended UHS fiom 1988 through 1992. TLL
babysat Licensee’s children during high school, beginning in her sophomore year and continuing
through her senior year. TLL became close to the Villanueva family and took vacations with
them. TLL lived with her mother approximately four blocks from Licensee’s home. (Test. of
TLL; Ex. A6.)

5. Mike Pells attended UHS during the relevant time period. He took classes from
Licensee. Mr. Pells played football and was coached by Licensee. Mr. Pells began dating TLL
during her sophomore year. He babysat Licensee’s children during high school. He was part of
the Villanueva family. Mr. Pells regards Licensee as his mentor. (Test. of Pells.)

Behavior

6. TLL took personal finance from Licensee in her junior year.5 During that class,
Licensee handed notes to TLL, claiming that she had a secret admirer. The notes contained clues
as to the identity of the secret admirer. At the end of the school year, Licensee told TLL that he
was her secret admirer. (Test. of TLL.)

7. During the summer of 1991 , Licensee acted on his feelings and began kissing and
fondling TLL. During TLL’s senior year, Licensee began having oral sex with TLL. The sexual
conduct continued throughout TLL’s senior year. (Id.)

5 TLL initially testified that she took personal finance in her sophomore year. However, after TLL
obtained her high school transcripts from UHS, she corrected her testimony. (Test. of TLL; Ex. A6.)
In the Matter 0f Anthony Villanueva, OAH Case No. 1001765

Page 5 of 15

8. Sometime during TLL’s senior year, TLL’s mother got remarried and planned to
move to Montana. The Villanuevas offered to let TLL live in their home as a nanny and finish
high school. TLL’s mother agreed to the arrangement. At the Villanueva’s request, TLL’s
mother provided them with a “permission statement” for their homeowner’s insurance policy.
(1d.; Test. of Sipe.)

9. In February 1992, TLL moved into Licensee’s home. TLL babysat Licensee’s
children in exchange for her room and board. (Test. of TLL.)

10. Subsequently, in February or March 1992, Licensee and TLL attended a basketball
tournament in Pendleton, Oregon. Licensee rented a motel room. Licensee and TLL had sexual
intercourse for the first time. (Id.)

ll. Licensee told TLL that if anyone found out about their sexual relationship, he would
get in trouble because he was a teacher. The sexual relationship continued throughout TLL’s
senior year. (Id.)

12. Ms. Sak is TLL’s aunt. She lives in Hermiston, Oregon, and has for many years.
Sometime prior to TLL’s graduation, Ms. Sak visited TLL in Licensee’s home. TLL was
residing in Licensee’s home at that time. TLL showed Ms. Sak her bedroom. (Test. of Sak.)

13. On May l2, 1992, TLL opened up an account at the Schools Plus Federal Credit
Union. TLL had to provide a driver license or a piece of mail with her current address. On the
signature card, TLL wrote her home address as 702 Chinook, Umatilla, Oregon. TLL also wrote
that her membership eligibility was through “Heather Villanueva” and her relationship to Mrs.
Villanueva was “living at home.” (Test. of TLL; Ex. A7.)

14. TLL graduated from UHS on May 20, 1992. Ms. Sak attended TLL’s graduation.
The Villanueva’s threw a graduation party for TLL. Mr. Pells attended the party. (Test. of Pells,
TLL, Sak.)

After graduation

15. Following graduation, TLL continued to reside in Licensee’s home and watch his
children. In Fall 1992, TLL began attending Blue Mountain Community College (BMCC) in
Pendleton, Oregon. She attended BMCC for three years. Licensee and TLL continued their
sexual relationship. (Test. of TLL.)

l6. On November 12, 1992, Licensee and Mrs. Villanueva added their names to TLL’s
account at the Schools Plus Federal Credit Union. (Ex. A7 at 4.)

17. In October of her junior year at BMCC, TLL moved to Pendleton and ended the
relationship with Licensee. TLL had a new boyfriend. TLL got pregnant and contacted
Licensee for help. TLL had no money. Licensee took TLL to an abortion clinic and paid for the
abortion. (Test. of TLL.)

