STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ) SOUTH DAKOTA PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS ss PRACTICES AND STANDARDS COMMISSION COUNTY OF HUGHES ) IN THE MATTER OF THE PUBLIC REPRMAND OF ROBERT D. BOYD JR. 4 hearing was held before the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission regarding allegations that Robert D. Boyd Ira teacher, violated the Routh Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers. The Commission has determined shat Robert D. Boyd Ir. violated the following provisions of the South Dakota Cove of Profession] Ethics for Teachers: ARSD 24:08:03:01, Obligations to students. In fulfilling their obligations to the students, educators shall act as follows: (5) Conduct professional business in such a way that they do not expose the students to lunnecessary intimidation, embarrassment, or disparagement: (7) Maintain professional relationships with students without exploitation ofa student for personal gain or advantage; As a result of these violations of the Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers, the Commission hereby issues this PUBLIC REPRIMAND against Robert D Boyd Jr. Dated this 30" day of January, 2013 PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS PRACTICES and STANDARDS COMMISSION yj} ~— _ Aaton Weave hair 800 Governors Drive Pierre, SD. 57501-2294STATE OF SOUTHDAKOTA —) DIVISION OF THE SECRETARY COUNTY OF HUGHES } SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION ) In the Matter of the ) DSE 2013-3 Revocation of the ) Teaching Certificate of ) ORDER REVOKING KYLE JOHN KEEGAN. ) SOUTH DAKOTA TEACHER ) CERTIFICATION ) Pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education by SDCL 13-43-28.1 and 13-42-9, following receipt of a Complaint for the Revocation of a Teacher's Certificate dated May 31, 2013, from the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission, and after review of the entire record of the hearing before the Commission, the Secretary orders the following: 1. The Secretary affirms and adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Commission, These findings and conclusions, attached as Exhibit A, are hereby incorporated into this Order by this reference as if set forth in full. 2. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the teacher certificate of Kyle John Keegan (71299-0) is hereby permanently, immediately revoked. 3. Notification of this revocation will be placed on the NASDTEC registry and be placed in Keegan’s permanent certification file within the South Dakota Department of Education 4. This Order and findings and conclusions will be provided to Keegan, the executive secretary of the Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission and its counsel, ‘counsel for the complainant before the Commission, and the schoo! district where Keegan was last employed. 5. This Order and incorporated findings and conclusions are a public record pursuant to SDCL Chapter 1-27 and 1-26-2 and the Voluntary Surrender of Certificate for Revocation signed by Keegan on March 4, 2013. See PTPSC ma, Hughes Co. Civ. 08-170, Letter Decision Re: Respondent’s Motion to Seal Court File (Wilbur, J., July 18, 2008).This constitutes final agency action, Dated this [4 day of Jane, 2013. Ha qf) le Dr. Melody Schbpp Secretary South Dakota Department of Education 800 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501STATE OF SOUTHDAKOTA ) __ SOUTH DAKOTA PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS ss: PRACTICES AND STANDARDS COMMISSION, COUNTY OF HUGHES ) Abby Javurek-Humming, Director Case No, PTPSC 2013-01 Division of Assessment & Accountability South Dakota Department of Education Complainant, v. FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Kyle fohn Keegan, AND ORDER PO Box 5911 Sioux Falls, SD 57117-5911 Respondent This matter came on for hearing pursuant to the provisions of SDCL 13-43-28 before the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission on May 15, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. in Conference Room 1, MacKay Building, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota as previously scheduled and duly and formally noticed for hearing. The following members of the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission (Commission) were present at the hearing: Patricia Benson, Connie Gretschmann, Thomas Keck, Janet Metzger, and Aaron Weaver. Paul E. Bachand, counsel for the Commission, and Feme Haddock, Executive Secretary of the Commission, were also present. Attomey Robert Mayer appeared on behalf of the complainant. Kyle John Keegan did not appear at the hearing, having waived his appearance by signing a Voluntary Surrender of Certificate for Revocation. Based upon the Voluntary Surrender of Certificate for Revocation, the evidence presented and the records on file, the Commission makes the following Findings of Fect and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS of FACT 1, Keegan is the holder ofa valid South Dakota Teaching Certificate No. 71299-0 issued on May 24, 2009 and expiring on July 1, 2014 2. On March 15, 2013, Abby Javurek-Humig, Director, Division of Assessment and Accountability, South Dakota Department of Education filed a complaint against Keegan with the Commission. 