1
l
l BEFORE THE
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF: ) FINAL ORDER
)

ERIKA LEE GLICK, nka ERIKA ) OAH Case No.1 1403869

LEE HEATH )

This matter came before the Commission during its meeting of June 20, 2016 to consider
a Proposed Order issued by Administrative Law Judge Samantha Fair on March 14, 2015.
Respondent did not file exceptions to the Proposed Order. The Commission issued an Amended
Proposed Order on September 14, 2016. Respondent did not file exceptions to the Amended
Proposed Order. The Commission now therefore enters the following Final Order, which
adopted the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

HISTORY 0F THE CASE

On May 2l, 2013, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (Commission)
issued a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing (Notice) to Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath
(Heath), proposing to impose discipline against her license. On May 28, 2013, Heath requested a
hearing.

On September 26, 2014, the Commission referred the matter to the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH). The OAH assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Samantha Fair to preside at hearing. On November 3, 2014, ALJ Fair convened a telephone
prehearing conference. Heath’s attorney Thomas Doyle appeared. The Commission appeared
and was represented by Assistant Attorney General Tyler Anderson. ALJ Fair scheduled the
hearing for March 10 through March 12, 2015, and set deadlines for submission of witness lists,
motions and exhibits.

On January 8, 2015, the Commission filed a Motion for Summary Determination. On
January 26, 2015, Heath filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary
Determination.l Subsequently, the OAH assigned the ruling on the motion to ALJ Dove
Gutman. On February 3, 2015, ALJ Gutman issued a Ruling on Motion for Summary
Determination, denying the Commission’s motion.

A hearing was held on March 10 and ll, 2015, in Salem, Oregon. Heath appeared, was
represented by Mr. Doyle, and testified. Testifying on her behalf were Peter Calvo, a licensed
clinical psychologist; Bill Reinhard, assistant track coach for Mazama High School (Mazama);
Stephany Stanton, kindergarten teacher for Seven Peaks School; and Meghan Stock, assistant
track coach for Henley High School. The Commission appeared and was represented by Mr.
Anderson. Jeff VanLaanen, the Commission’s legal liaison, also appeared. The Commission
l ALJ Fair had granted Heath’s request to extend the filing deadline for her response to January 26, 2015.
In the Matter of Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, OAH Case No. 1403869 ‘
Proposed Order ‘
Page l of 13 l

1
called Heath and Mark Greif, director of human resources for the Klamath County School
District (District), to testify. The record closed on March 11, 2015 at the conclusion of the
hearing.

On March 14, 2015, ALJ Fair issued a Proposed Order in this case.

ISSUES

1. Whether Heath engaged in gross neglect of duty by engaging in sexual conduct with a
student. ORS 342.175(1)(b) and f0rmer2 OAR 584-020-0040(4)(f).

2. Whether Heath engaged in gross neglect of duty by substantially deviating from
professional standards of competency by failing t0 exercise professional judgment. ORS
342.175(1)(b), former OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) and OAR 584-020-0010(5).

3. Whether Heath engaged in gross neglect of duty by substantially deviating from
professional standards of ethics by failing to fulfill her obligations to a student. ORS
342.175(1)(b), former OAR 584-020—0040(4)(o) and OAR 584-020-0035.

4. If any violations are proved, what sanctions should the Commission impose on Heath.
ORS 342.175.

EVIDENTIARY RULING

Exhibits A1 through A6 and A9 through A14, offered by the Commission, were admitted
into the record without objection. ALJ Fair sustained Heath’s objection to Exhibit A7 as
irrelevant, and it was excluded from the record. ALJ Fair overruled Heath’s objection to Exhibit
A8 as hearsay, and it was admitted into the record. Exhibits R1 through R15, offered by Heath,
were admitted into the record without objection

FINDINGS OF FACT

l. Heath obtained a bachelor’s degree in kinesiology with an emphasis in physical
education from Idaho’s Lewis-Clark State College. In 2012, she obtained a master’s degree in
education with an emphasis in environmental education from Concordia College. (Exs. A4 at 1;
R1 at 1.) She has a coaching certificate from the National Federation of State High School
Associations. (Ex. R1 at 1.) She also engaged in a minimum of three sports throughout her four
years of college. Her college classes did not include any courses on establishing boundaries with
students. (Test. of Heath.)

