BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Teaching License of ) MARTIN ERVIN HARPOLE ) FINAL ORDER ) By resolution dated November 21, 1997, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission adopts the attached proposed order issuing a Public Reprimand and placing Martin Ervin Harpole on Prolfiition for a period of four years. ' t DATED this Q4 "x < day of December, 1997. TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COB/{MISSION k By: t David V. M on, Exec tive Director l, 1 NOTICE: YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE OBTAINED BY FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ORS 183.482 TO THE OREGON COURT OF APPEALS. ( . l BEFORE THE TEACH STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 In the Matter of the Teaching ) 4 License of MARTIN ERVIN HARPOLE ) PROPOSED ORDER 5 ) _ 6 On October 20, 1997, a panel of the Teacher Standards and 7 Practices Commission (Commission) held a hearing at the Local 8 Government Center Building, 1201 Court Street, N.E., Salem, 9 Oregon, based on the allegations contained in the second amended 10 notice of opportunity for hearing issued in this case on June 4, 11 1997. The hearing panel consisted of Jennifer Heiss, who served 12 as Chairperson of the hearing, Teresa Carter and Charles Bugge. 13 Charlene Smith, Commission Secretary, assisted the Commission. ( 14 Harpole appeared personally and was represented by his attorney 15 Mark Toledo. Assistant Attorney General Joe McKeever represented 16 the Commission. The hearing was conducted as a contested case 17 matter and was mechanically tape recorded. 18 The panel heard testimony from the following witnesses: 19 Officer Reynold Catala of the Corvallis Police Department; 2O Stephen Scherr, Ph.D.; Gary E. Nielsen, Ph.D.; Donald Wildfang, 21 Principal, Dallas School District; and Martin Harpole. The panel 22 received into evidence the following exhibits that were submitted 23 by the Commission: 24 l. 6/17/81 police report. 25 2. Fall 1981 application to School of Education, Oregon State University. 26 k A PAGE 1 —PROPOSED ORDER 1 3. 6/9/83 memorandum from Martin Harpole to TSPC. . 2 4. 9/1/83 memorandum from Richard S. Jones. 3 5. 7/13/84 order setting aside conviction. 4 6. 9/19/96 police report. 5 7. 10/9/96 uniform citation and complaint. 6 7a. 10/9/96 uniform citation and complaint. 7 8. 10/15/96 letter from Harpole to David Voves. 8 9. 10/17/96 letter from David Voves to Judge Donahue. 9 10. 7/28/97 report from Dr. Farrenkopf. 10 ll. 8/20/97 report from Dr. Nielsen. 11 12. Corvallis Municipal Code Sections. 12 l3. Section from Oregon Revised Statutes defining public indecency. 13 14. Portions of deposition of Mr. Harpole taken 5/20/97. . 14 15. Brief resume of Dr. Nielsen. 15 17. Video taped filmed 6/9/97. 16 18. Map of Corvallis area. 17 19. Map of Corvallis area. 18 The panel received without objection the following exhibits 19 that were submitted by Mr Harpole: 20 T-1 Personnel file 21 T-2 Scherr Curriculum Vitae 22 T—3 Scherr Evaluation 23 T-4 Farrenkopf Vitae 24 T-5 Farrenkopf Evaluation 25 T-6 Photographs 26 /// ‘ PAGE 2 -PROPOSED ORDER . . r 1 EVIDENTIARY RULINGS ' . 2 1. Harpole moved to exclude evidence relating to his 3 1981 conviction for public indecency on the ground that his 4 conviction had been set aside by the court on June 13, 1984. 5 Harpole’s motion was denied. The order setting aside Harpole’s 6 conviction was based on ORS 137.225 which allows a criminal 7 defendant to obtain an order setting aside a conviction for 8 certain offenses if more than three years have elapsed since the 9 date of the conviction and the defendant has not committed other 10 offenses since that date. The Commission had independent 11 knowledge of Harpole's conviction and the circumstances 12 surrounding that conviction prior to the court's 1984 order l3 setting aside the conviction. Under these circumstances, the . 14 Commission is not precluded from taking into account the conduct 15 that resulted in the 1981 conviction. Bahr v. Statesman Journal, 16 51 Or App 177 (1981). l7 2. Harpole objected to TSPC exhibit 16, a copy of "High 18 Society" magazine, that was found in Harpole’s vehicle at the l9 time of his arrest in September 1996. The Commission sustained 20 the objection on the ground of relevancy. 21 FINDINGS OF FACT 22 1. Harpole holds a Standard Oregon Teaching License with 23 an endorsement in Technical Education and a Basic License with an 24 endorsement in Physical Education. 25 2. Harpole has been employed as a high school and middle 26 school teacher by the Dallas School District from 1990 up to the . PAGE 3 —PROPOSED ORDER 1 present time. Harpole has been a satisfactory teacher, and there . 2 is no evidence that Harpole has engaged in inappropriate 3 behavior, including sexually inappropriate behavior, in the 4 classroom or at his school site. 5 3. Donald Wildfang, Mr. Harpole's supervising principal, 6 testified that the school district supported Harpole and intended 7 to continue employing Harpole as a classroom teacher if the 8 Commission does not revoke or suspend Harpole's teaching license. 9 4. On September 19, 1996, Harpole masturbated in his car while 10 parked during daylight hours in an apartment complex parking lot in 11 Corvallis, Oregon. 12 5. As a result of this behavior, Harpole was charged with 13 violation of Sexual Conduct, under the City of Corvallis . 14 Municipal Code. 15 6. Harpole entered a plea of guilty to the charge of 16 Sexual Conduct in Corvallis Municipal Court on October 9, 1996. 17 The court ordered that the case would be dismissed after one year 18 if Harpole did not engage in criminal conduct during that period. 19 7. Harpole underwent separate psychological evaluations by 2O Stephen Scherr, Ph.D. and Gary E. Nielsen, Ph.D. Harpole also 21 underwent physiological arousal testing by Toni Farrenkopf, Ph.D. 22 Doctors Scherr, Nielsen and Farrenkopf prepared written reports 23 that were received into evidence by the Commission panel. 