' BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of the Teaching License of: ) FlNAL ORDER
)
CHAD MICHAEL WESTOVER ) Office of Administrative
) Hearings Case No. 117883
On March ll, 2005, Administrative Law Judge Peter A. Rader issued a Proposed
Order in this case.
The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission adopts the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and sanction contained in the attached Proposed Order.
ORDER
The Commission adopts the Proposed Order and revokes Chad Michael '
. Westover’s teaching license. '
. 1
Dated this Q8,” day of April 2005.
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
-yt , mg/ 1/‘ A ‘I 14
Victoria Chamber -, xecutive Director
NOTICE: If you are dissatisfied with this Order you may not appeal it until you
have asked the agency to rehear the case or to reconsider the Order. To obtain agency
rehearing or reconsideration you must file a petition for rehearing or reconsideration
pursuant to OAR 584-019—0045 within 60 days from the day this Order was served on
you. If this Order was personally delivered to you, the date of service is the day you ,
received the Order. If this Order was mailed to you, the date of service was the day it
was mailed, not the day you received it. If you do not file a petition for rehearing or
reconsideration within the time limits provided, you will lose your opportunity for
rehearing or reconsideration and you will lose your right to appeal to the Oregon Court of
‘ Appeals.
Page l - FINAL ORDER-—Chad Michael Westover

. If, after you have filed a petition for rehearing or reconsideration, the agency
issues an Order that you are dissatisfied with, you have a right to appeal that Order to the
Oregon Court of Appeals pursuant to ORS 183.482.

If, 6O days after you have filed a petition for rehearing or reconsideration, the
agency has not issued an Order, your petition will be considered denied and at that time
you will have the right to appeal the original Order to the Oregon Court of Appeals
pursuant to ORS 183.480 and ORS 183.482. To appeal you must file a petition for
judicial review with the Court of Appeals within 60 days from the day that your petition
for rehearing or reconsideration is deemed denied. If you do not file a petition for
judicial review within the 60-day time period. you will lose your right to appeal. y

Page 2 — FINAL ORDER—Chad Michael Westover

BEFORE THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
. STATE OF OREGON
for the
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE REVOCATION ) PROPOSED ORDER
OF THE TEACHING LICENSE OF ) Kg ‘
)OAHNo. 117883 REC"'VED
CHAD MICHAEL WESTOVER ) MM 1 A 7996
Teacher Standards 8t
HISTORY OF THE CASE Practices Commission
On May l3, 2004, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (T SPC) served Chad
Michael Westover (Mr. Westover), with a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing and Notice of
Contested Case Rights and Procedures alleging that he engaged in professional misconduct while
teaching in Oregon’s public school system. Mr. Westover timely requested a hearing on May 27,
2004.
On September 23, 2004, the TSPC ﬁled an Amended Notice of Hearing and, the
following day, referred the matter to the Ofﬁce of Administrative Hearings (OAH), for a
contested case hearing. On December 7, 2004, the OAH ﬁled a Notice of Hearing and assigned
. the case t0 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Peter A. Rader.
The hearing was held in Salem, Oregon on January 5, 2005. Mr. Westover appeared
without counsel and testiﬁed on his own behalf. He waived his right to a private hearing
pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 342.1770). The TSPC was represented by Assistant
Attorney General, Joe Gordon McKeever. Testifying in person for the TSPC was former Harold
Oliver Elementary School Principal Charlene Harris, and TSCP Investigator Susan Nisbet.
Testifying via telephone for the TSPC was Fernwood Middle School Principal Linda Kapranos,
Alternative Placement Specialist Shauna Hermann, Sunnyside Elementary School Principal
Larry Whitson, and Harold Oliver Middle School Principal Kimberly Tomlinson.
ISSUES
1. Whether Mr. Westover’s conduct, while substitute teaching for the Multnomah
Education District in April 1998, was a gross neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-
0040(4)(d) and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n)l.
2. Whether Mr. Westover’s conduct, while teaching a physical education class at
Sunnyside Elementary School in the Portland Public School District in April 2002, was a gross
neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(d) and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n).
’ ‘ OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) incorporates OAR 584-020-0030(2) by reference.
In the Matter of Chad Michael Westover, OAH Case No‘ 117883
Page l of 12

. 3. Whether Mr. Westover’s conduct, while teaching a physical education class at Beach
Elementary School in the Portland Public School District on March 7, 2002, was a gross neglect
of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(d).

