BEFORE THE
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
STATE OF OREGON

IN THE MATTER OF: ) FINAL ORDER ADOPTING
) PROPOSED ORDER
)OAH Case No.1 1403653

DENNIS E. JOHNSON )

Respondent

This matter came before the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission during
its public meeting of June 21, 2017 to consider the Proposed Order issued by
Administrative Law Judge Dove L, Gutman on April 13, 2017. Respondent did not file
exceptions to the Proposed Order.

The Commission hereby adopts the attached Proposed Order as the Final Order
and hereby suspends Respondent’s Initial Administrator license for 90 days effective the
date this order is signed.

/\
It is so Ordered this 43f day of June 2017.
M
Dr. Monica Beane, Executive 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 60 days of the service of this order.
Judicial review is pursuant to the provision of ORS 183.482 to the Oregon Court of
Appeals.
In the Matter of Dennis E. Johnson
Page l of 1

“WQE'R HEIQAENG
On July 6, 2017, I mailed the foregoing Final Order Adopting Proposed Order in OAH Case
No. 1403653 to:

By: U.S. First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested 7016 0750 0000 2419 1768
Dennis Earl Johnson

PO Box 1391

Gold Beach, OR 97444-1391

By: U.S. First Class Mail

Rebekah Jacobson, Attorney at Law
Garrett, Hemann, Robertson, PC
Willamette Professional Center
1011 Commercial St NE

Salem, OR 97301

Hearings Coordinator

Office of Administrative Hearings
2510 Oakrnont Way

Eugene, OR 97401

By: Shuttle

Raul Ramirez

Senior Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice

1162 Court Street NE

Salem OR 97301-4096

Patty 8% gon

Investigative Assistant

Certificate of Mailing — Dennis Earl Johnson
Data Classification Level: 1 - Public

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF OREGON
for the
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
1N THE MATTER OF: ) PROPOSED ORDER
)
DENNIS E. JOHNSON ) OAH Case N0. 2016-ABC-00013
)
HISTORY OF THE CASE

On April 25, 2016, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC or
Commission) issued a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Dennis E. Johnson (Respondent).
On May 16, 2016, Dennis E Johnson requested a hearing.

On July 21, 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 September 22, 2016, ALJ Gutman convened a prehearing telephone conference.
Attorney Rebekah Jacobson represented Respondent. Senior Assistant Attorney General Raul
Ramirez represented the Commission. Jeff Van Laanen appeared on behalf of the Commission.
During the prehearing conference, ALJ Gutman scheduled the hearing for March 1 and 2, 2017.
On September 23, 2016, ALJ Gutman issued a Pre-Hearing Order, setting forth the issues,
burden of proof, and schedule for hearing.

On March 1 and 2, 2017, a hearing was held in Salem, Oregon. ALJ Gutman presided.
Attorney J. Hank Stebbins represented Respondent. Mr. Ramirez represented the Commission.
Mr. Van Laanen appeared on behalf of the Commission. The following individuals testified:
Respondent, Burney Krauger, SP, CP, Officer Matt Smart, Dana Newdall, Dakota Hensley, and
Greg Olson. The record closed on March 2, 2017.

ISSUES

1. Whether, in October 2014, Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty. ORS
342.175(1)(b); OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n), (o).

2. If so, whether Respondent should receive a sanction of 90 days of suspension.

EVIDENTIARY RULING

The Commission’s Exhibits Al through A12 were admitted into the record without
objection. Respondent’s Exhibits R1 through R10 and R12 through R19 were admitted into the
1n the Matter ofDennis EJahnson - OAH Case N0. 2016-ABC-00013
Page l of 32

record without objection. Respondent withdrew Exhibit R1 l.
CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION

A witness testifying under oath 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
demonstrates that the evidence is logically incredible. T ew v. DM V, 179 Or App 443 (2002).

The evidence presented in the hearing is in dispute regarding the incident that took place
between Assistant Coach Brown and CP during a football game on October 10, 2014. As such, a
credibility determination is necessary.

Ofi'icer Matthew Smart. Officer Smart is employed by Reedsport Police Department.
Officer Smart has been in law enforcement for 22 years. On October 10, 2014, Officer Smart
was volunteering at the football game between Gold Beach High School and Reedsport High
School. Officer Smart was on the visitor’s (Gold Beach High School) side of the field. Officer
Smart observed the incident between Gold Beach Assistant Coach Brown and student CP.

Officer Smart testified (by affirrning his police report) to the following: Officer Smart
observed Brown charge CP and strike CP’s helmet with a closed fist. Officer Smart observed
Brown grab CP by the face mask and start screaming at CP. Officer Smart observed that Brovwr
was emotionally out of control. Officer Smart also observed that CP and others around the
incident were shocked by Brown’s behavior. Officer Smart told a referee that if Brown touched
another player he would have Brown removed from the field. The following day Officer Smart
reported the incident to the administrative assistant of the Reedsport School District, as well as
his supervisors at the Reedsport Police Department.

Officer Smart’s testimony was logical, consistent, and corroborated by his police report
(Ex. A7 at 54), and the testimony of CP’s father. Officer Srnart’s testimony was also unbiased.

I find that Officer Smart’s testimony is supported by the reliable evidence in the record.

Dana Newdall. Dana Newdall is employed as a teacher at Gold Beach High School.
Ms. Newdall has been a teacher for approximately 25 years. On October 10, 2014, Ms. Newdall
was taking photographs at the football game and observed the incident between Assistant Coach
Brown and student CP.

In the Matter ofDennis E Johnson - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 2 af32

Ms. Newdall testified to the following: Assistant Coach Brown reached out towards CP
and his hand glanced off CP’s shoulder pad and unintentionally hit CP’s helmet causing it to go
up. Brown then grabbed CP’s helmet and pulled it down. It was not a big deal.

A portion of Ms. Newdall’s testimony (grabbing CP’s helmet) is corroborated by Officer
Smart’s testimony and Brown’s stipulation (Ex. A9). The remaining part of Ms. Newdall’s
testimony regarding the incident was inconsistent with the reliable evidence in the record and
will be given no weight.

Dakota Hensley. Dakota Hensley was a student and football player at Gold Beach High
School in 2014. Mr. Hensley observed the incident between Assistant Coach Brown and CP.

Mr. Hensley testified to the following: CP had an attitude towards Assistant Coach
Brown. Brown brought CP in with the face mask and told him to play. Brown then shoved CP
back onto the field. It seemed minor.

A portion of Mr. Hensley’s testimony (pulling CP in with the face mask) is corroborated
by Officer Smart’s testimony and Brown’s stipulation (Ex. A9). The remaining part of Mr.
Hensley‘s testimony regarding the incident was inconsistent with the reliable evidence in the
record and will be given no weight.

Therefore, the findings of fact regarding the incident between Brown and CP are made in
reliance on Officer Smart’s testimony and Brown’s stipulation (Ex. A9).

FINDINGS OF FACT
Background

1. Dennis E. Johnson (Respondent) holds an Initial Administrator License with the
Commission. The license is valid through April 23, 2018. (Ex. A1.)

2. During the period of July 1, 2013 through July 1, 2015, Respondent was employed by
the Central Curry School District (CCSD) as Superintendent of CCSD and Principal of Gold
Beach High School (GBHS) in Gold Beach, Oregon.l (Test. of Johnson; Ex. A7 at 4.)

3. Respondent supervised approximately 10 teachers at GBHS, including Gregory
Brown (Brown), special education and lower level math teacher. Respondent’s duties covered
school sponsored activities, including GBHS football games. (Test. of Johnson; Ex. A9.)
Incident during football game g

4. During the 2014 to 2015 school year, CP was a student at GBHS and a player on the
1 Respondent moved from New York to Oregon in 2013 to take the position of Superintendent. (Test. of
Johnson; EX. A7 at 4.)

In the Matter ofDennis EJohnsan - OAH Case Na. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 3 of 32

GBHS football team. CP played the positions of running back and safety. Justin Storns (Storns)
was the head coach of the GBHS football team. Storns was not a licensed teacher, nor was he a
licensed administrator. Brown was the defensive coordinator and an assistant coach of the
GBHS football team. (Test. of CP, Johnson; Exs. A3, A7, A9.)