3. The complaint alleged that Keegan violated sections of the South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers. 4, The complaint was served on Keegan on or about March 27, 2013.5. Anotice of hearing was served on Keegan on or about April 5, 2013. The notice of hearing advised Keegan that a hearing had been set for Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 8:30 am. at Conference Room 1, McKay Building, 800 Govemors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota. 6. On May 15, 2013, Keegan did not appear at the hearing having signed a Voluntary Surrender of Certificate for Revocation. 7. On or about March 4, 2013, Keegan voluntarily agreed to surrender his teaching certificate for permanent revocation. 8. In October, 2012, Keegan was a teacher in the New Underwood Schoo! District. 9. At that time, Victim was a 15 year old student. 10. On or about October 6, 2012, Keegan did engage in sexual activity with Victim at Keegan’s residence in Rapid City, South Dakota, in violation of ARSD 24:08:03:01 (4), ©), (D (10) and ARSD 24:08:03:02 (8). 11. On or about October 11, 2012, upon being interviewed by law enforcement, Keegan ially denied doing anything inappropriate with Victim and reported to authorities that on the night in question, Victim left Keegan’s residence and spent the night someplace else. These actions by Keegan violate ARSD 24:08:03:03 (12). 12, On January 22, 2013, Keegan entered a plea of guilty to the criminal offense of: Sexual Contact With A Child Over Thirteen Years Of Age, But Under Sixteen Years Of Age, a Class 3 Felony in violation of SDCL 22-22-7, 13, On March 11, 2013, Keegan was senteuced to serve seven years in the South Dakota State Penitentiary with four years of that sentence suspended. 14. Keegan's guilty plea violates ARSD 24:08:03:02 (7), in that in fulfilling his obligations to the public, educators shall engage in no act that results in a conviction. 15, Any finding of fact improperly denoted as a conclusion of law is hereby incorporated asa finding of fact. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission hereby issues the following conclusions of law: CONCLUSIONS of LAW 16. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to SDCL 13-43-28 and 13- 43-28.1, SDCL Ch. 1-26, and the Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Chapters 24:08:03 and 24:08:04.1. 17. The burden of proof in this matter is clear and convincing. In Re: Setliff, 202 SD 58, 645 N.W.2d 601, 605.18. The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:01 that in fulfilling their obligations to Students, educators shall act as follows: a. (4) Make a reasonable effort to maintain discipline and order in the classroom and the school system to protect the students from conditions harmful to. learning, physical and emotional well-being, health, and safety; b. (S) Conduct professional business in such a way that they do not expose the students to unnecessary intimidation, embarrassment, or disparagement; ¢. (7) Maintain professional relationships with students without exploitation of a student for personal gain or advantage; 4. (10) Not engage in or be a party to any sexual activity with students including sexual intercourse, sexual contact, sexual photography, or illicit sexual communication, 19. Clear and convincing evidence exists that Keegan violated ARSD 24:08:03:01 (4), (5), (7) and (10). “ 20. The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:02 that in fulfilling their obligations to the public, educators shall act as follows: a. (7) Engage in no act that results in a conviction; b. (8) Exemplify high mora! standards by not engaging in or becoming a party to such activities as fraud, embezzlement, theft, deceit, moral turpitude, gross immorality, sexual contact with students, illegal drugs, or use of misleading or false statements. 21. Clear and convincing evidence exists that Keegan violated ARSD 24:08:03:02 (7) and ®. 