BEFORE THE
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF: ) FINAL ORDER ADOPTING RULIN G
) ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY
ANNE J. IVAN S ) DETERMINATION AND PROPOSED
) ORDER
)
)OAH Case No. 1604571

This matter came before the Commission during its meeting of November 4, 2016 to
consider the Ruling on Motion For Summary Determination and Proposed Order issued by AL]
Dove Gutman on September 12, 2016, Respondent ﬁled exceptions to the ruling and proposed
order on September 26, 2016.

The Commission ﬁnds Respondent’s exceptions unpersuasive. 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, the Commission Orders as follows:
1. Respondent’s license is hereby suspended for 60 days effective the date of this Final
Order;
2. Respondent is placed on probation for 4 years following reinstatement from
suspension;
3. As part of her license reinstatement application, Respondent must present to the
Commission satisfactory evidence of sobriety
It is so Ordered this a 21A 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 TI-IE OREGON
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of Anne J. Ivans,
Page l of 1

BEFORE THE OFFICE 0F ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF OREGON
for the
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF: ) RULING 0N MOTION FOR SUMMARY
) DETERMINATION, AND PROPOSED
) ORDER
)
ANNE J. IVANS, )OAH Case No.: 1604571
Respondent ) Agency Case No.:
HISTORY 0F THE CASE

On December 29, 2015, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC or the
Commission) issued a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Anne J. Ivans (Licensee or
Respondent). On January 5, 2016, Respondent, through counsel, requested a contested case
hearing.

On May l2, 2016, the Commission referred the hearing request to the Ofﬁce of
Administrative Hearings (OAH). The OAH assigned Senior Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Dove L. Gutman to preside at hearing.

On June 23, 2016, ALJ Gutman convened a prehearing telephone conference. Thomas
Doyle, Attorney at Law, represented Respondent. Senior Assistant Attorney General Raul
Ramirez represented the Commission. Jeff VanLaanen appeared on behalf of the Commission.
During the telephone conference, ALJ Gutman set dates for the Commission to ﬁle its Motion
for Summary Determination (July 29, 2016), Respondent to ﬁle her Response (August 19, 2016),
and the Commission to ﬁle its Reply (August 26, 2016). ALJ Gutman also scheduled the
contested case hearing for October 11, 2016.

On July 29, 2016, Mr. Ramirez ﬁled the Commission’s Motion for Summary
Determination (MSD).

On August 19, 2016, Mr. Doyle requested a four day extension in which to ﬁle
Respondent’s Response. That same day, Mr. Ramirez indicated he had no objection to the
request. On August l9, 2016, Presiding ALJ John Mann granted Mr. Doyle’s request, allowing
Respondent to ﬁle her Response on August 23, 2016, and the Commission to ﬁle its Reply on
August 30, 2016.

On August 23, 2016, Mr. Doyle ﬁled Respondent’s Response. On August 30, 2016, Mr.
Ramirez ﬁled the Commission’s Reply.

On August 31, 2016, ALJ Gutman closed the record and took the matter under
In the Matter ofAnne .1. Ivans, OAH Case No. 1604571
Page 1 of 11

advisement.
ISSUES
1. Whether there are genuine issues as to any material fact, and if not, whether the
Commission is entitled to a ruling as a matter of law. OAR 137-003-0580.
2. Whether, on or about December 8, 2014, Respondent engaged in gross neglect of
duty. ORS 342.175(1), OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n).
3. If so, Whether Respondent should receive a sanction of 60 days of suspension, four
years of probation, and additional conditions for reinstatement including evidence of sobriety.
DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED
The following documents were reviewed and considered: The Commission’s MSD,
Exhibits 1 through 7,l Respondent’s Response and attachments, the Commission’s Reply and
attachments, and the pleadings.
LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION
Motions for Summary Determination are governed by OAR 137-003-0580, which
provides, in pertinent part:
(1) Not less than 28 calendar days before the date set for hearing,
the agency or a party may ﬁle a motion requesting a ruling in favor
of the agency or party on any or all legal issues (including claims
and defenses) in the contested case. The motion, accompanied by
any afﬁdavits or other supporting documents, shall be served on
the agency and parties in the manner required by OAR 137-003-
0520.
(2) Within 14 calendar days after service of the motion, the agency
or a party may ﬁle a response to the motion. The response may be
accompanied by afﬁdavits or other supporting documents and shall
be served on the agency and parties in the manner required by
OAR 137-003-0520.
(3) The administrative law judge may establish longer or shorter
periods than those under section (1) and (2) 0f this rule for the
ﬁling of motions and responses.
*****
i (6) The administrative law judge shall grant the motion for a
‘ The Commission’s exhibits included a corrected Exhibit 4 submitted on August 25, 2016.
In the Matter of Anne J. Ivans, OAH Case N0. 1604571
Page 2 of 11

