a l BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION ’
2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON
3 In the Matter of the }
Administrative License of
4 FINAL ORDER
STEVEN GIERE
S
6 On October 7 and 8, 1999, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
7 (Commission) held a hearing concerning the Oregon Teaching License of Steven Giere and the
8 allegations set forth in the Amended Notice of Hearing dated September 17, 1999i The hearing
9 was held in Salem, Oregon, before a panel of three Commissioners consisting of Charles Sharps,
10 Tsukiko Oda-Riddell and Karen Famous‘ Dr‘ Sharps served as Chairman of the panel‘ Joe
1 l McKeever, Assistant Attorney General, represented the Commission, James M. Brown,
12 Attorney at Law, represented Mr. Giere. The hearing was held as a contested case matter and
l 13 was mechanically tape-recorded‘ '
14 The Commission called the following persons as witnesses: Augustus Fennerty, former
15 teacher at Aston'a High School; Jamon Kent, Superintendent of Springfield School District; and
16 Dr. Maxine Hoggan. The Commission offered the following exhibits which were received into l
l7 evidence without objection: l
18 9/17/99 Amended Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.
19 10/23/98 letter from Janet Bowler to the Commission‘
20 5/31/96 letter from Steven Giere to Dr. Maxine Hoggan.
21 6/3/96 letter from Dr. Hoggan to Steven Giere.
22 6/19/96 letter from Mr. Giere to Dr. Hoggan with attachments‘
23 6/24/96 report from Dr. Hoggan.
O
‘ Page] - FINAL ORDER
J GM:tj h\GEN35595.DOC Depanment autism
1152 Court sew NE
- some“

1 7/8/96 letter from Mr. Giere to Dr. Hoggan.
‘ 2 8/30/96 final plan ofassistance.
3 5/29/97 statement from Janet Bowler.
4 Undated notes of Mr. Giere concerning agenda for 6/11/96 meeting.
5 2/ 18/99 transcribed telephone message from Nancy Hungerford to Susan Nisbet.
6 Mr. Giere called the following persons as witnesses: Ann Samuelson, parent; Nancy
7 Hungerford, Attorney at Law; Len Carpenter, former Superintendent of Astoria School District;
8 and Steven Giere. Mr. Giere submitted a letter dated May 30, 19.96, from Howard and Ann
9 Lamley which was received into evidence without objection.
10 The panel prepared a proposed order. The Commission has considered Mr. Giere’s
11 written exception to the proposed order and oral argument by Ms. Brown. The Commission
12 adopts the proposed order except as modified herein.
' 13 EVIDENTIARY RULING
14 The panel sustained an objection to exhibits concerning a stipulated final order of the
15 Board of Psychologist Examiners that imposed a public reprimand against Dr. Maxine Hoggan.
16 The findings and legal conclusions of the Board of Psychologi st Examiners are not relevant to
17 the issues in this case and the charges against Mr, Giere under the Commission’s rules.
l8 FINDINGS OF FACT
l9 1. Mr. Giere has been a licensed educator since 1974. He obtained an
2O Administrative License in 1988~ and he became Principal of Astoria High School in 1994.
21 2. Janet Bowler has been a teacher of foreign langlages at Astoria High School
22 since about 1976, and Mr. Giere was her supervisor during the 1995-96 school year.
23 ///
. Page 2 - FINAL ORDER
JGM;tjh\GEN35595.Doc Department 0111151195
1162 Court Street NE
sax; 222.2331‘)

