BEFORE THE
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
STATE OF OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF:
JOEL BELENFANT
) FINAL ORDER
)
)
) OAH Case No. 202 l-ABC-04981
This matter came before the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC or
Commission) to consider a proposed order issued by Senior Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Joe
Allen on June 23, 2023. The proposed order advised Joel Belenfant (Appellant)
of
his right to
file exceptions. The Commission did not receive exceptions to the proposed order. As explained
below, the Commission adopts ALJ Allen's findings
of
fact, conclusions
oflaw
and
recommended sanction. Any substantial modifications to the proposed order are explained
below.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
On June
23
, 2021, the TSPC issued a Notice
of
Opportunity for Hearing (Notice) to
Appellant alleging he engaged in gross neglect
of
duty while employed as the Title VI
Coordinator for the Klamath Falls City Schools (KFCS). On that date, TSPC also issued TPSC
Notice
of
Contested Case Rights and Procedures. On June 24, 2021 , Appellant, through counsel
Ralph
E.
Wiser, requested a hearing.
On October 27, 2021, TSPC referred the hearing request to the Office
of
Administrative
Hearings (OAH). The OAH assigned ALJ Elizabeth Jarry to preside at hearing. ALJ Jarry
convened a prehearing conference on December 7, 2021. Mr. Wiser appeared on Appellant's
behalf. Senior Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Raul Ramirez represented TSPC. The
purpose
of
the prehearing conference was to establish the issues for hearing, set a schedule
of
prehearing procedures, and determine dates for hearing. At that time, ALJ Jarry set this matter
for hearing on March 3 0 and
31
, 2022.
On February 7, 2022, the OAH reassigned this matter to Senior ALJ Joe
L.
Allen. On
March 29, 2022, TSPC requested the hearing be postponed. Mr. Wiser did not object and ALJ
Allen granted TSPC's request on the same date. ALJ Allen convened a prehearing conference
on March
31
, 2022, for the purpose
of
selecting new hearing dates. AA G Ramirez appeared with
Kevin Cooley on behalf
of
TSPC. Mr. Wiser appeared for Appellant. At the prehearing
conference, the parties agreed
to
reset the hearing to October 26 and 27, 2022. The parties also
agreed to hold the hearing via Webex.
On October
12
, 2022, due to unavailability
of
ALJ Allen, the OAH reassigned this matter
to Senior ALJ Alison Greene Webster. On October
13
, 2022, Mr. Wiser informed the OAH via
email that he was withdrawing as counsel
of
record and requested a postponement
of
the hearing
to allow Appellant time to secure new legal representation. On that same date, AAG Ramirez
In
th
e Matter
of
Joel Belenfant - OAH Case
No
. 2021-ABC-04981
Page
1
of
12
indicated via email that TSPC did not object
to
the proposed postponement
of
the hearing. The
OAH converted the October
26
, 2022 hearing date
to
a prehearing conference to select new
hearing dates.
On October 24, 2022, Appellant notified the OAH
of
his election to proceed
in
pro per.
On October 26, 2022, ALJ Webster convened a prehearing conference for the purpose
of
setting
new hearing dates. AAG Ramirez appeared on behalf
of
TSPC with Lincoln Hathaway.
Appellant appeared
prose.
ALJ Webster set this matter for in-person hearing at the Salem OAH
on April
19
and 20, 2023. The OAH reassigned this matter back to ALJ Allen.
On April
11
, 2023, Appellant requested
to
convert the in-person hearing to a virtual
proceeding using Webex. TSPC did not object
to
the requested format change and ALJ Allen
granted the request on the same date.
ALJ Allen convened the hearing on April
19
, 2023, via the Webex virtual conference
platform. Appellant appeared without counsel and testified on his own behalf. AAG Ramirez
and Mr. Cooley appeared on behalf
of
TSPC. Testifying on behalf
of
TSPC were: Lindsay
James, science teacher at Ponderosa Middle School; Brett Lemieux, Principal at Ponderosa
Middle School; Gerard Collins, Federal Programs Coordinator for KFCS; Rene Clark, Human
Resources Director for KFCS; Julie Bettles, Education and Employment Director for the
Klamath Tribes; and John Lafollette, TSPC investigator. The record closed at the conclusion
of
the hearing on April
19
, 2023.
