' BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of the Teaching License of: ) FINAL ORDER
)
FRED PAUL CUNNINGHAM ) Hearing Ofﬁcer Panel Case
) No. 20013996

On August 7, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Ella D. Johnson issued a Corrected
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 Corrected Proposed Order.

ORDER

The Commission adopts the Corrected Proposed Order, and orders that the

Oregon Teaching License of Paul Cunningham is suspended for 9O days for violations of
' OAR 584-020-0040(4)(t) and (n) to be followed by one-year probation.
Dated this Q day of October 2002.
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
By- (AM/2%.J/ a 22. l
Wetoria Ch W111, Executiv- Director
NOTICE: You are entitled to judicial review of this order. Judicial review may be
obtained by ﬁling a petition for review within 6O days of service of this order. Judicial
review is pursuant to the provisions of ORS 183.482 to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
Page l — FINAL ORDER—FRED PAUL CUNNINGHAM

D O 1
BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER PANEL i
. STATE OF OREGON
for the
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
In the Matter of the Teaching License of: ) CORRECTED1 PROPOSED ORDER
)
FRED PAUL CUNNINGHAM ) Hearing Officer Panel Case No: 20013996
)
)
HISTORY 0F THE CASE

Fred Paul Cunningham, (Respondent or Cunningham) challenges the Teacher Standards
and Practices Commission’s (the Commission or TSPC) proposed suspension of his Oregon
teaching license for a minimum of 90 days plus a period of probation pursuant to ORS 342.175
through 342.190 and the Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance of Oregon Educators,
OAR 584, Division 20. On July 18, 2001 the Commission issued a Notice of Opportunity for
Hearing (Notice) setting forth the allegations which Respondent denies constitute Gross Neglect
of Duty pursuant to OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n).

The Notice proposed to suspend or revoke or impose other discipline under ORS 342.177

. because the Commission had reason to believe that Cunningham violated OAR 584-0020-
0040(4)(n) relating to Gross Neglect of Duty in three instances by allegedly: (1) violating OAR
584-020-0040(4)(t) on or about November 16, 2000 when he told MS, a female eighth grade
student, to stand by him so it looked like he could still get all of the hot chicks; (2) violating
OAR 5 84-020-0040(4)(f) on or about November 30, 2000 when he told a group of sixth grade
girls and a teacher that LL would miss him next trimester since LL would not be in his class and
that “she knows how to wrap me around her little ﬁnger with that smile... that when she talks
she has to use her hands and shakes her little behind,” making the girls and the teacher feel
uncomfortable; and (3) violating OAR 584-020-0040(4)(O in the fall of the 2000-01 school year
when he told EB that he was .going to slap her on the butt...” and to bend over which she
refused to do and said “just because you are pretty doesn’t mean you don’t have to do the work!"
Thereafter, Respondent requested a hearing challenging the proposed disciplinary action.

On December 11, 2001, the Commission referred this matter to the Hearing Ofﬁcer Panel
for hearing. On June l9, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Ella D. Johnson conducted a hearing
in Salem, Oregon. The record closed following the hearing. Assistant Attorney General Joe
Gordon McKeever represented the Commission. Testifying on behalf of the Commission were:
Jane Green (Green), Roger Lorenzen (Lorenzen), Susan Nisbet (Nisbet), LL, MS, and EB.

1 The proposed is corrected to provide the proper exception language found on pages 10-11 of the Corrected
Proposed Order.

' 1 Students who are or were minors at the time of the incidents are identiﬁed by initials.
In the Matter 0f F red Paul Cunningham, Page I of]!

’ Respondent appeared by telephone from Texas and testified on his own behalf.
After review and consideration of the entire record in this matter, I now issue this

Proposed Order.

ISSUES

1) Whether Cunningham violated OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) relating to Gross Neglect of Duty 1
in three alleged instances as set forth below and in the Notice.

2) Whether Respondent violated OAR 5 84-020-0040(4)(f) on or about November 16, 2000
when he told MS, a female eighth grade student, to “stand by him so it looked like he could
still get all of the hot chicks.”

3) Whether Respondent violated OAR 584-020-0040(4)(t) on or about November 30, 2000
when he told a group of sixth grade girls and a teacher that LL would miss him next trimester
since LL would not be in his class, and that “she knows how to wrap me around her little
ﬁnger with that smile... that when she talks she has to use her hands and shakes her little
behind,” making the girls and the teacher feel uncomfortable.

