BEFORE
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF: ) FINAL ORDER
)
Mark Paul Allen, ) OAH Case No. 700215
)
This matter came before the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission during its
regularly scheduled public meeting on May 15 and 16, 2008 to consider the Proposed Order
issued by Administrative Law Judge John Mann. Mr. Allen, though counsel, requested an
extension to file exceptions. Counsel for Mr. Allen later notified the Commission that no
exceptions would be filed. After considering the Proposed Order and the record herein, the
Commission adopts the AL]’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Commission also
adopts the reasoning of the ALJ, except as otherwise noted in the Final Order.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
On August 15, 2007, the Commission (TSPC) issued a Notice of Denial ofReinstatement
of Revoked License and Opportunity for a Hearing to Mark Paul Allen. On August 20, 2007,
Mr. Allen requested a hearing.
On September 5, 2007, TSPC referred the hearing request to the Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH). Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mann was assigned to preside at the
hearing. A pre-hearing conference was held on November 27, 2007. Mr. Allen was represented
by his attorney, John Bishop. TSPC was represented by Assistant Attorney General Raul
Ramirez.
A hearing was held on February 12, 2008 at the Office of Administrative Hearings in
Salem, Oregon. Mr. Allen was present at the hearing and was represented by his attorney, Cathy
Highet.l TSPC was represented by Mr. Ramirez. George Finch, TSPC’s Coordinator of
Professional Practices, was present on behalf of TSPC. Mr. Allen testified in the hearing, as a
witness for TSPC and on his own behalf. TSPC did not provide testimony from any other
witness. Mr. Allen presented testimony from three witnesses: Peter Shannon, a licensed
professional counselor, Ron Carpani, Director of Bay Area Community Band, and Laura Eschler,
a resource room teacher at Coquille l-ligh School. The record closed at the end of the hearing.
ISSUE
Whether Mr. Allen’s application for reinstatement of his revoked teaching license should
be approved. OAR 584-050-0015
EVIDENTIARY RULING ‘
' Ms. Highet is a member of the same law firm as Mr. Bishop. On January 29, 2008 Ms. Highet notified l
thc Office of Administrative Hearings that she was replacing Mr. Bishop in the case. ;
l
l
In the Matter ofMark Paul Allen, OAH Case NO. 700215 i
Page l of 12

Exhibits A1 through A6, offered by TSPC, and Exhibits Rl through R5, offered by Mr.
Allen, were admitted into the record without objection.

Exhibit A3 is a Final Order issued by TSPC following a hearing in 2005. In the Final
Order, TSPC adopted a Proposed Order that I issued in October of 2005 upholding TSPC’s
denial of Mr. Allen’s application for reinstatement. The Findings of Fact in this Proposed Order
regarding the actions that led to the revocation of Mr. Allen’s teaching license are based
primarily on the Findings of Fact in that Final Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

l. From July of 1984 until March of 2004, Mark Paul Allen held a Standard Oregon
Teaching License with an endorsement in music. (Ex. A1 at l; Ex. A2 at 4.) From 1993 through
March of 2004, Mr. Allen was employed by the Coos Bay School District. (Ex. A2 at 2.)

2. From 1998 through September of 2000, Mr. Allen served as District Treasurer for
the South Coast Chapter of the Oregon Music Education Association (OMEA). While serving in
that capacity, Mr. Allen misappropriated approximately $14,000 for his personal use. (Ex. Al at
2.) Based on that conduct, on August 2, 2002, TSPC issued an order, with Mr. Allen’s
stipulation, which suspended Mr. Allen’s teaching license for five months and placed him on
probation for three years. (Ex. Al .) TSPC reinstated Mr. Allen’s teaching license on December
9, 2002. (Ex. A2 at 2.)

