' BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of the Teaching License of: ) FINAL ORDER
)
JEFFERY PAUL MAINARD ) Hearing Ofﬁcer Panel Case
) No. 99785
On August 14, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Catherine P. Cobum issued a
Proposed Order in this case.
The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission adopts the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and sanction contained in the attached Proposed Order.
98%
The Commission adopts the Proposed Order and orders that the Oregon Teaching
. License of Jeffery Paul Mainard is revoked.
Dated this é day of October 2002.
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
l/ /
, f Y . F
By‘;m ////(//42./1.
ictoria Ch W in, Executive Director
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 service of this order. Judicial
review is pursuant to the provisions of ORS 183.482 to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
Page 1 — FINAL ORDER—JEFFERY PAUL MAINARD ‘

BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER PANEL
. STATE 0F OREGON
for the
TEACHER STANDARD AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE TEACHING ) PROPOSED ORDER
LICENSE OF )
) Hearing Ofﬁcer Panel Case N0.: 99785
JEFFREY PAUL MAINARD ) Agency File N0.: 5840001-GE0232-02
HISTORY OF THE CASE

On May 15, 2002, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC) issued a
Second Amended Notice of Hearing proposing to impose discipline and Jeffrey Paul Mainard
(respondent) appeals. On July 19, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Catherine P. Coburn
conducted a hearing in this matter in Salem, Oregon. Assistant Attorney General Joe Gordon
McKeever represented TSPC. Respondent appeared pro se, waived his right to a conﬁdential
hearing pursuant to ORS 342.177(1) and testiﬁed on his own behalf. TSPC called Oregon State
Trooper J.L. Richardson, Oregon City Police Officer Dan Shockley and TSPC Investigator Sue
Nisbet as witnesses. The record closed on the date of hearing.

After review and consideration of the entire record in this matter, including all of the
exhibits and testimony, I now issue this Proposed Order.

’ ISSUES

(l) Whether on or about October 9, 1998, Mainard drove under the inﬂuence of
intoxicants in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(5)(e) and was arrested for Driving
Under the Inﬂuence of Intoxicants (DUII). Whether he was granted Diversion on
October 28, 1998, completed the Diversion and the DUII was dismissed on
November 2, 1999 in Multnomah County Circuit Court.

(2) Whether on or about May 28, 1999, Mainard rode a bicycle under the inﬂuence of
intoxicants. Whether on August l3, 1999, he entered a guilty plea and was convicted
of DUII in Clackamas County Circuit Court in violation of OAR 585-020-0040(5)(c).

(3) Whether on or about May 9, 2001, Mainard failed to exhibit skill in communicating
with students by using profanity in communicating with students. Whether this
conduct violated OAR 584-020-0030(2)(b).

(4) Whether on or about August 3, 2001, Mainard unlawfully carried two concealed
weapons, one of which was loaded, in a public park and he was arrested and charged
with two counts of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. Whether at the time of his
arrest, Mainard was under the inﬂuence of alcohol in violation of the terms of his

I court probation and in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(5)(t). Whether on October 9,
In the Matter of Jeﬁey Paul Mainard,
Page l of 11

2001, he was convicted in Oregon City Municipal Court of Unlawful Possession of a
. Firearm in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(5)(c).
EVIDENTIARY RULINGS

TSPC Exhibits A1, A2 and A5 through A13 were admitted into the record over
respondent’s relevance objections. TSPC Exhibits A3, A4, and A14 through A17 were received
into the record without objection.

Respondent’s Exhibits R101 through R106 and R108 through R113 were admitted into
the record without objection. Respondent’s Exhibit R107 was admitted into the record over
TSPC’s relevance objection.

FINDINGS 0F FACT

(l) On October 9, 1998, respondent drove a motor vehicle the wrong direction on a one-
way street in Portland, Oregon and was arrested for driving under the inﬂuence of
intoxicants. A breath test measured respondent’s blood alcohol at .22. (Exs. A5, A6
A7, A8, A9).

