1 BEFORE THE
' 2 TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
3 STATE OF OREGON
4
5
6 In the Matter of the ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
7 Teaching License of ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
8 James Richard Richardi ) OPINION AND ORDER
9 ) OF SUSPENSION
10
ll
12 FINAL ORDER
13
14 By resolution dated July 10, 1998, the Teacher Standards and Practices
15 Commission adopts the attached proposed order to suspend the Oregon
16 Teaching License for one year from the date of this Order.
17 ha
18 DATED THIS / 5 day of July, 199s. §
19 1
20 TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
21
22 _
23 1M
_ 24 By
25 David V. yton, Executive Director
26
27 NOTICE: YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS ORDER.
28 JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE OBTAINED BY FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW
29 WITHIN 6O DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW
30 IS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ORS 183.482 TO THE OREGON
31 COURT OF APPEALS.
32
33
1, q

l STATE OF OREGON

2 TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION

3

In the Matter of the ) PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT,

4 Teaching License 0f ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINION AND

5 James Richard Richardi g ORDER

6

7 On January 28, 1998 the Teacher Standards and Practices

8 Commission (the "Commission") issued a Notice of Opportunity to

9 James Richard Richardi (Richardi) proposing to suspend, revoke or
10 impose other discipline under ORS 342.177. On January 30, 1998,
11 Richardi requested a hearing, and a hearing was held on April 28
12 and 29, 1998, in Salem, Oregon before a panel of three
13 commissioners; Susan Wilcoxen, Chair, Martin Morris and Patrick
l4 Pullam. Richardi was represented by Sean A. Lyell, Attorney and
15 the Commission was represented by Assistant Attorney General Gary
16 Cordy.
17 Prior to the commencement of the hearing Assistant Attorney
18 General Cordy amended the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to
19 delete the word "ownership" and to substitute the words
20 "possession/use/control" in the first paragraph of the
21 allegations. In addition reference to OAR 584-20-034(3)(a) was
22 corrected to OAR 584-20-035(3)(a). Counsel for Richardi did not
23 object to these amendments.
24 The hearing was conducted as a contested case hearing and
25 was tape recorded.
26 ///

PAGE l — PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
OPINION AND ORDER
/

'1 The panel heard testimony from Richardi and Douglas County
2 Deputy District Attorney William Marshall (Marshall). The
3 following exhibits were received into evidence:
4 Commission Exhibits:
5 Sl Indictment for Tampering With a Witness and Perjury
6 dated May 21, 1996.
7 52 District Attorney Information for Obstructing ‘
8 Governmental Judicial Administration dated November 18,
9 1997.
10 S3 Incident Report, Douglas County Sheriff's Office by
11 Officer Ben Kempke Dated June 12, 1996. '
12 S4 Transcript of Tape Recording of Phone Call Between Bret
13 Wilson and James Richardi, May 3, 1996 ~ 10:45 p.m.
‘14 SS Transcript of Tape Recording of Phone Call Between Bret
15 Wilson and James Richardi, May 3, 1996 ~ 9:15 p.m.
16 $6 Investigation Report of Susan Nisbet:
17 S7 Transcript of Tape Recording of Phone Call Between Bret
18 Wilson and Michelle Ellis, May 3, 1996.
19 Licensee Enhibits:
20 Ll Not receive due to objection.
21 L2 Plea Statement and Order of James R. Richardi.
22 L3 Judgment dated November 19, 1997.
23 L4 Douglas County Community Corrections Adult & Probation
24 Courtesy Referral dated 3-17-98 (reflecting that James
25 R. Richardi completed his Community Service).
.26 ///
PAGE 2 — PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
OPINION AND ORDER

'1 L5 Lane County Division of Adult Corrections - — Community
2 Service Program Agency Certification Form dated 3-17-98
3 (reflecting completion of Community Service and
4 excellent performance evaluation).
5 L6 Incident Report - Douglas County Sheriff's Office, by
6 Officer Ben Kempke, dated 5-13-96 (6 pages).
7 L7 Receipt from S-M Enterprises, 1375 River Road, Eugene
8 OR 97404, (503) 688-8700 (reflecting purchase of four
9 guns, serial numbers 243088, AB 3844, 078610, and
10 D082933, from James Richardi for $650 on April 4,
11 1998) . ‘
12 RULINGS
13 Counsel for Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
'14 (TSPC) made a motion in limine to restrict Richardi from
15 introducing any evidence to dispute the factual allegations
16 contained in the criminal complaint to which he was convicted.
17 TSPC argued that as a matter of law Richardi could not dispute
18 the charges contained in the criminal complaint for which he was
19 convicted on November 19, 1997.
20 Richardi argued that he should not be precluded from
21 disputing the facts contained in the criminal complaint because
22 he entered a plea of no contest and did not plead guilty.
23 The panel ruled that Richardi could not offer evidence
24 disputing the factual allegations contained in the criminal
25 complaint. The panel reasoned that a plea of no contest is a
.26 conviction under ORS 135.345 and a certified record of the
PAGE 3 — PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
OPINION AND ORDER

