BEFORE THE
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF : ) FINAL ORDER OF SUSPENSION
) AND PROBATION
)
ISAAC BASS, ) OAH Case N0.: 1303424
Respondent

This matter came before the Commission during its regularly scheduled meeting
0f August 1, 2014 t0 consider the Proposed Order issued by ALJ Dove Gutman on April
16, 2014. Respondent filed exceptions to the Proposed Order on April 29, 2014.

The Commission reviewed Respondent’s exceptions to the Proposed Order and
finds that they are not persuasive as follows:

Respondent took exception to the Proposed Order, arguing that there was not
substantial evidence under Reguero vs. TSPC, 312 or 402(1991). Respondent’s exception
is misplaced. The ALJ made findings and conclusions that Respondent engaged in Gross
Neglect 0f Duty as alleged in the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing when the ALJ
granted the Commission’s Motion For Summary Determination in part. Specifically, the
ALJ determined (and the Commission does as well) that there was n0 genuine dispute as
to any material facts alleged in the Notice. Respondent may have disagreed with how
some specific events unfolded, but those alleged facts were not material to the
determination that Respondent engaged in Gross Neglect of Duty. The ALJ also made
logical inferences from the undisputed facts and the facts established at hearing
(including from Respondent’s witnesses) to determine that Respondent’s conduct was
manipulative and an abuse of the teacher/student relationship. Respondent mistakenly
asserts that the Commission was required under Reguero to call witnesses to establish
undisputed facts, and logical inferences based on the facts. Respondent is mistaken

Respondent took exception t0 Proposed Order, arguing that the ALJ did not
specifically discuss the factors in OAR 584-020-0045. The rule cited by respondent
specifically provides that the Commission may consider one 0r more of the factors
contained in the rule. Neither the ALJ nor the Commission is required to analyze each

. and every factor in the rule prior to imposing discipline. Nevertheless, the ALJ did

i articulate reasons in the Proposed Order (pp 15—l6) why she recommended that a 30 day
suspension and 4 years of probation were an appropriate sanction. Specifically, the ALJ
reasoned that Respondent’s conduct was coercive and manipulative; that it violated trust
and caused harm t0 students. parents and the school district. The Commission also finds
that Respondent’s conduct had a negative on the image of the public of the school, and
the Commission rightfully can deter similar conduct by imposing the discipline it
originally proposed. Lastly, as the ALJ pointed out. Respondent failed to establish that
FINAL ORDER i lsaac Bass
Data Classification Level l - Public

the Commission’s proposed sanction was an abuse of discretion. The fact that
Respondent disagrees with the Commission’s proposal falls short of what he would be
required to prove to establish abuse of discretion.

The Commission did not find any of Respondent’s arguments in his exceptions to
be persuasive.

Based on the foregoing, the Commission adopts the attached Proposed Order as
the Final Order, and hereby orders as follows:

1. Respondent’s teaching License is hereby suspended for 30 days from the date this
order is signed. Respondent must apply for reinstatement of his suspended
license as provided in the Commission’s rules

2. Responded is placed on probation for a period of four years upon reinstatement of
his license. During his period of probation, Respondent shall comply with the
Standards for Ethical Performance of Oregon Educators as promulgated by the
Commission under OAR 584-020-0040, Division 20. Violation of any term or
condition of probation shall constitute an independent basis for the Commission
to revoke Bass’s educator license or otherwise impose discipline, after first
providing Bass with notice and opportunity for hearing

I’;
It is so Ordered this 6'21; day of August, 2014.
Victoria Chamberlain, Executive Director
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
l
i NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS
i i
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.
FINAL ORDER — Isaac Bass
Data Classification Level l - Public

CETIFICATEFMAILING ~
On September Q , 2014, I mailed the foregoing Final Order and Proposed Order in OAH Case
No. 1303424 to:

By: Certified and First Class Mail
Isaac Joseph Bass
271 1 NW Mast Avenue
Lincoln City OR 97367-4337
By: First Class Mail
Ralph E. Wiser
Attorney at Law
1 Centerpointe Drive, Suite 570
Lake Oswego OR 97035
By: Shuttle
Raul Ramirez '
Senior Assistant Attomey General
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem OR 97301-4096
Hearings Coordinator
Office of Administrative Hearings
4600 25‘h Avenue NE, Suite 140
Salem OR 97301