ISSUES
1.
Whether Appellant engaged in gross neglect
of
duty by transporting students in his
personal vehicle and/or purchasing personal items for students. ORS 342.175(1 )(b ); OAR 584-
020-0040( 4 )(n) and ( o ),
2.
If
so
, whether TSPC may suspend Appellant's substitute teaching license for six
months. ORS 342.175.
EVIDENTIARY RULING
Exhibits
Al
through
Al
6, offered by the Commission, were admitted into the record
without objection. Exhibits
R2
and
R3
, offered by Appellant, were admitted into the record
without objection.
1
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. During all times relevant to this order, Appellant held a Restricted Substitute
Teaching License issued by TSPC. (Test.
of
Belenfant.)
2.
Appellant began working as the Title VI Home-to-School Liaison for KFCS in
early October 2019. In that role, Appellant served eligible KFCS students - in grades 6 through
1
Appellant withdrew Exhibit RI at the beginning
of
the hearing on Apr
il
19
, 2023.
in
th
e
Ma
tter of J
oe
l Bele
nf
ant -
OA
H Case
No.
202
J-
ABC-04981
Page 2
of
12
12
-who
were registered members
of
recognized Native American tribes. Appellant's position
was expected
to
last for the entirety
of
the 2019-2020 school year. (Test.
of
Belenfant and
Collins;
see also Ex.
Al
at 1.)
3.
Appellant's job duties with KFCS involved assisting Native American students
and their families within district public schools by providing access to academic and cultural
supports including tutoring, extracurricular activities, and cultural events. Appellant's
responsibilities included serving qualified Title VI students at Ponderosa Middle School
(Ponderosa), Klamath Union High School (KUHS), Eagle Ridge High School (ERHS), and
Klamath Leaming Center. KFCS provided Appellant with office space at Ponderosa and KUHS.
(Test.
of
Belenfant; Ex.
Al
at
1.)
4.
Title
VI
students may be eligible for certain benefits, including payment
of
educational and extra-curricular costs and fees, through the federal Johnson-O'Malley Fund (JO
funds). Most native tribes manage distribution
of
JO
funds to eligible students who are enrolled
members
of
the tribe. Some smaller tribes can access JO funds through larger tribes in the area
if
their own tribes
do
not have personnel administering such funds. (Test.
of
Bettles and Clark.)
5.
As part
of
the hiring process, Appellant completed several training modules
related to KFCS district policies and expectations. Those modules included training in sexual
harassment in the workplace, staff-to-student sexual misconduct, discrimination/harassment, and
KFCS workplace policies. Appellant completed all training modules on his first day
of
employment, October 7, 2019. (Ex.
Al3
at
2-3
; test. ofBelenfant and Clark.)
6.
KFCS district policies require all staff to maintain professional and age-
appropriate relationships with all students. KFCS policies also require written approval from the
school principal and/or district superintendent for any staff member to transport a student in
his/her private vehicle. (Test.
of
Lemieux; Exs. A14 at 2 and A15 at 1-2.)
7. Klamath Falls is considered high poverty community and KFCS are recognized as
Universal Poverty Schools by the US Department
of
Education. (Test.
of
James.)
8.
In his role as Title VI Liaison, Appellant was responsible for serving
approximately 60-
70
qualifying students at Ponderosa; 80-90 students at KUHS; and 10-15
students at ERHS. (Ex. A14 at 2.)
9.
In Klamath Falls, eligible members from any tribe can apply to the Klamath
Tribes Education and Employment Director for
JO
funds. For approved payments or purchases,
the Klamath Tribes will then issue a purchase order to the approved vendor depending on the
type
of
purchase. For athletic equipment, the only approved vendor used by the
JO
program in
Klamath Falls is Big 5 Sporting Goods. The Klamath Tribes has no process for providing
vouchers or gift cards to other local retailers including Fred Meyer. (Test.
of
Bettles.)
10.
The Fort Bidwell Indian Community
is
a small tribe that does not manage
member applications for nor disperse JO funds. For education related expenses, Fort Bidwell
members are required to apply directly through their respective schools. (Test.
of
Lafollette.)
In
th
e Matter
of
Joel Belen/ant - OAH Case
No.
