BEFORE THE
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
STATE OF OREGON

IN THE MATTER OF: ) FINAL ORDER ADOPTING RULING

) ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JON M. RENN ER ) DETERMINATION AND PROPOSED

) ORDER

)

) OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00020

This matter came before the Commission during its meeting of April 7, 2017 to consider
the Ruling on Motion For Summary Determination and Proposed Order issued by ALJ Dove
Gutman on March 22, 2017. Respondent did not ﬁle exceptions to the ruling and proposed order
After review of the ﬁles and record herein, the Commission hereby adopts the Ruling and
Proposed Order as the Final Order.
FINAL ORDER
For the foregoing reason, Respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded
It is so Ordered this 1.3% day of August, 2017
Trent Danowski, Co-Interim Executive Director
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
NOTICE OF APPEAL OR RIGHTS

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE
OBTAINED BY FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF THIS
ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ORS 183.482 TO THE OREGON
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter ofJon Renner
Page l of l

BEFORE THE OFFICE 0F ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF OREGON
for the
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF: ) RULING ON MOTION FOR
) SUMMARY DETERMINATION
) AND PROPOSED ORDER
)
JON M RENNER ) OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00020
) Agency Case No.
HISTORY OF THE CASE

On September 27, 2016, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC or
Commission) issued a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Jon Martin Renner (Respondent).
On September 27, 2016, Respondent requested a hearing.

On October 20, 2016, the Commission referred the hearing request to the Ofﬁce of
Administrative Hearings (OAH). The OAH assigned Senior Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Jennifer H. Rackstraw to preside at hearing.

On November 30, 2016, ALJ Rackstraw convened a prehearing telephone conference.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Raul Ramirez appeared and represented the Commission.
Respondent appeared and represented himself. During the prehearing, ALJ Rackstraw set dates
for the Commission to ﬁle a Motion for Summary Determination (December 30, 2016),
Respondent to ﬁle a Response (January 13, 2017), and the Commission to ﬁle a Reply (January
20, 2017). ALJ Rackstraw also scheduled the hearing for April 19, 2017.

On December 30, 2016, Mr. Ramirez ﬁled the Commission’s Motion for Summary
Determination (MSD) and attachments.

On February 3, 2017, Attorney Albert Kennedy, on behalf of Respondent, ﬁled a Notice
of Appearance and Respondent’s Response to the Commission’s MSD.

1

On February 10, 2017, ALJ Rackstraw notiﬁed the parties that she would accept i
Respondent’s late response to the Commission’s MSD, and that the Commission had until
February 20, 2017 to ﬁle its Reply. On February 16, 2017, Mr. Ramirez ﬁled the Commission’s
Reply.

On March 13, 2017, the case was reassigned to Senior ALJ Dove L. Gutman for ruling on
the MSD. On March 14, 2017, ALJ Gutman closed the record and took the matter under
advisement.

In the Matter afJon MRenner — OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00020
Page 1 of I 3

ISSUES

1. Whether there are any genuine issues as to any material facts and, if not, whether the
Commission is entitled to a favorable ruling as a matter of law. OAR 137-003-0580.

2. Whether Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty. ORS 342.175(1)(b); OAR
584-020-0040(4)(n).

3. If so, whether Respondent should receive a public reprimand. ORS 342.175(l)(b).

DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED

The following documents were reviewed and considered in this matter: The
Commission’s MSD, Exhibits l through 6, Respondent’s Response, the Commission‘s Reply,
and the pleadings.

FINDINGS 0F FACT
Background

1. Respondent has been licensed with the Commission since July 1, 1974. (MSD at 2;
Notice of Opportunity for Hearing at 1.)

2. Respondent previously held a Standard Teaching License, with endorsements in Basic
Technology Education (018) and Standard Social Studies (020), valid from September 5, 2011,
through September 4, 2016. (Ex. 1.)

3. In February 2015, Respondent was employed as a high school teacher by the Sisters
School District (the District) and the High Desert Education Service District (HDESD).l (Exs. 2,
6.)

Respondent ’s behavior

r 4. On February 12, 2015, Sisters High School (SHS) Principal Joe Hosang notiﬁed
Deschutes Cormty Deputy Neil Mackey, the School Resource Deputy for the District, that one of
the teachers at SHS, Respondent, had reportedly slapped a student, AM, on the back of her head
while in class that morning.2

On February 12, 2015, Deputy Mackey interviewed AM with her father, MM, present.
AM reported that she was in her second period class (9:15 am to 10: 15 am) that morning, taught
by Respondent, and was working on a project and talking with her cousin, CM. AM reported
l HDESD is a publicly-funded agency that partners with local school districts to provide education l
services at a regional level. The services range from business, legal and administrative support to school ‘
improvement efforts and special education programs. See, www.hdesd.org.