.1 conviction, which was provided to the panel * * * "shall be
2 conclusive evidence of a conviction * * *" ORS 342.175(6).
3 Furthermore, TSPC counsel noted that the Commission had
4 previously decided in the Boltak case, issued March 18, 1998,
5 that an educator could not attempt to impeach a criminal
6 conviction. .
7 Lastly, TSPC asserted, and Richardi did not dispute, that
8 issue preclusion should apply under Oregon appellate analysis
9 including State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Sallak, 140 Or App
10 89 (1996) and State v. Wbodard, 121 Or App 483 (1993).
11 Numerous rulings on objections during the hearing were based
12 on this ruling on the motion in limine. These evidentiary
13 rulings included exclusion of an exhibit offered by Richardi
‘14 prepared by a private investigator and exclusion of testimony by
15 that investigator because the evidence sought to be offered fell
16 within the panel's ruling on the motion in limine. ‘
17 Richardi objected to exhibits S4 and SS on the basis of
18 relevance. The panel determined the exhibits were relevant and
19 they were admitted.
20 During closing argument counsel for Richardi made reference
21 to a transcript not in evidence. Counsel for TSPC asked the
22 panel to permit receipt of the transcript and the document was
23 admitted as exhibit S-7.
24 ///
25 ///
'26 ///
PAGE 4 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
OPINION AND ORDER

‘1 FINDINGS OF FACT
2 1. Richardi was employed in the Eugene School District 4-J
3 from 1972 until 1997 and held a valid teaching licensed during
4 that time.
5 2. On May 3, 1996, Douglas County deputies served a search
6 warrant at the residence of Bretley Wilson (Wilson) in Roseburg,
7 Oregon. Deputies discovered six firearms and ammunition in
8 Wilson's residence and seized those items pursuant to the
9 warrant.
10 3. Wilson was a convicted felon and by law was prohibited
11 from possessing firearms. Richardi and Wilson were friends.
12 4. Wilson was arrested and incarcerated in Douglas County
l3 Jail on May 3, 1996, and charged with felony possession of
‘14 firearms. i
15 5. Wilson told officer Kempke (Kempke) that some of the
16 firearms were owned by Richardi. Richardi later confirmed to
17 Kempke ownership of four of the firearms.
18 6. At approximately 9:00 p.m., on May 3, Wilson spoke to
19 Richardi by phone from the jail. The conversation was secretly
20 recorded by jail staff. (Ex S5) In that conversation Richardi
21 and Wilson agree to make false statements regarding
22 possession/use/control of the firearms. The false statements
23 were to be used for the purpose of providing a defense to the
24 felony charges against Wilson. Wilson asked and Richardi agreed
25 to talk to Michelle Ellis (Ellis) to tell her of the plan to make
26 false statements and to have her participate in the falsehoods.
I
PAGE 5 — PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
OPINION AND ORDER

.1 7. At approximately 10:30 p.m. Wilson and Richardi spoke
2 again by phone and this conversation was also secretly recorded.
3 (Ex S4) In this conversation Richardi tells Wilson he had talked
4 to Ellis.
5 8. On May 9, Kempke interviewed Richardi and Richardi made
6 false statements to Kempke. Richardi falsely stated that Ellis
7 brought the four guns to Wilson's residence and that the four
8 guns were delivered to Wilson's residence shortly before the
9 police searched Wilson's residence. Richardi also falsely stated
10 to Kempke that he didn't know anything about two pistols that
11 were seized during the search. In fact Richardi had previously
12 seen those pistols at Wilson's residence.
13 9. On May 14, 1996, Richardi and Ellis appeared before a
.14 Douglas County grand jury. Ellis testified before Richardi and
15 said that she had transported the four firearms owned by Richardi
I6 from Eugene to Wilson's Roseburg residence on the morning of
17 May 3, 1996.
18 10. After testifying before the grand jury, Ellis was told
19 by police and Marshall that there was reason to believe that she
20 had given false testimony. Ellis was given an opportunity to
21 return to the grand jury and recant her false statements. Ellis
22 then testified that she had not transported the firearms to
23 Wilson on May 3rd and that she had agreed with Richardi and
24 Wilson to make the false statements regarding transporting the
25 firearms to Wilson on the morning of May 3.
.26 ///
PAGE 6 — PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
OPINION AND ORDER