1 3. In the winter and spring of 1996, several parents filed complaints against
' 2 Mrs. Bowler. Mr. Giere suspected the complaints were due to Mrs. Bowler’s problems in
3 communicating and resolving conflicts with parents. The Commission need not consider the
4 validity of the parents’ complaints about Mrs. Bowler.
5 4. On about May 30, parents filed a formal complaint about Mrs. Bowler’s treatment
6 of their daughter, Mr. Giere scheduled a meeting on June 11 ‘with the parents and Mrs. Bowler
7 to discuss the parents’ concerns.
8 5. On May 31, Mr. Giere telephoned Maxine Hoggan, a clinical psychologist with a
9 private practice in Tillamook, Oregon, and retained Dr. Hoggan to attend the meeting and to
10 observe the interactions between Mrs. Bowler and the parents. On May 31, Mr. Giere wrote a
1 l letter confirming his request for Dr. Hoggan’s “services as clinical psychologist in a personnel
12 matter with a teacher at our school.” His letter fiarther stated:
. 13 I would like you to observe the interpersonal dynamics exhibited by both
parties as they attempt to resolves issues. I would be particularly
14 interested in your observing Mrs. Bowler’s behavior in the meeting for
any indications or symptoms of human relational dysfunctionality that
15 might be problematic to effective conflict management or resolution.
Following the meeting, I would like you to prepare a report on this for
l6 me based on your observations. Your rep01t will provide me with
_ information that will be helpful in making subsequent decisions of a
17 personnel nature with respect to Mrs. Bowler.
l8 6. One or two days before the June 11 meeting, Mr. Giere met with Mrs. Bowler and
l9 Augustus Fennerty, the faculty representative for the Astoria Educational Association. The
20 purpose of the meeting was to prepare for the June 11 meeting with the parents. Mr. Giere did
21 not disclose to Mrs. Bowler that Dr. Hoggan had been invited to the June l l meeting. Mrs.
22 Bowler suggested she begin the meeting with the parents by informing them that their daughter
23 ///
. Page 3 — FINAL ORDER
JGM.tj h\GEN35595.DOC Department ofJustice
1162 Court SlreetNE
Salem, on 97310
(503) masons

1 had earned an “A” in the class because Mrs. Bowler believed this might address many of the
. 2 parents’ concerns. Mr. Giere did not object to this suggestion.
3 7. The June 11 meeting was held at the high school with Mr. Giere, Mrs Bowler,
4 Mr. Fennerty, the parents and Dr. Hoggan. Mr. Giere facilitated the meeting. He introduced
5 Dr. Hoggan as his personal representative and stated Dr. Hoggan’s purpose at the meeting was to
6 observe and advise him on conflict resolution procedures at the high school. Mr. Giere did not
7 disclose at the meeting his intention to use Dr. Hoggan’s observations as a psychologist to assist
8 in his evaluation of Mrs, Bowler and his development of a plan of assistance.
9 8. When Mrs. Bowler learned that Mr. Giere had retained Dr. Hoggan to prepare a
10 psychological report to be used in Bowler’s evaluation, she filed a grievance with the school
11 district and complaints to the Psychologist Board of Examiners and the Commission.
12 9. Following the meeting, Mr. Giere wrote a letter to Dr. Hoggan stating his
. l3 intention to use Dr. Hoggan’s report as a basis for a plan of assistance Mr. Giere would write.
l4 10. Dr. Hoggan prepared her report on June 24. On August 30, Mr. Giere prepared a
15 written plan of assistance which relied heavily on the observations contained in Dr. Hoggan’s
16 written report.
l7 11. Mr. Giere testified at the hearing he initially did not plan to use Dr. Hoggan’s
18 findings and report for purposes of evaluation or preparation of a plan of assistance. He
19 maintained that his decision to develop a plan of assistance relying on Dr. Hoggan’s report did
20 not come about until alter he attended the meeting and observed Mrs. Bowler’s shortcomings in
21 dealing with the parents.
22 ///
23 ///
. Page 4 - FINAL ORDER
JGM:tjh\GEN35595.DOC Departmenl ofJusticc -
1162 Coult Street NE
Size; 222.2531‘)