5. On Friday, October 10, 2014, the GBHS football team had an away game at the
Reedsport High School in Reedsport, Oregon. CP was playing in the game.

During the third quarter of the game, Coach Storns called for a time out to change
formations.2 CP was on the sideline taking ibuprofen for a groin injury he had sustained earlier
in the season. CP had taken his helmet off in order to take the medication with water.3 Storns
called out for CP, wanting to put CP back into the game. Assistant Coach Brown yelled at CP to
get his helmet on. CP put his helmet back on but did not fasten the chin strap. Brown then
physically struck CP on his helmet near the facemask, forcibly pushing CP’s unsnapped helmet
back along his head. Brown then grabbed CP’s facemask and used it to pull CP closer to him
while continuing to yell at CP.

Coach Storns and a referee intervened and physically separated Brown from CP. Brown
then walked dovwr the sideline away from the players. CP was not injured by Brown’s actions.
Storns spoke With CP and sent him back into the game. CP subsequently scored a touchdown.4

CP’s mother, MP, was a few feet from the incident and observed it when it occurred.
CP’s father, SP, was in the stands across the field and witnessed the interaction between Brown
and his son. SP was furious. SP ran to the other side of the field and confronted Brown, telling
Brown if he ever touched CP again SP would roll Brown up on that field.

Respondent was at the football game and saw a “commotion.” Respondent did not see
the details of the incident. GBHS teacher Dana Newdall (Newdall) was at the game taking
photographs. Respondent asked Newdall what the commotion was about. Newdall said Brown
and CP “got into it.” Respondent knew Brown was a teacher and CP was a student. Respondent
did not speak to Brown, CP, or CP’s parents about the incident that evening.

Officer Matt Smart, with the Reedsport Police Department, was at the football game
volunteering on the visitor’s side of the field. Officer Smart observed the incident when it
occurred. Officer Smart observed Brown charge CP and strike CP’s helmet with a closed fist.
Officer Smart observed Brown grab CP by the face mask and start screaming at CP. Officer
Smart observed that Brown was emotionally out of control. Officer Smart also observed that CP
and others around the incident were shocked by Brown’s behavior. Officer Smart told a referee
1 The score at that time was GBHS 8 and Reedsport 6. (Ex. A7 at 20.)

3 Players on the GBHS football team were required to have their helmets on even when they were on the
sidelines for their own safety. (Ex. A7 at 20.)
4 After scoring the touchdown, CP came off the field and hugged Brown, who apologized for his
' behavior. (Ex. A7 at 9, 12, 17.)
In the Matter afDennis EJohnsan — OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 4 af32

that if Brown touched another player he would have Brown removed from the field.

After the game was over, CP’s parents spoke with Coach Storns regarding the incident.5
CP’s parents told Storns that they were not okay with Brown hitting their son. Storns told CP’s
parents that he would report what happened to Respondent and GBHS Athletic Director Kevin
Swift (Swift).

In the locker room following the game, Brown apologized to the football team regarding
his behavior. Brown also apologized to CP in the parking lot as he was leaving. (Test. of Smart,
Johnson, Newdall; Exs. A3 at 1-3, A7 at 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 20, 54, A9 at 1-2.)

The investigation

6. On October 11, 2014, Officer Smart reported the incident between Brown and CP to
the administrative assistant of the Reedsport School District, as well as his supervisors at the
Reedsport Police Department. (Test. of Smart.)

7. On the morning of October 11, 2014, CP’s parents attended a youth football game at
GBHS. CP’s parents spoke with Storns and Swift, who were present at the game. CP’s parents
stated that they were still angry about the prior evening and something needed to be done. CP’s
parents stated that they expected the school to handle the matter and follow proper procedure.
Swift told CP’s parents that he was the right person to tell and it was his job to take care of it.
(Ex. A3 at 2.) Brown was at the game and apologized to CP’s parents for his behavior. CP’s
parents left it up to the school and Respondent to handle the incident. (Id.)

8. On October 11, 2014, Respondent met with Storns and Brown at GBHS.6 During the
meeting, the participants discussed the incident involving Brown and CP.7 Storns and Brown
reported that Brown had attempted to grab CP’s face mask during a time out, that there had been
no punch thrown, and that Brown had apologized to the team after the game. Storns and Brown
also reported that they had spoken with CP’s parents that morning and the issue was resolved
between all parties.8 (Test. of Johnson; Ex. A4 at 7, l3.)

9. During the week of October 13, 2014, Storns and Brown reviewed the game films and
found no video evidence of the incident.9 (Ex. A4 at 7.)

10. During the week of October l3, 2014, Respondent spoke with Swift, who confirmed
5 After the game, Brown also approached SP, but SP did not want to talk to Brown. (EX. A7 at 9.)

f’ The meeting was prearranged (before the incident took place). Respondent could not rccall if Swifi was
also present in the meeting. (Test. of Johnson.)

7 Respondent was unaware that he should not interview witnesses together. (Test. of Johnson.)

8 Respondent left it up to the coaches to resolve the matter. (Test. of Johnson.)

9 The video footage of the game only showed the actual plays during the game. There is no footage of the
time between plays, time outs, half time, or after the end of the game. (Ex. A7 at 8.)

In the Matter afDennis E Johnson - OAH Case N0. 2016-ABC-00013

Page 5 0f 32

that he had spoken with Storns and Brown and that the matter was resolved between the parties.
(Ex. A4 at 7.)
11. On October 15, 2014, Respondent issued an email to Brown that stated, in part:
I am [writing] this letter to you in reference to the incident that
occurred at Reedsport on Friday night, October 10th. During this
game you wanted to get the attention of a player during a hotly
contested game. In my day, this was called “rattling the cage” and
it was a game honored practice. Even today, it is used quite often,
as it has been at Gold Beach, but this incident and how it was
perceived caused some concern from the parents. In the future you
need to be more careful in getting player’s attention.
From what I gathered, you reached for the player’s face mask
(which wasn’t fastened) and during this move his helmet was
pushed back. Some people witnessed this and conclude that you
stuck [sic] the students [sic]. There is no evidence to support this
claim. You spoke with a parent during the game and afterwards
and from what I have been told everything has been resolved. I
also spoke with the player [CP] and he agrees.10 We also spoke on
Saturday, October 11th regarding this matter.
I recognize that you are a very passionate teacher and coach and I
do not want you to lose your enthusiasm and passion for the
profession. This was an unfortunate incident and it has been
resolved. Keep up the good work!
(Test. of Johnson; Ex. A4 at 12-13.) Brovm considered the email a “Letter of Counsel” from
Respondent regarding the incident with CP. (Ex. A7 at 11.)
l2. Prior to issuing the email to Brown, Respondent did not interview CP, CP’s parents,
or any other witnesses to the incident except Storns, Brown, and Newdall.ll Prior to issuing the
email to Brown, Respondent did not try to determine if there were other Witnesses that could
provide information regarding the incident. Respondent believed the matter was resolved. (Test.
of Johnson, SP; Exs. A3 at 1, A4 at 7.)
13. Prior to issuing the email to Brown, Respondent did not confirm with CP’s parents
‘0 Respondent testified that during the week of October l3, 2014, he approached CP in thc school hallway
and spoke to him for one or two minutes. Respondent testified that he asked CP how he was doing, and
that CP confirmed the issue was resolved. (Test. of Johson.) CP testified that Respondent did not talk to
him regarding the incident. (Test. of CP.)
H Newdall told Respondent that there was no punch thrown, and that Brown made contact with CP in the
shoulder pad/facemask area. (Ex. A4 at 8.)
In the Matter ofDennis EJahnson - OAII Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 6 0f32

that the matter was resolved. (Exs. A3 at l, A4 at 7.)

l4. During the period of October 12 to October 20, 2014, CP’s parents heard nothing
from Respondent regarding the incident involving Brown and their son.12 (Test. of SP.)

15. On October 20, 2014, at 8:15 a.m., GBHS teacher Corrine McGinnis sent an email to
GBHS counselor Holly Stephens, indicating that she had received information that student CP
had been punched by Coach Brown during an away game. In the email, McGinnis requested that
Stephens, in her neutral position, interview CP regarding the incident.

