BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of the )
Teaching License of ) FINAL ORDER
)
JANE C. PITCOCK ) Case No. 901214
On May 20, 2010, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Alison Greene Webster issued a
Proposed Order in this case.
The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission adopts in its entirety the Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order contained in the attached Proposed Order.
ORDER
The Commission adopts the Proposed Order in its entirety and revokes Jane C. Pitcook’s
right to apply for a teacher or administrator license in Oregon for a period of one year.
Dated this a day of August 2010.
TEACHER STANDARD AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
By MIL)
Victoria Ch , ecutive 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 lS
pursuant to the provision of ORS 183.482 to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
PAGE l — FINAL ORDER —~ JANE C. PITCOCK '

l CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
2
3
4 I hereby certify that I served the foregoing order by mailing a true copy thereof certiﬁed by me
5 as such by U.S. First Class Mail and U.S. Certiﬁed Mail-Return Receipt Requested to the
6 address below:
7
8 Jane Pitcock
9 PO Box 258
10 Clam Gulch AK 99568
1 1
12 and
13
14 Jane C. Pitcock
15 4550 Old Melrose Road
16 Roseburg 0R 97470-9886
17
18 ' 1A.
19 Dated this /3 day of December 2010.
20
21 ‘ ,
22 7 96/ \
23 By: .4”
24 Mel dy Han ecutive Assistant
25
l
PAGE 1 — CERTIFICATE OF MAILING — JANE C. PITCOCK

BEFORE THE OFFICE 0F ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE 0F OREGON
for the
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
v IN THE MATTER 0F THE ) PROPOSED ORDER
TRANSITIONAL ADMINISTRATOR ) RECE
LICENSE OF ) IVED
)
JANE C, PITCQCK, ) OAH Case No. 901214 MAY 2 1 20m
Teacher Standards &
Practices Commission
HISTORY OF THE CASE

On June 3, 2009, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC) issued a
Notice 0f Opportunity For Hearing, charging Jane C. Pitcock, Respondent herein, with
misconduct and proposing to revoke her Oregon teaching license under ORS 342.177.

Respondent timely requested a hearing.

On July 28, 2009, TSPC referred the hearing request to the Ofﬁce of Administrative
Hearings (OAH). Administrative Law Judge (ALI) Alison Greene Webster was assigned to
preside at hearing.

A hearing was held on April I, 2010, in Salem, Oregon. Respondent Pitcock appeared
without counsel. TSPC was represented by Assistant Attorney General Raul Ramirez. The
following witnesses testiﬁed on behalf of TSPC: Patrick Lee, Jeanine Dever, Analicia Santos,

Tina Fisher, Mary Bringhurst and Wendy Roque. Jerry Jensen testiﬁed on Respondent’s behalf.
Respondent refused to testify. The hearing was continued for TSPC to present a witness who
was unavailable on April l. The continued hearing was held on May ll, 2010. At the continued
hearing, TSPC elected not to call the witness. Following oral closing argument, the record was
closed on May 11, 2010.
ISSUES

l. Whether Respondent assigned a teacher to teach an agriculture or math course when the
teacher did not hold the proper endorsement to teach either course and, if so, whether
Respondent’s conduct constituted gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(l)(b) and
OAR 584-020-0040(4)(o), as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0035(2)(a). ‘

2. Whether Respondent asked or directed two different teachers to assign or change
student grades to prevent students from failing a class and, if so, whether this conduct constituted
gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b) and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n), as it
incorporates OAR 584-020-0025(3)(a) and (b).
In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case No. 901214
Page I of 15

‘ .. LL
l

3. Whether Respondent allow a student to access Respondent’s school computer and
email, which contained conﬁdential nfon'nation about students, and, if so, whether this conduct
constituted gross neglect of duty in "olation of ORS 342.175(l)(b) and OAR 584-020-
0040(4)(o), as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0035(1)(a), and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n), as it
incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5).

4. Whether Respondent offer d a school board member access to the school credit card
for the private expense of the board ember’s family and, if so, whether this conduct constituted
gross neglect of duty in violation of RS 342.175(1)(b) and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(0), as it
incorporates OAR 584-020-0035(2)( ), and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n), as it incorporates OAR
584-020-0010(5).

5. If one or more of the violat ons are proven, what is the appropriate sanction?

E IDENTIARY RULINGS
Exhibits A1 to A18, offered y TSPC were admitted into the record without objection. _
INDINGS OF FACT

1. In July 2007, the Camas alley School District No. 21 in Douglas County, Oregon
hired Respondent Jane C. Pitcock to serve as the District Superintendent and Principal of the .
Camas Valley School. At all times ertinent to this matter, Respondent had a Restricted
Transitional Administrator license fr m TSPC.l As part of her Superintendent/Principal duties,
Respondent was required, among o er things, to direct and assign the District staff and to select
all personnel, subject to the approval of the School District Board. (Exs. Al and A2.)