4. Whether Mr. Westover’s conduct, while substitute teaching at Harold Oliver
Intermediate School in the Centennial School District on December 1, 2003, was a gross neglect
of duty in violation of Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 584-020-0040(4)(d).

EVIDENTIARY RULING

Exhibits A-l through A-23 were offered by the TSPC at hearing and admitted into the
record without objection. At hearing, the TSPC ﬁled a Second Amended Notice, Exhibit A-24,
which was admitted into the record without objection from Mr. Westover. The hearing
concluded on January 5, 2005, but the record remained open to allow for the submission of
additional evidence, including Exhibit A-25, the TSPC’s Notice of Opportunity for Hearing and
Notice of Contested Case Rights and Procedures, dated May 13, 2004, which was admitted into
the record without objection. Mr. Westover’s performance evaluations, identiﬁed as Exhibits R-
1 through R-6, were also admitted into the record after the hearing without objection. The record
closed on January 26, 2005.

FINDINGS OF FACT
. 1. The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC), is a State agency with
jurisdiction over licensing and discipline matters involving teachers and school administrators in
Oregon. (ORS chapter 342.175 — 190, OAR chapter 584, division 20, test. of S. Nisbet).

2. At all relevant times in this matter, Mr. Westover was duly licensed as a either a basic
contract teacher or a substitute teacher in Oregon’s public school system. (Ex. A-l , test. of S.
Nisbet and C. Westover).

3. Between 1998 and 2004, Mr. Westover worked a total of 56 days as a substitute
teacher and two years as a full time contract physical education teacher at Beach and Sunnyside
Elementary Schools. (Ex. A-3, test. of S. Nisbet).

4. In April of 1998, while substitute teaching in the Multnomah Education District’s
Early Childhood and Special Education Program at David Douglas School, Mr. Westover liﬁed
an autistic child from the ﬂoor in order to stop the child’s tantrum. That same day, Mr. Westover
twirled an autistic child around while waiting for the bus, after twice being told not t0 do s0 by a
teacher’s aide and mockingly referred to the student as a vegetable and a carrot. Autistic children
require greater care in their physical handling than regular children. (Ex. A-22, test. of S.
Hormann).

5. As a result 0f these incidents, Mr. Westover was removed from the list of eligible
substitute teachers for this school district. (Ex. A-21). Later that month, Mr. Westover submitted

’ his resignation letter from the Multnomah Education School District. (Ex. A-20).

In the Matter of Chad Michael Westover, OAH Case NO. 117883
Page 2 of l2

. 6. In April 2002, while employed as a contract physical education teacher at Sunnyside
' Elementary School, Mr. Westover became impatient with a student who was taking her time
climbing down from playground equipment. He yelled at the student and proceeded to pull her
off the climbing bar by the waist, leaving a temporary red mark around her mid-section, but did
not otherwise physically injure the student. (Ex. A-18, test. of L. Whitson and C. Westover).

7. As a result of this incident, Mr. Westover received a verbal reprimand from the
school’s principal, directing him not to yell at, or put his hands on, students for disciplinary
purposes. (Ex. A-18, test. of L. Whitson and C. Westover).

3. On March 7, 2002, while employed as a contract physical education teacher at Beach
Elementary School, Mr. Westover planted his hand ﬁrmly on the back of a chair to stop a student
who was making it bounce. Sensing that she was in trouble, the student slid off the chair,
whereupon Mr. Westover shoved it across the room, a distance of around 25 feet, causing it to
clatter and fall over. (Ex. A-19, test. of L. Kapranos and C. Westover). As a result of this
incident, Mr. Westover received a letter of reprimand from the school’s principal. (Ex. A-19, test.
of L. Kapranos).

9. Frustrated by what he perceived as the school administrators’ failure to impose student
discipline, and the undue inﬂuence of certain parents on school policies, Mr. Westover resigned
from the Portland Public School District, effective June l4, 2002, but re-applied and was re-
registered as a substitute teacher on or about October 7, 2002. (Exs. A-l, A-l7, test. of S.

. Nisbet).
10. On November 21, 2003, while working as a substitute teacher at Centennial Middle
School, Mr. Westover asked a student if his mother drank while pregnant with him; a remark
prompted by the student’s facial anomaly. The question was interpreted by the school’s staff as
suggesting that the student suffered from alcohol fetal syndrome. (Exs. A-l l, A-l2, A-14, test. of
K. Tomlinson). In response to questioning by the school’s principal, Mr. Westover admitted
lying about the incident. (Test. of C. Westover).

ll. As a result of this incident, Mr. Westover was removed from that school’s list of

eligible substitute teachers. (Exs. A-l l, A-12, A-14, test. of K. Tomlinson).

