BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
I OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of the Teaching License of: ) FINAL ORDER
)
Lawrence W. Jordan ) Ofﬁce of Administrative
) Hearings Case No. 129200
On November 20, 2006, Administrative Law Judge Rick Barber issued a
Proposed Order in this case.
On December 5, 2006, the Commission received from Mr. Jordan his written
exceptions to the proposed order. The Commission has fully considered the written
exceptions and is now fully advised.
Now, therefore, 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 and denies Mr. J ordan’s application
for a Substitute Teaching License.
Dated this // day of January 2007.
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
liy: mag‘ é @MAA 4
Victoria lain, Executive 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 ﬁle a petition for rehearing or reconsideration y
pursuant to OAR 584-019-0045 within 60 days from the day this Order was served on
. you. If this Order was personally delivered t0 you, the date of service is the day you 1
l
Page l e FINAL ORDER—Lawrence W. Jordan

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.

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 to 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—-Lawrence W. Jordan i

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
. STATE 0F OREGON
. for the
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
1N THE MATTER OF ) PROPOSED ORDER
)
LAWRENCE W. JORDAN, ) OAH Case No. 129200
Respondent. )
HISTORY OF THE CASE
On May 23, 2006, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
(Commission) issued a Notice of Denial of Teaching License to Lawrence W. Jordan
(Respondent). On June 5, 2006, Respondent requested a hearing. The Commission
referred the matter to the Ofﬁce of Administrative Hearings on June 29, 2006.
On August 30, 2006, prior to the hearing, the Commission ﬁled a Motion for
Summary Determination. Respondent presented written argument on September 15,
2006, and supplemented that argument on September 18, 2006. On September 28, 2006,
the undersigned issued an Order Granting Partial Summary Determination.

' Hearing was held on October 11, 2006, in the OAH ofﬁces on Lana Avenue in
Salem. Administrative Law Judge Rick Barber presided. Respondent was present and
represented himself. The Commission was present through its investigator Susan Nisbet,
and was represented by Jeff Dover of the Department of Justice. Respondent and Ms.
Nisbet testiﬁed. The record was held open solely for the return of Exhibit A7, which was
admitted into evidence at hearing but released to Mr. Dover to make copies for the
parties. That document was returned the same aﬂemoon, and the record was closed on
the date of hearing.

EXHIBITS

Exhibits Al through A7 were identiﬁed, offered by the Commission, and
admitted into evidence without objection. In addition, Procedural Documents Pl through
P9 were identiﬁed. Although not part of the evidence, the Procedural Documents are
designated part of the documentary record of the hearing.

ISSUES

The Order Granting Partial Summary Determination determined that Respondent
provided false information on his applications for teaching licenses, and limited the
issues at hearing to the following:

. l. Whether Respondent’s false statements on his teaching applications in
1998, 2002 and 2005 were made “knowingly.”