22, The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:03 that in fulfilling their obligations to the profession, educators shall act as follows: a (12) Cooperate with authorities and the commissions regarding violations of the codes of ethies of the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission and the Professional Administrators Practices and Standards Commission. 23. Clear and convincing evidence exists that Keegan violated ARSD 24:08:03:03(12).24, Any conclusion of law improperly denoted as a finding of fact is hereby incorporated as a conclusion of law. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, itis hereby ORDERED that this matter be referred to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education for proceedings to revoke the teaching certificate of Keegan as. provided for in SDCL 13-43-28. It is further ORDERED that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order be sent to parties herein. It is further ORDERED that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order be provided to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education for placement on the NASDTEC clearing house and that it remain with the Department's permanent certification file. Dated this_3) day of May 2013. PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS PRACTICES and STANDARDS COMMISSION By Aaron Weaver, Chair 800 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501-2294STATE OF SOUTHDAKOTA —) DIVISION OF THE SECRETARY 8 COUNTY OF HUGHES } SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION ) In the Matter of the ) DSE 2614 o¢ Revocation of the ) PTPSC 2014-03 Certificate of ) ORDER REVOKING Paul E, Hildebrant. ) SOUTH DAKOTA TEACHER ) CERTIFICATION ) Pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education by SDCL 13-43-28.1 and 13-42-9, following receipt of a Complaint for the Revocation of a certificate dated July 21, 2014, from the South Dakota Professional ‘Teachers Practices and Standards Commission, and after review of the entire record of the hearing before the Commission, the Secretary orders the following: 1. The Secretary affirms and adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Commission. These findings and conclusions, attached as Exhibit A, are hereby incorporated into this Order by this reference as if set forth in full. 2, Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the certificate of Paul Eugene Hildebrant (#47433-4) is hereby permanently, immediately revoked. 3, Notification of this revocation will be placed on the NASDTEC registry and be placed in Paul Eugene Hildebrant’s permanent certification file within the South Dakota Department of Education. 4. This Order and findings and conclusions will be provided to Paul Eugene Hildebrant and his counsel, the executive secretary of the Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission and its counsel, the complainant before the Commission and her counsel, and the school district where Paul Eugene Hildebrant was last employed and its counsel, 5, This Order and incorporated findings and conclusions are a public record pursuant to SDCL Chapter 1-27 and 1-26-2. See PTPSC v. Tuma, Hughes Co. Civ. 08-170, Letter Decision Re: Respondent's Motion to Seal Court File (Wilbur, J., July 18, 2008).‘This ORDER constitutes final agency action. Dated this 19th day of August, 2014. ha DM Lol Lhe Dr. Melody Schopp Secretary South Dakota Department of Education 800 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, ) PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS ) COUNTY OF HUGHES ) PRACTICES AND STANDARDS COMMISION CARLA LEINGANG, ) ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ) PTPSC 2014-03 CERTIFICATION AND TEACHER: ) QUALITY, SD DEPT. OF EDUCTION, ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT COMPLAINANT, ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW v ) AND ORDER ) PAUL EUGENE HILDEBRANT, ) ) RESPONDENT. ) This matter came on for hearing pursuant to the provisions of SDCL 13-43-28 before the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission on June 26, 2014 in Conference Room 1, MacKay Building, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota as previously scheduled and duly and formally noticed for hearing. ‘The following members of the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission (Commission) were present at the hearing: Connie Gretschmann, “Thomas Keck, Bev Kopren and Tammy Jo Schlechter. Paul E. Bachand, counsel for the Commission, and Ferne Haddock, Executive Secretary of the Commission, were also present, Attomey Bobbi Rank appeared along with Carla Leingang. Paul Bugene Hildebrant failed to appear at the hearing. Based upon Hildebrant’s failure to appear at the hearing, the evidence presented by the complainant and the records on file, the Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Hildebrant is the holder of a valid South Dakota Teaching Certificate No. 4743-04 issued on September 12, 2013 and expiring on July 1, 2014. 