TSPC Minutes

November 2-3, 2006

Page 65

Teacher Standards and Practices Commission November 2-3, 2006

465 Commercial Street NE

Salem, OR 97301

MINUTES – TSPC MEETING

University Place at Portland State University

310 SW Lincoln Street

Portland, OR 97201

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2006

Call to Order

On Wednesday, November 1, 2006, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. the Executive Committee met at Jakes Grill, 611 Alder Street, Portland, OR. On Thursday, November 2, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., the full Commission convened in Public Session at University Place, Willamette Falls Ballroom, to consider Preliminary Business, Program Approval, and Licensure Issues. On Friday, November 3, the Commission reconvened at University Place in Executive Session to consider Discipline Hearings and Alternative Assessment from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. At 11:00 am to 12:00 p.m. the Commission met for training in Public Session. At 1:00 p.m. the Commission convened in Public Session for consideration of Discipline Issues, Commission Business, the Consent Agenda, and Comments from retiring commissioners. The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m.

Commission Members Present
Mario Alba
Pat Evenson-Brady
Francis Charbonnier
Susan DeMarsh
Tom Greene
Charleen Hoiland
Katrina Myers
Gordon Munk
Mary Lou Pickard
Melissa Sass
Sam Stern
Leslie Walborn
Karen Weiseth
Cassandra Wilson
Commission Staff Present
Vickie Chamberlain
Keith Menk
Raul Ramirez, AAG
Melody Hanson
Kathy Rogers
Cameron Lane (Friday only)
Paul Cimino (Friday only) / Observers
Les McCallum, National Evaluation Systems
Randy Hitz, Portland State University
Deborah Miller, Portland State University
Margaret Mahoney, University of Oregon
Dana Barbarick, Cascade College
Jan Albrecht, Concordia College
Eloise Hockett, George Fox University
Brenda Giesen, Umatilla-Morrow ESD
Nancy Drickey, Linfield College
Mindy Larson, Linfield College
Sharon Chin, Lewis & Clark College
Vern Jones, Lewis & Clark College
Serjio Tanasescu, Beaverton School District
Mike Howser, Lewis & Clark College
Heather Stanhope, Eastern Oregon University
Carolyn Carr, Portland State University
Robert Hamm, University of Phoenix
Karen Buchannan, George Fox University
Sue Thompson, Western Oregon University
Jim Howard, Northwest Christian College
Hilda Rosselli, Western Oregon University Shelly Smolnisky, Pacific University
Nancy Watt, Pacific University
Thomas Ruhl, Lewis & Clark College
Dew Anna Brumley, Warner Pacific
James Platt, Oregon Education Association
Dan Johnson, Portland State University
Bev Pratt, OR Department of Education
Susanne Daggett, OR Department of Education
Teresa Ferrer, Oregon Education Association
Sr. Maria Ciriello, University of Portland
Claudia Green, Corban College
Matt Lucas, Corban College
Sang-Eun Dyer, Corban College
Claire Smith, Corban College
Jerry Duduca, Educational Testing Service
Pia Leonard, Gladstone School district
Tracy McMah, Portland Public SD
Bill Manley, PAVTEC Ed Consortium
Dusty Hoesly, Wood Middle School

1.0 PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

1.1 Introduction and Comments of Agency and Organization Representatives and Guests

(Guest comments Regarding Non-Agenda Items)

Agency and organization representatives and guests introduce themselves to the Commission.

1.2 Introduction of New Commissioners – Thomas Greene and Gordon Munck

The Chair welcomes the two new Commissioners, Gordon Munk and Tom Greene, and invites them to introduce themselves. Gordon Munck is the Superintendent of Pilot Rock School District with about 400 students and Tom Greene is the Associate Dean of the University of Portland and the President of Oregon Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (OACTE).

1.3 Acceptance of Agenda

MOTION, to accept the agenda as printed.

Moved by Walborn / Seconded by Myers / Carried / Absent Alba, Bell, Robinson

** 1.4 Approval of Minutes – August 2-4, 2006

MOTION, to accept as part of the Consent Agenda.

Moved by Walborn / Seconded by Greene / Carried / Absent Alba, Bell, Robinson

1.5 Chair DeMarsh’s Report

The Chair reports there are exciting items on the current agenda that will provide some answers to recent questions. This is a long agenda and we need to be prepared to stay longer to complete this agenda if needed.

1.6 Executive Director’s Chamberlain’s Report

The Director reports that the agency hired a new public service representative, Russell Patrick, who will help with answering emails and phone calls. Our incoming emails are now below 400. We have three full-time evaluators working on license evaluations but one is in training. We are looking forward to catching up over the winter and we will talk tomorrow about some solutions for helping us through next summer.

1.7 Nominations for Chair, Vice-Chair, and Executive Committee

Katrina Myers was nominated for Chair, Tom Greene, and Charleen Hoiland are nominated for Vice-Chair, and Mario Alba, Francis Charbonnier, Charleen Hoiland, Leslie Walborn, and Karen Weiseth were nominated for Executive Committee.

1.8 Nominations from the Floor

There were no nominations from the floor.

1.9 Reports from Liaison Appointees:

State Board / Joint Boards of Education Francis Charbonnier

Oregon University System Vickie Chamberlain and Keith Menk

Legislative Committees Mary Lou Pickard

State Board / Joint Board of Education:

Francis Charbonnier updated the Commission on the State Board of Education’s (SBE) plan for high school reform and changing graduation requirements. On October 19th Chair Berger decided to schedule a special meeting on November 2nd for a final work session on the diploma, with emphasis on the following issues:

·  Arts/Applied Arts/Second Language;

·  Essential Skills. GPA minimum;

·  Customized Diploma/Opt out option;

·  Timeline;

·  CIM/CAM statement;

·  Assessment work plan.