3. On November 27, 2002, Lawrence Flanagan, Ph.D., a psychologist, prepared a
psychological evaluation of Mr. Allen. In the evaluation, Dr. Flanagan noted that Mr. Allen had
been receiving psychotherapy from Jeremy Howell, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, from
October 1 l, 2000 through April 9, 2001. Based on a review of Mr. Howell’s notes, Dr. Flanagan
concluded that Mr. Allen had made “significant progress” in understanding the behavior that led
to his misuse of OMEA funds. Dr. Flanagan noted that results of testing and a Mental Status
Examination did not show “any evidence of a psychological process or character disorder that
would interfere with Mr. Allen’s performance of his duties as a music teacher and band director.”
Dr. Flanagan also observed that Mr. Allen’s then supervisor called him “an exceptional teacher.”
'Ihe supervisor believed that Mr. Allen’s misuse of OMEA funds was an aberration and that Mr.
Allen could be trusted not to engage in illegal or dishonest actions in the future. Dr. Flanagan
concluded that there was “a high probability that [Mr. Allen would] not engage in dishonest or
fraudulent activity * * * in the future.” (Ex. A6.)

4. In the summer of 2003, Mr. Allen was employed as a high school band instructor at
Marshfield High School (Marshfield) On August 14, 2003, the owners of a local music store told
Dale Inskeep, the Assistant Principal at Marshfield, that the parents of a former student had
agreed to purchase a saxophone from Mr. Allen. The saxophone was the property of the school
and had been loaned to the student While he attended Marshfield. (Ex. A3 at 4.)

5. On August 13, 2003, Mr. Allen cashed a money order given to him by the parents in
the amount of $800. (Ex. A3 at 5; test. ofAllen.)

In the Matter ofMark Paul Allen, OAH Case N0. 700215
Page 2 of 12

6. On August 15, 2003, Mr. Inskeep spoke to the parents of the former student. The
parents confirmed that they had purchased a saxophone from Mr. Allen. The parents told Mr.
Inskeep that they agreed to pay Mr. Allen $1,100 for the instrument and had already given Mr.
Allen a money order for $800. The parents also confirmed that the saxophone was the same
instrument the student had borrowed from the school. (Ex. A3 at 4.)

7. Later on August 15, 2003, Mr. Allen called Mr. Inskeep and stated that he was
unaware of any school policy with regard to selling band instruments. Mr. Allen asked if he
could get the saxophone back from the parents, return the money order, “and then run it through
proper channels.” Mr. Allen admitted that he had the parents pay in the form of a money order
made payable to him. (Ex. A3 at 4.)

8. On August 18, 2003, Mr. Allen provided a written memorandum to Marshfield
regarding the alleged sale of the school’s saxophone. The memorandum was dated August 15,
2003. Mr. Allen wrote that he had a conversation with the parents regarding their desire to
purchase a saxophone. According to the memorandum, Mr. Allen gave the parents some advice
about where they could purchase an instrument and told them that their son could use the sehool’s
instrument until he got a new one or until he left for college in September. The memorandum
also refers to a phone conversation with Mr. Inskeep in which Mr. Allen denied selling a
saxophone to the parents. Mr. Allen also denied knowledge of a money order and denied
receiving any money from the parents for the sale of an instrument. (Ex. A3 at 4-5.)

9. On February 26, 2004, Lester Simons, a local music store owner, prepared a letter
for Mr. Allen. Mr. Simons noted that Mr. Allen had approached him sometime between May and
July of 2003 and asked about the availability of a Yanagisawa brand saxophone for a former
student. Mr. Allen told Mr. Simons that the parents had only $1,100 to spend. Mr. Simons told
Mr. Allen that he could sell the parents a saxophone at his cost, but that $1,100 was not enough to
cover those costs. Mr. Simons notes that he was later contacted by the parents who told him that
they had found a saxophone on the internet for $200 more than the cost that Mr. Simons would
charge. Mr. Simons advised the parents to purchase the instrument from the internet so that they
could get it before their son went to college. The parents then told Mr. Simons that they had
already given Mr. Allen the $1,100 they had to spend on the instrument. Mr. Simons was
surprised that Mr. Allen had taken money from the parents. Mr. Simons wrote that Mr. Allen
returned the money when the parents decided to purchase the saxophone from the intemet. (Ex.
A3 at l l.)