(2) On October 28, 1998, respondent was granted enrollment in a diversion program.
Respondent completed the diversion program and the DUII charge was dismissed on
November 2, 1999 in Multnomah County Circuit Court. (Ex. A9-2 and A10).

' Respondent’s Treatment Program Termination Notice states, “Active in AA, plans to
build sober support group in community activities, with long range goal to remain
abstinent.” (Ex. A10).

(3) On May 28, 1999, respondent rode a bicycle under the inﬂuence of intoxicants, into
trafﬁc on McLoughlin Boulevard and was struck by a motor vehicle. When
questioned by police at the scene of the accident, respondent was belligerent and
refused a breath alcohol test, stating, “I’m not going to take it, I already know I’m
drunk.” Respondent estimated that he had consumed 6 glasses of wine. When asked
to rate the extent of his own drunkenness between one and ten, respondent replied,
“I'm pretty drunk, 6”. Respondent was arrested for DUII. (Exs. All and A12, R106;
testimony of J .L. Richardson, Trooper, Oregon State Police).

(4) On August l3, 1999, respondent pled guilty to DUII, was convicted and sentenced to
24 months probation on condition that he obey all laws, not use or possess alcoholic
beverages, and not associate with any person known to use, sell, or possess illegal
drugs or narcotics. (Ex. A13).

(5) In July 1999, respondent submitted an Application for Educator License to TSPC. In
response to a question whether the applicant had been convicted of any crime or had
any criminal matters pending, respondent submitted four documents consisting of two
documents pertaining to the diversion program arising from the 1998 DUII arrest and

’ the citation and judgment arising from the 1999 DUII conviction. Respondent
In the Matter of Jeﬂ'rey Paul Mainard,
Page 2 of ll

provided the following statement: “Please note that I have not and will not receive a
. citation for this because I voluntarily entered the diversion program. Thank you. Jeff
Mainard”. (Testimony of Sue Nisbet, TSPC Investigator).

(6) TSPC interpreted the documents and statement provided by respondent to mean that
he had been arrested in one alcohol-related incident which was resolved by successful
completion of a diversion program. (Ex. A16).

(7) In October 1999, TSPC issued an initial Oregon teaching license to respondent. (Ex.
A17).

(8) TSPC does not issue initial teaching licenses to applicants who have been arrested in
two alcohol-related incidents within two years. (Testimony of Nisbet).

(9) On August 3, 2001 respondent was arrested for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm.
Oregon City Police answered a call reporting a man taking a gun out of a backpack in
High Rocks Park. Ofﬁcer Shockley found respondent, hidden by large rocks, lying
on a backpack. Respondent hid his face under a shirt. Safety inspection of
respondent’s backpack revealed two guns, one of them loaded. Ofﬁcer Shockley
noted the strong odor of alcohol coming from respondent. Respondent was
uncooperative and when asked his occupation, replied, “None of your f“*****
business.” Respondent did not have a concealed weapons permit. (Ex. A14;

' testimony of Oregon City Police Ofﬁcer Dan Shockley).

(10)On August 3, 2001, when respondent was arrested for Unlawful Possession of a
Firearm in a public park, respondent was under the inﬂuence of alcohol. (Ex. A14;
testimony of Ofﬁcer Shockley).

(l 1) High Rocks is a public park located in the community where respondent served as a
substitute teacher. The park is crowded with swimmers and sunbathers in the
summertime. (Testimony of Ofﬁcer Shockley).

(12) On October 9, 2001, respondent was convicted in Oregon City Municipal Court of

Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. (Ex. A15).

(13) In May 2001, while working as a substitute teacher at Milwaukie High School,
respondent encountered a rebellious student and used profanity in the presence of
several students. (Ex. A3-1).

(l4) Another teacher and several students were aware of the incident when respondent
used profanity in a high school class. 05x. A3).

(15) Respondent wrote a memo memorializing the profanity incident. (Ex. A3).