12. On December l, 2003, the following incidents occurred while Mr. Westover was
working as a substitute teacher at Harold Oliver Intermediate School in the Centennial School
District of Portland:

(a) Before entering class that day, Mr. Westover was provided a written lesson plan
that included instructions for dealing with a particular 6th grade student, who was
subsequently diagnosed as a special education candidate with emotional problems. The
regular teacher’s lesson plan advised against cornering this student. The school’s
principal also advised him not t0 touch this student and that if there were problems he

' was to call for assistance. (Exs. A-7, A-15, test. of C. Harris).
1n the Matter of Chad Michael Westover, OAH Case No. 117883
Page 3 of 12

(b) The student was later caught using rubber bands to shoot paper wads at other
. students. When he refused to turn them over, Mr. Westover squeezed his hand until he

was forced to release them, leaving a red mark on the student’s hand. (Exs. A-7, A-13

pages 4 — 6, A-15, A-l6, test. of C. Harris and C. Westover).

(c) Later that day, in a gesture meant to provoke, the same student reﬁised to stop
tapping his pencil on his desk. When Mr. Westover reached over to stop the activity, the
student reacted by striking Mr. Westover, who then applied an immobilizing wrestling
hold on the student (called a cradle hold), and carried him across the room before calling
for assistance on the intercom. (Exs. A-7, A-13, A-15, A-l6, test. of C. Harris and C.
Westover).

(d) The student management specialist working in the classroom that day overheard
Mr. Westover telling students to shut up, and was observed by students and staff using a
cell phone for personal business during school hours; a violation of school policy. (Ex.
A-7, test. of C. Harris).
l3. Mr. Westover was advised of the inappropriateness of his conduct and the incidents

were recorded in a January 26, 2004, memorandum by the principal. As a result of these

incidents, Mr. Westover was removed from the list of eligible substitute teachers in the

Centennial School District. (Exs. A-7, A-lO, test. of C. Harris).

14. During the course of this investigation, Mr. Westover was referred by the TSPC to a

. qualiﬁed therapist for an evaluation regarding possible anger management issues. (Ex. A-4, test.

of S. Nisbet). Mr. Westover was dissatisﬁed with the comments and ﬁndings of that therapist

and sought out Clinical Psychologist Paul Brown, PhD. (Exs. A-6, A-8, A-9, test. of C.

Westover and S. Nisbet).

15. Dr. Brown’s report states that Mr. Westover acknowledged his difﬁculties in the
classroom, particularly as they related to the issues of discipline as enforced by the schools, and
that he did not have an effective method for dealing with students or administrators with whom
he might disagree. The report found behavioral, rather than psychological, issues, including lack
of skills dealing with others’ behavior, and recommended remedial education in “How to
Discizpline in the Classroom” and “Anger Management” to protect him and children under his
care. 03x. A-9).

16. Mr. Westover, who was in his twenties during the periods complained of, supplied
performance evaluations during the period 1996 — 2002, which show generally favorable
interactions with students, parents and faculty and a teacher interested in doing a good job in the
classroom. (Exs. R-l — R-6).

2 It is unclear from the report whether these are classes offered by Dr. Brown or whether they are

publications. In any case, Dr. Brown recommended remedial education in these areas but Mr. Westover
. presented no evidence that he had enrolled in or completed any classes.

In the Matter of Chad Michael Westover, OAH Case No. 117883

Page 4 of 12

' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Mr. Westover’s conduct, while substitute teaching for the Multnomah Education
District in the Early Childhood and Special Education Program in April 1998, was a gross
neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(d) and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n).

2. Mr. Westover’s conduct, while teaching a physical education class at Sunnyside
Elementary School in the Portland Public School District in April 2002, was a gross neglect of
duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(d) and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n).

3. Mr. Westover’s conduct, while teaching a physical education class at Beach
Elementary School in the Portland Public School District on March 7, 2002, was a gross neglect
of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(d).

4. Mr. Westover’s conduct, while substitute teaching at Harold Oliver Intermediate
School in the Centennial School District on December 1, 2003, was a gross neglect of duty in
violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(d).