Q I L I M
Patty magi’
Investigative Assistant
PAGE 1 £ERTIFICATE OF MAILING _ ISAAC JOSEPH BASS
DO: Liddell

HECE
BEFORE THE OFFICE 0F ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AP’? I 7 20
STATE or OREGON [spaghgr 74
for the r ‘Kittens glands/'4
“ Om . s. &
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION MISS/r,”
IN THE MATTER OF: ) PROPOSED ORDER
)
ISAAC J. BASS, ) OAH Case N0.: 1303424
Respondent )
HISTORY OF THE CASE -

On March 27, 2013, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (Commission)
issued a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Isaac J. Bass (Respondent). On April l, 2013,

Ralph Wiser, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Respondent, requested a hearing.

On September 26, 2013, 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 December 6, 2013, a prehearing telephone conference was held. ALJ Gutman
presided. Senior Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Raul Ramirez represented the Commission.
Jeff Varr Laarren appeared on behalf of the Commission. Ralph Wiser, counsel for Respondent,

did not appear. Respondent did not appear.

On December 12, 2013, Mr. Ramirez, on behalf of the Commission, filed the
Commission’s Motion for Summary Determination, along with Exhibits l through 8.

On December 26, 2013, Mr. Wiser, on behalf of Respondent, filed Respondent Bass’
Response to TSPC’s Motion for Summary Determination, the Declaration of Ralph E. Wiser,
Appendices A through C, the Declaration of Isaac Bass, Appendices A and B, and the
Declaration of Majalise Tolan.

On December 31, 2013, Mr. Ramirez, on behalf of the Commission, filed the
Commission’s Reply to Respondent Bass’ Response to TSPC’s Motion for Summary
Determination.

On January l4, 2014, ALJ Gutman issued a Ruling on Motion for Summary
Determination, granting the Commission’s Motion as to issue #1 and denying the Comrnission’s
Motion as to issue #2. The Ruling on Motion for Summary Determination is hereby
incorporated into this Proposed Order.

On April 1, 2014, a hearing was held in Salem, Oregon. ALJ Gutman presided. Mr.
Ramirez represented the Commission. Mr. Wiser represented Respondent. The following
In the Matter of Isaac J. Bass, OAH Case No. 1303424
Page l of 16

individuals provided testimony: Respondent, Sonja Ljungdahl, Majalise Tolan, Kim Reed, and
Shawna Stobie. The record closed on April 1, 2014. >
. ISSUES
1. Whether Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS
342.175(1)(b); OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(l ), OAR 584-
020-0010(5), OAR 584-020-0015(2)(e), OAR 584-020-0030(2)(b), and OAR 584-020-
0035(1)(c)(D).
2. Whether Respondent should be suspended for 30 days and placed on probation for
four years.
EVIDENTIARY RULINGS
The Commission’s Exhibits A1 through A8 were admitted into evidence without
objection. Respondent’s Exhibits R1 and R2 were admitted into evidence vin'thout objection.
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION
A witness testifying under oadr or affirrnation is presumed to be truthful unless it can be
demonstrated otherwise. ORS 44.370 provides, in relevant part:
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 i
demonstrates that the evidence is logically incredible. Tew v. DMV, 179 Or App 443 (2002). ‘
Ms. Ljungdahl and Respondent
Ms. Ljungdahl was called as a character witness for Respondent. On cross-examination,
Ms. Ljungdahl was asked about her understanding of the allegations involving Respondent and
JM. Ms. Ljungdahl testified clearly and concisely that Respondent had told her that he knew JM
had cheated on prior exams; he wanted to challenge J M to see if he would do the right thing; he
told WT to take the answers into the final exam and see if J M would cheat; and that J M chose to
cheat on the exam.
After being made aware that JM had not cheated on the final exam, Ms. Ljungdahl then
attempted to soften her testimony on re-direct, asserting that she did not have a clear recollection
of what Respondent had told her regarding the events. However, when questioned further about
In the Matter of Isaac]. Bass, OAH Case No. 1303424
Page 2 of l6

..———_
l
her recollection, Ms. Ljungdahl confirmed that Respondent had told her that JM took the answer
sheet from WT and looked at it during the exam.