2. The Commission issued an initial teaching license to Heath on August 12, 2008,
authorizing her for employment in the areas of physical education at all levels, health education
2 This is the administrative rule that was in effect at the time 0f the alleged violations and the issuance of
the Commission’s notice. The Commission amended the administrative rule in 2014. The amendments
to the rule did not impact the sections applicable to this proceeding.

In the Matter of Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, OAH Case No. 1403869
Proposed Order ‘
Page 2 of 13 i

at the middle and high school levels, and multiple subjects at the middle school level. (Ex. Al at
3 l.) The Commission issued an initial 2 teaching license to Heath on July 9, 2012, effective until
1 July 8, 2015, which included the same authorizations as her initial teaching license. (Exs. Al at
1; A2 at 1.)

3. The District hired Heath as an elementary physical education teacher in the school
year of 2008-2009. She remained in that position through the 2012-2013 school year. (Ex. A4 at
1.)

4. The District provided an Employee Handbook (Handbook) to its staff, including
Heath. (Ex. A14; test. of Greif.) The Handbook advised all licensed staff to comply with the
standards for competent and ethical performance for Oregon educators as required by the Oregon
administrative rules, including the commitment to use professional judgment. (Ex. A14 at 28,
30.) The Handbook included a section titled “Personal Communication Devices,” which
provided, in part:

Staff possession or use of personal communication devices * * * may be
permitted subject to the limitations in Board policy * * *.

* * * * *
* * *. If communicating with students electronically, staff should use
District e-mail using mailing lists to a group of students rather than an
individual student. Texting students is discouraged.

* =I= * * *
Staff are subject to disciplinary action * * * for using a personal
communication device in any manner that * * * violates the terms of
policy. (The * * * sharing of * * * pornographic, lewd, * * *
photographs, * * * commonly called * * * sexting * * * may constitute a
crime[.]

(Id. at 23.)

5. Beginning in 2008, Heath worked as a track and cross country coach for the District’s
high schools. She originally worked as a volunteer coach until becoming a paid coach in the
2011-2012 school year. (Ex. A4 at l.) Beginning in 2011, she was part of a four-person
coaching team for the District’s Mazama’s track team. She primarily coached the sprinters and
hurdlers but also helped in other areas when needed. (Id. at 2.) The track team provided the
student-athletes a handbook at the beginning of the season that included conduct expectations for
the students, a list of the coaches, the coaches’ qualifications and their personal cell phone
numbers. (Ex. A4 at 7; test. of Heath.)

6. It is a common practice among coaches to provide team members with personal cell
phone numbers so that student-athletes may text coaches. Coaches must be careful and ensure
In the Matter of Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, OAH Case No. 1403869
Proposed Order
Page 3 of 13

that texting is limited to sports- and school-related subjects, such as confirming practice
schedules or a student-athlete’s inability to make practices. Discussions regarding colleges and
students seeking job references are common between coaches and student-athletes. (Test. of
Heath, Reinhard and Stock.)

