BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of the )
Teaching License of ) FINAL ORDER
)

THOMAS J. HOLLCRAFT ) Case No. 901201

On February 22, 2010, Senior Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Dove L. Gutman
issued a Proposed Order in this case.

The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission adopts in its entirety the Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order contained in the attached Proposed Order.

ORDER

The Commission adopts the Proposed Order in its entirety and denies Hollcraﬁ’s
application for a Substitute Teaching License.

Dated this /E day of May 2010.

TEACHER STANDARD AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
By. M/
Victoria Cham cutive Director
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 6O days of the service of this order. Judicial review is
pursuant to the provision of ORS 183.482 to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
PAGE l — FINAL ORDER — THOMAS JAMES HOLLCRAFT

QV'I‘WZZI\JL,::?£T”T
1 - ‘g i“? 5.73.335 iii-3:: t
i
FEB 2 3 ZUlU g
BEFORE THE OFFICE 0F ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS g Y's-acre’ Q?L,W_.m_.g v,‘ j
STATE 0F OREGON ipa 5
for the . W-.. V.....i..-...f.e..._..-.
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF: ) PROPOSED ORDER
)
THOMAS J. HOLLCRAFT, ) OAH Case No.: 901201
Respondent )
HISTORY OF THE CASE
On June l7, 2009, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (Commission)
issued a Notice of Denial of Teaching License and Opportunity for Hearing to Thomas J.
Hollcraft (Respondent). On July 16, 2009, Respondent requested a hearing.
On July 23, 2009, the Commission referred the hearing request to the Ofﬁce of
Administrative Hearings (OAH). Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Dove L. Gutman was
assigned to preside at hearing.
On October 8, 2009, a pre-hearing telephone conference was held. ALJ Gutman
presided. Respondent represented himself. Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Raul Ramirez
represented the Commission. Lynn Beaton appeared on behalf of the Commission. On October
9, 2009, ALJ Gutrnan issued a Pre-Hearing Order setting forth the issues and schedule for ’
hearing.
On January l3, 2010, a hearing was held in Salem, Oregon. ALJ Gutrnan presided.
Respondent represented himself. AAG Ramirez represented the Commission. Marie Marclor,
Respondent’s \m'fe; Joe Ortiz, Commission Investigator; Heidi Reinhardt, Corrnnission
employee; Patti Liddell, Commission employee; Lynn Beaton, Commission Representative; and
Respondent all provided testimony. The record closed on January 13, 2010.
ISSUES
l. Whether Respondent failed to demonstrate that he has sufﬁcient mental or physical
health to hold a license. ORS 342.143(2); OAR 584-050-0006(3)(d).
2. Whether, on or about January 27, 2009, Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty
in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c).
3. Whether Respondent’s application for a substitute teaching license shall be denied.
In the Matter of Thomas Hollcraft, OAH Case No. 901201‘
Page l of 8

EVIDENTIARY RULING

The Commission’s Exhibits A1 through A5 were admitted into the record over
Respondent’s objections. Respondent’s Exhibits R1 through R7, R9, and R11 through R18 were
admitted into the record without obj ection.l Respondent’s Exhibit R10 was excluded as
cumulative.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Background

1. Respondent is a 73-year-old retired teacher. He has been diagnosed with dementia. In
October 2008, Respondent fell and had a brain bleed. Since that time, Respondent has suffered
signiﬁcant and progressive decline in cognitive ability. (Test. of Marckx; test. of Hollcraft; Exs.
A3, A4.)

2. On January 27, 2009, Respondent went to the Comrnission’s ofﬁces and ﬁlled out an
Application for Educator License Form C-l (Application). Question seven on page four of the
Application states: “Have you ever been disciplined by any public agency responsible for
licensure of any kind, including but not limited to educational licensure?” Respondent answered
“N0” t0 the question. Respondent signed and ﬁled the Application with the Commission. (Test.
of Liddell; Ex. A2.)

3. On January 27, 2009, Patti Liddell, the Commission’s Public Service Representative,
spoke with Respondent regarding the fees that needed to be paid with the Application.
Respondent had difficulty understanding what Ms. Liddell was talking about. Ms. Liddell had to
explain things several times to Respondent. (Test. of Liddell; Ex. A2.)