2 AM‘s father ﬁled the complaint with the District. (Exs. 3, 4.)
In the Matter of Jon M Renner - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00020
Page 2 of 13

7 ﬁ
that she was also listening to music with one earphone in. AM reported that Respondent came
up behind her and may have said something, but she was not sure. AM reported that she took
her earphone out and that Respondent then slapped her on the back of her head with what she
thought was an open hand. AM reported that the slap was not hard enough to hurt, but was done
with enough force to move her head a little.3 AM reported that Respondent said something like,
“Just because you’re a girl doesn’t mean you can’t be slapped. . .,” or words to that effect. AM
reported that she was upset over this, so she closed her computer down and leﬁ the classroom.
AM reported that she walked around for a few minutes to calm down, and then returned to the
classroom and texted her father. Deputy Mackey looked at MM’s text messages, which
conﬁrmed that at 9:45 am, MM received a text from AM that said, “0h, I didn’t get in trouble.
But last time I did I was just mad. Then my teacherjust like smacked me not hard but still...”
MM told the deputy that upon receiving the text, he left work and drove to SHS to see what was
going on.

On February 12, 2015, Deputy Mackey interviewed CM, who reported that she was in the
second period class with AM. CM reported that she was working to the right of AM on her own ‘
project. CM reported that Respondent was in the front of the classroom addressing the class, and
that he got up and walked behind both of them. CM reported that she thought AM had one
headphone in, and that AM was talking to her. CM reported that Respondent slapped AM on the
back of the head and said something like, “Girls get dumb slaps too. ..,” or words to that effect.
CM reported that Respondent then walked off and was talking to the other two volunteer
instructors in the classroom. CM reported that AM did not say anything but shut down her

1 computer and walked out of the classroom. CM reported that AM returned a few minutes later.

On February 12, 2015, Deputy Mackey interviewed Respondent, who reported that he did
not slap AM on the back of the head. Respondent reported that AM had been continually texting
on her phone during class, and that he had issued several warnings, both to the class in general,
and to AM speciﬁcally, not to text while in class and to do their work. Respondent reported that
at one point he did walk up behind AM, who had one earphone in. Respondent reported that as
he approached her he again reminded the class that they needed to stay on task and do their
work, not text on their phones or use their computers to access social media. Respondent
reported that he “brushed” the back of AM’s head and said, “Just because you’re a girl doesn’t
mean you can’t get a dope slap. . .,” or words to that effect.4 Respondent reported that he brushed
the back of AM’s head and made his comment in an attempt to convince AM that she needed to
do her work, and to not be texting, talking or accessing social media on the open computer she
was using. Respondent reported that it was an “affectionate reminder” for AM to do her work.
Respondent reported that AM left the classroom shortly thereafter and he did not see her return.
Respondent reported that he has used the same management style in the past with other students
and that there has never been any prior issues in doing so. (Ex. 4.)

3 AM told a friend and classmate, JK, that Respondent had “tapped” her on the back of her head. (Ex. 4 at
6-)

‘l Deputy Mackey also interviewed two volunteer teachers that were present in the classroom. Neither
teacher saw the physical contact between Respondent and AM. (Ex. 4 at 7, 10.)

In the Matter ofJon M Renner - OAH Case N0. 2016-ABC-00020

Page 3 nf I 3

5. Respondent was subsequently placed on paid administrative leave pending the
District’s investigation. (Exs. 5, 6.)
6. On February 20, 2015, Jayel Hayden, the Director of Human Resources with HDESD,
interviewed Respondent regarding the incident. (Exs. 2, 3.)
7. On March 6, 2015, Mr. Hayden issued a Written Reprimand and Directive to
Respondent, ﬁnding that Respondent’s conduct had violated the District’s policies and
obligations by failing to demonstrate good judgment and by failing to treat students respectfully
and appropriately. Mr. Hayden also directed Respondent to treat students appropriately and
respectfully, and to not physically touch students unless for their safety or the safety of others.
Mr. Hayden warned Respondent that any failure to follow the directive may lead to discipline up
to and including dismissal. (Ex. 3.) In the letter of reprimand, Mr. Hayden opined, in part:
On February 12, 2015, a parent ﬁled a complaint with the district
against you. They alleged that you slapped the student on the back
of the head and made the statement, “Just because you are a girl
does not mean you cannot get a dope slap.”
During our meeting on February 20, 2015, you conﬁrmed that you
patted the student with your open hand on the back of the head and
made the comment as stated above. The District has concluded
that you have failed to demonstrate the behavior and good
judgment we expect from you as a school district employee and
that is in keeping the District’s obligations to treat students
respectfully and appropriately.

