1355872
Nathan Parker (49806)
Discipline Order

1
2 BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMIVIISSION
3 OF THE STATE OF OIUEGON
4
5
6
7 In the Matter of the )
8 Teaching License of ) FINAL ORDER
9 >
10 NATHAN PARKER ) Case No. l 102508
1 1
1 2
13 On April 30, 2012, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Rick Barber issued a Proposed
14 Order in this case‘
l 5
16 The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission adopts in its entirety the Findings of
l7 Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order contained in the attached Proposed Order.
l 8
l 9
20 ORDER
2 l
22 The Commission adopts the Proposed Order in its entirety and revokes Nathan Parker’s
23 Oregon Standard Teaching License for one (l) year.
24
25 i“
26 Dated this 2 2 day of August 2012.
27
28 TEACHER STANDARD AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
29
30
3 1
MM
32 By:
33 Victoria Chamberlain, Executive Director
34 Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
35
36
37
38 NOTICE: You are entitled to judicial review of this order. Judicial review may be obtained by
39 filing a petition for review within 60 days of the service of this order. Judicial review is pursuant
40 to the provision of ORS 183.482 to the Oregon Court of Appeal.
PAGE l —FINAL ORDER _ NATHAN PARKER

On Auglstg 8 , 2012, I mailed the foregoing Final Order and Proposed Order in OAH Case No.
1102508 to:
By: Certified Mail — Return Receipt Reguested and U.S. First Class Mail
Certified Mail Receipt #7010 2780 0000 2187 3880
Nathan Parker
PO Box 387
Arlington OR 97812-0387
By: Shuttle
Raul Ramirez
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
1 162 Court Street NE
Salem OR 97301-4096
Hearings Coordinator
Office of Administrative Hearings
4600 25"‘ Avenue NE, Suite 140
Salem OR 97301
1 ,

. 13mm /l/
Melo y Hans
Direc or of PI'\ ssional Practices
PAGE l —CERT[FICATE OF MAILING f NATHAN PARKER

BEFORE THE OFFICE 0F ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS MAY 0 1 2912
STATE OF OREGON l r an. , a 8 i
for the 8 ,, . ~ Ami
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF: ) PROPOSED ORDER
)
NATHAN PARKER ) OAH Case No. 1102508
) Agency Case N0.
HISTORY OF THE CASE

On April 8, 2011, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (Commission) issued
a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Nathan Parker (Licensee). 0n April l3, 2011, Licensee
requested a hearing.

On September 9, 2011, the Commission referred the hearing request to the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH). Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Rick Barber was assigned to
preside at hearing. A prehearing conference was held on November 1, 2011, and the case was
set for hearing on April 18 and 19, 2012.

The hearing was held as scheduled on April l8, 2012, in Salem, Oregon.l Licensee
appeared without counsel and testified. He called no other witnesses. The Commission was
represented by Assistant Attorney General Raul Ramirez. The Commission called the following
witnesses: Licensee; Mt. Angel School District Superintendent Troy Stoops; Middle School
Principal Debi Brazelton; and Mt. Angel Police Officer Jonathan Lamoreaux. The record closed
on April 18, 2012.

ISSUES

1. Whether Licensee committed gross neglect of duty by making comments to the
trumpet players in his band;

2. Whether Licensee committed gross neglect of duty by calling a student a “pussy”
when he did not bring his musical instrument to class;

3. Whether Licensee committed gross neglect of duty by driving female student K
home from school, in violation of school district policy;

4. Whether Licensee committed gross neglect of duty by expressing interest in
letting student K stay with his family while her family was in California;

' The additional day of hearing was not needed.
In the Matter of Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. 1102508
Page 1 of l4

5. Whether Licensee committed gross neglect of duty by commenting on K’s looks,
telling her she was pretty, and by not being truthful with the Board investigator about that
comment;

6. Whether Licensee committed gross neglect of duty by commenting to student K
that he wished he could take her to his home but his wife and kids were there, and by not being
truthful with the Board investigator about that comment;

7. Whether Licensee committed gross neglect of duty in his comments to the
investigator during his September 10, 2010 interview;

8. Whether Licensee committed gross neglect of duty in regards to the following
incidents for which he received either reprimands or letters of directive:

a. A December 5, 2007 Letter of Directive from the Principal regarding the tone of a
letter sent to parents;

b. A January 26, 2009 Letter of Reprimand concerning comments made about the
band’s bass drum player;

c. A January 27, 2009 Letter of Reprimand for throwing a student’s book on the
ground;

d. A March 9, 2010 Letter of Reprimand for throwing a student’s book across the
band room; and

e. A March 17, 2009 Letter of Reprimand for requiring students to stay late when
Licensee’s keys had been stolen and he believed the students knew who had the keys.

