BEFORE THE
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
STATE OF OREGON

IN THE MATTER OF : ) FINAL ORDER

)

)
MICHAEL JOHN ALLISON ) OAl-l Case N0.: 1403652

This matter came before the Commission during its regularly scheduled meeting
of June 21, 2016 to consider the Proposed Order issued by Senior Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) Monica Whitaker. Respondent did not file exceptions to the proposed order.
Based on the foregoing, The Commission adopts the attached Proposed Order as
the Final Order and denies Michael Allison’s February 13, 2013 Application for
Reinstatement.
i It is so Ordered this 57M day of July, 2016.
l
CWUIA/ M
Monica Beane, Executive Director
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS

You are entitled to judicial review of this order. Judicial review may be obtained by
filing a petition for review within 60 days of the service of this order. Judicial review is
pursuant to the provision of ORS 183.482 to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
Certificate of Mailing — NAOMI D. LEAVITT
Data classification level l - Public

l On July // {é , 2016. I mailed the foregoing Ruling on Motion for Summary Determination
i and Amended Proposed Order in OAH Case No. 1403943 to:
By: U.S. First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested 7015 3010 0002 3171 0913
Michael John Allison
11728 54"‘ Drive SE
Everett, WA 98208
By: Shuttle
Raul Ramirez
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem OR 97301-4096
Monica Whitaker
Office of Administrative Hearings
7995 SW Mohawk St.
Tualatin, OR 97062
Patty Sgdon
Investigative Assistant
Certificate of Mailing — Michael John Allison
Data Classification Level: l ~ Public ‘

‘ AU; 01 @1514 1
BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
I A. > STATE OF OREGON
i " ' i for the '
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
In the Matter of: ) PROPOSED ORDER
‘ )
‘ MICHAEL JOHN ALLISON ) OAH Case N0.: 1403652
HISTORY OF THE CASE
On October 31, 2013, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (Commission)
issued a Notice of Denial of Licensure Reinstatement and Opportunity for Hearing to Michael
John Allison. On December 16, 2013, Mr. Allison requested a hearing. On April 4, 2014, the
Commission referred the case to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).
The OAH assigned the case to Senior Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Rick Barber.
ALJ Barber convened a telephone preheating conference on June 3, 2014. Senior Assistant
Attorney General Raul Ramirez represented the Commission. Mr. Allison represented himself.
The OAH reassigned the case to Senior ALJ Monica A. Whitaker on or about June 20,
2014. ALJ Whitaker convened a hearing in Salem, Oregon, on July 21, 2014. Mr. Ramirez
represented the Commission. Mr. Allison represented himself. The following witnesses testified
during the hearing: Mr. Allison; Commission Legal Liaison Jeffery VanLaanen; Fran F erder,
Ph.D.; and Catherine Kouchakji.
ALJ Whitaker lefi the hearing record open to allow the Commission to submit a copy of
Exhibit A40. ALJ Whitaker received Exhibit A40 on July 22, 2014 and closed the record on that
date.
ISSUES
1. Whether Michael John Allison established his fitness to serve as an educator. ORS
342.143(2),f0rmer1 OAR 584-050-0005(1)(a) and (b), and former OAR 5 84-050-001 8(4)(d).
2. Whether Michael John Allison’s application for reinstatement 0f his basic teaching
license should be granted or denied. ORS 342.175(4) and former OAR 584-050-0006(1) and
(3)01)-
1 The versions of the rules cited herein were amended by the Commission effective November l3, 2013.
The versions cited herein were in effect at the time the Commission issued the Notice of Denial of
Licensure Reinstatement and Opportunity for Hearing.
In the Matter 0f Michael John Allison, OAH Case N0. 1403652
Page 1 of 16

EVIDENTIARY RULINGS

Exhibits A1 through A40, offered by the Commission, were admitted into the record
without objection. Exhibits R1 through R138, offered by Mr. Allison, were admitted into the
record Without objection.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Mr. Allison became licensed by the Commission on April 1, 2002. Prior to becoming
licensed, he taught at Marist High School in Eugene, a private Catholic school, from 1996
through 2004. Thereafter, he began working at Gresham High School (GHS). In 2005, Mr.
Allison received endorsements from the Commission in Basic Health Education and Basic
Physical Education. (Ex. A36 at 4.)