(Ex. 3; emphasis added.) Respondent signed the letter on March 20, 2015. (Ia'.)

8. On March 19, 2015, Jim Golden, the Superintendent of the District, notiﬁed the
Commission of Respondent’s conduct. (Ex. 2.)

9. No criminal charges were ﬁled against Respondent. (Ex. 4 at 6.)

Commission investigation

10. On April 8, 2016, Burney Krauger, investigator with the Commission, was assigned
to conduct a follow-up investigation. (Ex. 5.)

11. On July 7, 2016, Mr. Krauger interviewed Respondent regarding the incident.
Respondent reported that AM was lying on the ﬂoor talking to a friend, and using her cell phone.
Respondent reported that he approached her as she was lying on the ﬂoor, bent down behind her
and in a low voice told her to “Knock it off.” Respondent reported that AM looked at him in an
angry and disgusted look. Respondent reported that he said “I mean it, put it (phone) away, get
on task.” Respondent reported that as he was backing away from her, he told her “Just because
you’re a girl doesn’t mean you can’t get a dope slap,” and he “brushed” the back of her head
In the Matter of Jon M Renner - OAH Case N0. 2016-ABC-00020
Page 4 0f13

with his hand.” (Exs. 5, 6.)

12. Respondent “brushed” the back of AM‘s head to get her attention and remind her to
pay attention in class.5 Respondent believes that his “gentle reminder” went almost unnoticed by
other students in the class. (Ex. 6.)

CONCLUSIONS 0F LAW

l. There are no genuine issues as to any material facts and the Commission is entitled to
a favorable ruling as a matter of law.

2. Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty.

3. Respondent should receive a public reprimand.

OPINION
I . Standard of Review for Motion for Summary Determination
The Commission contends that its MSD should be granted. The Commission contends
that there are no genuine issues of material fact that remain to be determined and that it is
entitled to a ruling as a matter of law. Respondent contends to the contrary.
OAR 137-003-0580 addresses motions for summary determination. It provides, in
relevant part:
(6) The administrative law judge shall grant the motion for a
summary determination if:
(a) The pleadings, afﬁdavits, supporting documents (including any
interrogatories and admissions) and the record in the contested
case show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that
is relevant to resolution of the legal issue as to which a decision is
sought; and
(b) The agency or party ﬁling the motion is entitled to a favorable
ruling as a matter of law.
(7) The administrative law judge shall consider all evidence in a
manner most favorable to the non-moving party or non-moving
agency.
(8) Each party or the agency has the burden of producing evidence
on any issue relevant to the motion as to which that party or the
agency would have the burden of persuasion at the contested case

5 A presentation by another student was taking place in the classroom at the time of the incident. (Ex. 6.)

In the Matter of Jon M Renner - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00020

Page 5 of I3

hearing.

* * * * *
(l2) If the administrative lawjudge’s ruling on the motion resolves
all issues in the contested case, the administrative law judge shall
issue a proposed order in accordance with OAR 137-003-0645
incorporating that ruling * * *.

As indicated above, I review the evidence in the manner most favorable to Respondent,
the nonrnoving party. In doing so, I ﬁnd that there are no genuine issues of material fact that
remain to be determined and the Commission is entitled to a ruling as a matter of law.

2. Gross neglect of duty

The Commission contends that Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty.
Respondent contends to the contrary. I agree with the Commission.

ORS 342.175 is titled “Grounds for discipline; reinstatement” and provides, in part:

(l) 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 licensee,
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;

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

*****
(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 part:
In the Matter of Jon M Renner - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00020
Page 6 of I 3

The educator demonstrates a commitment to:
( 1) Recognize the worth and dignity of all persons and respect for
each individual; V
*****
(5) Use professional judgment;
OAR 584-020-0015 is titled “Curriculum and Instruction” and provides, in part:
(2) The competent teacher demonstrates:
*****
(e) Skill in the selection and use of teaching techniques conducive
to student learning.
OAR 584-020-0025 is titled “Management Skills” and provides, in part:
(2) The competent teacher demonstrates skills in:
*****
(e) Using district lawful and reasonable rules and regulations.