At or around 2:00 p.m., Stephens spoke with CP regarding the incident. CP confirmed
that Brown hit him on the face mask of his helmet. Stephens immediately contacted MP
regarding the incident. MP told Stephens that she was standing on the sidelines and saw the
entire incident occur. MP said she saw Brown punch CP on the helmet and then shake his face
mask. MP said the punch was a full-0n man punch. MP said that after Brown punched CP,
Coach Sterns pushed Brown off of CP. MP told Stephens that she felt conflicted about the
situation because CP did not want her or his father to do anything and because Brovwr had been
repeatedly apologetic. MP said that she was leaving it in the school’s hands. MP said she did
not want Brown fired but maybe mandated to take some anger management classes. (Exs . A4
at ll, A7 at 15, 28-29, 41.)

16. On October 21, 2014, at 7:45 a.m., Stephens and McGinnis attempted to report the
information they had obtained regarding the incident to Respondent, but he was not in his office.

At 8:00 a.m., Stephens and McGinnis filed a report with the Department of Human
Services, Child Protective Services (CPS).

At 8:10 a.m., Stephens and McGinnis met with Respondent and advised him of the
information they had obtained and what they had reported to CPS. Respondent told Stephens
and McGinnis that the incident had been handled; that it was just the culture of football and
being out in full football gear was different than being in the classroom; that Brown had just
smacked CP’s face mask; that he (Respondent) could not control the blame that might come back
from the community to them, CP, and Swift; and that it would just be best to ignore the situation.
Respondent also told Stephens and McGinnis that he was planning on calling CP to his office so
he could talk with him about the incident.

Stephens subsequently contacted CP’s parents and notified them of Respondent’s
intention to speak with CP. Stephens also notified CP’s parents that the school was making the
incident out as a slap (or smack) rather than a punch.

At or around 10:00 a.m., SP arrived at the school t0 speak with Respondent. Respondent
met with SP for less than five minutes. Respondent told SP that he had talked to all the parties
involved and that the report was filed as a smack/slap to the helmet. SP told Respondent several
‘2 CP told the Corru'nission‘s investigator that a week or so after the incident, Athletic Director Swifi
called CP out of his class to discuss the incident involving Brown. CP told thc investigator that he felt
that Swift was trying to get him to say that Brown did not hit him. (Ex. A7 at 18.)

In the Matter ofDennis EJohnson - OAH Case Na. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 7 of 32

times that it was a punch, not a smack/slap. Respondent told SP that he had not discovered any
evidence to support the claim of a punch. Respondent told SP that he had conducted an
investigation but would continue the investigation further. SP told Respondent that he expected
Respondent to do his job. SP also told Respondent that whether or not he fired Brown,
Respondent had rules he had to follow. Respondent told SP that he could speak with a few more
witnesses. Respondent did not arrange to interview SP (witness), CP (alleged victim), or MP
(witness) at that time.

Respondent then notified Brown and Swift that he was conducting further investigation
into the incident. Respondent asked Brown (the alleged perpetrator) and Swift if they had
anyone else who had witnessed the incident. (Test. of SP, CP, Johnson; Exs. A3, A4 at 7, l 1, A7
at 15-16, 28-29.)

17. During the period of October 21 through October 24, 2014, Brown and/or Swift
located two additional witnesses to confirm that there was no punch. One of the witnesses was a
trainer on the football team. The other witness was a parent, who admitted his view was partially
obstructed by Coach Storns. (Ex. A4 at 4, 7-8.)

18. During the period of October 21 through October 24, 2014, Respondent did not
interview CP or CP’s parents regarding the incident. (Test. of Johnson.)

19. During the period of October 21 through October 24, 2014, Respondent contacted
the Oregon State Bar Association (OSBA) and spoke with attorney Jackie Marks, who told
Respondent that since there was no evidence to support the claim (intent to hit or punch a
student), a TSPC notice was not required. (Test. of Johnson; Ex. A4 at 8.)

20. On or about October 23, 2014, Respondent told Stephens that he would not have
reported the incident to Child Protective Services. (Ex. A7 at l6.)

21. On October 24, 2014, McGinnis filed a complaint against Brown with the
Commission, asserting, among other things, that Brown had physically assaulted a student
athlete during a high school football game. (Ex. A7 at 1-2, 26.)

22. On November 3, 2014, CP’s parents filed a complaint against Respondent with the
Commission, asserting, among other things, that Respondent‘s handling of the incident between
Brown and CP was improper, that Respondent’s report regarding the incident was erroneous, and
that Respondent had never even spoken with them or CP regarding the incident. (Ex. A3.)

23. On November l7, 2014, SP went to GBHS and asked Respondent to be placed on the
agenda of the upcoming School Board meeting. Respondent did not arrange to interview SP, CP,
or MP at that time. (Test. of Johnson, SP, CP; Exs. A3, A4 at 8.)

24. On November 21, 2014, Respondent issued a written reprimand to Brown that stated,
in part:

This correspondence is to memorialize the conversations we have
In the Matter ofDennis EJahnsan - OAII Case Na. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 8 nf32

had around the incident that occurred at Reedsport on October 10th
at a football game.
As you are aware [SP] came into my office on October 21 to
discuss this football issue and I assured him that l would look into
this incident further. I spoke with the head FB coach, Justin
Storns, and he informed me that there was no punch thrown at
[CP]. I also spoke with a student trainer [(]in the presence of the
A.D. in my office) who was present in the area and witnessed the
incident. She also indicated that no punch was thrown, but it was
rather an attempt by you to grab the attention of the student by
grabbing at the face mask. Since the face mask with an attached
face shield was not strapped and your hand made contact with the
shield causing the helmet to go back, this may have given the
impression that a punch was thrown. This evidence also supports
my findings referenced on my previous email to you on Oct. 15"‘.
I have one other account that there was a hit from the back but this
cannot be corroborated by any evidence and is unfounded.
Therefore I have also come to the conclusion that there was no
punch thrown at the student. From my conversation with [C]oach
Storns this incident was resolved by your apology to the team and
the student and parents. I also spoke with the school attorney and
shared this information and she provided counsel that since there
was no intent on your part to throw or land [] a punch a TSPC
notification was not warranted.
This week the parent came into my office and indicated that he
may want to speak at the next board meeting during “Privilege 0f
the Floor” regarding this incident. I informed him that he had this
right but l advised him that if he spoke there could be no mention
of specific individuals, but rather a general comment. As l
referenced in my previous correspondence to you, “I recognize that
you are a very passionate teacher and coach and I do not want you
to lose your enthusiasm and passion for the profession. This was
an unfortunate incident and it has been resolved.”
This letter will be placed in your personnel file per CBA Article
#13.

(Ex. A4 at 14.) Prior to issuing the written reprimand to Brown, Respondent did not interview

CP or CP’s parents regarding the incident. (Test. of SP, CP; Ex. A3.)

25. On November 24, 2014, SP attended the School Board meeting. During the open
forum, SP notified the Board that his son had been assaulted by an assistant football coach, and
that he wanted the Board to take action regarding this unacceptable behavior. SP also notified
the Board that he had filed a complaint with the Commission and he had retained an attorney.
In the Matter ofDennis EJohnson - OAH Case N0. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 9 of 32

Respondent was present and responded to SP’s statements. Respondent informed SP that the
superintendent does the fact-finding for all staff conduct cases, that personnel issues could not be
discussed in the forum, and that the issue was handled administratively. (Ex. R5.)
26. On or about November 24, 2014, following the School Board meeting, Respondent
contacted the OSBA, spoke with an attorney, and obtained an OSBA investigation template to
utilize in his investigation. (Test. of Johnson; Ex. A4 at 3-6.) The OSBA investigation template
outlined the appropriate steps to take and/or questions to ask when conducting an investigation,
as follows:
l. Interview the alleged victim (allowing his parent to be present)
a. Ask for every reason why he believes a school rule was I
violated? (After each answer, ask the witness “are there any other
reasons” to ensure that we exhaust his reasons and he cannot claim
that we did not take all of his reasons into account.)
b. Ask how he was harmed by the alleged rule violations? (After
each answer, ask the witness “is there any other harm you believe
to have suffered?”)
c. Ask the victim about what he believes was the alleged
harasser/bully’ s motivation?
d. Ask victim to identify all witnesses.
2. Interview the witnesses to learn their version of the facts.
a. Ask for any information they have regarding the facts in
question.
b. Ask each witness whether they have reason to believe a school
rule was violated, and if so, every reason why?
c. Do you know of any other witnesses to this incident.
3. Interview the alleged rule violator.
a. Ask for their version of the facts.
b. Ask him to articulate the decision they actually made and the
basis/motivation for the decision.
4. Draft a chronological explanation of the facts.
a. To draft a concise chronology, credibility determinations must
be made. It is not necessary to articulate why one witness’s
version of the facts is believed rather than another’s version, but
the determination should be reasonable.
5. Brainstorm/implement the “appropriate” response.

