‘ 1 BEFORE THE
2 TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION '
3 STATE OF OREGON
4
5
6 In the Matter of the )
7 Administrative 8r, Teaching Licenses of ) ORDER OF SUSPENSION
8 JAMES SAVARD )
9 )
10
11
12 FINAL ORDER
13
14 By resolution dated September 16-17, 1999, the Teacher Standards and
15 Practices Commission adopts the attached proposed order to suspend the
16 Oregon Administrative and Teaching Licenses of James Savard for one year for
17 serious and material breach of professional responsibilities.
18
19 DATED THIS l Z If,” day of September, 1999.
20
21 TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
22
23
24 ‘
25 By ‘i P‘ '\ '
26 David V. Myton, Ex cutive Director
27
28 NOTICE: YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS ORDER.
29 JUDICIAL REVIEW MAY BE OBTAINED BY FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW
30 WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW
31 IS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ORS 183.482 TO THE OREGON
32 COURT OF APPEALS.
33
34

, l
,, 1 BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION i
2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON .
3 In the Matter of the Teaching
and Administrative Licenses of PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT,
4 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
JAMES SAVARD OPINION AND ORDER
5
6 On May 20, 1998, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (the “Commission”)
7 issued a Notice of Opportunity to James Savard (Savard) proposing to suspend, revoke or impose
8 other discipline under ORS 342.177. Savard requested a hearing and a hearing was held on
9 June 22-24, 1999, at the offices of the Oregon State Bar in Lake Oswego. The hearing was before a
10 panel of three Commissioners: Karen Famous, Chair, Manuel Mateo and Charles Sharps. Savard
11 was represented by Walter Cauble attorney and the Commission was represented by Assistant
12 Attorney General Elizabeth T. Denecke. The panel was advised by Assistant Attorney General
13 Gary M. Cordy. The hearing was conducted as a contested case hearing and was tape-recorded. '
l4 The panel heard testimony from numerous witnesses and received into evidence the
15 following exhibits:
l6 COMlVIISSION EXHIBITS
17 1. Paul Throne statement to Kerm Bennett, dated July 19, 1993 — 3 pages.
2. Facsimile from HBO, regarding airtimes of “Where the Buffalo Roam,” dated
18 December 21, 1998 — 2 pages.
3. Diagram of James Savard’s House.
19 4. Letter from Ed Weiseth attaching memorandum decision of Regional Review
Committee — Boy Scouts of America, dated November 11, 1987.
20 5. Letter from Paul Ernst to Jim Savard revoking Boy Scouts of America
Registration, dated November 19, 1987.
21 6. Letter from Bernard S. Moore to Barbara McCarthy regarding Jim Savard, dated
December 7, 1987.
22 7. No exhibit offered.
8. Grants Pass School District Performance Goal Planning Fonn for Jim Savard,
_ 23 dated May 20, 1977 — 2 pages.
PAGE 1 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER
GMCIGEN25732.DOC Department of Justice
1162 Court NE
Salem, OR 97310
(503) 378-6003

