BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of the )
Teaching License of ) FINAL ORDER
MICHAEL EUGENE MOOBERRY )
) Case No. 700193

On December 18, 2007, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Dove L. Gutman issued a
Ruling on Motion for Summary Determination and Proposed Order in this case.

The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission adopts in its entirety the Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order contained in the attached Ruling on Motion for Summary
Determination and Proposed Order.

ORDER

The Commission adopts the Ruling on Motion for Summary Determination and Proposed
Order denying Mr. Mooberry’s application for an educator license.

Dated this [/ﬁ/ day of February 2008.

TEACHER STANDARD AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
Victoria Ch e n, Executive Director
NOTICE: You are entitled to judicial review of this Final Order pursuant to the provisions of
ORS 183.480. Judicial review may be obtained by ﬁling a petition in the Oregon Court of
Appeals. The petition must be ﬁled Within 60 days from the date of service of this Final
Order.
PAGE l e FINAL ORDER i Michael Eugene Mooberry

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF OREGON
for the
TEACHER STANDARDS & PRACTICES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE TEACHING ) RULING ON MOTION FOR
LICENSE OF: ) SUMMARY DETERMINATION
) AND PROPOSED ORDER
)
MICHAEL E. MOOBERRY ) OAH Case N0: 700193
HISTORY OF THE CASE

On July 10, 2007, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (Commission) issued
a Notice of Denial of Teaching License and Opportunity for Hearing (Notice of Denial) to
Michael E. Mooberry. On August 2, 2007, Mr. Mooberry requested an administrative hearing.
On August 17, 2007, the matter was referred to the Ofﬁce of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

On September l3, 2007, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Dove L. Gutman of the OAH
was assigned to preside over the matter. On October l, 2007 , a pre-hearing telephone conference
was held. ALJ Gutman presided. Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Jeff Dover represented the
Commission. Mr. Mooberry represented himself. On October 2, 2007, ALJ Gutman issued a
Pre-Hean'ng Order.

On November 7, 2007, the Commission ﬁled a Motion for Summary Determination. On
November 9, 2007, Mr. Mooberry ﬁled his Response.

ISSUES

l. Whether, on 0r about January 16, 2007, Mr. Mooberry submitted a falsiﬁed
application to the Commission when he answered “no” to character question 4, denying that his
teaching credentials had been suspended, in violation of OAR 584-050-0006(2)(a).

2. Whether, on or about January l6, 2007, Mr. Mooberry submitted a falsiﬁed
application to the Commission when he answered “no” to character question 7, denying that he
had been disciplined by a public agency responsible for licensure, in violation of OAR 584-050-
0006(2)(a).

3. Whether the Commission has sufﬁcient evidence of Mr. Mooberry’s lack of ﬁtness to
serve as an educator, pursuant to OAR 584-050-0006(2)(e).

4. Whether the Commission has sufﬁcient evidence of Mr. Mooberry’s gross neglect of
duty and lack of moral character, pursuant to OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c).

In the Matter of the Teaching License of Michael E. Mooberry, OAH Case N0. 700193, Ruling 0n Motion
for Summary Determination and Proposed Order
Page l of 10

LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION

In contested case matters, the Commission has adopted the current version of the
Attorney General’s Model Rules of Procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act. OAR
584-001-0005. The Model Rules of Procedure pertaining to contested case proceedings are set
forth in OAR Chapter 137, Division 3.

Motions for Summary Determination are governed by OAR 137-003-0580, which
provides in pertinent part:

(6) The administrative law judge shall grant the motion for a legal
ruling if:
(a) The pleadings, affidavits, supporting documents (including any
interrogatories and admissions) and the record in the contested case
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that is
relevant to resolution of the legal issue as to which a decision is
sought; and
(b) The agency or party ﬁling the motion is entitled to a favorable
ruling as a matter of law.
(7) The administrative law judge shall consider all evidence in a
manner most favorable to the non-moving party or non-moving
agency.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission is the state agency that issues
licenses to teachers and administrators who possess the minimum competencies, knowledge and
skills to teach and administer in public schools of the state. ORS 342.121.

2. The Commission may also require an applicant for a teaching, personnel service or
administrative license to furnish evidence satisfactory to the Commission of good moral
character, mental and physical health, and such other evidence as it may deem necessary to
establish the applicant’s ﬁtness to serve as a teacher. ORS 342.143.

