1 BEFORE THE TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION 2 OF THE STATE OF OREGON 3 4 In the Matter of the Educator ) DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION 5 License of ) OF RIGHT TO APPLY 6 THOMAS JOHN SPOELHOF ) FOR LICENSURE 7 8 9 On June 13, 2016, the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (Commission) 10 issued a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to Thomas John Spoelhof (Spoelhof) in which 11 the Commission charged him with Gross Neglect of Duty. The Notice was sent via U.S. First 12 Class Mail and U.S. Certified Mail Receipt 7015 0640 0004 7539 7004 to the address on file 13 with the Commission. The Notice designated the Commission file as the record for purposes 14 of proving a prima facie case. The Certified Mail was not returned to the Commission. The 15 first class mail was not returned to the Commission. The Notice of Opportunity of Hearing, 16 dated June 13, 2016, and signed by Victoria Chamberlain, then Executive Director, stated: l7 “IF A REQUEST FOR HEARING IS NOT RECEIVED WITHIN THIS 21-DAY 18 PERIOD, YOUR RIGHT TO A HEARING SHALL BE CONSIDERED WAIVED 19 UNLESS YOUR FAILURE TO REQUEST A HEARING WAS BEYOND YOUR 20 REASONABLE CONTROL. IF YOU DO NOT REQUEST A HEARING OR IF YOU 21 FAIL TO APPEAR AT A HEARING, THE COMMISSION WILL ADOPT AN ORDER 22 OF DEFAULT WHICH MAY INCLUDE THE REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF 23 YOUR LICENSE OR OTHER DISCIPLINE.” 24 25 Spoelhof did not request a hearing. The Commission, therefore, finds Spoelhof to be in 26 default and enters the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final order, based 27 on the files and records of the Commission concerning this matter. 28 29 FINDINGS OF FACT 30 1. Spoelhof been licensed as a teacher in Oregon since September 3, 2014. Spoelhof 31 previously held an Initial Teaching License, with endorsements in Language Arts 32 (HS, ML) and Social Studies (HS, ML), valid from September 3, 2014, through May 33 16, 2016. During all relevant times, Spoelhof was employed by the North Clackamas 34 School District. 35 36 2. On January 20, 2015, the Commission received a report from the North Clackamas 37 School District alleging Spoelhof had violated professional standards. Investigation PAGE 1-DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT TO APPLY FOR LICENSURE— THOMAS JOHN SPOELHOF 4i 1 determined that on or about August 21, 2014, Spoelhof submitted an application for 2 employment for a teaching position at the North Clackamas School District. Copies 3 of Spoelhofs application show that Spoelhof answered “No” to pre-employment 4 disclosure question number seven (7) that states, “Have you ever been placed on 5 leave by your employer for any alleged misconduct”. Spoelhof also answered “No” 6 to pre-employrnent disclosure question number five (5) that states, “Have you ever 7 left any educational or school related employment, voluntary or involuntary, while 8 the subject of an inquiry, review or investigation of alleged misconduct and/0r ever 9 left educational or school related employment when you had reason to believe an 10 investigation for misconduct was underway or imminent?” l l 12 3. On January 12, 2015, the Commission received correspondence from Spoelhof where 13 he indicated “it has recently been brought to my attention... that I may have 14 answered two 0f the Commission’s application for licensure character questions 15 incorrectly when I applied for Oregon licensure on June 25, 2014”. Based on I6 Spoelhoh’s inaccurate application, a license was issued to Spoelhof on September 3, 17 2014. As a result of both the report from North Clackamas School District and 18 Spoelhofs own correspondence, a review of Spoelhofs application was conducted. 19 Review of Spoelhofs Commission application for licensure indicates that Spoelhof 20 answered “No” t0 character question number one (1) “Have you ever left any 21 educational or school related employment, voluntary or involuntary, while the 22 subject of an inquiry, review or investigation of alleged misconduct? Have you ever 23 left educational or school related employment when you had reason to believe an 24 investigation for misconduct was underway or imminent?” Spoelhof also answered 25 “No” to character question number three (3), “Have you ever been placed on leave 26 by your employer for any alleged misconduct?” 27 28 4. Investigation determined that on March 6, 2014, Spoelhof received a “written record 29 of behavior” (equivalent to a written reprimand) from Spoelhof s then recent 30 employer, Paw Paw Public Schools in Michigan. The letter states that prior to 31 Spoelhofs resignation submitted on February 24, 2014, and effective March 5, 2014, 32 Spoelhof was the subject of an investigation related to possible misconduct. PAGE 2-DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT TO APPLY FOR LlCENSURE- THOMAS JOHN SPOELHOF .1 —_—.._—.—_—— 1 Investigators learned that as part of this investigation Spoelhof was placed on leave 2 by his employer on February 11, 2014, while an investigation was conducted to 3 determine if Spoelhof had engaged in an offense, infraction, or other misconduct 4 which could result in a disciplinary consequence. The subject of the investigation in 5 Michigan included allegations that Spoelhof had allowed a homeless, female student 6 to reside at Spoelhofs residence, overnight, and on multiple occasions. 7 8 5. Based on the above information, Spoelhof should have answered affirmatively to the 9 school district’s pre-employment disclosure questions, numbers seven (7) and five 10 (5), and the Commission’s application character questions, numbers one (1) and 11 three (3). Failure to do so constitutes misrepresentation and/ or falsification of an 12 official document related to licensure and employment. 13 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 14 Spoelhof’ s conduct described above constitutes gross neglect of duty in in violation of 15 ORS 342.175(1)(b); OAR 584-o2o-oo4o(4)(n) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010(5) 16 (Use professional judgment), OAR 584-02o-oo4o(4)(c) (Falsification of any document or 17 knowing misrepresentation directly related to licensure, employment, or professional 18 duties); and OAR 584-o2o-oo4o(4)(o) as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0035(3)(a) 19 (Maintain the dignity of the profession by respecting and obeying the law, exemplifying 20 personal integrity and honesty). 21 22 The Commission’s authority to impose discipline in this matter is based upon ORS 23 342.175. 24 FINAL ORDER 25 The Commission hereby revokes Thomas John Spoelhofs right to apply for an 26 Oregon educator license. 27 IT 1s so ORDERED THIS 30%day of September, 2016. 28 //// 29 //// PAGE 3-DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT To APPLY FOR LICENSURE- THOMAS JOHN SPOELHOF g 1 TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION 2 By: mm M 3 Monica Beane, Executive Director 4 5 NOTICE OF APPEAL OR RIGHTS 6 7 YOU ARE ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW 8 MAY BE OBTAINED BY FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM 9 THE SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW IS PURSUANT TO THE 10 PROVISIONS OF ORS 183.482 TO THE OREGON COURT OF APPEALS. 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 PAGE 4-DEFAULT ORDER OF REVOCATION OF RIGHT TO APPLY FOR LICENSURE- THOMAS JOHN SPOELHOF CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that I served the foregoing notice 0f final order, certified by me as such, by mailing U.S. First Class Mail and U.S. Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested, addressed to: Thomas John Spoelhof 1126 SW 12th Ave Apt 409 Portland, OR 97205 . W. y Dated this g2 day of September, 2016. l By: [5/3)] 12g? 4 Z é é/(iififl Patty eldon Investigative Assistant PAGE 1— CERTIFICATE OF MAILING-— THOMAS JOHN SPOELHOF I