l 9. Letter of Reprimand fi'om Robert G. Modde, Assistant Superintendent of Grants
. Pass School District to James Savard regarding violation of GPEA — District
2 Contract.
10. Jim Savard Assistant Principal (Grants Pass High School), Performance Review
3 dated June 30, 1995.
11. Evaluation of Jim Savard, Assistant Principal (Grants Pass High School), dated
4 June 30, 1995.
12. Facsimile from Capitol Investigation, Dated June 22, 1999, verifying substitute
5 service of subpoena to wife of Ken LeGros.
6 SAVARD EXHIBITS
7 1. Videotape of MDA Telethon on September 6, 1981 in Medford.
2. Calendar for the year of 1981.
8 3. Memo dated April 23, 1999, from A. W. Holt, MD, regarding Savard’s medical
condition related to kidney stones.
9 4. Cover and two pages from the University of Oregon Bulletin, dated October 1981.
5. Notarized statement by Ken Drury, dated November 4, 1987 (8 pages).
10 6. Written statement of Ken LeGros, undated.
7. Written statement of Mike Orr, dated April 22, 1998.
l 1
RULINGS
12
' Counsel for Savard made a motion to dismiss the proceedings on or about June 16, 1999,
13
Pursuant to OAR 584-019-0005 the matter was heard by the Executive Director and
14
Commissioner Karen Famous on June 18 and a written decision denying the motion was issued
15
that date. Counsel for Savard renewed the motion to dismiss and requested the panel reconsider
16
the prehearing ruling of the Executive Director. Reconsideration is granted.
17
THE MOTION T0 DISMISS
18
Savard moved the Commission to dismiss the charges against him on the following
19
grounds: (l) doctrine of laches; (2) lack of due process and constitutional right to a fair hearing;
20
and (3) failure of revocation process to advance Commission objectives.
21
The panel has had the opportunity to consider the arguments and counterarguments
22
contained in the Motion to Dismiss; Reply to Motion to Dismiss; and Answer to Reply to Motion
23
' to Dismiss and has determined to deny the motion.
PAGE 2 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER
GMCZGEN25732.DOC Dcpanmcnt of Justice
1162 Court NE
Salem, OR 97310
(503) 378-6003

. l LACHES
2 The elements of laches are: (l) delay by a plaintiff, (2) with knowledge of relevant facts
3 under which the plaintiff could have acted earlier, and (3) substantial prejudice to the defendant.
4 It is undisputed that in January 1998 Paul Throne (Throne) submitted a complaint to the
5 Commission alleging misconduct by Savard approximately 18 years prior. The Commission had
6 an investigation undertaken and on May 20, 1998 the Commission charged Savard with
7 misconduct as set out in the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing. The matter was subject to
8 ordinary delays in scheduling the hearing, including the taking of depositions, and was also
9 delayed at Savard’s request.
10 Savard does not assert the delay by the Commission in investigating the complaint and
11 scheduling the hearing constitutes laches. Rather he asserts the 18-year delay by Throne in

’ 12 bringing the complaint to the Commission constitutes laches. The panel is convinced that the
13 doctrine of laches is not a legally appropriate defense to the charges. First, the Commission has
14 considered imposing a time limitation on complaints but has not adopted such a limitation.
15 Second, laches is a doctrine that is intended to deter deleterious actions by a plaintiff or entity
16 having control over the pursuit of a claim. A delay that results solely from the inaction of a
l7 complainant is not attributable to the Commission and is therefore not a legal defense. Third,
18 perhaps the Commission could exercise its discretion not to proceed on a given case due to the
l9 delay by a complainant bringing it forward, but this is not a case Where such action is warranted.
20 The nature of the complaint * * * inappropriate touching of a sexual nature * * * is a very serious
21 matter that demands inquiry regardless of delay. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the
22 first element of the laches doctrine is not present in this case.

’ 23 / / /
PAGE 3 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER
GMC:GEN25 732.DOC Department of Justice

