. BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
ln the Matter of the Teaching License of: ) FINAL ORDER
)
MARK PAUL ALLEN ) Office of Administrative
) Hearings Case No. 122096
On October 6, 2005, Administrative Law Judge John Mann 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.
ORDER
The Commission adopts the Proposed Order denying Mark Paul Allen’s
' application for reinstatement of his revoked teaching license.
g Ht
Dated this day of November 2005.
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
a % I/ /
By: m/ > 4/7 Man/14144
v V — . .
'1ctoria Chamberlwxeeutive Director
NOTICE: If you are dissatisfied with this Order you may not appeal it until you
have asked the agency to rehear the case or to reconsider the Order. To obtain agency
rehearing or reconsideration you must filc a petition for rehearing or reconsideration
pursuant to OAR 5234-0190045 within 60 days from the day this Order was served on
. you. If this Order was personally delivered to you, the date of service is the day you
received the Order. If this Order was mailed to you, the date of service was the day it
was mailed, not the day you received it. If you do not ﬁle a petition for rehearing or
reconsideration within the time limits provided, you will lose your opportunity for
rehearing or reconsideration and you will lose your right to appeal to the Oregon Court of
’ Appeals.
Page l - FINAL ORDER—MARK PAUL ALLEN

' If, after you have filed a petition for rehearing or reconsideration, the agency
issues an Order that you are dissatisfied with, you have a right to appeal that Order t0 the
Oregon Court of Appeals pursuant to ORS 183.482.

If. 60 days after you have filed a petition for rehearing or reconsideration, the
agency has not issued an Order, your petition will be considered denied and at that time
you will have the right to appeal the original Order to the Oregon Court of Appeals
pursuant to ORS 183.480 and ORS 183.482. To appeal you must file a petition for
judicial review with the Court of Appeals within 60 days from the day that your petition
for rehearing or reconsideration is deemed denied. If you do not file a petition for
judicial review within the 60-day time period, you will lose your right to appeal.

Page 2 — FINAL ORDER—MARK PAUL ALLEN

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
' STATE OF OREGON
for the
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF: ) PROPOSED ORDER Fflfgitffwir ~ "1”";
) 5 “t 1" 1
MARK PAUL ALLEN ) OAH NO- 122096 §
UL l l, ‘7?. 2?in
HISTORY OF THE CASE g ,L _j I ‘Lg-f i
~~1--»-~~~-.M.;.1 .-_ ___1
On May 5, 2005, the Executive Director of the Teacher Standards and Practices
Commission (TSPC) issued a Notice to Mark Paul Allen notifying him of her intent to
recommend to the TSPC that Mr. Allen’s application for reinstatement be denied. On May 13,
2005, Mr. Allen requested a hearing.
On June 7, 2005, the TSPC referred the hearing request to the Ofﬁce of Administrative
Hearings (OAH). Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mann was assigned to preside at
hearing.
A hearing was held on August 16, 2005, in Salem, Oregon. Mark Paul Allen appeared
. without counsel and testiﬁed on his own behalf. The TSPC was represented by Assistant Attorney
General Joe Gordon McKeever. Testifying on behalf of Mr. Allen were Gary Wiese, retired Band
Director of Coquille High School; John Kinnee, Superintendent of Coquille School District; and
Patrick Royal, Principal of Coquille High School. Victoria Chamberlin, Executive Director of the
TSPC, testiﬁed on behalf of the TSPC. The record was held open until August 23, 2005, to allow
the TSPC to submit additional evidence. The record closed on August 23, 2005.
ISSUE
Whether Mr. Allen’s application for reinstatement of his revoked teaching license should be
approved. OAR 584-050-0015
EVIDENTIARY RULING
Exhibits A1 through A13, offered by the TSPC, were admitted into the record. Exhibit
R1, offered by Mr. Allen, was admitted into the record.
The record was held open until August 23, 2005 ‘to allow the TSPC to submit additional
documents consisting of letters of recommendation for Mr. Allen. Those documents were
received by the ALJ within the time allowed and were admitted into the record as Exhibit A14.
The record closed on August 23, 2005. .
In the Matter of Mark Paul Allen,
OAH Case No. 122096
Page l of l3

O O
FINDINGS OF FACT '

1. From July of 1984 until March of 2004, Mark Paul Allen held a Standard Oregon
Teaching License with an endorsement in music. From 1993 through March 0f 2004, Mr. Allen
was employed by the Coos Bay School District. (Ex. A9.)