7. Teachers must exercise professional judgment in relation to their interactions with
students, school staff and members of the community. The burden is solely on the teacher to
establish appropriate boundaries with students. Teachers need to be cognizant of the disparate
levels of power in their relationships with students and student-athletes. Exercising professional

1 judgment requires a teacher to avoid actions that would cause concern to students, district staff,
or the community, including parents. (Test. of Heath.) Engaging in a sexual relationship with a
recent graduate violates the professional judgment expected of teachers.3 (Test. of Heath and
Stock.)4

8. At the end of the 2012 track season, a couple of student-athletes from the track team,
including J C,5 asked Heath for her address so they could send her their graduation
announcements. (Ex. A4 at 2.) JC was an 18-year-old male of average maturity. (Ex. A4 at 8;
test. of Heath, Reinhard and Stock.) Using her personal cellphone, Heath texted her address to
JC. (Ex. A4 at 2.) Subsequently, J C texted Heath to ask her questions about college life, life of
a student-athlete, and the costs of college. Heath texted JC responses to his questions, such as
suggesting that he work for the forest service during the summer to earn money for college. (Ex.
A4 at 2-3; test. of Heath.)

9. Shortly before his graduation ceremony, J C texted Heath that he expected her at his
graduation. When she responded that she would be out of town on that date, he asked to meet
with her. Believing that JC wanted to meet with her for romantic reasons, Heath texted J C that
she could not meet with him because he had not yet graduated from school and was still a
student. (Exs. A4 at 5; A8 at 5; test of Heath.) J C graduated on June 10, 2012. (Test. of Greif.)

10. After the graduation ceremony, JC’s texts to Heath changed. His texts increased in
frequency, the content became flirty, and he asked to meet with her. (Exs. A4 at 3; A8 at 1-2, 4.)
3 It was generally acknowledged that there would be a time when developing an intimate relationship with
a prior student would not violate a teacher’s professional judgment. However, with the exception of
Stanton, it was acknowledged that a teacher having a sexual relationship with a student within three
weeks of graduation was inappropriate. (Test. of Heath, Stock, Reinhard, and Greif.)

4 Stanton’s testimony contradicted Heath’s and Stock’s testimony. Stanton testified that it was strictly a
private matter as long as the sex was consensual and the recent graduate was at least 18 years of age.
However, Stanton’s testimony in this matter was delivered hesitantly as if she was uncertain about her
conclusions (unlike her testimony regarding Heath’s school behavior, which she delivered with n0
hesitation). Additionally, she acknowledged that it was a “gray area” and there were issues with ensuring
the consensual nature of the sexual interaction while protecting students. (Test. of Stanton.) Because of
her demeanor, her apparent lack of certainty, and the irrationality of her conclusion that a teacher having
sexual intercourse with a student immediately upon graduation was acceptable conduct, I did not find her
testimony regarding teachers’ standards for professional judgment credible.

5 In order to protect his privacy, the student-athlete’s initials are used in this Proposed Order.

In the Matter 0f Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, OAH Case No. 1403869

Proposed Order

Page 4 of 13

When they first began exchanging the flirty texts, Heath was nervous about the too familiar
nature of the texts because JC was a recent graduate, and she realized that the community would
find the development of such a relationship with a recent graduate unsavory. (Test. of Heath.)
The texts between JC and Heath continued, and they discussed kissing, sex, how JC tasted, and
exchanged nude photos of each other. (Exs. A4 at 5; A8 at 1, 6; test. of Greif and Heath.)

1 1. On June 29, 2012, JC texted Heath that he wanted to meet with her. She invited him
to her apartment. Afier his arrival, Heath and J C engaged in sexual intercourse. This day was
the only time Heath and J C met afier his graduation. (Ex. A4 at 3-4; test. of Heath.) Heath and
JC continued to exchange texts with sexual content until July 8, 2012. (Test. of Heath.) On July
8, 2012, Heath’s boyfriend confronted Heath about her texts with J C that he found on her cell
phone. (Ex. A8 at 2.) After the confrontation, Heath texted JC that she could not continue the
relationship. (Exs. A4 at 3; A8 at 2.) They ceased texting each other until the end of the 2012
summer, when J C texted Heath about his inability to forget the relationship and how he had no
one to talk to about the relationship. Heath reiterated that the relationship was ended. (Ex. A4 at

j 3; test. of Heath.)