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
hearing.
(9) A party or the agency may satisfy the burden of producing
evidence through afﬁdavits. Afﬁdavits shall be made on personal
knowledge, establish that the afﬁant is competent to testify to the
matters stated therein and contain facts that would be admissible at
the hearing.
(10) When a motion for summary determination is made and
supported as provided in this rule, a non-moving party or non-
moving agency may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials
contained in that party’s or agency’s notice or answer, if any.
When a motion for summary determination is made and supported
as provided in this rule, the administrative law judge or the agency
must explain the requirements for ﬁling a response to any
unrepresented party or parties.
(11) The administrative law judge’s ruling may be rendered on a
single issue and need not resolve all issues in the contested case.
(12) If the administrative law judge’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 or a ﬁnal order in accordance with OAR
137-003-0665 if the administrative law judge has authority to issue
a ﬁnal order without ﬁrst issuing a proposed order.
In the Matter ofArme J. Ivans, OAH Case N0. 1604571
Page 3 of ll

FINDINGS OF FACT
Background

1. Respondent has been licensed by the Commission since August 12, 2014. (Ex. 1.)
Respondent currently holds an Initial I Teaching License with endorsements in Basic
Mathematics, Biology and Chemistry, valid through August 5, 2018. (Id)

2. In December 2014, Respondent was employed as the mathematics teacher at
Chehalem Valley Middle School (CVMS) through Newburg Public School District. (Exs. 2, 3,
4.)

Behavior

3. On the morning of December 8, 2014, Respondent drank two vodka tonics prior to
going to CVMS to teach math class. During ﬁrst period, while teaching Pre-Calculus (Grade 8
Math), Respondent was observed (by students) slurring her speech, making multiple mistakes in
her mathematical calculations, and writing unintelligible ﬁgures on the board during the lesson.
When students in the class pointed out Respondent’s mistakes, Respondent became frustrated,
stopped the lesson and stated, “I am done.” Respondent then leﬂ the classroom unattended and
left school grounds without notifying her supervisor.

At 8:10 am, three students from Respondent’s class reported her behavior to Principal
Karen Pugsley. Ms. Pugsley went to Respondent’s unattended classroom and questioned the
other students regarding What they had observed. After ﬁnding another teacher to cover
Respondent’s class, Ms. Pugsley attempted to contact Respondent by calling her home and cell
phone. Ms. Pugsley left messages but Respondent did not return her calls. (Exs. 2, 3, 4.)

4. On December 12, 2014, Respondent met with Ms. Pugsley and Dave Parker,
superintendent of the school district. During the meeting, Respondent admitted that she was
intoxicated on the morning of December 8, 2014. (Ex. 4.)

5. On December 15, 2014, Respondent resigned from her position as mathematics
teacher at CVMS. (Ex. 5.)

6. On July 10, 2015, Respondent met with Cristina Edgar, Investigator With the
Commission. During the recorded interview, Respondent admitted to drinking two vodka tonics
on the morning of December 8, 2014, prior to going to work. Respondent also admitted to
drinking alcohol on two other occasions prior to going to work at CVMS. (Ex. 6.)

7. Newberg Public School District has a drug-free workplace policy, adopted January 14,
1991 and readopted September 24, 2007, requiring that no district employee shall possess and/or
use alcohol or illegal drugs or controlled substances in the workplace. The policy also requires
that all district employees must abstain from the use or possession of illegal drugs and controlled
substances, including alcohol. (Ex. 7.)

In the Matter ofAnne l Ivans, OAH Case No. 1604571
' Page 4 of 11

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. There are no genuine issues as to any material fact and the Commission is entitled to a
ruling as a matter of law.
2. Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty.
3. Respondent should receive a sanction of 60 days of suspension, four years of
probation, and additional conditions for reinstatement including evidence of sobriety.
OPINION
The Commission contends that there are no genuine issues as to any material fact and it is
entitled to a ruling as a matter of law. Respondent contends to the contrary. I agree with the
Commission.
Violation
ORS 342.175 is titled “Grounds for discipline; reinstatement” and 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 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 pertinent
part:
. (4) Gross neglect of duty is any serious and material inattention to
or breach of professional responsibilities. The following may be
admissible as evidenceof gross neglect of duty. Consideration
may include but is not limited to:
***** I .
(g) Appearing on duty or at any district-sponsored activity while
. under the inﬂuence of alcohol or any controlled substance;
In the Matter qunne J. Ivans, OAH Case N0. 1604571
Page 5 of ll

*** * *
(n) Substantial deviation from professional standards of
competency set forth in OAR 584-020-0010 through 584-020-
0030[.]

As indicated above, gross neglect of duty includes appearing on duty while under the
inﬂuence of alcohol or any controlled substance, and any serious and material inattention to or
breach of professional responsibilities, including 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 to:
**** *
(5) Use professional judgment[.]
OAR 584-020-0025 is titled “Management Skills” and provides, in relevant part:
(2) The competent teacher demonstrates skills in:
*****
(e) Using district lawful and reasonable rules and regulations.