As indicated above, gross neglect of duty is any serious and material inattention to or
breach of professional responsibilities, including substantial deviation ﬁ'om professional
standards of competency set forth in OAR 584-020-0010 through 5 84-020-0030.

On February 12, 2015, student AM was being disruptive in class by using her cell phone
and talking to another student. 1n response to AM’s behavior, Respondent approached AM from
behind, bent down and told her to “Knock it off.” When AM looked at Respondent, purportedly
in anger and disgust, Respondent said “I mean it, put it away, get on task.” Respondent then
“brushed” the back of AM’s head with his open hand and told AM, “Just because you’re a girl
doesn’t mean you can’t get a dope slap.” AM was upset by Respondent’s actions and left the
classroom.

The District investigated Respondent’s conduct and on February 20, 2015, issued a
written reprimand and directive to Respondent, ﬁnding that Respondent’s conduct had violated
the District’s policies and obligations by failing to demonstrate good judgment and by failing to
treat students respectfully and appropriately. The District also directed Respondent to not
physically touch students unless for their safety or the safety of others, and to treat students
appropriately and respectfully.

In the Matter of Jon M Renner - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00020
Page 7 0f I 3

Dignity and respect

Pursuant to OAR 584-020-0010(1), the competent educator is required to demonstrate a
commitment to recognize the worth and dignity of all persons and respect for each individual.

As stated above, on February 12, 2015, AM was being disruptive in class by using her
cell phone and talking to another student. In order to get AM’s attention and remind her to pay
attention in class, Respondent “brushed” the back of AM’s head with his open hand and told AM
“Just because you’re a girl doesn’t mean you ean’t get a dope slap."

“Dope” is deﬁned as “a dull-wittcd, obtuse, or stupid person: Nitwit. Webster 's Third
New Int ‘l Dictionary 674 (unabridged ed 2002).

Respondent’s statement to AM singled her out based on her gender, and implied that AM
was a stupid person deserving of a “dope” slap. Respondent’s statement was inappropriate and
disrespectful to AM. Respondent’s statement failed to recognize the worth and dignity of AM.

Additionally, Respondent’s actions in physically touching AM, whether by “brushing,”
“patting,” “tapping,” or “slapping” the back of AM’s head to get her attention was inappropriate
physical contact and was disrespectful to AM. Respondent, as a learned educator, had more
appropriate, respectful, and effective teaching methods at his disposal to obtain and redirect
AM’s attention in the classroom. Respondent’s actions failed to recognize the worth and dignity
of AM.

I ﬁnd that Respondent violated OAR 584-020-0010( 1). l further ﬁnd that Respondent’s
actions were a substantial deviation from professional standards of competency.

Professional judgment

Pursuant to OAR 584-020-0010(5), the competent educator is required to demonstrate a
commitment to use professional judgment.

As indicated above, Respondent’s conduct singled AM out based on her gender and
implied that AM was a stupid person, deserving a dope slap. Respondent’s conduct was
inappropriate and disrespectful to AM. In addition, Respondent’s conduct caused AM to become
upset and leave the classroom. Respondent’s conduct exhibited a signiﬁcant lapse in judgment
as an educator. Respondent failed to use professional judgment in dealing with AM’s disruptive
behavior in class.

I ﬁnd that Respondent violated OAR 584-020-0010(5). l further ﬁnd that Respondent’s
actions were a substantial deviation from professional standards of competency.

Teaching techniques

Pursuant to OAR 584-020-0015(2)(e), the competent educator is required to demonstrate
skill in the selection and use of teaching techniques conducive to student learning.

In the Matter ofJon M Renner - OAH Case N0. 2016-ABC-00020
Page 8 of 13

As previously stated, in order to get AM’s attention and remind her to pay attention in
class, Respondent “brushed” the back of AM’s head with his open hand and told AM “Just
because you’re a girl doesn’t mean you can’t get a dope slap.”

Respondent’s teaching methods were inappropriate and disrespectful to AM. Moreover,
Respondent’s teaching methods upset AM, causing her to leave the classroom and contact her
father. Respondent’s teaching methods were not conducive to correcting AM’s behavior.
Rather, Respondent’s teaching methods aggravated the situation.

Respondent, as a learned educator, had more appropriate and effective teaching methods
at his disposal to obtain and redirect AM’s attention. Respondent failed to demonstrate skill in
the selection and use of teaching techniques conducive to student learning.

I ﬁnd that Respondent violated OAR 584-020-0015(2)(e). I further ﬁnd that
Respondent’s actions were a substantial deviation from professional standards of competency.