2. On July 9, 2009, School Resource Officer Taaca, a Gresham police officer, received a
report from the GHS principal of a possible inappropriate physical relationship between Mr.
Allison and a 16-year-old female student, SC.2 The principal had been contacted by another
educator, DD, who was the parent of student HD. HD’s parents had seen a Facebook exchange
between HD and another student, BS, about an intimate relationship between Mr. Allison and
SC. The school district began to investigate the allegations, but at the request of the Gresham
Police Department, delayed its investigation so that the police investigation could take
precedence. (Ex. A36 at 4.)

3. Mr. Allison resigned from his teaching position at GHS on August 24, 2009. In the
spring of 2010, when the Commission began its investigation into the allegations, Mr. Allison
decided to voluntarily surrender his teaching license. (Ex. A36 at 5.)

4. On April 5, 2010, Mr. Allison voluntarily signed a Stipulation of Facts, Surrender and
Final Order of Revocation of Licensure (Stipulation). (Ex. A2.) The Stipulation contained the
following findings of fact:

0 The Commission has licensed Mr. Allison since April 1, 2002. [Mn]
Allison currently holds a Standard Teaching License, with endorsements
in Basic Health and Basic Physical education, issued May 5, 2005 and
valid through October 8, 2010.
I On or about July 9, 2009, the Gresham-Barlow School District officials
received information regarding alleged inappropriate conduct between Mr.
Allison and a female student.
0 Friends of the female student reported to school officials that Mr.
Allison communicated with the female student via text message and cell
phone calls. Friends of the female student characterized this
correspondence as flirtatious.
' Friends of the female student alleged various intimate physical contact
between Mr. Allison and the female student. Mr. Allison denied making
2 All students are referred to by their initials in this Proposed Order to protect their identities.
In the Matter of Michael John Allison, OAH Case No. 1403652
Page 2 of 16

inappropriate physical conduct.

0 A school district investigation uncovered allegations that Mr. Allison

was often alone with the female student during athletic training.

0 Mr. Allison did not report to school district officials the romantic notes
, left on his car by this female student.

0 Gresham-Barlow School District placed Mr. Allison on administrative

leave pending the outcome of the district’s investigation. Mr. Allison

subsequently resigned from the Gresham-Barlow School District on

August 24, 2009.

(Id. at 3.)

5. After surrendering his teaching license, Mr. Allison worked as an assistant football
coach for Rex Putnam High School and Portland State University, and then, in 2011, began
teaching and coaching at Archbishop Murphy High School in Seattle, Washington. (Ex. A36.)
Mr. Allison is no longer employed at Archbishop Murphy High School. (Test. of Allison.)

6. On March 30, 2011, and again on May 20, 2011, Mr. Allison filed applications to
reinstate his teaching license with the Commission. (Ex. A36 at 6; See also Exs. A31 and A32.)

7. On April 1, 2011, Mr. Allison underwent a “Fitness for Work Evaluation” with
psychiatrist Don R. Wiesner, M.D. Mr. Allison discussed boundary issues with Dr. Wiesner, but
did not disclose the circumstances of his resignation from GHS or the circumstances surrounding
the surrender and revocation of his teaching license. (Ex. A33.)

8. On November 16, 2011, the Commission issued a Notice of Denial of License
Reinstatement to Mr. Allison. Mr. Allison requested a contested case hearing. On January 9 and
10, 2013, ALJ Rick Barber of the OAH conducted a contested case hearing. The hearing record
closed at the conclusion of the hearing on January 10, 2013. (Ex. A36 at 1.)

9. On February 7, 2013, Mr. Allison met with licensed psychologist Terry Copeland,
Ph.D. (Ex. A35 at 2-5.) On February 20, 2013, Dr. Copeland prepared a written summary of the
meeting. The summary was based on a two-hour interview of Mr. Allison. (Id. at 2.) In
addition, Dr. Copeland reviewed the Stipulation. (Id) Dr. Copeland did not review the police
reports, the Commission’s investigative reports, or the school’s investigative reports. (Test. of
Allison.)