9. Whether, if the charges against Licensee are proved, his Teaching License should
be revoked.

EVIDENTIARY RULING

Exhibits A1 through A14, offered by the Commission, were admitted into evidence

without objection. Procedural Documents Pl through P6 are part of the documentary record.
FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Licensee has held a Standard Teaching License, with a Music Endorsement, since
approximately 1999. He taught in the Rainier School District from 1999 until he resigned in lieu
of termination on November l9, 2003. Licensee accessed sexually explicit materials using the
district’s computers, leading to the separation from employment. The Commission entered into a
stipulation with Licensee on December 30, 2003, suspending his teaching license for 90 days and
requiring him, inter alia, to complete boundaries training. (Ex. A1). Licensee then spent three
years working in the South Umpqua School District. (Ex. A13 at l).

In the Matter of Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. l 102508
Page 2 of l4

2. In September 2007, Licensee begnan teaching in the Mt. Angel School District. He
was the band teacher for 5th grade through 12 grade, requiring him to “itinerate” between the
elementary, middle and high schools. Licensee also taught high school physical edrmttion (PE)
classes. (Test. of Licensee, Stoops). Licensee’s teaching style in the band classes was highly
energetic and intense, because he was passionate about the music and the excellence of the
bands. (Test. of Stoops).

3. When Licensee started with the Mt. Angel School District, Dave Carlson was the
Principal of the middle school. On September 20, 2007, Carlson received a complaint about
comments Licensee had made to the trumpet players in the band. He told them to warm up their
lips and strengthen their mouths, a normal exercise for trumpet players, but Licensee also told
them their girlfriends would appreciate it. One of the trumpet players, R, indicated that R did not
have a girlfiiend. Licensee said that R’s boyfriend would appreciate the lip exercises. R became

.. angry, quit playing, and put away his instrument. (Ex. A2 at 1).

4. Licensee immediately knew he had said something he shouldn’t, and reported the
incident to Carlson. Licensee was contrite, and apologized to R about the incident. Carlson
warned Licensee about inappropriate use of humor in interactions with students. R eventually
quit band, and Licensee later told another staff member that “losers” quit band, when the staff
member wondered whether R was still in the band. (Ex. A2).

5. The week before the incident with R, another student, S, had forgotten to bring his
baritone saxophone, a heavy instrument, to school. Licensee asked him why he had not brought
the instrument, and S said that the handle on the case was broken. The student reported to
Principal Carlson that Licensee called him a “pussy.” (Ex. A2 at 2). Licensee believes he told S
that he had “pussitis,” which he defined at hearing as “the condition of being a pussy." A pussy,
in Licensee’s vernacular, is a weakling. (Test. of Licensee).

6. On December 5, 2007, the high school principal presented a Letter of Directive to
Licensee concerning a letter he had sent to parents on November 28, 2007. The letter, which is
not in the record, was considered “most alarming" in its tone and in placing blame on a group of
parents. Licensee was directed to have all further letters previously approved by the principal
before being sent out. (Ex. A10 at 5).

7. On January 16, 2009, Licensee received a Letter of Reprimand from the middle
school principal for use of “inappropriate language and sarcastic remarks that were found to be
offensive in nature.” (Ex. A10 at 4). In attempting to explain to the class the importance of the
beat set up by the bass drum, Licensee said something similar to: “The bass drum player is not
just the fat guy in the band that sits there and bangs on something. He is the most important
person in the band.” (Ex. A13 at 5). The bass drum player took the weight comment personally
and complained to the principal about Licensee’s comment. On another occasion when several

students had forgotten to bring their instruments to school afler Christmas break, Licensee said
“WTF!” WTF means “what the fuck.” Licensee used only the letters. (Test. of Licensee; Ex.
A10).
In the Matter of Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. 1102508
Page 3 of l4

O Q ' .

