1 BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 131 In the Matter of the ) DEFAULT ORDER OF 5 Teaching License of ) REVOCATION OF 6 AMY E. WILSON ) RIGHT TO APPLY FOR LICENSURE 7 8 On December 14, 2007, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (Commission) 9 issued a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Amy E. Wilson (Wilson) in which the Commission 10 charged her with misconduct under ORS 342.175. The Notice was sent via U.S. First Class Mail and 11 U.S. Certified Mail Receipt 7006 0810 0001 4602 2074 to the address Ms. Wilson provided to the 12 Commission. The U.S. First Class Mail was returned unsigned to the Commission on November 19, 13 2007. The Notice of Opportunity of Hearing, dated December 14, 2007, and signed by Victoria 14 Chamberlain, Executive Director, stated: 15 “You, Amy E. Wilson, are entitled to a hearing on the proposed action of the 16 Commission. If you want a hearing, you must tile a written request for a hearing with 17 the Commission within 21 days of the date of this notice. Attached to this notice is a 18 copy of the procedures, right of representation and other rights of parties relating to the 19 conduct of a hearing as required under ORS 183.413(2).” 2(1) Ms. Wilson did not request a hearing. The Commission, therefore, finds 22 Ms. Wilson to be in default and enters the following findings oi fact, conclusions of law and 23 order, based on the files and records of the Commission concerning this matter. 24 FINDINGS OF FACT 25 1. On September 2, 2003, the Commission issued Ms. Wilson an Initial Teaching License 26 with Language Arts and Social Studies Endorsements. Said license expired on August 24, 2007. 27 2. During the 2003-2004 school year while teaching at Rainier High School, Ms. Wilson 28 informed LK, a Rainier High School staff member, that she was attracted to her and had feelings for 29 her. Ms. Wllson used the term “hump sisters” in reference to her and LK, and told at least one 30 student of this term. LK learned from a student that Ms. Wilson referred to her and LK as the “hump 31 sisters”. This conduct constitutes gross neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(l) (Sexual 32 harassment), as defined under OAR 584-020-0005(6). Ms. Wilson’s statement to the student that she PAGE 1 — DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT TO APPLY — WILSON 1 used the term “hump sisters" in reference to her and LK constituted gross neglect of duty in violation 2 of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates the standards outlined in OAR 584-020-0010(5) 3 (Professional judgment) 4 3. On or about May 13, 2004, Ms. Wllson grabbed the front of NS‘s shirt and speaking loud 5 enough for a student walking by to hear she said, “let's go have sex, no.lets go do shrooms, no.lets 6 get drunk and have sex." NS, an educator, was offended and in disbelief that Ms. Wilson made that 7 statement. This conduct constitutes gross neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(|). 8 (Sexual harassment), as defined under OAR 584-020-0005(6). Ms. Wilson's statement made while a 9 student walked by constituted gross neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it 10 incorporates the standards outlined in OAR 584-020-0010(5) (Professional judgment) 11 4. In the spring of 2004, RB, a fellow staff member, heard Ms. Wilson tell a student on at least 12 one occasion to “check out her box“, which, the staff member reported, Ms. Wilson knew had a double 13 meaning of referring to an inbox as well as to female genitalia. This conduct constitutes gross neglect 14 of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it incorporates the standards outlined in OAR 584- 15 O20-0010(5) (Professional judgment), and OAR 584-020-0040(4)(o) as it incorporates the standards 16 outlined in OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c). (Maintain an appropriate professional student-teacher 17 relationship). 