As stated above, the competent educator demonstrates a commitment to use professional
judgment. In addition, the competent educator demonstrates skills in using district rules and
regulations.

On December 8, 2014, Respondent attempted to teach a math class to 8"‘ graders at
CVMS while visibly under the inﬂuence of intoxicants (alcohol), in violation of district policy.
In addition, when students in the class pointed out Respondent’s mistakes in her mathematical
calculations, Respondent became frustrated, stopped the lesson, left the classroom and did not
return. Respondent left the students unsupervised and left school grounds without permission
from her supervisor.

I ﬁnd that by appearing on duty at CVMS while intoxicated, Respondent failed to use
professional judgment, breached her professional responsibilities, and violated the district’s
drug-free workplace policy. I further ﬁnd that Respondent’s actions involved a substantial
deviation from professional standards of competency.

Therefore, the evidence in the record establishes that on December 8, 2014, Respondent
engaged in gross neglect of duty, in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(g), (4)(n), and ORS
342.175(1)(b).

In the Matter 0fAnne J. Ivans, OAH Case No. 1604571
Page 6 of 11

Sanction

ORS 342,175 further provides:
(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 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
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;

In the Matter of Anne J. Ivans, OAH Case No. 160457]

Page 7 of ll

(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 December 8,
2014. The Commission seeks to impose 60 days of suspension, four years of probation, and
additional conditions for reinstatement including evidence of sobriety.

A review of the record establishes that the proposed sanction is appropriate and within
the Commission’s discretionary authority. As stated previously, on December 8, 2014,
Respondent attempted to teach an 8"‘ grade math class at CVMS while visibly under the
inﬂuence of alcohol. When students in the class pointed out her purported drunken mistakes,
Respondent became frustrated and left the classroom unsupervised and without permission from
her supervisor. In the subsequent investigation, Respondent admitted that she drank alcohol on
at least two other occasions before going to work. I ﬁnd that Respondent’s actions warrant the
proposed sanction in this matter.

Respondent contends that the Commission failed to establish the propriety of the
sanction. Respondent further contends that she should receive a reprimand, attaching prior
Commission cases in support of her contention (including T heoden J. Humphrey, OAH Case No.
1303111, Ruling on Motion for Summary Determination). I disagree.

First, a public reprimand is the lowest form of discipline that the Commission is
authorized to impose under ORS 342.177(3). Respondent’s actions in this matter constituted a
substantial deviation from professional standards of competency. Respondent attempted to teach
a math class to impressionable 8‘h graders while visibly under the inﬂuence of intoxicants, in
clear violation of district (and state) policy. Moreover, when the children pointed out
Respondent’s mathematical mistakes, she became frustrated and left the classroom, leaving the
children unsupervised without any explanation and without notiﬁcation to administration. There
is no genuine issue of material fact left to be determined. Respondent engaged in gross neglect
of duty and should receive the aforementioned sanction for the violation.

Second, the cases that Respondent attached in support of her argument, most of which are
stipulations between the parties, are factually different and do not represent the Commission’s
“appropriate” sanction for violations of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(g). As pointed out in the
Commission’s Reply (and supported in its attached cases), every case is unique and the
Commission has imposed greater sanctions for the same violation, i.e., violating OAR 584-020-
0040(4)(g).

In the Matter 0f Anne J. Ivans, OAH Case No. 1604571
Page 8 of ll

With regards to the Humphrey case, that case involved multiple allegations of gross
neglect of duty, of which questions of fact remained regarding some of the allegations, requiring
those allegations to proceed to hearing. Humphrey does not stand for the fact that allegations of
OAR 584-020-0040(4)(g) must proceed to hearing. Thus, Respondent’s argument is
unpersuasive.

Respondent also contends that OAR 5 84-020-0045 requires a factually intensive review.
However, the rule is permissive, not mandatory. In other words, the Commission may consider
the factors but is not required to do so in determining the appropriate sanction for the violation.
Moreover, I ﬁnd that the evidence in the record supports the proposed sanction. As such,
Respondent’s argument is unpersuasive.

Accordingly, the Commission’s MSD is granted and the hearing scheduled for October
11, 2016 is cancelled.

RULING
The Commission’s Motion for Summary Determination is GRANTED.
The hearing scheduled for October 11, 2016 is CANCELLED.
ORDER

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

l. Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty as alleged in the Notice of Opportunity
for Hearing dated December 29, 2015.

2. Respondent should receive a sanction of 60 days of suspension, four years of
probation, and additional conditions for reinstatement including evidence of sobriety.

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 (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:

In the Matter of Anne J. Ivans, OAH Case No. 1604571
Page 9 of 11

i
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.
i
l
In the Matter ofAnne J. Ivans, OAH Case N0. 1604571
Page 10 of ll