BEFORE THE
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF: ) FINAL ORDER
)

JOSEPH DEE HAGLER ) OAH Case No.: 1102306

This matter came before the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission to
consider the Proposed Order issued by Administrative Law Judge John Mann on March
15, 2012. Ralph E. Wiser, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Joseph Hagler ﬁled exceptions
to the Proposed Order on March 26, 2012.
On April 27, 2012, the Commission considered Joseph Hagler’s written exception to the
Proposed Order. After consideration of the records and ﬁles herein, the Commission
ﬁnds that Licensee’ s exceptions are not persuasive and hereby adopts in its entirety the
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order contained in the attached Proposed
Order as the Final Order.

Now therefore, the Commission suspends Joseph Dee Hagler’s Standard Teaching
License for six (6) months from the effective date of this order.

. . ,m
It lS so Ordered this day of May 2012.
Victoria Ch r , Executive Director
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission

NOTICE: You are entitled to judicial review of this order. Judicial review may be
obtained by ﬁling a petition for review Within 60 days of the service of this order.
Judicial review is pursuant to the provision of ORS 183.482 to the Oregon Court of
Appeals.
In the Muller ofJoseph Dee Hagler
Page l of 2

Mama
M wrwmwmwaﬁwd ' ~ Wﬁe ' » e1:
On May E M, 2012, I mailed the foregoing Final Order in OAH Case N0. 1102306 to:
By: First Class Mail and email
Ralph E. Wiser
Attorney at Law
l Centerpointe Drive, Suite 570
Lake Oswego OR 97035
Cally McKenzie
Personnel Director
Phoenix-Talent School District
PO Box 698
Phoenix OR 97535
By: Shuttle
Offlce of Administrative Hearings
4600 25‘h Avenue NE, Suite 140
Salem OR 97301
Judith Anderson
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
1 162 Court Street NE
Salem OR 97301-4096
J j/
7f? ~ <91" . /. ’
Melod Hansoqjmw
Direct r of Pro )eﬁiﬁnal Practices
In the Matter 0f Joseph Dee Hagler
Page 2 of 2

BEFORE THE OFFICE 0F ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF OREGON
for the
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION >
IN THE MATTER OF: ) PROPOSED ORDER ; i ‘ " .
) ;
JOSEPH D. HAGLER )OAH Case No.: 1102306 ' t ‘ ‘ i
) .
HISTORY OF THE CASE

On January 31, 2011, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC) issued a

Notice of Opportunity for Hearing (Notice) to Joseph D. Hagler. On February 1, 2011, Ralph E.
' Wiser, attorney at law, requested a hearing on Mr. Hagler’s behalf.

On April 11, 2011, TSPC referred Mr. Hagler’s hearing request to the Ofﬁce of
Administrative Hearings (OAH). Senior Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mann was
assigned to preside at hearing.

ALJ Mann held a preheating conference on June 28, 2011. Mr. Wiser represented Mr.
Hagler at the conference. Assistant Attorney General Judith Anderson represented TSPC. The
parties agreed to hold the hearing on October 5 and 6, 2011.

ALJ Mann held the hearing, as scheduled, on October 5 and 6, 2011 at the OAH ofﬁces
in Tualatin, Oregon. Mr. Wiser represented Mr. Hagler. Ms. Anderson represented TSPC.
TSPC presented testimony from Mr. Hagler, Cally McKenzie, Kelly Rasmussen, and George
Finch. Mr. Hagler testiﬁed on his own behalf and also presented testimony from Bradford Jones,
Jeffrey Van Laanen, Elizabeth McKanna, and Jan Harrell, PhD. The record closed on
November 29, 2011, aﬁer the parties submitted post-hearing briefs.

ISSUES

1. Whether Mr. Hagler committed gross neglect of duty by failing to use appropriate
professional judgment, and by demonstrating a lack of skill in the supervision of students, when
he allowed his cousin to use a school weight room when students were present. ORS
342.175(1)(b), OAR 584-020-0010(5), and OAR 584-020-0020(2)(d).

2. Whether Mr. Hagler committed gross neglect of duty by giving false and misleading
answers to questions from a school district administrator and a TSPC investigator regarding his
cousin’s use of the school weight room. ORS 342.175(1)(b) and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c).

3. Whether Mr. Hagler committed gross neglect of duty by failing to use and maintain
student records as required by federal and state law and by school district policies and
In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page 1 of 19

procedures by submitting student transcripts to TSPC without prior written consent ﬁ'orn the
students or their legal guardians. ORS 342.175(1)(b) and OAR 584-020-0025(2)(c).

4. If any of the above violations are established, what is the appropriate sanction?

EVIDENTIARY RULING
‘ Exhibits A1 through A4, offered by TSPC, were admitted into the record without
objection. Mr. Hagler offered Exhibits R1 through R48. Exhibits R1, R5 through R17, R24,
R28 through R34, R39 through R42, R44, R46 and R47 were admitted into the record without
objection. Mr. Hagler withdrew Exhibits R20, R23, R25 through R27, R35, and R43.

TSPC objected to Exhibits R1 through R4, and Exhibit R36 as irrelevant. The objection
was sustained as to Exhibit R36, and that Exhibit was not admitted into evidence. The objections
were overruled with regard to Exhibits R1 through R4 and those Exhibits were admitted into
evidence.

TSPC also objected to Exhibits R18 and R19 as irrelevant. Those objections were taken
under advisement. The exhibits are copies of Circuit Court complaints involving litigation
against the Phoenix-Talent School District. Mr. Hagler offered the exhibits, along with

' testimony from the attorney who ﬁled the complaints, in support of his contention that the
School District retaliated against him for cooperating in those lawsuits. However, Mr. Hagler
presented no evidence to demonstrate that the School District was aware of his involvement in
those cases. Mr. Hagler was not a party to the lawsuits and his name does not appear in the
pleadings. TSPC’s objections are sustained and Exhibits R18 and R19 are not admitted into
evidence.