OPINION

The TSPC has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that Mr.
Westover’s conduct amounts to a gross neglect of duty as alleged in the Second Amended
Notice. ORS 183.450(2), (5), Reguero v. Teacher Standards and Practices Commission, 312

. oi 402, 41 s (1991) (burden is on TSPC in disciplinary action); Cook v. Employment Division,
47 Or App 437 (1980) (the standard in administrative hearings is preponderance of the
evidence). 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 (1987).

Authority for the TSPC to regulate the conduct of educators and administrators is found
in ORS 342.175, which provides in relevant part:

(1) The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may suspend or revoke the
license of a teacher or administrator, discipline a teacher or administrator or
suspend or revoke the right of any person to apply for a license if the person
has held a license at any time within ﬁve years prior to issuance of the notice
of charges under ORS 342.1763 based on the following:

*****

(b) Gross neglect of duty;

3 ORS 342.176(1) provides in relevant part:

Upon receipt of a complaint or information that a person has violated ORS 342.143

or 342.175, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission shall promptly undertake

' an investigation.

In the Matter of Chad Michael Westover, OAH Case No. 117883
Page 5 of 12

. The TSPC adopted Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance of Oregon
Educators, as codiﬁed in OAR chapter 584, division 20, to help determine whether an educator’s
performance is ethical or competent in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
educator’s performance as a whole. OAR 584-020-000(3).

OAR 584-020-0040(4)(d) deﬁnes gross neglect of duty:
*****
(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:
* * =|< * *
(d) Unreasonable physical force against students, fellow employees,
0r visitors to the school, except as permitted under ORS 339.2504
*****
(n) Substantial deviation from professional standards of competency set forth in
. OAR 584-020-0010 through 584-020-0030
OAR 584-020-0030(2), which is incorporated in OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n), provides
guidelines for competent educators and administrators:
*****
(2) The competent teacher demonstrates:
(a) Willingness to be ﬂexible in cooperatively working with others; and
(b) Skill in communicating with students, staff, parents, and other patrons.
In considering disciplinary action against a teacher, the TSPC may consider any of the
following factors set out in OAR 584-020-0045 in its determination:
(l) If the misconduct or violation is an isolated occurrence, part of a continuing
pattern, or one of a series of incidents.
4 ORS 339.250(2) provides in part that a teacher “may use reasonable physical force upon a student when
and to the extent the individual reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order in the school or
classroom or at a school activity or event, whether or not it is held on school property.” Mr. Westover
concedes that there may have been less intrusive methods for gaining control over his elementary and

' middle school students than using physical force.

In the Matter of Chad Michael Westover, OAH Case No. 117883
Page 6 of 12

. (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 student, other educators,
or the public.

(5) If the misconduct was open and notorious or had negative effects on the
public image of the school.

(6) The educator’s state of mind at the time of the misconduct and aﬁerwards.

(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 j
nature of a disciplinary sanction. ‘

The TSPC argues that Mr. Westover has shown a pattern of deviating from professional
standards of competency, including the lack of communication skills and his use of physical
force to impose discipline on elementary and intermediate school students. It seeks to revoke his

. teaching license. Mr. Westover does not contest many of the facts contained in the Notice, but
requested a hearing to give his version of events and to provide mitigating evidence of his
character and ability t0 teach children. Each allegation is addressed separately.

April 1998

In April of 1998, while substitute teaching for the Multnomah Education District’s Early
Childhood and Special Education Program, Mr. Westover worked with a mixed class of students
with various disabilities, including autism. When an autistic student threw himself on the ﬂoor
in a tantrum, Mr. Westover liﬂed him off the ﬂoor. Mr. Westover denies liﬁing the child by the
shirt collar, as alleged, and contends that it was his practice to liﬂ someone from under the arms,
but the manner that he lifted the child is of no consequence. Autistic children require different
handling than regular children. Teacher aides were available in the classroom if assistance was
needed, but Mr. Westover appears to have acted without seeking guidance or considering the
impact of his actions.