2021-ABC-04981
Page 3
of
12
11.
Klamath Tribes Education and Employment Director Julie Bettles manages
JO
funds for enrolled members
of
the Klamath and other Native American tribes in the Klamath
Falls area. Ms. Bettles office received an application for
JO
funds distribution to purchase
basketball shoes for a seventh-grade female student, JW, on or about November 4, 2019. Ms.
Bettles reviewed the application and deemed it incomplete for lack
of
tribal registration, grades,
and academic schedule for JW on November 8, 2019. Ms. Bettles also rejected the application
because it was not submitted by a parent
of
JW. Thereafter, Ms. Bettles sent a notice to JW's
parents notifying them the application was incomplete. (Test.
of
Bettles.)
12.
Appellant telephoned Ms. Bettles office on November
22
, 2019 and indicated he
would be sending registration, grades, and schedule information for JW. Ms. Bettles' office
never received additional information from JW's parents or Appellant. As such, the Klamath
Tribes did not issue a purchase order for the requested athletic shoes. (Test.
of
Bettles.)
13.
JW and her family are registered members
of
the Fort Bidwell Indian Community
in Northern California. (Test.
of
Belenfant.)
14.
On December
13
, 2019, Brett Lemieux, Principal for Ponderosa, received a
complaint from Ponderosa guidance counselor Brittany Clark indicating Appellant was making
her uncomfortable in the workplace with personal text messages and following her around
campus during her workday. At that time, Ms. Clark also raised concerns about multiple
students regularly missing class time
to
lounge in Appellant's office. (Test.
of
Lemieux; Ex.
A2.)
15.
On the morning
of
December 20, 2019, Rene Clark
(nee
Blakely), Human
Resources Director for KFCS, met with Mr. Lemieux and Brittany Clark regarding allegations
against Appellant. At that time, Brittany Clark and Mr. Lemieux noted Appellant appeared
to
spend an inordinate amount
of
time with female students despite male students in the Title VI
program with significant academic and home needs. (Ex.
A3
at
1-2
, and 4).
16.
During the December
20
, 2019 meeting, Brittany Clark conveyed her opinion that
Appellant was engaged in "grooming" female students by allowing them
to
hang out in his office
during class time and providing them with personal items such as Dutch Bros. drinks. Rene
Clark asked Mr. Lemieux to review available security footage to see how many times Appellant
brought such items to campus for students. (Test.
of
Clark and Lemieu
x;
Ex. A3 at 6-7.)
1
7.
Based on his review
of
camera footage, Mr. Lemieux determined that Appellant
brought Dutch Bros drinks for students on three separate occasions in November 2019. During
his review
of
the footage, Mr. Lemieux also observed Appellant arriving at school on December
11
, 2019 at 9:13 a.m. Mr. Lemieux observed female student JW exiting Appellan
t'
s personal
vehicle. (Test.
of
Lemieux; E
x.
A6.)
18.
Appellant transported JW to school in the morning on at least two occasions.
Appellant also transported JW's brother, EW,
to
and from school on numerous occasions. (Test.
of
Belenfant.)
in the Matter
of
Joel Belen/ant - OA H Case
No.
202
1-
ABC-04981
Page 4
of
12
--------
-
--
-
19.
Appellant provided approximately 20-30 beverages from Dutch Bros to students
while employed as the Title VI liaison for KFCS. (Test.
of
Belenfant.)
20. When Mr. Lemieux asked Appellant how he purchased Dutch Bros items for
students, Appellant claimed he used "district office funds" to which he had access
as
the Title VI
liaison. (Test.
of
Lemieux.)
21. Neither Mr. Lemieux nor KFCS Federal Programs Coordinator Gerard Collins
is
aware
of
a district office fund available to Title VI liaisons. Mr. Collins was Appellant's direct
supervisor while he served as the Title VI liaison for KFCS. (Test.
of
Collins and Lemieux.)
22. On the afternoon
of
December 20, 2019, Mr. Lemieux and Rene Clark met with
Appellant, informed him
of
the allegations, and advised him that KFCS would be conducting a
personnel investigation following winter break. Ms. Clark provided Appellant with a written
notice
of
administrative leave identifying, among other things, the district's concerns with
Appellant providing inappropriate gifts and inequitable support to female students and
transporting at least one female student in his personal vehicle. That notice informed Appellant
that he would be contacted to schedule an interview following the district's investigation. (Test.
of
Clark; Ex. A4.)
