. BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
In the Matter of the )
Teaching License of: ) FINAL ORDER
l
RICK DELBERT BURNHAM ) Office of Administrative
l Hearings Case No. 109293
On October 3, 2003, Administrative Law Judge M. E. Tarkington issued a
Proposed Order on Default in this case.
The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission adopts the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and sanction contained in the attached Proposed Order on Default‘
QBQEB.
The Commission adopts the Proposed Order on Default and revokes the Oregon
. Teaching License of Rick Delbert Burnham.
+k
Dated this /5 day of January 2004.
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
BL M
Victoria Cham rlain, Executive Director
NOTICE: You are entitled to judicial review of this order. Judicial review may be
Obtained by filing a petition for review Within 60 days of service ofthis order. Judicial
review is pursuant to the provisions of ORS 183.482 to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
Page l — FINAL ORDERwRick Delbert Burnham

BEFORE THE OFFICE 0F ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF OREGON
‘ for the
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE TEACHING ) PROPOSED ORDER 0N DEFAULT
LICENSE OF )
) OAH Case No.2 109293
RICK DELBERT BURNHAM
HISTORY OF THE CASE
On May 13, 2003, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (Commission)
issued a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing proposing to revoke the Oregon Teaching License of
Rick Delbert Burnham (Respondent) pursuant to ORS 342.175 through ORS 342.190 and the
Standards for Competent and Ethical Performance of Oregon Educators, OAR Chapter 584,
Division 020. The notice alleged that Respondent was convicted of the crime of Patronizing a
Prostitute (RCW 9A.88.110) in the District Court of the State of Washington in Clark County, a
crime listed in ORS 342.143(3). Respondent timely requested a hearing and the Commission
referred this matter for hearing to the Office of Administrative Hearings on June 25, 2003. The
contested case hearing was scheduled for September 29, 2003.
On August 27, 2003, the Commission filed a Motion for Ruling on Legal Issues
. (Summary Judgment), along with a supporting affidavit and exhibits. Respondent did not file a
response. This order was drafted as the response to the Commission’s Motion. However, on
September l8, 2003, I received notice from Respondent’s attorney that Respondent had
withdrawn his hearing request. Pursuant to OAR 137-003-0670(l)(b), (3), this order will serve
as a Proposed Order on Default.
ISSUES
1i Whether Respondent was convicted of a crime that requires the Commission to revoke
his Oregon Teaching License under ORS 342.175.
2. Whether there is an issue of material fact that is relevant to the resolution of the legal
issues in this case.
3. Whether the Commission is required to revoke Respondent’s Oregon Teaching
License
EVIDENTIARY RULINGS
The evidentiary record consists of the Commission’s Exhibits A and B and the Affidavit
of Joe Gordon McKeever, Assistant Attorney General.
Q
i n r \ i
t SCI 0 'Z L010 1
In the Matter ofRick Delbert Burnham t J. . . r i.’ ' ' 1. i
Page I of4 rig/‘1 t , _j

FINDINGS OF FACT
' l. Respondent holds a Standard Oregon Teaching License. (Affidavit of Joe Gordon
McKeever.)
2. On April 18, 2003, Respondent was convicted of the crime of patronizing a prostitute,
a violation of RCW 9A.88.110 in the District Court of the State of Washington in Clark County.
(Ex. A, B.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent was convicted of a crime that requires the Commission to revoke his
Oregon Teaching License under ORS 342.175.
2. There is no issue of material fact that is relevant to the resolution of the legal issues in
this case.
3. The Commission is required to revoke Respondent’s Oregon Teaching License.
OPINION
Grounds for Revocation of Teaching License
ORS 342.175(2) states:
' Notwithstanding ORS 670.280, the commission shall revoke any license 0r
registration and shall revoke the right of any person to apply for license or
registration if the person has held a license or registration at any time within
five years prior to issuance of the notice of charges under ORS 342.176 when
the holder or person has been convicted of any crime described in ORS
342.1430).
ORS 167.007 (prostitution) is one 0f the crimes described in ORS 342.143 (3)(a)(A). ORS
342.143 (3)(a)(C) further includes conviction of a crime that is substantially equivalent to any of
the crimes listed in subparagraph ORS 342.143(l)(a)(A).
Respondent’s Conviction
The Judgment and Sentence Order from the District Court of the State of Washington in
and for the County of Clark establishes that Respondent was convicted of patronizing a prostitute
in violation of RCW 9A.88.110. (Exs. A and B.). RCW 9A.88.110, of which Respondent was
convicted, provides as follows:
(l) A person is guilty of patronizing a prostitute if:
(a) Pursuant to a prior understanding, he or she pays a fee to another
person as compensation for such person or a third person having engaged in
' sexual conduct with him or her; or
In the Matter ofRick Delbert Burnham
Page 2 of 4

