1 BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
‘ 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON
3
j 4
1 5
l 6 In the Matter of the )
3 7 Teaching License of ) FINAL ORDER
3 )
i 9 MICHAEL JOHN ALLISON ) Case N0. 1202694
10
11
12 On February ll, 2013, Administrative Law Judge Rick Barber issued a Proposed Order
l3 in this case. The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC) considered this Proposed
l4 Order during its regularly scheduled meeting on April 26, 2013.
15
l6 TSPC adopts in its entirety the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
l7 contained in the attached Proposed Order.
18
19 ORDER
20
21 The Commission adopts the Proposed Order in its entirety and denies Michael J.
22 Allison’s application for reinstatement of licensure.
23
24 7%
25 Dated this 30 day ofMay 2013.
26
27 TEACHER STANDARD AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
28
29
31 By. M)
32 Victoria Ch 1 , ecutive Director
33 Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
34
35
36
37
38
39 NOTICE: You are entitled to judicial review of this order. Judicial review may be obtained by
40 filing a petition for review within 6O days of the service of this order. Judicial review is pursuant
41 to the provision of ORS 183.482 to the Oregon Court of Appeal.
PAGE l ~FINAL ORDER — Michael J. Allison

@aaaa a; w“wa.ay WW“
_. . *‘a. 13/ t = - t .f ta W t I’ ii. , . : . “a. 11“ ; 1

3/; . . . .
On May , 2013, I mailed the foregomg F1nal Order and Proposed Order m OAH Case No.
1202694 to:
By: U.S. First Class Mail and U.S. Certified MailiReturn Receipt Requested
#7010 2780 0000 2187 3989
Michael J. Allison
11202 57"‘ Avenue SE
Everett WA 98208
By: Shuttle
Raul Ramirez
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem OR 97301-4096
Hearings Coordinator
Office of Administrative Hearings
4600 25"‘ Avenue NE, Suite 140
Salem OR 97301

/ -

“iv/Z'Av/ZA 4 /
Melod. Hans
Directo of P ssional Practices
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING — Michael J. Allison

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE 0F OREGON
for the

TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF: ) PROPOSED ORDER '
)
MICHAEL J. ALLISON ) OAH Case No. 1202694
HISTORY OF THE CASE )

On November 16, 2011, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC, or the
Commission) issued a Notice of Denial of License Reinstatement to Micnael J. Allison (Allison).
On December 7, 2011, Allison requested a hearing.

On February 23, 2012, the Commission referred the hearing request to the Ofiice of
Administrative Hearings (OAH). Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Rick Barber was assigned to
the case and held a prehearing conference on April 30, 2012, at which time the hearing was
scheduled for September 12 and 13, 2012. The hearing was later postponed at Allison’s request,
and was rescheduled for January 9 and 10, 2013.

Hearing was held as scheduled on January 9 and 10, 2013, in Tualatin, Oregon. Allison
appeared and testified, representing himself. The Commission was represented by Senior
Assistant Attorney General Raul Ramirez. The Commission called the following witnesses:
Allison; former Assistant Principal Lonnie Wells; former Principal Carol Daiberl; former TSPC
Investigator George Finch; Detectives Tony Cobb and Robert Galbreath; and former students
TW and JB.1 Allison called the following witnesses: Gresham High School (GHS) Teacher
Mike Melony, former students JK and BW; and Cynthia Basolo, a parent of two students at
GHS. The record closed on January 10, 2013.

ISSUE

Whether Allison’s Application for Reinstatement was properly denied by the
Commission.

EVIDENTIARY RULINGS

Exhibits A1 through A33, offered by the Commission, were admitted into evidence
without objection. Exhibits R1 through R65, offered by Allison, were also admitted into
evidence.2 Procedural documents P1 through P12 were also identified for the record.

I Students who testified, and who are mentioned in the written record, are referred to by their initials in
this Proposed Order to protect their identity.