TSPC also objected to Exhibits R38 andiR39 as irrelevant. Those objections were taken
under advisement. Exhibit R38 is a letter, dated September 17, 2010, ﬁ'om Mr. Hagler’s
optometrist regarding an eye condition. Exhibit R39 is a letter from a co-worker vouching for
Mr. Hagler’s honesty and judgment. However, the letter states that the co-worker was not
familiar with the facts of the allegations against Mr. Hagler. Neither letter is relevant to the
present ease. The objections are therefore sustained and Exhibits R38 and R39 are not admitted
into evidence.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Joseph Hagler has been a licensed Oregon teacher since 1979. Since that time, he has
taught at Phoenix High School in Phoenix, Oregon. Throughout his career, he has taught
physical education, health and American history. He has also served as a coach for school
wrestling, football, and baseball teams. (Ex. R1 at 1; test. of Hagler.)

2. On September 25, 2007, Mr. Hagler ﬁled four complaints with the TSPC concerning
the conduct of four Phoenix-Talent School District administrators in connection with the
sehool’s football and wrestling programs. Mr. Hagler alleged that the school district had allowed
academically ineligible students to participate in both wrestling and football. In addition, he
In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page 2 of 19

alleged that the wrestling coach had encouraged players to use techniques that included grabbing
the crotch and anus of opponents to gain an advantage. Mr. Hagler considered these techniques
to be a form of sexual abuse. (Test. of Hagler; Ex. R21 .)

3. TSPC maintains a complaint form on its website to allow individuals to ﬁle
complaints against licensed school personnel. The form asks the person ﬁling the complaint to
attach a “list of relevant evidence” and to “[e]nclose documentation if available.” (Ex. R24.)

4. When Mr. Hagler ﬁled his complaints on September 25, 2007, he enclosed a copy of
four student transcripts that, he asserted, demonstrated that the students were academically
ineligible to participate in school athletic programs. Mr. Hagler did not get permission from the
students or their legal guardians before submitting the transcripts to TSPC. (Test. of Hagler.)

5. Kelly Rasmussen is a prominent business man and civic leader in Medford, Oregon.
Mr. Rasmussen is also Mr. Hagler’s cousin. Although the two gentlemen had a close
relationship as children, as of November 2008 they had not seen each other for several years.
Mr. Hagler, who served as Mr. Rasmussen’s best man at his wedding, was upset that Mr.
Rasmussen had leﬁ his wife and was seeking a divorce. As a result, in 2008 Mr. Hagler did not
want any contact with Mr. Rasmussen. (Test. of Hagler; test. of Rasmussen.)

6. Mr. Rasmussen was arrested on October 21, 2008 and was charged with multiple
felonies, including charges of online sexual corruption of a child, in violation of ORS 163.432
and 163.433, and luring a minor, in violation of ORS 167.057. The charges stemmed from
allegations that Mr. Rasmussen had been communicating with two individuals Who described
themselves as young girls, one age 11 and the other age 13. Law enforcement also alleged that
Mr. Rasmussen had traveled to Clackamas County, Oregon with the intent to meet the girls.
Both girls, however, were ﬁctitious identities used by law enforcement personnel who were
conducting a sting operation to identify potential online sexual predators. As a result of the sting
operation, law enforcement arrested Mr. Rasmussen at the location Where he had arranged to
meet the ﬁctitious 13-year-old girl. (Ex. A3 .)

7. Mr. Rasmussen’s arrest received signiﬁcant media attention. The arrest was covered
on local television and news websites. (Test. of McKenzie.) It was also the subject of a front-
page story in the Medford Mail Tribune, the local newspaper. The story included a prominently
displayed photograph of Mr. Rasmussen. (Test. of Hagler.)

8. On the ﬁrst day that the story about Mr. Rasmussen’s arrest was published, a
colleague handed a copy of the newspaper to Mr. Hagler as they passed one another in the hall.
The colleague told Mr. Hagler that he should see the story. Based on the colleague’s expression,
Mr. Hagler could tell that the story was bad news. (Test. of Hagler.)

9. Mr. Hagler subscribes to the Medford Mail Tribune, but typically retrieves it from his
mailbox after he gets home from work. He generally avoids reading anything in the paper other
than the sports section. Mr. Hagler does not watch television news, other than “Sportscenter” on
ESPN. In 2008, Mr. Hagler did not have a personal computer in his home and did not read news
websites. Mr. Hagler does not socialize much with adults. He attends a large church, but
In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page 3 of 19

1 generally sits alone and does not talk about issues other than those related to the church. (Test.
‘ of Hagler.)

10. Approximately two weeks after his arrest, Mr. Rasmussen sent out a text to
approximately 50 people, including Mr. Hagler. The text did not refer to his arrest, but stated
something to the effect that “all is well.” (Test. of Rasmussen.) Mr. Hagler responded to the text
and the two men spoke on the phone shortly aﬂerward. Mr. Rasmussen did not discuss his arrest
or his legal problems and Mr. Hagler did not ask him about those issues. (Id.) Mr. Hagler
believed that Mr. Rasmussen sounded depressed. Mr. Hagler told Mr. Rasmussen that he should
exercise and offered to help him with a workout routine. They also discussed attending a high-
school football game together. Mr. Hagler asked Mr. Rasmussen if that would be permissible.
Mr. Rasmussen asked Mr. Hagler why he was asking the question. Mr. Hagler told him that he
had seen his picture in the paper and thought there could be a problem. Mr. Rasmussen told Mr.
Hagler that his only restriction was that he could not be around a computer. Mr. Hagler then
invited Mr. Rasmussen to work out at the school weight room after school hours. Mr.
Rasmussen accepted the offer. (Test. of Hagler.)

i 11. Mr. Rasmussen went to Phoenix High School on November 10, 2008 to work out
with Mr. Hagler. Aﬂer arriving, Mr. Rasmussen began walking to the weight room and was met
along the way by Mr. Hagler. Mr. Hagler unlocked the door to let them both in to the room.
There were several students present in the room, but no other adults. The door to the weight
room is always locked and students may only enter if let in by a teacher. Students are normally
not allowed to exercise in the room without adult supervision. Aﬁer entering the room, Mr.
Hagler assisted Mr. Rasmussen with his work out, and also observed and supervised students in
the room. Mr. Hagler never leﬂ the room while Mr. Rasmussen was present, but occasionally
left him alone at an exercise station so that Mr. Hagler could observe and assist students. (Test.
of Hagler.)