10. Dr. Copeland’s summary states, in part:

You had contacted me about your teacher’s license that was revoked in
Oregon in 2009. You are now a coach and a teacher * * * and they have
asked for a ‘risk assessment’ and “Fitness for Duty” evaluation based on
the revocation in 2009. The following is a summary of the two hour
interview we had on February 7, 2013. * * * * *. You underwent a
polygraph examination with [Rick] Minnich on February 14, 2013 and his l
report is at the end of this evaluation. You had also provided various
In the Matter of Michael John Allison, OAH Case No. 1403652
Page 3 of 16

documents, including the ‘stipulation of facts, surrender and final order of
revocation of licensure’ from the state of Oregon, dated May 24, 2010.
The following evaluation is written to be reviewed by organizations of
your choice.
* * * * *
I think Mr. Allison failed in a way that many teachers might fail by being
overly friendly and available to students. At the worst I think what Mr.
Allison might be guilty of is boundary violations by allowing cell phone
contact with students he coached or taught or by talking with students
about very personal issues that would have been better left to a mental
health professional.
Regardless, at this point in his life, he seems to have learned many lessons
about setting appropriate boundaries with students and has developed
ways to avoid communications that are solely between himself and his
students, such as using emails and having emails sent to the sports ‘tearn
mother’ and to the athletic director. For example, using the school voice
mail system instead of using his cell phone.
There were stipulations from the State of Oregon for Mr. Allison to
receive a Fitness for Duty Evaluation in order to have his license back,
including seeking a counselor. Mr. Allison gave rne a copy of a letter
from a psychologist that he met with about boundary issues and it appears
he successfully concluded his counseling with Dr. Nelson. This Fitness
for Duty Evaluation was more focused on Whether or not Mr. Allison has a
history of sexual compulsiveness and more to the point of this evaluation,
whether or not Mr. Allison has a history of any sexual contact with minors
in any form or had communicated with minors with sexual intent. At this
point, there is no evidence of Mr. Allison having any sexual contact with
any minor or attempting to have sexual contact with any minor. I believe
that there is no reason why Mr. Allison cannot continue to be an effective
teacher and coach and presents a very low risk for any inappropriate
contact.
(Ex. A35 at 2, 5.)
11. Dr. Copeland’s summary contains an extensive section that reiterates the information
Mr. Allison self-reported to Dr. Copeland. The summary states, in part:
I asked Mr. Allison about the circumstances regarding the revocation of
his license and he stated,
In 2009, I was a coach and a teacher in Gresham, Oregon. I was falsely
accused 0f an inappropriate relationship with a female student. * * * * *.
In the Matter of Michael John Allison, OAII Case No. 1403652
Page 4 of 16
—————¥L

[The allegations were that] I had inappropriate communication with
students through my cell phone. [SC] was one ofthe students that I
allowed to communicate with me on my cell phone, in addition to over 100
kids, mostly my football players. It was found though that there was never
anything communicated that was inappropriate. * * * * *.
TAs were often the girlfi'iends of football players and the girls would often
talk to me about their personal problems. Occasionally sexual issues
came up, like one of the girls thought she was pregnant. I never referred
them on to their parents or a counselor. At the review hearing, they found
that I was ‘counseling’ without a license. I ’m aware that this was a
boundary violation and that I was wrong. There were other times when
the kids would ask me questions about my past that were sexual in nature
and I would respond by telling them not to make the some mistakes I made
or witnessed others make. I realize that those types of interactions with
students are inappropriate. There has to be clearly defined boundaries of
communication at all times. Also, I ’d joke, play stunts. * * * * *. A lot of
myjokes were perhaps misunderstood as ‘dirty jokes, ’ almost sexual in
nature. * * * * *.
* * * >I< >I<

Mr. Allison has worked with three schools since his time in Gresham,
Oregon. He was recruited and worked as a volunteer at Rex Putnam high
school in Oregon. He again was recruited to work in a paid position at
Portland State University and worked from the spring of 2011 until May
2012, when he was offered his current job at Archbishop Murphy. * * * *
*. Mr. Allison reflected on the above investigation and said,
I should not have allowed the kids to call or text me by phone. (Question:
How else could you do this?) I could use the school email system or the
school ’s voicemail system to leave a paper trail. Now any email I write, I
send a copy to the ‘team mother’ and to the athletic director...I ’ve also
made a decision to not have any female TAs, have any personal
conversations with students involving their extra[]curricular lives, or be
in any compromising situations.