23
. Also on December 20, 2019, Tony Swan, Principal
of
KUHS, received an email
from Dean
of
Students Sandy Yazzie conveying frustration with Appellant from some
of
the
teachers. According to that email, teachers at KUHS reported Appellant was allowing female
students - at least one
of
whom was not enrolled in the Title VI program - to hang out in his
office instead
of
going to their regularly scheduled classes. According to Ms. Yazzie' s email,
some
of
those students were experiencing negative academic consequences as a result
of
their
absences from class. (Ex. AS.)
24. On January 6, 2020,
Ms.
Clark contacted all schools at which Appellant provided
services to inquire about any complaints regarding Appellant. Upon contacting
Mr.
Swan, Ms.
Clark learned
of
the December 20, 2019 email from Ms. Yazzie. Ms. Clark then contacted
Ms.
Yazzie who elaborated on teacher frustrations with Appellant allowing female students to spend
excessive amounts
of
time in his office when they are scheduled for academic courses. Ms.
Yazzie also informed Ms. Clark that at least one
of
the female students in issue was not in the
Title
VI
program and therefore had no reason
to
be in Appellant's office. (Test.
of
Clark; Ex. A7
at 1-3.)
25. Also on January 6, 2020, Ms. Clark spoke with Mr. Lemieux and Louis Dix, Vice
Principal at Ponderosa, who reported they had learned Appellant met almost exclusively with
female students while at Ponderosa. Mr. Lemieux also informed Ms. Clark that he discovered
Appellant had purchased a pair
of
basketball shoes for JW prior to being placed on
administrative leave. (Test.
of
Clark and Lemieux; Ex. A 7 at 4-5.)
26. Rene Clark also spoke with Brittany Clark who informed her that Appellant was
usually in his office with female students, including two who were not in the Title VI program.
In
th
e Matter
of
Joel Belen/ant - OAH Case
No.
202 I-ABC-04981
Page 5
of
12
(Ex. A7 at 6.)
27. On January
8,
2020, Ms. Clark contacted Appellant to schedule interview for the
next day and address the purpose
of
the meeting. Ms. Clark conveyed the areas
of
district
concern as text messages with Brittany Clark, favoritism
of
female students, providing
inappropriate gifts
to
female students, and transporting a female student in his personal vehicle.
(Test.
of
Clark; Ex. A8 at 1.)
28. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on January 8, 2020, Appellant emailed Gerard Collins
and tendered his immediate resignation. On January 9, 2020, Mr. Collins forwarded the email to
Ms. Clark who accepted Appellant's resignation on behalf
of
KFCS. (Ex. A9 at
1;
test.
of
Clark.)
29. Appellant did not participate in any investigative interview with KFCS. (Test.
of
Belenfant and Clark.)
30. On the afternoon
of
January
9,
2020, Ms. Clark emailed Appellant and advised
him that, as a result
of
his resignation without participating in an investigative interview, KFCS
had removed him from its certified substitute teacher list. Ms. Clark advised Appellant that he
would not be added back to the list until he participated in an investigative interview. Ms. Clark
also informed Appellant he could contact her to set up a time
to
meet
if
he wished to participate
in the interview and return
to
the substitute teacher list. (Test.
of
Clark; Ex.
Al
1.)
31. On January 9, 2020, Ms. Clark completed a School District Misconduct Report
Form advising TSPC that Appellant had been placed on leave for misconduct and had resigned
before the district was able
to
complete its investigation into the allegations. (Ex.
Al2
; test.
of
Clark.)
32. On December
17,
2020, Appellant participated in an interview with TSPC
investigator John Lafollette. Appellant was represented by counsel during that interview. (Test.
ofLaFollette and Belenfant; Ex.
Al4.)
33. During that interview, Appellant told Mr. Lafollette that he purchased Dutch
Bros beverages for student using donated gift cards. Appellant told Mr. Lafollette the gift cards
were donated by an unknown executive at Dutch Bros and provided to Appellant by his cousin,
Ryan Adams, who "is a CPA that does accounting work for [Dutch Bros]." (Ex. A14 at 6.)