In the Matter ofAnlhony Villanueva, OAH Case No. 1001765
Page 6 of 15

18. TLL subsequently refused to pay Licensee back for the abortion. Mrs. Villanueva
overheard the conversation and closed TLL’s account at the Schools Plus Federal Credit Union.
(Id.; EX. A7 at 3.)

19. Sometime afier the abortion, Licensee contacted Ms. Sak and told her that his wife
had found out that he had given TLL some money and he needed to get the money back.
Licensee demanded that Ms. Sak pay him the money in cash. Ms. Sak went to her bank and
withdrew the cash. Licensee then showed up at Ms. Sak’s home and picked up the cash. (Test.
of Sak.)

Investigation

20. Sometime in 2001 or 2002, TLL disclosed to Heidi Sipe, that she had been in a
sexual relationship with Licensee when she was a student at UHS. TLL was unaware of Mrs.
Sipe’s position or title with the Umatilla School District. TLL had no idea that Mrs. Sipe would
report the information to anyone. TLL believed the disclosure was confidential. (Test. of Sipe,
TLL; Exs. A3 at 1, A4 at 1.)

21. Mrs. Sipe subsequently reported the disclosure to Brian Say, then Superintendent of
the Umatilla School District. In follow-up conversations, Mr. Say assured Mrs. Sipe that the
matter had been dealt with. (Test. of Sipe; Exs. A3 at 1-2, A4 at 1, A5 at 2-4.)

22. On November 19, 2007, Mrs. Sipe became Interim Superintendent of the Umatilla
School District. Afier determining that an investigation had not been done by the previous
Superintendent, Mrs. Sipe initiated an investigation into TLL’s disclosure. Dianna Veleke,
Principal of Clara Brownell Middle School, and Jean Wilson, Business Manager of the Umatilla
School District, were assigned the investigation. (Test. of Sipe, Wilson, Veleke; Ex. A3.)

23. On November 20, 2007, Mrs. Sipe met with the investigation team and provided
them with the following relevant background information:

e In approximately 2002, in a previous conversation, TLL disclosed to Mrs. Sipe that she
had been in a relationship with Licensee when she was a student at UHS.
0 TLL made the disclosure to Mrs. Sipe during a personal conversation.
e Mrs. Sipe reported the conversation to Mr. Say.
0 Mr. Say later assured Mrs. Sipe that the matter had been dealt with.
(Test. of Sipe, Wilson, Veleke; Ex. A3 at 1.)

24. Sometime prior to November 26, 2007, Mrs. Sipe contacted TLL and informed her
that after the Thanksgiving holiday she would need to speak with the investigation team
regarding the disclosure. (Ex. A3 at 2.)

25. On November 26, 2007, Ms. Wilson and Ms. Veleke interviewed TLL. Prior to
being asked any question, TLL made it clear that the disclosure had been made in confidence
In the Matter QfAnthony Villanuewa, OAH Case No. 1001765
Page 7 of 15

with no intention of it going any further. TLL also stated that she did not want her children
exposed to the information. Ms. Wilson asked TLL the following question:

The purpose of this meeting is to inform you that your name has

been brought up in connection with an alleged incident or

workplace / student conduct that the District considers a serious

issue worthy of further investigation. We are interested in whether

you can provide us information. It has come to our attention that

you may have been involved in an incident with one of our

employees during your high school career. Is there any information

you Wish to share with us regarding this alleged incident?
(Exs. Al at 1-9, A3 at 2.) TLL responded “No.” Ms. Veleke wrote down TLL’s response. (Ex.
Al at 3.)