10. On February 25, 2004, Mr. Allen entered into a stipulation with TSPC agreeing to
surrender his teaching license based on the allegation that he had attempted to sell the school’s
saxophone. Mr. Allen did not admit to the allegations, but stipulated that there was sufficient
evidence in the record to support TSPC’s allegations. (Ex. A2 at 1-2.)

l 1. Based on Mr. Allen’s stipulation, on March 5, 2004, TSPC issued an order revoking
Mr. Allen’s license. The order found that Ms. Allen attempted to sell a saxophone that was
owned by the Coos Bay School District. The order also found that Mr. Allen received an $800
money order for the saxophone and that he provided a written statement to the school district in
In the Matter ofMurk Paul Allen, OAH Case No. 700215
Page 3 of 12

which he denied receiving the money order. The order concluded that Mr. Allen’s conduct
constituted gross unfitness in violation of OAR 584-020-0040(5)(e). It also concluded that Mr.
Allen’s statement to Marshfield’s principal that he had not received the money order from the
parents of a former student was false and constituted gross neglect of duty in violation of OAR
584-020-0040(4)(c). The order found that both violations constituted violations of the terms of
Mr. Allen’s probation which required him to comply with all professional standards under OAR
Chapter 584 Division 020. The order stated that Mr. Allen had the right to apply for
reinstatement after one year. (Ex. A2.)

12. In February of 2005, Mr. Allen applied for reinstatement of his teaching license. His
application was denied. Following a hearing, TSPC issued a final order affirming the denial.
(Ex. A3.)

13. On May 20, 2005, Mr. Allen was interviewed by Cheryl A. Gifford, PhD. Dr.
Gifford prepared written Personal Assessment Inventory in which she wrote:

In the summer of 2003, Mr. Allen states that he attempted to purchase a

saxophone from a music store of the exact kind that a student had been using so

that he would have an instrument to continue using as he went on to college.

The school somehow got the idea that Mr. Allen was trying to sell to the student

the same instrument, owned by the school that the student had been using during

the school year. The school further believed that Mr. Allen was pocketing the

money in this exchange.” (Ex. A5 at 2.)

In a section of the report labeled “Recommendations,” Dr. Gifford wrote:

Mr. Allen maintains that he was not involved in any fraudulent or dishonest

activity, but was foolish to try and find an instrument for his student without

discussing it with his administration given his probationary status. He avers that

he was trying to find an instrument similar to the one the student had been using

and therein lay the confusion about whose instrument was being sold, the school’s

one or one from Mr. Simon’s store.

=l< >l< >l< * >1‘

Mr. Allen is not guilt[y] of fraud or dishonesty, but a lack of foresight, and a

failure to protect his own interests. I continue to find that Mr, Allen is highly

unlikely to engage in fraudulent or dishonest activity or other inappropriate

behavior now or in the future. (Ex. A5 at 4.)

14. On January 30, 2007, Mr. Allen again applied for reinstatement. In an affidavit
submitted with his application, Mr. Allen attributed his misappropriation of funds from OMEA to
a troubled relationship with a younger woman. He admitted that he “made poor choices and
misused funds.” (Ex. A4 at 7.)