2. From 1998 through September of 2000, Mr. Allen served as District Treasurer for the
South Coast Chapter of the Oregon Music Education Association (OMEA). While serving in
that capacity, Mr. Allen misappropriated approximately $14,000 for his personal use. (Ex. A1 at
2.) Mr. Allen used that money for his hobby in restoring classic automobiles and on expenses
associated with a troubled romantic relationship. (Ex. A10 at 1-2.) On August 2, 2002, pursuant
to Mr. Allen’s stipulation, the TSPC suspended Mr. Allen’s teaching license for ﬁve months for
misappropriating funds from the OMEA. In addition, the TSPC placed Mr. Allen on probation
for three years following the suspension. Terms of the probation required Mr. Allen to comply
with all standards for competent and ethical performance under OAR 584 Division 020, to seek
appropriate therapy, counseling, or treatment, and to give consent to his treatment provider to
contact the TSPC to verify treatment. (Ex. Al .) TSPC reinstated Mr. Allen’s teaching license
on December 9, 2002. (Ex. A9 at 1.)

3. In the summer of 2003, Mr. ‘Allen was employed as a high school band instructor at
Marshﬁeld High School (Marshﬁeld.) (Ex. A9.) On August 14, 2003, the owners of a local
music store spoke to Dale Inskeep, the Assistant Principal at Marshﬁeld. The owners told
Mr. Inskeep that the parents of a former Marshﬁeld student (“the parents”) had agreed to
purchase a saxophone from Mr. Allen. The saxophone was the property of the school and had .
been loaned to the student while he attended Marshﬁeld. (Ex. A6.)

4. On August 15, 2003, Mr. Inskeep spoke to the parents of the former Marshﬁeld
student. The parents conﬁrmed that they had purchased a saxophone from Mr. Allen. The
parents told Mr. Inskeep that they agreed to pay Mr. Allen $1,100 for the instrument and had
already given Mr. Allen a money order for $800. The money order was made payable to
Mr. Allen. The parents also conﬁrmed that the saxophone was the same instrument the student
had borrowed from the school. (Ex. A6 at 1-2.)

5. Later on August 15, 2003, Mr. Allen called Mr. Inskeep and stated that he was
unaware of any school policy with regard to selling band instruments. Mr. Allen asked if he
could get the saxophone back from the parents, return the money order, “and then run it through
proper channels.” Mr. Allen admitted that he had the parents pay in the form of a money order
made payable to him. (Ex. A6 at 2.)

6. On August 18, 2003, Marshﬁeld received a written memorandum from Mr. Allen,
dated August 15, 2003, with detailed information regarding the alleged sale of the school’s
saxophone. In the memorandum Mr. Allen stated that he had a conversation with the parents
regarding their desire to purchase a saxophone. According to the memorandum, the parents told
Mr. Allen about a price quote from a local music store. Mr. Allen wrote that he told them that
they could get a better price and should consider buying a used instrument and should also look
at other music stores and on the intemet. The memorandum states that Mr. Allen told the parents .
1n the Matter of Mark Paul Allen,

OAH Case No. 122096 .
Page 2 of 13

O O
that the student could use the instrument from the school until he got a new one or until he left
' for college in September. (Ex. A4.)

7. In his August 15, 2003 memorandum, Mr. Allen also discussed his August 15, 2003
phone call with Mr. Inskeep. Mr. Allen wrote that Mr. Inskeep told him that the parents claimed
that they were buying a saxophone from Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen wrote that he told Mr. Inskeep
that he “was aware of no such sale.” (Ex. A4 at 2.) Mr. Allen also wrote:

“[Mr. Inskeep] asked about a money order that was made out to me. I don’t know

of any money order that I have received for any instrument. He asked if I had the

money order. No money order.” (Ex. A4 at 2.)

