l BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON
3i In the Matter of the Educator License 0f ) DEFAULT ORDER OF
5 JONATHAN CURTIS BRODERICK ) REVOCATION OF EDUCATOR LICENSE
3
8 On August 30, 2012, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (Commission) issued
9 a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Jonathan Curtis Broderick (Broderick) in which the
10 Commission charged him with Gross Neglect of Duty. The Notice was sent via U.S. First Class Mail
1 1 and U.S. Certified Mail Receipt 7011 2000 0001 1292 1636 to the address on file with the
12 Commission. The Notice designated the Commission file as the record for purposes of proving a
13 prima facie case. The Certified Mail receipt was returned, signed to the Commission on September
14 12, 2012. The regular mail was not returned to the Commission. The Notice of Opportunity of
15 Hearing, dated August 30, 2012, and signed by Victoria Chamberlain, Executive Director, stated:
l6 “IF A REQUEST FOR HEARING IS NOT RECEIVED WITHIN THIS 21-DAY PERIOD,
l7 YOUR RIGHT TO A HEARING SHALL BE CONSIDERED WAIVED UNLESS YOUR
18 FAILURE TO REQUEST A HEARING WAS BEYOND YOUR REASONABLE CONTROL. IF
19 YOU DO NOT REQUEST A HEARING OR IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT A HEARING, THE
20 COMMISSION WILL ADOPT AN ORDER OF DEFAULT WHICH MAY INCLUDE THE
2] REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF YOUR LICENSE OR OTHER DISCIPLINE.”
23 Broderick did not request a hearing. The Commission, therefore, finds Broderick t0 be in default and
24 enters the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final order, based on the files and
25 records 0f the Commission concerning this matter.
26 FINDINGS OF FACT
27 1. Jonathan Curtis Broderick has been licensed by the Commission since October 26, 1987.
28 Broderick’s Standard Teaching License, with endorsements in Basic French (018) and Standard
29 Language Arts (020), was issued December 28, 2010, and expires on December 27, 2015. During
30 all relevant times, Broderick was employed by the Seaside School District.
31 2. On January 16, 2012, a seventeen (17) year-old female student disclosed to her parents and a
32 school officialinformation regarding a romantic relationship between Broderick and the student.
33 School officials, local police, DHS, and TSPC were advised and conducted investigations. These
34 investigations determined Broderick had been involved in a romantic relationship with this
35 student since December of 2011.
36 3. During the course of the investigations, Broderick admitted to having a romantic relationship
37 with the seventeen (17) year-old female student. Officials learned that Broderick had kissed this
38 student on the mouth, held her hand, and touched her thigh. The involved student told officials
39 that Broderick and the student had conducted multiple romantic meetings outside of school and
l PAGE 1-DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF LICENSURE- BRODERICK, JONATHAN CURTIS

1 had exchanged emails and written correspondence including romantic notes and poems.
2 Examination of Broderick’s written and electronic messaging discovered specific content details
3 of these communications including but not limited to:
4 0 From Broderick t0 the student: “Lately, my life has been filled with the poetry 0f you.
5 Y0u’ve stumbled into a big hole 0f longing and pretty near filled it with your easy smile
6 and reckless barefeet (sic). That’s all I know, you climb out anytime you want. But my
7 poems are about you. "The letter is signed “Bisous” which in French translates to
8 “Kisses”.
9 u Broderick writes in French and/ or in English the following in his email correspondence
10 with the student: “I Love you”, “Kiss my beautiful...good night.”
l 1 ~ The student emailed Broderick the following: “I pray the memory will always be this
12 vivid, I can still feel your shaky arms around me, Your breath on my neck every time
13 you resisted kissing me, Your eyes looking into my soul, Your fingers running up and
l4 down my arms, the back of your hand caressing my thighs, Your lips against mine.”
15 n On January 12, 2012 the student sent Broderick the following email: “My man tonight in
16 the shower your hands were mine again, only this time they were free. Bisous.”
17
18 4. The involved student told officials that she had smoked marijuana in Broderick’s presence.
19 Broderick failed to report the student’s use of marijuana, and Broderick failed to report his
20 romantic relationship to officials.
21 5. On April 24, 2012, Broderick (through his attorney) refused to cooperate wifl1 TSPC investigators
22 when requested to participate in an interview. Broderick was informed of the consequences of
23 such a refusal and still declined to cooperate, rejecting the opportunity to participate in an
24 interview.
25 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
26 Broderick’s conduct described in section two (2) above, constitutes gross neglect 0f duty in
27 violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b); OAR 584-020-oo4o(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-o2o—oo1o(5)
28 (Use professional judgment); OAR 584-020-oo4o(4)(o) as is incorporates OAR 584-020-
29 0035(1)(b) (Refrain from exploiting professional relationships with any student for personal gain,
30 or in support of persons or issues), OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c)(A) (Not demonstrating or expressing
31 professionally inappropriate interest in a student's personal life).
32 Broderick’s conduct described in section three (3) above, constitutes gross neglect of duty in
33 violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b); OAR 584-020-oo4o(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-001o(5)
i 34 (Use professional judgment); OAR 584-020-0040(4)(0) as is incorporates OAR 584-020-
35 0035(1)(b) (Refrain from exploiting professional relationships with any student for personal gain,
36 or in support of persons or issues), OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c)(A) (Not demonstrating or expressing
37 professionally inappropriate interest in a student's personal life), OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c)(B) (Not
38 accepting or giving or exchanging romantic or overly personal gifts or notes with a student); and
PAGE 2-DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF LlCENSURE- BRODERICK, JONATHAN CURTIS

l OAR 584020-004o(4)(t) (Any sexual conduct with a student).
2 Broderick’s conduct described in section four (4) above, constitutes gross neglect of duty in
3 violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b); OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-oo1o(5)
4 (Use professional judgment); OAR 584-020-oo4o(4)(0) as is incorporates OAR 584-020-
5 0035(1)(b) (Refrain from exploiting professional relationships with any student for personal gain,
6 or in support of persons or issues), OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c)(D) (Honoring appropriate adult
7 boundaries with students in conduct and conversation at all times), and OAR 584-020-
8 0035(1)(c)(A) (Not demonstrating or expressing professionally inappropriate interest in a
9 student's personal life), and OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c)(C) (Reporting to the educators supervisor if
10 the educator has reason to believe a student is or may be becoming romantically attached to the
1 l educator).
12 Broderick’s conduct described in section five (5) above, constitutes gross neglect 0f duty in
13 violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b); OAR 584-020-0040(4)(p) (Subject to the exercise of any legal right
14 or privilege, failure or refusal by an educator under investigation to respond to requests for
15 information, to furnish documents or to participate in interviews with a Commission
16 representative relating to a Commission investigation).
17 Furthermore, the conduct described above demonstrates that Broderick lacks good moral
18 character, mental or physical fitness t0 hold a license as required under ORS 342.143(2).
19 The Commission’s authority to impose discipline in this matter is based upon ORS 342.175.
2O FINAL ORDER
21 The Commission hereby revokes Jonathan Curtis Broderick’s Educator licensure.
22 IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15 IVAday of February, 2013.
23 TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
(MM
24 By:
25 Victoria Chamberlain, Executive Director
i?
28
29 NOTICE OF APPEAL OR RIGHTS
3(1) YOU ARE ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE
32 OBTAINED BY FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF
33 THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ORS 183.482 TO
34 THE OREGON COURT OF APPEALS.
PAGE 3-DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF LlCENSURE- BRODERICK, JONATHAN CURTIS