26. On November 26, 2007, Ms. Wilson and Ms. Veleke interviewed Licensee. Ms.
Wilson asked the questions, and Ms. Veleke wrote down Licensee’s responses. Ms. Wilson
asked Licensee the following questions, in relevant part:

(1) Have there been any incidents of romantic relationships with
students during your career with Umatilla School District?
*****
(4) If no, “Have you ever had a romantic relationship with [TLL]
while she was a student and you were her teacher?”
(Ex. A2 at 1-6, A3 at 3.) T0 question number one, Licensee responded “Nope.” T0 question
number four, Licensee responded “No.” (Ex. A2 at 3-4.)
27. On November 27, 2007, Ms. Veleke prepared an Investigation Findings Report. Ms.
Veleke noted a “strong suspicion” that TLL had more of a story to tell than her response of “no.”
Ms. Veleke concluded there was not enough information to “substantiate a definitive
wrongdoing.” (EX. A3 at 1-3.)
28. On November 30, 2007, Mrs. Sipe wrote a letter to the Commission, stating, in
pertinent part:
Dear Ms. Chamberlain:
I am acting Superintendent of the Umatilla School District. I have
most recently been employed by the District as Assistant
Superintendent, but was named acting Superintendent effective
November 21, 2007. I am writing pursuant to OAR 584-020-0041(3)
to notify the Commission that a licensed teacher of the District may
have engaged in behavior that violates OAR 584-020-0040(4)(t).

In the Matter ofAnthony Villanueva, OAH Case No. 1001765

Page 8 of 15

The District teacher in question is Tony Villanueva. Mr.
Villanueva has been employed by the District since 1980. Several
years ago (approximately 2002), when I was employed by the
District in another capacity, it was reported to me that Mr.
Villanueva had engaged in a romantic relationship with a female
when she was a student at the District, many years ago. At the
time I learned this information, I made no report to TSPC, but did
report the information to District administration. I am unaware as
to whether any report was made to the Commission at that time.
Now that I have been placed in the position of acting
Superintendent, I believe it is my responsibility to ensure that a
report is made, despite the fact that the alleged incident would have
taken place more than thirteen years ago.
The District has endeavored to conduct an investigation into this
matter, at my direction. The former student, now employed by the
District, is, however, unwilling to make any statement related to a
possible relationship with Mr. Villanueva, and he denies that any
such relationship occurred. Accordingly, I do not believe that the
District is in a position to initiate disciplinary action at this time.
(Ex. A4.)

29. Sometime afier the interviews took place, Licensee spoke with TLL and asked about
the interview. TLL told Licensee that she had said nothing. Licensee replied “Good. I am
glad.” (Test. of TLL.)

30. On December 18, 2007, the Commission initiated an investigation and assigned the
case to Cameron Lane, Commission Investigator. Mr. Lane called TLL three times to get her
statement. TLL failed to return the phone calls. (Ex. A5 at 2.)

31. On January 28, 2008, Cameron Lane, Commission Investigator, interviewed
Licensee by telephone. Mr. Lane conducted the interview in Mr. Wiser’s office. Mr. Wiser was
present. Licensee was on the telephone.6 Following the interview, Mr. Lane immediately
prepared his investigative report, which stated:

“On direct questioning, Villanueva denied knowing the student and

had no recollection of the student, only knowing her name because

of the district’s investigation. Villanueva did not recall the student

from the alleged date and states that to this date he does not recall

who she was. He said he now knows her only in passing as she

works in the district, he said he is not friends with her and only
6 Although Mr. Lane advised Licensee that he was recording the conversation, he does not recall if he
actually recorded the interview or not. (Test. of Lane.) Paul Cimino, Commission Investigator, did not
find any evidence of a recording in the Commission’s files and computer. (Test. of Cimino.)
In the Matter ofAnthony Villanueva, OAI-I Case No. 1001765
Page 9 of 15

knows who she is. He states he has not had any direct dealing with
her.”
“He denies every [sic] having a sexual relationship with any
student.”

(Test. of Lane; Ex. A5 at 2.)

32. In June 2009, the Commission assigned the case to Paul Cimino, Commission
Investigator. On June 2, 2009, Mr. Cimino interviewed Mrs. Sipe, who stated the following, in
pertinent part:

0 In 2002, the victim disclosed the information during a personal conversation.

c She reported the information to Superintendent Brian Say. Mr. Say already knew about it
because he was friends with the victim’s husband.