8. In his August 15, 2003 memorandum, Mr. Allen wrote a number of questions.
Question number 4 read “Why does [Mr. Inskeep] think I received money for a sax? A money
order?” (Ex. A4 at 3.)

9. Mr. Allen’s August 15, 2003 memorandum does not state that he was attempting to
assist the parents in the purchase of a saxophone. The memorandum states “I did not receive any
money from the [parents] for the use, sale or rental of any instrument.” (Ex. A4 at 1.)

10. On January 14, 2004, pursuant to a subpoena, Sterling Savings Bank provided the
TSPC with a copy of a money order payable to Mr. Allen in the amount of $800. The bank
noted that the money order was purchased by one of the parents. The money order appears to

' bear the signature of the student’s mother. The money order was cashed and was endorsed by
Mr. Allen. Sterling Savings Bank noted that the money order cleared the vendor’s account on
August 13,2003. (Ex. A8.)

11. On February 26, 2004, Lester Simons, a local music store owner, prepared a letter for
Mr. Allen to explain his knowledge with regard to the alleged sale of the saxophone. Mr. Simons
noted that Mr. Allen had approached him sometime between May and July of 2003 and asked
about the availability of a Yanagisawa brand saxophone for a former student. Mr. Allen told
Mr. Simons that the parents had only $1,100 to spend. Mr. Simons told Mr. Allen that he could
sell the parents a saxophone at his cost, but that $1,100 was not enough to cover those costs.

Mr. Simons notes that he was later contacted by the parents who told him that they had found a
saxophone on the intemet for $200 more than the cost that Mr. Simons would charge.

Mr. Simons advised the parents to purchase the instrument from the intemet so that they could get
it before their son went to college. The parents then told Mr. Simons that they had already given
Mr. Allen the $1,100 they had to spend on the instrument. Mr. Simons was surprised that

Mr. Allen had taken money from the parents. Mr. Simons wrote that Mr. Allen returned the
money when the parents decided to purchase the saxophone from the intemet. (Ex. R1.)

12. On March 5, 2004, Mr. Allen entered into a stipulation with the Teacher Standards
and Practices Commission (TSPC) whereby he agreed to surrender his teaching license based on
the allegation that he had attempted to sell the school’s saxophone. Mr. Allen did not admit to
the allegations, but stipulated that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the

' charges against him. (Ex. A9.)
In the Matter of Mark Paul Allen,
OAH Case No. 122096
Page 3 of 13

13. Based on Mr. Allen’s stipulation, the TSPC issued a Stipulation, Surrender of .
License and Order of Revocation (Stipulated Order.) The Stipulated Order concluded that
Mr. Allen’s conduct constituted gross unﬁtness in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(5)(e). It also
concluded that Mr. Allen’s statement to Marshﬁeld’s principal that he had not received the
money order from the parents of a former student was false and constituted gross neglect of duty
in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c). The Stipulated Order also concluded that both
violations constituted violations of the terms of Mr. Allen’s probation which required him to
comply with all professional standards under OAR 584 Division 020. The Stipulated Order
states that Mr. Allen had the right to apply for reinstatement “after at least one year from the date
of this Order.” (Ex. A9.)

l4. On February 23, 2005, Mr. Allen submitted a sworn afﬁdavit to the TSPC seeking
reinstatement of his teaching license. In the afﬁdavit, Mr. Allen admits to his conduct in
embezzling funds from the OMEA and expresses his remorse. Mr. Allen attributes his conduct
to a number of factors, including mental and physical health problems. Mr. Allen notes that he
has sought medical treatment and psychological counseling to attempt to improve his health
since 2002. (Ex. A10 at 1-3.)