Appellant claimed that Mr. Adams provided him with approximately 50 gift cards as a one-time
donation to the Title VI program.
(Id.)
34. Mr. Lafollette asked Appellant
if
he purchased basketball shoes for JW.
Appellant denied buying the shoes and told Mr. Lafollette the shoes were purchased using JO
funds in the form
of
a voucher
to
Fred Meyer in Klamath Falls. (Ex. A14 at 6-8.)
35. During the TSPC interview, Appellant also claimed that he never provided any
female student with a ride
to
school in his personal vehicle. Appellant then stated he was on the
approved pick-up/drop-off list for two siblings, JW and EW, and claimed he never transported
In
the Matter of
Jo
el Belen/ant - OAH C
as
e No. 202 l-ABC-04981
Page 6 of
12
either student alone. Appellant also claimed that Mr. Collins gave him permission to transport
students in his personal vehicle. (Ex. A14 at 9.)
36. In April 2022, Mr. Lafollette contacted Mr. Adams regarding the gift cards
Appellant claimed to have obtained from him. Mr. Adams indicated he is an executive with
Dutch Bros, rather than an outside CPA, and denied providing any gift cards to Appellant. Mr.
Adams advised Mr. Lafollette that any gift cards Appellant obtained likely came from one
of
Dutch Bros local stores. (Test.
of
Lafollette.)
37. Appellant was not on the approved pick-up/drop-off list for JW and/or EW at
Ponderosa while employed by
KfCS.
(Test.
of
Lemieux.)
38
. Appellant did not obtain written permission to transport any student in his private
vehicle from the principal at Ponderosa or from the district superintendent. (Test.
of
Lemieux
and Collins.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Appellant engaged in gross neglect
of
duty by transporting students in his personal
vehicle and purchasing personal items for students.
2.
TSPC may suspend Appellant's substitute teaching license for six months.
OPINION
In this matter, the Commission alleges Appellant engaged in conduct constituting gross
neglect
of
duty and proposes to suspend his Restricted Substitute Teaching License for six
months. Specifically, the Commission contends Appellant violated school district policies
as
well
as
ethical rules applicable to the profession by showing inequitable attention
to
female
students, transporting students in his personal vehicle without permission, and providing gifts -
including Dutch Bros beverages and athletic shoes - to select students. As the proponent
of
those positions, the Commission bears the burden
of
proving its allegations by a preponderance
of
the evidence. ORS 183.450(2) and (5); Reguero
v.
Teachers Standards and Practices
Commission, 312 Or 402, 418 (1991) (burden is on Commission in disciplinary action); Dixon v.
Board
of
Nursing,
291
Or App 207, 213 (2018) (in administrative actions, the standard
of
proof
that generally applies in agency proceedings, including license-related proceedings, is the
preponderance standard.) Proof by a preponderance
of
the evidence means that the fact finder is
convinced that the facts asserted are more likely true than false. Riley Hill General Contractor v.
Tandy Corp
.,
303 Or 390, 402 (1987).
The burden
of
proof encompasses two burdens, the burden
of
production and the burden
of
persuasion. Marvin Wood Products v. Callow,
171
Or App
175
(2000) (Conceptually, the
burden
of
proof encompasses two distinct burdens: the burden
of
producing evidence
of
a
particular fact
(i
.e., the burden
of
production), and the burden
of
convincing the trier
of
fact that
the alleged fact is true
(i
.e., the burden
of
persuasion)). Accordingly, any party advocating a
particular position bears the burdens
of
production and persuasion
as
to
that position. A party
In
th
e Matter of Joel Bele
nf
ant - OAR Case
No.
202
1-
ABC-04981
Page
7
of
12
may not rely on an absence
of
evidence in the record to meet its burden. May Trucking Co.
v.
Dept.
of
Transportation, 203 Or App 564, 572-573 (2006) (rejecting petitioner's contention
of
an
absence
of
evidence in the record and finding, "It was petitioner's obligation to make sure that
there is evidence in the record supporting its position.")