In the Matter ofMurk Paul Allen, OAH Case N0. 700215
Page 4 of l2

15. In his affidavit, Mr. Allen also addressed the circumstances that led to the revocation
of his teaching license. Mr. Allen wrote that he initially thought he had done nothing wrong and
had been mistreated. He wrote that he now understands that he was solely responsible for his
situation. He asserted that the incident stemmed from his desire to help a recently graduated
student to obtain a new instrument. He wrote that he had been attempting t0 arrange a purchase
through a private dealer, but acknowledged how “someone outside of the situation” could have
assumed that he was trying to sell an instrument owned by the school district. Mr. Allen also
acknowledged that he lied to school administrators when confronted about the sale. He wrote that
he has since learned that “forthright answers and truthfulness are qualities all must display and
live by.” (Ex. A4 at 7-8.) Mr. Allen lied because he did not trust his supervisor. Because he was
on probation for diverting money from the OMEA, Mr. Allen was afraid that he could be
disciplined if the allegation against him was believed. (Test. of Allen.)

l6. Since August of 2004, Mr. Allen has worked as an instructional aide for the Coquille
School District. Initially, Mr. Allen worked in the music program at Coquille High School. More
recently, he has worked as an aide in the school’s resource room and in the school’s credit
recovery program. (Ex. A4 at 7-8; test. of Allen.) Mr. Allen is popular with the students, many of
whom have difficulty in school, and is respected by the resource room teacher, Laura Eschler.
(Test. of Eschler.)

17. In June of 2006, Mr. Allen received an Evaluation Report from the principal of
Coquille High School. The principal wrote:

Mark has yet again done an outstanding job directing the music program at a high level

here at CHS. Mark is [a] gifted and knowledgeable instructor who relates to his students

very well. Mark is well like[d] by staff and students and has a great sense of humor. I

100k forward to many more years working with Mark.

(Ex. R2 at 1.)

l8. In June of 2007, the principal prepared another evaluation of Mr. Allen’s
performance. The principal wrote:

This is Mark’s 3rd year working in the Coquille School District. He has done an excellent

job once again with our bands. The performances are excellent and well attended. Mark
has the support of his peers, his students and the community. It is my hope that Mark is
successful in obtaining his Teaching License so he can continue working with the

Coquille School District as a Certified Staff member.

(Ex. R2 at 2.)

l9. Mr. Allen has the support of many members of the community. In June and July of
2006, Mr. Allen received four letters of support from teachers and school administrators in
support of his reinstatement. The letters speak highly of Mr. Allen’s professionalism and ability
as teacher. In February of 2007, Jeanine Walker of North Bend High School wrote a letter of
support similarly noting Mr. Allen’s skill as a teacher. In July of 2006, 39 members of the Bay

In the Matter of Mark Paul Allen, OAH Case No. 700215
Page 5 of 12

Area Concert Band, with which Mr. Allen is associated, signed a petition in support of Mr.
Allen’s reinstatement. (Ex. R1.)

20. On April 26, 2007, Jeremy Howell, L.C.S.W., prepared a letter on Mr. Allen’s behalf
in support of his application for reinstatement. In the letter, Mr. Howell noted that he had been
counseling Mr. Allen “at various times since October, 2000.” Mr. Howell opined that Mr. Allen’s
past acts of dishonesty resulted from becoming overly involved in personal relationships. Mr.
Howell believed that Mr. Allen was applying Mr. Howell’s advice to establish appropriate
boundaries between his personal and professional lives. Mr. Howell declined to offer an opinion
on Mr. Allen’s fitness to work as an educator. Mr. Howell noted the difficulty of predicting
future behavior and encouraged Mr. Allen to continue in counseling. (Ex. R3.)

21. On April 28, 2007, Peter Shannon, a Licensed Professional Counselor, wrote a letter
at the request of Mr. Allen’s attorney. Mr. Shannon noted that he had not completed a formal
evaluation of Mr. Allen, but that he had reviewed the evaluations completed by Dr. Flanagan and
Dr. Gifford and had spoken with Mr. Howell. Mr. Shannon also interviewed Mr. Allen on April
16, 2007 and administered a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory i Second Edition
(MMPI-2). The test showed “significant clinical elevation in scale #4 (psychopathic deviance)
and scale #6 (paranoia).” According to Mr. Shannon, these results “suggest elements of an
antisocial personality disorder” although they did not necessarily mean that Mr. Allen has a
formal diagnosis of such a disorder. (Ex. R4.) In the most extreme context, Mr. Shannon
believes that an elevated scale #4 score can indicate criminal intent. However, that is usually
accompanied by an elevated score in scale #9, which is not present in Mr. Allen’s test results.
The elevated score in scale #4 could indicate a person who is individualistic and indifferent to the
impact of actions on others. The result is consistent with a person who is dishonest. (Test. of
Shannon.)