(Ex. A35 at 3-4; italics in original.)

12. Dr. Copeland’s summary contains the following information regarding the polygraph

examination Mr. Allison underwent on February 14, 2013:
The test consisted of the following three relevant questions, to all of which
he responded “NO”:

In the Matter ofMichael John Allison, OAH Case No. 1403652

Page 5 of 16 .

.——__—_———_

I) Have you engaged in sexual contact with anyone under the age of I 8
since your 20”’ birthday?
2) Have you even communicated sexually with anyone under the age of 1 8
since your 20”’ birthday?
3) Have you masturbated to thoughts of anyone under the age of18 since
your 20‘ birthday?
After scoring the polygraph charts, it was my [Dr. Copeland ’s] opinion
that the physiological responses indicated Mr. Allison answered truthfully
to the questions, NO DECPETION WAS INDICATED.
(Ex. A35 at 5; italics and emphasis in original.)
13. On February 1 1, 2013, the OAH issued a Proposed Order, in which ALJ Barber
affirmed the Commission’s November 16, 2011 Notice 0f Denial of License Reinstatement. (Ex. t
A36 at 3-12)
14. On or about February 27, 2013, Mr. Allison submitted an Application for Education
License or Registration 4 Fonn C-l (Application) to the Commission. (Ex. A34.) On the
Application, Mr. Allison noted that he wanted his revoked teaching license reinstated. (Id. at 2.)
15. On March 14, 2013, the Commission received a letter from Mr. Allison regarding his
Application. (Ex. A34 at 6-4.) In the letter, Mr. Allison stated, in part:
I never violated any laws of the State of Oregon, and was not arrested,
charged, or convicted of any crime. However, I do feel there were
communication boundaries that were broken with students, and for that I
take full responsibility. In my efforts to mentor and help kids with
problems they were dealing with, the means of communication I was using
was not the method I should’ve used as an educator. Although there was
never any inappropriate material communicated to students, I can see now
how students, parents, and educators can take commrmications with
students thru cell phone use in the wrong way. It isn’t professional and
the communication can be misinterpreted and/or misunderstood. I have
learned that although this is how kids communicate these days, there
should never ever be any communication with cell phone use between
teachers and students. The perception alone of this kind of
communication can lead to a number of different problems, which is the
case here. There has to be clearly defined boundaries between a teacher
and his/her students. I realize that now and will never allow students to
communicate with me in that manner again.

(Id. at 6.)

16. Along with the letter, Mr. Allison submitted a “Plan of Action” (Plan). (Ex. A34.)

The Plan proposed the following:

In the Matter of Michael JohnAllison, OAH Case N0. 1403652

Page 6 of 16

1. Alter my teaching license is reinstated, 1 will continue to receive
additional counseling 0n a quarterly basis (every 3 months) to demonstrate
and monitor that my conduct is in good standing, and that l clearly
understand and have established/maintained professional communication
boundaries with student (i.e. no communication thru private cell phone, no
verbal bantering, no conversations w/students about private life, always
refer students to counseling office when appropriate, etc.).
2. While employed as a teacher, I will recommend to the administration
of the school to be assigned to a mentor teacher to also monitor my
progress conduct to make sure everything is going well. The mentor
teacher will be older than me and will be someone that can offer me
advice on any given situation within the educational realm.
3. I will never again be assigned to any female teacher’s aides during the
remainder of my teaching career. If I need a TA, it will be male students
only (preferably my football players).
4. Forms of communication with students/parents will only be done thru
my school server email address and will be CC’d to a parent and/0r school
administrator. And, any phone calls that need to be made will be done
thru the school phone. If students/parents need to leave me a message
they can call my school extension and leave a voicemail there. Or they
can email me through my school email.
5. I am open to any other parameters that Executive Director Victoria
Chamberlain, the Commission, and TSPC would like to add to this plan of
action.
(Ia1 at 11.)
17. On May 31, 2013, the Commission issued a Final Order adopting ALJ Barber’s
Proposed Order in its entirety and denying Mr. Allison’s application for reinstatement of
' licensure. (Ex. A36 at l.)
18. 1n the Proposed Order, ALJ Barber following pertinent findings of fact:
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 Allison’s interactions with other female
students. Students told police and district investigators the following:
n 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;”
0 Student HD had seen “really inappropriate” text messages between SC
and Allison, and had been told by another friend, AR, that Allison made
AR get her hall pass from his lap/crotch area where he had placed it;
, Student SR refused to become a TA for Allison because her friends told
In the Matter of Michael John Allison, OAH Case No. 1403652
Page 7 of l6