In the Matter of Dennis E Johnson — OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013

Page 10 of 32

a. “Appropriate” means action reasonably calculated to stop or
prevent future rule violations (e.g. termination of employment or
expulsion of student; counseling for the victim; training of staff;
revamp policies).
b. If no rule violation occurred, then the “appropriate” response
may be simply reaffirming the district’s commitment to
investigating complaints.
(Test. of Johnson; Exs. A4 at 3-6.)
27. After receiving the OSBA template, Respondent made three attempts in early
December 2014 to meet with CP’s parents. (Exs. A4 at 8-9, A7 at 47.) By the time Respondent
reached out to CP’s parents, they were represented by counsel and were done talking with the
school district and Respondent. (Test. of SP; Ex. A4 at 9.)
28. Between December l and December 12, 2014, Respondent filled out the OSBA
template by interviewing witnesses to the incident and taking down their statements. (Test. of
Johnson; Ex. A4 at 3-6.)
29. On or about December 12, 2014, Respondent typed up a chronological order of
events based on his notesl3 and his memory. (Test. of Johnson; Exs. A4 at 7-9.)
30. On December 12, 2014, Respondent issued a letter to the Coos Curry Board of
Education that stated, in part:
This letter is to summarize my investigation of the complaint that
was filed by [SP] on Monday, November 24, 2014. This complaint
was filed at the board meeting that was held that evening.
I made several attempts to have the [P’s] come into school so that I
could interview them and their son [CP]. These attempts include a
phone contact with [MP] early in the week of December 1, a letter
sent by the main office on Friday, December 5th, and a subsequent
phone call by Mrs. Theresa Hendrix on December 10d‘. On the last
phone contact, December 10"‘, [SP] informed Mrs. Hendrix thatI
would be hearing from their attorney on this matter. As a result of
not having the ability to interview the [P’s], I have concluded my
investigation of their complaint.
Over the course of the past two weeks I have interviewed Central
Curry School employees, several non-school individuals and 3
students who were in attendance at the game and in the vicinity of
the incident referenced in the complaint.

13 During the investigation, Respondent reportedly entered notes in his Google calendar. Respondent did

not keep copies of those notes for review. (Test. of Johnson.)

In the Matter ofDennis E Johnson - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013

Page 11 of 32

The school employees include Justin Storns — Head Football
Coach, Mr. Mike Becker — JV Head Coach, and Dana Newdall —
high school teacher, Beau Hanson — Assistant Football Coach,
Kevin Swift — Athletic Director and Coach Greg Brown Assistant
Football Coach. In addition to these employees I interviewed two
other adults who regularly go to games and three student athletes.
From these interviews there was a consistent response which
described that [CP] did not have his helmet on when Coach Storns .
called him back into the game. This was during a transition after a
turnover in the game. Since [CP] did not have his helmet on
Coach Storns had to call a time out. Coach Brown was telling
[CP] that the team rule is to have your helmet on when you are on
the sidelines and [CP] was telling Mr. Brown that he had gone to
the sidelines for some Tylenol or other pain medication since he
had a headache. This verbal exchange could be described as
yelling between both and some swearing words were most likely
used by both the coach and player.
From the testimony provided by the witnesses they portrayed
Coach Brown[’s] actions as initiating a hand motion as “reaching
motion toward the should pad/face shield area”, “making contact
with his facemask”, “grabbing the facemask”, “grabbing the
facemask”, “pushed him above the facemask”, and “thrusting his
open hand toward his helmet.” One witness testified that [MP]
said several times, “Did he just push my son.” This witness
observed the entire incident from start to finish. No testimony was
provided that Coach Brown hit the student with a closed fist or a
“man punch” that has been described by the father.
The witnesses also shared with me that some felt a school rule was
violated by making contact with a student, he may have overacted
by his actions, and that in the game of football this type of physical
contact is used to redirect the attention of the athlete in practice
and games. The videos of the game that we have in our possession
have been reviewed two times and we have contacted the
Reedsport Athletic Director to see if they have any videos of this
incident. He has indicated that they do not have any video of this
incident.
After this incident [CP] immediately returned to play and several
plays later he scored a touchdown. Afler this touchdown Coach
Brown and [CP] spoke on the sidelines and hugged each other
(which I observed) and exchanged apologies per Mr. Brown
testimony. Subsequent to this incident [CP] scored two more

In the Matter of Dennis E Johnson - OAH Case N0. 2016-ABC-00013

Page 12 0f32

touchdowns and the team won a very important and emotional
game.
After the game, Coach Storns spoke with the parents and they
indicated that they appreciated the way he handled the incident and
Mr. Brown apologized to the team for his actions. The following
day both coaches spoke with the [P’s] and they informed rne that
this incident had been settled by all parties. As a result of my
subsequent conversations with both coaches on Saturday, October
l 1m, I concluded that there was no need for me to intervene on this
issue since it was mutually resolved. Our practice is to encourage
having issues resolved at the lowest level and by the coaches
actions this was achieved. During the following week I spoke with
[CP] [and] he also indicated that this issue had been resolved. I
also spoke with Coach Brown that in the future he needed to use
more caution when directing students in practice and games and
greater caution should be used when touching students.
My conclusions are that Coach Brown reacted in a state of high
emotions but there was no intent or testimony evidence that he hit
the student with a closed fist. With the helmet not being fastened
and when contact was made, the helmet was pushed back giving
the appearance of a greater impact than it was. I have counseled
Coach Brown as above[.] I conclude no further action is required.
(Ex. A4 at 15-16.)
31. On December 12, 2014, Respondent issued a letter to CP’s parents, notifying them of
his conclusion regarding their complaint with the School Board, and enclosing a copy of the
letter he had sent to the School Board. (Exs. A4 at l7, R8.)
32. On December 17, 2014, Burney Krauger, investigator with the Commission, spoke
with Respondent regarding the incident and subsequent investigation. Mr. Krauger also issued a
Subpoena Duces Tecum to Respondent, requesting copies of all complaints, investigations,
reports, notes, recordings, working files, and any other related documents pertaining to Brovwr.
(Test. of Krauger; Ex. A7 at 4-5.)
33. On January 9, 2015, Respondent issued a letter to the Commission regarding his
investigation of Brown that stated, in part:
The above named individual has served as a teacher and athletic
coach of Central Curry School District #1 during this current
school year. It was brought to my attention 0n October 10, 2014
that Mr. Greg Brown made physical contact with a student-athlete
at a football game at Reedsport, Oregon on October 10, 2014.

In the Matter ofDennis E Johnson - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013

Page I3 of32

\ I spoke with Mr. Brovwr on the following day October ll'h, along
with the head coach Mr. Justin Storns regarding this incident. I
was informed that this contact was an attempt to make sure that his
helmet was fastened and to refocus his attention back to the game.
There was no intent to discipline or physically injure the student.