22. Mr. Shannon endorsed the reinstatement of Mr. Allen’s teaching license with the
conditions that Mr. Howell incorporate the results of the MMPI-2 test into his counseling work
with Mr. Allen and that Mr. Allen undergo regular polygraph examinations over the next two to
three years. (Ex. R4.) Mr. Shannon’s practice primarily involves the treatment of sexual
offenders and persons with sexual addiction. He uses polygraph examinations as a way to
monitor treatment of these individuals. Mr. Shannon is unsure how a polygraph examination of
Mr. Allen would be structured in the absence of specific allegations. Mr. Shannon met Mr. Allen
on only one occasion and spent a total of four hours with him. Mr. Shannon did not complete a
formal evaluation of Mr. Allen. (Test. of Shannon.)

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Mr. Allen’s application for reinstatement of his revoked teaching license should be
denied.
OPINION
In March of 2004, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC) issued an
order revoking Mark Allen’s teaching license. Mr. Allen denied the allegations contained in the
In the Illatter of Mark Paul Allen, OAH Case N0. 700215
Page 6 of l2

order, but conceded that there was sufficient evidence to support them. Mr. Allen therefore
stipulated to the revocation. In February of 2005, Mr. Allen sought to have his license reinstated.
That request was denied. Following a hearing, TSPC upheld its denial. In January of 2007, Mr.
Allen again applied for reinstatement and TSPC once again denied that request.

ORS 342.175(3) sets forth the statutory basis for reinstating a previously revoked license.
That statute provides:

Except for convictions for crimes listed in ORS 342.143(3) 2 and subject to

subsection (4) of this section, any person whose license or registration has been

suspended or revoked or whose privilege to apply for a license or registration has
been revoked may apply to the commission for reinstatement of the license or
registration after one year from the date of the suspension or revocation. The
commission may require an applicant for reinstatement to furnish evidence
satisfactory to the commission of good moral character, mental and physical

health and such other evidence as the commission may consider necessary to

establish the applicant’s fitness. The commission may impose a probationary

period and such conditions as it considers necessary upon approving an

application for reinstatement.

TSPC has adopted administrative rules consistent with ORS 342.175 that apply to the
reinstatement of a surrendered or revoked license. OAR 584-050-0018 provides, in relevant
part:

(1) Any revocation for conviction for crimes listed in ORS 342.143(3) is

permanent and the license or registration is not eligible for reinstatement. All

other revocations of a license, registration or right to apply for a license or
registration are eligible for application for reinstatement.

(2) Application for reinstatement of a license or registration revoked for any

reason other than those cited in ORS 342.143(3) may be submitted at any time

after the period of revocation has expired for the license, registration or right to
apply for a license or registration.

(3) The burden will be on the educator to establish fitness for reinstatement.

(4) The application for reinstatement must include:

>l< * * =l= *

(c) A personal notarized affidavit attesting that:

(A) All the conditions of the order for revocation have been met; and
2 Mr. Allen has not been convicted of any crime listed in ORS 342.1436). Mr. Allen has not been
convicted of any crime in connection with the conduct that led TSPC to discipline him and revoke his
license.