12. Mr. Rasmussen was in the weight room for approximately 20 to 40 minutes. He left,
alone, through a door that took him outside near a running track and then walked to his car. As
he leﬁ, he saw Brent Barry, a friend and school administrator, in the parking lot. The two men
acknowledged each other, but did not have a conversation. Mr. Rasmussen then got into his car
and left the school grounds. (Test. of Rasmussen.)

l3. Shortly aﬂer Mr. Rasmussen leﬂ the school, Mr. Barry sent an e-mail to District
administrators to let them know that Mr. Rasmussen had been there. (Ex. R29.)

14. Cally McKenzie, the District’s human resource director, interviewed Mr. Hagler on
November 12, 2008 regarding Mr. Rasmussen’s presence in the weight room. (Ex. A1.)
Bradford Jones accompanied Mr. Hagler as a representative of the Oregon Education
Association. Mr. Jones and Mr. Hagler did not talk about the incident with Mr. Rasmussen prior
to the meeting. (Test. of Jones.) Ms. McKenzie made an audio recording of the interview and
later had it transcribed. (Exs. A1 (transcript) and R47 (audio recording).)

15. Early in the interview, Ms. McKenzie asked Mr. Hagler if he was aware of the
allegations against Mr. Rasmussen. The following exchange then took place:

In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page 4 of 19

MR. HAGLER: I am aware of, kind of what the paper said, yeah. I didn’t read all
of it, but I did read enough to lcnow that he’s gotten himself in trouble.
MS. MCKENZIE: Okay, so you know that that includes in engaging [sic] in 1

sexual explicit online communications with what he believed was an ll-year-old i

girl and a 13-year-01d girl and he made arrangements to meet them in Portland

and ~ t

MR. HAGLER: [Interposing] That’s not what I’ve heard. I just heard that he

arranged to meet with them and that’s all. There wasn’t anything about the

conversation that went on between them.

MS. MCKENZIE: Okay, but you know that these charges that he was arrested for

allegedly trying to meet with an I l-year-old girl and a 13-year-old girl in

Portland. He was arrested and arranged and —

MR. HAGLER: [Interposing] Yes, yes.

MS. MCKENZIE: -- that’s all pending and all that kind of stuff.

MR. HAGLER: Yes.

(Ex. Al at 2.)

16. Later in the interview, Mr. Hagler acknowledged that he allowed Mr. Rasmussen to
work out in the school weight room when students were present. Mr. Hagler stated that another
teacher was in the weight room when he ﬁrst entered, but that she left shortly afterward, leaving
approximately six students in the roorn With Mr. Hagler and Mr. Rasmussen. (Ex. A1 at 3-4.)
Ms. McKenzie then questioned Mr. Hagler as follows: '

MS. MCKENZIE‘. Considering the charges that are pending against him, that

you’re aware of, and I realize they have not been resolved, but there are some

pretty intense bad charges and they are speciﬁcally against children, sexual crimes

against children. Did you think it was a good idea to allow him in the weight

room when our students are in there?

MR. HAGLER: I was not aware of those charges, I just thought it was computer

stuff that —

* * * * *

MS. MCKENZIE: [lnterposing] But, I’m talking about at a school, our school

with our students, I‘m asking you ~ so you’re saying to rne you didn’t know these

were sexual crimes against kids that you missed everything in the media and the

news and the newspaper and —

In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page 5 of I9

[Crosstalk]

MR. HAGLER: -- anything said anything about sexual things. Like I said, I just

know that he went to somebody’s house and some policeman had picked him up

there. Now whether he, you lcnow, he said he didn’t do anything. He said, you

know, this is something that he was in Portland, he had ﬂown to Portland or you

know, I’m not really sure. I just know that he was in a real bad way and I would

never do anything to endanger any student of mine.

(Id. at 4-5.)

17.- On November 26, 2008, Ms. McKenzie issued awritten reprimand to Mr. Hagler for .
allowing Mr. Rasmussen to work out in the school weight room with students present. The
reprimand also stated that Mr. Hagler had not been forthright in the answers he gave during the
November 12, 2008 interview. (Ex. A2.)

' 18. On October 5, 2010, TSPC investigator Jeffrey Van Laanen interviewed Mr. Hagler
at the TSPC offices in Salem, Oregon. Mr. Hagler was accompanied by his attorney. During the
interview, Mr. Hagler stated that, prior to November 10, 2008, he had seen Mr. Rasmussen’s
photograph on the front page of the newspaper and had scanned the ﬁrst paragraph. He also
stated that he' knew from the article that Mr. Rasmussen was in trouble with the law and that it
involved computers. He stated that he did not remember if he knew at that time that the
allegations involved teenage girls and thought that it might have involved Mr. Rasmussen’s use
of computers in connection with his travel agency business. He denied knowing that Mr.
Rasmussen had been accused of a sex crime or that he should not be allowed on school grounds.
Mr. Hagler stated that the ﬁrst time he learned that Mr. Rasmussen had been accused of sexual
misconduct with minors was during the interview with Ms. McKenzie. (Ex. R44.)

i CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

l. Mr. Hagler committed gross neglect of duty by failing to use appropriate professional
judgment, and by demonstrating a lack of skill in the supervision of students, when he allowed
his cousin to use a school weight room when students were present. ORS 342.175(1)(b), OAR
584-020-0010(5), and OAR 584-020-0020(2)(d).

2. Mr. Hagler committed gross neglect of duty by giving false and misleading answers to
questions from a school district administrator and a TSPC investigator regarding his cousin’s use
of the school weight room. ORS 342.175(1)(b) and OAR 584~020-0040(4)(c).

3. Mr. Hagler committed gross neglect of duty by failing to use and maintain student
records as required by federal and state law and by school district policies and procedures by
submitting student transcripts to TSPC without prior written consent from the students or their
legal guardians. ORS 342.175(1)(b) and OAR 584-020-0025(2)(e).