The Board will officially vote on a final plan at their December 7-8 meeting, just in time for a bill to be submitted by the December 15th deadline for consideration by the 2007 legislature.

Gene Evens, Communications Director of Oregon Department Education (ODE) has prepared a kit with their plan and sent it to all Superintendents, members of COSA and some others to conduct meetings to view the presentations and provide feedback to SBE. You can request a kit from ODE. SBE would like to have feedback by the end of November before the State Board’s final vote on December 7, 2006.

** 1.10 Review of Correspondence and Information of Interest to Commissioners

MOTION, to accept as part of the Consent Agenda.

Moved by Walborn / Seconded by Greene / Carried / Absent Alba, Bell, Robinson

2.0 COMMISSIONER TRAINING

2.1 Voting – Duty to Vote – Knowing When to Abstain

2.2 Confidentiality Related to Commission Materials and Matters

Raul Ramirez, Assistant Attorney General: I spoke with Vickie a few weeks ago after the meeting and I indicated to her that from time to time it is a good thing to refresh Commissioners on their duties regarding not just confidentiality but conflicts of interest and other aspects about the day to day things that happen that you may not see because you only come to the commission meetings every two or three months. I also want to talk specifically about some issues that you face in public meetings and this is not meant to be an absolute, every single detail you need to know about these issues but it is an introduction to get you thinking about these issues so when you do come across them hopefully you will be able to engage in a thought process that will lead you to the correct conclusion.

The first thing is setting some ground rules for you as Commissioners. A lot of you by virtue of your employment probably are already public officials. If you are not, once you become a Commissioner you become a public official which carries with it a lot of responsibility. The three things that I will be discussing are things you are specifically responsible for complying with. One certainly is you are supposed to comply with the statutes that relate to the Commission itself regarding confidentiality. That is in ORS Chapter 342. Secondly, there is a law that deals with ethics for public officials, Chapter 244, which you are bound to follow. That law defines conflicts of interest and what you do when you face that. The third thing you have to comply with is public records and public meetings. The laws state, generally, the records of the state and the Commission are open to the public and there are exceptions to that. This is the default model we deal with here in Oregon.

Starting with confidentiality, we start with the premise that records in public agencies are public records and they are open to inspection and copying to the public. One of the important exceptions that the Commission has is that basically all of its documents and materials that relate to investigations are confidential and exempt from disclosure. There are some practical exceptions that you have to deal with as you process cases through the contested case process. For example, once the investigation reaches a point where the Executive Director (ED) writes a report and a recommendation to the Commission, that report is provided to the educator who is being investigated. Also at the time you bring charges against an educator most of the material except primarily things that are attorney/client privilege, are provided to the other party so they have an opportunity to know what the charges are about and can properly defend themselves. Most Commissions fall into one of two categories. Either your records are open to the public with very minor exceptions or you’re a health regulatory agency and you have confidentiality. This Commission basically stands on its own and has its own confidentially statute which in some respects is even stronger than the health licensing boards. That is a very important thing to keep in mind.

TSPC: When the investigation is complete and the ED writes the report with the recommendation that comes to the Commission, is that when it goes to the educator?

AAG: Yes, the statute specifically provides that at the time that the report and recommendation is submitted to the Commission a copy is sent to the educator.

TSPC: Is that a full copy of the report?

Staff: We send the agenda cover only on those that we charge.

ED: We send just the cover report that says CONFIDENTIAL. Mel does a summary of the facts from the investigation report. I don’t write a separate report. My recommendation is on that cover page.

Staff: That is only for those educators we charge. If it’s dismissed they don’t receive a notice.

TPSC: In a case where we are dismissing for insufficient cause, is the educator notified of that?

Staff: Yes, after the meeting but we do not send the investigator’s preliminary investigation report. We notify the complainant, the educator or his attorney and the school district. We send a letter stating that it was considered and insufficient evidence was found and no further action is taken. The educator received a copy of the report or the complaint as part of the due process of the investigation.

AGG: From time to time I do hear things discussed that are confidential and I want to remind you that whenever you are discussing investigations that the Commission is engaging in you are not to discuss what you discussed in Executive Session outside of the meeting. You have committee and subcommittee meetings to discuss those things but you are not to discuss issues from the investigation outside the meeting. You can speak to staff and other Commissioners about it but you are not to discuss those issues with anybody outside of the Commission. . Very often what happens is when you are out engaging in the profession that you also regulate you run into teachers that may have heard about a complaint that has been filed. They know someone is being investigated and they will approach you. It is very easy to disclose information that you do not intend to disclose. It is confidential and we need to keep in mind whenever someone asks you about an issue relating to a TSPC investigation your first thought should be, “I cannot discuss this with you.” If you hear information regarding a contested case, someone just tells you, I would suggest the first thing you do is let Vickie know. There are lots of repercussions that can happen from you receiving information outside of the meetings. Specifically what I am referring to here is that when you receive information about a case that may be in the process of going to hearing, that could be considered an ex parte communication and there are all kinds of rules about disclosures that you have to make on the record regarding the substance of that communication. There are rules that relate to an opportunity for the other side, the educator who is being investigated or charged, that allows them an opportunity to try to rebut any of the information that is received. This can happen even when it’s not intended. In a case several years ago with the Board of Psychologists Examiners one of the expert witnesses in a case who knew one of the board members called up the board member and made a complaint about the other side’s expert witness. It seemed to be very innocent; the board member didn’t notify the Executive Director. She simply said it in passing at a meeting and it raised all sorts of red flags. We ended up having to disclose the nature of what she had discussed with the expert. We had to provide the other side an opportunity to respond and basically what it creates is lot of complications for a case that may be otherwise straight forward.