An incident later that day occurred at the bus stop when Mr. Westover was twirling an
autistic student around in circles. When asked to stop the activity by a teacher’s aide, Mr.
Westover allegedly replied by asking whether he was supposed to treat the students like they
were vegetables and mockingly referred to the student as a vegetable 0r carrot, although it is not
clear if the student heard this. Both incidents amount to a serious and material breach of
professional duties and a gross neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(d) and

’ OAR 5 84-20-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-003 0(2).
In the Matter of Chad Michael Westover, OAH Case No. 117883
Page 7 of 12

. April 2002

In April of 2002, while teaching physical education at Sunnyside Elementary School in
Portland, Mr. Westover yelled at a child who was taking too long to climb down from
playground equipment. He lifted her off, leaving a temporary red mark around her mid-section
in the process. While there is n0 suggestion that the child was permanently harmed by the
incident, the action was unwarranted under the circumstances.

Mr. Westover contends that he became impatient waiting for the child to take her time
climbing down, in part because he sensed that she was enjoying the attention, but this is no
excuse for handling a student in this manner. A student who is holding up the rest of the class is
frustrating, but allowing his anger to overcome his training and control his actions was a gross
neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(d) and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n).

March 7, 2002

On March 7, 2002, while Mr. Westover was teaching physical education at Beach
Elementary School in Portland, he used inappropriate force to impose discipline on a class.
Speciﬁcally, when an unruly child who was bouncing her chair did not immediately comply with
his directions to stop, he ﬁrmly placed his hand on the back of the chair to stop the activity.
Sensing she was in trouble, the child slid off the chair, whereupon Mr. Westover shoved it across
the room, a distance of around 25 feet, causing it to clatter and fall over. Although order was

. restored, this is an inappropriate use of force to achieve discipline in a classroom and a gross
neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(d).
November 21, 2003

While not used as the basis for the TSPC’s proposed action, the incident of November 21,
2003 was cited as evidence of Mr. Westover’s continuing pattern of inappropriate interactions
with students. While substituting for an 8'l1 grade teacher at Centennial Middle School, Mr.
Westover asked a student if his mother drank while she was pregnant with him. The child had a
birth defect that leﬁ him with deformed eyelids. Apart from the acutely embarrassing and
inappropriate nature of this remark, the staff interpreted the question as implying that the student
was impacted by fetal alcohol syndrome. This insensitive remark shows a serious lack of
judgment and a failure to recognize the dignity of the student.

December 1, 2003

The events of December 1, 2003, show that Mr. Westover inappropriately applied
physical force to a student at Harold Oliver Intermediate School. Prior to entering class that day,
he was counseled by the school’s Principal about a particular student with emotional or
behavioral problems and the regular teacher’s lesson plans advised against backing this student
into a corner.

In the Matter of Chad Michael Westover, OAH Case No. 117883
Page 8 of l2

When a student who was shooting wads of paper with rubber bands refused to turn them
. over, Mr. Westover applied enough pressure to the student’s hand to force their release, leaving a
red mark on the student’s hand in the process. Later that day, in a deﬁant gesture, the same
student refused t0 stop tapping his pencil on his desk. When Mr. Westover reached over to stop
the activity, the student struck him. Mr. Westover reacted by placing the student in an
immobilizing wrestling move and carried him across the room before requesting assistance over
the intercom.

Mr. Westover’s interactions with this student were undoubtedly challenging, but he was
given prior warning about this student and when, predictably, the student acted out, Mr.
Westover did not follow the procedures brought to his attention prior to entering the classroom.
He merely reacted, and in this case, showed poor judgment. The use of physical force twice in
one day to impose discipline on the same student is not only a clear violation of school policy,
but a gross neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(d).

Other complaints that day about Mr. Westover’s conduct include using his cell phone for
personal business during class hours and telling students to shut up, both of which were
violations of school policy. When confronted by the school’s Principal about all of these
incidents, Mr. Westover expressed his frustration with the lack of discipline in the public school
system.

The foregoing incidents demonstrate that Mr. Westover is quick to act over perceived
discipline issues. His anger also caused him to forget his training and the advice of his peers and

' administrators. In fairness to Mr. Westover, who was in his late twenties when these incidents
occurred, his teacher evaluations dating back to his student teaching days in 1996 contain
favorable reports about his interactions with students, faculty and parents. They show a teacher
with an interest in doing a good job. By Mr. Westover’s own admission, however, his teaching
experience became frustrated by what he perceived as a lack of discipline imposed by
administrators and the undue inﬂuence of certain parents on teaching policies. This may be a
common experience for many teachers, but there are rules in place for dealing with disruptive
students. Under those rules, the use of physical force is not permitted.