1162 Court NE
32'32‘; $2.113?

' l The second element of laches, knowledge and ability to pursue a claim is likewise not
2 met under the facts of this case. Two experts testified regarding their learned opinions on the
3 delay by male youth in reporting inappropriate sexual contact. One expert testified that a
4 significant delay in reporting is common and is based upon consistent male psychological
5 characteristics. The other expert testified there is no generally accepted time line for victims to
6 report and that the delay in reporting is not a predictor of the credibility of the complainant. The
7 panel is convinced by Throne’s testimony that the delay in reporting to the Commission was
8 reasonable given the concerns Throne had for his parents that still lived and worked in the area
9 and his own privacy. Throne’s testimony regarding his personal reasons for delay were credible
10 and those reasons constitute an adequate explanation of why he did not come forward at an
ll earlier time. The second element of laches attempts to evaluate the extent to which a complaint
12 could have been reasonably pursued earlier. Here the panel finds Throne was unable to come
’ 13 forward to the Commission until he had reached a level of maturity and had personally realized
14 the importance of mandatory reporting of sex offenses by those in the counseling profession.
15 Given the expert opinions regarding the common delay in male victim reporting and the personal
16 reasons expressed by Throne, the panel finds the complaint was brought forward within an
17 objectively reasonable timeframe.
l8 The third element of laches, substantial prejudice t0 Savard is also not present. ln effect
l9 Savard assets that the delay has resulted in faulty memories, absent witnesses and missing
20 documents. During the course of the hearing it was evident that the passage of time operated to
r
21 the detriment of both the Commission and Savard. However, the detriment to Savard was not so l
22 substantial to constitute prejudice because he was able to present witnesses with first hand i
' 23 knowledge regarding the important issues and the relevant circumstances of the time. In
PAGE 4 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER l
GMC:GEN25732DOC Depanment of Justice
82.165.382810
(503) 378-6003

' l addition, Savard was able to produce exhibits that were relevant to the charges. Those witnesses
2 who were not available were not alleged by Savard to have first hand knowledge of the specific
3 matters alleged in the Commission complaint. After hearing all the evidence, the panel is
4 convinced that Savard was able to present a defense to the charges that was not so prejudiced by
5 the delay as to constitute laches. '
6 LACK OF DUE PROCESS
7 Savard alleges that Commission action on 18—year-old allegations offends the Federal
8 Due Process Clause of the U. S. Constitution. Whereas the laches doctrine is dependent on an
9 inappropriate delay by a plaintiff and substantial prejudice to the defendant, a due process claim
10 requires a different analysis‘
ll Under the common law there was no fixed time frame for bringing civil or criminal
12 charges. See US v Thompson, 98 US 486, 489 (1878). Fixed periods of limitation have come
. l3 through statutes. However the Due Process Clause does have a limited role in protecting against
l4 oppressive delay. US v. Lovasco, 431 US 783, (1977).
15 For due process consideration to apply there must be a constitutionally protected interest. i
l6 For example, regular status public employees have a constitutionally recognized property interest i
17 in continued employment. Similarly, all citizens have liberty interests that must be protected
18 through constitutionally adequate criminal proceedings.
l9 Once licensed, Oregon educators have statutory protections in a continued credential so
20 long as qualifying conditions are met. Here Savard has a license and but for these charges he
21 would remain qualified for continued licensurer Assuming, without deciding, that such an
22 interest is constitutionally significant, the question remains as to whether an 18-year delay
’ 23 violates due process consideration.
PAGE 5 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER
GMC: GEN25732.DOC Depndmenl of Justice
1162 Court NE ‘
at; 572221;“

. 1 When faced with a 24-year delay and a due process challenge in the dismissal of a
2 teacher, a reviewing court noted:
3 The more substantial question is the as-applied challenge to this
proceeding, the contention that the charges against DeMichele were
4 brought so long after the events in issue that the values 0f fairness that
underlie the Due Process Clause are offended. And while we have found
5 no authority directly on point, the analogous issue of pre-indictment delay
in criminal prosecutions is both illuminating and persuasive.
6
In United States v. Lovasco, 431 US. 783, 97 S.Ct_ 2044, 52 L.Ed, 2nd
7 752, the Supreme Court dealt with the question whether a delay of 18
months between the commission of a crime and the return of an
8 indictment, in circumstances in which the government developed virtually
all of its information within the first month following the events, violated
9 the Due Process Clause. 1n rejecting the defendant’s contention, the Court
held that “proof of prejudice is generally a necessary but not sufficient
lO element of a due process claim, and that the due process inquiry must
consider the reasons for the delay as well as the prejudice to the accused.”
ll Id. At 790, 97 S,Ct 2044. See also United States v. Lane, 561 F2d 1075,
1077 (2d Cr.1977).
l2
. Cited in: DeMichele Greenburgh, Central School Dist No 7 167 F. 3"’ 784, 789-90 (1999)
13
l4 The court in the DeMichele case concluded that the Luvasca standard was appropriate to
15 an administrative proceeding. The Commission is also persuaded that actual prejudice to Savard
l6 and an improper delay by the government are necessary components of a due process claim. As
17 noted in the laches analysis above, there was no actual prejudice to Savard arising solely on the
18 basis of delay. Furthermore Savard does not allege that the Commission engaged in a knowing
l9 delay. Therefore, Savard’s substantive due process claim is denied.
2O To the extent Savard raised procedural due process claims, those require no discussion
21 because Savard was afforded all rights set out in ORS Ch 183, 342 and OAR S84 Div 019 and 020.
22 / / /
. 23 / / /
PAGE 6 — PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER
GMC:GENZS'BZDOC Department of Justice
1162 Court NE
Salem, OR 97310
(5093726003