0 She and the victim had a social relationship but not since she reported the allegations.

' She believes the victim will not talk.

0 She does not know the timeline. She does not know if the relationship started when the
victim was still a student or not.

v The victim was definitely under l8 when she moved in with the Villanueva family.

(Ex. A5 at 1-4.) Mr. Cimino was unable to locate TLL for interview. (Id. at l.)

33. In November 2010, prior to speaking to Licensee and Mr. Pells regarding the case,
Mrs. Villanueva admitted to Mr. Ramirez that TLL had moved into the Villanueva household
before she graduated from high school. (Test. of Mrs. Villanueva.)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

l. Between 1988 and 1992, Licensee engaged in a sexual relationship with a student,
TLL, which constitutes gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b), OAR 584-020-
0040(4)(t), and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5).

2. On January 28, 2008, during an interview with a Commission investigator, Licensee
denied knowing TLL, having any direct dealing with her, or knowing her name, which
constitutes gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b), OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c),
and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5).

3. Licensee’s license should be revoked.

OPINION

The Commission contends that Licensee engaged in gross neglect of duty and should
have his license revoked. The Commission has the burden of proving by a preponderance of

evidence that Licensee’s conduct constituted gross neglect of duty. ORS l83.450(2), Reguero v.
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission, 312 Or 402, 418 (1991) (burden is on TSPC in
In the Matter ofAnthony Villanueva, OAH Case No. 1001765
Page 10 of 15

disciplinary action); Cook v. Employment Division, 47 Or App 437 (1980) (the standard in
administrative hearings is preponderance of the evidence). Proof by a preponderance of the
evidence means that the fact finder is convinced that the facts asserted are more likely true than
false. Riley Hill General Contractor v. Tandy Corp, 303 Or 390 (1987).

Gross neglect of duty — sex with a student

OAR 584-020-0040 is titled “Grounds for Disciplinary Action” and provides, in relevant
part:

(4) Gross neglect of duty is any serious and material inattention to
or breach of professional responsibilities. The following may be
admissible as evidence of gross neglect of duty. Consideration
may include but is not limited to:
41* ** *
(f) Any sexual conduct with a student;
*** **
(n) Substantial deviation from professional standards of
competency set forth in OAR 584-020-0010 through 584-
020-0030[.]
OAR 584-020-0010 is titled “The Competent Educator” and provides, in material part:
The educator demonstrates a commitment t0:
*>l< ** *
(5) Use professional judgment[.]

TLL attended UHS from 1988 through 1992. During her junior year at UHS, TLL took
personal finance from Licensee. In that class, Licensee handed notes to TLL, claiming that she
had a secret admirer. At the end of the school year, Licensee told TLL that he was her secret
admirer. During the summer of 1991, Licensee acted on his feelings and began kissing and
fondling TLL. /

During TLL’s senior year at UHS, Licensee began having oral sex with TLL. In
February 1992, TLL moved into Licensee’s household. Shortly thereafier, in February or March
1992, Licensee and TLL attended a basketball tournament in Pendleton, Oregon, and engaged in
sexual intercourse for the first time. The sexual relationship continued throughout TLL’s senior
year at UHS.

In the Matter ofAnthony Villanueva, OAH Case No. 1001765
Page ll of 15

Accordingly, I find, by a preponderance of the evidence that between 1988 and 1992, Licensee
engaged in sexual conduct with a student, TLL, which constitutes gross neglect of duty in
violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(f), and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR
584-020-0010(5).

Licensee argued that TLL’s testimony was not credible. As set forth in the credibility
finding, I found to the contrary. Thus, Licensee’s argument is unpersuasive.