(16) As a result of respondent’s use of profanity with a student, his status as a substitute
teacher at Milwaukie High School was suspended for the remainder of the 2000-

' 2001 school year. (Ex. A3-2). .
In the Matter of Jeﬁrey Paul Mainard,
Page 3 of ll

(17) In May 2001, while working as a substitute teacher at Clackamas High School,
. respondent wrote a handwritten note to a teacher that states,
I am soliciting work especially in English, to
seperate (sic) myself from the quagmire known as
Milwaukie H[igh] S[chool] where I usually am
everyday. Milwaukie teachers are having terrible
problems with an administration that refuses to
maintain proper disipline (sic) w[ith] the students. I
was repremanded (sic) for defending myself from a
verbal attack, and you may be aware of some of the
other problems that have been addressed in the
paper. (Ex. A2).
(18) As a result of respondent’s handwritten note, he was removed from the substitute
teacher’s list for Clackamas School District. (Ex. A2-l).
(19) On August 3, 2001, respondent’s former roommate ﬁled a complaint with TSPC that
states:
Jeff Mainard is an active drug addict and sells and
grows marijuana. Many students have seen him
drunk and stoned down on the river at “High
' Rocks” which he does gig. He is also in
possession of several illegal ﬁrearms. (Emphasis in
the original.) (Ex. Al).
(20) Respondent’s former roommate has been charged with various crimes including
Assault, DUII, Menacing, Harassment, Burglary, Criminal Trespass, Theft, Theft 2,
Criminal Possession of Rental Property and Recklessly Endangering Another. (Ex.
R107; testimony of respondent).
CONCLUSIONS 0F LAW
(l) On or about October 9, 1998, respondent drove a motor vehicle under the inﬂuence of
intoxicants and was arrested for Driving Under the Inﬂuence 0f Intoxicants (DUII).
He was granted Diversion on October 28, 1998. He completed the Diversion program
and the DUII charge was dismissed on November 2, 1999 in Multnomah County
Circuit Court. Respondent’s conduct violated OAR 584-020-0040(5)(e).
(2) On or about May 28, 1999, respondent rode a bicycle under the inﬂuence of
intoxicants. On August 13, 1999, he entered a guilty plea and was convicted of DUII
in Clackamas County Circuit Court. Respondent’s conduct violated OAR 585-020-
0040(5)(c).
In the Matter of Jeﬂi'ey Paul Mainard,
Page 4 of 11

(3) On or about May 9, 2001, respondent failed to exhibit skill in communicating with
. students by using profanity in communicating with students. Respondent’s conduct
violated OAR 584-020-0030(2)(b).
(4) On or about August 3, 2001, respondent unlawfully carried two concealed weapons,
one of which was loaded, and he was arrested and charged with two counts of
Unlaw'ﬁil Possession of a Firearm. At the time of his arrest, respondent was under the
inﬂuence of alcohol in violation of the terms of his court probation and in violation of
OAR 584-020-0040(5)(f). On October 9, 2001, he was convicted in Oregon City
Municipal Court of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. Respondent’s conduct
violated OAR 584-020-0040(5)(c).
OPINION
TSPC bears the burden of proving the allegations and that the proposed sanction is
warranted by a preponderance of the evidence. See ORS l83.450(2) and (5); Reguero v.
Teachers Standards and Practices Commission, 312 Or 402, 418 (1991) (burden is on
Commission in disciplinary action); Cook v. Employment Div., 47 Or App 437 (1980) (in the
absence of legislation adopting a different standard, the standard in administrative hearings is
preponderance of the evidence). Proof by a preponderance of 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).
ORS 342.175 provides:
(l) The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may
suspend or revoke the license of a teacher or
administrator, discipline a teacher or administrator or
suspend or revoke the right of any person to apply for a
license if the person has held a license at any time
within ﬁve years prior to issuance of the notice of
charges under ORS 342.1761 based on the following:
(a) Conviction of a crime not listed in ORS 342.143(3);
(b) Gross neglect of duty;
(c) Any gross unﬁtness;
(d) Conviction of a crime for violating any law of this or
any state or of the United States involving illegal use,
sale or possession of controlled substances;
‘ ORS 342.1760) provides:
' Upon receipt of a complaint or information that a person has violated ORS 342.143 or 342.175, the Teacher
Standards and Practices Commission shall promptly undertake an investigation.
In the Matter of Jeﬂrey Paul Mainard,
Page 5 of ll