2. On March 17,2014, Carla Leingang, Administrator, Office of Certification and Teacher Quality, South Dakota Department of Education, filed a complaint against Hildebrant with the Commission. ‘The complaint alleged that Hildebrant violated sections of the South Dakota Code of and Professional Ethics for Teachers. s ‘The complaint was served on Hildebrant on or about March 19, 2014.5. A due and proper notice of hearing was served on Hildebrant advising him of the time and place of the hearing. 6. A hearing on the complaint was held on June 26, 2014 at Conference Room 1, MacKay Building, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota. 7, Hildebrant failed to appear at the June 26, 2014 hearing to request a private hearing so a public hearing occurred. 8. Hildebrant’s failure to appear at the hearing constitutes an admission of the allegations contained in the complaint. 9. Onor about January 2, 1990, Hildebrant was charged with Failure to Report Accident to Police Officer (SDCL 32-34-7 — class 2 misdemeanor) in Brown County, South Dakota. On or about January 8, 1990, Hildebrant pled guilty to this offense and was sentenced to thirty days in jail, suspended on certain conditions. 10. On or about July 20, 1990, Hildebrant applied for a teaching certificate. He answered “No” to the following question on the application: “Have you ever been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, including traffic in narcotics?” 11. On or about July 31, 1990, Hildebrant was issued certificate number 47433-00. This certificate was valid until July 1, 1995. 12. On or about July 4, 1992, Hildebrant was charged with Possession of Marijuana Less than ‘2 Pound (SDCL 22-42-6 — class 1 misdemeanor) in Brown County, South Dakota. On or about November 3, 1992, this charge was dismissed. 13. On or about July 6, 1992, Hildebrant was charged with Possession of Marijuana Less than % Pound (class 1 misdemeanor) and Use or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (SDC 22-42A-3 ~ class 2 misdemeanor) in Brown County, South Dakota. On or about November 3, 1992, these charges were dismissed. 14, On or about January 15, 1993, Hildebrant was charged with Use or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (class 2 misdemeanor) in Brown County, South Dakota. On or about March 3, 1993, the paraphernalia charge was dismissed. 15. On or about April 30, 1995, Hildebrant was charged with Open Container (SDCL 35-1-9.1 class 2 misdemeanor) in Faulk County, South Dakota, On or about May 16, 1995, Hildebrant pled guilty to this offense by paying a fine. 16. On or about August 5, 1995, Hildebrant was charged with Failure to Report an Accident with Unattended Vehicle (SDCL 32-34-4 - class 2 misdemeanor) in Faulk County, South Dakota. On or about October 20, 1995, Hildebrant pled guilty to this offense by paying a fine.18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24, On or about August 25, 1995, Hildebrant applied to renew his teaching certificate, He answered “No” to the following question on the application: “Have you, since your previous certificate was issued, been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, including traffic in narcotics?” On or about September 12, 1995, Hildebrandt was issued certificate number 4743-01. This certificate was valid until July 1, 2000. On or about February 16, 1996, Hildebrant was arrested for Driving Under the Influence ~ First Offense (SDCL 32-23-2 ~ class 1 misdemeanor) in Spink County, South Dakota. On or about February 29, 1996, Hildebrant pled guilty to the DUI charge and was sentenced to sixty days in jail with fifty-seven days suspended on certain conditions. On or about January 18, 1997, Hildebrant was charged with Failure to Report Accident to Police Officer (class 2 misdemeanor), Reckless Driving (SDCL 32-24-1 ~ Class 1 misdemeanor), Open Container (class 2 misdemeanor), Use or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (class 2 misdemeanor), and Possession of Marijuana Less than '4 Pound (class 1 misdemeanor) in Faulk County, South Dakota. On or about August 5, 1997, Hildebrant pled guilty to Failure to Report Accident to Police Officer, Reckless Driving, and Open Container and was sentenced to 100 days in jail on the Reckless Driving and ten days in jail on the other charges, with all but