15. With regard to the allegations set forth in the Stipulated Order, Mr. Allen’s afﬁdavit
states “[T]hat it is of a circumstantial situation and should not be viewed as a literal offense.”
Mr. Allen wrote that the allegations “arose out of misunderstandings but was not intentional in
any way.” Mr. Allen attributes the misunderstanding to some confusion regarding the “check-
out sheets” that the school used when loaning instruments to students. Mr. Allen concedes that .
he made “the mistake of not informing my principal or other school ofﬁcials of my desire to
assist a student purchase a musical instrument.” He also conceded that he was responsible for
“the loss of verifying records” (i.e., the check out sheet for the saxophone), but denies attempting
to sell the band instrument. (Ex. A10.) Mr. Allen now contends that he was not guilty of the
offenses that led to his license being revoked, but entered into the Stipulated Order on the advice
of his attorney and union representative because he thought that he would be found guilty of the
allegations and that the allegations would be made public. (Test. of Allen.)

16. On May 20, 2005, Mr. Allen was seen by Cheryl A. Gifford, PhD. Dr. Gifford
conducted a clinical interview with Mr. Allen and a written Personal Assessment Inventory.

Dr. Gifford’s report states:

“In the summer of 2003, Mr. Allen states that he attempted to purchase a

saxophone from a music store of the exact kind that a student had been using so

that he would have an instrument to continue using as he went on to college.”

“The school somehow got the idea that Mr. Allen was trying to sell to the student

the same instrument, owned by the school that the student had been using during

the school year. The school further believed that Mr. Allen was pocketing the

money in this exchange.” (Ex. A12 at 2.)

In the Matter of Mark Paul Allen,
OAH Case No. 122096
Page 4 of 13

O O
. In a section of the report labeled “Reccomendations,” Dr. Gifford wrote:

“Mr. Allen maintains that he was not involved in any fraudulent or dishonest

activity, but was foolish to try and ﬁnd an instrument for his student without

discussing it with his administration given his probationary status. He avers that

he was trying to ﬁnd an instrument similar to the student had been using and

therein lay the confusion about whose instrument was being sold, the school’s one

or one from Mr. Simon’s store.”

* * * * *

“Mr. Allen is not guilt [sic] of fraud or dishonesty, but a lack of foresight, and a

failure to protect his own interests. l continue to ﬁnd that Mr. Allen is highly

unlikely to engage in fraudulent or dishonest activity or other inappropriate

behavior now or in the future.” (Ex. A12 at 4.)

l7. During the 2004-2005 school year, Mr. Allen was employed by the Coquille School
District. Mr. Allen worked as a teacher’s aide at Coquille High School. The School District
hired a retired band teacher to serve as the “Teacher of Record” in the class. However, the retired
teacher could work only a limited number of hours due to restrictions under the Public Employee
Retirement System. Therefore, when the retired band teacher was unable to work, the school
district hired substitute teachers to teach in the band class. (Test. of Wiese.) Throughout the
school year, Mr. Allen was the one consistent presence in the band class. (Test. of Royal.) The

. retired band teacher considered Mr. Allen to be a talented band teacher and essentially allowed
him to teach the class as a co-instructor. (Test. of Wiese.) Ofﬁcials of the Coquille School
District believe that Mr. Allen is an extremely talented band instructor and do not believe that he
engaged in any acts of dishonesty during the 2004-2005 school year. (Test. of Royal; Test. of
Kinnee.) The Coquille School District would like to hire Mr. Allen as a full-time band teacher
and is willing to do so even if Mr. Allen’s license is reinstated with a restriction that he teach
only for that District. (Test. of Kinnee.)

18. At the hearing in this matter, Mr. Allen admitted that he received a money order from
the parents for $800. Mr. Allen asserts that he had agreed to arrange the purchase of a saxophone
to the parents from a local music store at a substantially discounted price. Mr. Allen claims that
Mr. Simons had quoted a price of $2,200 for a saxophone. He contends that he told the parents he
would sell it to them for $1,100 but did not tell them that he was paying for half of the actual cost
of the instrument because he believed that the parents would not have accepted his giﬁ. Mr. Allen
testiﬁed that at the time he accepted the $800 payment from the parents, Mr. Allen had not yet
made a speciﬁc agreement with Mr. Simons to purchase a saxophone. (Test. of Allen.)

l9. Mr. Allen now acknowledges that he lied in his August 15, 2003 memorandum to
Marshﬁeld. He contends that he did so because he was afraid that he could lose his job because
of the previous suspension of his teacher’s license. (Test. of Allen.)

. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Mr. Allen’s application to reinstate his revoked teacher’s license should be denied.

In the Matter of Mark Paul Allen,
OAH Case No. 122096
Page 5 of 13

O O
OPINION '

On March 2, 2005, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission and Mark Paul
Allen agreed to a Stipulation, Surrender of License and Order of Revocation based on allegations
that Mr. Allen had attempted to sell a saxophone which belonged to the Coos Bay School
District and that Mr. Allen had been dishonest with District ofﬁcials who were investigating the
allegation. Mr. Allen denied wrongdoing, but conceded that the record was sufﬁcient to support
the allegations. On February 23, 2005, Mr Allen submitted an afﬁdavit to the TSPC seeking to
have his teaching license reinstated. The TSPC has denied that request.

ORS 342.175 sets forth the statutory basis for reinstating a previously revoked license.
That statute provides, in relevant part:

(3) Except for convictions for crimes listed in ORS 342.143 (3) and subject to

subsection (4) of this section, any person whose license or registration has been

suspended or revoked or whose privilege to apply for a license or registration has

been revoked may apply to the commission for reinstatement of the license or

registration after one year from the date of the suspension or revocation. The

commission may require an applicant for reinstatement to furnish evidence

satisfactory to the commission of good moral character, mental and physical

health and such other evidence as the commission may consider necessary to

establish the applicant’s ﬁtness. The commission may impose a probationary

period and such conditions as it considers necessary upon approving an .

application for reinstatement.

* * 1t * *.

The TSPC has adopted administrative rules consistent with ORS 342.175 which apply to
the reinstatement of a surrendered or revoked license. OAR 584-050-0015 provides, in relevant
part:

(1) General. A suspended, revoked or surrendered license or registration may be

reinstated if the applicant is otherwise qualiﬁed, meets recent educational

experience requirements in effect at the time of reinstatement, and complies with

the remaining applicable provisions of this rule. Licenses or registrations that are

revoked, suspended, or surrendered shall be reinstated for the same period of time

as an application for a new or renewed license or registration of that type.

* * * *1‘ *

(4) Revoked Licenses, Registration or Privilege to Apply. Any revocation for

conviction for crimes listed in ORS 342.143(3) is permanent and the license or

registration is not subject to reinstatement. Application for reinstatement of a

license or registration revoked for any reason other than those cited in ORS

342.1436) may be submitted at any time more than one year alter the license,

registration or privilege to apply has been revoked. The application shall be .
In the Matter of Mark Paul Allen,

OAH Case No. 122096
Page 6 of 13

O O
supported by a personal afﬁdavit, together vw'th requisite and additional
' documentation, sufﬁcient to establish convincingly that the educator possesses all

of the qualiﬁcations required for renewal or reinstatement of a license or

registration of that type. The burden shall be on the educator to establish ﬁtness

for reinstatement. The Executive Director shall consider the application

documents and shall make a recommendation to the Commission in Executive

Session. The Director shall mail a copy of the recommendation to the educator

and shall advise the educator that he or she may elect to treat the recommendation

as a denial and immediately request a hearing or the educator may elect not to

request a hearing until the Commission takes action on the recommendation of the

Executive Director. Before taking action on the Director's recommendation, the

Commission Chair or the Chair of the Discipline Committee of the Commission

may schedule an informal meeting between the educator and one or more

Commissioners or between the educator and the Discipline Committee meeting in

executive session. The decision to schedule or not to schedule an informal

meeting is entirely discretionary. If the application for reinstatement is denied or

conditionally reinstated, the educator shall be entitled to a contested case hearing

under ORS 342.175 to 342.190.