(e) Any false statement knowingly made in an application
. for issuance, renewal 0r reinstatement of a license; or
(f) Failure to comply with any condition of reinstatement
under subsection (3) of this section or any condition of
probation under ORS 342.177(3)(b).
OAR 584-020-0040(5) provides in part:
(5) Gross unﬁtness is any conduct which renders an
educator unqualiﬁed to perform his or her professional
responsibilities. Conduct constituting gross unﬁtness
may include conduct occurring outside of school hours
and off school premises when such conduct bears a
demonstrable relationship to the edutmtor’s ability to
fulﬁll professional responsibilities effectively. The
following may be admissible as evidence of gross
unﬁtness. Consideration may include but is not limited
to:
##8##!‘
(c) Conviction of violating any federal, state, or local
. law. A conviction includes any ﬁnal judgment of
conviction by a court whether as the result of guilty plea,
no contest plea or any other means.
*****
(e) Admission of or engaging in acts constituting
criminal conduct, even in the absence of a conviction;
(f) Violation of a term of probation imposed by a court.
October 1998 DUII
Respondent does not dispute that on October 9, 1998, he drove a motor vehicle under the
inﬂuence of intoxicants, was arrested for DUII, was granted and completed Diversion. However,
respondent disputes that this conduct constitutes gross unﬁtness. Pursuant to OAR 584-020-
0040(5)(e), admission of or engaging in any criminal conduct, even in the absence of a
conviction constitutes gross unﬁtness. Here, respondent drove a motor vehicle under the
inﬂuence of intoxicants which is a criminal act and constitutes gross unﬁtness to serve as an
Oregon teacher, even in the absence of a conviction. Therefore, respondent’s conduct warrants
an appropriate sanction imposed by TSPC.
In the Matter of Jeﬁi'ey Paul Mainard,
Page 6 of ll

. May 1999 DUII

Respondent does not dispute that on May 28, 1999, he rode a bicycle under the inﬂuence
of intoxicants and on August l3, 1999, he pled guilty and was convicted of DUII. However,
respondent disputes that this conduct constitutes gross unﬁtness. Pursuant to OAR 584-020-
0040(5)(e), conviction by guilty plea of violating any state law constitutes gross unﬁtness. Here,
respondent pled guilty and was convicted of a state law prohibiting driving under the inﬂuence
of intoxicants. Pursuant to OAR 584-020-0040(5)(c) this conduct constitutes gross unﬁtness to
serve as an Oregon teacher. Therefore, respondent’s conduct warrants an appropriate sanction
imposed by TSPC.

Respondent argues that the October 1998 and the May 1999 DUII arrests should not be
considered in this disciplinary action because both incidents took place before he applied for an
initial Oregon teaching license in July 1999. However, pursuant t0 ORS 342.175 and OAR 584-
020-0040, in a disciplinary proceeding, TSPC may consider events that took place prior to
application for the initial teaching license. Furthermore, documents and a statement submitted
by respondent led TSPC to believe that he had been arrested in one alcohol-related incident
when, as a matter of fact, he had been arrested in two separate alcohol-related incidents. If TSPC
had been fully apprised of the facts, it would have denied respondent’s initial teaching license.
For these reasons, it is appropriate to consider the 1998 and 1999 DUII’s in evaluating
respondent’s ﬁtness as a teacher.

. Unlawful Possession of a Firearm

Respondent does not dispute that on August 3, 2001, he unlawfully carried two concealed
weapons, one of which was loaded, in a public park, that he was arrested and later convicted of
Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. However, respondent challenges two factual allegations
arising from this incident.