her Allison was a “creeper;”
~ 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;”
0 Student LC relayed that SC told her that Allison had kissed and
“fingered” her;
v Students Nl-l 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 the boyfriends. MG stated that, alter 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 after that conversation;
I 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 that
he would help her select what to wear for senior pictures if AF would do a
“strip tease” for him;
. 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.”
I 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 0n 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.
(Ex. A36 at 5.)
19. In the Proposed Order, ALJ Barber opined, in part:
The Commission’s challenge to Allison’s fitness at the present time is
essentially two-pronged, focusing on the alleged inappropriate physical
contact between Allison and two students * * *, as well as on the sexually
charged communications with female students that came to light during
the investigations. For both reasons, the Commission would not reinstate -
Allison’s license without strong assurances that he is not a danger to
students. Among other things, the Commission would require a
psycho[]sexual evaluation and some 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
In the Matter of Michael .lohn Allison, OAH Case No. 1403652
Page 8 of 16

the Commission to consider reinstating Allison’s license t0 teach.
* * * * *
Under a preponderance standard, the evidence 0f intimate physical contact '
between Allison and the two students, J B and SC, is substantial but
inconclusive. SC and Allison deny any contact in 2009. JB said there was
physical contact at Marist [High School] 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 such contact *
* *, but agree that the practical effect of the stipulate license surrender,
under the cloud of that investigation, means that the Commission may
assume that the contact took place [footnote omitted].
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 [the] license, it is a
reasonable requirement by the Commission.
* * * =1l *
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. *
* *
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 * * *. 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 ‘
In the Matter of Michael JohnAllison, OAH Case No. 1403652
Page 9 of l 6

evidence comes from so many independent sources and contains so many
similarities that I find his denials to be unreliable. Although it is possible
that some of the specific comments were remembered incorrectly, the
strong preponderance of the evidence indicates that Allison was
inappropriately sexual in his conversations with his female students.
For this reason, the Commission again appropriately wants assurances that
such boundary violations would not happen in the future if Allison’s
license were reinstated. Allison has not presented sufficient evidence of
his current fitness to teach, so the denial must be affirrned.

(Ex. A36 at 8-10.)

20. Fran Ferder received her master’s degree in psychology and her Ph.D. in clinical
psychology from Loyola University. Dr. Ferder served as a licensed clinical psychologist in the
state of Washington from 1987 until she retired her license there in 2014. She has been a
licensed psychologist in the state of Oregon since 1990. She served on the Ethics Committee for
the Board of Psychologists in Washington. In 2010, she was appointed by the Governor of
Oregon to the Oregon Board of Psychologist Examiners (Board). In June 2013, she was elected
Board chair. (Ex. A39 at 1.) Dr. Ferder provides psychotherapy to adults and victims of sexual l
abuse and conducts psychosexual assessments. (Test. of Ferder.)

21. In Dr. Ferder’s professional opinion, a psychosexual assessment includes
consideration 0f the history of allegations, extensive interviewing of the individual being
assessed (typically two to four hours), a polygraph examination with a minimum of 10 questions,
and psychiatric testing, including examinations such as the MMPI-2.3 In addition, an assessment
may include interviewing the alleged victim(s). (Test. of Ferder.)