2. During the surmner of 20 7, Respondent met Analicia Santos at a fair. At that time,
Ms. Santos was licensed by TSPC an educator. She held an initial teaching license at the
secondary level with a health endors ment. This license permitted Ms. Santos to teach health
courses, but not other subjects. Res ondent was impressed with Ms. Santos’ experience with the
Future Partners of America program and invited her to teach agriculture at the Camas Valley
School. (T est. cf Santos.)

3. At the August l6, 2007 m eting of the Camas Valley District #21 Board of Directors,
Respondent notiﬁed the District Bo d that she wanted to hire Ms. Santos to teach
forestry/agriculture and use forestry ds to pay Ms. Santos’ salary. Respondent added that she
had yet to develop a forestry/agricul program for the school but planned to do so. The
District Board questioned whether f restry money could be used to pay Ms. Santos’ salary, but
I A Restricted ‘Transitional Administrat r. License, which is only valid for three years, allows regular or
substitute administration at all age or gr de levels and is restricted to thedisttict from which the co-
application is received. The Restricted ransitional Administrator License does not authorize the holder
to teach at any level or in any specialty. OAR 584-080-0153.

In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Cas No. 901214
Page 2 of 15

then approved her hiring and the proposed forestry/agriculture program, contingent upon the use
of forestry funds. (Ex. A15.)

4. At all times pertinent to this matter, Jeanine Dever was the District Board secretary
and the administrative assistant to the Camas Valley School District Superintendent. In August
2007, in connection with preparing Ms. Santos’ employment contract, Ms. Dever conﬁrmed with
TSPC that Ms. Santos had a teaching license with a health endorsement only. Ms. Dever
realized that Ms. Santos was not qualiﬁed to teach agriculture as a science course without a
science endorsement on her teaching license. In late August or early September 2007, Ms. Dever
informed Respondent that Ms. Santos could not teach agriculture as a science course. (Test. of
Dever.)

5. Initially, Respondent hired Ms. Santos to teach one agriculture class. But, by the start
of the fall term in September 2007, Respondent assigned Ms. Santos to teach three agriculture
classes: two high school courses and a middle school course. Shortly aﬁer the fall term began,
Respondent assigned Ms. Santos to teach a math class (pre-algebra) in addition to the agriculture
classes. (Test. of Dever.)

6. At some point aﬁer Ms. Santos started teaching the pre-algebra class (in late
September or early October 2007), Ms. Dever approached Ms. Santos about her lack of
endorsements in the subjects of science and math. Ms. Dever was concerned that Ms. Santos
was teaching courses she did not have the qualiﬁcations to teach, and was therefore not in
compliance with the law. Ms. Santos told Ms. Dever to talk to Respondent. When Ms. Dever
approached Respondent about this licensing issue, Respondent told Ms. Dever, in essence, not to
worry about it. (Test. of Dever.) ,

7. On October ll, 2007, Ms. Dever emailed Bev Pratt of the Oregon Department of
Education. Ms. Dever asked whether a student who takes an agriculture/foresh'y course from a
teacher with a health endorsement only can receive a science credit for the course. Ms. Pratt
responded on October l6, 2007. She conﬁrmed Ms. Dever’s belief that a teacher teaching
science must have a science endorsement in the appropriate science area. Ms. Pratt added that if

- the teacher received a professional technical license in AG/Forestry, the teacher would then be
qualiﬁed to teach the course. Ms. Dever then telephoned Ms. Pratt and obtained further '
information regarding the requirements for an agriculture or animal science student to receive
science credits for the course, and circumstances in which a health teacher could teach pre-
algebra. (Ex. A14; test. of Dever.)

8. At the October 18, 2007 District Board meeting, Respondent advised the Board that
“there were two issues concerning highly qualiﬁed status of teachers.” (A16 at 4.) Respondent
reported that Ms. Santos was teaching agriculture as an elective course but was also in the
process of obtaining proper licensure so students could receive science credit for the course. The
Board was advised that Ms. Santos was teaching agriculture/forestry without a professional
technical license. Ms. Dever then spoke up and reported that, per information she received ﬁom
the Oregon Department of Education, even a teacher with a professional technical license needed
to be “highly qualiﬁed” in science to teach a science course. Respondent told the Board that she
would check the credit standing for all students in the agriculture classes. Id.