It was an attempt to make sure that his helmet was strapped and to
refocus. On the following day, October llth, both coaches spoke
with the parents and this matter was resolved between all parties. I
subsequently spoke with both coaches later that day and was
informed that this incident was resolved. Since I was assured that
this was effectively addressed and the parents did not contact me I
completed my initial investigation by speaking with both coaches
and the athletic director. I also spoke with the student the
following week and he said that the matter was over. After this
incident I cautioned the coach on using this type of action and sent
him a notice via email. I also contacted OSBA to seek counsel on
this matter and my contact. Ms. Jackie Marks informed me that I
had addressed this in an appropriate manner.
Later in November, the student’s father spoke with rne and wanted
to know what had happened. I informed him that this incident had
been handled administratively. He requested to be placed on the
next board agenda on November 24. I informed him that he would
have the opportunity to speak at the November board meeting,
which he did. At that meeting he again requested to know what
had happened with the coach. In public session I assured him that
it had been investigated and handled administratively and I could
not go into further details since it was a personnel matter. After
this meeting I once again contacted OSBA and spoke with a
different counsel (since Jackie no longer worked for OSBA). They
provided me an investigation template to work from. I followed
this template and spoke with 6 adults; 4 who worked for the
school, 2 who regularly attend our games, and 3 student-athletes
and Mr. Brown. All of these people were in close proximity to the
incident. I also had the athletic director speak with the Reedsport
athletic director and reviewed the game films. I also reached out 3
times (2 by phone and one by mail) to have the parents come in
and they refused to meet with me regarding this incident.
Afler speaking with the above witnesses, reviewing videos of the
game, making contact with people from Reedsport I completed this
investigation and finalized my report. This report was shared with
the board of education and a copy was sent to the parents.
Attached are the documents related to the incident based upon my
investigation along with other documents requested in the

In the Matter of Dennis E Johnson - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013

Page I4 of 32

subpoena.
(Ex. A4 at 1-2.) Respondent enclosed, among other things, copies of his investigation log, his
chronological order of events, his email and letter to Coach Brown, his summary of findings to
the Board, and his letter to CP’s parents. (Id. at 3-19.)
34. Respondent did not provide the Commission with a copy of the investigative notes he
placed on his Google calendar. (Test. of Johnson; Ex. A4.)
District policy
35. During the relevant time period, CCSD had a district policy strictly prohibiting
hazing, harassment, intimidation, menacing or bullying by students, staff or third parties.l4 (Ex.
A10 at l.) The district policy set forth the following pertinent definitions:
“Harassment, intimidation or bullying” means any act that
substantially interferes with a student’s educational benefits,
opportunities or performance, that takes place on or immediately
adjacent to school grounds, at any school-sponsored activity, on
school-provided transportation or at any official school bus stop,
and that has the effect of:
a. Physically harming a student or damaging a student’s property;
b. Knowingly placing a student in reasonable fear of physical harm
to the student or damage to the student’s property;
c. Creating a hostile educational environment.
“Harassment” also includes, but is not limited to, any act which
subjects an individual or group to unwanted, abusive behavior of a
nonverbal, verbal, written or physical nature on the basis of age,
race, religion, color, national origin, disability and marital status.
“Intimidation” includes, but is not limited to, any threat or act
intended to tamper, substantially damage or interfere with
another’s property, cause substantial inconvenience, subject
another to offensive physical contact or inflict serious physical
injury on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or sexual
orientation.
“Menacing” includes, but is not limited to, any act intended to
place a school employee, student or third party in fear of imminent
serious physical injury.
(Ex. A10 at 1-3.)
1‘ The district provides forms for complainants and witnesses to fill out. (Ex. A10 at 9-10.)
In the Matter ofDennis E Johnson — OAH Case Na. 2016-ABC-OOOI3
Page I 5 of 32

36. In Respondent’s written reprimand to Brown, Respondent did not address or
determine whether Brown had violated the district’s policy on Harassment. (Ex. A4.)

37. On June 12, 2015, Mr. Krauger interviewed Respondent regarding the incident.
Respondent did not know or recall the district’s policies regarding physical contact between
teachers and students that were in place during relevant time period. (Ex. A12.)

Criminal charges

38. On December 2, 2014, SP filed a police report against Brown for hitting CP on
October 10, 2014. Officer Terry Lohf, with the Reedsport Police Department, took the report.
SP told Officer Lohf that he was reporting the assault two months after the fact because CCSD
would not do anything about Brown hitting his son. Officer Lohf spoke with CP regarding the
incident. Officer Lohf also spoke with Officer Smart. Officer Lohf requested and received a
supplemental report from Officer Smart regarding the incident. Officer Lohf then referred the
matter to the City Prosecutor on charges of Menacing and Harassment. (Ex. A7 at 6, 50-54.)

39. On February 3, 2015, Brovm was charged in the Municipal Court for the City of
Reedsport with Disorderly Conduct and Harassment. (Ex. A8 at 1-2.)

40. On or about April 15 , 2015, Brown entered a ISO-day Diversion on the charge of
Harassment.l5 (Ex. A8 at 3-6.)

41. On October l5, 2015, following Brown’s completion of the Diversion, the charge of
Harassment was dismissed. (Ex. A8 at 7 .)

Federal lawsuit

42. On July 21, 2015, CP and CP’s parents filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court in Eugene, Oregon, against CCSD, Respondent, and Brown. (Ex. A6 at l.)

43. On or about December 14, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and
mutual release of all claims. (Ex. A6.)

Other information

44. On August 25, 2016, Brown signed a Stipulation of Facts and Final Order of
Reprimand and Probation with the Commission. (Ex. A9.) Brown stipulated to the following
facts regarding the incident with CP:

On October 24, 2014, the Commission received a report of
possible misconduct on Brown’s part, from a patron of the Central ~
Curry School District. Commission investigation determined that
on or about October 10, 2014, while coaching a football game in
‘5 Presumably the charge of Disorderly Conduct was dismissed as part of the agreement to cntcr l80-day
Diversion. (Ex. A7.)
In the Matter ofDennis E Johnson — OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page I6 of 32

Reedsport, Oregon, Brown physically struck a student, eighteen

year old CP, on his helmet near the facemask, forcibly pushing

CP’s unsnapped helmet back along his head. Multiple witnesses

reported that Brown was visibly angry and yelling a CP. After

Brown struck CP on the front of the helmet, he used CP’s

facemask to pull CP closer to him while Brown continued to shout.

Witness statements indicated a referee and other coaching staff

intervened to separate Brown from your contact with CP. On

February 18, 2015, Brown was criminally charged with

Harassment (Class B misdemeanor) related to Brown’s conduct

during the October 10, 2014 incident. On October 15, 2015, these

charges were dismissed pursuant to a court diversion agreement.
(Ex. A9.) Brown also stipulated to receiving a public reprimand and being placed on probation
for four years for engaging in gross misconduct in violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b), and OAR
584-020-0040(4)(d), (n), and (o). (Id)

45. In 2015, Respondent’s employment contract with CCSD was not renewed.
Respondent believes that his contract was not renewed because he is a “change agent.” (Test. of
Johnson.)

46. Respondent is currently working in Washington as a principal and superintendent.
(Test. of Johnson.)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. In October 2014, Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty in violation of OAR
584-020-0040(4)(n) and (o), and ORS 342.175(1)(b).

2. Respondent should receive a suspension of 90 days.

OPINION

The Commission contends that Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty in violation
of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) and (o), and ORS 342.175(1)(b). The Commission also contends
that Respondent should receive a suspension of 90 days for the violations. 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).

Violations

The Commission contends that Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty by failing to
In the Matter ofDennis EJohnson - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page I 7 of 32

act as a competent educator and administrator, and by failing to act as an ethical educator.
Respondent contends to the contrary. I agree with the Commission.
ORS 342.175 is titled “Grounds for discipline; reinstatement” and 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:
*****
(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 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;
(o) Substantial deviation from professional standards of ethics set
forth in OAR 584-020-0035;
OAR 584-020-0010 is titled “The Competent Educator” and provides, in material part:
The educator demonstrates a commitment to:
(1) Recognize the worth and dignity of all persons and respect for
each individual;
****>l=
(5) Use professional judgment[.]
In the Matter ofDennis E Johnson - OAH Case N0. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 18 0132

OAR 584-020-0015 is titled “Curriculum and Instruction” and provides, in relevant part:
(3) The competent administrator demonstrates:

(a) Skill in assisting individual staff members to become more
competent educators by complying with federal, state and local
laws, rules, and lawful and reasonable district policy and contracts;

OAR 584-020-0020 is titled “Supervision and Evaluation” and provides, in part:
(3) The competent administrator demonstrates: '

*****
(d) Skill in the use of employee and leadership techniques
appropriate to the assignment and according to well established
standards which ensure due process for the staff for which the
administrator is responsible for evaluating.

OAR 584-020-0030 is titled “Human Relations and Communications” and provides, in

pertinent part:
(3) The competent administrator demonstrates:
*****
(c) Willingness to be flexible in cooperatively working with others;
and
(d) Skill in reconciling conflict.