In the Matter quawrence W. Jordan, OAH Case No. 129200 i
Page 1 of 9 ‘

‘ ' O O
. 2. Whether, if the statements were made knowingly and Respondent was
found to violate the Commission’s rules, denial of the right to seek a license or license
revocation would be the appropriate sanction.
At hearing, Respondent presented arguments which were in the nature of
affirmative defenses to the Commission’s charges. The defenses included arguments that
the Commission exceeded its authority or had no jurisdiction to act in this case, and that
the Commission violated a “statute of limitations” in ORS 342.175. I will address these
afﬁrmative defenses in the body of the argument below.
FINDINGS OF FACT
l. Respondent was granted a basic teacher’s certiﬁcate in Oregon on August
14, 1987. (Test. ofNisbet).
2. Respondent was previously an attorney and a member of the Oregon State
Bar. On December 27, 1985, the Oregon Supreme Court disbarred Respondent for
several violations of Bar disciplinary rules, including neglecting a legal matter entrusted
to him, dishonest conduct involving client trust fund violations, and conﬂicts of interest. ‘
In re Jordan, 300 Or 430 (1985). (Ex. A3). i
3. On June 8, 1998, Respondent submitted Public School Service Form C-l l
. (License Application), seeking to renew his Oregon teaching certiﬁcate. Respondent l
answered “No” to all of the character questions in the application, including Question 4 l
("Have you ever had a professional certiﬁcate, credential 0r license (of any kind) l
revoked or suspended or have you been placed on probationary status for any alleged i
misconduct or alleged violation of professional standards of misconduct? ") and Question =
7 (“Have you ever been disciplined by any public agency responsible for licensure 0r any
kind, including but not limited to educational licensure? ”). Respondent did not disclose
his disbarment to the Commission at that time. (Ex. A5). A renewal of Respondent’s
certiﬁcate was granted based on this application. (Test. 0f Nisbet).
4. On March 19, 2002, Respondent submitted another license application to
the Commission, seeking to renew his Oregon teaching certiﬁcate. Respondent answered
“No” to all of the character questions in the application, including Questions 4 and 7. On
Question 7, Respondent initially answered “Yes” but crossed out the answer and wrote
“N0” instead. Respondent was thinking about his disbarment when he initially wrote
“yes” on the form, but changed his mind. Respondent did not disclose his disbarment to
the Commission at that time. (Ex. A4). A renewal of Respondent’s certiﬁcate was
granted based on this application. (Test. of Nisbet).
5. On December 30, 2005, Respondent applied for a substitute Oregon
teaching certiﬁcate, knowing that his basic certiﬁcate would expire on March 8, 2006.
Due to health reasons, including a stroke occurring in approximately 2001, Respondent
. had not worked enough hours as a teacher in the previous four years to qualify for the
In the Matter of Lawrence W. Jordan, OAH Case No. 129200
Page 2 of 9

basic certiﬁcate. A Commission employee encouraged Respondent to apply for his

. substitute teaching certiﬁcate, since the number of hours of teaching was lowered for that
certiﬁcate. (Test. of Nisbet). Respondent answered “No” to Question 4 and “Yes” to
Question 7. (Ex. A1). Respondent explained the “Yes” answer by writing: “#7 State bar
license suspended for non-payment of dues. Have receive[d] letter from OSB with bill
for reinstatement. Haven ’t money, so haven 't applied. ” (Ex. A2). Respondent did not
disclose his disbarment to the Commission at that time.

6. In 2004, before ﬁlling out his application for the teaching certiﬁcate in
2005, Respondent sought information about how to reinstate his license to practice law
with the Oregon State Bar. Respondent received documents from the Bar describing the
process and providing a reinstatement application. Those documents stated Respondent
had been disbarred and must meet the dictates of BR (Bar Rule) 8.1 in order to be
reinstated. (Ex. A7). Respondent did not seek reinstatement.

7. On May 4, 2006, Respondent was interviewed by Susan Nisbet, an
investigator for the Commission, because of the Commission’s belief that Respondent
had given false information on his applications. Respondent indicated that he did not
disclose the disbarment because he believed he had a license to practice law, not a
certificate, and he read the questions to refer to certiﬁcates. He further stated that he was
seeking his teaching license in Oregon because he was moving back (from California)
after having suffered a stroke. (Ex. 6).

. 8. When Respondent read Questions 4 and 7 on the applications, he
considered the language about other professional licenses to be “surplusage” and
“overreaching” by the Commission, so he did not disclose his previous disbarment to the
Commission. (Test. of Respondent).

CONCLUSIONS 0F LAW

1. Respondent knowingly provided false information to the Commission.

2. Denial of the license is the appropriate sanction for the provision of false
information in the Applications.

OPINION

Respondent submitted false information to the Commission on three separate
occasions—in his 1998 application, his 2002 application, and his 2005 application for a
teaching certiﬁcate. For the reasons which follow, I have concluded that his actions were
performed knowingly. Before addressing the reasons for that conclusion, however, I will
address Respondent’s afﬁrrnative defenses raised at hearing.