one day of the jail time suspended on certain conditions. The remaining charges were dismissed. On or about March 30, 1998, Hildebrant was charged with Insufficient Funds Check ~ Third Degree (SDCL 22-41-1, class 2 misdemeanor) in Brown County, South Dakota. On or about May 22, 1998, Hildebrant pled guilty to this offense and was sentenced to thirty days in jail, suspended on certain conditions. ‘Onor about March 28, 2003, Hildebrant applied to renew his teaching certificate. On the application, Hildebrant answered “No” to the following question: Have you ever, or since your previous certificate was issued, been summoned, arrested, taken into custody, indicted, convicted OR tried for, OR charged with, OR pleaded guilty to, any felony or misdemeanor crime involving moral turpitude, including traffic in either controlled substances or marijuana, or both? Note that the term CRIME does include a misdemeanor, a gross misdemeanor, a felony, or a charge which resulted in a stay of imposition of sentence. On or about May 27, 2003, Hildebrant was issued certification number 47433-02. This certificate was valid until July 1, 2008. On or about December 9, 2005, Hildebrant was charged with No Driver's License (SDCL 32-12-22 - class 2 misdemeanor) in Walworth County, South Dakota. On or about December 27, 2005, Hildebrant pled guilty by paying a fine.25. On or about August 19, 2008, Hildebrant applied to renew his teaching certificate. On the 2008 application, Hildebrant made the following affirmation: I declare and affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to SDCL 22-29-9.1 that this application has been examined by me, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, is in all things true, accurate, complete and correct, I understand that any intentional falsification, misrepresentation or omission of facts or falsification of statements on accompanying documents may result in criminal charges and/or the denial of certification, and could affect the status of my teaching or school administrative certificate, 26, Hildebrant answered “Yes” to question | of the application, which asked: Have you ever been charged, indicted, summoned, or tried in any criminal matter? 27. In his explanation for question 1, Hildebrant disclosed “DUL, speeding tickets, reckless driving.” 28. In response to question 1, Hildebrant failed to disclose the marijuana related charges referenced in paragraphs 12-14 and 20 herein. 29, Hildebrant answered “Yes” to question 2 of the application, which asked: Have you ever been convicted or pled guilty to any crime? The term conviction includes a finding of guilt by a judge or jury, or admission of guilt or plea of guilty, or a plea without an admission of guilt. You must include those crimes where the sentence was stayed, suspended, executed or you received a suspended imposition of sentence. ‘The term crime includes misdemeanor and felony offenses. It does not include petty offenses such as minor traffic offenses, including but not limited to speeding tickets, stop sign violations, or careless driving. If you are not sure whether the crime would be a ‘minor offense, please include the offense. 30. In his explanation for question 2, Hildebrant disclosed “DUI, speeding tickets, reckless driving.” 31. In response to question 2, Hildebrant failed to disclose his convietions for failure to report an accident, insufficient funds check, and open container. 32. On or about August 19, 2008, Hildebrant was issued certificate number 4743-03. This certificate was valid until July 1, 2013. 33. On or about March 22, 2013, Hildebrant was charged with Possession of Two Ounces of Marijuana or Less (SDCL 22-42-6 - class 1 misdemeanor), Ingesting (SDCL 22-42-15 - class 1 misdemeanor), Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (class 2 misdemeanor), and UnlicensedVehicle (SDCL 32-5-98 - class 2 misdemeanor) in Walworth County, South Dakota. On or about May 24, 2013, these charges were dismissed due to a deferred prosecution agreement 34, On or about July 23, 2013, Hildebrant applied to renew his teaching certificate. On the 2013 application, Hildebrant made the following affirmation: I declare and affirm under penalties of perjury pursuant to SDCL 22-29-91 that this application has been examined by me, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, is in all things true, accurate, complete and correct. I understand that any intentional falsification, mistepresentation or omission of facts or falsification of statements on accompanying documents may result in criminal charges and/or the denial of certification, and could affect the status of my teaching or school administrative certificate. 