OAR 584-020-0035 is titled “The Ethical Educator” and provides, in material part:
The ethical educator is a person who accepts the requirements of
membership in the teaching profession and acts at all times in
ethical ways. In so doing the ethical educator considers the needs
of the students, the district, and the profession.

*****
(2) The ethical educator, in fulfilling obligations to the district,
will:
*****
(b) Conduct professional business, including grievances, through
In the Matter ofDennis EJohnson - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page I9 of 32

established lawful and reasonable procedures:

As indicated above, gross neglect of duty is any serious and material inattention to or l
breach of professional responsibilities, including substantial deviation from professional
standards of competency set forth in OAR 584-020-0010 through 584-020-0030 and substantial
deviation from professional standards of ethics set forth in OAR 584-020-0035.

On Friday, October 10, 2014, the GBHS football team had an away game at Reedsport
High School in Reedsport, Oregon. During the third quarter of the game, Coach Storns called
for a time out to change formations. CP was on the sideline taking ibuprofen for a groin injury
he had sustained earlier in the season. CP had taken his helmet off in order to take the
medication with water. Storns called out for CP, wanting to put CP back into the game.
Assistant Coach Brown yelled at CP to get his helmet on. CP put his helmet back on but did not
fasten the chin strap. Brown then physically struck CP on his helmet near the facemask, forcibly
pushing CP’s unsnapped helmet back along his head. Brown then grabbed CP’s facemask and
used it to pull CP closer to him while continuing to yell at CP. Coach Storns and a referee
intervened and physically separated Brown from CP. Brown then walked dovm the sideline
away from the players. CP was not injured by Brown’s actions. Storns spoke with CP and sent
him back into the game. CP subsequently scored a touchdown.

CP’s mother, MP, was a few feet from the incident and observed it when it occurred.
CP’s father, SP, was in the stands across the field and witnessed the interaction between Brown
and his son. SP was firrious and ran across the field to confront Brown, telling Brown if he ever
touched CP again SP would roll Brown up on that field.

Respondent was at the football game and saw a “commotion.” Respondent did not see
the details of the incident. GBHS teacher Newdall was at the game taking photographs.
Respondent asked Newdall what the commotion was about. Newdall said Brown and CP “got
into it.” Respondent knew Brown was a teacher and CP was a student. Respondent did not
speak to Brown, CP, or CP’s parents about the incident that evening.

Officer Matt Smart, with the Reedsport Police Department, was at the football game
volunteering on the visitor’s side of the field. Officer Smart observed the incident when it
occurred. Officer Smart observed Brown charge CP and strike CP’s helmet with a closed fist.
Officer Smart observed Brown grab CP by the face mask and start screaming at CP. Officer
Smart observed that Brown was emotionally out of control. Officer Smart also observed that CP
and others around the incident were shocked by Brown’s behavior. Officer Smart told a referee
that if Brown touched another player he would have Brown removed from the field.

After the game was over, CP’s parents spoke with Coach Storns regarding the incident.
CP’s parents told Storns that they were not okay with Brown hitting their son. Storns told CP’s
parents that he would report what happened to Respondent and Athletic Director Swift.

The following morning, October ll, 2014, CP’s parents attended a youth football game at
GBHS. CP’s parents spoke with Storns and Swift, who were present at the game. CP’s parents
stated that they were still angry about the prior evening and something needed to be done. CP’s
In the Matter ofDennis EJohnson - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 20 of 32

l
parents stated that they expected the school to handle the matter and follow proper procedure.
Swift told CP’s parents that he was the right person to tell and it was his job to take care of it.

Shortly thereafter, on that same day, Respondent met with Storns and Brown at GBHS.
During the meeting, the participants discussed the incident involving Brown and CP. Storns and
Brown reported that Brown had attempted to grab CP’s face mask during a time out, that there
had been no punch thrown, and that Brown had apologized to the team after the game. Storns
and Brown also reported that they had spoken with CP’s parents that morning and the issue was
resolved between all parties.

Respondent did not contact CP’s parents to verify what was being reported by the
coaches. Moreover, Respondent did not interview CP (the student victim) or CP’s parents
(witnesses to the incident) to obtain their version of the events at issue.

That following week, Respondent spoke with Athletic Director Swift, who confirmed that
he had spoken with Storns and Brown and that the matter was resolved between the parties.
Once again, Respondent did not verify the purported resolution with CP’s parents. In addition,
Respondent did not interview CP or CP’s parents regarding the incident.

On October 15, 2014, Respondent issued an email to Brown, stating that there was no
evidence that Brown struck CP, that the incident was resolved, and that in the filture, Brown
needed to be more careful in getting a player‘s attention.

Prior to issuing the email, Respondent did not interview CP, CP’s parents, or any other
witnesses to the incident except Storns, Brown, and Newdall (all district staff or employees). In
addition, Respondent did not try to determine if there were other witnesses that could provide
information regarding the incident. Respondent made his conclusions about the incident without
fully investigating the incident.

On October 20, 2014, at 8:15 a.m., GBHS teacher McGinnis sent an email to GBHS
counselor Stephens, indicating that she had received information that student CP had been
punched by Coach Brown during an away game. In the email, McGinnis requested that
Stephens, in her neutral position, interview CP regarding the incident.

At or around 2:00 p.m., Stephens spoke with CP regarding the incident. CP confirmed
that Brown hit him on the face mask of his helmet. Stephens immediately contacted MP
regarding the incident. MP told Stephens that she was standing on the sidelines and saw the
entire incident occur. MP said she saw Brovm punch CP 0n the helmet and then shake his face
mask. MP said the punch was a full on man punch. MP said that after Brown punched CP,
Coach Stems pushed Brown off of CP. MP told Stephens that she felt conflicted about the
situation because CP did not want her or his father to do anything and because Brown had been
repeatedly apologetic. MP said that she was leaving it in the school‘s hands. MP said she did
not want Brown fired but maybe mandated to take some anger management classes.

On October 21, 2014, at 7:45 a.m., Stephens and McGinnis attempted to report the
information they had obtained regarding the incident to Respondent, but he was not in the office.
In the Matter of Dennis E Johnson — OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 21 of 32

l
1
l

At 8:00 a.m., Stephens and McGinnis filed a report with CPS. At 8: 10 a.m., Stephens and

McGinnis met with Respondent and advised him of the information they had obtained and what

they had reported to CPS. Respondent told Stephens and McGinnis that the incident had been

handled; that it was just the culture of football and being out in full football gear was different

than being in the classroom; that Brown had just smacked CP’s face mask; that he (Respondent)

could not control the blame that might come back from the community to them, CP, and Swift;

and that it would just be best to ignore the situation. Respondent also told Stephens and

McGinnis that he was planning on calling CP to his office so he could talk with him about the

incident.

Stephens subsequently contacted CP’s parents and notified them of Respondent’s
intention to speak with CP. Stephens also notified CP’s parents that the school was making the
incident out as a slap (or smack) rather than a punch.

At or around 10:00 a.m., SP arrived at the school to speak with Respondent. Respondent
met with SP for less than five minutes. Respondent told SP that he had talked to all the parties
involved, and that the report was filed as a smack/slap to the helmet. SP told Respondent several
times that it was a punch, not a smack/slap. Respondent told SP that he had not discovered any
evidence to support the claim of a punch. Respondent told SP that he had conducted an
investigation but would continue the investigation further. SP told Respondent that he expected
Respondent to do his job. SP also told Respondent that whether or not he fired Brown,
Respondent had rules he had to follow. Respondent told SP that he could speak with a few more
witnesses. Respondent did not arrange to interview SP (witness), CP (the student victim), or MP
(witness) at that time.

Respondent then notified Brown and Swift (two district employees, one of which was the
perpetrator) that he was conducting further investigation into the incident and asked them to find
anyone else who had witnessed the incident.

During the period of October 21 through October 24, 2014, Brown and/or Swift located
two additional witnesses to confirm that there was no punch. One of the witnesses was a trainer
on the football team. The other witness was a parent, who admitted his view was partially
obstructed by Coach Storns. During that same time period, Respondent did not interview CP or
CP’s parents regarding the incident.

On November 3, 2014, CP’s parents filed a complaint against Respondent with the
Commission, asserting, among other things, that Respondent’s handling of the incident between
Brown and CP was improper, that Respondent’s report regarding the incident was erroneous, and
that Respondent had never even spoken with them or CP regarding the incident.

