1 BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
2 ON BEHALF OF
3 TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
In the Matter of the Teaching License of OAH Case No. 1001670
TAMMY LEA KINNEY ’ FINAL ORDER BY DEFAULT OF
REVOCATION OF RIGHT TO APPLY
FOR A LICENSE
g On March 23, 2010, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (Commission)
6 issued a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Tammy Lea Kinney (Kinney), in which the
7 Commission charged her with Gross Neglect of Duty pursuant to OAR 584~020-0040(4)(f),OAR
8 584-020-0040(4)(c), OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584—020-0010(5); and
9 OAR 584-020-0040(4)(o) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c)(D), OAR 584-020-
10 0035(a)(c)(C) and OAR 584-020-0035(3)(a). Ms. Kinney requested a hearing. A hearing was
11 scheduled before Administrative Law Judge John Mann at 9 a.m. on October 13, 2010. Ms.
12 Kinney failed to appear at the scheduled time and place of the hearing.
13 The Notice of Opportunity for Hearing informed Ms. Kinney that if she failed to appear at
14 the hearing the Commission would adopt an order of default and that the records contained the
15 files of the Commission would automatically become a part of the contested case record upon
16 default for purposes of proving a prlma facie case. The Commission, therefore, finds Ms.
17 Kinney in default and enters the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and order, based
18 on the files and records of the Commission concerning this matter.
19
20 FINDINGS 0F FACT
21 1. The Commission has licensed Kinney as an educator in Oregon since April 28, 1989. Kinney’s
22 current Basic Teaching License issued July 27, 2007, expired on July 26, 2010. During all
23 relevant times Kinney was employed as a teacher in the Ontario School District.
24 2. On October 22, 2008, and October 29, 2008, Kinney kissed a male student of the Ontario
25 School District in her classroom.
PAGE 1-DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT TO APPLY - KINNEY
i

1 3. Kinney did not report the kissing that occurred on October 22, 2008, until October 24, 2008.
2 Kinney’s statements to school officials and police contained numerous inconsistencies of fact,
3 and differed with regard to specific details depending on whom Kinney related the events to.
4 Kinney’s statements differed from security camera video footage that supported the student's
5 version of the events. On October 29, 2008, Kinney reported to school officials and police that
6 the same male student had again approached her, embraced and kissed her against her will.
7 4. On October 22, 2008, a male student approached Kinney, kissed her and propositioned her in
8 her classroom. Kinney did not report this conduct to her supervisor until two days later.
9

10 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

11 Kinney’s conduct as described in paragraph 2 above constitutes gross neglect of duty in

12 violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b); OAR 58¢020-0040(4)(f) (Any sexual conduct with a student)

13 and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5) (Use professional

14 judgment); and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(o) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c)(D)

15 (Honoring appropriate adult boundaries with students in conduct and conversation at all times).

16 Kinney’s conduct as described in paragraph 3 above constitutes gross neglect of duty in

17 violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b); OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c) (Knowing falsiﬁcation of any document

18 or knowing misrepresentation directly related to Iicensure, employment, or professional duties);

19 OAR 584-020-0040(4)(o) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c)(C) (Reporting to the

20 educator's supervisor if the educator has reason to believe a student is or may be becoming

21 romantically attached to the educator), and OAR 584-020-0035(3)(a) (Maintain the dignity of the

22 profession by respecting and obeying the law, exemplifying personal integrity and honesty); and

23 OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5) (Use professional judgment).

24 Kinney’s conduct as described in paragraph 4 above constitutes gross neglect of duty in

25 violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b); OAR 584-020-0040(4)(o) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-

26 0035(1)(c)(C) (Reporting to the educator's supervisor if the educator has reason to believe a

27 student is or may be becoming romantically attached to the educator); and OAR 584-020-

28 0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5) (Use professional judgment).

29 The Commission has the authority to impose discipline in this matter under ORS

30 342.120 through 342.430 and OAR Chapter 584.

31 / / /

32 ///

33 ///

PAGE 2-DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT TO APPLY - KINNEY

1 FINAL ORDER

2 The Commission hereby revokes Tammy Lea Kinney’s right to apply for a teaching

3 license.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED THIS é day of November, 2010.

5 TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION

6 \_

7 M

8 B. m)

9 Victoria Ch erlain, Executive Director
10
11
12
13
14 NOTICE OF APPEAL 0R RIGHTS
15
16 YOU ARE ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE
17 OBTAINED BY FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF
18 THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ORS 183.482 TO
19 THE OREGON COURT OF APPEALS.
20

PAGE 3—DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT TO APPLY - KINNEY

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that I served the foregoing notice of ﬁnal order, certified by me as such, by mailing
U.S. First Class Mail and U.S. Certiﬁed MaiI—Return Receipt Requested, addressed to:
Tammy Lea'Kinney
1368 sw 12‘h Ave.
k. Ontario OR 97914
, L
Dated this Ag day of December, 2010.
By:
M lody Ha
Ex cutive sistant
PAGE 1- CERTIFICATE OF MAILING—TAMMY LEA KINNEY