Dr. Brown’s report is signiﬁcant in that it identiﬁed Mr. Westover’s anger management
issues as they relate to discipline. The evidence here shows that the behavior dates back to 1998
without apparent improvement.

Taken together, Mr. Westover has shown a pattern of deviating from professional
standards of competency, including the inappropriate use of force to impose discipline on
students. The TSPC has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Westover
engaged in gross neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(d), OAR 584-020-
0040(4)(n) and OAR 584-020-0030(2).

In the Matter of Chad Michael Westover, OAH Case No. 117883
Page 9 of 12

. ORDER
I propose the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission issue the following order:
Chad Michael Westover’s teaching license is revoked.
Peter his éader, édministrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
MAILING AND ISSUE DATE: ii “El/Q)“, l l | 200 6
EXCEPTIONS
The proposed order is the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation to the Teacher
Standards and Practices Commission. If you disagree with any part of this proposed order, you
may ﬁle written objections, called "exceptions," to the proposed order and present written
argument in support of your exceptions. Written argument and exceptions must be ﬁled within
. fourteen (l4) days after mailing of the proposed order with the:
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
465 Commercial Street, NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
The Commission need not allow oral argument. The Executive Director may permit oral
argument in those cases in which the Director believes oral argument may be appropriate 0r
helpful to the Commissioners in making a ﬁnal determination. If oral argument is allowed, the
Commission will inform you of the time and place for presenting oral argument. l
l
l
l
In the Matter of Chad Michael Westover, OAH Case No. 117883 .
Page 10 of 12

APPENDIX A
. LIST OF EXHIBITS CITED

Ex. A-l TSPC license information for Chad Westover

Ex. A-2 Transcript of telephone message from Dr. Brown

Ex. A-3 at l of 8 Record of days worked as a substitute teacher

Ex. A-4 April 5, 2004 letter from S. Nisbet regarding evaluation by Dr. Brown

Ex. A-6 Memo from Mr. Westover re: therapists

Ex. A-7 January 26, 2004, memo from Charlene Hanis re: December, 2003
incident

Ex. A-8 CV of Clinical Psychologist Paul Brown

Ex. A-9 March 11, 2004 report of Dr. Brown

Ex. A-lO Letter from Centennial School Superintendent Robert McKean

’ Ex. A-ll January 21, 2004 letter from David Cook of Centennial School District

Ex. A-12 January 21, 2004 memo from Kimberly Cadigan, Assistant Principal of
Centennial Middle School

Ex. A-13 32 page transcript of January 20, 2004 interview with Chad Westover by
TSPC Investigator, Susan Nisbet

Ex. A-l4 January 5, 2004 memo from Doug Cook

Ex. A-15 January 15, 2004, letter from parents of student at Harold Oliver School

Ex. A-16 December 2, 2003 letter from HR Director David Halstead to TSPC

Ex. A-l7 June 26, 2002, letter from Portland Public Schools accepting Mr.
Westover’s resignation.

Ex. A-18 Notation of verbal reprimand from Larry Whitson

Ex. A-l9 March l3, 2002 written letter of reprimand from L. Kapranos, Principal of
Beach School _

In the Matter of Chad Michael Westover, OAH Case No. 117883

Page ll of 12

Ex. A-20 April, 1998 letter of resignation by Chad Westover from Multnomah
. Education District
Ex. A-21 April 1998 letter from N. Fain removing Mr. Westover’s name from list of
eligible substitute teachers in M.E.S.D.
Ex. A-22 April 1998 memo ﬁom Shauna Hormann re: autistic child incident l
R-l — R-6 Teacher evaluations of Mr. Westover from 1996 - 2002
In the Matter of Chad Michael Westover, OAH Case No. l 17883
Page 12 of 12

. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that 0n March ll, 2005, I served the attached Proposed Order by mailing in a sealed
envelope, with ﬁrst class certiﬁed postage prepaid, a copy thereof addressed as follows:
CHAD MICHAEL WESTOVER
14361 SE BRIDGETON ST
CLACKAMAS OR 97015
SUSAN NISBET
TEACHERS STANDARDS AND PRACTICES
465 COMMERCIAL ST NE
SALEM OR 97301
JOE GORDON McKEEVER
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
' 1162 COURT ST NE
SALEM OR 97301-4096
. 3A
\j ,. I ,.
, ,~ 1 ‘ ' L WM
ucy Gar a, A!‘ ministrative Specialist
Ofﬁce o d nistrative Hearings
Transportation Hearings Division