2 TSPC did not object to the documents (mostly letters of recommendation) for purposes of addressing
Allison’s character, and Allison agreed that they were offered for that purpose.

In the Matter of Michael J. Allison, OAH Case No. 1202694 a

Page I of 10

l
FINDINGS 0F FACT ‘
1. Allison became licensed as a teacher in Oregon on April 1, 2002. (Ex. A1). l
Before“ that, he had taught at Marist High School in Eugene, a private Catholic school. Allison l
taughtat Marist from 1996 through 2004, and then began working at Gresham High School g
(GHS). (Test. of Allison, Daiberl). In 2005, Allison received endorsements in Basic Health i
Education and Basic Physical Education. (Ex. A1). Allison was also the head football coach at l
ens. (Test. ofAllison). l
2. While a teacher at GHS, Allison had teaching assistants (TAs) for his various i
classes. Some were male, and some were female. They included: l
0 2004-05: 12 TAs (6 male, 6 female) |
i 2005-06: 19 TAs (10 male, 9 female)
0 2006-07: 11 TAs (10 male, 1 female)
0 2007-08: 15 TAs (8 male, 7 female) “
I 2008-09: 13 TAs (0 male, l3 female) l
(Test. of Allison). The Counseling Office ultimately selected the TAs for teachers. Students i
could request a TA position based upon availability of fiee periods. (Test. of Allison). Allison .
had some input into the selection process, and asked some students to apply for the positions. l
(Ex. A7 at 12, 15, 23). Student SC was one of Allison’s TAs during the 2008-09 school year. ‘
(Id. at 1). ‘
3. On July 9, 2009, School Resource Officer Taaca, a Gresham police officer,
received a report fi'orn GHS Principal Daiberl of a possible inappropriate physical relationship '
between Allison and a 16-year-old female student, SC. Daiberl had been contacted by another
i educator, DD, who was the parent of student HD. HD’s parents had seen a F acebook exchange i
between HD and another student, BS, about an intimate relationship between Allison and SC. l
The school district began to investigate the charges but, at the request of Gresham Police, l
delayed its investigation so that the police investigation could take precedence. (Test. of ‘
Daiberl). . .
' 4. Police interviewed SC and Allison about their relationship, and both denied a l
physical or inappropriate relationship of any kind. (Ex. A7 at 1; Test. of Allison). SC admitted i
that she had sent messages to another student via Facebook, discussing a sexual relationship with
Allison, but insisted that she and the other student were playing a fantasy game involving untrue ;
stories. SC also admitted that, when she had heard the police were going to interview her, she ‘
phoned Allison to warn him about the police investigation. Based upon SC’s demeanor and the l
content of her statements, the detectives did not believe she was being completely truthful with y l
them. (Test. of Cobb, Galbreath; Ex. A14). l
5. During the investigations by school district personnel and by Gresham Police, ' ‘
several students and former students were interviewed about Allison and SC, and also about l
Allison’s interactions with other female students. Students told police and district investigators ‘l
l
In the Matter of Michael J. Allison, OAH Case No. 1202694 ‘ l
Page 2 of 10 l

the following:

O Student BS stated that SC told her Allison flirted with her (SC), making
inappropriate comments and touching her (rubbing her shoulders, rubbing against
her playing basketball). SC told BS that Allison “liked it hard;”

I Student HD had seen “really inappmpriate” text messages between SC and
Allison, and had been told by another fi'iend, AR, that Allison made AR get her
hall pass from his lap/crotch area where he had placed it;

0 Student SR refused to become a TA for Allison because her friends told her
Allison was a “creeper;”

e Student NJ relayed a conversation with SC, where SC stated she “almost got
kissed” by Allison. Then, in another conversation, SC told NJ that Allison had
“fingered her;”

u Student LC relayed that SC told her that Allison had kissed and “fingered” her;