j 12. In July 2012, Heath began attending counseling sessions, focusing on relationship

l issues and learning to set appropriate boundaries. (Exs. A4 at 6; A5 at 1.) She met with a

l professional counselor on July 18 and August 10, 2012, during her summer visit in central
Oregon. (Ex. A5 at l; test. of Heath.) On February 19, 2013, she met with Dr. Calvo, who
diagnosed her with adjustment issues. (Ex. A6 at 1.) With him, she learned skills to cope with
stress, increased her self-esteem so that she could be more confident in herself, improved her
decision-making skills, and developed assertion skills to set boundaries with others. (Exs. A4 at
6-7; A6 at 1.) Heath openly discussed her interactions with J C, demonstrated remorse for these
actions, and acknowledged her mistake in engaging in this relationship with J C. Heath and Dr.
Calvo discussed sexual mores and the development of appropriate health interpersonal sexual
relationships. Their final session was on April 17, 2013, when they reached a mutual conclusion
that Heath’s adjustment difficulties had improved and the counseling relationship could be
terminated. Dr. Calvo recommended Heath seek ongoing education on boundary issues. (Test.
of Calvo.)

13. Based upon her statements to the psychologist, which included discussions of her
interactions with JC, Dr. Calvo concluded that Heath was not a sex offender and had no interest l
in grooming children for sexua1 relationships. (Ex. A6 at 1; test. of Calvo.) Dr. Calvo believed l
there was a low probability that Heath would engage in such interactions again, but he could not .
rule out the possibility of a reoccurrence. Dr. Calvo did not perform a psycho-sexua1 evaluation
on Heath and has no experience in such evaluations. (Test. of Calvo.)

14. In September 2012, Heath’s now-ex-boyfriend informed the District of her
relationship with JC. Heath tried to convince the ex-boyfriend not to report the conduct. (Ex.
A4 at 3, 6.) Heath informed J C of the investigation and her concerns that their prior relationship
could damage her career.6 (Test. of Heath.) Heath’s conduct did not gain any notoriety in the
District and was not the subject of District gossip. (Test. of Stock.)

6 The District concluded its investigation against Heath without taking any further action other than
restricting her from coaching. (Ex. A8 at 7; test. of Heath.)

In the Matter of Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, OAH Case No. 1403869

Proposed Order

Page 5 of l3

15. Heath has an extensive history of involvement in community and school projects and
has received several awards for her contributions. (Ex. R1 at 1-2.) During her years at the
District, she consistently received satisfactory evaluations of her teaching performance. (Exs. R2
- R13 and R15.) After the completion of her first year with the District, her supervisor noted that
Heath “has brought a tremendous amount of energy and enthusiasm for health and fitness to the
school community. * * * I appreciate the many great qualities and positive attitude Heath
brings[.]” (Ex. R3 at 1.) Her supervisor noted Heath’s need to develop greater skills in
classroom management to control disruptive students, and her supervisor later observed
improvements in this area. (Exs. R4, R9 - R13.) Her supervisor “appreciate[d] [Heath’s] efforts
and hard work.” (Ex. R9 at 1.) At the end of the 2011-2012 coaching season, Heath received a
satisfactory performance evaluation with the majority of her marks as “excellent” for her work
on the Mazama track team. (Ex. R14 at l.) The head coach indicated that Heath “brings a
positive attitude to the coaching staff that greatly contributes to positive motivation among
athletes. * * * [Heath] is a valuable member of this staffij” (Id.)

16. Heath works hard to achieve her teaching goals and is devoted to and passionate
about her work as a teacher and as a coach. (Test. of Heath, Stanton, and Stock.) She takes on
extra duties at school, cares about her students’ needs, and engages in appropriate interactions
with her classroom students and their parents. (Test. of Stanton.) As a coach, she was
accomplished at teaching the sport and the student-athletes responded well to her. She
maintained professional interactions with the student-athletes while on the field and in practices.
(Test. of Reinhard.)

l7. As a licensed educator, Heath believed that she would be legally obligated to report
any teacher who engaged in the same relationship she had with J C. (Ex. A4 at 4.) She
understands that her conduct was wrong and there was a risk to the District to let her resume
coaching duties. (Id. at 9.)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

l. Heath did not engage in gross neglect of duty by engaging in sexual conduct with a
student.