24 8. Dr. Nielsen and Dr. Scherr testified that Mr. Harpole 25 suffers from depression and that Mr. Harpole has a psychological 26 condition that resulted in sexually inappropriate conduct. Both . PAGE 4 —PROPOSED ORDER 1 Dr. Scherr and Dr. Nielsen testified that Harpole is an . 2 appropriate candidate for treatment, and with appropriate 3 treatment, there is a good prognosis he will not repeat sexually 4 inappropriate behavior. 5 9. Dr. Nielsen and Dr. Scherr testified that in their 6 professional opinions Mr. Harpole does not present a danger to 7 students. . 8 10. Based on the school evaluations and the testimony of 9 Dr. Nielsen, Dr. Scherr, and Mr. Wildfang, the Commission panel 10 concludes that Mr. Harpole has not and does not present a risk to his 11 students; the Commission panel further finds that with appropriate 12 treatment, Mr. Harpole is unlikely to repeat sexually inappropriate 13 behavior. . l4 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 15 Mr. Harpole’s conduct constitutes gross neglect of duty in 16 violation of OAR 584-20-040(4). l7 DISCUSSION 18 Certain behavior is clearly inappropriate and violates 19 professional standards, even when the behavior occurs outside the 2O school setting. Mr. Harpole’s behavior falls within this 21 category. The Commission panel considers Mr. Harpole’s behavior 22 to be serious; the Commission should not hesitate to revoke Mr. 23 Harpole’s teaching license if he engages in similar behavior in 24 the future. Nonetheless, the panel finds mitigating 25 circumstances, including Harpole’s satisfactory teaching 26 performance, the evidence that Harpole does not pose a sexual . PAGE 5 —PROPOSED ORDER 1 risk to the public or to students, and the evidence that Harpole . 2 has a good chance of not repeating this type of conduct if he 3 cooperates and successfully completes treatment. Accordingly, 4 the Commission panel proposes an order that will allow Mr. 5 Harpole to retain his Oregon teaching license. 6 PROPOSED ORDER 7 Based on the above findings and conclusion, the Commission 8 imposes a public reprimand, and this order shall serve as the 9 public reprimand. The Commission further places Martin Ervin lO Harpole on probation to the Commission for a period of four 11 years. Harpole’s probation shall be subject to the following 12 conditions: 13 1. Harpole, at his own initiative and at his own expense, ' 14 shall promptly obtain treatment from a treatment provider to 15 address his depression and his sexually inappropriate conduct. 16 2. Harpole shall successfully complete his treatment 17 program as determined by his treatment provider. Harpole’s 18 treatment may include group therapy, one-to-one psychotherapy or 19 such other treatment as determined appropriate by his treatment 2O provider. Following satisfactory completion of treatment, the 21 treatment provider shall submit a written report to the Executive 22 Director stating: (1) Harpole has undergone and successfully 23 completed treatment as needed, including treatment for a sexual 24 disorder; (2) in the professional opinion of the treatment 25 provider, there is a high probability that Harpole will not 26 engage in sexually inappropriate or sexually illegal acts, . PAGE 6 —PROPOSED ORDER 1 including acts of exhibitionism or public indecency; and (3) in . 2 the professional opinion of the treatment provider, Harpole does 3 not present a risk to students or the public. Harpole shall give 4 consent for the treatment provider to provide copies of records 5 of Harpole’s treatment to the Executive Director and to a 6 professional evaluator designated by the Executive Director. 7 Harpole shall further consent that the Executive Director and 8 evaluator may speak with the treatment provider concerning 9 Harpole’s compliance and progress in the treatment program. 10 3. When the Executive Director receives information from 11 Harpole’s treatment provider that Harpole has successfully completed 12 treatment, the Executive Director shall designate a psychologist or 13 other qualified professional to conduct an independent evaluation of . l4 the treatment provider's report; the evaluator shall report his 15 findings in writing to the Executive Director and to Mr. Harpole. Mr. 16 Harpole shall pay the cost of the evaluation. 17 4. The Executive Director shall determine whether 18 Mr. Harpole has successfully completed treatment no later than l9 Mr. Harpole’s completion of his probation period or his 20 application for renewal of his teaching license, whichever should 21 occur first. 22 5. During the term of his probation, Harpole shall obey 23 all laws and shall comply with all Standards for the Competent 24 and Ethical Performance of Educators under OAR 584, Division 20. 25 If the Executive Director determines at any time that Mr. 26 Harpole has not complied with the terms of this order, he may ‘ PAGE 7 ~PROPOSED ORDER 1 give notice of intent to revoke Mr. Harpole’s‘teaching license on . 2 the ground that he has violated the terms of his probation. In 3 such event, Mr. Harpole shall be entitled to a hearing, solely on 4 the issue of whether or not he has compiled with the terms of his 5 probation. Alternatively, the Executive Director may deny, 6 subject to Mr. Harpole’s right to request a hearing, Mr. 7 Harpole’s application for renewal of his teaching license on the 8 ground that Mr. Harpole has not demonstrated good moral character 9 as required by ORS 342.143. . 10 DATED this§\LA day of Mtva. ll 12 By:&;)6LNV“A[12AVF£2:::: l3 David V. Myton Executive Director, Teacher and . 14 Standards Practice Commission 15 16 17 tjh/aml/JGM/JGGlOCCF 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 . PAGE 8 —PROPOSED ORDER