O Students NH and MG stated that Allison often talked about sex. One time, he put
a piece of paper in NH’s bra, then pulled it out, brushing her breast. He told NH
that he would date her if she was older. Allison showed them sexual images on
his cell phone and on the weight room computer. He would talk about past sexual
experiences with MG and NH, and ask about their sex lives with their boyfriends.
MG stated that, afier she showed Allison her belly button piercing, he later told
her “I wanted to lay you down on the floor and fuck the shit out of you." MG
stopped coming to class afier that conversation;

. Student PD stated that Allison told her she was cute, with a perfect-sized body,
and that her breasts were a nice size;

0 Student AF, when discussing her boyfriend with Allison, reported that Allison
said that some guy in college would “treat [her] like a lady and then fuck the shit
out of [her].” She stated that Allison also told her he would help her select what
to wear for senior pictures if AF would do a “strip tease” for him;

I Student AR stated that Allison was always joking about sexual things. One time,
when he was giving her two dollars, she put her hand out for the money but he put
it in her shirt pocket “right by my boob.”

0 Student AS stated that Allison’s comments were usually sexual. One time he
pulled her into the coach’s office, told her she was beautiful, and said she could
have any guy that she wanted. Allison showed her nude pictures on his phone,
including one where the punch line (in a photo involving two persons in a strange
sexual position) was about flexibility. Allison asked AS if she was flexible, too.

(Exs. A7, A17, A18, A22).

6. Daiberl informed Allison about the investigation on July l6, 2009, and indicated
she would be taking his statementwhen she returned from vacation on July 27, 2009. (Ex. A3). '
Allison resigned as football coach, and resigned his teaching position with GHS on August 24,
2009. In the spring of 2010, when the Commission began its investigation during the ongoing
police investigation, Allison decided to voluntarily surrender his Teaching License. He signed
the Stipulated Surrender on April 5, 2010. (Ex. A2). At approximately the same time Allison
surrendered his license to teach, the criminal investigation ended. (Test. of Allison).

In the Matter anichaeI J. Allison. OAH Case No. 1202694
Page 3 of 10

t
t
_ l
l
7. As part of Allison’s stipulated surrender of his teaching license, he stipulated to i
the following facts: i
l. The Commission has licensed Mr. Allison since April l, 2002. Allison t i
currently holds a Standard Teaching License, with endorsements in Basic Health i
and Basic Physical Education, issued May 5, 2005 and valid through October 8,
2010. .
i
2. On or about July 9, 2009, the Gresham-Barlow School District officials i
received information regarding alleged inappropriate conduct between Mr.
Allison and a female student.
3. Friends of the female student reported to school officials that Mr. Allison l
communicated with the female student via text message and cell phone calls. 1
Friends of the female student characterized this correspondence as flirtatious. i j
l
4. Friends of the female student alleged various intimate physical contact I
between Mr. Allison and the female student. Mr. Allison denied making ,
inappropriate physical contact. i
5. A school district investigation uncovered allegations that Mr. Allison was I
often alone with the female student during athletic training.
6. Mr. Allison did not report to school district officials the romantic notes lefi on i
his car by this female student. ;
l
7. Gresham-Barlow School District placed Mr. Allison on administrative leave i
pending the outcome of the district's investigation. Mr. Allison subsequently i
resigned fiom Gresham-Barlow School District on August 24, 2009. '
(Ex. A2). When Allison reviewed the stipulated facts before signing the document, he pointed t
out to his attorney that there was an error in the facts. He told his attorney that he had reported j
the romantic notes lefl on his car to the assistant principal, Wells. Allison’s attorney advised him 1
that, because he was surrendering his license and did not plan to teach again, there was no need
to correct the error. On counsel’s advice, Allison signed the document. (Test. of Allison).
Allison did give the notes to Wells right after the notes were lefl on his car. (Test. of Wells). l
8. After surrendering his license, Allison worked as an assistant football coach for ‘
Rex Putnam High School and Portland State University (PSU), and then, in 2011, began teaching 1
and coaching at Archbishop Murphy High School in Seattle. He is currently on paid 1
administrative leave because news of the events at GHS became known to parents and boosters ‘
at Archbishop Murphy. (Test. of Allison). i
9. On March 30, 2011, and again on May 20, 2011, Allison filed applications for a 1
Teaching License with the Commission. (Ex. A31, A32). J
l
In the Matter ofMichael J. Allison, OAH Case No. 1202694 i
Page 4 of 10 t