In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case No. 901214
Page 3 of 15

9. At this same October 18, 2007 meeting, Respondent also notiﬁed the Board that a “not
highly qualiﬁed math teacher [Santos] was working under the direct license of the highly
qualiﬁed math teacher [Morris].”2 (A16 at 4.) Board Member Wolfe asked about the legal
requirements for non-qualiﬁed math teachers. Ms. Dever reported that, according to information
she received from the Oregon Department of Education, a teacher who teaches math must be
highly qualiﬁed and, if the teacher is not, he or she must become so expediently. Ms. Dever
added that an unqualiﬁed math teacher cannot work under the direct license of another teacher
and teach math in a separate room and/or give grades. In response to Ms. Dever’s comments,
Respondent notiﬁed the Board that she would move both the pre-algebra class and the algebra 1
class together into the library immediately. Id.

10. At the close of the October 18, 2007 meeting, Respondent asked for the Board’s trust
and stated that she cannot work without it. She also reminded the Board that they hired her to
build a team, and she stated that the Board must trust her to do what is best for the students. She
added that she needed to know right away if she did not have the Board’s trust. (Ex. A16.)

ll. After the October l8, 2007 District Board meeting, Respondent called a meeting
with her assistant, Ms. Dever. They met on October 22, 2007. Ms. Dever asked that another
school employee, Tina Fisher, be present at the meeting and take notes, because by that time the
work relationship between Respondent and Ms. Dever had soured. During the meeting,
Respondent said she felt “blindsided” by Ms. Dever’s information and comments during the
Board meeting. (Ex. A2 at 1.) Respondent was upset that Ms. Dever had not told her about the
email from the Oregon Department of Education before the Board meeting. Ms. Dever told
Respondent that she had tried to tell Respondent several times that Ms. Santos was not qualiﬁed
to teach math 0r science, but Respondent always dismissed the information. In response,
Respondent told Ms. Dever that her way of operating was “people before policy.” (Ex. A2 at 2.)
Ms. Dever again expressed her concern that Ms. Santos was teaching courses without proper
licensure. Ms. Dever added that she was unwilling to do or support anything that was illegal or
unethical. Respondent replied, “Who is gonna know, Jeanine?” (Ex. A13.) Ms. Dever
explained to Respondent that she had to report everything to the state so that the school could
receive its federal funding. Respondent then noted that the school only received about $50,000
in federal ﬁmding. Respondent also told Ms. Dever that if she would not do What Respondent
asked, Ms. Dever would be charged with insubordination. (Test. of Dever; Exs. A2 and A13.)

‘ 12. For a time after the October 18, 2007 District Board meeting, Respondent had Ms.
Santos teaching the pre-algebra class in the school library under Mr. Morris’ supervision.
Eventually, however, Ms. Santos’ pre-algebra class moved back into a separate classroom. Ms.
Santos did some research and learned that the District could issue her a “conditional assignment
permit” which would allow her to teach the math and science courses with the expectation that >
she would obtain her endorsement within three years. Ms. Santos told Respondent about the
2 At the time, Ms. Santos was teaching a pre-algebra class in a classroom separate from Mr. Morris’
algebra class that same period. (Test. of Dever.)

In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case No. 901214
Page 4 of 15

conditional assignment permit program, but Respondent did not complete the paperwork
necessary for Ms. Santos to obtain her permit during the fall 2007 term.3 (Test. of Santos.)

13. Meanwhile, in early October 2007, Respondent issued a directive to the teaching
staff that students should not receive failing grades. Respondent explained that she had promised
the District Board that student grades would improve. She told the teachers that, given the
charter school’s small size, no student should fail out of the school. Respondent then asked that
each teacher provide her with a list of students who were in danger of failing a class. When the
teachers provided their lists, Respondent asked that, instead of assigning a failing grade, the
teacher give the student an “Incomplete” or “NG” (no grade) and allow the student to make up
the work later. (Test. of Roque; test. of Lee; test. of Bringhurst.) Several teachers were
concerned about this directive because historically, incompletes or NGs were issued infrequently
and only under extenuating circumstances, such as when the student had an extended illness or
unforeseen emergency. Also, per past practice and District policy, a student receiving an
incomplete had to make up the work within two weeks. Ia'.

l4. Wendy Roque is a business, technology, home economics and robotics teacher at
Camas Valley School. She holds a middle school and high school teaching license. In the fall
term 2007, Respondent assigned Ms. Roque several elective classes because there were students
who wanted to take courses in quilting, car stereos, landscaping and ﬂy tying. Ms. Roque soon
realized that she could not supervise or evaluate these elective class students, because they were
either working off campus or taking the course on-line. For example, the quilting students were
working on projects at a private home in the community, the car stereo students were working on
cars in the school’s parking lot or at a nearby shop, and the student who wanted the ﬂy tying
elective was working from a CD and booklet during class time in the computer lab. (Test. of
Roque.)