Respondent ﬁrst challenges the allegation that his conduct in the arrest for Unlawful
Possession of a Firearm constituted a probation violation. On August 13, 1999, following a
DUII conviction, respondent was sentenced to 24-months probation on condition that he obey all
laws. On August 3, 2001, within the 24-month probationary period, respondent failed to obey a
law by unlawfully possessing a ﬁrearm. Therefore, I ﬁnd that respondent violated court-ordered
probation which constitutes gross unﬁtness pursuant to OAR 584-020-0040(5)(f).

Respondent next disputes the allegation that he acted under the inﬂuence of alcohol on
August 3, 2001 when he was arrested for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm in a public park. The
record establishes that the arresting police ofﬁoer perceived the odor of alcohol emanating from
respondent at the time of the incident. The record also establishes that respondent attempted to
hide from the police behind large rocks and by hiding his face under a shirt and that he attempted
to hide the backpack containing two guns by lying on top of it. Finally, it is undisputed that
respondent was uncooperative and when asked his occupation, replied, “None of your f******
business.” Based on the record, I ﬁnd that it is more likely than not that respondent was under
the inﬂuence of alcohol on August 3, 2001. Accordingly, I ﬁnd that TSPC has carried its burden

‘ of establishing this fact by a preponderance of evidence.
In the Matter of Jeﬁey Paul Mainard,
Page 7 of 11

Pursuant to OAR 584-020-0040(5)(t), violation of a court-ordered condition of probation
. constitutes gross unﬁtness to serve as an Oregon teacher. On August l3, 1999, following a DUII
conviction, respondent was sentenced to 24-months probation on condition that he not use or
possess alcoholic beverages. On August 3, 2001, within the 24-month probationary period,
respondent violated the court-ordered probation by using alcoholic beverages. Therefore, I ﬁnd
that respondent violated the 1999 court-ordered probation which constitutes gross unﬁtness
pursuant to OAR 584-020-0040(5)(f).
Profanig
OAR 584-020-0030(2)(b) provides:
(2) The competent teacher demonstrates:
Ill l’ Ill * *
(b) Skill in communicating with students, staff, parents, and
other patrons.

Respondent does not dispute that on May 9, 2001, he used profanity with students.
Rather, respondent denies that such conduct reﬂects a lack of skill in communicating with
students. In support of his position, respondent argues his use of profanity, although
inappropriate, was justiﬁed under the circumstances because the student was rebellious,

. respondent felt under attack, and no security guard or intercom was available. However, I ﬁnd
that respondents’ use of profanity was not excusable and reﬂects incompetence as a teacher.
Sanction
OAR 584-020-0045 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:
(l) 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;
In the Matter ofJeﬁrey Paul Mainard,
Page 8 of ll

(4) The extent, severity, and imrninence of any danger
. to students, other educators, or the public;

(5) If the misconduct was open and notorious or had
negative effects on the public image of the school;

(6) The educator’s state of mind at the time of the
misconduct and aﬂerwards;

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

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

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

Respondent contends that no sanction is warranted because not all of the allegations
contained in the complaint have been proven. Respondent’s argument is unpersuasive. The
complaint, ﬁled with TSPC by respondent’s former roommate, carries credibility because it
alleges that claimant has been drunk, possessing illegal guns at High Rocks Park and these facts

. were conﬁrmed in the August 3, 2001 arrest. The complaint also alleges that respondent is a
drug addict and that he grows and sells marijuana; these particular facts have not been proven
and I do not rely on them in reaching a decision. However, other facts that are established by the
record warrant an appropriate sanction imposed by TSPC.

TSPC proposes revocation of respondent’s Oregon teaching license. Based on the record,
I agree that license revocation is appropriate. Tire two DUII’s warrant denial of an initial
teaching license. In conjunction with the conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm, the
three alcohol-related criminal offenses warrant license revocation.