On November 17, 2014, SP went to GBHS and asked Respondent to be placed on the
agenda of the upcoming School Board meeting. Respondent did not arrange to interview SP, CP,
or MP at that time.

On November 21, 2014, Respondent issued a written reprimand to Brovwr, concluding
that there was no punch thrown at CP, and that the issue was resolved. Respondent did not
In the Matter ofDennis E Johnson — OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 22 of32

address or determine Whether Brown had violated district policy. Respondent formulated his
conclusion without having interviewed CP (the student victim) or CP’s parents (Witnesses to the
incident) regarding the incident.

On November 24, 2014, SP attended the School Board meeting. During the open forum,
SP notified the Board that his son had been assaulted by an assistant football coach, and that he
wanted the Board to take action regarding this unacceptable behavior. SP also notified the Board
that he had filed a complaint with the Commission and he had obtained an attorney. Respondent
was present and responded to SP’s statements. Respondent informed SP that the superintendent
does the fact-finding for all staff conduct cases, that personnel issues could not be discussed in
the forum, and that the issue was handled administratively.

On or about November 24, 2014, following the School Board meeting, Respondent
contacted the OSBA, spoke with an attorney, and obtained an OSBA investigation template to
utilize in his investigation. The OSBA investigation template outlined the appropriate steps to
take and/0r questions to ask when conducting an investigation, including interviewing the
alleged victim (step one), interviewing the Witnesses to learn their versions of the facts (step
two), interviewing the alleged rule violator (step three), drafting a chronological explanation of
the facts (step four), and brainstorrning/implementing the appropriate response (step five).

After receiving the OSBA template, Respondent made three attempts in early December
2014 to meet with CP’s parents. By the time Respondent reached out to CP’s parents, they were
represented by counsel and were done talking with the school district and Respondent.

During the period of December l, 2014 and December 12, 2014, Respondent filled out
the OSBA template by interviewing witnesses to the incident and taking down their statements.
Respondent never interviewed CP or CP’s parents. On or about December 12, 2014, Respondent
typed up a chronological order of events based on his notes and his memory.

On December 12, 2014, Respondent issued a letter to the Coos Curry Board of
Education, concluding that there was no evidence that Brown hit CP with a closed fist, that
Respondent had counseled Brown, and that no further action was required.

On December 12, 2014, Respondent issued a letter to CP’s parents, notifying them of his
conclusion regarding their complaint with the School Board, and enclosing a copy of the letter he
had sent to the School Board.

Dignity and respect

Pursuant to OAR 5 84-020-0010(1), the competent educator is required to demonstrate a
commitment to recognize the worth and dignity of all persons and respect for each individual.

Respondent did not interview CP or CP’s parents regarding the incident. Respondent
accepted Storn’s and Brown’s assertion that Brown did not hit CP, and left the matter up to the
coaches to resolve.

In the Matter ofDennis E Johnson - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 23 of 32

When confronted by SP on October 21, 2014, Respondent told SP that he had spoken to
all the parties involved, when in fact Respondent had not interviewed SP, CP, or MP. When SP
insisted that Brown punched CP, Respondent directed Swift and Brown, the perpetrator, to locate
additional witnesses to the incident instead of doing that himself.

On November l7, 2014, when SP asked Respondent to be placed on the agenda of the
upcoming School Board meeting, Respondent did not arrange to interview SP, CP, or MP at that
time.

On November 21, 2014, when Respondent issued Brown a reprimand and concluded that
Brown had not punched or struck CP during the football game, Respondent formulated his
conclusions without interviewing CP and CP’s parents.

Respondent failed to conduct a full and fair inquiry and investigation into the incident
that took place on October 10, 2014. Respondent’s actions failed to recognize the worth and
dignity of CP and CP’s parents.

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

Respondent contends that he spoke with CP and confirmed the matter was resolved.
However, I am not persuaded by Respondent’s contention. CP testified that Respondent did not
talk to him regarding the incident. CP’s testimony is corroborated by Respondent’s own actions
in this matter of not interviewing CP or CP’s parents regarding the incident. As such,
Respondent’s argument is unpersuasive.

Respondent also contends that he made three attempts to meet with CP’s parents.
However, Respondent did not make those attempts until early December 2014, after he had
issued the reprimand to Brown and concluded that Brown had not punched or struck CP during
the football game. Therefore, Respondent’s argument is unpersuasive.

Professional judgment

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

Respondent did not interview CP or CP’s parents regarding the incident. Respondent
accepted Stom’s and Brown’s assertion that Brown did not hit CP, and left the matter up t0 the
coaches to resolve.

Respondent also ignored other staff member’s concerns regarding the incident, telling
McGinnis and Stephens that the incident had been handled, that it was just the culture of football,
that Brown had just smacked CP’s face mask, and that it would just be best to ignore the
situation.

And, when confronted by SP on October 21, 2014, Respondent directed Swift and
In the Matter of Dennis E Johnson - OAH Case Nu. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 24 of 32

Brown, the perpetrator, to find more witnesses to the incident instead of finding the witnesses
himself. It was unreasonable for Respondent to believe that a perpetrator would actively seek
out witnesses that may provide statements against him.

Moreover, on November 21, 2014, when Respondent issued Brown a reprimand and
concluded that Brown had not punched or struck CP during the football game, Respondent
formulated his conclusions without interviewing CP and CP’s parents. In addition, in the
reprimand that he issued, Respondent did not address whether Brown’s physical contact with CP
violated district policy.

Furthermore, Respondent did not actually interview witnesses and document their
statements until early December 2014, two months afler the event, and afier he had concluded
that Brown had not punched or struck CP.

Respondent failed to conduct a full and fair inquiry and investigation into the incident
that took place on October 10, 2014. Respondent also failed to determine whether Brown
violated district policy. Respondent’s actions clearly demonstrate a lack of professional
judgment.

I find that Respondent violated OAR 5 84-020-0010(5). I further find that Respondent’s
actions were a substantial deviation from professional standards of competency.

Respondent contends that he spoke with OSBA Attorney Marks who determined his
investigation was appropriately done. However, I am not persuaded by Respondent’s contention.
Respondent’s own notes establish that he contacted Marks to determine whether or not he had a
duty to report Brown to the Commission. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that an OSBA attorney
would find an investigation complete when step one in the OSBA template (interview the victim)
was not done. Thus, Respondent’s argument is unpersuasive.

Skill in assisting stafi" members

Pursuant to OAR 584-020-0015(3)(a), the competent administrator demonstrates skill in
assisting individual staff members to become more competent educators by complying with
federal, state and local laws, rules, and lawful and reasonable district policy and contracts.

Respondent was the Superintendent of CCSD and the Principal of GBHS. Respondent
was Brown’s supervisor. Respondent was required to assist Brown to become a more competent
educator by complying with district policies, rules, and laws.

Respondent did not interview CP or CP’s parents regarding the incident. Respondent
accepted Storn’s and Brown’s assertion that Brown did not hit CP, and left the matter up to the
coaches to resolve.

Respondent also directed Brown, the perpetrator, to find more Witnesses to the incident
when it was unreasonable for Respondent to believe that a perpetrator would actively seek out
witnesses that may provide statements against him.

In the Matter ofDennis E Johnson - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 25 of 32

Moreover, on November 21, 2014, when Respondent issued Brovwr a reprimand and
concluded that Brown had not punched or struck CP during the football game, Respondent
formulated his conclusions without interviewing CP and CP’s parents. In addition, in the
reprimand that he issued, Respondent did not address whether Brown’s physical contact with CP
violated district policy.

As stated previously, Respondent failed to conduct a full and fair inquiry and
investigation into the incident that took place on October 10, 2014, and failed to determine
whether Brown violated district policy. By doing so, Respondent failed to assist Brown in
becoming a more competent educator by complying with district policies, rules, and laws.

I find that Respondent violated OAR 584-020-0015(3)(a). I further find that
Respondent’s actions were a substantial deviation from professional standards of competency.

Skill in the use of employee and leadership techniques

Pursuant to OAR 584-020-0020(3)(d), the competent administrator demonstrates skill in
the use of employee and leadership techniques appropriate to the assignment and according to
well established standards which ensure due process for the staff for which the administrator is
responsible for evaluating.