Respondent, on the other hand, testified that he did not tell Ms. Ljungdahl that JM had
taken the answer sheet from WT during the exam.

I find that Ms. Ljungdahl’s testimony is more reliable than Respondent’s testimony. Ms.
Lj ungdahl’s initial recollection regarding what Respondent had told her was clear, concise and
logical. In addition, Ms. Lj ungdahl’s demeanor was direct and without deceit.

It was only after Ms. Ljungdahl was made aware of the truth, that J M had not cheated on
the final exam that she then attempted to change her testimony. It was obvious from Ms.
Ljungdahl‘s demeanor at that time that she surprised by the truth and was trying to help
Respondent by changing her testimony.

Ultimately, however, Ms. Ljungdahl corroborated her initial testimony by confirming that
Respondent had told her that J M took the answer sheet from WT and looked at it during the
exam.l

I find, more likely than not, that Respondent told Ms. Ljungdahl that he knew JM had
cheated on prior exams; he wanted to challenge JM to see if he would do the right thing; he told
WT to take the answers into the final exam and see if JM would cheat; J M took the answer sheet
from WT and looked at it; and that J M chose to cheat on the exam.

I further find that the testimony of Respondent will not be relied upon when it contradicts
the reliable evidence presented by the Commission.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact from the Ruling on Motion for Summary Determination
Background

1. Respondent currently holds an Initial II teaching license, which expires on December
15, 2015. (Ex. 2.)

2. During 2009-2013, Respondent was employed as a math teacher with the McKenzie
School District in Finn Rock, Oregon. Respondent taught a variety of math classes at McKenzie
High School, including Algebra 1, Algebra 2, Geometry, Pre-Calculus, Consumer Math, and
Business Math. (Ex. 3; Declaration of Isaac Bass, Appendix A.)

3. During the 2011-2012 school year, students JM and WT were in Respondent’s Pre-
Calculus class at McKenzie High School. WT was an older student of higher status. WT and
1 Ms. Ljungdahl’s testimony regarding Respondent’s inaccurate version of the events at issue is also
corroborated in part by Ms. Reed’s testimony, who received yet another inaccurate version from
Respondent. See Finding of Fact (36).

In the Matter of Isaac]. Bass, OAH Case No. 1303424
Page 3 of 16

JM were friends. (Exs. 4, 5; Declaration of Isaac Bass.)
4. Sometime in April 2012, Respondent had questions about JM’s character and
development. Respondent decided to set up a sting to test J M‘s character and teach him a lesson
in good decision-making. (Exs. 4, 5, 8; Declaration of Isaac Bass.)
5. Sometime prior to May 22, 2012, Respondent persuaded WT to entice JM to cheat on
the Pre-Calculus final exam. Respondent gave WT the answers to the final exam.
J M was receiving A’s in all of his classes, except for Pre-Calculus. JM was nervous
about achieving a passing grade in Pre-Calculus. J M had worked hard all year to learn Pre-
Calculus.
Via text messages, WT offered JM the answers to the final exam. JM declined because
he did not want to cheat. (Exs. 4, 5; Declaration of Isaac Bass.)
6. On or about May 22, 2012, J M took the Pre-Calculus final exam. During the exam,
WT offered JM the answer sheet. JM pushed the sheet away and told WT, “No.” (Exs. 4, 5.)
7. JM and his parents subsequently found out about Respondent’s sting. (Exs. 4, 5.)
8. On May 24, 2012, JM’s parents filed a complaint with Sally J. Storm, Ph.D.,
Superintendent of McKenzie School District, regarding Respondent’s behavior. In the
complaint, Mr. [M] stated, in part:
I am so proud of my son for showing such good character and
refirsing to cheat, even though he was harassed for at least two
straight days by [Respondent] and [WT].
I am disgusted at [Respondent’s] actions against my son and that j
he used another child to do something so evil, in the name of the i
school.