4) Whether Respondent violated OAR 584-020-0040(4)(f) in the fall of the 2000-01 school year
when he told EB that he was “.. . going to slap her on the butt...” and to bend over, which she
refused to do, and told EB “just because you are pretty doesn’t mean you don’t have to do the

‘ work.”
EVIDENTIARY RULING
The Commission's Exhibits 1 through 16 were admitted into the record without
objection.
FINDINGS OF FACT

1) Cunningham has been a teacher for approximately 23 years, including 11 years in El Paso,
Texas and l2 years at Dayton Junior High School (Dayton). He was employed as a teacher in
Dayton during the 2000-01 school year and taught mathematics and science. Cunningham
also taught classes at the high school. (Testimony of Cunningham).

2) 0n October 12, 2000, Cunningham received Dayton’s Employee Policy Handbook
(handbook). The handbook contained a policy on Sexual Harassment, which was adopted in
1996 and revised in 2000. (Ex. 1).

3) On November 2, 2000, Cunningham attended a sexual harassment workshop. The workshop
covered interactions between teachers and students. (Ex. 2; Lorenzen’s testimony).

4) On November 16, 2000, Cunningham talked to MS, who was standing on the ramp next to

. his classroom. MS had talked to Cunningham before but did not know him very well. He said
something to the effect of “why don’t you come over here and stand by me so it looks like I
In the Matter 0f F red Paul Cunningham, Page 2 0f11

still have it — like Ican get all of the hot chicks.”3 This comment made MS feel

’ uncomfortable because he was a teacher and she interpreted this statement as sexual in
nature. MS hung around Cunningham’s classroom door until her class was over. (Ex. 3-1;
testimony of MS and Cunningham).

5) John Sullivan, the school counselor, reported the incident to Lorenzen, the school principal.
Lorenzen interviewed MS and confirmed what had occurred. MS ﬁlled a formal complaint
against Cunningham. Before she did so, she talked to a female teacher and her mother. She
did not talk to other students. (Exs. 3-1, 4; testimony of MS, Lorenzen).

6) When Lorenzen asked Cunningham about the incident, he did not deny that he had made the
comment but explained that he had done so to move her away from Ms. Dickinson’s
classroom, from which she had earlier been removed. His intent was to prevent her from
further disturbing the class, which was still in session. Cunningham did not think that his
comment was “any big deal” and was surprised it was so serious. Lorenzen directed
Cunningham to be more direct in his instructions to students, emphasized the need to avoid
comments which could be interpreted as harassment and imposed a written reprimand on
Cunningham for the incident. (Exs. 3-2, 5, 6; Lorenzen’s testimony).

7) On November 30, 2000, Green, another teacher at Dayton, was about to start her tutoring
session in reading with a group of three female students, which included LL, a sixth grade
female student and Lorenzen’s niece. LL was more mature physically than the other sixth
grade female students. Cunningham came into the room and began talking to the students.

. Cunningham told LL that she would miss him next trimester since she would not be in his
class. He said “she just knows how to wrap me around her little ﬁnger with that smile.” He
went on to say that when LL talked she had to use her hands and shake her “little behind."4
LL was embarrassed by Cunningham’s comments. She blushed and put her head down.
Green felt uncomfortable because of what Cunningham had said about LL wrapping
Cunningham around her ﬁnger and shaking her little behind. Green ﬁled a complaint with the
principal on December l, 2000. (Ex. 7-1; testimony of Green and LL).

8) Green was unaware of the complaint ﬁled by MS and did not routinely ﬁle complaints
against teachers. She felt uncomfortable in doing so. (Testimony of Green, Lorenzen).

9) Cunningham had previously made comments to LL, like “oh, you look so cute” and “you
should be a model or an actress.” These comments made her feel uncomfortable. (LL’s .
testimony). l

10) Lorenzen talked to Cunningham about the complaint. Lorenzen reminded Cunningham to
choose his words carefully when speaking to female students. (Ex. 7-2).

3 Cunningham disputed that he said “hot chicks“ but thought he might have said “babe magnet." (Testimony of

Cunningham).