15. On October 22, 2007, Ms. Roque emailed Respondent with the names of students
who were taking these elective courses and asked that Respondent remove these students from
her roster. On October 24, 2007, Respondent replied that because Ms. Roque was the one with
the business/home economics teaching license, it made the most sense for her to grade these
students. Respondent added, “I will ofﬁcially give them a grade with the input of the people
they are working with and then pass it on to you. You don’t have to worry about their
attendance. I have them signing-in in my office.” (Ex. A19.) In response to this email, Ms.
Roque expressed concern about her responsibility and liability because the grades would be
under her name on the students’ records. Respondent replied, “I will accept all responsibility
and liability for their actions during the day.” Id.

16. 0n November 1, 2007, Ms. Dever contacted the Oregon Department of Education on
Respondent’s behalf and asked whether Respondent, with a Transitional Administrator license,
could teach a technology class and grade a student for being her assistant. The Department of
Education replied in the negative, explaining that Respondent’s license was not valid for
teaching. (Ex. A4.)

3 In January or February 2008, interim superintendent Joe Harris completed the paperwork necessary for
Ms. Santos’ to teach agriculture under a conditional assignment permit. (Test. of Santos.)

In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case No. 901214

Page 5 of 15

17. At all times pertinent to this action, Richard Wolfe was a member of the Camas
Valley School Board. He is also the father of Dennis Wolfe who, in the fall of 2007, was
enrolled as a student at Camas Valley School. Dennis suffers from bone cancer. During the fall
of 2007, Dennis had to take time off school to travel out of town for treatment for his condition.
(Test. of Roque; test. of Bringhurst.)

l8. Richard Wolfe attended a school staff meeting on November 6, 2007, to update the
staff on his son’s treatment progress. At that time, Dennis was receiving chemotherapy in
Portland. During the meeting, Respondent offered Mr. Wolfe use of a School District credit card

. to help with the family’s lodging expenses while in Portland. Mr. Wolfe declined to take the
card. Respondent insisted that Mr. Wolfe take the card and use it. She suggested that he call his
use of the funds “a leadership conference.” (Ex. A5.) Mr. Wolfe again declined to take the card.
Respondent insisted that Mr. Wolfe take and use the card. She put the card down on the desk in
front of Mr. Wolfe. Mr. Wolfe took the card with him when he left the meeting, but did not use
it. He later returned it to the school ofﬁce. (Test. of Dever; test. of Bringhurst; Ex. A5.)

l9. During the fall term of 2007, Respondent had several students working under her
direction and supervision in “independent study activities” during various class periods
throughout the day. For ﬁrst period, she had one student taking a Leadership study program.
During third period she had two students studying Leadership/Mentoring and three students
studying “Career Development.” (Ex. A7.) For ﬁﬂh period, she had two students doing
Leadership/Mentoring, and for sixth period she had three students doing Leadership/Mentoring.
She also had another student with three periods as a Technology Assistant. Id

20. On November 15, 2007, Respondent sent a memorandum to Patrick Lee, an English
teacher at Camas Valley School. At that time, Mr. Lee was also the school’s head teacher.
Respondent provided Mr. Lee with a list of the students working under her direction and
supervision in independent study activities. She provided a grade for each student, and asked
Mr. Lee to assign that student the listed grade. Respondent explained that because she was not a
licensed teacher, she could not assign the students’ grades. She told Mr. Lee to assign these
grades under his name so that the students could receive credit for the courses. (Test. of Lee; Ex.
A7.)

21. Although uncomfortable with the situation, Mr. Lee agreed to assign the grades.
When he told Respondent that he did not want to be responsible and would prefer not to have the
grades assigned under his name, Respondent told him it was his only option. She reminded him
that, as the school’s head teacher, he had to support her and assign the grades to these students.
Respondent assigned the grades under his name fearing that if he refused to do so, Respondent
would charge him with insubordination. (Test. of Lee; Ex. A12.)

22. on November 13, 2007, Ms. Roque emailed Respondent and expressed concern
about giving one of her students (CD) an Incomplete or NG grade instead of an F. Ms. Roque
wrote: “If I give [CD] a “NG” or “I” on his trimester report card he would have to make-up the
work. Since this class was based on participation how would he make-up the work?” (Ex. A6.)
Ms. Roque also. noted that she was not comfortable being responsible for another student’s
attendance and success in an on-line course, because she did not have control of that student.

In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case No. 901214
Page 6 of 15

Ms. Roque later learned that Respondent gave three of Ms. Roque’s students, including CD, a
grade of Incomplete for her class.4 (Exs. A6 and A21; test. of Roque.) In an email dated
December 6, 2007 regarding “Incomplete grades,” Ms. Roque wrote Ms. Dever as follows:

As per our conversation this morning I feel that the incomplete grades for these

students should be changed to the following:

[Student CD]: F or NP, Chris was present l3 out of 38 class days. He was

reluctant to participate when he was present.

[Student BR]: C, Breeanne was present l7 days out of 38 class days. Breeanne

worked very hard when she was present and therefore I feel she earned a C.