Affirmative Defenses. As noted, Respondent made several arguments during the
course of the hearing concerning the Commission’s actions in this case. First, he

. contended that the Commission had exceeded its authority and jurisdiction when it 1

i
l
l
In the Matter of Lawrence W. Jordan, OAH Case No. l29200
Page 3 of 9

' ' O O
refused to grant him a license. Second, Respondent contended that there was a timeliness
. problem~that the Commission had exceeded the statute of limitations on his actions.
Finally, Respondent contended that the Commission could not prove his false statements
were “knowingly” made. I will address these alleged defenses before addressing the
Commission’s burden of proof and evidence.
1. Exceeding Authority and Jurisdiction. According to Respondent, the
Commission does not have the authority or the jurisdiction to take action against him as
they have done in this case. However, the legislature has granted such authority to the
Commission:
(l) The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may suspend or
revoke the license of a teacher or administrator, discipline a teacher or
administrator or suspend or revoke the right of any person to apply for a
license if the person has held a license at any time within ﬁve years prior
to issuance of the notice of charges under ORS 342.176 based on the
following:
* * a: * *
(e) Any false statement knowingly made in an application for
issuance, renewal or reinstatement of a license[.]
ORS 342.175. Thus, by statute, the Commission has the power to discipline Respondent,
. up to and including license revocation or denial.
2. Statute of Limitations. Respondent also argues that this same statutory
language is a “statute of limitations,” and that any matter taking place more than ﬁve
years before the current time must be disregarded because of the “ﬁve year” rule in the
statute. However, Respondent misreads the statute. The ﬁve year language is, in effect, a
statement of j urisdiction over the teacher, administrator or applicant. The sole criterion is t
“if the person has held a license at any time within ﬁve years prior to the issuance of the
notice of charges[.]” That criterion has been met in this case. Respondent held a i
teaching license from August 1987 until March 2006. The Notice was issued on May 23, ‘
2006, only two months after Respondent’s teaching license expired. ‘
Respondent’s legal arguments, addressed above, do not change the complexion of i
the case at all. There is no real question about the ability 0f the Commission to act in this i
matter. The factual issue that remains is whether the false statements Respondent a
provided to the Commission were knowingly false. The Commission has the burden to ‘
prove that the statements were knowingly false under the language of the statute quoted
above. Respondent claims the false statements were not made knowingly. Having l
carefully weighed the evidence, I disagree. i
Deﬁnition of “knowingly.” The meaning of the term “knowingly” is the key to ,
understanding the factual issues which remain in this case. The term is used in both the ‘
statute and the administrative rule governing the Commission’s actions, but the word is .
. not deﬁned in either place. Accordingly, I give the word its common meaning in the t
In the Matter of Lawrence W. Jordan, OAH Case No. 129200 i
Page 4 of 9

English language. PGE v. Bureau of Labor & Industries, 317 Or 606 (1993). The
' American Heritage Dictionary deﬁnes “knowing” as:
l. Possessing knowledge, intelligence or understanding * * * 3. Deliberate.
American Heritage Dictionary at 705 (2d College Ed. 1991). Using this deﬁnition, the
question is whether Respondent possessed the knowledge that the information he was
providing to the Commission was false. Was his inclusion of false information on the
applications deliberate?
Respondent argues that his responses were not knowingly false. He contends that
he did not think that his bar license was the type of license about which the questions
were asked. I take Respondent’s testimony as important evidence of his state of mind at
that time. However, there are certain factors which convince me that Respondent knew
more than he now admits, and that what he wrote on the applications was knowingly
false. ‘
I. Inconsistent and false statements. First, the statements Respondent has made
about his disbarment have been so incorrect, and so inconsistent in their content, that I
must make some conclusions about Respondent’s mental state. His comments about his ‘
disbarment have been inconsistent and incorrect, even after the Commission provided t
him with the Supreme Court decision and the Oregon State Bar records they had. For 1
' instance, he has stated: 1
0 That he was suspended from the practice of law for nonpayment of dues, r
and did not have the money to pay the dues. (Ex. A2). There is no
evidence that Respondent was ever suspended for nonpayment of dues. ‘
i When he received the Motion for Summary Determination (which
included an actual copy of the Supreme Court decision, showing that the
Bar had recommended a three year suspension but the Court had disbarred
him), Respondent represented to the ALJ that the Bar only wanted to
reprimand him and he did not know how he had been disbarred. (Doc.
P7).
I He testiﬁed at the hearing that he had not participated in the Supreme
Court proceeding on his disbarment, when the Court’s decision shows that
he had. (Ex. A3).
These statements are all false—so false that I must conclude that Respondent is mentally
incompetent, very negligent or knowingly false. However, the record does not show
mental incompetence or negligence.
Because the record showed that Respondent suffered a stroke a few years ago, and
because his state of mind is obviously important when determining whether his actions
were knowingly done, I was concerned about the possibilities that his competence was
1n the Matter of Lawrence W Jordan, OAH Case No. 129200
Page 5 of 9