4 Cunningham testified that he was just teasing LL and did not see his comment as a problem. (Testimony of

. Cunningham).

In the Matter of F red Paul Cunningham, Page 3 0f II

' ll) In February 2001, EB’s mother complained to Lorenzen that Cunningham was telling her
daughter how good-looking she was. EB reported to her that she went up to Cunningham
during class to ask for help and Cunningham told her that he was going “slap her on the butt”
and to bend over, which she refused to do. He held his hand back as if to slap her and said ‘
“just because you are pretty doesn’t mean that you don’t have to do the work.". EB thought j
he was saying that she had a nice butt and felt uncomfortable about the interaction. EB told
her mother and her mother reported the incident to Lorenzen. (Ex. 8; testimony of EB).

l2) Cunningham had previously made comments to EB that she was pretty. Those comments did
not bother her until he started talking about “slapping her on the butt.” Other female students
in Cunningham’s class started talking about Cunningham’s cements about their
appearance. (Testimony of LL and EB).

l3) Spanking and other forms of corporal punishment are not authorized by the school district.
(Lorenzen’s testimony).

l4) On February 23, 2001, Lorenzen wrote a memo to Cunningham warning him that sexual
cements made to female students would not be tolerated. Cunningham was “shocked” and
explained that he was only prompting EB to get the work done and his comment had been
misinterpreted. Lorenzen reminded Cunningham that he needed to be more professional in
his word choice and in his interactions with students. (Ex. 9; testimony of Lorenzen).

. 15) During this period of time, Cunningham told CC, another female student, that she had nice
legs. CC told EB that she would never wear a skirt again in the seventh grade.5 Lorenzen
talked to Cunningham about the incident. (Ex 11; testimony of Lorenzen and Cunningham).

l6) KK reported to Lorenzen on March l4, 2001 that Cunningham had called her out of class
while she was studying. He told her to bend over and that her mom had told him that he
could spank her when she was bad. She refused to bend over and disputed his statement that
her mom had given him permission to spank her. Cunningham then told KK to go back into
the classroom. Lorenzen talked to Cunningham about the incident. (Ex. 12; testimony of
Lorenzen, Cunningham).

17) On February l3, 2001, MP, a seventh grade female student, reported that Cunningham had
pulled her out of his ﬁrst period class and told her that he feared for her because her older
brother CJ was “stupid and dangerous.” CJ was a student in one of Cunningham’s high
school classes. Cunningham told MP that “this was our little secret," bought her a soda and
told her not to tell anyone. Cunningham did not report his concerns t0 the principal or the
school counselor. (Exs. 13, l6; testimony of Lorenzen).

5 Cunningham explained that when he made the continent CC was dressed up and looked very nice and he meant the

' comment as a compliment. (Testimony of Cunningham).

In the Matter 0f F red Paul Cunningham, Page 4 of II

18) Cunningham admitted to Lorenzen that he had talked to MP about CJ. He told Lorenzen that
' when CJ came to pick up MP, she was not ready. CJ was furious and became verbally and

physically aggressive. Cunningham told Lorenzen that he asked MP to keep their
conversation conﬁdential because he thought her stepmother was a “loose cannon." He also
told Lorenzen that, because of a previous incident in Texas where a student had been beaten
to death by an abusive boyfriend, he was concerned about MP’s safety and he wanted to
make sure he had done everything he could to prevent another tragic incident. MP told
Cunningham that CJ treated her okay and Cunningham did not pursue it further. (Ex. l4;
testimony of Cunningham).

l9) On March 22, 2001, Cunningham resigned his teaching position at Dayton to return to Texas.
(Ex. 15).

20) Lorenzen accepted Cunningham‘s resignation because the student’s continuing complaints
about him and his apparent lack of professional judgment were detrimental to the school. On
March 23, 2001, Lorenzen notiﬁed the Commission about the investigations he conducted
during the school year concerning inappropriate comments made by Cunningham, which
resulted in written reprimands for violation of the school district’s policy on
Harassment/Sexual Harassment. (Ex. 16).

21) Cunningham attributed these incidents to personal style and the cultural differences between
Oregon and Texas. (Testimony of Cunningham).

. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ,

1) Cunningham violated OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) relating to Gross Neglect of Duty in at least
three instances by his failure to use professional judgment in his interactions with female
students and failure to use skill in supervising students as set forth below. 4

2) Cunningham violated OAR 584-020-0040(4)(f) on or about November 16, 2000 when he
told MS, female eighth grade student, to stand by him “so ‘it leoked like he could still get all
of the hot chicks.”

3) Cunningham violated OAR 584-020-0040(4)(f) on or about November 30, 2000 when he
told a group of sixth grade girls and a teacher, that LL would miss him next trimester since
LL would not be in his class and that “she knows how to wrap me around her little ﬁnger
with that smile... when she talks she has to use her hands and shakes her little behind,”
making LL and the teacher feel uncomfortable.

4) Cunningham violated OAR 584-020-0040(4)(t) in the fall of the 2000-01 school year when l
he said to EB that he was .going to slap her on the butt...” and to bend over, which she
refused to do, and told her that “just because you are pretty doesn’t mean you don’t have to
do the work.”

In the Matter 0f Fred Paul Cunningham, Page 5 0f I I .,

’ OPINION

Respondent challenges both the alleged violations of OAR 584-0020-0040(4)(n) and 584-
020-0040(4)(f) and the proposed suspension for a minimum of 90 days followed by a period of
probation. In that regard, the Commission has the burden of proving these allegations and that
the proposed sanction is warranted by a preponderance of the evidence. See ORS l83.450(2) and
(5); Reguero v. Teachers Standards and Practices Commission, 312 Or 402, 418 (1991) (burden
is on the Commission in disciplinary action); Cook v. Employment Div., 47 Or App 437 (1980)
(in the absence of legislation adopting a different standard, the standard in administrative
hearings is preponderance of the evidence).

Respondent conceded that the incidents set forth in the allegations occurred but disputed
the wording of some of the statements and argued that those statements did not constitute “sexual
conduct” in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(t) and did not constitute a “substantial deviation
from professional standards of competency” pursuant to OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n).
Consequently, the issues are whether Respondent’s statements constituted “sexual conduct” as
deﬁned by OAR 584-020-005(5) and a “substantial deviation from professional standards of
competency” as set forth in OAR 584-020-0010 through 584-020-020-0030.

Sexual Conduct

OAR 584-020-0040(4) states in relevant part:

. (4) Gross neglect of duty is any serious and material inattention to or
breach of professional responsibilities. The following may be
admissible as evidence of gross neglect of duty. Consideration may
include but is not limited to:

* =t< >|< a '
(f) m sexual conduct with a student.

Additionally, OAR 584-020-0005 states in pertinent part:
(5) ‘Sexual Conduct’ includes
* * >i¢ *
(d) Verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when directed toward
a student or when such conduct has the effect of unreasonably
interfering with a student’s educational performance or creates an
intimidating, hostile or offensive educational environment.6

. 6 This parallels Dayton‘s policy on sexual harassment which provides in part that:

Sexual harassment of students * * * shall include, but is not limited to unwelcome
In the Matter of F red Paul Cunningham, Page 6 of 11

. Based on the above deﬁnition, “sexual conduct” includes: (1) verbal conduct; (2) of a
sexual nature; and (3) directed to a student.7 Ifind that Respondent engaged in verbal sexual ‘
conduct in at least three instances by making comments to female students about their
appearance, which could be interpreted as sexual in nature. The record establishes that
Respondent said to MS something to the effect of “why don’t you come over here and stand by
me so it looks like I still have it — like I can still get all of the hot chicks.” There is some dispute
with respect to whether MS entered or did not enter Respondent’s classroom and whether he said
“hot chicks” or “babe magnet.” However, either term could be interpreted as a sexual comment.
Moreover, there is no dispute that Respondent’s comment made MS feel uncomfortable and that
she interpreted his statement as sexual in nature.