. l ALLEGED FAILURE TO ADVANCE COMMISSION OBJECTIVES
2 Savard alleges that because he does not intend to teach due to his retirement, it would not
3 serve any Commission purpose to impose licensure discipline. The Commission has an interest
4 in uniform application of its standards regardless of the individual plans of educators who may
5 have violated Commission standards. Moreover, Commission rules require findings of fact even
6 when an educator surrenders a license and there are grounds for disciplinary action. OAR 584-
7 050-0027. Savard’s motion to dismiss on this ground is also denied.
3 FlNDINGS OF FACT
9 1. Savard was employed at the high school in the Grants Pass School District
10 (district) from 1969 through the date of this hearing.
ll 2. During his career with the district Savard taught classes, worked on extra
12 curricular student projects and activities and engaged in administrative duties. Savard taught
. l3 advanced placement history and student leadership classes during the 1970’s and 80’s. On some
l4 occasions he held evening study groups at his home.
15 3. For many years Savard was involved in student leadership courses and related
l6 activities. Some of the planning of student leadership activities along with student social
17 functions took place at Savard’s home. Participation in courses and leadership activities offered
18 by Savard was a virtual necessity in order for students to attain positions of leadership in the
l9 school.
20 4. For approximately 25 years Savard was a Boy Scout of America (BSA) adult
21 leader and held many scouting activities at his residence. Some of the Scouting participants were
22 also students at Grants Pass High School. Other Scouts were students from high schools within
' 23 the geographic area of Southern Oregon and Northern California.
PAGE 7 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER
GMC: GEN25732.DOC Department of Justice
l l62 Court NE
Sat: 21.22%)?

. 1 5. On or about November l7, 1987, the Crater Lake Council of the BSA upheld the
2 revocation decision of Ed Weiseth, the Scout Executive regarding Savard. The revocation was
3 based on Savard’s association with a convicted sex offender and the frequent use of Savard’s
4 residence for scout activities when the sex offender was present or had potential interactions with
5 Scouts.
6 6. Savard generally lived alone in his residence in Grants Pass until his marriage in
7 1993. For certain time periods, Savard permitted students to live at his residence. On many
8 occasions Savard was present in his residence with students and scouts when no other adults
9 were present. Some male students and scouts spent the night at Savard’s residence without other
10 adults being present, beginning in the early 19705 and lasting at least until the mid 1980s.
11 7. Savard was a strong advocate for what he described as barrier breaking activities.
. 12 These were team building activities that require physical touching in order to build trust and
13 closer relationships between participants. According to Savard, boundary breaking was a
l4 recognized training method in the 1970’s and 80’s and was utilized in scouting and with other
15 organizations. Barrier breaking activities often included massage.
16 8. In the l970’s and 80’s Savard often massaged students and scouts and sometimes
l7 received massages in return. Savard admitted giving and receiving back massages.
18 9. On some occasions Savard gave male students and scouts firll body massages
19 while the male lay prone face down. When Savard gave these massages, the male recipients
20 would sometimes remove their shirts and trousers. Savard sometimes received massages from
21 students and scouts while he was in a similar state of undress.
22 / / /
. 23 / / /
PAGE 8 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER
GMC:GEN25732.DOC Department of Justice
rifiiiflthfiio
(503) 378-0003