8. On January 27, 2009, Licensee was fi'ustrated with a student, A, who had lefi his
music notebook in the bleachers afier the band played at a basketball game. Licensee picked up
the notebook and, when on the ramp in the hallway between the gym and the band room, threw
the notebook at A’s feet. Other students observed this incident and reported it to Stoops, who
was the principal at the time. Stoops reviewed the videotape from the hall camera and watched
the incident occur. He gave Licensee a Letter of Reprimand for the incident. (Ex. A10 at 3;
Test. of Stoops). Licensee believes A was about 100 feet away fi'om where he threw the
notebook, with no one else around, (Test. of Licensee), but Stoops noted after reviewmg the
video that A was about 12-14 feet away from Licensee, and there were other students nearby.
(Test. of Stoops).

9. Licensee was teaching a high school PE class during March 2009. When teaching
that class, Licensee would put his keys on the stage in the gym, so that he could better participate
with the students in whatever the class was doing. During class on March l7, his keys were
taken from the stage. Licensee believed he knew which group of students had taken the keys, so
he singled out certain male students who were in the locker room and would not let them leave
until they told him where his keys were, or who had taken them. (Test. of Licensee). Stoops
disciplined Licensee because of his selection method for singling out the students forced to
remain. They were singled out because Licensee either thought they were likely to have stolen
the keys, or because Licensee had had problems with them before. (Test. of Stoops; Ex. A10 at
2).

10. On January 27, 2010, the father of student NH emailed Principal Brazelton at the
middle school concerning the way Licensee treated NH in band class. Licensee oflen yelled at
NH to “Play!” and NH felt singled out and embarrassed. A couple of days earlier, NH’s mother
had called Licensee about NH’s grade. Afterward, without mentioning NH or the parent who
called, Licensee told the class that a parent had called about grades, and informed the class that
they were responsible for their own grades. Brazelton counseled with Licensee about not
singling out NH or any other student and about better ways to require the student to participate.
She also told him not to talk to the class about calls from parents concerning grades. (Ex. A3,
A4).

ll. In late February or early March 2010, student N was reading her science book
during band class rather than playing her instrument. Licensee asked her at least twice to close
the book and participate in the class. N continued to read the science book, so Licensee walked
over to her, took the book and threw it across the room. N told her mother about the incident,
and that Licensee yelled a lot in frustration at the students. Brazelton found out about the
incident fi'om the parent. Earlier, Brazelton had asked Licensee to find out why N wanted to quit
band. Licensee had agreed to find out from N, but did not tell Brazelton about the book throwing
incident that had occurred. Afier hearing about the incident, Brazelton believed that N quit
because of Licensee. N told her that she quit for different reasons (wanting to work with
computers instead of being in band), but Brazelton did not believe her. (Test. of Brazelton, Ex.
A5).

12. The middle school band was scheduled to go to a band competition in March
2010. Brazelton expected Licensee to review all of students’ grades prior to the competition to
In the Matter of Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. 1102508
Page 4 of l4

see if any of them were precluded from going because of failing classes. There were four or five
students who had grades that would disqualify them from going. Licensee had not told them
they were disqualified from going because under past administrations the disqualification rule
had not been applied to band competitions. (Test. of Licensee). Brazelton expected him to apply
the rule to band as well as other activities, such as sports, and she pulled the students off the bus
before they could go to the competition. (Test. of Brazelton, Ex. A5).

l3. At the strong urging of Brazelton, Licensee’s contract with the district was non-
renewed in March 2010. As a result, his job ended at the end of the 2009-10 school year. (Test.
of Brazelton).

l4. On June 18, 2010, afier the school year was over, student B was in the school
office talking to the school secretary, Reagan. B told Reagan that the students were happy
Licensee was finished at the school because they thought he was the “next Molan.” Molan was a
former teacher who had sexually abused students and had been prosecuted for his actions. B told
Reagan that Licensee had taken student K home fiom band a couple of times and commented on
her looks. He had also allegedly said “I would take you home but my wife and kids are home.”
(EX. A7).