1 12. On May 15, 1998, Mr. Giere met with Dr. Hoggan’s attorney in connection with a
. 2 complaint filed against Dr. Hoggan with the Psychologist Board of Examiners. During the
3 conversation, Mr. Giere revealed to Dr. Hoggan’s attorney that he had not wanted Mrs. Bowler
4 to know the purpose of Dr. Hoggan’s presence at the June 1 l, 1996 meeting.
5 ULTIMATE FINDING OF FACT
6 Mr. Giere did not disclose to Janet Bowler that he had retained Dr. Maxine Hoggan to
7 observe Bowler’s interactions at a meeting with parents on June 11, 1996, and Hoggan’s
8 observations would be used to develop a plan of assistance for Bowler.
9 CONCLUSION OF LAW
10 Mr. Giere’s failure to disclose the purpose of Hoggan’s report constitutes a material
11 misrepresentation and gross neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c).
12 DISCUSSION
. l3 The function of teacher evaluation is one of the most important professional
14 responsibilities of licensed administrators. This process should be carried out in an open manner.
15 The panel concludes Mr. Giere had an obligation to disclose the fact he had retained a
16 psychologist to observe Mrs. Bowler during the meeting with parents.
l7 The panel also finds by clear and convincing evidence Mr. Giere intended to use
18 Dr. Hoggan’s report for purposes of a plan of assistance at the time he set up the June ll
l9 meeting. Giere’s intent is indicated by his May 31, 1996 letter to Dr. Hoggan; by his failure t0
20 inform Mrs. Bowler in advance that Dr. Hoggan would be present at the meeting; by his failure
21 to follow the strategy for Mrs. Bowler to start off the discussion with parents; and by his
22 statement to Dr. Hoggan’s attorney that he did not want Mrs. Bowler to know the reason for
i 23 Hoggan’s presence at the meeting.
. Page 5 - FINAL ORDER
JGM:tjh\GEN35595.DOC Departmmmmam
1162 0011a sect-t NE
Streetcar

1 This order should not be construed as disapproval of the use of outside consultants in
. 2 evaluation. That practice is specifically permitted under Oregon law. ORS 342.850(2)(c). But
3 there is a fundamental difference between this case and, for example, inviting a professional
4 musician to observe a music teacher's performance at a school concert. In this case, Mr. Giere
5 retained a clinical psychologist to evaluate a teacher for "symptoms of human relational
6 dysfunctionality" without the teacher's knowledge or consent during a private meeting with a
7 student‘s parents.
8 The Commission concludes that Mrs. Bowler’s participation in the meeting could reasonably
9 have been affected if she had been fully informed of the psychologist‘s role. Had occurred,
10 Mrs. Bowler would likely have sought advice concerning her rights, including whether Mr. Giere
1 l had a sufficient basis for seeking a psychological evaluation. If Mr. Giere did have a legal basis to
12 require Mrs. Bowler to undergo a psychological evaluation, the evaluation would likely have been
' 13 conducted under different protocols, including evaluation in a private clinical setting and safeguards
14 concerning confidentiality and the scope of the examination. Regardless of whether Mr. Giere
15 could have forced Mrs. Bowler to attend the meeting with Dr. Hoggan and the parents, it is likely
16 that her participation would have been different in character and extent if she had known the
17 meeting‘s true purpose.
l8 Based on the foregoing, the panel concludes Mr. Giere violated professional standards
19 and should be issued a public reprimand.
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
. Page 6 - FINAL ORDER
J GM:tjh\GEN35595.DOC Department ofJustice
1162 Coun Street NE
822252722331“

1 PROPOSED ORDER
. 2 The Commission issues a public reprimand t0 Steven Giere and this order shall serve as
3 the public reprimand.
4 DATED this Alida‘; ofNovember 1999.
5 TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
6 MM
By: David V. Myton, Exec tive Director
8
9 NOTICE: Mr. Giere is 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
10 review is pursuant to the provisions of ORS 183.482 to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
1 l
. 12
O 13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
. Page 7 - FINAL ORDER I
JGM:tjh\GEN35595.DOC Department ofJusticc
1162 Court Street NE
52221;; 212.233?