[Student BS]: C, Brenda was present 25 out of 38 class days. She became an aide

for Mr. Rash toward the end of the trimester, but Jane instructed me to count

those days as leadership participation.

This class was based on participation so it is my opinion that attendance affects

their grades.

(Ex. A21 .)

23. During the 2007 fall tenn, Mary Bringhurst taught social studies and history at
Camas Valley Charter School. When Ms. Bringhurst provided Respondent with the list of
students failing her classes, Respondent directed Ms. Bringhurst not to give the students failing
grades, and asked that they be allowed make up the work. Ms. Bringhurst expressed concern
that these students would just copy the work of other students, because the assignments had
already been graded and returned, but she agreed to let these students make up the work. Student
CD was enrolled in one of Ms. Bringhurst’s US History classes that fall. CD was failing the
class because of absences and not turning in his work. On the day grades were due, Ms.
Bringhurst gave CD the opportunity to complete some of the assignments he had missed. CD
chose to take his driving test instead. Ms. Bringhurst gave him a grade of F because he chose not
to do the work. Respondent later asked Ms. Bringhurst to change CD’s grade, but Ms Bringhurst
refused to do so. (Test. of Bringhurst.)

24. During the 2007 fall term, Ms. Bringhurst also had students in a “community
involvement” class. This class had high school students supervising the younger students on the
playground or helping out in the lunch room. Respondent contacted Ms. Bringhurst and told her
to give all the students in the community involvement class a grade of A. Ms. Bringhurst told
Respondent that at least two of the students did not deserve an A because they missed several
classes. Respondent told Ms. Bringhurst what grades the students should have and Ms.
Bringhurst assigned the grades based on Respondent’s direction. (Test. of Bringhurst.)

25. During the 2007 fall term, Ms. Bringhurst also gave student BR a failing grade in US
History. Aﬁer the term was over, Ms. Bringhurst discovered that BR’s records showed she had
been given a grade of C for that class. ‘She immediately brought the changed grade to the
attention of the interim principal/superintendent, Mr. Harris. (Test. of Bringhurst.)

4 On November 25, 2007, Respondent emailed her assistant, Ms. Dever, the following message: “Jeanine,
l want to go over the grades of the upperschool with you since l noted some changes that need to be
made. I also need to add the on-line grades for my students.” (Ex. A8.)

In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case No. 901214

Page 7 of 15 r .

26. During the 2007 fall term, Respondent also allowed one or more students to access
the school computer in her ofﬁce. At that time, Respondent’s ofﬁce computer contained
conﬁdential information, including student records and grades and employee information and
evaluations. On one occasion, Ms. Dever saw two students printing off copies 0f Respondent’s
emails. The students were doing so at Respondent’s direction and request. Respondent either
logged on to the computer herself or gave the students her password so that they could access
and print her emails. Following this incident, a District Board member advised Respondent that
she was not to have students in her ofﬁce unsupervised. Even after Respondent was so advised,
however, she allowed students to work at the table in her ofﬁce unsupervised. (Test. of Dever.)

27. At its December 13, 2007 meeting, the District Board proposed to discharge
Respondent as Superintendent and Principal. The Board identiﬁed the reasons for the proposed
discharge and gave examples of Respondent’s conduct. The Board alleged that Respondent had:
(l) failed to be an effective educational leader to the Board, school and community; (2) failed to
maintain communications with the Board; (3) failed to protect conﬁdential records; (4) failed to
maintain academic standards; (5) failed to respond to complaints; and (6) failed to exercise
proper ﬁscal controls. (Ex. A9.) The Board gave Respondent the opportunity to meet with the
Board in executive session, and make a presentation to the Board and community. Respondent
waived her right to meet with the Board in executive session. Instead, she responded to the
Board’s allegations during the public meeting. (Ex. A10.)

28. On December 19, 2007, Respondent submitted a written response to the Board’s
allegations. Among other things, Respondent offered an explanation for allowing a student
access to her ofﬁce in her absence, and allowing a student to access to her computer under her
supervision. She explained that she was unable to get her email to go to her home, so she
designated a student to print her emails and leave the paper on the printer. With regard to the
allegation that she failed to exercise proper ﬁscal controls by oﬂ'bring Mr. Wolfe use of a district
credit card for private use, Respondent asserted that the Board had approved a $4000 “leadership
fund” that she could use at her discretion to improve morale at the school and in the community.
She asserted that the Board approved this fund without attaching any stipulations, so she was
unaware that she had to use money for educational purposes only. (Ex. Al 1.)

29. At its December 20, 2007 meeting, the District Board voted to terminate
Respondent’s contract effective December 21, 2007. (Ex. A18.)