Under the above rule, Mr. Allen has the burden to establish his ﬁtness for reinstatement.
Mr. Allen has not met that burden. The record in this case established that Mr. Allen has given a
number of misleading and contradictory explanations with regard to his conduct in the summer
of 2003. The ﬁrst explanation was in a phone conversation with Dale Inskeep, Marshﬁeld High

. School’s Assistant Principal, on August 15, 2003. During that conversation, Mr. Allen appears
to have admitted his conduct and then suggested that he return the money order to the parents
and “then run it through proper channels.”

The second explanation came three days later. On August l8, 2003, Marshﬁeld received
a memorandum from Mr. Allen, dated August 15, 2003, in which he denied any attempt to
arrange for the sale of a saxophone to the former student. Mr. Allen wrote, “I did not receive any
money from the [parents] for the use, sale or rental of any instrument.” (Emphasis added.) He
also denied having received a money order from the parents, writing, “[Mr. Inskeep] asked about
a money order that was made out to rne. I don’t know of any money order that I have received
for any instrument. He asked if I had the money order. No money order.”

At the hearing, Mr. Allen contended that Mr. Inskeep’s recollection of their phone
conversation was incorrect. However, Mr. Allen also now concedes that his memorandum, in
which he offered his version of that phone call, contained a number of deliberately false and
misleading statements. Mr. Allen offered no persuasive evidence that Mr. Inskeep had a
motivation to lie when he drafted the memorandum detailing the August 15, 2003 phone call
with Mr. Allen. Given Mr. Allen’s admitted dishonesty, Mr. Inskeep’s version of the phone call
is more reliable.

A letter from a local music dealer, Lester Simons, written in February of 2004, offers
another version of Mr. Allen’s involvement with the parents. In that letter, Mr. Simons indicates

. that Mr. Allen received a quote for the cost of a saxophone and that Mr. Simons had agreed to
In the Matter of Mark Paul Allen,
OAH Case No. 122096
Page 7 of l3

O O
sell one to the parents at Mr. Simons’ cost. The letter does not mention that Mr. Allen had ever
suggested to Mr. Simons that Mr. Allen would be purchasing the instrument on behalf of the '
parents. Only after Mr. Simons advised the parents to purchase another instrument ﬁ-om the
intemet did he learn that Mr. Allen had taken money from the parents for the purchase.

In his afﬁdavit seeking reinstatement of his teaching license, Mr. Allen denies attempting
to sell the school’s saxophone. He attributes the allegations to “misunderstandings” and to a
problem with documentation. The afﬁdavit alludes to Mr. Allen’s actions in attempting “to
assist a student purchase a musical instrument” but does not clearly set forth exactly what
Mr. Allen did to assist in this purchase. The only error that Mr. Allen concedes with regard to
the incident is “the mistake of not informing my principal or other school ofﬁcials of my desire
to assist a student purchase a musical instrument.” He also conceded that he was responsible for
“the loss of verifying records” to document that he loaned the saxophone to the student. He does
not address the fact that he lied to Marshﬁeld in his memorandum dated August 15, 2003.

On May 20, 2005, Mr. Allen was seen by Cheryl A. Gifford, PhD. Dr. Gifford concluded
that Mr. Allen is “highly unlikely” to engage in dishonest conduct in the ﬁlture. This conclusion
appears to be based, in part, on Dr. Gifford’s acceptance 0f Mr. Allen’s denials of any improper
conduct in connection with the attempted sale of the saxophone. Dr. Gifford notes that Mr. Allen
told her “that he was not involved in any fraudulent or dishonest activity.” Based on a clinical
interview with Mr. Allen, Dr. Gifford concluded that Mr. Allen was not guilty of dishonesty, but
only to “a lack of foresight, and a failure to protect his own interests.” Dr. Gifford attributes the
revocation of Mr. Allen’s license largely to confusion and misunderstanding, and not on any
deliberately deceptive conduct by Mr. Allen. .