2. Heath engaged in gross neglect of duty by substantially deviating from professional

standards of competency by failing to exercise professional judgment.

3. Heath did not engage in gross neglect of duty by substantially deviating from

professional standards of ethics by failing to fulfill her obligations to a student.

4. The Commission should sanction Heath with a Public Reprimand and probation.

OPINION
The Commission seeks to revoke Heath’s teaching license based on allegations that she
engaged in gross neglect of duty regarding her conduct with J C. As the proponent of the
In the Matter of Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, OAH Case No. 1403869
Proposed Order
Page 6 of l3

l
allegations, the Commission has the burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the allegations are established. ORS l83.450(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). 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 C0rp., 303 Or 390, 402 (1987).
ORS 342.175 is titled “Grounds for discipline; reinstatement” and provides, in part:

(1) The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may suspend or

revoke the license or registration of a teacher or administrator, discipline

a teacher or administrator or suspend or revoke the right of any person to

apply for a license or registration if the licensee, registrant or applicant

has held a license or registration at any time within five years prior to

issuance of the notice of charges under ORS 342.176 based on the

following:

* * * * *

(b) Gross neglect of duty[.]

Pursuant to ORS 342.165 and ORS 342.175(6), the Commission promulgated
administrative rules that define gross neglect of duty. Former OAR 584-020-0040, titled
“Grounds for Disciplinary Action,” provided, in 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:

* * * * *
(t) Any sexual conduct with a student;

* * * * *
(n) Substantial deviation from professional standards of competency set
forth in OAR 584-020-0010 through 584-020-0030;
(o) Substantial deviation from professional standards of ethics set forth
in OAR 584-020-0035[.]

Sexual Conduct with a Student

The Commission promulgated OAR 584-020-0005(5) to define “sexua1 conduct." It

In the Matter of Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, OAH Case No. 1403869

Proposed Order

Page 7 of l3 j
4———_——_—

provides:
‘ “Sexual conductz” Any conduct with a student which includes but is not
1 limited to:

(a) The intentional touching of the breast or sexua1 or other intimate parts

of a student;

(b) Causing, encouraging, or permitting a student to touch the breast or

sexual or other intimate parts of the educator;

(c) Sexual advances or requests for sexual favors directed towards a

student;

(d) Verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when directed toward a

student or when such conduct has the effect of unreasonably interfering

with a student’s educational performance or creates an intimidating,

hostile or offensive educational environment; or

(e) Verbal or physical conduct which has the effect of unreasonably

interfering with a student’s educational performance or creates an

intimidating, hostile or offensive educational environment.

ORS 339.379(9)(a) provides an additional definition for “sexual conduct” between a

school employee and a student. It provides:

(9)(a) “Sexual conduct” means any verbal or physical conduct by a

school employee that:

(A) Is sexual in nature;

(B) Is directed toward a kindergarten through grade 12 student;

(C) Has the effect of unreasonably interfering with a student’s

educational performance; and

(D) Creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive educational

environment.

Although OAR 584-020-0005 defines several terms, including “teacher,”7 it does not

define “student.” Similarly, ORS 339.379 fails to provide a definition for “student.” Webster ’s
Third New Int 'l Dictionary (unabridged ed 2002) defines “student” as “one enrolled in a class or
course in a school.” Webster's at 2268.
7 “Teacherz” Any person who holds a teacher's license as provided in ORS 342.125. OAR 584-020-
0005(7). OAR 584-005-0005 provides additional definitions but also does not define a “student.” ORS
342.120 provides definitions but fails to include a definition for “student.”
In the Matter of Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, OAH Case No. 1403869
Proposed Order
Page 8 of l3