. l 10. On some occasions Savard administered and received massages described in
2 finding of fact 9 in his bedroom on his bed with the door closed with only he and the
3 student/ scout present.
4 ll. Throne, a Crater High School student, was an active scout during the 1970’s and
5 early 80’s. Savard was one of his scout leaders during Throne’s approximate ages of 14-18.
6 Throne was an Eagle Scout and in The Order of the Arrow, a scout service organization. Throne
7 graduated from high school in 1981.
8 12. Throne received some assistance from Savard in the period of 1980-81 in advanced
9 placement history although Throne was not in the Grants Pass class as a regular student.
10 l3. Glen Stohr was a student at Crater High School and graduated in 1981. Stohr was
11 a close friend of Throne’s. In 1981, Stohr and Throne participated in debating and

. 12 extracurricular activities including Convention II, a weeklong mock governmental function held
l3 in Washington, D.C. during the summer. Savard was an adult leader for Convention II for
14 several years including 1981.
15 14. 1n 1981 Savard invited Throne and Stohr over to his house because Throne
16 wanted to see a movie on HBO. Throne recalled the movie was called “Where the Buffalo
17 Roam.” Stohr recalled the movie as a documentary. Savard did not watch the movie with the
18 two boys. HBO records indicates the movie was broadcast on September 6, l7, 26 and
19 October 5, 1981. Throne believed he watched the movie at Savard’s on September 6, 1981,
20 although he testified September 17 was also a possibility. Throne did not believe he watched the
21 movie on the September 26 or October 5, 1981 dates because classes started at the University of
22 Oregon on September 28, 1981 and Throne was enrolled as a freshman.

. 23 / / /
PAGE 9 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER
GMC:GEN25732DOC Department of Justice
1162 Court NE
58333312232“

. 1 15. Savard participated in the Muscular Dystrophy Telethon on September 6, 1981 at
2 a television station in Medford. Savard asserts he was not home on the evening of September 6,
3 1981 and remained at the telethon through the next day.
4 l6. At some time in 1981 Throne and Stohr watched a movie at Savard’s home, and
5 Savard offered to “cure” Throne’s ticklishness and invited him back to his bedroom. Throne and
6 Savard went t0 the bedroom where Savard asked Throne if he wanted a massage and Throne said
7 yes. Savard told Throne he would give him a full body massage and asked Throne to take off his
8 shirt and pants, which occurred. Savard gave Throne a full body massage while Throne lay
9 prone on the bed. The massage included rubbing of Throne’s upper legs, buttocks and lower
10 back. Savard pulled Throne’s underwear down to administer the massage. Throne felt like he
11 could not say no to the massage and although it felt physically pleasurable to Throne, it also felt
12 inappropriate.

. l3 l7. Afier Savard massaged Throne, Savard asked Throne to do the same to him.
14 Throne felt repulsed but did administer a massage to Savard.
15 18. Alter the massages, Savard asked Stohr if he wanted the “cure” for ticklishness and
16 Stohr agreed to a massage in Savard’s bedroom. Savard asked Stohr to take off his clothes and
17 Stohr complied by removing all his clothes including his underwear. Savard then massaged Stohr’s
18 back, legs and buttocks. The massage felt physically good to Stohr, but it was unclear to hirn what
19 Savard was thinking, and it made Stohr tense when Savard rubbed him below the waistline.
2O l9. Approximately a week alter the massage, Stohr asked Throne if he thought
21 Savard was a homosexual. Throne responded abruptly “no” and Stohr determined not to ask
22 Throne any fiirther questions about the massage, and in fact did not do so. For a substantial

. 23 period of time neither Stohr nor Throne discussed the massages with others.
PAGE 10 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER
GMC:GEN25732DOC Department ofJustiCe
1162 Court Ni:
$333‘; $72335"