The record also establishes that Respondent said in front of Green, LL and two other
female student’s that LL “just knows how to wrap me around her little ﬁnger with that smile”
and that when LL talked she used her hands and shook her “little behind.” At hearing,
Respondent made much of the fact that he also said that LL would miss him and that this is a
common exchange between students and their teachers. But that was not the part of his comment
that Green and LL found objectionable. They objected to his comment that she could “wrap him
around her little ﬁnger with that smile" and that she shook her “little behind.” Both of those
comments could be interpreted as comments about the student’s appearance and sexuality, and
could be, and were construed by Green as sexual in nature. Respondent attempted to excuse his
comment, stating that he was only “teasing” LL. Respondent suggested that Green had
misinterpreted and overreacted in reporting the incident because of her membership in a

. fundamentalist religious group. He also suggested that Green had filed complaints against other
teachers. However, Lorenzen credibly testiﬁed that Green was an excellent teacher and did not
routinely ﬁle complaints against other teachers. Consequently, I do not ﬁnd either his excuse or
his suggestions persuasive or supported by the record. . ~

Finally, the record establishes that Respondent repeatedly told EB how pretty and good-
looking she was and that when EB asked Respondent during class for help, Respondent told her
that he was going “slap her on the butt.” He held his hand back as if to slap her and said “”just

sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal, nonverbal or physical

conduct of a sexual nature when:

>9 * St *

3. The conduct or communication is so severe, persistent er pervasive that it has the

purpose or effect of unreasonably interferes with a student's educational performance

* * *; or creates an intimidating, offensive or hostile educational * * * environment.

Examples 0f sexual harassment may include, but not limited to * * '1‘ rating others as

mom, sexual activity or performance. (Emphasis added).
7 Because the definition of “sexual conduct" is phrased in the alternative, I read the rule to require the Commission
to prove that the individual's sexual conduct has the effect of unreasonably interfering with a student‘s educational

' performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive educational environment only if it does not satisfy these
three elements.

In the Matter of F red Paul Cunningham, Page 7 of I I

because you are pretty doesn’t mean you don’t have to do the work.” Respondent’s comments

’ about her appearance made EB uncomfortable. EB thought he was saying that she had a nice butt
and interpreted his comment as sexual in nature. Respondent argued that there was a group of
female students engaged in some type of “whispering campaign” against him and that after the
ﬁrst incident, “it all just snowballed.” However, he presented no evidence in this regard, other
than his own suspicions.

TSPC has interpreted its own rule to include the type of statements made by Respondent.
l am required to defer to an administrative agency's plausible interpretation of its own rule if the
interpretation cannot be shown to be inconsistent with the wording of the rule itself, or with the
rule’s context, 0r any other source of law Don ’t’ Waste Oregon Committee v. Energy Facility
Siting Council, 320 Or 132, 142 (1994).

Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent violated OAR 584-020-0040(4)(f) in making
these statements to the three female middle school students. I note that had these statements been
made to an adult female, they may still have been interpreted as sexist in nature. However,
Respondent’s statements to the three female students were particularly inappropriate because of
their sensitivity to comments about their personal appearance and their tendency to interpret such
comments as sexual in nature.
Substantial Deviation

I also conclude that these incidents constituted a substantial deviation from professional

. standards of competency as set forth in OAR 584-020-0010 through 584-020-0030. In that

regard, OAR 584-020-0010(5) requires the competent teacher to use “professional judgment.” I
ﬁnd that Respondent failed to use good professional judgment with respect to the three incidents
set forth above and in the Notice. Although the use of the language Respondent used with the
female students may be “just his style” or a product of cultural differences, his comments
concerning the appearance of the students and his references to spanking them are clearly
inappropriate in Oregon schools. After teaching in Oregon schools for a number of years, he
should have known that they were inappropriate.

Furthermore, OAR 584-020-0020 states in relevant part:

(2) The competent teacher demonstrates:

* * * * >l=

(d) Skill in the supervision of students.
Respondent argued at hearing that he was just trying to motivate the students to do the work. If
that was the case, his comments during the incidents set forth above demonstrate a complete
failure to demonstrate skill in the supervision of students. A teacher does not motivate a female
student by telling her that he is going to “slap her on the butt” and cementing that “just because
you are pretty doesn’t mean that you don’t have to do the work.” Accordingly, I ﬁnd that

. Respondent’s behavior in this regard also constitutes gross neglect of duty under OAR 5 84-020-