3. On or about December 8, 1992, while employed by the Santa Rosa City Schools in
California, Mr. Mooberry placed a pair of scissors on or near the neck of a student in his
classroom. Mr. Mooberry was subsequently placed on administrative leave pending
investigation of the incident. (Ex. 3; Notice of Denial.)

4. On May 8, I996, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (California
Commission) issued a Notice of Commission Action (Notice) to Mr. Mooberry that suspended
his teaching credentials for ten (10) days, effective June 7, 1996. The Notice was sent to Mr.
In the Matter of the Teaching License ofMichael E. Mooberry, OAH Case No. 700193, Ruling 0n Motion
for Summary Determination and Proposed Order
Page 2 of 10

Mooberry via certiﬁed mail. Mr. Mooberry signed the certiﬁed mail receipt on May l l, 1996.
(Ex. 2.)

5. On January 16, 2007, Mr. Mooberry signed and submitted an Application for Educator
License Form C-l (Application) with the Commission. (Ex. l.) By signing the application, Mr.
Mooberry certiﬁed that the information submitted on the form was true and accurate. (1d. at 4.)
On page four of the Application, the following instructions are given regarding ll character
questions: “You must answer each question either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ Whichever is true. Explain each
‘yes’ answer in detail on a separate sheet.” (1d.) On character question 4, “Have you ever had a
professional certiﬁcate, credential or license (of any kind) revoked or suspended or have you
been placed on probationary status for any alleged misconduct or alleged violation of
professional standards of conduct,” Mr. Mooberry answered “no.” On character question 7,
“Have you ever been disciplined by any public agency responsible for licensure 0f any kind,
including but not limited to educational licensure,” Mr. Mooberry answered “no.” (1d.) Directly
below the character questions, the following warning is given in bold text: “Any false statement
knowingly made in this application is grounds for revocation or suspension of your license. If in
doubt, disclose and explain rather than conceal.” (1d.)

6. On July 10, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of Denial of Teaching License and
Opportunity for Hearing to Mr. Mooberry. On August 2, 2007, Mr. Mooberry requested an
administrative hearing.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW '

1. On or about January l6, 2007, Mr. Mooberry submitted a falsiﬁed application to the
Commission when he answered “no” to character question 4, denying that his teaching
credentials had been suspended, in violation of OAR 584-050-0006(2)(a).

2. On or about January 16, 2007, Mr. Mooberry submitted a falsiﬁed application to the
Commission When he answered “no” to character question 7, denying that he had been
disciplined by a public agency responsible for licensure, in violation of OAR 584-050-
0006(2)(a).

3. The Commission has sufﬁcient evidence of Mr. Mooberry’s lack of ﬁtness to serve as
an educator, pursuant to OAR 584-050-0006(2)(e).

4. The Commission has sufﬁcient evidence of Mr. Mooberry’s gross neglect of duty and
lack of moral character, pursuant to OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c).

In the Matter 0f the Teaching License of Michael E. Mooberry, OAH Case N0. 700193, Ruling on Motion
for Summary Determination and Proposed Order
Page 3 of 10

OPINION

The Commission contends that the Motion for Summary Determination should be
granted. Mr. Mooberry contends that the Motion should be denied, and the matter should
proceed to hearing. As set forth below, the Commission’s Motion is granted, and Mr.
Mooberry’s Application for Educator License is denied.

1. Whether, on or about January 16, 2007, Mr. Mooberry signed and submitted an
Application for Educator License Form C-l upon which Mr. Mooberry answered “no” to
character question 4, “Have you ever had a professional certiﬁcate, credential or license (of
any kind) revoked or suspended or have you been placed on probationary status for any
alleged misconduct or alleged violation of professional standards of conduct,” in violation
of OAR 584-050-0006(2)(a).

OAR 584-050-0006 is titled “Criteria for Denying Issuance or Reinstatement of Licenses”
and provides, in pertinent part:

(1) The Executive Director may deny issuance of a license, renewal
of a license; or reinstatement of a license that has not been subject
to discipline. The Executive Director may not deny reinstatement
of a license that has been revoked and is subject to OAR 584-050-
0015.
(2) Notice of denial and right to a hearing may be issued when any
of the following conditions exist:

(a) The applicant submits a falsiﬁed application.