In the Matter ofMark PaulAlIen, OAH Case No. 700215
Page 7 of 12

(B) That the educator has not violated any laws of the states, including ethical
violations related to licensure or registration; and
(d) Any additional documentation, sufficient to establish convincingly that the
educator possesses all of the qualifications required for renewal or reinstatement
of a license or registration of that type.
TSPC has not adopted a rule defining “fitness” within the context of an application for
reinstatement. However, ORS 342.143(2) provides:
The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may require an applicant for a
teaching, personnel service or administrative license or for registration as a public
charter school teacher or administrator to furnish evidence satisfactory to the
commission of good moral character, mental and physical health, and such other
evidence as it may deem necessary to establish the applicant’s fitness to serve as a
teacher or administrator.
(Emphasis added.)
Because Mr. Allen has the burden to show that he is fit to serve as an educator, he must
demonstrate that he meets the criteria of ORS 342.143(2) to demonstrate his fitness. TSPC has
adopted a rule defining “good moral character” within the meaning of ORS 342.143 (2). OAR
584-020-0040 provides, in relevant part:
(2) An applicant fails to meet the requirement of ORS 342.143 “good moral
character” if the applicant engages in gross neglect of duty, gross unfitness, in
violation of section (4) 0f this rule or other acts which are in violation of sections
(l) or (3) ofthis rule.
(3) The Commission may initiate proceedings to suspend or revoke the license or
registration of an educator under ORS 342.175 or deny a license or registration to
an applicant under ORS 342.143 who:
* * * * >l<
(d) ls charged with gross unfitness[.]
* =8 * >l< *
(5) Gross unfitness is any conduct which renders an educator unqualified to
perform his or her professional responsibilities. Conduct constituting gross
unfitness may include conduct occurring outside of school hours or off school
premises when such conduct bears a demonstrable relationship to the educator’s
ability to fulfill professional responsibilities effectively. The following may be
admissible as evidence of gross unfitness. Consideration may include but is not
limited to:
In the Matter ofMark Paul Allen, OAH Case No. 700215
Page 8 0f 12

* * * >l< *

(b) Fraud or misrepresentation[.]

Under the above rule, a person fails to meet the criteria of having “good moral character”
if the person has committed an act of fraud or misrepresentation. Because the acts that led to the
revocation of Mr. Allen’s license involved dishonesty, it is reasonable to conclude that to
establish fitness, Mr. Allen must demonstrate that he is currently sufficiently honest and
trustworthy to serve as a teacher.

OAR 584-050-0018(3) imposes the burden on Mr. Allen to establish his fitness for
reinstatement. Mr. Allen has not met that burden. The events that led to the revocation of Mr.
Allen’s license included dishonesty and self-serving behavior. Because Mr. Allen stipulated to
the revocation 0f his license, the issue of whether or not Mr. Allen tried to sell a school
instrument has never been fully litigated. At the hearing in 2005 and at the hearing on the
present matter, Mr. Allen consistently denied trying to sell a school instrument. He provided
evidence at the prior hearing, in the form of a letter from a music dealer, that tends to support his
denial. If, as he has consistently claimed, Mr. Allen did not engage in that conduct, it would be
unreasonable to require him to admit that he attempted to sell a school instrument as a condition
of reinstatement. Nevertheless, Mr. Allen is required to establish his fitness for reinstatement.

As Mr. Allen now admits, when he was confronted with the allegation by school
officials, he lied. His explanations were often misleading and contradictory. Despite the fact
that he received $800 for a saxophone on August 13, 2003, he prepared a written memorandum
two days later denying that he had received any money. At the hearing in the present case, he
testified that he lied because he did not trust his supervisor and was concerned about the impact
of the allegation that he tried to sell a school instrument. At the time, Mr. Allen was still on
probation for using OMEA funds for his own benefit. His fear is understandable; his reaction
was not. Rather than offer what Mr. Allen contends is the true explanation for his actions, Mr.
Allen denied any involvement in trying to procure an instniment for the student. In the hearing
in the present case, Mr. Allen contended that he was actually attempting to arrange the purchase
of an instrument for $2,200, which he intended to sell to the parents for $1,100. He testified that
the parents had been very involved in the music program, and that the student was very
deserving. He did not want to embarrass the parents by letting them know that he was picking
up half of the cost. If this was indeed Mr. Allen’s intention, it is baffling why he would not have
disclosed that fact to school administrators. Mr. Allen’s multiple, inconsistent and shifting
stories made it impossible for anyone to know exactly what he intended to do when he accepted
money from the parents. Furthermore, his admitted dishonesty casts doubt 0n his contention that
he was acting out of altruistic motives.