(Exs. 4, 5.) Ms. Storm initiated an investigation and spoke with the individuals involved. (Ex.

4-)

9. On May 29, 2012, following her investigation, Ms. Storm issued a Letter of

Reprimand to Respondent that stated, in part:
Dear Isaac,
On Thursday, May [24], I received a phone call and email from
Mr. and Mrs. [M], parents of [JM]. They were extremely
distraught, and described that their son [J M] has been quite
stressed about his math class all year. They said he has worked
hard at the class and homework at home all year, and they would

In the Matter of Isaac]. Bass, OAH Case No. 1303424

Page 4 of 16

not let him quit the class as all the other students you had in that
class had. They described a perceived ongoing negative
relationship between you and their son, and said that he did not 1
trust you had his best interests at hand throughout the year. They l
reported that [J M] has As in all of his other classes except your l
math class, and that he was very nervous about passing the final to
get a passing grade, and that much rested on his being successful
on his final examination.
They then went on to describe your part in a plan wherein you
offered another student, [WT], extra credit in order for him to “get
[JM] to cheat” on his pre-calculus final examination. Not realizing

t the plan you had put in motion, [JM] received text messages from
[WT] enticing him to cheat; [JM] told him no. On Tuesday, May
[22], while taking his final, [J M] saw [WT] hold up the answer
sheet to enable him to cheat. [J M] pushed it away and again told
[WT] no. When I spoke with [JM], he verified everything the
parents had told me. He described the incident and emailed me the
texts which he received from [WT] enticing him to cheat. [WT]
verified the story as well, also saying you offered him extra credit
if he “got [JM] to cheat.” He also said you told him it would not
affect [JM’s] grade if he did cheat.
In speaking with you, you admitted that you had set up the sting
with [WT]. You said you had not offered extra credit. Your
demeanor throughout the meeting, and your comments led me to
the conclusion that you did not understand the gravity of your
actions, defending what you had done, saying [J M] wasn’t going to
get in trouble if he cheated and labeling the incident and your
directing it as “fumbling the ball.”
Your part in setting this up is abusive and is manipulative of the
trust that both students and parents placed in you as their teacher,
and as arr adult in whose care the students are found. It was cruel
to have a student realize that his teacher would be part of such a
horrific ruse, not to mention how unsafe that student will feel in
your classroom from this day forward. It resulted in parents losing
trust in our school and teachers, and harmed the friendship
between the parents. Additionally, the two students’ friendship is
harmed, if not broken.
In setting up this cheating sting, you developed the idea, coerced ‘
an older student of higher status to lie to his friend, participated in l
unethical behavior, and you tried to get a student to cheat for some i
inexplicable reason. Your actions violate numerous standards set
forth in the Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance of

In the Matter of Isaac .l Bass, OAH Case No. 1303424
Page 5 of l6

Oregon Educations adopted by the Teacher Standards and
Practices Commission, at Division 20, Oregon Administrative
Rules, 584-020-0000 through 584-020-0045, attached. This
behavior on your part constitutes gross neglect of duty.
This letter of reprimand will be placed in your personnel file. I am l
also revoking the offer of the position of Head Teacher for the
2012-13 school year. As directed by OAR 584-020-0041, I will be
reporting your conduct and this incident to the Teacher Standards
and Practices Commission this week.
Let me make it very clear to you that you are never to do anything
like this with your students again. If you do, you will be subject to
discipline up to and including dismissal.
You have severely misplaced the trust we all had placed in you.
(Ex. 4; emphasis in original.)
10. On May 30, 2011, Ms. Storm notified the Commission that she had determined that
Respondent had committed gross neglect of duty. (Ex. 3.)
11. At some point in time, Respondent submitted a formal letter of apology to Ms. Storm
that stated, in part:
I would like to formally apologize for my part in the events that
took place on May 30 & 31. Afler constant reflection I see that I
displayed poor judgment in trying to ascertain if a student learned
a lesson in the importance of good decision making. I have
learned my lesson of needing to not just think things through but to
collaborate with my superiors if such a lesson is appropriate. I
should have not involved another student in any manner. I arn
ashamed of the stress and harm I have caused the students and
families involved. I am sorry I have put you in this situation.
Please accept my sincere apology.
I appreciate the opportunity to rebuild any lost trust over the next
school year. I have hope that this will in fact take place as you
have cemented that you believed that there was no malicious
intent on my part. I have always tried to do what is best for
students throughout my years at McKenzie, and will look to
reestablish this president [sic]. It is my goal to repair any damage
to the relationships to the parties involved. I will work tirelessly to
make this goal a reality next academic year. I look forward to the
end of next year in order to look back and reflect on how we have
recovered from this unfortunate incident. Thank you for your
In the Matter oflsaacJ. Bass, OAH Case No. 1303424
Page 6 of 16