Dr. Gifford’s conclusions were not supported by evidence produced at the hearing. In
fact, Mr. Allen was guilty of dishonest conduct. Mr. Inskeep was investigating a serious
allegation that Mr. Allen may have been attempting to sell school property. Mr. Allen now
maintains that he had a perfectly innocent explanation for his conduct. However, Mr. Allen
chose not to give that explanation, but to deliberately give false and misleading information to
Mr. Inskeep. Had Mr. Allen been successful, the school district would likely never have learned
the truth about Mr. Allen’s conduct. To the extent that Mr. Allen’s difﬁculties were caused by
misunderstandings, they were exacerbated by Mr. Allen’s deliberate choice to lie to Mr. Inskeep
about his involvement with the student. It is reasonable to infer that Dr. Gifford’s opinion was
likely inﬂuenced by Mr. Allen’s failure to inform her of the fact that he lied to Mr. Inskeep in
August of 2003.

At the hearing in this matter, Mr. Allen gave yet another explanation for his actions. He
testiﬁed that he received a quote for a saxophone from Mr. Simons for $2,200 and intended to
sell the instrument to the parents for half of that amount. Mr. Allen contended that he did not
inform the parents of the true cost of the instrument because he did not believe they would have
accepted his ﬁnancial contribution.

Mr. Allen now concedes that he lied in his August 15, 2003 memorandum. The statement
that he was not involved in the sale of any instrument to the parents was false. His strongly
worded denials of having received any money order from the parents was also false. Mr. Allen .
had received a money order from the parents for $800 and had cashed it on August 13, 2003, two
In the Matter of Mark Paul Allen,

OAH Case No. 122096
Page 8 of l 3

I O
days before the date of the memorandum. Mr. Allen’s only explanation for lying in that

' memorandum was that he was afraid.

At the hearing, Mr. Allen contended that he did not have the opportunity to explain his
actions to the School District prior to the agreed upon revocation of his teaching license. That
contention is also false. Mr. Allen took the time to draft the memorandum on August 15, 2003 in
which he explicitly addressed the allegations. In that letter, Mr. Allen denied any wrongdoing
and falsely denied receiving a money order from the parents. It is notable that the letter does not
make any attempt to explain that Mr. Allen was attempting to assist the student in purchasing an
instrument from a private dealer. If, as Mr. Allen now contends, his actions were entirely proper
it would make little sense for him not to attempt to explain his actions to the principal in that
letter. Instead, Mr. Allen chose to mislead the principal and to ﬂatly deny any involvement in
the sale of a saxophone to the student. His deliberate and self-serving choice to lie to school
ofﬁcials formed part of the basis for the revocation of Mr. Allen’s teaching license in 2004.

Mr. Allen did provide a letter from a private music dealer which is consistent with his
claim that he was seeking to purchase a saxophone in the summer of 2003. He has also
consistently denied ever intending to sell the school’s saxophone to a student. It is possible that
there is an innocent explanation for Mr. Allen’s actions in connection with the attempted sale of
the saxophone. However, by failing to give a full and truthful explanation of his conduct to
school ofﬁcials in August of 2003, Mr. Allen demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to tell the
truth when confronted with serious allegations.

. Mr. Allen does not appear to be willing to accept responsibility for the events that led to
the revocation of his teaching license. His afﬁdavit minimizes his conduct and does not offer
what he now contends is the true nature of his actions with regard to the sale of a saxophone to a
former student. In addition, the afﬁdavit gives no explanation for Mr. Allen’s failure to be
truthful with school ofﬁcials investigating the incident. Dr. Gifford’s report suggests that as late
as May of 2005, Mr. Allen gave self-serving explanations for the revocation of his license and
failed to disclose his dishonest responses to school ofﬁcials investigating the matter.