22. The Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), an internationally
recognized organization, publishes a series of standards for evaluators and those providing
treatment t0 sex offenders and victims of sexual offenses. Those standards include reviewing a
complete history, conducting an interview, and performing psychometric testing (which could
include a polygraph). Following standards, such as those set by ATSA, make an assessment
more credible. (Test. of Ferder.)

23. In preparation for this contested case hearing, Dr. Ferder reviewed the Commission’s
exhibits, including Dr. Copeland’s report, the police interviews, the transcript from the January 9
and 10, 2013 contested case hearing, the applications for reinstatement submitted by Mr. Allison,
the Plan he submitted, and the Final Order of May 30, 2013. (Test. of Ferder.)

. 24. In Dr. Ferder’s professional opinion, the February 20, 2013 report prepared by Dr.
Copeland is not a psychosexual assessment. Dr. Ferder reached this conclusion because the
report does not contain any indication that Dr. Copeland reviewed the entire history of the case,
including police reports and the investigational interviews; the report is very brief; it appears that
Dr. Copeland accepted Mr. Allison’s answers to his questions as fact and wrote them down
3 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

In the Matter of Michael John Allison, OAH Case N0. 1403652
Page 10 of 16

l

l
without any independent verification; and the polygraph questions are very generic rather than
specific to the allegations against Mr. Allison. In addition, Dr. Copeland’s report does not state
that it is intended as a psychosexual assessment. (Test. of Ferder.)

25. ln Dr. Ferder’s professional opinion, Mr. Allison minimized the events that led to the
revocation of his license to Dr. Copeland and made no reference or statements to show empathy
towards his alleged victims. Dr. Ferder believes that Mr. Allison has engaged in a great deal of
“reflect and deflect” by avoiding discussing topics related to the revocation of his license that
make him feel uncomfortable. In addition, Dr. Ferder believes that Mr. Allison blames his
alleged victims for his situation and engages in narcissistic behavior by making statements that
are self-focused (e. g. he wants to have his teaching license reinstated because he is passionate
about teaching). Based on Dr. Ferder’s impressions, these are the characteristics of a sex
offender. (Test. of Ferder.)

26. During the hearing, Mr. Allison testified and maintained that he is a good teacher and
coach, and acknowledged that he should not have allowed students to communicate with his via
text messaging. He continued to disagree with the statements the students gave t0 Gresham
Police Department officers during the 2009 investigation. (Test. of Allison.)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

l. Michael John Allison has not established his fitness to serve as an educator.

2. Michael John Allison’s application for reinstatement of his basic teaching license
should be denied.

OPINION

The Commission has denied Mr. Allison’s application to reinstate his basic teaching
license. The Commission alleges that Mr. Allison failed to establish his fitness as an educator.
Pursuant to former OAR 584-050-0018, Mr. Allison bears the burden to establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that he is fit for reinstatement of his teaching license. Proof by a
preponderance of the 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, 402
(1987).

ORS 342.143(2) provides:

The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may require an
applicant for a teaching, personnel service or administrative license or for
registration as a public charter school teacher or administrator to furnish
evidence satisfactory to the commission of good moral character, mental
and physical health, and such other evidence as it may deem necessary to
establish the applicant’s fitness to serve as a teacher or administrator.

In the Matter of Michael John Allison, OAH Case No. 1403652

Page ll of 16

ORS 342.175(4) provides:

Except for convictions for crimes listed in ORS 342.143 (3) and subject to
subsection (5) of this section, any person whose license or registration has
been suspended 0r revoked or whose privilege to apply for a license 0r
registration has been revoked may apply to the commission for
reinstatement of the license or registration after one year from the date of
the suspension or revocation. The commission may require an applicant
for reinstatement to furnish evidence satisfactory to the commission of
good moral character, mental and physical health and such other evidence
as the commission may consider necessary to establish the applicant’s
fitness. The commission may impose a probationary period and such

l conditions as it considers necessary upon approving an application for
reinstatement.