continued support and guidance.
(Ex. 7.) I
12. On October 25, 2012, Tanya Figgat, investigator for the Commission, interviewed
Respondent in the presence of his attorney. During the interview, Respondent made the
following statements:
0 Respondent explained that the plan was to encourage WT to entice
JM to cheat on his exam, and that after JM refuses to cheat he
would be commended for his good decision making.
o Respondent admitted that this “lesson” had nothing to do with
math, but was instead intended to be a lesson on good decision
making.
0 Respondent admitted that this plan was a lapse in judgment, and as
a result Respondent harmed students and his reputation.
O Respondent admitted that “there was fault in his logic” and should
not have done what he did.
(Ex. 8.)
Other information
13. Respondent is currently employed as a math teacher with the Lincoln County School
District. (Respondent Bass ’ Response to TSPC ’s Motion for Summary Determination;
Declaration of Majalise Tolan.)
I4. On December 19, 2013, Majalise W. Tolan, Principal at Tait High School, wrote a
declaration on Respondent’s behalf that stated, in part:
' 1. I am the principal at Taft 7-12 and have been an administrator in '
the Lincoln County School District for five and a half years.
2. I have observed Isaac in the classroom, at parent-teacher
conferences, in staff meetings, and at professional development
workshops.
3. I have reviewed observation notes from his evaluator, Kelly
Hart, and find them to reflect satisfactory performance in the
classroom.
4. Isaac appears to be complying with all LCSD policies and
expectations, and I have no concerns about his conduct.
(Declaration of Majalise Tolan.)
In the Matter of Isaac .I Bass, OAH Case No. 1303424
Page 7 of 16

Findings of Fact from the Contested Case Hearing and Exhibits
Respondent

15. During the 201 1-2012 school year, Respondent had two encounters with J M that
caused him concern:

I The first encounter involved an off-campus basketball game. During the game, JM made

a cross-over move to pass a defender. Respondent complimented JM on the move. JM

told Respondent to “fuck off.”

0 The second encounter involved a game of chess in class. JM lost the match to

Respondent. J M gave Respondent the finger and threw the chess pieces.

(Ex. R1.)

16. During the 2011-2012 school year, Respondent taught Pre-Calculus by the chapter in
the math book, in accordance with Oregon State Standards. Each chapter constituted a unit.
After each unit, Respondent gave a test.

In one of the tests, students were allowed to use a graphing calculator. After that .
particular test was completed, Respondent found a graphing calculator that contained a cheat
sheet. Respondent determined the calculator belonged to JM. Respondent spoke to JM who
denied knowing about or using the cheat sheet. J M told Respondent the graphing calculator had
been his sister’s calculator. (Ex. R1.) When interviewed by Ms. F iggat, Respondent reported
that the test results indicated that either J M did not know how to use the cheat sheet or the
calculator really was not his. (Ex. A8.)

17. One or two days prior to the Pre-Calculus final exam, Respondent came up with the
idea of the cheating sting. Respondent made the decision in a “moment.” Respondent did not
take time to reflect on his decision. Respondent contacted WT and gave him the answer sheet to
the final exam. Respondent asked WT to tell JM that he had the answers to the final exam, and
to offer J M the answer sheet prior to the exam. Respondent told WT that JM would not be
harmed if he cheated. Respondent did not check with anyone to see if the cheating sting was a
good idea. (Test. of Bass; Ex. R1.)