On May 8, I996, Mr. Mooberry’s teaching credentials were suspended for 10 days by the
California Commission, effective June 7, 1996. On May 117 1996, Mr. Mooberry was notiﬁed of
the suspension via certiﬁed mail. Thus, Mr. Mooberry knew that his teaching credentials had
been suspended.

On January 16, 2007, Mr. Mooberry signed and submitted an Application to the
Commission in which he answered “no” to question 4, asserting that his teaching credentials had
never been suspended for any alleged misconduct or alleged violation of professional standards
of conduct. Because Mr. Mooberry knew that his teaching credentials had been suspended in
1996, by answering “no” to question 4, Mr. Mooberry answered falsely on the Application,
Therefore, I ﬁnd by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Mooberry submitted a falsiﬁed
application to the Commission.

Mr. Mooberry argnled that he answered “no” because he believed there was a gag order in
effect. However, Mr. Mooberry did not present evidence of an actual gag order that prevented
him from telling the truth on the Application to the Commission. As such, Mr. Mooberry’s
argument is not persuasive.

In the Matter of the Teaching License ofMichae/ E. Mooberry, OAH Case N0. 700193, Ruling on Motion
for Summary Determination and Proposed Order
Page 4 of 10

Mr. Mooberry also argued that he misunderstood his attorney’s advice, and did not seek
clariﬁcation until he received the denial. However, Mr. Mooberry could have sought legal advice
prior to submitting the Application. Thus, Mr. Mooberry’s argument is not persuasive.

2. Whether, on or about January 16, 2007, Mr. Mooberry signed and submitted an
Application for Educator License Form C-l upon which Mr. Mooberry answered “no” to
character question 7, “Have you ever been disciplined by any public agency responsible for
licensure of any kind, including but not limited to educational licensure,” in violation of
OAR 584-050-0006(2)(a).

As stated above, on May 8, 1996, the California Commission disciplined Mr. Mooberry
by suspending his teaching credentials for 10 days. On May 11, 1996, Mr. Mooberry was
notiﬁed of the suspension via certiﬁed mail. As such, Mr. Mooberry knew that he had been
disciplined by a public agency responsible for licensure.

On January l6, 2007, Mr. Mooberry signed and submitted an Application to the
Commission in which he answered “no” to question 7, asserting that he had never been
disciplined by any public agency responsible for licensure of any kind. Because Mr. Mooberry
knew that he had been disciplined by a public agency responsible for licensure, by answering
“no” to question 4, Mr. Mooberry answered falsely on the Application. Consequently, I ﬁnd by a
preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Mooberry submitted a falsiﬁed application to the
Commission.

3. Whether Mr. Mooberry’s conduct of failing to report discipline actions on his
Application for Educator License Form C-1 is evidence of his lack of ﬁtness to serve as an
educator, pursuant to OAR 584-050-0006(2)(e).

OAR 584-050-0006(2) further provides:

(2) Notice of denial and right to a hearing may be issued when any
of the following conditions exist:
* >l= >i< * *
(e) The Executive Director has evidence that the applicant
may lack ﬁtness to serve as an educator.

On December 8, 1992, while employed by Santa Rosa City Schools in California, Mr.
Mooberry placed a pair of scissors on or near the neck of a student in his classroom. Mr.
Mooberry was subsequently disciplined by the California Commission on May 8, 1996, by
having his teaching credentials suspended for 10 days.

In the Matter 0fthe Teaching License of Michael E. Mooberry, OAH Case No. 700193, Ruling on Motion
for Summary Determination and Proposed Order
Page 5 of 10

In the Application that he ﬁled with the Commission, Mr. Mooberry failed t0 disclose the
discipline actions that were taken by the California Commission against his teaching credentials.
Mr. Mooberry’s failure to disclose those actions on the Application indicates a lack of honesty
and integrity. As such, I ﬁnd, by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Mooberry’s conduct
in failing to disclose discipline actions on his Application to the Commission indicates a lack of
ﬁtness to serve as an educator.

4. Whether Mr. Mooberry’s answers on questions 4 and 7, was knowing
falsiﬁcation a document directly related to licensure, which constitutes gross neglect of
duty and is a basis for denial of licensure as incorporated in ORS 342.143, “good moral
character,” pursuant to OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c).