30. Respondent’s Restricted Transitional Administrator license expired effective August
26, 2009.

CONCLUSIONS 0F LAW
1. Respondent assigned a teacher to teach an agriculture or math course when the teacher
did not hold the proper endorsement to teach either course. Respondent’s conduct constituted
gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(l)(b)_.
In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case No. 901214
Page 8 of 15

2. Respondent asked or directed teachers to assign or change student grades to prevent
students from failing a class. Respondent’s conduct constituted gross neglect of duty in violation
of ORS 342.175(1)(b).

3. Respondent allowed one or more students to access her school computer and email,
which contained conﬁdential information about students. Respondent’s conduct constituted
gross neglect of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b).

4. Respondent offered a school board member access to the school credit card for the
private expense of the board member’s family. Respondent’s conduct constituted gross neglect
of duty in violation of ORS 342.175(1)(b).

5. The appropriate sanction is revocation of Respondent’s right to apply for an educator
license in Oregon.

OPINION
TSPC bears the burden of proving the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.
ORS 183.450(2) and (5); Reguero v. Teachers Standards and Practices Commission, 312 Or
402, 418 (1991) (burden is 0n Commission in disciplinary action); Cook v. Employment Div., 47
Or App 437 (1980) (in the absence of legislation adopting a different standard, the standard in
administrative hearings is preponderance of the evidence). Proof by a preponderance of
evidence means that the fact ﬁnder is convinced that the facts asserted are more likely true than
false. Riley Hill General Contractor v. Tandy Corp, 303 Or 390 (1987).
ORS 342.175 authorizes TSPC to discipline educators licensed in the State of Oregon. It
provides in pertinent part, as follows:
(l) The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may suspend or
revoke the license of a teacher or administrator, discipline a teacher
or administrator or suspend or revoke the right of any person to
apply for a license if the person has held a license at any time
within ﬁve years prior to issuance of the notice of charges under
ORS 342.176s based on the following:
* * *
(b) Gross neglect of duty;
1k 1k it
(5) Violation of rules adopted by the commission relating to competent
and ethical performance of professional duties shall be admissible as
evidence of gross neglect of duty or gross unﬁtness.
5 ORS 342.1760) provides: “Upon receipt of a complaint or information that a person has violated ORS
342.143 or 342.175, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission shall promptly undertake an
investigation.”
In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case No. 901214
Page 9 of 15

OAR 584-020-0040(4) describes “gross neglect of duty” as “any serious and material
inattention to or breach of professional responsibilities.” Under subparagraph (n), a “substantial
deviation from professional standards of competency set forth in OAR 584-020-0010 through
584-020-0030” may be admissible as evidence of gross neglect of duty. Under subparagraph (o),
a “substantial deviation from professional standards of ethics set forth in OAR 584-020-0035”
may also be admissible.

TSPC has also adopted Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance of Oregon
Educators. OAR chapter 584, division 20. TSPC will determine whether an educator’s
performance is ethical or competent in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
educator’s performance as a whole. OAR 584-020-0000(3). For example, OAR 584-020-
0010(5) requires that a teacher or administrator demonstrate a commitment to “use professional
judgment.” OAR 584-020-0025 addresses competency in terms of management skills. Pursuant
to subsection (3) of this rule, the competent administrator demonstrates, among other things,
skills in managing the school, its students, staff and programs, along with skills in planning and
staff utilization. OAR 584-020-0035 addresses ethics. Pursuant to the rule, the ethical educator
is one who acts ethically at all times and who considers the needs of the students, the district and
the profession. OAR 584-020-0035(2)(a) requires that an ethical educator “[a]pp1y for, accept,
offer or assign a position of responsibility only on the basis of professional qualiﬁcations.”

As noted above, the “gross neglect of duty” standard requires a “serious and material”
breach of professional responsibilities. A “substantial deviation” from professional standards of
competency or ethics may constitute gross neglect of duty. OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) and (o).
Based on the plain language of the rule, therefore, not all breaches or deviations from
professional standards constitute “gross neglect of duty.” Only serious and material breaches '
give rise to TSPC discipline. See Britton v. Board of Podiatry Examiners, 53 Or App 544 (1981)
(recognizing that gross negligence connotes an act beyond mere inadvertence or error in
judgment).

1. Assigning an educator without an appropriate teaching license

As set out above, TSPC alleges that Respondent assigned Analicia Santos to teach
agriculture or math courses when Ms. Santos did not hold the proper endorsement to teach either
course. (Pleading l.) TSPC asserts that this conduct constitutes gross neglect of duty in
violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(o) as incorporated by OAR 584-020-0035(2)(a). As set out
above, this ethical stande provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he ethical educator, in fulﬁlling
obligations to the district, will: (a) * * * assign a position of responsibility only on the basis of
professional qualiﬁcations.”

As the Superintendent/Principal, Respondent was responsible for assigning the school’s
teaching staff. Respondent assigned Ms. Santos to teach agriculture and pre-algebra, science and
math courses that Ms. Santos was not licensed to teach with only a health endorsement.