18. On May 21, 2012, one day prior to the final exam, WT sent numerous text messages
to JM, informing JM that he had the answers to the final exam and pressuring him to use the
answers to cheat on the exam. JM told WT, “No.” (Ex. A7.)

l9. On May 22, 2012, the day of the final exam, a substitute teacher was in the math
classroom. Respondent was elsewhere, job-shadowing the Dean of Students. Respondent does
not recall if the substitute teacher knew about the cheating sting. (Test. of Bass.) During the
test, WT held up the answer sheet and tried to entice JM to cheat. JM pushed the sheet away and
said, “No.” (Ex. 4.)

20. Following the exam, Respondent congratulated JM for not cheating. Respondent
In the Matter of Isaac J. Bass, OAH Case No. 1303424
Page 8 of l6

rewarded JM by giving him a “Respect, Initiative, and Personal Space” (RIP) ticket. The RIP
principles are part of the Student Code of Conduct. The RIP ticket can be used as currency to
purchase items off the RIP cart. (Test. of Bass; Ex. R1 .)

21. On or about May 24, 2012, Dr. Storm received a complaint from JM’s parents. Dr.
Storm initiated an investigation and spoke to the individuals involved, including Respondent.
Dr. Storm directed Respondent not to talk to J M, WT, or their parents regarding the matter.
(Exs. A5, A8, R1.)

22. On the last day of school for seniors, Dr. Storm asked Respondent to give a public
apology to the students in his math class. Respondent located some of the students that were still
on campus, including JM and WT, and went into the teacher’s lounge. Respondent then
apologized to the students for his behavior. JM accepted Respondent’s apology. WT looked
confused and upset by the apology. (Test. of Bass; Exs. A8, R1.)

23. At Respondent’s request, Dr. Storm arranged a meeting with J M’s parents at the
district offices. Respondent met with J M’s parents and Dr. Storm. Respondent apologized to
JM’s parents for his behavior. JM’s parents vented their anger at Respondent. (Test. of Bass;
Ex. R1.)

24. Respondent subsequently apologized to WT’s mother. (Test. of Bass.)

25. Respondent has not had the opportunity to talk to WT and explain the fault in his
logic. (Ex. A8.)

26. Respondent chose JM for the cheating sting because of JM’s decision making and
because he wanted JM to “be successful.” (Test. of Bass; Ex. A8.)

27. JM did not register to take a math class from Respondent the following year. (Test.
ofBass; Ex. R1.)

28. Respondent believes that his decision regarding the cheating sting involved a fault in
logic. Respondent does not reflect on his decisions all of the time. Respondent makes decisions
and moves on. Respondent believes that 99.9 percent of the time his decisions have been “right
on.” (Test. of Bass.)

29. Respondent believes that JM’s parents had the right to be angry but that their anger
got in the way of J M’s future. Respondent believes that the parents’ characterization of his
conduct regarding the cheating sting “went far beyond.” (Id.)

30. Respondent believes that his actions have caused a negative impact on J M and WT.
Respondent believes that J M now has trust issues with his teachers. Respondent believes that he
caused damage to WT. (Id; Ex. A8)

31. Dr. Storm reprimanded Respondent for his behavior and revoked Respondent’s
promotion to head teacher. Respondent lost the $10,000 stipend that went with the position.

In the Matter oflsaac J. Bass, OAH Case N0. 1303424
Page 9 of 16

(Test. of Bass; Exs. A4, R1 .) i
Ms. Ljungdahl

32. In 2012, Sonja Ljungdahl was a teacher at McKenzie High School. Ms. Ljungdahl
and Respondent were colleagues and friends. They spent time together and spoke regularly
about teaching, core content, and the educator. Ms. Ljungdahl and Respondent formed an Equity
Club for students at the high school. They also co-taught a course together to assist students in
preparing for life after high school.