10. On April l, 2011, Allison underwent a “Fitness for Work Evaluation” with
Psychiatrist Don Wiesner. Allison and Wiesner discussed boundaries, but Allison did not tell
Wiesner the circumstances of his resignation from GHS or the surrender of his Teaching
License. (Ex. A33, Test. of Allison).

ll. During the police investigation of the GHS incidents, Gresham Police received
phone calls from two women with information about an interaction between Allison and a Marist
student in approximately 2001. The women, one of whom was the victim of the reported attack,
told police that student 1B3 had gone to Allison’s office at Marist at his request. JB reported that
while in Allison’s ofiice in 2001, with no one else around, Allison had kissed her and touched
her breasts. IB did not report Allison’s actions to her family or to the school, but told her friend,
TW. (Test. of JB, I W). Allison denies the event. (Test. of Allison).

CONCLUSION 0F LAW
i n I‘ Respondent’s Application for Reinstatement was properly denied by the Commission.
OPINION

The Commission contends that Respondent’s application for licensure should be denied
because he has failed to show the requisite fitness to hold a license. Although Respondent
generally has the burden to establish that he possesses the requisite qualifications and fitness to
hold a teaching license, TSPC is the proponent of the position that he is unfit and must present
evidence in support of its claim. ORS 183.450(2). It must prove its case by a preponderance of
the evidence. Sobel v. Board of Pharmacy, 130 Or App 374, 379 (1994), rev den 320 Or 588
(1995) (standard of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act is preponderance of evidence
absent legislation adopting a different standard). Proof by a preponderance of the evidence
means that the fact finder is persuaded that the facts asserted are more likely true than not. Riley
Hill General Contractor v. Tandy Corp, 303 Or 390 (1987).

OAR 584-050-0006 states in part:

Criteria for Denying Issuance or Reinstatement of Licenses

(l) The Executive Director may deny issuance of a license, certificate or

registration, renewal of a license, certificate or registration; or reinstatement of a

license, certificate or registration under the conditions set forth in subsection (3)

below. .

=r= e * * e '

(3) Notice of denial and right to a hearing may be issued by the Executive

Director when any of the following conditions exist:

3 JB are the witness’s current initials. Her maiden name was identified at hearing and Allison
remembered her, although denying that the event occurred.

In the Matter ofMichael J. Allison, OAH Case No. 1202694

Page 5 of 10

* * * it =l= i
l

(d) The Executive Director has evidence that the applicant may lack fitness to j

serve as an educator[.] j
Under this administrative rule, the Executive Director must determine whether an applicant has i
the requisite qualifications to be a teacher, including fitness to teach. The Commission contends 1'
that Respondent has failed to establish he is fit to teach. i

Evidence of Unfitness. As noted, the Commission has the burden of presenting evidence i
of Allison’s unfitrress to teach. In this case, the Commission has presented sufficient evidence to
establish that Allison’s fitness is in question.