4. Mr. Hagler’s teaching license should be suspended for six rnonths.

In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page 6 of 19

OPINION

TSPC has proposed a six-month suspension of Mr. Hagler’s teaching license for gross
negelect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(l)(b) as deﬁned by TSPC rules. TSPC must prove
its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence, and it must also establish that the proposed
penalty is appropriate. ORS 183.450(2) (“The burden of presenting evidence to support a fact or
position in a contested case rests on the proponent of the fact or position”); Harris v. SAIF, 292
Or 683, 690 (1982) (general rule regarding allocation of burden of proof is that the burden is on
the proponent of the fact or position); Metcalf v. AFSD, 65 Or App 761, 765 (1983) (in the
absence of legislation specifying a different standard, the standard of proof in an administrative
hearing is preponderance of the evidence). Proof by a preponderance of the evidence means that
the fact ﬁnder is persuaded that the facts asserted are more likely than not true. Riley Hill
General Contractor v. Tandy Corp, 303 Or 390, 402 (1987).

ORS 342.175(1)(b) authorizes the TSPC to impose discipline, including license
suspension, on a teacher for “gross neglect of duty.” TSPC has adopted a rule to deﬁne gross
neglect of duty. OAR 584-020-0040(4) provides, in pertinent part:

(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;

* * * * *

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

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

TSPC’s standards of competency include OAR 584-020-0010(5), which provides:

‘ The Competent Educator
The educator demonstrates a commitment to:
* * * * *
(5) Use professional judgrnent[.]
(Emphasis in original.)
In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page 7 of l9

In addition, OAR 584-020-0020(2)(d) provides:
(2) The competent teacher demonstrates:
* * * * *
(d) Skill in the supervision of students[.]
Finally, OAR 584-020-0025 provides, in relevant part:
(l) The competent educator is a person who understands students and is
able to relate to them in constructive and culturally competent ways. The
competent educator establishes and maintains good rapport. The
competent educator maintains and uses records as required, and as needed
to assist the growth of students.
(2) The competent teacher demonstrates skills in:
* * * * *
(c) Using and maintaining student records as required by federal and state '
law and district policies and procedures;
* 1k * * 4=
(e) Using district lawful and reasonable rules and regulations.
The Notice on appeal contains three separate allegations of gross neglect of duty. First,
TSPC alleged that Mr. Hagler committed gross neglect of duty by allowing Mr. Rasmussen to
use the school weight room in November 2008. Second, TSPC alleged that Mr. Hagler
committed gross neglect of duty by giving conﬂicting answers in response to interview questions
by a school administrator, Ms. McKenzie, and a TSPC investigator, Jeffrey Van Laanen. Third,
TSPC alleged that Mr. Hagler committed gross neglect of duty by submitting student transcripts
to TSPC without ﬁrst obtaining the prior consent of the students or their legal guardians.
1. Allowing Mr. Rasmussen into the School Weight Room
Mr. Hagler conceded that he allowed Mr. Rasmussen to use the school weight room on
November 10, 2008 while students were present. His sole contention is that he was unaware at
the time that Mr. Rasmussen was then facing criminal charges based on allegations that he had
traveled to Portland to meet two minor girls that he met online. Mr. Hagler contends that if he
had known of the charges, he would not have allowed Mr. Rasmussen to use the weight room.
Mr. Rasmussen is a prominent Medford business man and civic leader. His arrest in
October 2008 was widely reported and was the subject of numerous newspaper, television, and
internet reports. Mr. Hagler (who is Mr. Rasmussen’s cousin) admits that he had at least two
In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page 8 of 19

copies of a newspaper in his possession that included a front-page story about Mr. Rasmussen’s
arrest. However, Mr. Hagler asserts that he did not read the story in either paper, prior to
allowing Mr. Rasmussen to use the weight room, because he was upset with Mr. Rasmussen due
to apparently unrelated family issues. Mr. Hagler further asserts that he lives a “hermit-like”
existence, with little exposure to local news or internet reports.

Mr. Hagler’s assertions were not credible. First, it is implausible that he would be
handed a copy of a newspaper article prominently featuring his cousin, and not at least glance at
the headline. It is also implausible that he would receive the same newspaper at home and
completely avoid understanding, as least in broad terms, the signiﬁcance of the article, even if he
did not read it in detail. Second, Mr. Hagler testiﬁed that, in a phone call prior to November IO,
2008, he asked his cousin if he had any restrictions that would prevent him from attending a high
school football game. Such a question would be absurd unless Mr. Hagler had some notion that
Mr. Rasmussen might be under some suspicion related to his involvement with minors. Third, if,
as he asserted, he did not learn of his cousin’s legal problems until after he allowed him into the
weight room, it is likely he would have disclosed that fact to Ms. McKenzie during the
November 12, 2008 interview. The focus of that interview was squarely on why Mr. Hagler let
his cousin into the weight room. Although Mr. Hagler repeatedly downplayed his knowledge of
the speciﬁc charges, he admitted that he had read a newspaper account and was aware that his
cousin had ﬂown to Portland to meet two young girls.

At the hearing, Mr. Hagler asserted that he read the newspaper article after he had
allowed Mr. Rasmussen to use the weight room, but before his meeting with Ms. McKenzie.
That assertion was also not credible. During an interview with Mr. Van Laanen in October 2010,
Mr. Hagler stated that he ﬁrst learned of the nature of the charges against his cousin during the
interview with Ms. McKenzie. In both interviews he admitted to reading at least some portiOn of
the newspaper article. If, as he now contends, he did not do so until aﬁer he allowed his cousin
to use the weight room, it is likely that he would have mentioned that t0 Ms. McKenzie and Mr.
Van Laanen, both of whom were asking him why he would let his cousin onto school property
given the nature of the charges against him.