At hearing, Appellant proved to be a poor historian and unreliable witness. His testimony
at hearing diverged in material respects from prior statements he made to district personnel and
TSPC investigators. As an example, Appellant provided inconsistent answers when asked about
funds used to purchase beverages for students. Initially, Appellant indicated he used district
office funds to which he had access as the Title VI liaison for such purchases. During an
interview with TSPC investigators, Appellant claimed the beverage purchases were made using
donated gift cards he had obtained from his cousin, Mr. Adams, who, in turn, obtained them
from an unidentified executive at Dutch Bros. At hearing, Appellant testified that Mr. Adams
provided approximately 50 gift cards directly to him. TSPC's evidence revealed that, while Mr.
Adams does work for Dutch Bros, he never provided gift cards to Appellant. Rather, Mr. Adams
informed TSPC that such cards are generally available only at the retail stores.
Moreover, Appellant initially asserted that he never transported female students in his
personal vehicle. That evidence was contradicted by video footage observed by Mr. Lemieux
during the district's internal investigation. Appellant then asserted that he only transported a
female student in his personal vehicle when her male sibling was present and then only because
he had obtained permission from the school principal and his supervisor, Mr. Gerard. At
hearing, both individuals testified that they never gave Appellant such permission. Finally,
Appellant asserted the students' parent added him to the list
of
adults authorized to transport the
students. A review of school records performed by Mr. Lemieux revealed no such authorization
on file.
Finally, regarding the purchase
of
athletic shoes for JW, the record did not support
Appellant's claimed source
of
funds for the purchase. Appellant consistently maintained he paid
for the shoes using tribal funds dispersed through the JO fund. Nonetheless, he could not explain
inconsistencies between his claim
of
receiving a gift card to Fred Meyer for the purchase and
TSPC's evidence demonstrating that the only approved vendor for athletic equipment in the
Klamath Falls area using JO funds is Big 5 SpQrting Goods. Moreover, Appellant initially
asserted that the Fort Bidwell Indian Community provided the JO funds. At hearing, TSPC
presented evidence showing that the Fort Bidwell Indian Community, as a small California tribe,
has no JO coordinator and does not distribute those funds directly. Rather, according to the
record, members
of
that tribe must apply through the individual schools to obtain JO funds.
Finally, Appellant could not reconcile his claims with evidence in the record showing that he
attempted to obtain JO funds for the shoe purchase by submitting an application to the Klamath
Tribes. That application was deemed incomplete and
no
JO funds were dispersed for JW.
Based on the repeated inconsistencies in and implausibility
of
Appellant's testimony,
ALJ Allen found TSPC's evidence to be more reliable and thus properly gave more weight to
that evidence where it conflicted with that provided by Appellant.
ORS 342.175 outlines grounds for discipline
of
licensed educators or applicants and
In
th
e Matter of Joel Belen/ant- OAH C
as
e
No.
2021-ABC-04981
Page 8
of
12
provides, in part:
(1) The Teacher Standards and Practices Commission may suspend or revoke the
license or registration
of
a commission licensee, discipline a commission licensee,
or suspend or revoke the right
of
any person to apply for a license
or
registration
based on the following:
* * * * *
(b) Gross neglect
of
duty[.]
Similarly, OAR 584-020-0040 elaborates on the Commission's disciplinary authority,
defines gross neglect
of
duty, and provides, in part:
(4) Gross neglect
of
duty is any serious and material inattention to or breach
of
professional responsibilities. The following may be admissible as evidence
of
gross neglect
of
duty. Consideration may include but is not limited to:
* * * * *
(n) Substantial deviation from professional standards
of
competency set forth in
OAR 584-020-0010 through 584-020-0030;
( o) Substantial deviation from professional standards
of
ethics set forth in OAR
584-020-0035[.]
As relevant to this proceeding, OAR 584-020-0010 sets forth Commission standards for
the competent educator and states, in pertinent part:
The educator demonstrates a commitment to:
* * * * *
(5) Use professional
judgment*
* *[.]
OAR 584-020-0025, addressing management skills states:
(1) The competent educator is a person who understands students and is able to
relate to them in constructive and culturally competent ways. The competent
educator establishes and maintains good rapport. The competent educator
maintains and uses records as required, and as needed to assist the growth
of
students.
(2) The competent teacher demonstrates skills in:
* * * * *
In the Matter
of
Joel Belen/ant - OAH Case
No.