Mr. Allen contends that he now understands the importance of being honest. However,
the evidence he provided in support of that new understanding is equivocal at best. Mr. Allen’s
counselor, Jeremy Howell, L.C.S.W, provided a letter in support of Mr. Allen’s application for
reinstatement. In the letter, Mr. Howell provided some explanation for Mr. Allen’s past
behavior, but he specifically declined to comment on Mr. Allen’s fitness to work as an educator.
In the Matter ofMark Paul Allen, OAH Case N0. 700215
Page 9 of 12

Mr. Howell offered no solid opinion as to whether he believed that Mr. Allen would engage in
dishonest conduct in the future.

Mr. Allen also provided a letter and testimony from Peter Shannon, a Licensed
Professional Counselor, who met with Mr. Allen on one occasion in April of 2007. Although
Mr. Shannon was supportive of Mr. Allen’s reinstatement, he suggested a two to three year
course of regular polygraph examinations to monitor Mr. Allen’s trustworthiness. He also
testified that Mr. Allen had personality test scores consistent with dishonesty and paranoia. Mr.
Shannon minimized the results of the test scores and suggested that the results could also be
consistent with a person who was simply an individualist. Nevertheless, Mr. Shannon’s
evaluation did little to establish that Mr. Allen had the requisite trustworthiness to serve as an
educator.

The evaluations by Mr. Howell and Mr. Shannon also need to be considered in light of
previous assessments by mental health professionals. In May of 2005, Cheryl A. Gifford, Ph.D.,
concluded that Mr. Allen was “highly unlikely” t0 engage in dishonest conduct in the future. But
that appeared to have been based upon Dr. Gifford’s acceptance of Mr. Allen’s previous denials
of any improper behavior. In fact, Dr. Gifford believed that Mr. Allen had not engaged in any
acts of dishonesty. This is despite the fact that Dr. Gifford made this assessment after Mr. Allen
had deliberately lied to school officials when confronted with the allegation that he was
attempting to sell a school instrument. If Mr. Allen had informed Dr. Gifford of his deception, it
would have been impossible for her to conclude that Mr. Allen had not engaged in dishonest
behavior. It thus appears that Mr. Allen was less than forthcoming with Dr. Gifford.

In November of 2002, before the events that led to the revocation, Lawrence Flanagan,
Ph.D., a psychologist, prepared a psychological evaluation of Mr. Allen. At that time, Dr.
Flanagan concluded that Mr. Allen had made “significant progress” in understanding the
behavior that led to his misuse of OMEA funds. Dr. Flanagan concluded that there was “a high
probability that [Mr. Allen would] not engage in dishonest or fraudulent activity * * * in the
future.” Dr. Flanagan’s prediction was incorrect.

The ALJ noted evidence that he believed tended to support Mr. Allen’s reinstatement.
Specifically, the ALJ noted as follows:

“[Mr. Allen] has worked in a school setting, working as an aide, but in many respects

performing the functions of a teacher, since August of 2004. He has received glowing

reviews from his supervisors. There is no evidence that he has engaged in any dishonest
acts in that role. He also has the support of members of the community who view him as
an inspirational and extremely talented teacher. Given his presence in the classroom,
apparently without incident, it is doubtful that reinstatement of his teaching license would
create any additional risk of dishonesty. However, the support of the community
members speaks more to Mr. Allen’s undisputed talent as a teacher. It does not directly
address Mr. Allen’s honesty.”