Mr. Hagler asserted that he felt pressure and anxiety during his interview with Ms.
McKenzie. Because of that anxiety, Mr. Hagler contended that he had almost no memory of the
interview aﬂer he leﬁ the room. Mr. Hagler also offered testimony and a report from his
psychologist to suggest that Ms. McKenzie’s interview techniques were prosecutorial and not
objective.

However, the audio recording of the interview is inconsistent with Mr. Hagler’s
assertions. During the course of the interview, Mr. Hagler’s voice is calm and measured; this
was in marked contrast to Mr. Hagler’s behavior during his testimony in this case. At the
hearing, he was emotional and sometimes had difﬁculty maintaining his composure; he appeared
and sounded extremely nervous and pressured. However, in the audio recording his voice

sounded strong and conﬁdent. When he disagreed with Ms. McKenzie’s statements or questions,
he clearly, calmly, and forcefully expressed his opinions. Ms. McKenzie, while clearly
concerned about the allegations, did not sound accusatory or vindictive. Given her knowledge
that a person accused of a sex crime against a minor was present on school grounds, her concern
In the Matter ofJoseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page 9 of 19

and need for information was appropriate. Early in the interview, Ms. McKenzie stated that she
assumed that Mr. Hagler knew of the charges against his cousin. He admitted that he had read a p
newspaper account. Shortly aﬁerward, Ms. McKenzie asked Mr. Hagler why he allowed Mr.
Rasmussen on to school property. Her questions were direct and straight-forward. She did not
badger him or attempt to coerce him. Mr. Hagler’s responses were cogent and his tone of voice

was measured and calm.

The evidence established, more likely than not, that Mr. Hagler knew his cousin was
facing criminal charges related to minors when he allowed Mr. Rasmussen to use the weight
room on November 10, 2008. Although there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Hagler knew the
precise nature or of the details relating to the charges, he had enough information to wuse a
reasonable person to inquire further before allowing Mr. Rasmussen on to school property when
students were present. His conduct demonstrated a failure to use professional judgment, in
violation of OAR 584-020-0010(5). Furthermore, by allowing Mr. Rasmussen into the weight
room in the presence of high school students, Mr. Hagler demonstrated a lack of skill in the
supervision of those students in violation of OAR 584-020-0020(2)(d). This amounted to gross
neglect of duty under ORS 342.175(1)(b).

2. Conﬂicting Answers During Interviews

TSPC alleged that Mr. Hagler gave conﬂicting answers regarding his knowledge of Mr.
Rasmussen’s legal problems when he was interviewed by Ms. McKenzie and, later, by Mr. Van
Laanen. The evidence supports that allegation. >

Mr. Hagler’s answers to Mr. Van Laanen were not consistent with the answers he gave
to Ms. McKenzie. In both interviews Mr. Hagler downplayed his knowledge of the charges
against Mr. Rasmussen. However, in his interview with Ms. McKenzie Mr. Hagler, in his own
words, acknowledged knowing that Mr. Rasmussen had ﬂown to Portland to meet someone and
was, instead, met by a policeman. He also afﬁrmed Ms. McKenzie’s assertion that Mr.
Rasmussen had been accused of trying to meet two young girls and acknowledged having read
enough of a newspaper account to know that his cousin had gotten in trouble. Furthermore, he
asserted that he had “heard” that Mr. Rasmussen arranged to meet with young girls and that
“there wasn’t anything about the conversation that went on between them.” Mr. Hagler’s
statements imply that he had either read or heard about the nature of the charges against his
cousin and had read or heard enough that he could assert that the source of his information did
not include anything about the nature of Mr. Rasmussen’s conversations with the two minors.
This statement is inconsistent with a brief scan of a portion of an article.

In contrast, Mr. Hagler told Mr. Van Laanen that he had merely scanned one paragraph of
the newspaper and understood that the allegations were related to computers. He told Mr. Van
Laanen that he initially thought the allegations might be related to Mr. Rasmussen’s use of
computers as part of his work as a travel agent and that he ﬁrst learned that the crimes involved
allegations of sexual misconduct during his interview with Ms. McKenzie.

Mr. Hagler’s assertion that he did know the nature of the charges against his cousin at the
time of his interview with Ms. McKenzie was inconsistent with his testimony at the hearing. At
In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case N0. 1102306
Page 10 of 19

the hearing, he claimed that he read the newspaper article reporting his c0usin’s arrest before the
interview. At the very least, a reasonable person reading an article about an adult man being
arrested for ﬂying to another city to meet two minor girls would understand that the allegations
likely involved sexual misconduct, even if the article did not include a detailed account of the
online conversations. His assertions that he did not understand that his cousin had been accused
of sexual impropriety, both to Ms. McKenzie and to Mr. Van Laanen, were not plausible. The
evidence established, more likely than not, that Mr. Hagler knew of the nature of the charges
against his cousin and knew that they involved sexual misconduct against minors.

OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c) deﬁnes gross neglect of duty to include “knowing
misrepresentation directly related to licensure, employment, or professional duties.” Mr. Hagler
knowingly gave false answers to Ms. McKenzie and to Mr. Van Lannen when he said that he
was unaware that the charges against his cousin involved allegations of sexual misconduct
against minors. His statements to Ms. McKenzie were related to employment. His statements to
Mr. Van Laanen were related to licensure. On both occasions, Mr. Hagler violated ORS
342.175(l)(b), as deﬁned by OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c).

3. Submitting Student Transcripts to TSPC without Prior Consent.

In September 2007, Mr. Hagler ﬁled complaints With TSPC against four district
administrators alleging that the district had allowed four students to participate in the school
football program when they were academically ineligible to do so. Mr. Hagler submitted
transcripts for all four students to demonstrate that they did not meet academic eligibility
requirements. He did not have permission from the students, or their legal guardians, to release
those transcripts.

TSPC alleges that Mr. Hagler’s release of the transcripts violated OAR 584-020-
0025(2)(c), which requires competent educators to use and maintain student records as required
by federal and state law and by school district policies and procedures. Speciﬁcally, TSPC
alleges that Mr. Hagler’s disclosure violated the federal Family Educational Rights Privacy Act
(FERPA), 20 U.S.C. §1232g.