202 I-ABC-04981
Page 9
of
12
(e) Using district lawful and reasonable rules and regulations.
Moreover, OAR 584-020-0035 identifies the Commission's standards for the ethical
educator and provides, in part:
The ethical educator is a person who accepts the requirements
of
membership in
the teaching profession and acts at all times in ethical ways. In
so
doing the
ethical educator considers the needs
of
the students, the district, and the
profession.
(1) The ethical educator, in fulfilling obligations to the student, will:
* * * * *
( c) Maintain an appropriate professional student-educator relationship by:
(A) Not demonstrating or expressing professionally inappropriate interest in a
student's personal life;
(B)
Not*
**giving
or exchanging romantic or overly personal gifts or notes with
a student;
* * * * *
(D) Honoring appropriate adult boundaries with students in conduct and
conversations at all times.
* * * * *
(3) The ethical educator, in fulfilling obligations to the profession, will:
(a) Maintain the dignity
of
the profession by respecting and obeying the law,
exemplifying personal integrity and honesty[.]
Emphasis added.
Appellant's conduct must be evaluated in the context
of
this legal framework. TSPC
asserts Appellant failed to exercise professional judgement in his interactions with female
students. Based on the record, ALJ Allen agreed with the Commission.
The evidence demonstrates that Appellant showed undue attention and provided gifts to
underprivileged female students in the middle and high schools he served as a Title VI liaison.
The evidence also establishes Appellant permitted female students to use his office as a reprieve
from academic courses, impairing their educational progress and frustrating other educators.
Moreover, Appellant's provision
of
gifts to students, male or female, raises significant concerns
In
the Matter
of
Joel Belen/ant- OAH Case
No.
202!-ABC-04981
Page
IO
of
12
over appropriate educator-student boundaries - particularly in an impoverished community.
Additionally, Appellant failed to obey district rules and regulations when he repeatedly
transported one or more students in his personal vehicle without written permission from the
school principal or district superintendent. Finally, Appellant failed
to
maintain the dignity
of
the profession when he repeatedly provided disingenuous answers to district personnel and TPSC
investigators. As such, Appellant engaged in gross neglect
of
duty
as
defined in OAR 584-020-
0040 as it incorporates OAR 584-020-0010, -0025, and -0035.
Pursuant to authority granted in ORS 342.175, the Commission promulgated OAR 584-
020-0040, which provides grounds for disciplinary action for violations
of
Commission statutes
or administrative rules and states, in 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)
of
this rule or other acts which are in violation
of
sections
(1) or (3)
of
this 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 342.143 who:
* * * * *
(
c)
Is charged with gross neglect
of
duty;
* * * * *
(4) Gross neglect
of
duty is any serious and material inattention to or breach
of
professional responsibilities. The following may be admissible as evidence
of
gross
neglect
of
duty. Consideration may include but is not limited to:
* * * * *
(n) Substantial deviation from professional standards
of
competency set forth in OAR
584-020-0010 through 584-020-0030;
( o) Substantial deviation from professional standards
of
ethics set forth in OAR 584-020-
0035[.]
As set forth above, TSPC has established Appellant engaged in gross neglect
of
duty
through a serious and material breach
of
professional boundaries and substantial deviation from
applicable ethical standards set forth above. Pursuant to ORS 342.175 and OAR 584-020-
0040(3), TSPC may revoke or suspend Appellant's Restricted Substitute Teaching License. In
this matter, TSPC proposed a six-month suspension
of
Appellant's license. Based on the hearing
record, the proposed sanction appropriate.
In
th
e Matter of Joel Belenfant - OAH Case
No.
202 I-ABC-04981
Page
II
of
12
FINAL ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Joel Belenfant's Restricted Substitute Teaching License is
suspended for six months from the date
of
issuance
of
this final order.
It is
so
Ordered this ~ day
of
October, 2023.
TEACHER STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION
By:
~
Dr.
AnthonyRosi1ez,
irector
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW
MAY BE OBTAINED BY FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM
THE SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. JUDICIAL REVIEW
IS
PURSUANT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF ORS 183.482 TO THE OREGON COURT
OF
APPEALS
In
th
e Matter
of
Joel Bele
n/
ant - OAH Case No. 202 I-ABC-04
981
Page 12
of
12