Respondent was the Superintendent of CCSD and the Principal of GBHS. Respondent
was Brown’s supervisor. It was Respondent’s duty to investigate the complaint against Brown.
Instead, Respondent left it up to Storns, an unlicensed individual, Brown, the perpetrator, and
Swift, who was not an administrator, to resolve the matter.

In addition, when confronted by SP on October 21, 2014, Respondent directed Swift and
Brown to locate additional witnesses to the incident instead of finding the witnesses himself. As
stated previously, it was unreasonable for Respondent to believe that a perpetrator would actively
seek out witnesses that may provide statements against him.

Respondent failed to conduct a full and fair inquiry and investigation into the incident
that took place on October 10, 2014. Respondent’s actions demonstrate a lack of skill in
choosing employees appropriate for the assignment. Respondent’s actions also demonstrate a
lack of leadership techniques appropriate for the assignment.

I find that Respondent violated OAR 584-020-0020(3)(d). I further find that
Respondent’s actions were a substantial deviation from professional standards of competency.

Flexibility and cooperatively working with others

Pursuant to OAR 584-020-0030(3)(c), the competent administrator demonstrates
willingness to be flexible in cooperatively working with others.

CP’s parents wanted the incident involving Brown handled appropriately by Respondent.
In the Matter ofDennis EJohnson - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 26 of 32

CP’s parents put their faith and trust in Respondent to determine the truth and discipline Brown
accordingly.

However, Respondent failed CP’s parents. Respondent did not interview CP or CP’s
parents regarding the incident. Instead, Respondent accepted Storn’s and Brovwr’s assertion that
Brown did not hit CP, and left the matter up to the coaches to resolve.

Moreover, when confronted by SP on October 21, 2014, Respondent did not take the
opportunity to work with SP by interviewing him, his wife and his son regarding the incident.

Furthermore, when SP told Respondent on November 17, 2014, that he wanted to address
the School Board, Respondent again did not take the opportunity to work with SP by
interviewing him, his wife, and his son regarding the incident.

Respondent did not even attempt t0 interview CP or CP’s parents until early December
2014, after he had already issued a reprimand to Brown and concluded that Brown had not
punched or struck CP during the football garne.

Respondent failed to conduct a full and fair inquiry and investigation into the incident
that took place on October 10, 2014. Respondent’s actions demonstrate an unwillingness to be
flexible in working cooperatively with others.

I find that Respondent violated OAR 584-020-0030(3)(c). I further find that
Respondent’s actions were a substantial deviation from professional standards of competency.

Skill in reconciling conflict

Pursuant to OAR 584-020-0030(3)(d), the competent administrator demonstrates skill in
reconciling conflict.

As set forth previously, CP’s parents put their faith and trust in Respondent to determine
the truth and discipline Brown accordingly.

However, Respondent failed CP’s parents. Respondent did not interview CP or CP’s
parents regarding the incident. Instead, Respondent accepted Stom’s and Brown’s assertion that
Brown did not hit CP, and left the matter up to the coaches to resolve.

Moreover, when confronted by SP on October 21, 2014, Respondent did not try to
reconcile the conflict by interviewing SP, his wife and his son regarding the incident.

Furthermore, when SP told Respondent on November 17, 2014, that he wanted to address
the School Board, Respondent again did not try to reconcile the conflict by interviewing SP, his
wife, and his son regarding the incident.

Respondent did not even attempt to interview CP or CP’s parents until early December
2014, alter he had already issued a reprimand to Brown and concluded that Brown had not
In the Matter ofDennis E Johnson — OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 27 of 32

punched or struck CP during the football game.

Respondent failed to conduct a full and fair inquiry and investigation into the incident
that took place on October 10, 2014. Respondent’s actions fail to demonstrate skill in
reconciling conflict.

I find that Respondent violated OAR 584-020-0030(3)(d). l further find that
Respondent’s actions were a substantial deviation from professional standards of competency.

Conducting professional business

Pursuant to OAR 584-020-0035(2)(b), the ethical educator, in fulfilling obligations to the
district, will conduct professional business, including grievances, through established lawful and
reasonable procedures.

Respondent was the Superintendent of CCSD and the Principal of GBHS. Respondent
was Brown’s supervisor. It was Respondent’s duty to investigate the complaint against Brown,
including determining whether Brown violated district policy by interviewing the complainant
(victim) and Witnesses to the incident.

Respondent did not interview CP (victim) or CP’s parents (witnesses) regarding the
incident. Respondent accepted Storn’s and Brown’s assertion that Brown did not hit CP, and left
the matter up to the coaches to resolve.

Respondent also directed Brown, the perpetrator, to find more witnesses to the incident
when it was unreasonable for Respondent to believe that a perpetrator would actively seek out
witnesses that may provide statements against him.

Moreover, on November 21, 2014, when Respondent issued Brown a reprimand and
concluded that Brown had not punched or struck CP during the football game, Respondent
formulated his conclusions without interviewing CP and CP’s parents. In addition, in the
reprimand that he issued, Respondent did not address whether Brown’s physical contact with CP
violated district policy.

Furthermore, Respondent did not actually interview witnesses and document their
statements until early December 2014, two months afler the event, and after he had concluded
that Brown had not punched or struck CP.

Respondent failed to conduct a full and fair inquiry and investigation into the incident
that took place on October 10, 2014. Respondent failed to determine whether Brown violated
district policy. Respondent failed to conduct professional business through established lawful
and reasonable procedures.

I find that Respondent violated OAR 584-020-0035(2)(b). I further find that
Respondent’s actions were a substantial deviation from professional standards of ethics.

In the Matter ofDennis E Johnson — OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 28 of 32

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

Respondent contends that he conducted the investigation in proportion to what he heard
and/0r was told. However, Respondent was responsible for investigating the incident, including
interviewing the complainant (victim) and witnesses to the incident. Respondent did not
interview CP (victim) or CP’s parents (witnesses) regarding the incident. By failing to interview
CP and CP’s parents, Respondent failed to conduct a full and fair investigation into the incident
and failed to conduct professional business through established lawful and reasonable
procedures. Consequently, Respondent’s argument is unpersuasive.

Respondent also contends his actions did not amount to a serious inattention or breach of
professional duty. However, I have found to the contrary. Thus, Respondent’s argument is
unpersuasive.

Respondent further contends that he is being held to a higher standard than other staff,
including Officer Smart. However, there is simply no credible evidence in the record to support
Respondent’s assertion. Accordingly, Respondent’s argument is without merit.

Sanction

The Commission contends that Respondent’s license should be suspended for 90 days.
Respondent contends to the contrary. I agree with the Commission.

ORS 342.175 further provides:

(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 0f 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:

In the Matter ofDennis EJohnson - OAH Case N0. 2016-ABC-00013

Page 29 of32

(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;

(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(1)(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 sanctionsupon an educator that violated any standard in OAR
584-020-0040, the Commission may consider the factors in OAR 584-020-0045.

As determined previously, Respondent engaged in gross neglect of duty in October 2014.
The Commission seeks to impose a 90 day suspension.

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.

///

///

In the Matter ofDennis E Johnson — OAH Case No. 2016—ABC-00013
Page 30 of 32

ORDER
I propose the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission issue the following order:
The Notice of Opportunity for Hearing issued on April 25, 2016, is AFFIRMED.
Dove L. Gutman
Senior Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
EXCEPTIONS
The proposed order is the Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation to the Teacher
Standards and Practices Commission (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 ofDennis E Johnson — OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 31 of 32

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

On April 13, 2017 I mailed the foregoing PROPOSED ORDER issued on this date in OAH Case
No. 2016-ABC-00013.
By: First Class and Certified Mail
Rebekah R Jacobson
Garrett Hemann Robertson PC
lOll Commercial St. NE
Salem OR 97301
By: First Class
Dennis E. Johnson
PO box l39l
Gold Beach OR 97444
By: Electronic Mail
Jeff T. Van Laanen, Agency Representative
Teacher Standards And Practices Commission
250 Division Street NE
Salem OR 97301
Raul Ramirez, Assistant Attorney General
Department Of Justice
1162 Court St NE
Salem OR 97301

Lucila G Marquez
Hearing Coordinator
In the Matter ofDennis E Johnson - OAH Case No. 2016-ABC-00013
Page 32 of32