15. Reagan reported the conversation to an administrator, and the school contacted
Mt. Angel police to report what B had said. Officer Lamoreaux investigated the case by
interviewing student B and also student K, the person to whom Licensee made the statements. K
initially denied that the statements were made, but later admitted they were true. She believed
Licensee was joking when the comments were made. Larnoreaux believed that discussing the
matter was difficult for K because he was aware she had been the victim of a previous episode of
sexual abuse by another student. (Test. of Lamoreaux).

16. The school district does not have a policy against teachers giving students a ride
home from school. (Test. of Stoops).

17. Licensee gave K rides home fi'om school on a couple of occasions, but not alone.
The male exchange student who lived with Licensee was also in the car, as was his friend.
Licensee made the “I would take you home” comment to K in a joking fashion because that was
the way the kids in his class would joke around. He believed K knew he was joking. He
commented on K’s looks during a class when the band was watching a movie. It was a private
comment to her as she was preparing transfer to Silverton High School, and he was encouraging
her to be in band. He said that band needed the popular pretty kids to be in the class, not just the
band geeks. (Test. of Licensee). K believed Licensee was joking when he made the comments.
(Ex. A6 at 3).

18. Student K took piano lessons from Licensee’s wife, also a music teacher. When
K’s family was going to California for spring break, and K wanted to stay in town for a band
project, Licensee offered to have her stay with his family. (Test. of Licensee). In hindsight, afler
the comments Licensee made to K were revealed to K’s mother, she wondered if Licensee had
an ulterior motive for asking K to stay at his house. (Test. of Lamoreaux).
In the Matter of Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. 1102508
Page 5 of 14

19. When the Commission’s investigator asked Licensee if he had made the
comments to K, Licensee initially lied to the investigator and said he had not made them. He
later recanted his comments and admitted he had made the comments to K. (Ex. A13; Test. of
Licensee).

CONCLUSIONS 0F LAW

1. Licensee committed gross neglect of duty by making comments to the trumpet
players in his band;

2. Licensee committed gross neglect of duty by calling a student a “pussy” when he
did not bring his musical instrument to class;

3. Licensee did not commit gross neglect of duty by driving female student K home
fi'om school;

4. Licensee did not commit gross neglect of duty by expressing interest in letting
student K stay with his family while her family was in California;

5. Licensee committed gross neglect of duty by commenting on K’s looks, telling
her she was pretty, and by not being truthful with the Board investigator about that comment;

6. Licensee committed gross neglect of duty by commenting to student K that he
wished he could take her to his home but his wife and kids were there, and by not being truthful
with the Board investigator about that comment;

7. Licensee committed gross neglect of duty in his comments to the investigator
during his September 10, 2010 interview;

8. Licensee committed gross neglect of duty in regards to the following incidents for
which he received either reprimands or letters of directive:

b. A January 26, 2009 Letter of Reprimand concerning comments made about the
band’s bass drum player;

c. A January 27, 2009 Letter of Reprimand for throwing a student’s book on the
ground;

d. A March 9, 2010 Letter of Reprimand for throwing a student’s book across the
band room; and

e. A March l7, 2009 Letter of Reprimand for requiring students to stay late when
Licensee’s keys had been stolen and he believed the students knew who had the keys.

9. Licensee’s Teaching License should be revoked.

In the Matter of Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. 1 102508
Page 6 of 14

OPINION

The Commission contends that Licensee committed gross neglect of duty, and has the
burden to present evidence to prove its claim. ORS 183.450(2). It must prove its case by a
preponderance of the evidence. Sobel v. Board of Pharmacy, 130 Or App 374, 379 (1994), rev
den 320 Or 588 (1995) (standard of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act is
preponderance of evidence absent legislation adopting a different standard). Proof by a
preponderance of the evidence means that the fact finder is persuaded that the facts asserted are
more likely true than not. Riley Hill General Contractor v. Tandy Corp., 303 Or 390 (1987).

All charges against Licensee allege that he committed gross neglect of duty under ORS
342.175, which states in part:

342.175 Grounds for discipline; reinstatement. (l) The Teacher Standards and

Practices Commission may suspend or revoke the license or registration of a

teacher or administrator, discipline a teacher or administrator or suspend or

revoke the right of any person to apply for a license or registration if the licensee,
registrant or applicant has held a license or registration at any time within five

years prior to issuance of the notice of charges under ORS 342.176 based on the

following:

* * =1‘ * =1‘

(b) Gross neglect of duty[.]