FERPA does not regulate school districts or teachers directly. Rather, the statute
prevents the federal Department of Education from providing federal funding to school districts
that violate its provisions. With a few speciﬁcally enumerated exceptions (none of which apply
to this case), the statute generally prohibits school districts that receive federal funding from
disclosing a student‘s educational records without advance written consent from the student’s
parents. 20 U.S.C. §1232g(b). '

Mr. Hagler argues that FERPA applies solely to educational agencies (such as a school
district) and not to individual teachers. As such, he contends, FERPA imposed no restrictions on
his disclosure of student transcripts to TSPC. Because he, as a teacher, was not restricted by
FERPA, he contends, his release of the transcripts did not violate OAR 584-020-0025(2)(c). In
that respect, Mr. Hagler is incorrect.

In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page ll of 19

While FERPA explicitly applies solely to educational agencies, its protections would be
meaningless unless they reached the conduct of individual educators and school administrators.
As a matter of common sense, a school district is incapable of acting other than through
individual employees and ofﬁcers. If the school district were to allow individual teachers to
ignore FERPA privacy protections, the district would be in violation of FERPA and would likely
lose eligibility for federal ﬁlnding.

More importantly, however, TSPC is not seeking to impose discipline on Mr. Hagler for
violating FERPA itself. Rather, TSPC contends that Mr. Hagler’s release of the transcripts
violated OAR 584-020-0025(2)(c), which required Mr. Hagler to use and maintain student
records in a manner consistent with federal law. 'I'hus, under TSPC’s rule, Mr. Hagler could not
ignore FERPA protections, even if he would not face personal liability for a violation of the
federal statute. Mr. Hagler’s release of student transcripts without parental consent was not
consistent with federal law and constituted a violation of OAR 584-020-0025(2)(c).l

Even if Mr. Hagler’s release of the transcripts amounted to a violation of TSPC rules,
however, Mr. Hagler asserts, on various grounds, that discipline is not warranted in this case.

a. Equitable Estoppel and/or Invited Error

Mr. Hagler asserts that TSPC, in essence, requested that he provide the transcripts at
issue. Mr. Hagler correctly notes that TSPC’s complaint form includes an instruction that the
complainant should enclose relevant documentation if it is available. Mr. Hagler further notes
that nothing in the complaint form cautions against enclosing student transcripts. Mr. Hagler
therefore asserts that TSPC should not be allowed to impose discipline against him under the
theory of equitable estoppel, or under the “invited error” doctrine. Mr. Hagler is incorrect on
both theories.

First, the doctrine of invited error has no application to the facts of this case. As noted in
State v. Kammeyer, 226 Or App 210,. 214 (2009), the invited error doctrine “is generally
applicable when a party has invited the trial court to rule in a particular way under circumstances
that suggest that the party will be bound by the ruling or will not later seek a reversal on the basis
of that ruling.” The doctrine does not apply outside of the context of litigation. Rather, as noted
by the court in Kammeyer, the doctrine merely prevents a party to litigation from asserting an
error by a trial court where that party requested the allegedly erroneous ruling.

1 Mr. Hagler also notes that documents provided to TSPC in connection with an investigation are
conﬁdential pursuant to ORS 342.176(4)(a). However, Mr. Hagler does not explain how such
conﬁdentiality is relevant to the alleged violation. To the extent that Mr. Hagler believes that such
conﬁdentiality excuses a failure to safeguard student records under FERPA, he has offered no authority
for such a proposition. Nothing in 20 U.S.C. §l232g suggests that a school district may release
documents to a state agency so long as the state agency will not disclose the documents to third parties.
Similarly, Mr. Hagler argues that TSPC would have obtained the student transcripts eventually as part of
its investigation of Mr. Hagler’s four complaints. Such an observation, even if true, would not excuse
Mr. Hagler’s failure to maintain the conﬁdentiality of student records under FERPA.

In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306

Page 12 of l9

Nevertheless, even if the invited error doctrine could apply outside of litigation, the facts
would not support its application in this case. The generic request on TSPC’s complaint form to
enclose “relevant documentation” did not amount to an invitation to Mr. Hagler to provide
student transcripts or to otherwise disclose conﬁdential information.

As correctly noted by Mr. Hagler, equitable estoppel may be applied against a state l
agency, but “only if it is shown that the person asserting it was misled by the agency and
justiﬁably and detrimentally relied on the misleading conduct.” Employment Division v. Western
Graphics Corp, 76 Or App 608, 612-13 (1985). In this case, TSPC’s form instructed Mr. Hagler
to attach relevant documentation. The fon'n did not direct Mr. Hagler to enclose a student
transcript or to violate student conﬁdentiality. There is no reason to suspect that TSPC, in
drafting the form, used the term “relevant documentation” to refer to student transcripts. Indeed,
given the generic nature of the form, relevant documentation could include any number of types
of documentary evidence. Nothing on the form affirmatively misled Mr. Hagler into believing
that he could ignore applicable conﬁdentiality laws.

b. Failure to Investigate

ORS 342.176(1) provides, in pertinent part:

(1) The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission shall promptly
undertake an investigation upon receipt of a complaint or information that
may constitute grounds for:
* * * * *

(b) Suspension or revocation of a license or registration, discipline of a
person holding a license or registration, or suspension or revocation of the
right to apply for a license or registration, as provided under ORS
342.175[.]

Mr. Hagler contends that TSPC failed to investigate this allegation and thus may not
impose discipline against Mr. Hagler. In support of this contention, Mr. Hagler notes that Mr.
Van Laanen did not question him about the transcripts. Nor is there any record that TSPC
interviewed any other person about the matter.

TSPC, however, asserts that its‘ statutory duty to investigate complaints does not
necessarily require interviewing witnesses. Rather, TSPC notes, an investigation can consist
solely of a review of available records. In that respect, TSPC is correct. Nothing in ORS
342.176(1) requires TSPC to interview witnesses, or the licensee who is the subject of the
complaint. Where a violation may be demonstrated through documentary evidence, it may not
be necessary to interview witnesses as part of the investigatory process.