Mental or physical health
4. Marie Marckx is Respondent’s wife. She drives Respondent to his appointments
because Respondent is no longer allowed to drive. She also attends Respondent’s appointments
because Respondent is unable to recall what is told to him. (Test. of Marckx.)
5. In March 2009, Ms. Marckx contacted the Commission and spoke with Joe Ortiz, the
Commission’s investigator. Ms. Marckx told Mr. Ortiz that Respondent was no longer
competent to teach. Mr. Ortiz requested that Ms. Marckx have Respondent’s physicians provide
letters to the Commission regarding Respondent’s health. (Test. of Ortiz; test. of Marckx.)
6. Seth Rosenfeld, MD, is Respondent’s primary care physician. On March 20, 2009,
Dr. Rosenfeld provided the following statement to Ms. Marckx:
As you know, I am writing as Thomas Hollcraﬁ’s primary care
physician. I understand that he has an interest in returning to his
previous vocation of substitute teaching.

l Respondent did not submit Exhibit R8.

In the Matter of Thomas Hollcraﬁ, OAH Case No. 901201

Page 2 of 8

In my role as Mr. Hollcratt’s primary physician, I have treated him
for the past year and a half for several signiﬁcant medical
problems, which includes a signiﬁcant and progressive cognitive
decline. I believe his dementia would prevent him from being able
to reliably contribute meaningfully to the classroom. I believe that
despite his sincere desire to do so, it would be unwise for Mr.
Hollcraft to pursue teaching, for his health and for the well-being
of his students.

(Ex. A3.)

7. Greg Zarelli, MD, is Respondent’s neurologist. On March 25, 2009, Dr. Zarelli
provided the following statement to Mr. Ortiz:

This letter will verify that Thomas Hollcraft is a patient of mine
followed in the Neurology Clinic at Kaiser Sunnyside Medical
Center. Mr. Hollcraft has been a patient of mine since 2000 and he
is currently followed by me for a history of seizures.
It is my understanding that Mr. Hollcraﬁ is applying through your
organization to substitute teach. I have a concern about that as I
have found Mr. Hollcraft to have evidence of cognitive impairment

i ' at recent clinic visits. In my medical opinion it may not be safe to
allow him to manage a classroom unsupervised. If you chose [sic]
to allow him to substitute teach, I would recommend that he ﬁrst
undergo a thorough neuropsychological evaluation to assess him
for cognitive dysfunction.

(EX. A4.)

8. Respondent disagrees with his doctors and his wife. Respondent believes that his
dementia has not worsened. Respondent has ordered medication to help with brain function.
(Test. of Hollcraft; Ex. R16.)

Previous discipline

9. On or about April 13, 2002, Respondent signed an Agreed Order of Stayed
Suspension with the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Washington. (Ex. Al.)

10. When Respondent ﬁlled out the Application, he knew he had been previously
disciplined by a public agency. Respondent deliberately answered “No” to question seven on the
Application because he did not want his license held up. (Test. of Hollcraﬂ.)

In the Matter of Thomas Hollcraft, OAH Case No. 901201
Page 3 of 8

CONCLUSIONS 0F LAW
l. Respondent failed to demonstrate that he has sufﬁcient mental or physical health to
hold a license.
2. On or about January 27, 2009, Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty in
violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c).
3. Respondent’s application for a substitute teaching license shall be denied.
OPINION
Mental or physical health
Respondent contends that he has sufﬁcient mental or physical health to hold a teaching
license. As the proponent of this position, Respondent has the burden of proof. ORS 183.450(2)
and (5); Harris v. SAIF, 292 Or 683, 690 (1982) (general rule regarding allocation of burden of
proof is that the burden is on the proponent of the fact or position); 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). As set forth below, Respondent has failed to meet his burden.
ORS 342.143 is titled “Issuance of licenses and registrations” and provides, in pertinent
part:
(2) The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may require
an applicant for a teaching, personnel service or administrative
license *** to furnish evidence satisfactory to the commission of
good moral character, mental and physical health, and such other
evidence as it may deem necessary to establish the applicant’s
ﬁtness to serve as a teacher or administrator.
OAR 584-050-0006 is titled “Criteria for Denying Issuance or Reinstatement of
Licenses” and provides, in material part:
(l) The Executive Director may deny issuance of a license,
certiﬁcate or registration; renewal of a license, certiﬁcate or
registration; or reinstatement of a license, certiﬁcate or registration
under the conditions set forth in subsection (3) below.
Ill 4‘ ll‘ 1t 4t
(3) Notice of denial and right to a hearing may be issued by the
Executive Director when any of the following conditions exist:
In the Matter of Thomas Hollcraft, OAH Case No. 901201
Page 4 of 8