Similarly, the administrative rule is also cited for each charge:

584-020-0040

Grounds for Disciplinary Action

* * * * *

(4) Gross neglect of duty is any serious and material inattention to 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:

5‘ * * * *

(n) Substantial deviation from professional standards of competency set forth in

OAR 584-020-0010 through 584-020-0030[.]

OAR 584-020-0040. As will be seen, the notice incorporates by reference other rules into this
rule in its allegations against Licensee. Each allegation is addressed below.

Comments to the trumpet players. Licensee made a comment to his middle school
trumpet players about warming up their lips and strengthening their mouths, exercises that were
In the Matter of Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. 1102508
Page 7 of 14

necessary to successfully play the trumpet. However, he added the jocular comment that their
girlfriends would appreciate it. Then, when one of the students, R, said he had no girlfriend,
Licensee said that his boyfriend would appreciate it. He later referred to R as a “loser” who had
quit band.

Although the Commission’s allegation of gross neglect of duty in this case arises from
the statute and rule set forth above, the specifics of this charge (and several others) are found in
OAR 584-020-0010(l) (recognize the worth and dignity of all persons and respect for each
individual), OAR 584-020-0010(5) (use professional judgment), and especially OAR 584-020-
003 5(l)(c)(D),2 which states:

584-020-0035

The Ethical Educator

The ethical educator is a person who accepts the requirements of membership in

the teaching profession and acts at all times in ethical ways. In so doing the

ethical educator considers the needs of the students, the district, and the

profession.

(1) The ethical educator, in fulfilling obligations to the student, will:

* * * ‘I *

(c) Maintain an appropriate professional student-teacher relationship by:

* * Q‘ * 3t

(D) Honoring appropriate adult boundaries with students in conduct and

conversations at all times.

(Emphasis added). The Commission contends that Licensee violated this rule with his comments
to the trumpet players, his separate comment to R, and his later comment about R. l agree with
the Commission.

Licensee’s comment t0 the trumpet players was on the edge of propriety. Referring to
boys strengthening their lips to kiss their girlfiiends was a jocular comment and, if that was the
only comment made, I would find it inappropriate but probably not an instance of gross neglect
of duty.

However, Licensee’s comment to R about strengthening his lips for his “boyfriend” and
the later comments that R was a “loser” because he was no longer in the band both clearly violate
the standard. Even if, as Licensee claims, the “loser” comment was made more generically about
all of those “losers” who are no longer in the band, the comment was inappropriate. In fact,
Licensee’s earlier inappropriate comments to R may have caused him to be one who no longer
wanted to be in the band. Licensee committed gross neglect of duty in this instance.

2 The citation in the Notice is incomplete but is sufficiently clear to identify this rule and subsection.
In the Matter af Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. 1102508
Page 8 of 14

The “pussy” comment. Approximately a week before the comments to R, another
student, S, failed to bring his baritone saxophone to school because the handle on the large case
had broken. The student reported later that Licensee called him a “pussy” in class. Licensee did
not dispute making the comment, although he testified that he actually said that S had “pussitis,”
which he defined as the condition of being a “pussy.” The distinction between the two words is
negligible, and the use of either word was inappropriate.

Under the same rules quoted above, Licensee’s comments to S constituted gross neglect
of duty. Whether the term is understood to refer to S as being weak and/0r effeminate, or
whether it was used in reference to female sexuality, it was a comment that was out of place
from a teacher to a student.

Driving K home. The Commission contends that Licensee drove K home from school in
his vehicle, thereby disregarding lawfiil district policies and violating OAR 584-020-0025(2)(e).
However, although Licensee admits driving K home on a few occasions, Superintendent Stoops
testified that it was not against district policy to drive a student home from school. Moreover,
although the police and the district assumed that Licensee and K were alone in the vehicle when
certain comments were made, the evidence establishes that at least two other students were in the
car when K was driven home. One of the other students was an exchange student living with
Licensee, and was present through the entirety of the trips in the car.