‘ 1 20. Alter the massage described in Findings of Fact l6, but before he began school at
2 the University of Oregon, Throne returned to Savard’s residence. At this time Savard offered to
3 administer another massage to Throne and did so on the bed as before. No other persons were
4 present in the room. During this massage Savard asked Throne words to the effect “what do you
5 want more of” Savard’s massage was more extensive on the second occasion and included
6 touching of Throne’s buttocks and genital area. Throne felt like he couldn’t say no to the
7 massage and it made him feel confused and uncomfortable. '
8 21. Parents of students and scouts permitted their children to attend activities at
9 Savard’s residence even when no other adult was present. School officials knew Savard had
10 school related activities at his residence and took no steps to restrict Savard.
11 22. In 3O years at Grants Pass High School Savard was not disciplined for misconduct
12 with students, through he received a written reprimand on one occasion for misuse of school

’ 13 resources.
l4 23. Savard administered massages in his residence to many student/scouts other than
15 Throne and Stohr including: Ken LeGros, Mike Orr, William Bullington, Bruce Allyn, and
16 Martin Jones.
l7 24. Bullington and Jones received massages in Savard’s bedroom while only in their
18 underwear. Both were approximately 15-17 years of age when the massages occurred and both
l9 testified they felt uneasy and uncomfortable with the massages.
20 25. Savard testified he had no recollection of giving massages as described in
21 Findings of Fact No. 16, 18 and 24. Savard also testified that giving massages in his bedroom to
22 male student/scouts while in their underwear, did not seem inappropriate to him, within the

‘ 23 context of that period of time and based upon the close relationships he had with the
PAGE 11 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER
GMC:GEN25732DOC Department of Justice
1162 Court NE
822?; 22211;“

‘ ' l
l
. l students/scouts. The panel concludes Savard gave the massages described in Findings of Fact l
2 No. 16,18 and 24. j
3 26. Savard denied ever giving a massage to Throne as described in Findings of Fact
4 No. 20. The panel concludes Savard gave the massage described in Findings of Fact No. 20.
5 27. Savard denied any massages he gave were for his sexual gratification. He ‘
6 described his feeling while administering or receiving massages as “agape.” Webster’s l
7 Dictionary defines agape as “love” or “lovefest.” l
8 28. Savard agreed that in the 1970s and 19805, he gave back massages to youth in ‘
9 situations where only he and the male youth were present at his residence.
10 29. No witness testified that parents gave permission for massages to be administered
11 by Savard in his residence to male youth while in a state of partial undress.
12 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
. 13 Savard’s conduct demonstrates a violation of standards required of Oregon educators.
l4 Specifically Savard violated OAR 584-020-0035(1)(b), (3)(a) and 584-020-0040(t).
15 Savard engaged in gross neglect of duty by his serious and material breach of
16 professional responsibilities. The gross neglect of duty arises from Savard’s sexual contact with
17 Throne and Stohr in 1981 by touching and engaging in physical conduct of a sexual nature. This
18 conduct violates the express prohibition regarding sexual contact with a student and constitutes
l9 an exploitation of Savard’s professional relationships with Throne and Stohr in violation of
20 standards for ethical educators.
21 / / /
22 / / /
. 23 / / /
PAGE l2 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER
GMC:GEN25732DOC Department of Justice
1162 Court NE
333831233?