ORS 342.143 is titled “Issuance of teaching, personnel service or administrative license
and registration as charter school teacher” and provides, in material part:

(2) The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may also
require an applicant for a teaching, personnel service or
administrative license to furnish evidence satisfactory to the
commission of good moral character, mental and physical health,
and such other evidence as it may deem necessary to establish the
applicant’s ﬁtness to serve as a teacher.

OAR 584-020-0040 is titled “Grounds for Disciplinary Action” and provides, in relevant
part:

(2) An applicant fails to meet the requirement of ORS 342.143
“good moral character” if the applicant engages in gross neglect of
duty, gross unﬁtness, or other acts which are in violation of
sections (l) or (3) of this rule.
(3) The Commission may initiate proceedings to suspend or revoke
the license or registration of an educator under ORS 342.175 or
deny a license registration t0 an applicant under ORS 342.143
who:
* ** **
(b) Is charged with knowingly making any false statement
in the application for a license;
(c) Is charged with gross neglect of duty;
*****
(4) Gross neglect of duty is any serious and material inattention to
In the Matter of the Teaching License of Michael E. Mooberry, OAH Case No. 700193, Ruling on Motion
for Summary Determination and Proposed Order
Page 6 of 10

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:
*** * *
(c) Knowing falsiﬁcation of any document 0r knowing
misrepresentation directly related to licensure, employment,
or professional duties[.]

Pursuant to OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c), knowing falsiﬁcation of any document directly
related to licensure is gross neglect of duty. ln this case, Mr. Mooberry answered falsely on the
character questions 4 and 7 on the Application to the Commission, and did so with full
knowledge of the facts. Thus, Mr. Mooberry knowingly falsiﬁed his Application for Educator
License. Therefore, Mr. Mooberry committed gross neglect of duty and demonstrated a lack of
good moral character. Consequently, the Commission may deny Mr. Mooberry’s Application for
Educator License.

RULING ON THE MOTION

The Motion for Summary Determination is GRANTED. The hearing scheduled for
January l 1, 2008 is hereby cancelled.

ORDER

I propose that the Commission issue the following order:

The Commission’s decision to deny Mr. Mooberry’s Application for Educator License
Form C-l is AFFIRMED.

Dove L. Gutman
Administrative Law Judge
Ofﬁce of Administrative Hearings

ISSUANCE AND MAILING DATE: Dgcember 18, 2007
In the Matter of the Teaching License of Michael E. Mooberry, OAH Case No. 700193, Ruling 0n Motion
for Summary Determination and Proposed Order
Page 7 of 10

EXCEPTIONS
The proposed order is the Administrative Law J udge'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 the Teaching License of Michael E. Mooberry, OAH Case No. 700193, Ruling on Motion
for Summary Determination and Proposed Order
Page 8 of 10

APPENDIX A
LIST OF EXHIBITS CITED

Ex. l: Application for Educator License Form C-l.

Ex. 2: State of California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Notice of Commission Action
dated May 8, 1996 to Michael Mooberry; Declaration of Service; Certiﬁed Mail Receipt
signed by Michael Mooberry.

Ex. 3: Sworn Statement by Jose Galvan dated December 9, 1992.

In the Matter of the Teaching License of Michael E. Mooberry, OAH Case No. 700193, Ruling on Motion

for Summary Determination and Proposed Order

Page 9 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

On December 19, 2007, I mailed the foregoing Ruling on Motion for Summary Determination
and Proposed Order in OAH Case No. 700193.
By: First Class and Certiﬁed Mail
Certiﬁed Mail Receipt #7005 1820 0005 2506 8636
Michael Mooberry
639 Widgeon Rd
Redmond OR 97756
By: First Class Mail

George Finch

Teacher Standards & Practices Commission

465 Commercial St NE

Salem OR 97301
Jeff Dover
Department of Justice

1 162 Court Street NE
Salem OR 97301-4096

Lucy Garcia
Administrative Specialist
Hearing Coordinator
In the Matter of the Teaching License of Michael E. Mooberry, OAH Case No. 700193, Ruling on Motion
for Summary Determination and Proposed Order
Page 10 of 10