Pursuant to the authority granted to the Commission in ORS 342.143(2), the Commission
has adopted an administrative rule, OAR 584-050-0005, which lists the necessary criteria for the
granting of licenses. Former OAR 584-050-0005 provided, in part:

(1) The Executive Director may issue licenses or registrations, grant
reinstatements, and renew licenses or registrations when each of the
following conditions exists:
>r< * * =r * l
(a) All requirements established by law and rules have been met;
(b) The applicant has attained at least eighteen years of age and has
furnished evidence satisfactory to TSPC of fitness t0 serve as an
education[.]
Former OAR 584-050-0006 provided, in part:
(l) The Executive Director may deny * * * reinstatement of a license * *
* under the conditions set forth in subsection (3) below:
* =l= * * *
(3) Notice of denial and right to a hearing may be issued by the Executive
Director when any of the following conditions exist:
* * * * *
(d) The Executive Director has evidence that the applicant may lack
fitness to serve as an educator.
In the Matter of Michael John Allison, OAH Case N0. 1403652
Page 12 of l6 ,

Former OAR 584-050-0018(4) provided, in part:

The application for reinstatement must include:
ll‘ * =I< * *

(d) Any additional documentation, sufficient to establish convincingly
that the educator possesses all of the qualifications required for first
licensure or reinstatement of a license, certificate or registration. Letters
of recommendation from educator colleagues are insufficient alone to
establish fitness for licensure following a revocation. The educator must
be clear regarding what proactive steps have been taken to ensure to the
Commission that the conduct that resulted in the revocation is highly
unlikely to occur again.

In support of his application for reinstatement of his teaching license, Mr. Allison offers
what he purports is a psychosexual assessment from Dr. Copeland. This report, which was
prepared afier the conclusion of the January 2013 administrative hearing, but before the
Commission issued a Final Order, was based in large part on the self-reported statements Mr.
Allison made to Dr. Copeland. Mr. Allison characterized the allegations against him as having
“inappropriate communication with student through my cell phone.” Exhibit A35 at 3. He
reported that he acted as a counselor to his students and that this was a boundary violation.

The Commission offered the testimony of an expert, Dr. Ferder, who persuasively
testified that a psychosexual assessment includes consideration of the history of allegations,
extensive interviewing of the individual being assessed, a polygraph examination, and
psychiatric testing, including examinations such as the MMPI-2. Dr. Ferder also testified that
ATSA, an internationally recognized organization, publishes a series of professional standards
for evaluators and those providing treatment to sex offenders and victims of sexual offenses.
Those standards include reviewing a complete history and interview and performing
psychometric testing. As Dr. Ferder explained, following standards such as those published by
ATSA make an assessment more credible.

Particularly troubling with Dr. Copeland’s report is that it does not indicate that he
reviewed, in any detail, the police reports, the Commission’s investigative reports, or the .
school’s investigative reports. It appears that the only document Dr. Copeland reviewed was the
Stipulation. Other than the polygraph, the report does not contain any evidence that Dr.
Copeland conducted any other testing, such as the MMPI-2. The report contains numerous
statements Mr. Allison made to Dr. Copeland, many of which are self-serving. Dr. Ferder
testified, and I agree, that it appears Dr. Copeland accepted Mr. Allison’s answers to his
questions as fact and wrote them down in the report without any independent verification. In his

' statements to Dr. Copeland, Mr. Allison minimized the allegations that led to his voluntary
surrender and revocation of his teaching license. He was not forthright and candid with Dr.
Copeland regarding the reasons for the surrender and revocation of his teaching license. He self-
reported only limited information to Dr. Copeland regarding the reasons for the surrender and
In the Matter of Michael John Allison, OAH Case No. 1403652
Page 13 of 16

revocation ofhis license.4

For the aforementioned reasons, I agree with Dr. F erder’s opinion that Dr. Copeland’s
report is not a psychosexual assessment. Additionally, Dr. Copeland’s conclusions are not
persuasive in light of the limited information he gathered and because his conclusions were
primarily based on Mr. Allison’s self-serving statements that are not supported by the evidentiary
record.