. 1 OPINION
2 Savard was in a unique position of authority in Grants Pass High School because he was
3 the funnel through which all high achieving students with leadership aspirations needed to pass.
4 In addition he was active in the BSA, the community, and in extracurricular student activities.
5 Savard did tremendous good work on behalf of student development and committed
6 extraordinary time and energy on behalf of students. At the same time it is obvious Savard
7 received great personal satisfaction and had many of his emotional needs met through his student
8 relationships. This is not a negative circumstance unless the educator fails to maintain
9 appropriate professional boundaries inherent in the profession and as specified in Commission
10 rules.
11 The evidence before the panel clearly establishes that Savard crossed the line and
12 exploited his relationships with students. Giving massages to students while in a state of partial
‘ 13 or full undress while in the teacher’ s bedroom without others present can never be appropriate
l4 regardless of whether the student sought the massage or merely acquiesced. The disparity in V
15 power between Savard and aspiring students made those massages nonconsensual if viewed
l6 objectively.
l7 Savard acknowledges that in the 1970’s and 80’s he believed barrier-breaking activities
18 including massages as described above were permissible activities and that changing norms now
19 make the activities prohibited. The panel does not accept that perception as accurate. Without a
20 doubt had these activities been brought to the Commission when they occurred, they would have
21 been viewed as a violation of professional standards.
22 / / /
. 23 / / /
PAGE l3 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER
GMC:GEN25732DOC Department efJustioe
titlifiiiiiio
(503) 3784003

. 1 Savard argued that he never intended his massages to be sexual for himself or for the
2 students. However, his intent is not the determining factor. First, the definition of sexual contact
3 in the rule, OAR 584-020-0005(5), does not require the conduct be with the intent of arousing
4 sexual desires. It merely requires the intentional touching of intimate parts. The panel concludes
5 that the circumstances under which Savard massaged the low back, buttocks and upper legs of
6 students constitutes sexual contact under the rule. Second, Throne, Stohr, Jones and Bullington
7 all noted the confusion they felt as a result of the massages and how it felt both inappropriate and
8 good at the same time. Even Bruce Allyn, a staunch Savard supporter acknowledged that the
9 massages could objectively be viewed as sexual. Therefore the panel concludes the massages
10 violated the sexual contact rule.
l 1 Savard failed t0 maintain the dignity of the profession by failing to exemplify personal
12 integrity. Viewed objectively Savard engaged in “grooming” behavior of males whereby he
. 13 sought to develop ever more personal relationships without establishing clear and appropriate
14 boundaries. This constituted selfish behavior whereby Savard let his personal needs for intimacy
15 with students overcome his professional obligations to those students.
16 The panel is also struck by how manifestly discriminatory Savard’s behavior was. Savard
17 acknowledged that his conduct with females was very different than his conduct with males.
18 Male students were given far more personal attention and opportunities than female students to
19 develop and benefit from a relationship with Savard. Favoring one group of students on the
20 basis of sex fails to meet the obligations of the profession.
21 / / /
22 / / /
‘ 23 / / /
PAGE 14 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINTION AND ORDER
GMC:GEN25732.DOC Department of Justice
1162 Court NE
an 272212;“

.1 ORDER
2 After considering the factors under OAR 584-020-0045 the panel concludes Savard’s
3 licenses shall be suspended for one year commencing on the date the final order is effective. The
4 panel has determined a suspension, rather than revocation is the appropriate sanction based
5 primarily on the following factors. The age of the misconduct when coupled with the lack of
6 more recent transgressions is a mitigating factor. The opinion of Dr. Mike Knapp that Savard
7 does not pose a predatory sexual disposition provides some limited assurance that Savard will
8 conform his behaviors to professional standards. Lastly, Savard did not overcome overt
9 resistance when he engaged in his inappropriate physical touching. Nonetheless, based on the
10 nature of these offenses, the Commission must be vigilant to the interests of children. Savard
11 will be eligible for reinstatement upon application and upon submitting evidence satisfactory to
. 12 the Commission of good moral character pursuant to ORS 342,175(3). In addition, Savard at his
13 own expense and as a condition for reinstatement shall provide to the Commission a statement
14 satisfactory to the Commission from a qualified mental health provider acceptable to the
15 Commission that he does not pose a risk to children prior reinstatement of his licenses.
16 DATED this Z Zion/day of QQZ: ,4; 1999.
17 TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
18
L
19 By: i
avid V. Myton, xecutive Director
20
21
22
' 23

PAGE 15 - PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINT ION AND ORDER
GMC:GEN25732.DOC Department of Justice

1162 Court NE

Salem, OR 97310

($03) 3186003