The Commission has failed to prove that Licensee violated district policy by giving K
rides home from school, and has failed to prove gross neglect of duty in this instance.

Offering K a place to stay during spring break. Similarly, the Commission has failed
to show that Licensee committed gross neglect of duty by offering K a place to stay when her
family went to California during spring break. K had a relationship with Licensee’s family,
because she was taking piano lessons from Licensee’s wife, and K wanted to stay for a band
concert rather than go to California.

As will be shown below, Licensee made some later comments to K that concerned K’s
mother, causing her (in hindsight) to question whether Licensee’s offer to watch over K during
spring brwk was an effort to groom her or take advantage of her.

K’s mother's concern was not unreasonable, considering the comments Licensee later
made to K, but the facts do not bear out any ulterior motive on Licensee’s part for the offer of a
place to stay during spring break. The Commission has shown no violation of professional
judgment or a violation of professional boundaries by Licensee’s offer to have K spend spring
break with his family.

Commenting that K was pretty. The Commission contends that Licensee told K that
she was pretty, thereby violating appropriate boundaries, and that Licensee was not truthful to
the investigator about making the comment. v ‘

In the Matter of Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. 1102508
Page 9 of 14

Licensee did make the “pretty” comment to K, but in a context that made it less of a
boundary violation than the Commission contended. When discussing K’s pending transfer to
Silverton High School, Licensee told K that the band needed the “popular” and “pretty” band
members, getting away from the cliché of the “band geek.” There was no testimony from any
other source to contradict Licensee’s explanation of the circumstances, and it is unclear whether
such a cement constituted a boundary violation.

What is clear is that Licensee lied about the comment at the beginning of his interview
with the Commission investigator.3 The Commission had a right to expect truthful answers from
Licensee and, at least initially, he did not provide truthful answers. Later in the interview, he
admitted that he had made the comments (including the one about taking K to his house,
discussed below). (Ex. A13). At hearing, when asked about why he lied, Licensee testified he
was “trying to get away with it.” (Test. of Licensee). Licensee’s fabrications violated OAR 584-
020-0040(4)(c), which states:

Grounds for Disciplinary Action

* * * * *

(4) Gross neglect of duty is any serious and material inattention to 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 or knowing misrepresentation directly

related to licensure, employment, or professional duties[.]

(Emphasis added). Licensee’s misrepresentations, in the context of an investigation about
licensure and professional duties, were a violation of this rule. This misrepresentation charge is
the most serious charge against Licensee, and the Commission has established that he committed
gross neglect of duty.

Offering to take K to his house. As with the previous comment, Licensee initially
denied making this comment but later retracted his denial. Licensee told K that he wished he
could take her to his house, but his wife and kids were there. In any context, Licensee’s
comment was a boundary violation, crossing the line of appropriateness for a conversation
between a teacher and a student.4 Licensee again violated OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c)(D) by
committing gross neglect of duty.

However, the violation was in the inappropriate comment and the attempted cover-up of
the incident. The Commission has failed to prove that there was any actual sexual or grooming
3 It was Licensee who stated in the hearing that he had “lied” to the investigator.

4 The record indicates that Licensee did not know that K had been previously sexually abused, and (as
will be seen), I do not conclude that any sexual “grooming” was occurring. However, K’s previous
experiences point out that even seemingly innocent (albeit foolish) comments can cause harm.

In the Matter of Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. l 102508

Page 10 of 14

conduct involved in the comment. Licensee made the comment in a vehicle with three students,
including K, inside. As Licensee pointed out, if he was really seeking a sexual or grooming
relationship with K, he would have made the comment in private. Even K indicated that he
thought Licensee was joking around.

Once again, the more serious issue under this charge was Licensee’s misrepresentations
to the investigator. For the reasons set forth above, I find an additional violation of the rule.

Comments to the Investigator. Licensee told the investigator that he ofien “crosses the
line” in his teaching style, trying to reach his students in ways that he knows violate the district’s
policies. The Commission contends that Licensee’s attitude constituted a boundary violation,
and further contended that Licensee agreed that he had been “grooming” K. The Commission is
partly correct and partly incorrect.