Using district rules and regulations

Pursuant to OAR 584-020-0025(2)(e), the competent teacher demonstrates skills in using
district lawful and reasonable rules and regulations.

On February 20, 2015, following its investigation, the District issued a written reprimand
and directive to Respondent, ﬁnding that Respondent’s conduct had violated the District’s
policies and obligations by failing to demonstrate good judgment and by failing to treat students
respectﬁllly and appropriately. The District also directed Respondent to not physically touch
students unless for their safety or the safety of others, and to treat students appropriately and
respectfully.

By violating the District’s policies and obligations, (failing to treat AM with respect and
failing to demonstrate good judgment in his conduct with AM), Respondent failed to
demonstrate skill in using the District’s lawful and reasonable rules and regulations.

I ﬁnd that Respondent violated OAR 584-020-0025(2)(e). I further ﬁnd that
Respondent’s actions were a substantial deviation from professional standards of competency.

Therefore, the evidence in the record establishes that on February l2, 2015, Respondent
substantially deviated from the professional standards of competency set forth in OAR 584-020-
0010 through 584-020-0030. As such, Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty, in violation
of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) and ORS 342.175(1)(b).

Respondent contends that the Commission failed to prove that his actions were a
substantial deviation from professional standards of competency. I disagree.

As determined previously, Respondent singled AM out based on her gender and implied
that AM was a stupid person, deserving a dope slap, which is a substantial deviation from the
In the Matter of Jon M Renner - OAH Case N0. 2016-ABC-00020
Page 9 af13

professional standards of competency. Respondent also “brushed,” “patted,” or “tapped” the
back of AM’s head to get her attention, which is inappropriate physical contact and a substantial
deviation from the professional standards of competency. Consequently, Respondent’s argument
is without merit. .
3. Sanction
The Commission contends that Respondent should receive a public reprimand.
Respondent contends to the contrary. I agree with the Commission.
ORS 342.175 provides:
(l) The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may suspend
or revoke the license or registration 0f 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 licensee,
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;
OAR 584-020-0045 is titled “Factors for Imposing Disciplinary Sanctions” and provides:
The Commission may consider one or more of the following
factors, as it deems appropriate, in its determination of what
sanction or sanctions, if any, should be imposed upon a ﬁnding
that an educator has violated any standard set forth in OAR 584-
020-0040:
( 1) If the misconduct or violation is an isolated occurrence, part of
a continuing pattern, or one of a series of incidents;
(2) The likelihood of a recurrence of the misconduct or violation;
(3) The educator’s past performance;
(4) The extent, severity, and imminence of any danger to students,
other educators, or the public;
(5) If the misconduct was open and notorious or had negative
effects on the public image of the school;
(6) The educator’s state of mind at the time of the misconduct and
In the Matter ofJon MRenner - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00020
Page 10 of 13

afterwards;

(7) The danger that students will imitate the educator’s behaviors
or use it as a model;

(8) The age and level of maturity of the students served by the
educator;

(9) Any extenuating circumstances or other factors bearing on the
appropriate nature of a disciplinary sanction; or

(10) To deter similar misconduct by the educator or other
educators.

Pursuant to ORS 342.175(l)(b), the Commission may discipline a teacher for gross
neglect of duty at any time within ﬁve years prior to issuance of the notice of charges. In
addition, in imposing disciplinary sanctions upon an educator that violated any standard in OAR
585-020-0040, the Commission may consider the factors in OAR 584-020-0045.

As determined previously, Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty on February 12,
2015. The Commission seeks to impose a public reprimand. A review of the record establishes
that the proposed sanction is appropriate and within the Commission’s discretionary authority. I
ﬁnd that Respondent’s actions warrant the proposed sanction in this matter.

Accordingly, the Commission’s MSD is granted and the hearing scheduled for April 19,
2017 is cancelled.

RULING
The Commission's Motion for Summary Determination is GRANTED.
The hearing scheduled for April 19, 2017 is cancelled.
ORDER
[propose the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission issue the following order:
The Notice of Opportunity for Hearing issued on September 27, 2016, is AFFIRMED.
Dove L. Gutman
Senior Administrative Law Judge
Ofﬁce of Administrative Hearings
In the Matter ofJon M Renner - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00020
Page 11 of13

EXCEPTIONS
The proposed order is the Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation to the Teacher
Standards and Practices Commission (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
250 Division Street NE
Salem, OR 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 Jon M Renner — OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00020
Page 12 of 13