It is noteworthy that ofﬁcials of the Coquille School District support Mr. Allen’s request
to reinstate his license. The ofﬁcials offered glowing testimony concerning Mr. Allen’s skill as a
music teacher. The record establishes that Mr. Allen is viewed as an excellent teacher. The
ofﬁcials also testiﬁed that they believed Mr. Allen to be trustworthy. However, Mr. Allen’s
admitted past conduct calls into question the ability of any school ofﬁcial to accurately gauge
Mr. Allen’s honesty. It is possible that Mr. Allen has been entirely truthful with the Coquille
School District. But because of Mr. Allen’s past dishonesty, and his failure to accept
responsibility for his deception, his employers can never be entirely sure of Mr. Allen’s honesty.
Should Mr. Allen be accused of wrongdoing in the future, the School District will have no way
of knowing whether or not Mr. Allen will be truthful and cooperative in any investigation.

Mr. Allen’s teaching license was revoked in March of 2004. When imposing that sanction,
the TSPC was entitled to consider, among other factors, the likelihood of a recurrence of similar
conduct, the educator’s past performance, and the educator’s state of mind at the time of the

. misconduct and afterwards. OAR 584-020-0045. Although those factors do not directly apply to a
reinstatement, consideration of those factors is helpful in determining whether Mr. Allen has met
In the Matter of Mark Paul Allen,

OAH Case No. 122096
Page 9 of 13

his burden to establish his ﬁtness for reinstatement, including evidence of good moral character.
Mr. Allen’s record of discipline reﬂects poorly on his trustworthiness. He has not demonstrated
that he has accepted responsibility for his conduct. Without such acceptance, it cannot be
determined that Mr. Allen would not engage in similar conduct in the future. His state of mind
when confronted with negative allegations was to lie, again reﬂecting poorly on his trustworthiness;

Mr. Allen had the burden of proving his ﬁtness for reinstatement. He has not met that
burden. Therefore, his application for reinstatement should be denied.

ORDER

I propose the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission issue the following order:

Mark Paul Allen’s application for reinstatement of his revoked teacher’s license is
denied.

lolrn Mann
Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
ISSUANCE AND MAILING DATE: ll ~M¢-’Q‘ Q l Q 2!.5
REC EIV ED
ocr 1 2 2005
Teacher Standards &
Praetieesugommission
1n the Matter of Mark Paul Allen,
OAH Case No. 122096
i Page 10 of l3

' EXCEPTIONS
The proposed order is the Administrative Law Judge'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 (l4) 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 Mark Paul Allen,
OAH Case No. 122096
Page 11 of 13

APPENDIX A
LIST OF EXHIBITS CITED

Ex. A1: Stipulation of Facts, Order of Suspension and Order of Probation dated August 2,

2002.
Ex. A4: Statement of Mark Paul Allen dated August 15, 2003.
Ex. A6: Memorandum from Dale Inskeep, Dean/Assistant Principal, Marshﬁeld High

School dated August l8, 2003.
Ex. A8: Letter from Craig Moore, Sterling Savings Bank and attached money order dated

January 14, 2004. .
Ex. A9: Stipulation, Surrender of License and Order of Revocation dated March 5, 2004.
Ex. A10: Affidavit of Mr. Allen dated February 23, 2005.
Ex. A12: Psychological Assessment of Mark P. Allen by Cheryl A. Gifford, Ph.D. dated

May 27, 2005.
Ex. R1: Letter from Lester Simons, L-S Music, dated Februay 26, 2004. .
In the Matter of Mark Paul Allen,
OAH Case No. 122096
Page 12 of l3

' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on October 6, 2005, I served the attached Proposed Order by mailing in a sealed

envelope, with ﬁrst class certiﬁed postage prepaid, a copy thereof addressed as follows:

MARK PAUL ALLEN

1285 S 8TH ST

COOS BAY OR 97420

VICTORIA CHAMBERLAIN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR \

TEACHERS STANDARDS AND PRACTICES

465 COMMERCIAL ST NE

SALEM OR 97301

JOE GORDON McKEEVER

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

1162 COURT ST NE

SALEM OR 97301-4096
Ann Redding, Administrative Specia
Ofﬁce of Administrative Hearings
Transportation Hearings Division

In the Matter of Mark Paul Allen,

OAH Case Nor 122096

Page l3 of 13