Licensee’s teaching style, as he described it to the investigator, was different than other
teachers:

I’m always. . .I’ve always been on the edge of doing things that are...I’ve crossed

the line quite often. I get results from the kids by building relationships with them

and being...treating...you know, being like a normal person to them. And it’s

not; it’s not the right way to teach kids. But it’s worked for me. It’s the way I’ve

always done it. And it’s something I am changing but it’s. . .I don’t know.

(Ex. A13 at 7). This comment, perhaps reiatively innocuous in the abstract, has been shown by
the other events in this case to be more than just a philosophy for Licensee. The comments
constituted gross neglect of duty.

However, the evidence does not support the charge of grooming, or even of Licensee
admitting to grooming. His comments show that Licensee understood, in retrospect, that his
actions could look like grooming. (Id. at 9). However, as he testified, that was never his
intention.

The evidence indicates that Licensee’s tendency to “cross the line” constitutes gross
neglect of duty, but it does not indicate that he was actually grooming, or attempting to groom, K
or any other student.

Incidents leading to reprimand. The Commission contends that the incidents leading to
the five letters of reprimand or directive that Licensee received from the Mt. Angel School
District all constitute gross neglect of duty. In my review of the evidence provided about the
underlying incidents, I differentiate between events that were disciplinary but not necessarily
arising to the level of gross neglect of duty.5

As a result, I conclude that the Letter of Directive of December 5, 2007 does not, on this
record, establish that Licensee committed gross neglect of duty by writing a letter to parents.
s The use of the adjective “gross” implies that there can be episodes of neglect of duty that are not “gross”
in nature.

In the Matter of Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. l 102508
Page ll of l4

The letter is not in evidence, so I arn not able to determine what was said that the principal found
“most alarming” in Licensee’s letter. Accordingly, the event did not constitute gross neglect of
duty.

However, the other four episodes that led to Letters of Reprimand were of a serious
enough nature that I must agree with the Commission that they constituted gross neglect of duty.
Two episodes, in 2009 and 2010, involved Licensee throwing a book in anger and fi'ustration.
One involved inappropriate comments to band members about the bass drum player. The final
one involved Licensee’s poor choice in holding certain students in the locker room because he
believed they knew who had stolen his keys.

Of the four episodes, the two involving thrown books are the most concerning. As
Brazelton testified, she strongly suggested non-renewal of his teaching contract because she did
not want to have to explain to a parent when Licensee injured a student with a thrown book.

Sanctions. In this case, the Commission seeks to revoke Licensee’s teaching license for
the multiple episodes of gross neglect of duty. Although the Commission has not established
that all of its allegations against Licensee constituted gross neglect of duty, it has provided
sufficient information to justify revocation in this case.

It is evident that Licensee has much to offer as an educator. Superintendent Stoops
commended Licensee’s passion and intensity for leading school bands, and it was evident to me
as well. However, if there is a “dark side” to that passion and intensity, it is in the form of
temper and a biting wit. Most of the charges against Licensee stern from either expressions of
anger or from making comments that were grossly inappropriate. Because the record also
includes instances of misrepresentation to the Commission’s investigator, as this record does,
revocation is appropriate.

ORDER

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

That the April 8, 2011 Notice be MODIFIED to find that certain charges mentioned
above be removed, and that it be otherwise AFFIRMED. Licensee’s teaching license should be
revoked.

Rick Barber
Administrative Law Judge
Ofiice of Administrative Hearings
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
In the Matter of Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. 1102508
Page 12 of l4

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

250 Division Street NE

Salem OR 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 Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. l 102508
Page 13 of 14

1 CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING
On April 30, 2012 I mailed the foregoing Proposed Order issued on this date in OAH Case No.
l 102508.

By: First Class and Certified Mail
Certified Mail Receipt # 7010 2780 0000 2132 8960
Nathan Parker
PO Box 387
Arlington OR 97812
By: First Class Mail
Jeff Van Laanen
Teacher Standards & Practices Commission
250 Division Street NE
Salem OR 97301
Raul Ramirez
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
1162 Court St NE
Salem 0R 97301-4096
Pam Arcari
Administrative Specialist
Hearing Coordinator

In the Matter of Nathan Parker, OAH Case No. l 102508

Page l4 of l4