‘I! i ‘It ‘I! 1k
(d) The Executive Director has evidence that the applicant
may lack ﬁtness to serve as an educator [.]

In March 2009, Ms. Marckx, Respondent’s wife, informed the Commission that
Respondent was no longer competent to teach. The Commission requested that Ms. Marckx
provide evidence of Respondent’s mental and physical health.

On March 20 and March 25, 2009, Ms. Marckx submitted medical documentation
conﬁrming that Respondent’s cognitive impairment had progressed to a level where Respondent
was unable to contribute meaningfully to the classroom and unable to manage a classroom
unsupervised.

I ﬁnd, by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent failed to establish that he
possesses sufﬁcient mental and physical health to serve as an educator. Consequently, the
Commission may deny Respondent’s application for a teaching license.

Gross neglect of duty

The Commission contends that Respondent committed gross neglect of duty by
answering “No” to question seven on the application. The Commission has the burden of
proving by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent’s conduct constituted gross neglect of

‘duty. ORS 183.450(2), Reguero v. Teacher Standards and Practices Commission, 312 0r 402,
418 (1991) (burden is on TSPC in 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).
As set forth below, the Commission has met its burden.

OAR 584-020-0040 is titled “Grounds for Disciplinary Action” and provides, in relevant
part:
(3) The Commission may initiate proceedings to suspend or revoke
the license or registration of an education under ORS 342.175 or
deny a license or registration to an applicant under ORS 342.143
who:
4 I! 1|: * *
(b) Is charged with knowingly making any false statement
in the application for a license or registration;
(c) ls charged with gross neglect of duty;
* * =k * =8
In the Matter of Thomas Hollcraﬁ, OAH Case No. 901201
Page 5 of 8

(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‘ * ‘k * *
(c) Knowing falsiﬁcation of any document or knowing
misrepresentation directly related to licensure,
\ employment, or professional duties[.]

On January 27, 2009, Respondent ﬁlled out an Application for Educator License and
answered “No” to the following question: “Have you ever been disciplined by any public
agency responsible for licensure of any kind, including but not limited to educational licensure?”

The evidence in the record establishes that Respondent knew he had been previously
disciplined by a public agency when he ﬁlled out the Application. The evidence further
establishes that Respondent deliberately answered “No” to question seven on the Application
because he did not want his license held up.

I ﬁnd, by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent knowingly made a false
statement on his Application. As such, Respondent engaged in gross neglect of- duty. Therefore,
the Commission may deny Respondent’s Application for Educator License.

ORDER

I propose the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission issue the following order:

The Notice of Denial of Teaching License and Opportunity for Hearing issued on June
17, 2009 is AFFIRMED.

Dove L. Gutman
Senior Administrative Law Judge
Ofﬁce of Administrative Hearings

ISSUANCE AND MAILING DATE: Februgy 22, 2010
In the Matter of Thomas Hollcraft, OAH Case No. 901201
Page 6 of 8

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 (l4) 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 of Thomas Hollcraﬂ, OAI-I Case No. 901201 -
Page 7 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
W*_w____—_—_—__________——l ‘

On February 22, 2010, I mailed the foregoing Proposed Order in OAH Case No. 901201.
By: First Class and Certiﬁed Mail

Certiﬁed Mail Receipt #7009 0820 0001 6776 7514
Thomas Hollcraﬁ
PO Box 30507
Portland OR 97294-3507

By: First Class Mail

Lynn Beaton

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

Carol Buntjer
Administrative Specialist

Hearing Coordinator
In the Matter of Thomas Hollcrqt, OAH Case No. 901201

Page 8 of 8