l

The evidence failed to demonstrate that Heath engaged in any sexual advances or other
forms of sexual conduct towards JC prior to his graduation from high school. All the texts that
included sexual content, both written and photographs, were exchanged after JC’s graduation.
The only instance of physical sexual interaction also occurred after JC’s graduation. Because the
sexual interactions between Heath and J C all occurred after his graduation when J C was no
longer a student, Heath did not engage in sexual conduct with a student. Heath did not violate

former OAR 584-020-0040(4)(f).
Exercise at Protessional Judwent
OAR 584-020-0010 is titled “The Competent Educator,” and provides, in part:
The educator demonstrates a commitment to:
* * * * *
(5) Use professional judgment[.]

Heath’s attorney argued that the Commission failed to present evidence regarding the
teaching profession’s standards for professional judgment. Heath’s argument raises questions
regarding the Cornmission’s interpretation of its own rules. Where an agency’s plausible
interpretation of its own rule cannot be shown either to be inconsistent with the wording of the
rule itself, or with the rule’s context, or with any other source of law, the is no basis by which a
court can assert that an agency has interpreted the rule erroneously. Don 't Waste Oregon
Committee v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 320 OR 132 (1994). Here, the Commission can
reasonably interpret its rule to determine that Heath’s conduct constituted gross neglect of duty
by failing to exercise professional judgment.

In any event, the record did include evidence regarding the use of professional judgment. Heath
testified how her interactions with J C violated her personal beliefs and moral code, but violations
of one’s personal ethics is not a violation of OAR 584-020-0010(5). However, Heath also
provided testimony, as did another teaching professional Ms. Stock, regarding the teaching
profession’s standards for professional judgment. Those standards require teachers to avoid
actions that would cause concern to students, district staff, or the community, including parents.
For a teacher to engage in sexual interactions with a prior student immediately upon graduation
would cause considerable concern among district staff and the community. Heath acknowledged
having these concerns while she engaged in the interactions with J C. The evidence also clearly
established that texting sexually explicit statements and photographs and engaging in sexual
intercourse with a recent graduate violated the teaching profession’s standards for professional
judgment. Finally, unlike sexual conduct with a current student or the ethical educator’s
interactions with a current student, OAR 584-020-0010 does not require professional judgment
to only be exercised in regards to a current student.

Heath’s attorney also argued that there was a lack of nexus between Heath’s conduct and
the teaching profession as required by Teacher Standards and Practices Commission v.
In the Matter of Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, OAH Case No. 1403869 j
Proposed Order
Page 9 of 13

I _—_——.—_

Bergerson, 342 Or 301 (2007). In Bergerson, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that

1 “professional duties are specific to a profession and are distinct from the moral and civic
obligations of all citizens t0 behave ethically * * *.” Bergerson at 312. The Court further noted
that “there may be some areas where professional responsibilities and universally applicable
moral and civil obligations may overlap, but the TSPC’s position that teachers have a
professional obligation to behave ethically and lawfully “at all times” eradicates the boundary
between private and professional obligations altogether.” Id. However, Bergerson is easily
distinguishable from Heath’s case. In Bergerson, the teacher’s conduct concerned the
disintegration of her marriage, in particular an incident following an argument in which the
teacher overdosed on medications, drove her vehicle into the back end of her husband’s
unoccupied truck, committed herself to a psychiatric ward, and pled no contest to a charge of
criminal mischief. The Court concluded that this conduct had no relationship to her profession
and she had not engaged in gross neglect of duty. In Heath’s case, Heath’s pre-graduation
texting with a student-athlete, which was directly related to her professional duties, evolved into
the sexually inappropriate texting immediately after J C’s graduation and culminated in sexual
intercourse less than three weeks after his graduation. Therefore, the nexus is established by
Heath’s use of her professionally-established contacts and relationship with JC to immediately
develop a sexua1 relationship with him after his graduation.