Ms. Ljungdahl observed Respondent’s teaching methods. Ms. Ljungdahl observed that
Respondent was caring and empathetic to the students while maintaining his position as a
teacher. Ms. Ljungdahl also observed that Respondent spent three days a week during his lunch
hour assisting students with math. In Ms. Ljungdahl’s opinion, Respondent is one of the best
educators she has ever seen. (Test. of Ljungdahl.)

33. Sometime afler the Pre-Calculus final exam, Respondent spoke to Ms. Ljungdahl
about the incident involving JM. Respondent told Ms. Ljungdahl that he knew JM had cheated
on prior exams; he wanted to challenge JM to see if he would do the right thing; he told WT to
take the answers into the final exam and see if JM would cheat; JM took the answer sheet from
WT and looked at it; and JM chose to cheat on the exam. Respondent admitted to Ms. Ljungdahl
that his handling of the situation was not ideal. (Id.) At some point in time, Dr. Storm spoke
with Ms. Lj ungdahl about the incident. Dr. Stonn did not go into details, but indicated that
Respondent had done a terrible thing to J M and that she did not trust Respondent. (Id.)

34. Ms. Ljungdahl firrnly believes that Respondent was trying to help JM be successful
in life afler school. Ms. Ljungdahl believes that the damaged trust between Respondent and JM
can be repaired. (Id.)

Ms. Reed

35. Kim Reed is currently employed as a school psychologist with the Lincoln County l
School District. Ms. Reed works with Respondent in IEP meetings. Ms. Reed characterizes ‘
Respondent as a “warm demander.” Ms. Reed has observed that Respondent is reliable,
responsible, and respectful. Ms. Reed has two children in Respondent’s math class. Ms. Reed’s
son likes Respondent. Ms. Reed‘s son has stated that Respondent goes over things so he can
understand them. (Test. of Reed.)

36. Sometime prior to the Contested Case Hearing, Respondent spoke with Ms. Reed
about the allegations. Respondent told Ms. Reed that “there was a student he made a comment
to.” Ms. Reed does not recall the specific details about the student or the comment. (Id.)

Ms. Stobie

37. Shawna Stobie is the parent of GW, a former student of McKenzie High School. Ms.
Stobie believes that Respondent assisted GW in math and with discipline. Ms. Stobie believes
In the Matter of Isaac .I. Bass, OAH Case N0. 1303424
Page 10 of 16

l
fl'rat Respondent is a wonderful math teacher. Ms. Stobie believes that the education at
McKenzie High School deteriorated after Respondent left. Ms. Stobie transferred GW to another
school district following Respondent’s departure. (Test. of Stobie.)
Ms. Tolan
. 38. Majalise Tolan is the principal of Taft High School. Ms. Tolan has observed
Respondent’s impact on the math department. Ms. Tolan believes that Respondent is the
. strongest math teacher she has seen. Ms. Tolan believes that Respondent is a “leader” in math.
‘ Ms. Tolan has observed that Respondent is thoughtful, reliable, responsive, and respectable.
Ms. Tolan believes that if Respondent is gone from his class for 30 days, it will have a
negative impact on his students (approximately 115). Ms. Tolan also believes that because
Respondent provides math assistance to two other teachers, his absence will have a negative
‘ impact on their students (approximately 315). (Test. of Tolan.)
. 39. The Lincoln County School District (LCSD) is underperforming in math. LCSD has
l hired consultants to provide training to the math teachers. LCSD’s expectation is that
r Respondent will take part in the training. (Id.)
l 40. Students at Taft High School are 0n summer break from June 16, 2014 through
l September l, 2014. (Id.)
i
l‘ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
l. Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b); OAR
584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(l), OAR 584—020-0010(5), OAR 584-
020-0015(2)(e), OAR 584-020-0030(2)(b), and OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c)(D).
2. Respondent should be suspended for 3O days and placed on probation for four years.
OPINION
The Commission contends that Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty. The l
Commission further contends that Respondent should be suspended for 30 days and placed on
probation for four years. The Commission has the burden of proving the allegations by a ‘
preponderance of evidence. ORS 183.450(2), Reguero v. Teacher Standards and Practices
Commission, 312 Or 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.
l. Whether Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty.
In the Matter of Isaac .Z Bass, OAH Case N0. 1303424
Page II of 16