' ‘ O O
affected by the stroke] I asked Respondent a few questions about his condition; it was
' very clear that Respondent understood the circumstances of his case, that he had excellent
long-term memory (remembering, for instance, his judicial race against Judge Sloper in
Marion County in the early 1980s), and that his communication skills were also excellent.
In short, I found no basis to believe that Respondent was incompetent. I also saw no
evidence that he would act rashly or negligently. By process of elimination, I concluded
that the comments in the applications were placed there knowingly.
2. Changed answers on applications. The second factor leading to the conclusion
that Respondent knowingly provided false information is a comparison of the three
applications and what changed with each one. There is an interesting progression in the
way Respondent answered Question 7 in 1998, 2002 and 2005. Question 7 asked:
Have you ever been disciplined by any public agency responsible for
licensure of any kind, including but not limited to educational licensure?
(Ex. A1 at 5). In 1998, Respondent answered the question “N0.” (Ex. A5 at 3). In 2002,
Respondent wrote “Yes,” but crossed it out and wrote “No.” (Ex. A4 at 4). In 2005,
Respondent wrote “Yes” and explained that his bar license had been suspended for non-
payment of dues. (Ex. A2).
When Respondent was asked about the answers he provided, and especially the t
response in 2002 when he crossed out the initial “Yes” and wrote “No,” he admitted that i
. he was thinking at that time about his disbarment. This testimony is important: It shows i
that Respondent was thinking about the disbarment while reading the question in 2002, l
but chose not to tell the Commission about it at that time. This choice made by
Respondent was a deliberate decision, knowingly made, to exclude information about the 1
disbarment on the 2002 application. r
That deliberate choice impeaches other parts of Respondent’s testimony. He ‘
testiﬁed that he never thought of his Bar license when ﬁlling out the applications. He i
claimed he thought of many other kinds of license, including his pilot’s license, hunting
license, and driver’s license, but he did not think of his license to practice law. He
testiﬁed that he was confused because he did not think a teaching certiﬁcate and a bar
license had anything in common. And yet, he eventually admitted that he changed the
answer on the 2002 application to avoid giving the Commission information about his
previous Bar license.
Respondent’s testimony established that he knew he should be providing
information about his disbarment, but made the deliberate decision to not provide that
information. Those representations meet the deﬁnition of “knowing.” In fact, even his
2005 application (where he answered Yes to Question 7) contains knowing
misrepresentations. Respondent knew that he had been disbarred from practicing law in
l Respondent did not raise any issues regarding his competence. As will be seen, I do not ﬁnd
. any competence issues, either, but include this section to show that the analysis made of his 1
comments was complete.
In the Matter of Lawrence W. Jordan, OAH Case No. 129200
Page 6 of 9

Oregon for several reasons (including conﬂicts of interest, commingling of funds, and

' other charges); he had no reasonable basis to believe that he had been suspended for
failure to pay bar dues. Telling the Commission that he had only been suspended when
he lmew he had been disbarred was a knovxdngly false statement.