Heath’s texting of sexual content with JC immediately after his graduation and engaging
in sexua1 intercourse with J C within three weeks of his graduation violated the teaching
profession’s standard for professional judgment. Heath’s conduct violated OAR 584-020-
0010(5).

Fulfilling Obligations to a Student
OAR 584-020-0035 is titled “The Ethical Educator” and provides, in part:
The ethical educator is a person who accepts the requirements of
membership in the teaching profession and acts at all times in ethical
ways. In so doing the ethical educator considers the needs of the
students, the district, and the profession.
(l) The ethical educator, in fulfilling obligations to the student, will:
* * * >I< *
(b) Refrain from exploiting professional relationships with any student
for personal gain, or in support of persons or issues; and
(c) Maintain an appropriate professional student-teacher relationship by:
(A) Not demonstrating or expressing professionally inappropriate
interest in a student’s personal life;
(B) Not accepting or giving or exchanging romantic or overly personal
In the Matter of Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, OAH Case No. 1403869
Proposed Order
Page 10 of l3

gifts or notes with a student;

* * * * *
(D) Honoring appropriate adult boundaries with students in conduct and
conversations at all times.

OAR 5 84-020-0035( l) involves the educator’s interactions with any student. As
previously explained, the sexual interactions between Heath and J C occurred after his graduation
when he was no longer a student. The interactions prior to JC’s graduation involved discussions
about student-related subjects, such as college expectations and costs. The manner of the

l communications, the rather casual and private nature of texting, was only discouraged by the

1 District, not prohibited, and was actively utilized by the track team coaches. Texting as a form
of communication tends to be casual, quick and private. As such, it may lead to inappropriate
communications, such as the communications between Heath and JC afier his graduation.
However, because the content of Heath’s communications with J C prior to graduation focused on
student-related subjects, advice on college life and dealing with the costs of college, and
declining his invitation to meet, Heath did not violate OAR 584-020-0035(1).8
Imposition 0t Sanctions

Pursuant to ORS 342.175(1), because Heath engaged in gross neglect of duty, the
Commission has the statutory authority to revoke or suspend her teaching license or impose
some other form of discipline. The Commission promulgated an administrative rule to assist in
the determination of the appropriate sanction against a licensee. OAR 584-020-0045 provides:

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 5 84-020-0040:

(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;
8 OAR 584-020-0035 provides for additional requirements of an ethical educator including, “Maintain the ‘
dignity of the profession by * * * exemplifying personal integrity[.]” OAR 584-020-0035(3)(a). l
However, the Commission’s Notice failed to cite OAR 584-020-0035(3)(a) as a ground for discipline. ‘
ORS 183.415(3)(c) requires any notice of agency action to include reference to the particular sections of
the rules involved. Because the Notice failed to include reference to OAR 584-020-0035(3)(a), it cannot
be the basis of a possible ground for discipline in this proceeding.
In the Matter of Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, OAH Case No. 1403869
Proposed Order
Page ll of 13

‘ (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;
(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.

Although there were repeated acts of sexting during the three weeks following JC’s
graduation, these acts comprised the isolated occurrence of Heath’s gross neglect of duty, her
professionally inappropriate interactions with JC. There was no evidence that Heath engaged in
similar conduct with other students; therefore, there was no continuing pattem of inappropriate
conduct with recent graduates. Dr. Calvo does not have experience in psycho-sexual
evaluations; however, he is a licensed psychologist and his testimony is afforded some weight
based upon his education and interactions with Heath. His conclusion that there is a low
probability of recurrence of Heath’s conduct is supported by her expression of genuine remorse
for her conduct. Heath’s prior employment evaluations and feedback from her colleagues
demonstrate that she is an enthusiastic teacher, capable of learning and improving her
performance, liked by her students, and provides any needed assistance to her colleagues. Her
past performance, her passion for the teaching profession, her remorse for her conduct with J C,
her commencement of counseling immediately after the relationship, and her candidness with Dr.
Calvo further supports not revoking her license.