35. Hildebrant answered “No” to question 1 of the application, which asked: Since your last certification was issued, have you been arrested or charged with any criminal offense? The term criminal offense includes misdemeanor and felony offenses. It does not include petty offenses such as minor traffic offenses, including but not limited to: Speeding tickets, stop sign violations, or careless driving offenses. If you are not sure whether the crime would be a minor offense, please include the offense. All class 1 misdemeanor offenses and Class II non-traffic misdemeanor offenses must be disclosed. 36. Hildebrant failed to disclose the charges referenced in paragraph 33 herein, 37. On or about September 12, 2013, Hildebrant was issued certificate number 47433-04, This certificate expires July 1, 2014. 38. On or about September 17, 2013, Hildebrant was charged with Possession of Two Ounces of Marijuana or Less (class 1 misdemeanor), Ingesting (class 1 misdemeanor), and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (class 2 misdemeanor) in Dewey County, South Dakota. On or about September 30, 2013, Hildebrant pled guilty to Ingesting and was sentenced to thirty days in jail, suspended on certain conditions, including one year unsupervised probation and a drug evaluation. The remaining charges were dismissed. 39. On September 17, 2013, Hildebrandt was employed as a teacher with the Timber Lake school district in Timber Lake, South Dakota. 40. On September 17, 2013, law enforcement officers and a canine handler conducted an examination of the schools parking lot. 41. During the examination, the drug dog altered to a Geo Prism. Officers learned that the Geo Prism belonged to Hildebrant and he was contacted by Timber Lake School personnel to report to the parking lot.42, Once at the parking lot, Hildebrant admitted that the vehicle was his, but denied that it contained any contraband. 43. A subsequent search of Hildebrant’s vehicle uncovered marijuana and a marijuana pipe disguised as a cigarette. 44, Based upon the marijuana and marijuana pipe discovered in Hildebrant’s vehicle, law enforcement arrested Hildebrant. 48, Hildebrant subsequently agreed to provide a urine sample to law enforcement. An analysis by the South Dakota Department of Health Public Health Laboratory determined that THC, the active component of marijuana, was present in Hildebrant’s urine. 46, Hildebrant had marijuana in his system while he was teaching on September 17, 2013 at the Timber Lake School. 47. On or about September 18, 2013, Hildebrant was recharged with the offenses referenced in paragraph 33 herein in Walworth County, South Dakota, On or about October 7, 2013, Hildebrant pled guilty to Ingesting and was sentenced to five days in jail, suspended on conditions, ‘The remaining charges were dismissed. 48, Hildebrant’s acts in failing to submit truthful information on his teaching certificate applications and his commission of acts that have resulted in convictions, violates the following code of ethics for teachers: ARSD § 24:08:03:02. (7) Engage in no act that results in a conviction; (8) Exemplify high moral standards by not engaging in or becoming a party to such activities as ... deceit, moral turpitude, gross immorality ... illegal drugs, or use of misleading or false statements, 49. Evidence regarding Hildebrant’s criminal history and application history exceeding five years from the date the complaint was filed with the commission is relevant because that evidence shows a pattern of behavior and omissions which is relevant to both Hildebrant’s intent and the penalty which should be imposed, Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission hereby issues the following conclusions of law: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 50. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to SDCL 13-43-28 and 13-43- 28.1, SDCL Ch. 1-26, and the Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Chapters 24:08:03 and 24:08:04.01$1. Hildebrant’s failure to appear atthe hearing acts as an admission to all items alleged in the complaint. 52. The burden of proof in this matter ata contested case hearing is clear and convincing, InJ Re: Setliff, 202 SD 58, 645 N,W.2d 601, 605. 53. The complainant has met the burden of proof as a result of the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing regardless of Hildebrant’s default due to his failure to appear atthe hearing. 