Gross neglect of duty — lying to an investigator

OAR 584-020-0040 provides, in relevant part:

(4) Gross neglect of duty is any serious and material inattention to
or breach of professional responsibilities. The following may be
admissible as evidence of gross neglect of duty. Consideration
may include but is not limited to:
**** >1=
(c) Knowing falsification of any document or knowing
misrepresentation directly related to licensure,
employment, or professional duties;
>l< * >l< * *
(n) Substantial deviation from professional standards of
competency set forth in OAR 584-020-0010 through 584-
020-0030[.]
OAR 584-020-0010 provides, in material part:
The educator demonstrates a commitment to:
* * ***
(5) Use professional judgrnent[.]

On January 28, 2008, Mr. Lane, Commission Investigator, interviewed Licensee
regarding the allegations involving TLL. During the interview, Licensee denied knowing TLL,
denied knowing who TLL was, and denied having any direct dealing with TLL.

By denying any knowledge of or dealing with his former student, TLL, Licensee failed to
use professional judgment, substantially deviated from professional standards of competency,
and engaged in a knowing misrepresentation directly related to licensure, employment, and
professional duties.

In the Matter ofAnthony Villanueva, OAH Case No. 1001765
Page 12 of 15

Therefore, I find by a preponderance of the evidence that Licensee engaged in gross
neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c), and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it
incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5).

Licensee argued that Mr. Lane’s testimony was not credible. However, as set forth in the
credibility finding, I found to the contrary. As such, Licensee’s argument is unpersuasive.

Discipline

ORS 342.175 provides, in pertinent part:

(1) The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may suspend
or revoke the license or registration of a teacher or administrator,
discipline a teacher or administrator or suspend or revoke the right
of any person to apply for a license or registration if the license,
registrant or applicant has held a license or registration at any time
within five years prior to issuance of the notice of charges under
ORS 342.176 based on the following:
*****

(b) Gross neglect of duty[.]

ORS 342.177 provides, in relevant part:

(3) The commission shall render its decision at its next regular
meeting following the hearing. If the decision of the commission
is that the charge described in ORS 342.175(1) has been proven,
the commission may take any or all of the following disciplinary
action against the person charged:
(a) Issue a public reprimand.
(b) Place the person on probation for a period not to exceed
four years and subject to such conditions as the commission
considers necessary.
(c) Suspend the license or registration of the teacher or
administrator for a period not to exceed one year.
(d) Revoke the license or registration of the teacher or
administrator.

As indicated above, the Commission may discipline a teacher for gross neglect of duty.
After reviewing the record in its entirety, l propose that Licensee should have his license
revoked.

In the Matter ofAnthony Villanueva, OAH Case No. 1001765
Page l3 of 15

ORDER
I propose the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission issue the following order:
The Amended Notice issued on September 10, 2010 is AFFIRMED.
Dove L. Gutman
Senior Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
EXCEPTIONS
The proposed order is the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation to the Teacher
Standards and Practices Commission. If you disagree with any part of this proposed order, you
may file written objections, called "exceptions," to the proposed order and present written
argument in support of your exceptions. Written argument and exceptions must be filed within
fourteen (14) days after mailing of the proposed order with the:
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
465 Commercial Street, NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
The Commission need not allow oral argument. The Executive Director may permit oral
argument in those cases in which the Director believes oral argument may be appropriate or
helpful to the Commissioners in making a final determination. If oral argument is allowed, the
Commission will inform you of the time and place for presenting oral argument.
In the Matter ofAnthony Villanueva, OAH Case No. 1001765
Page l4 of 15

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

On January 7, 2011 I mailed the foregoing Proposed Order issued on this date in OAH Case No.
1001765.
By: First Class and Certified Mail
Certified Mail Receipt # 7009 0820 0001 6777 2716
Ralph Wiser
Attorney at Law
Wiser 8L Associates

1 Centerpointe Dr Ste 570
Lake Oswego OR 97035
By: First Class Mail

George F inch

Teacher Standards & Practices Commission

465 Commercial Street NE

Salem OR 97301
Raul Ramirez
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice

1162 Court St NE

Salem OR 97301-4096

Pam Arcari
Administrative Specialist

Hearing Coordinator

In the Matter ofAnthony Villanueva, OAl-I Case No. 1001765
Page 15 of 15