Although the Commission has elected not to revoke in this case, Heath’s conduct was of
a serious nature as it involved inappropriate sexual interactions with a recent student. This
conduct also supports a finding that she has not reached a level of maturity that would aid in
preventing such behavior. She also engaged in very troubling behaviors during the course of the
District’s investigation. First, she attempted to convince her ex-boyfriend not to report her
conduct. Then, she contacted JC about the investigation and how it could ruin her career, which
was a wholly inappropriate attempt to manipulate J C in the hopes that he would not cooperate
with the investigation or minimize the conduct. Finally, as recognized by Dr. Calvo, Heath
needs education in developing and maintaining appropriate boundaries.

In the Matter of Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, OAH Case No. 1403869
Proposed Order
Page 12 of l3

FINAL ORDER
The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission issues the following order:
Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, receives a Public Reprimand for violation of OAR
584-020-0010(5) and is placed on three years of probation with the following conditions:
n In addition to any professional development units required for renewal of
' licensure under OAR 584-090-0115, Heath must complete a minimum of l6
hours of Commission-approved boundary and ethical behavior education courses;
I Heath will not teach or coach high school students, grades 9 through 12, for the
. duration of the probation period; and
I Heath will complete a psycho-sexual evaluation within six months of issuance of
the order to be performed by a Commission-approved psychologist or
psychiatrist, and she will complete any recommended treatment. Heath must
provide a signed release to the selected psychologist or psychiatrist to allow
disclosure of information and documentation to the Commission.
It is so Ordered this l 7 M day of December, 2016
M/ ' em
Monica Beane, Executive Director
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
NOTICE OF APPEAL OR RIGHTS
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE OBTAINED
BY FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW WTTHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ORS 183.482 TO THE OREGON COURT OF
APPEALS.
In the Matter of Erika Lee Glick, nka Erika Lee Heath, OAH Case No. 1403869
Proposed Order
Page l3 of 13

11:111*§ta*21ir1t§mnp 1,1“1 1 rtwet.“e “penance
taiéiéff' 1M1'fiiéitw 1:11 1' Li 1*he1rwa ‘$311; fifth?"
On December 16, 2016, I mailed the foregoing Final Order in OAH Case N0. 1403869 to:
By: U.S. First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested 7016 0750 0000 2419 0563
Erika Lee Heath
66474 Jericho RD
Bend, OR 97701
By: U.S. First Class Mail

Thomas K. Doyle, Attorney at Law

Bennett, Hartman, Morris & Kaplan, LLP

210 SW Morrison St., Ste. 500

Portland, OR 97204-3149

By: Shuttle

Raul Ramirez

Senior Assistant Attorney General

Department of Justice

1162 Court Street NE

Salem 0R 97301-4096

Hearings Coordinator

Office of Administrative Hearings

7995 SW Mohawk St.

Tualatin, OR 97062

Patty Shggon

Investigative Assistant

Certificate of Mailing — Erika Lec Heath

Data Classification Level: 2 ~ Limited

at ‘WW “‘ 1;” ‘ m era M11.
r‘ 11111 a“: .1 ~ :1 < A; 1..
On December 21, 2016, I mailed the foregoing Final Order in OAH Case N0. 1403869 to:
By: U.S. First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested 7016 0750 0000 2419 0570
Erika Lee Heath
108 Ord St
Silveiton, OR 97381
0 The Final Order was previously sent by first class and certified mail on December
16, 2016, to the address on file with the Commission:
Erika Lee Heath
66474 Jericho Rd
Bend, OR 97701
Both first class and certified mail were returned to TSPC with a new address and
marked “Forward Time Expired Return to Sender”
Patty Shelé
Investigative Assistant
Certificate of Mailing — Erika Lee Hcath
Data Classification Level: 2 i Limited
1;—————_—