The documentary record as well as respondent’s arguments at hearing reﬂect his failure
to assume responsibility for his actions. At hearing, respondent took the position that two
DUII’s and a conviction for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm do not constitute gross unﬁtness
as a teacher. Respondent’s argument highlights his lack of comprehension of the responsibilities
and obligations incumbent upon an Oregon teacher as a role model in the community. For
example, it is unacceptable for Oregon teenagers to view a drunken man, wielding guns in a
public park, uncooperative and cursing the police and later encounter the same person presiding
as a teacher in a high school class. This incident was egregious because it was open and
notorious, taking place in a public park, frequented by teenagers in the community where
respondent served as a teacher, and wielding a loaded gun presented a signiﬁcant danger to the
public and the police. Furthermore, at hearing respondent denied that he was intoxicated during

‘ this incident as if to argue that this conduct would be more acceptable if he were sober.
In the Matter of Jeﬁey Paul Mainard,

Page 9 of ll

Moreover, at hearing, respondent argued that it was appropriate to respond “None of your

. f‘***** business.” when a police ofﬁcer asked his occupation.

The record contains numerous instances of respondent’s failure to take responsibility.
For example, following the incident where respondent used profanity with students, he wrote a
memo to a school administrator minimizing his role in the incident and he wrote a note to
another teacher blaming school administrators for the incident. At hearing, respondent offered
excuses for his incompetent behavior and only grudgingly accepted any responsibility for his
part in the incident.

At hearing, respondent argued that his criminal offenses were excused by extenuating
circumstances including problems with a roommate who had a criminal record. Again,
respondent failed to appreciate his responsibility for choosing appropriate roommates.

Respondent also asserted that he had controlled his alcoholism but he offered no credible
evidence to support this claim. Aside from his own vague assertions, respondent offered no
evidence of any medical treatment or alcohol rehabilitation since 1999 when he completed a
DUII diversion program. Respondent’s claim of sobriety is not credible in light of his violation
of the 1999 court-imposed probation which prohibited respondent from using or possessing any
alcoholic beverages. During the 24-month probation period, respondent was convicted of a third
alcohol-related crime. In the absence of any objective evidence of alcohol abuse rehabilitation, I
ﬁnd that respondent’s misconduct is a pattern of behavior and is likely to recur.

. Finally, respondent offered several reference letters ostensibly from other educators
recommending his past performance as a teacher. However, none of the letters refer to
respondent’s criminal offenses or his alcohol abuse and the logical inference is that the authors
were unaware of these facts. Therefore, I accord little evidentiary weight to the letters.

Respondent’s pattern of conduct in three alcohol-related criminal offenses conﬁrm a state
of mind that was alcohol-impaired. Furthermore, his arguments at hearing reﬂect a recalcitrant
denial of responsibility. Respondent’s pattern of behavior in two DUII’s and a conviction for
Unlawful Possession of a Firearm demonstrate that he is unable to fulﬁll the professional
responsibilities of an Oregon teacher. This course of conduct constitutes gross unﬁtness and
warrants license revocation.

In conclusion, I ﬁnd that respondent’s conduct on October 9, 1998, May 28, 1999 and
August 3, 2001 constitutes gross unﬁtness as a teacher and respondent’s conduct on May 9, 2001
demonstrates incompetence as a teacher. Therefore, revocation of respondent’s Oregon teaching
license is warranted.

In the Matter of Jeffrey Paul Mainard,
Page 10 of ll

. ORDER
I recommend that TSPC issue the following order:
Respondent’s Oregon teaching license is revoked.
Dated this l ffﬁb day of August 2002.
é 233;".141 4134;“, V
Ca erine P. Cob , dministrative Law Judge
Hearing Ofﬁcer Panel
EXCEPTIONS
The proposed order is the hearing ofﬁcer’s recommendation to the Teacher Standards and
Practices Commission. If you disagree with any part of this proposed order, you may ﬁle written
objections, called “exceptions,” to the proposed order and present written argument in support of
your exceptions. Written argument and exceptions must be ﬁled within fourteen (14) days
after mailing of the proposed order with the:
. Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
465 Commercial Street, NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
The Commission need not allow oral argument. The Executive Director may permit oral
argument in those cases in which the Director believes oral argument may be appropriate or
helpful to the Commissioners in making a ﬁnal determination. If oral argument is allowed, the
Commission will inform you of the time and place for presenting oral argument.
In the Matter of Jeﬁfrey Paul Mainard,
Page ll of ll