At the time Allison surrendered his Teaching License in 2010, both the police and the i
Commission were investigating the events at GHS. Gresham Police and the District Attorney i
continued to investigate to determine if there had been an inappropriate sexual relationship l
between Allison and SC, while TSPC was investigating not only the SC matter but also other l
possible boundary violations by Allison. Allison testified that he surrendered his Teaching 1
License because the circumstances at GHS had taken away his desire to teach. His surrender of t
his license ended the TSPC investigation as well as the police investigation, although it is unclear \
fi'om this record whether the closure of the police investigation was independent, or done in
conjunction with the license surrender. l

The Commission's challenge to Allison’s fitness at the present time is essentially two- i
pronged, focusing on the alleged inappropriate physical contact between Allison and two '1
students (at GHS and at Marist), as well as on the sexually-charged communications with female ‘
students that came to light during the investigations. For both reasons, the Commission would j
not reinstate Allison’s license without strong assurances that he is not a danger to students. - T
Among other things, the Commission would require a psycho-sexual evaluation and some i
boundary training by experts who are aware of the circumstances and allegations made against
Allison. For the reasons that follow, I agree that such evaluations would be essential for the j
Commission to consider reinstating Allison’s license to teach. i

l

Evidence of Inappropriate Physical Contact. The GHS investigation began when others i
alleged that Allison and SC had inappropriate sexual contact. Both deny that such contact t
occurred, although several of SC’s friends told police and school investigators that SC had told i
them details of the relationship previously. SC was initially untruthful with police detectives, ‘
telling them there was no relationship with Allison but admitting that she had erased all of her 1
text messages and had phoned Allison to tip him off about the investigation. Even afler 1
admittingher untruthfulness, however, she continued to deny any inappropriate relationship with
Allison. J

At hearing, the Commission presented evidence of another possible sexual contact .
between Allison and Marist student JB in approximately 2001. JB testified to the contact, and ;
Allison denied it. t ‘

i
- Y

In the Matter of Michael J."Allison, OAH Case No. 1202694
Page 6 of 10 l

Under a preponderance standard, the evidence of intimate physical contact between
Allison and the two students, JB and SC, is substantial but inconclusive. SC and Allison deny
any contact in 2009. J B said there was physical contact at Marist in 2001, but did not contact the
school or the police at that time. Allison denies the inappropriate physical contact claimed by
JB.

The Commission contends that Allison may not deny having a relationship with SC
because the stipulated facts at the time of the 2010 license surrender establish that there was
inappropriate physical contact between Allison and SC. I disagree that Allison stipulated to
having had such contact with SC,4 but agree that the practical effect of the stipulated license
surrender, under the cloud of that investigation, means that the Commission may assume that the
contact took place.5

Thus, the Commission has a valid basis to require a psycho-sexual evaluation of Allison
before granting another license. Even the possibility that such conduct took place between
Allison and a student is a sufficient basis for the Commission to require assurances that Allison
is fit to teach. There is no question, under these facts, that the Commission needs professional
assurances that Allison is not a threat and is fit to teach. While the testing does not guarantee the
granting of license, it is a reasonable requirement by the Commission.

Inappropriate Communications with Students. That conclusion is only strengthened by
the record of Allison’s communications with other female students. Although the initial focus of
the investigation was on the possibility of an inappropriate physical relationship with SC, the
investigation also uncovered countless improper conversations that Allison had with his female
students.

At hearing, Allison acknowledged that he had crossed boundaries in his communications
with his students. The context of his admission seemed to focus only on the use of text messages
and cell phones with students. He has acknowledged that he was too familiar with his students,
and recognizes that boundaries were crossed.

However, the evidence from a surprising number of female students, both his teaching
assistants and others, establish that the boundary violations were more sexually-oriented than
Allison has admitted. A large portion of Allison’s conversations with them were sexual in
nature. Several students testified to the sexual nature of his communications, as set forth in the
bullet points in the Findings of Fact above. Some of the comments attributed to him raise serious
concerns. Thus, even if there was never any physical contact with SC, the statements of several
unrelated students indicate a pattern of Allison sexualizing many, if not most, conversations with
his female students.

Allison denies that he made such comments to his female students, but the evidence
4 The stipulated facts record that Allison denied the physical contact with SC.