18 5. During the 2003-2004 school year while teaching at Rainier High School, Ms. Wilson was 19 often observed sitting very close to students alone in her classroom. On one occasion, Ms. Wilson 20 was viewing something appearing to be a calendar with DC, a student. When RB, a fellow staff 21 member, walked in, Ms. Wilson closed the desk drawer and told RB “you probably don't want to see 22 this. This conduct constitutes gross neglect of duty in violation OAR 584-020-0040(4)(n) as it 23 incorporates the standards outlined in OAR 584-020-0010(5) (Professional judgment), and OAR 584- 24 020-0040(4)(0) as it incorporates the standards outlined in of OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c). (Maintain an 25 appropriate professional student-teacher relationship). PAGE 2 — DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT TO APPLY — WILSON 1 6. On or about May 14, 2004, during a school investigation into Ms. Wilson’s conduct a male 2 student, DC reported having been to her home, at which time DC and Ms. Wllson discussed her 3 tattoos and her feelings toward him and other students. During one conversation at Ms. Wilson’s 4 home, she told DC that she could not have sex with him. DC was “weirded out” by Ms. Wilson’s 5 statement. This conduct constitutes gross neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(0) as it 6 incorporates the standards outlined in OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c). (Maintain an appropriate 7 professional student-teacher relationship). 8 7. On or about May 14, 2004 during a school investigation into Ms. Wilson’s conduct, she 9 reported that male student, DC had inappropriate feelings for her and that she informed him that she 10 could not have sex with him. Ms. Wilson’s failure to report her perception in advance to her 11 supervisor that DC had inappropriate feelings for her constitutes gross neglect of duty in violation of 12 OAR 584-020-0040(4)(o) as it incorporates the standards outlined in OAR 584-020-0035(1)(c)(C) 13 (Reporting to the educator’s supervisor if the educator has reason to believe a student is or may be 14 becoming romantically attached to the educator). 15 8. In 2004, Ms. Wilson took two students with her to a tattoo parlor in Washington, without first 16 obtaining parental permission. This conduct constitutes gross neglect of duty in violation of OAR OAR 17 584-020-0040(4)(o) as it incorporates the standards outlined in 584-020-0035(1)(c). (Maintain an 18 appropriate professional student-teacher relationship). 19 9. Ms. Wllson failed to respond to requests for information from, or participate in an interview 1 20 with, the Commission. This conduct constitutes gross neglect of duty in violation of OAR 584-020- 21 0040(4)(p) (Subject to the exercise of any legal right or privilege, failure or refusal by an educator 22 under investigation to respond to requests for information, to furnish documents or to participate in 23 interviews with a Commission representative relating to a Commission investigation). 24 /// 25 /// PAGE 3 — DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT TO APPLY — WILSON 1 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2 Ms. Wilson’s failure to use professional judgment, sexual harassment, failure to maintain an 3 appropriate professional student-teacher relationship and failure to report to supervisor if the educator 4 has reason to believe a student is or may be becoming romantically attached to the educator 5 constitutes Gross Neglect of Duty in violation of OAR 584-020-040(4)(l) as defined under OAR 584- 6 020-0005(6) and 584-020-0040(n) as it incorporates the standards outlined in 584-020-0010(5) and 7 584-020-0040(4)(o) as it incorporates the standards outlined in 584-020-0035(1)(c) and (1)(c)(C). Ms. s Wilson’s failure to respond to the Commission's requests for information constitutes Gross Neglect of 9 Duty in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(4)(p). The Commission’s authority to impose discipline in this 10 matter is based upon OHS 342.175. 11 ORDER 12 The Commission hereby revokes Amy E. Wilson’s right to apply for a teaching license. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED this £2 E day of February, 2008. 14 TEACHER TANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION 15 ‘ 16 By: % s MM’ 17 ictoria C rain, Executive Director ii; NOTICE OF APPEAL OR RIGHTS 3(1) YOU ARE ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE 22 OBTAINED BY FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF 23 THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ORS 183.482 TO THE 24 OREGON COURT OF APPEALS. PAGE 4 — DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT TO APPLY — WILSON 1 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 2 3 4 I hereby certify that l served the foregoing order by mailing a true copy thereof certified by me 5 as such by U.S. First Class Mail and U.S. Certified Mail—Return Receipt Requested, addressed 6 to: 7 3 Amy E. Wilson 9 406 W 29“l1 Street 10 Vancouver WA 98660-2119 11 g) fiffl 12 Dated thi day of March, 2008. 13 14 - 15 / / I M 16 By: “ail/LA; 17 Mel dy Ha w» Executive Assistant PAGE 1 — CERTIFICATE OF MAILING - WILSON