Based upon the progression in the applications, I conclude that Respondent
intentionally left the disbarment information off of the applications.

3. "Surplusage" and "Overreaching. ” Based upon my review of the evidence,
there is one even stronger piece of evidence showing the intentional nature of
Respondent’s actions. Respondent testiﬁed that he considered the questions on the
applications to be “surplusage” and “overreaching” in their scope, and did not want to
answer them. (Test. of Respondent). As he later argued, Respondent did not believe the
Commission had the right to ask such questions.

For whatever reason, however, Respondent knowingly left off the information
concerning his previous Bar discipline. I conclude that Respondent knowingly provided
false information to the Commission in 1998, 2002 and 2005.

The Appropriate Sanction. Having determined that Respondent violated ORS
342.175(1), I look to that same statute to determine the appropriate sanction:

(l) The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may suspend or

. revoke the license of a teacher or administrator, discipline a teacher or

administrator or suspend or revoke the right of any person to apply for a

license if the person has held a license at any time within ﬁve years prior

to issuance of the notice of charges under ORS 342.176 * * *

The statute allows suspension, revocation or discipline of a teacher or administrator, and
allows suspension or revocation of the right to apply for a license. The Commission’s
Notice indicated its intent to revoke, not suspend, Respondent’s license in this case.

Observing Respondent’s presentation of his case, I was struck by his
unwillingness to see the Commission's side of the false statement issue. Despite the
testimony of Ms. Nisbet, which described the importance of character in educators and
the importance of giving the Commission full information on applications, Respondent
did not acknowledge that character had any place in the process. I have no doubt that
Respondent still considers those questions on the application to be surplusage and
overreaching on the Commission’s part. There was no understanding shown by
Respondent as to why such “surplusage” might be important. Under those circumstances,
the denial of the substitute teaching license is more appropriate than a suspension.

In summary, I conclude that the Commission’s decision to deny Respondent’s
license is appropriate.

In the Matter of Lawrence W. Jordan, OAH Case No. 129200
Page 7 0f 9 ~

' ORDER
Ipropose the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission issue the following
order:
That the Notice issued May 23, 2006, denying Respondent’s application for a
substitute teaching license, be AFFIRMED.
Rick Barber
Administrative Law Judge
Ofﬁce of Administrative Hearings
ISSUANCE AND MAILING DATE: November 20, 2006
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 (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 helpﬁrl 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 Lawrence W Jordan, OAH Case No. 129200
Page 8 of 9

‘ ' ' O O
APPENDIX A
' LIST 0F EXHIBITS CITED
Ex. Al 2005 Teaching Application
Ex. A2 Respondent’s Addendum to Exhibit A1
Ex. A3 Supreme Court decision (In re: Jordan)
Ex. A4 2002 Teaching Application
Ex. A5 1998 Teaching Application
Ex. A6 Nisbet Interview of Respondent
Ex. A7 Oregon State Bar Application Information
O
l
O
In the Matter of Lawrence W. Jordan, OAH Case No. 129200
Page 9 of 9 i

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on November 20, 2006, I served the attached Proposed Order by mailing certiﬁed
and/or ﬁrst class mail, in a sealed envelope, with ﬁrst class postage prepaid, a copy thereof
addressed as follows:
LAWRENCE WILLIAM JORDAN I
4017 SE VINEYARD RD
MILWUKIE OR 97267
BY FIRST CLASS AND CERTIFIED MAIL
CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT # 7005 1160 0003 9713 8739
VICTORIA CHAMBERLAIN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TEACHERS STANDARDS AND PRACTICES
465 COMMERCIAL ST NE
SALEM OR 97301
BY FIRST CLASS MAIL
. JEFF DOVER
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1162 COURT ST NE
SALEM OR 97301-4096
BY FIRST CLASS MAIL
Lucy G ra, A inistrative Specialist
Ofﬁce Adrni strative Hearings