In the Matter 0f F red Paul Cunningham, Page 8 of 1 1

0010(5) and 584020-0020(d) because they demonstrate a failure to use professional judgment in
' his interactions with female students and a failure to use skill in supervising students.
Sanction warranted
ORS 342.175 (l) gives TSPC the authority to suspend or revoke the license of a teacher
for gross neglect of duty. Additionally, subsection (5) states that:
“Violation of rules adopted by the commission relating to competent
and ethical performance of professional duties shall be admissible as
evidence of gross neglect of duty or gross unﬁtness.”
Pursuant to this statute, I have found that Respondent’s’ conduct violated OAR S84-020-
0040 in three incidents and constituted gross neglect of duty. The Commission has proposed a
suspension of a minimum of 90 days followed by a probationary period. In determining the
appropriate sanction, I apply OAR 584-020-0045, which states:
The Commission may consider one or more of the following factors, as
it deems appropriate, in its determination of what sanction or sanctions,
if any, should be imposed upon a ﬁnding that an educator has violated
any standard set forth in OAR 584-020-0040:
(1) If the misconduct or violation is an isolated occurrence, part of a
. continuing pattern, or one of a series of incidents.
(2) The likelihood of a recurrence of the misconduct or violation.
(3) The educator's past performance.
(3) The extent, severity, and imminence of any danger to students,
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
afterwards.
(7) The danger that students will imitate the educator's behavior or use
it as a model.
(8) The age and level of maturity of the students served by the
educator.
(9) Any extenuating circumstances or other factors bearing on the
. appropriate nature of a disciplinary sanction.
In the Matter 0f F red Paul Cunningham, Page 9 0f I 1 i

. Respondent stated at hearing that he did not intend to ever come back to Oregon and the
only reason he fought the sanction was that any sanction would be placed a national data base
which may affect his career as a teacher in Texas. He felt that his comments were part of his
personal style and reﬂected the cultural differences between Oregon and Texas. Even at the
hearing, Respondent had no awareness that these comments about the students’ appearance,
when made to female students, were inappropriate. ‘

l

Applying the factors set forth above, I conclude that a suspension for a period of 90 days
followed by a probationary period of one year is warranted. ln reaching this conclusion, I
particularly note that these instances were part of a continuing pattern and a series of incidents
which also included comments made to CC and KK and other female students and that the
comments about the students’ appearance were likely to recur because they are apparently part of
Respondent’s personal style in interacting with students. I also note that Respondent’s
misconduct was open and notorious and had a negative effect on the parents’ image of the
school. I particularly note Respondent’s lack of awareness that his comments were inappropriate
when made to female students and that they occurred immediately following a workshop on a
sexual harassment and continued despite written complaints and repeated warnings by the school
principal. Accordingly, I conclude that the Commission has met its burden in proving that
Respondent violated OAR 584-020-0040(4)(f) and that these violations constituted Gross
Neglect of Duty under OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) warranting a 90 day suspension of
Respondent’s Oregon teaching license and a one year period of probation following the
suspension. ' '

. PROPOSED ORDER

I propose that the Commission issue the following order: The teaching license of Fred
Paul Cunningham is suspended for 9O days for violations of OAR 584-0020-0040(4)(f) and (n)
to be followed by one year of probation.
Dated this 271A’ day 0f [wf 2002 at Salem, Oregon.
Ella D. J ohnso§, Ad%nistrative Law Judge
Hearing Officer Panel , ,
EXCEPTIONS
The proposed order is the hearing ofﬁcer’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 :
In the Matter 0f F red Paul Cunningham, Page 10 0f I]

. Teacher Standards and Practices Commission I
465 Commercial Street, NE
Salem, Oregon 97301
The Commission need not allow oral argument. The Executive Director may permit oral
argument in those cases in which the Director believes oral argument may be appropriate or
helpful to the Commission 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 Fred Paul Cunningham, Page 11 of I]

CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE
RE: In the Matter of the Teaching License of:
John Paul Cunningham
For the Teacher Standards and Practices Committee
Hearing Officer Panel Case N0.: 20013996
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have made service of copies of the foregoing
CORRECTED PROPOSED ORDER upon the following parties by causing to be
mailed in the United States Post Office at Salem, Oregon, on the 7th day of August, 2002,
a certiﬁed true, exact and full copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope with postage thereon
prepaid, addressed to:
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL:
Fred Cunningham
203 Hillcrest Lane Apt A
Liberty Hill, TX 78642
Joe Gordon McKeever
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
. Salem OR 97301-4096
a
éElien Odle, Hearings Technician
Hearing Ofﬁcer Panel
(503) 373-0348 (Voice)
(503) 378-4067 (Fax)