(b) He or she pays 0r agrees to pay a fee to another person pursuant to
an understanding that in return therefor such person will engage in sexual
' conduct with him or her; or
(c) He or she solicits or requests another person to engage in sexual
conduct with him or her in return for a fee.
ORS 167.007 provides as follows:
(l) A person commits the crime of prostitution if:
(a) The person engages in or offers or agrees to engage in sexual
conduct or sexual contact in return for a fee; or
(b) The person pays or offers or agrees to pay a fee to engage in sexual

conduct or sexual contact.

RCW 9A.88.110 is substantially the same as ORS 167.007. The wording of the statutes is such
that the Oregon statute would cover any situation that is covered in RCW 9A.88.110. Therefore,
I find that Respondent was convicted in the State of Washington of a crime that is substantially
equivalent to ORS 167.007.

Legal Standard for Motions for Ruling on Legal Issues

OAR 137-003-0580, which provides the standards for evaluating Motions for Ruling on

Legal Issues (Summary Judgment) provides, in pertinent part:
. (6) The hearing officer shall grant the motion for a legal ruling if:
(a) The pleadings, affidavits, supporting documents (including any
interrogatories or admissions) and the record in the contested case
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact that is
relevant to resolution of the legal issue as to which a decision is sought; and
(b) The agency 0r party filing the motion is entitled to a favorable

ruling as a matter of law.

In this case, the agency is required to revoke Respondent’s Oregon Teaching License
under ORS 342.175 based on his conviction for patronizing a prstitute. There is no issue as to
any material fact that is relevant to the resolution of the legal issue in this case. Thus, the
Commission is entitled to a favorable ruling as a matter of law.
1n the Matter ofRiek Delbert Burnham
Page 3 of 4

RULING
. The Commission’s Motion for Ruling on Legal Issues (Summary Judgment) is granted. ‘
PROPOSED ORDER

I propose that the Teachers Standards and Practices Commission issue the following
order:

Respondent’s Oregon Teaching License is revoked.

, i / “ . w a
/ a‘, t 5,1». 41W
M. E. arkington, Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings
EXCEPTIONS

The proposed order is the Administrative Law J udge‘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:

. Teacher Standards and Practices Commission
465 Commercial Street, NE
Salem, Oregon 97301

The Commission need not allow oral argument. The Executive Director may permit oral
argument in those cases in which the Director believes oral argument may be appropriate 0r
helpful to the Commissioners in making a final determination. If oral argument is allowed, the
Commission will inform you of the time and place for presenting oral argument.
In the Matter ofRick Delbert Burnham
Page 4 of 4

' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on October 3, 2003, I served the attached Proposed Order on Default by mailing in a

1 sealed envelope, with first class certified postage prepaid, a copy thereof addressed as follows:

RICK DELBERT BURNHAM

PO BOX 142

RAINIER OR 97048

ADRIENNE C NELSON

ATTORNEY AT LAW

851 SW 6TH AVE STE 1600

PORTLAND OR 97204

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

TEACHERS STANDARDS AND PRACTICES

465 COMMERCIAL ST NE

. SALEM OR 97301

JOE GORDON McKEEVER

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

1162 COURT ST NE

SALEM OR 97301-4096

Lotti) r it e

Ann Redding, Administrative S ec'alist
Office of Administrative Hearing
Transportation Hearings Division