Nevertheless, in this case it does not appear that TSPC conducted even a cursory
investigation. TSPC did not submit any documentary evidence in support of this allegation and
presented no testimony describing the alleged records review. Rather, it appears that at the time
In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page 13 of l9

it issued the Notice on appeal, TSPC relied solely on its receipt of the transcripts at issue. In
fact, other than Mr. Hagler’s testimony at the hearing, it appears that TSPC had no evidence
(documentary or otherwise) with which to determine that Mr. Hagler released the transcripts
without advance written authorization. Thus, the “investigation” appears to have consisted of the
receipt of the transcripts and a conclusion that such disclosure, by itself, constituted-a violation
of OAR 584-020-0025(2)(c).

However, ORS 342.176(1) does not provide that a failure to investigate (however that
term is deﬁned) is a bar to imposing discipline. Rather, the statute is most naturally interpreted
as imposing an affirmative duty on TSPC to investigate allegations of teacher misconduct as part
of its duty to protect the interests of children and the public. When a complaint is ﬁled, or when
TSPC receives information concerning potential teacher misconduct, ORS 342.176(1) requires
TSPC to take action; it may not simply ignore the complaint or information. However, that does
not impose a duty to perform an ideal investigation as a prerequisite to imposing discipline. If
TSPC fails to conduct an adequate investigation, it bears the risk that it might not be able to
establish a violation at a contested case hearing. But it does not prevent TSPC from imposing
discipline if adequate evidence is produced at such a hearing to support an alleged violation.

c. Lack of Knowledge

Mr. Hagler asserted that he did not know that his release of student transcripts may have
violated FERPA. He also notes that TSPC’s Legal Liaison testiﬁed that TSPC staff were
initially unaware that the release may have been contrary to FERPA. However, Mr. Hagler fails
to articulate how his failure to understand FERPA affects the allegations in this case. OAR 584-
020-0025(2)(c) requires competent educators to use and maintain student records as required by
federal law. This imposes an afﬁrmative duty on the educator to have at least a general
understanding of any legal restrictions on the release of conﬁdential student records; ignorance
of the law is no excuse.

Mr. Hagler also failed to articulate how TSPC staffs alleged failure to understand
FERPA conﬁdentiality requirements is relevant to this case. While it may have been preferable
for TSPC to act sooner, TSPC is not foreclosed from imposing discipline based on an alleged
staff failure to recognize the violation in 2007.

d. Whistleblowing

Mr. Hagler argues that his release of student transcripts “was either analogous to
whistleblowing activity or was outright whistleblowing activity.” (Hagler Post Hearing Brief at
9.) As such, Mr. Hagler asserts, TSPC is precluded from imposing discipline for engaging in
such activity.

Mr. Hagler provided no authority for that proposition. He cited to Huber v. Oregon Dept.
of Education, 235 Or App 230 (2010), in which the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court’s grant of summary judgment to the Oregon Department of Education for alleged
retaliation against an employee who had threatened to report alleged unlawful activity. The
employee alleged that the Department of Education ﬁred him in retaliation for his threat and in
In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page 14 of 19

so doing violated ORS 659A.203. The Court of Appeals held that the issue should have been
submitted to the jury and remanded the case for trial. ORS 659A.203, however, does not offer
blanket protection for whistleblowing activity. Rather, it prohibits public employers from
retaliating against employees for engaging in protected whistleblowing activity. Because Mr.
Hagler was not an employee of TSPC, ORS 659A.203 is inapplicable.
Mr. Hagler also cited to Love v. Polk County Fire District, 209 Or App 474 (2006) and
De Bay v. Wild Oats Market, 244 Or App 443 (2011)2 in support of his whistleblower retaliation
argument. However, both of those cases involved common law claims for unlawful discharge.
Speciﬁcally, the plaintiffs in those cases alleged that they had been unlawfully discharged for
fulﬁlling an important public duty, namely complaining about, and potentially exposing, certain
improper conduct on the part of their respective employers. Again, however, the court extended
whistleblower protections solely to employees who are subject to retaliation by their employers.
Mr. Hagler cited no authority that applied such protections against a licensing body acting in its
regulatory capacity.
Nevertheless, Mr. Hagler contends that TSPC acted “as a surrogate for the [Phoenix-
Talent School] District in retaliating against Mr. Hagler” for ﬁling the four complaints in
September 2007. (Hagler Post Hearing Brief at 9.) The evidence does not support such an
assertion. Mr. Hagler provided no evidence that would suggest that TSPC had an interest in
protecting the School District against Mr. Hagler’s complaints. Nor did he offer any evidence to
suggest that the District and TSPC worked in concert to punish Mr. Hagler for ﬁling the
complaints. Indeed, the long delay between Mr. Hagler ﬁling his complaint and TSPC taking
action against him belies such a link. Thus, as a matter of law, Mr. Hagler has presented no
authority for the proposition that whistleblower protections extend beyond the employment
context. Furthermore, Mr. Hagler did not present evidence to establish that TSPC is seeking to
impose discipline in retaliation for his alleged whistleblower activity.
4. Sanction
TSPC has proposed that Mr. Hagler’s license be suspended for six months for the
violations at issue. ORS 342.177(3)(c) grants the Commission the authority to suspend a
teaching license for a period of up to one year. TSPC has adopted an administrative rule setting
forth the factors it considers when imposing a sanction. OAR 584-020-0045 provides:
Factors for Imposing Disciplinary Sanctions
The Commission may consider one or more of the following factors, as it
deems appropriate, in its determination of what sanction or sanctions, if any,
should be imposed upon a ﬁnding that an educator has violated any standard
set forth in OAR 584-020-0040:
2 Mr. Hagler’s citation for De Bay v. Wild Oats Market referred only to the Circuit Court case number.
However, he noted the date of the decision as July 20, 2011 which was the date that the Court of Appeals
issued its opinion. I assume that Mr. Hagler intended to cite to the Court of Appeals case and not a trial
court decision.
In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
' Page 15 of 19

(l) If the misconduct or violation is an isolated occurrence, part of a
continuing pattern, or one of a series of incidents;
(2) The likelihood of a recurrence of the misconduct or violation;
(3) The educator's past performance; .
(4) The extent, severity, and imminence of any danger to students, other
educators, or the public;
(5) If the misconduct was open and notorious or had negative effects on the
public image of the school;
(6) The educator's state of mind at the time of the misconduct and
afterwards;
(7) The danger that students will imitate the educator's behavior or use it as
a model;

‘ (8) The age and level of maturity of the students served by the educator;

l
(9) Any extenuating circumstances or other factors bearing on the
appropriate nature of a disciplinary sanction; or
(10) To deter similar misconduct by the educator or other educators.