_.1 11. Richardi testified before the grand jury and was
2 unaware of what Ellis had said. Richardi falsely testified that
3 Ellis had brought the four guns to Roseburg in her car on May 3;
4 that he had not talked to Wilson or Ellis about what to tell
5 police about the guns; and that he did not speak to Wilson about
6 the guns while Wilson was in custody.
7 12. A two count indictment was filed against Richardi on
8 May 22, 1996. Count one was Tampering with a witness, (ORS
9 162.285) and Count two was Perjury (ORS 162.065).
10 13. On May 28, 1996, Richardi was arrested at school on a
11 felony arrest warrant. Richardi's arrest was known by students
12 and co-workers and was reported in the press.
13 14. Wilson was convicted of Felon in Possession of
'4 Firearms.
15 15. As a result of a plea bargain, Richardi agreed to plead
16 to Obstructing Governmental or Judicial Administration (ORS
l7 162.235), a misdemeanor, on the condition the two felony charges
18 be dismissed.
19 16. The misdemeanor contained the allegation that Richardi
20 unlawfully and intentionally obstructed and hindered
21 administration of law by means of obstacles, to-wit: "* * * by
22 attempting to induce Michelle Ellis, to offer false testimony in
23 an official proceeding and by making a false sworn statement
24 regarding a material issue in a grand jury proceeding while
25 knowing the statement to be false, * * *." The panel concludes
.26 Richardi engaged in the conduct described in the complaint.
PAGE 7 — PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
OPINION AND ORDER

'1 17. On November 19, 1997, Richardi entered a no contest
2 plea and was found guilty. A judgment was entered on the same
3 date and Richardi was sentenced to perform 100 hours of community
4 service and to pay a fine of $500. Richardi performed both
5 conditions of the sentence.
6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7 Richardi's misconduct bears a demonstrable relationship to
8 his fitness to serve as an educator:
9 l. Richardi violated OAR 584-20-035(3)(a) and engaged in
10 gross neglect of duty when he lied to a police officer on May 9,
11 1996, with reference to the possession/use/control of firearms.
12 2. Richardi violated OAR 584-20-035(3)(a) and engaged in
13 gross neglect of duty when he gave false sworn testimony on May
.14 14, 1996, to a Douglas County grand jury regarding
15 possession/use/control of firearms.
16 3. Richardi violated OAR 584-20-040(5)(c) and OAR 584-20-
17 040(5)(e) and engaged in gross unfitness when he criminally
18 attempted to induce Ellis to offer false testimony in an official
19 proceeding and when he made a false sworn statement to a grand
2O jury and when he was found guilty by plea to a charge of
21 obstructing Governmental or Judicial Administration (ORS 162.235)
22 on November 19, 1997.
23 OPINION
24 Richardi would have the panel conclude that he merely
25 "fudged" a little bit when making a single false statement
.26 regarding
PAGE 8 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ‘
OPINION AND ORDER

'1 Wilson's possession of firearms. The commission concludes
2 Richardi's misconduct is much greater than the telling of a
3 "white" lie.
4 First, Richardi agreed with a convicted felon to provide
5 false statements for the purpose of giving Wilson a defense to
6 felony charges.
7 Second, the scheme to make false statements also involved
8 another individual, whereby Richardi attempted to induce Ellis to
9 participate in the deceptive scheme.
10 Third, the false statements were not spontaneous. Rather
11 they were premeditated and deliberate. Richardi agreed On May 3
12 to offer false statements and carried it out on May 9 in his
13 conversation with Office Kempke, and again on May 14 when he
.14 testified at the grand jury.
15 Fourth, Richardi lied to a police officer which the panel
16 considers significant.
17 Fifth, and most importantly, Richardi lied under oath in a
18 grand jury proceeding.
19 Richardi argued that he is being punished twice for the same
20 offense. In effect he argues that TSPC has charged him with
21 gross unfitness and gross neglect of duty for the same acts.
22 Such is not the case. Richardi engaged in criminal conduct and
23 thereby violated OAR 584-20-040(5) when he lied to the grand jury
24 and attempted to induce Ellis to offer false testimony in an
25 official proceeding and was convicted of a crime. Richardi
‘26 ///
PAGE 9 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ‘
OPINION AND ORDER 1

.1 engaged in unethical conduct when he lied to the police and grand
2 jury even if he had not been criminally prosecuted. Thus, for
3 example, if Richardi had testified falsely before the grand jury,
4 but had utilized the opportunity under ORS 162.105 to retract his
5 false statement, his conduct would not constitute a violation of
6 OAR 584-20-040(5) but would remain a violation of OAR 584-20-
7 035(3)(a).
8 Equally important, even if the commission dismissed the
9 OAR 584-20-035 charge that is based upon the misconduct that
10 resulted in the criminal conviction, the sanction imposed would
11 be the same. The commission concludes that lies to a police
12 officer and engaging in criminal acts demonstrates serious gross
13 neglect and unfitness and warrants a substantial sanction.
.4 ORDER
15 After considering the factors under OAR 584-20-045 the
16 commission concludes James Richard Richardi shall be suspended
17 for one year commencing on the date the final order is effective.
18 Richardi will thereafter be eligible for reinstatement upon valid
19 application and upon submitting evidence satisfactory to the
20 Commission of good moral chifa ter pursuant to ORS 342.175(3).
21 DATED this ifiay of NZ; 1998. WV‘
22 Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
23
24 %W~b/ (10le
25 mm
1"26
GMC:ras/JGG11DBB.W51
PAGE lO — PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
OPINION AND ORDER