Respondent did not testify at hearing, and did not offer other evidence to contradict Ms.
Dever’s testimony that, even before the October l8, 2007 District Board meeting, Respondent
was aware that Ms. Santos was not legally qualiﬁed to teach agriculture or math with only a
In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case No. 901214
Page 10 of 15

health endorsement on her teaching license. By her own words to Ms. Dever on October 22,
2007, Respondent elected to put “people before policy.” (Ex. A2.) In other words, she
knowingly assigned Ms. Santos to teach classes that Ms. Santos did not have the professional
qualiﬁcations to teach. Furthermore, even after Respondent discussed Ms. Santos’ licensing
problem with the District Board, she did not remedy the situation in a timely or appropriate
manner. Although Respondent had Ms. Santos and the qualiﬁed math teacher teaching in the
library at the same time, that arrangement was only temporary. Also, Respondent did not
complete and submit the necessary paperwork to the Department of Education for Ms. Santos to
teach agriculture under a conditional assignment permit.

Under these circumstances, Respondent’s conduct, namely offering Ms. Santos the
agriculture teacher position, assigning Ms. Santos courses that Ms. Santos was not professionally
qualiﬁed to teach, and then failing to timely and appropriately remedy the situation, constitutes a
violation of OAR 584-020-0035(2)(a), and a serious and material breach of Respondent’s
professional responsibilities as a licensed administrator. Also, by not respecting the Department
of Education’s policies and standards for professional qualiﬁcations in making Ms. Santos’
teaching assignments Respondent failed to use professional judgment under OAR 584-020-0010.
This violation has been proven. ‘

2. Asking or directing teachers to assign or change student grades to prevent students

from failing

TSPC next alleges that Respondent “asked or directed two different teachers to assign or
change student grades to prevent students from having a failing grade.” (Pleading 1.) TSPC‘ .
contends that this conduct also constitutes gross neglect of duty, as the rule incorporates OAR
584-020-0010(5) (use professional judgment) and OAR 584-020-0025(3)(a) (skill in managing
the school, its students, staff and programs) and (3)(b) (skills in planning and staff utilization).6

The evidence establishes as follows: Respondent issued a directive to the teaching staff
that students should not receive failing grades. For the students who were failing, Respondent
strongly encouraged the teachers to give the student an Incomplete and allow the student to make
up the work at a later date. Respondent also directed Mr. Lee, an English teacher, to assign
grades to students taking independent study activities (Leadership, Mentoring and Career
Development) who were working under Respondent’s direction and supervision, and told Ms.
Bringhurst the grades to assign the students in the community involvement class. In addition,
Respondent changed three of Ms. Roque’s students’ failing grades to Incomplete.7 When Ms.

6 OAR sumo-0025(3) provides:

(3) The competent administrator demonstrates:

(a) Leadership skills in managing the school, its students, staff, and programs as required

by lawful and reasonable district policies, rules, and regulations, state and federal laws

and regulations, and other programs as assigned, and assures that staff is informed of

these requirements; and

(b) Skills in planning and staff assignment.

7 In her closing argument, Respondent contended that she did not change the student grades, she only
recommended that the students be given a longer time to complete the coursework. But, again,

In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case N0. 901214

Page ll of 15

Roque learned that Respondent had changed these grades, Ms. Roque asked that the Incompletes
be changed back to completed grades based on the students’ participation, or lack thereof, in her
class.

By directing Mr. Lee to assign grades to students who were working under her
supervision and control and telling Ms. Bringhurst the grades to assign in the community
involvement class, by discouraging teachers from assigning failing grades to students who were
not attending class and/or doing the work, by changing one or more of Ms. Roque’s students
grades to Incomplete, and by disregarding the longstanding district policy and practice that a
student had only two weeks to make up work and complete the class, Respondent substantially
deviated from professional standards of competency for school administrators, speciﬁcally the
commitment to use professional judgment and establishing and maintaining good management
skills. Indeed, Respondent did not advise Ms. Roque that she had assigned Incompletes to three
of Ms. Roque’s students. Respondent also ignored a reasonable district policy (to only give an
Incomplete where the student had an extended illness or unforeseen emergency and allowing
only two weeks to complete the course work). TSPC has proven this charge of gross neglect of

- duty.

3. Allowing a student to access her school computer and email

TSPC alleges that Respondent allowed a student to access her school computer and
email, which contained conﬁdential information about students. (Pleading 1.) TSPC asserts that
Respondent’s conduct in this regard constitutes gross neglect of duty as the rule incorporates
OAR 584-020-0035(l)(a). This subsection provides that: “The ethical educator, in fulﬁlling
obligations to the student, will: (a) Keep the conﬁdence entrusted in the profession as it relates to
conﬁdential information concerning a student and family.”