(Emphasis added.)

Under the above rule, the Commission may, but is not required to, consider the listed
factors when imposing discipline. Further, as explained by the rule, the Commission need not
consider all of the factors, but only those that the Commission deems appropriate.

Mr. Hagler argued that consideration of the above factors weighed against a suspension.
Speciﬁcally, Mr. Hagler noted that he has been a teacher for more than 30 years and has never
previously been disciplined. He asserted that the charges in this case constituted an isolated
instance in an otherwise unblemished career. He also noted that he has been popular with
students and has been recognized as an outstanding coach. Furthermore, Mr. Hagler notes that
no one was harmed by his conduct and that he acted without knowledge of the charges that were
pending against Mr. Rasmussen when he allowed him to use the weight room. Finally, Mr.
Hagler notes that a suspension will likely result in the loss of his job and will, most likely,
prevent him from working as a teacher in the future.

A suspension of a professional license is unquestionably a severe sanction. The
suspension alone will likely cause some economic stress. Although the impact of a suspension
on Mr. Hagler’s career is largely a matter of speculation, it is reasonable to assume that it could
be damaging to his future employment opportunities. Nevertheless, the proposed sanction is
In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page l6 of l9

within the range of the Comrnission’s discretion and is reasonable under the factors set forth in
OAR 584-020-0045.

Although Mr. Hagler has not previously been disciplined, his conduct was not an isolated
instance. The violations with regard to Mr. Rasmussen included not only allowing him onto
school grounds when students were present, but extended to false and misleading statements
made to a school district administrator and a TSPC investigator. His actions and subsequent
statements thus formed a pattern of conduct that occurred over the course of two years.

There is no evidence that students were placed in serious risk, but given the nature of the
charges pending against Mr. Rasmussen, it was a serious lapse in judgment to allow him to work
out in close proximity to high school girls. Although it does not appear that Mr. Hagler’s actions
led to any public notoriety beyond the school itself, his actions were, nonetheless, open and
notorious. At least one other staff member saw Mr. Rasmussen and immediately understood the
ramiﬁcations of having him on school property. Furthermore, there were several students
present in the weight room who also saw Mr. Rasmussen. Given the widespread publicity of Mr.
Rasmussen’s arrest, there was a strong possibility that at least some of the students were aware
that an accused sex offender was on school property apparently with Mr. Hagler’s knowledge
and approval.

Mr. Hagler asserted that he did not know of the charges against Mr. Rasmussen and thus
his state of mind weighs against a signiﬁcant sanction. As explained earlier in this opinion, that
assertion is not credible. Mr. Hagler admitted to Ms. McKenzie and Mr. Van Laanen that he had .
read at least a portion of a news account of Mr. Rasmussen’s arrest. He further admitted that he
knew enough to question his cousin as to whether he could be around students at a high school
football game.

There is little likelihood that students would imitate Mr. Hagler’s conduct in this case, or
treat it as a model. There is also no reason to suspect that Mr. Hagler will engage in similar
conduct in the future. Nor is there any reason to believe that a suspension would be necessary to
deter similar misconduct by Mr. Hagler in the future. Whether or not a suspension in this case
would deter other educators from similar misconduct is a matter of speculation.

Nevertheless, Mr. Hagler’s actions in connection with Mr. Rasmsussen constituted a
serious and substantial lapse of professional judgment. He allowed an accused sex offender onto
school property in close proximity to minor students. He did so despite widespread publicity
about Mr. Rasmussen’s arrest. When questioned about the incident, on two occasions, he gave
false, misleading, self-serving, and conﬂicting answers. Under these circumstances, a six-month
suspension is appropriate.

Mr. Hagler also committed gross neglect of duty by violating 584-020-0025(2)(c) when
he disclosed student transcripts without written permission from the students’ parents. However,
he did so in connection with complaints against four school administrators and made those
disclosures to the TSPC. The evidence established that he acted in the good faith belief that his
conduct was proper. Were that the only violation, a substantial sanction would not be warranted.
In the Matter of Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case No. 1102306
Page l7 of l9

However, given the serious nature of the additional violations, TSPC’s proposed sanction is
reasonable and consistent with its statutory authority.
ORDER
I propose the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission issue the following order:
Joseph D. Hagler’s teaching license shall be suspended for six months for gross neglect
of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b) and as deﬁned by OAR 584-020-0010(5), OAR 584-
020-0020(2)(d), OAR 584-020-0025(2)(c), and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(c).
John Mann
Senior Administrative Law Judge
Ofﬁce 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
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: p
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 0r
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 Joseph D. Hagler, OAH Case N0. 1102306
Page 18 of 19

CERTIFICATE 0F MAILlNG

On March 15, 2012, I mailed the foregoing Proposed Order issued on this date in OAH Case No.
1102306.
By: First Class and Certiﬁed Mail
Certiﬁed Mail Receipt #7010 2780 0000 2132 8724
Ralph Wiser
Attorney at Law
Wiser & Associates
l Centerpointe Dr Ste 570
Lake Oswego OR 97035
By: First Class Mail
Jeff Van Laanen
Teacher Standards & Practices Commission

250 Division Street NE

Salem OR 97301

Judith Anderson

Assistant Attorney General

Department of Justice

l 162 Court St NE

Salem OR 97301

Lucy for Pam Arcari

Administrative Specialist

Hearing Coordinator

In the Matter ufJoseph D. Hagler, OAH Case N0. 1102306

Page l9 of l9