As set forth in the Ruling on Motion for Summary Determination issued on January l4,
2014, I found that Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS
342.175(1)(b); OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(1), OAR S84-
020-0010(5), OAR 584-020-0015(2)(e), OAR 584-020-0030(2)(b), and OAR 584-020-
003 5(1)(e)(D).
2. Whether Respondent should be suspended for 30 days and placed on probation
for four years.
The Commission contends that Respondent should be suspended for 30 days and placed
on probation for four years. Respondent contends that he should receive only a reprimand.
ORS 342.175 provides, in pertinent 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:
* =|= =l= >l= *
(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 0r
administrator.
In the Matter of Isaac .l Bass, OAH Case N0. 1303424
Page 12 of 16

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 imrninence 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
afterwards;

(7) The danger that students will imitate the educator’s behavior 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. '

As indicated above, the Commission may discipline a teacher for gross neglect of duty by
taking any or all of the disciplinary actions set forth in ORS 342.177(3).

After reviewing the record in its entirety, I find that the sanction proposed by the
Commission is completely appropriate in this matter and is supported by the reliable evidence in
the record. Accordingly, Respondent should be suspended for 30 days and placed on probation
for four years.

Respondent contends that the sanction is without any rational basis. I disagree.

In the Matter of Isaac J. Bass, OAH Case No. 1303424
Page 13 of 16

The evidence in the record establishes that Respondent used his position as a teacher to
manipulate and coerce two students in his math class in order to teach one of them a lesson; a
lesson which had nothing to do with the subject matter of the class. The evidence further
establishes that Respondent’s actions violated the trust of and caused harm to the students, their
parents, and the school district. As such, Respondent’s argument is unpersuasive.

Respondent next contends that the sanction is an abuse of discretion. I disagree.

As set forth previously, the Commission may discipline a teacher for gross neglect of
duty by taking any or all of the disciplinary actions set forth in ORS 342.177(3), including
suspending a license for a period not to exceed one year and/0r placing a teacher on probation for
a period not to exceed four years. Thus, the proposed sanction in this matter, which I have
determined to be appropriate, is within the Commission’s authority t0 impose. Therefore,
Respondent’s argument is unpersuasive.

Respondent finally contends that a reprimand is more appropriate in this case.
Respondent cites to In the Matter of Julie A. Hamilton, OAH Case No. 1202758, Corrected Final
Order (April 29, 2013); In the Matter of Barbara Larson, Final Order of Reprimand (January 24,
2012); and TSPC v. Bergerson, 342 Or 301 (2006) in support of his contention.

However, the cases cited by Respondent are factually different than the case at issue.
Moreover, as indicated above, I have determined that the proposed sanction is appropriate and
supported by the reliable evidence in the record. Consequently, Respondent’s argument is
unpersuasive.

ORDER

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

1. Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b); OAR
584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(1), OAR 584-020-0010(5), OAR 584- ‘
020-0015(2)(e), OAR 584-020-0030(2)(b), and OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c)(D).

2. Respondent should be suspended for 30 days and placed on probation for four years.

Dove L. Gutman
Senior Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
In the Matter of Isaac J. Bass, OAH Case N0. 1303424
Page l4 of l6

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
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 Isaac J. Bass, OAH Case No. 1303424
Page 15 of 16

l
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING l

On April 16, 2014 I mailed the foregoing PROPOSED ORDER issued on this date in OAH Case
No. 1303424.
By: First Class and Certified Mail
Certified Mail Receipt #7012 2920 0000 1689 1435
Ralph Wiser
Attorney at Law
Wiser & Associates

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

Jeff Van Laanen

Teacher Standards & Practices Commission

250 Division Street NE

Salem OR 97301
Raul Ramirez

Senior Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice

1162 Court St NE
Salem OR 97301-4096

Ryan Clark
Administrative Specialist
Hearing Coordinator
In the Matter of Isaac .l. Bass, OAH Case N0. 1303424
Page 16 of 16