5 Similarly, Allison is correct that there is a factual error in the Stipulation; he did, in fact, report the notes
from SC to Wells at the time he received them. However, he chose to sign the document knowing there
was an error in it, and I will not go beyond the four corners of the document to interpret it differently.

In the Matter of Michael J. Allison, OAH Case No. 1202694

Page 7 of 10

l
l
comes from so many independent sources and contains so many similarities that I find his i
denials to be unreliable. Although it is possible that some of the specific comments were Y
remembered incorrectly, the strong preponderance of the evidence indicates that Allison was ‘
inappropriately sexual in his conversations with his female students. ‘i
For this reason, the Commission again appropriately wants assurances that such boundary j
violations would not happen in the future if Allison’s license were reinstated. Allison has not l
presented sufficient evidence of his current fitness to teach, so the denial must be affirrned. ‘
l
Allison’s Offer. At the end of the hearing, during his closing argument, Allison
indicated his willingness to undergo a psycho-sexual evaluation with the expert of the
Commission’s choice, and would be willing to receive additional training in boundaries, to work
with a mentor, and to accept probationary status, in order to return to teaching. .
From his impassioned plea, and fi'om his demeanor throughout the hearing, it is clear that
Allison loves teaching, connects well with students, and has much to offer in the field of
education. It is also clear that, at least in the past, he has made serious errors in how he has
approached students. I have no doubt that, if Allison had been aware of the Commission’s desire
for the additional testing, he would have undergone the testing before the hearing. At this time, ‘
however, the evidence lacks the testing the Commission would need to consider Allison fit to 1'
teach. i
The conclusion that Allison has failed to present sufficient evidence of his fitness to teach t
at this time is not a conclusion that he is‘ unfit to teach, or that he cannot obtain the requisite i
assurances fi'om appropriate professionals in the future. It is a statement about the present state ‘
of the evidence. Allison has the burden to show he is fit to teach, but until he obtains the i
appr0priate professional evaluations, and can otherwise give the Commission assurances that he 1
is fit to teach, he has failed to carry that burden. i
ORDER ‘
I propose the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission issue the following order: i
That the Notice of Denial of License Reinstatement dated November 16, 2011 be ,
AFFIRMED. j
l
' Rick Barber i
Administrative Law Judge :
Office of Administrative Hearings l
i
i'
l
f
In the Matter of Michael]. Allison, OAH Case No: 1202694 i
Page 8 of 10 i

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:
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
250 Division Street NE ~
Salem OR 97301
The Commission need not allow oral argument. The Executive Director may permit oral
argument in those cases in which the Director believes oral argument may be appropriate or
helpful to the Commissioners in making a final determination. If oral argument is allowed, the
Commission will inform you of the time and place for presenting oral argument.
In the Matter 0fMichaelJ. Allison, OAH Case No. 1202694 .-
Page 9 of 10

l
1

1 V V serif i W.i— i H’ if’ V if Ni 7 V V V . .7 . . i .7 .iwvfl V V a '1 I l

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING i
l

On February 11, 2013, I mailed the foregoing PROPOSED ORDER issued on this date in OAH i
Case N0. 1202694. 1
By: First Class and Certified Mail 1
Certified Mail Receipt # 7012 1640 0000 6325 6119 RECEIVED 1
l

Michael Allison FEB 1 2 2013 1
11202 57th Ave SE 1
Everett WA 98208 Teacher Standards 8t i

Practices Commission

By: First Class Mail i
l

Jeff Van Laanen
Teacher Standards & Practices Commission ‘

250 Division Street NE

Salem OR 97301 1
l

1

Raul Ramirez l
Senior Assistant Attorney General l
Department of Justice l
1162 Court St NE l
Salem OR 97301-4096 1
l

Ryan Clark 1
Administrative Specialist
Hearing Coordinator
i

1

In the Matter of Michael J. Allison, OAH Case No. 1202694 - l
Page 10 of 10 l