The evidence establishes that Respondent allowed a student to access her school
computer containing conﬁdential student information. As found above, on one occasion, Ms.
Dever saw two students printing off copies of Respondent’s emails from Respondent’s computer
at Respondent’s direction and request. Respondent did not testify at hearing, but in responding
to the Board’s concerns, she admitted allowing a student access to her ofﬁce and her computer.

By allowing one or more students access to her ofﬁce computer under her log in,
Respondent compromised the security of the school’s records and failed to keep the conﬁdence
entrusted in the profession as it relates to conﬁdential information. Even after she was told not to
have students in her ofﬁce unsupervised, she allowed students to work there when she was not
present. Respondent’s conduct in this regard violated OAR 584-020-0035(1)(a). This was a
lapse of professional judgment, and a serious and material breach of her professional
responsibilities. This violation has also been established.

Respondent did not testify and did not present any evidence to contradict Ms. Roque’s and Ms. Dever’s
testimony that Respondent changed three students’ grades to Incomplete.

In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case No. 901214

Page 12 of 15

4. Oﬁrering a school board member use of a school credit card for a family expense

Lastly, TSPC alleges that Respondent offered District Board member Richard Wolfe
access to a school credit card for a private expense of Wolfe’s family. (Pleading l.) TSPC
contends that such conduct constitutes gross neglect of duty as the rule incorporates OAR 584-
020-0035(2)(e)8 and OAR 584-020-0010(5) (use professional judgment).

The evidence establishes that Respondent offered Richard Wolfe use of a District credit
card to pay for his lodging in Portland while his son was receiving treatment at a nearby hospital.
Although Respondent did not testify at hearing, in responding to the Board’s charge that she
failed to exercise proper ﬁscal controls by offering Mr. Wolfe use of the card for this purpose,
she contended that the Board had approved a $4000 “leadership fund” to be used at her
discretion to improve morale at the school and in the community. She then asserted that the
Board approved this fund without attaching any stipulations, and therefore she did not believe
that she was limited to using the money for educational purposes only. Respondent also noted
that because Mr. Wolfe did not use the card, there was no misappropriation of District resources.

Although her intentions were altruistic, Respondent nevertheless demonstrated a serious
lapse of professional judgment and gross neglect of duty in offering Mr. Wolfe use of District
funds for private, non-educational purposes. The fact that Mr, Wolfe did not accept her offer and
did not use the card for his family’s lodging does not take away from Respondent’s lack of
professional judgment in this regard.

5. Sanction

As discussed above, pursuant to ORS 342.1750), TSPC is authorized to suspend, revoke
or otherwise discipline an educator for conduct constituting gross neglect of duty. TSPC is also
authorized to suspend or revoke the right of any person to apply for a license engaging in
conduct constituting gross neglect of duty if the person has held a teacher or administrator
license at any time within ﬁve years prior to the notice of charges under ORS 342.176.

As set out above, TSPC has shown that Respondent engaged in conduct constituting
gross neglect of duty under ORS 342.175(1)(b). TSPC has therefore established grounds for
discipline. Because Respondent’s Restricted Transitional Administrator license expired while
the charges were pending, the appropriate sanction is revocation of Respondent’s right to apply
for licensure in Oregon.

s OAR 584-020-0035(2)(e) provides: “The ethical educator, in fulﬁlling obligations to the district will: *
* * (e) Not use the district’s or school’s name, property, or resources for noneducational beneﬁt without
approval of the educator’s supervisor or appointing authority.”

In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case No. 901214

Page l3 of 15

ORDER
I propose the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission issue the following order: ‘
Respondent Jane C. Pitcock’s right to apply for a teacher or administrator license in
Oregon is revoked for a period of one year.
Alison Greene Webster
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 (l4) days after mailing of the proposed order with the:
Teacher Standards and Practices Conunission
465 Commercial Street, NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
The Commission need not allow oral argument. The Executive Director may permit oral
argument in those cases in which the Director believes oral argument may be appropriate or
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 Mutter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case N0. 901214
Page l4 of 15

CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING l
WQ
On May 20, 2010, I mailed the foregoing Proposed Order issued on this date in OAH Case No.
901214.
By: First Class and Certiﬁed Mail
Certiﬁed Mail Receipt #7009 0820 0001 6776 5404
Jane Pitcock
PO Box 258
Clam Gulch AK 99568
By: First Class Mail
Lynn Beaton
Teacher Standards & Practices Commission
465 Commercial Street NE
Salem OR 97301
Raul Ramirez
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
1162 Court St NE .
Salem OR 97301-4096 '
Pam Arcari
Administrative Specialist
Hearing Coordinator
In the Matter of Jane C. Pitcock, OAH Case No. 901214
Page 15 of 15