In the Commission’s May 31, 2013 Final Order, the Commission adopted ALJ Barber’s
Proposed Order. That Proposed Order concluded that 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. * * * * *. 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” Exhibit A36 at 9.
In his written statement to the Commission in March 2013, Mr. Allison continued to minimize
the allegations against him. He maintained that “[i]n my efforts to mentor and help kids with
problems they were dealing with, the means of communication I was using was not the method I
should’ve used as an educator. Although there was never any inappropriate material
communicated to students, I can see now how students, parents, and educators can take
communications with students thru cell phone use in the wrong way.” Exhibit A34 at 6. Mr.
Allison seems to believe that the only boundary violation in which he engaged centered on
communicating with students via text messaging. Mr. Allison is incorrect, and the
Commission’s Final Order makes it clear that he engaged in inappropriate, sexually explicit
conversations with his female students.

By continuing to minimize the behavior in which he engaged, Mr. Allison fails to
demonstrate an ability to take proactive steps to ensure to the Commission that his prior conduct
is highly unlikely to occur again. He continues to maintain that the allegations against him are
false, that the Stipulation he voluntarily signed contained errors, and that he deserves a second
chance from the Commission. He continues to maintain his innocence and blames his alleged
victims and the Commission for his current situation. At the hearing, Mr. Allison testified that
he lost his job at Archbishop Murphy because the Commission would not reinstate his license.
He blamed his former students and offered various hypotheses for the reasons they would allege
that he behaved inappropriately toward them. Mr. Allison only acknowledges that he should not
have given his cell phone number to students or communicated with them via text messaging.
However, he takes no other responsibility for his communications with the students.

Finally, in support of his Application, Mr. Allison submitted numerous letters from
educators, parents, and former students. The majority of these letters are dated prior t0 the
January 2013 administrative hearing and attest to Mr. Allison’s ability to serve as an educator.
While it is unclear whether the Commission considered these letters when it rendered the May
4 When Mr. Allison underwent the “Fitness for Work Evaluation” in April 201 I with Dr. Wiesner, Mr.
Allison did not disclose to Dr. Wiesner the reasons for his resignation from GHS or the surrender of his
license. This further demonstrates Mr. Allison’s unwillingness to be forthright and candid with an
evaluating professional regarding the circumstances that led to the surrender and revocation of his
teaching license.

In the Matter 0f Michael John Allison, OAH Case No. 1403652
Page l4 of l6 .

-—-—-_-_———————.
31, 2013 Final Order, OAR 584-050-0018(4)(d) provides that letters of recommendation from
educators are insufficient to establish fitness for licensure. Thus, even if consideration is given
to these letters now, they are not sufficient evidence 0f Mr. Allison’s fitness for licensure.

For all of these reasons, Mr. Allison has failed to prove his fitness for licensure as an
educator, and the Commission should deny his Application.
ORDER
I propose the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission issue the following order:
The Notice of Denial of License Reinstatement and Opportunity for Hearing, issued by
the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission on October 31, 2013, is AFFIRMED. Michael
John Allison’s February 27, 2013 Application for Education License or Registration — Form C-l
is hereby DENIED.
Monica A. Whitaker
Senior Administrative Law Judge
Office 0f Administrative Hearings
EXCEPTIONS
The proposed order is the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation to the Teacher
Standards and Practices Commission (Commission). If you disagree with any part of this
proposed order, you may file written objections, called "exceptions," t0 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 Commission
250 Division Street NE
Salem, OR 97301
The Commission need not allow oral argument. The Executive Director may permit oral
argument in those eases 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 of Michael John Allison, OAH Case No. 1403652
Page 15 of 16
.-

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
On July 31, 2014 I mailed the foregoing PROPOSED ORDER issued on this date in OAH Case
No. 1403652.
By: First Class and Certified Mail
Certified Mail Receipt #7013 2630 0002 3662 2221
Michael Allison
11202 57th Ave SE
Everett WA 98208-8717
By: First Class Mail
Jeff VanLaanen
Teacher Standards & Practices Commission
250 Division Street NE
Salem OR 97301
Raul Ramirez
Senior Assistant Attomey General
Department of Justice
1162 Court St NE
Salem OR 97301-4096
Ryan Clark
Administrative Specialist
Hearing Coordinator
In the Matter ofMichael John Allison, OAH Case No. 1403652 i
Page l6 of l6