The Commission acknowledges the ALJ’s comments, but does not adopt the conclusion
that these support reinstatement. For example, Mr. Allen presented the testimony from Ron
In the Matter of Mark Paul Allen, OAH Case No. 700215
Page 10 of 12

Carpani, Director of Bay Area Community Band, and Laura Eschler, a Resource Room teacher
at Coquille High School. Both of these witnesses were unwilling to acknowledge that Mr. Allen
had engaged in prior misconduct, and generally blamed others for Mr. Allen’s troubles. Neither
Mr. Carpani nor Ms. Eschler truly knew the circumstances of Mr. Allen’s prior misconduct
because they relied on what they heard from others. Neither ever questioned Mr. Allen about his
prior misconduct to make an educated assessment of his involvement or any remorse. Both
chose to blindly trust him because in their opinion Mr. Allen was a talented band teacher.

Mr. Allen, through counsel, noted that there are numerous eases involving far more
egregious conduct in which TSPC has chosen to impose less severe sanctions than revocation.
For example, on January l3, 2005, TSPC issued a final order In the matter ofLemont Pouret
Quiring. In that case, TSPC found that a teacher had engaged in sexually explicit conversations
with students over the internet and improperly allowed a student to spend the night at his home.
TSPC imposed a six-month suspension followed by three years 0f probation. Mr. Allen argues
that the allegations that led to the revocation of his ovm license were less severe and that he has
been deprived of his license for nearly four years. The ALJ noted that Mr. Allen’s argument for
leniency had some appeal, and that Mr. Allen is a talented teacher who should not have a
lifetime ban 0n teaching.

The ALJ correctly concluded that while Mr. Allen’s argument was misplaced. The issue
of the appropriateness of the sanction was something that could have been litigated at the time of
the proposed revocation. Mr. Allen chose not to litigate the sanction and stipulated to the
revocation of his license. Now that his license has been revoked, he bears the burden of
establishing that he has the requisite fitness to serve as a teacher. The evidence he produced in
support of his application was not sufficient to meet that burden. Therefore, his application for
reinstatement should be denied. Moreover, the Commision disagrees with Mr. Allen’s
comparison of the the Lemont Pouret Quiring case to this. Specifically, that case involved the
Commission disciplining an actively licensed educator. In the present case, there is no question
about the severity of the sanction. Rather, the question is whether Mr. Allen has established his
fitness to have his teaching license back. The Commission’s determination that he has not met
his burden cannot be equated with whether a licensed educator receives, e. g., a suspension or
reprimand for engaging in misconduct when there is no unfitness.

The ALJ also noted that Mr. Allen should not have a lifetime ban on teaching. The
Commission has not stated that a lifetime ban exists, or that it is imposing a lifetime ban. Were
that the case, Mr. Allen would be precluded from periodically reapplying and having the
Commission consider each application on its merits. The C0mmissi0n’s denial of reinstatement
can only be interpreted as being a denial based on the current record.

In the Matter ofMark Paul Allen, OAH Case No. 700215
Page 11 of 12

FINAL ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission hereby orders as follows:
Mark Paul Allen’s application for reinstatement of his revoked teacher’s license is
denied.
. 1L!“
It IS So Ordered this day of a 2008.
TEACHER STANDA AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
By m1 Al/ll. . r '14
Victoria Chant.” , Executive Director
NOTICE: You are entitled to judicial review of this Final Order pursuant to the provisions of
ORS 183.480. Judicial review may be obtained by filing a petition in the Oregon Court of
Appeals. The petition must be filed within 60 days from the date of service of this Final Order.
In the Mutter ofMark Paul Allen, OAH Case N0. 700215
Page 12 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I hereby certify that I served the foregoing order by mailing a true copy thereof certified by me ‘
as such by U.S. First Class Mail to the Attorney of record for Mark Paul Allen:

John S. Bishop

Attorney at Law

McKanna Bishop Joffe & Sullivan,, LLP

1635 NW Johnson Street

Portland OR 97209
Dated this é day of June, 2008.

By: i -. ~ I ms
Melody l anson, E a ve Assistant

In the Matter anark Paul Allen, OAH Case No. 700215
Page l3 of 13