34. The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:02 that in fulfilling their obligations to the profession, educators shall act as follows: (7) Engage in no act that results in a conviction; (8) Exemplify high moral standards by not engaging in or becoming a party to such activities as ... deceit, moral turpitude, gross immorality ... illegal drugs, or use of misleading or false statements, 55. Clear and convincing evidence exists that Hildebrant violated ARSD 24:08:03:02 (Ty and (8). 56, Any conclusion of law improperly denoted as a finding of fac is hereby incorporated as a conclusion of law. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, itis hereby ORDERED that this matter be referred to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education for proceedings to revoke the teaching certificate of Hildebrant as provided for in SDCL 13-43-28. It is further ORDERED that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order be sent to Parties herein and to the superintendent and school board president of the Timber Lake School District. Itis further ORDERED that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order be Provided to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education for placement in the Department's permanent certification file and that notice be placed on the NASDTEC clearing house. It is further ORDERED that the Department may release the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order to the certification office of any state in which the respondent holds or applies for a certificate.gy Dated this aL day of July, 2014. PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS PRACTICES and STANDARDS COMMISSION ‘Thomas Keck, Chair 800 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501-2294STATE OF SOUTHDAKOTA +). DIVISION OF THE SECRETARY ss COUNTY OF HUGHES ) SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION ) In the Matter of the ) DSE 2014-7 Revocation of the ) Teaching Certificate of ) ORDER REVOKING Kandice Schlagel. ) SOUTH DAKOTA TEACHER ) CERTIFICATION ) Pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education by SDCL 13-43-28.1 and 13-42-9, following receipt of a Complaint for the revocation of a certificate from the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission, and after review of the entire record of the hearing before the Commission and the record of the hearing on July 7, 2014, the Secretary orders the following: 1, The Secretary affirms and adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Commission. These findings and conclusions, attached as Exhibit A, are hereby incorporated into this Order by this reference as if set forth in full. 2. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the certificate of Kandice Schlagel (#73428-0) is hereby permanently, immediately revoked. 3. Notification of this revocation will be placed on the NASDTEC registry and be placed in Schlaget’s permanent certification file within the South Dakota Department of Education. 4, This Order and findings and conclusions will be provided to Schlagel and her counsel, the complainant before the commission and its counsel, and the executive secretary of the Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission and its counsel. 5. __ This Order and incorporated findings and conclusions are a public record pursuant to SDCL Chapter 1-27 and 1-26-2. See PTPSC v. Tuma, Hughes Co. Civ. 08-170, Letter Decision Re: Respondent’s Motion to Seal Court File (Wilbur, J., July 18, 2008).This constitutes final agency action, Dated this 31st day of July, 2014. Secretary South Dakota Department of Education 800 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501Petey STATE OF SOUTHDAKOTA —) SOUTH DAKOTA PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS. ss PRACTICES AND STANDARDS COMMISSION COUNTY OF HUGHES ) Clark School District 12-2 ) Case No. PTPSC 2013-03 220 North Clinton Street ) Clark, SD $7255, ) ) Complainant, ) v. ) FINDINGS OF FACT ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Kandice Schlagel, ) AND ORDER 305 North Dakota Street ) Clark, SD 57225 ) ) Respondent. ) This matter came on for hearing pursuant to the provisions of SDCL 13-43-28 before the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission on January 8, 2014 and April 30, 2014 in Conference Room 1, MacKay Building, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota as previously scheduled and duly and formally noticed for hearing. The following members of the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission (Commission) were present at the both hearings: Michael Amolins, Patricia Benson, Connie Gretschmann, Thomas Keck and Bev Kopren. Paul E. Bachand, counsel for the Commission, and Feme Haddock, Executive Secretary of the Commission, were also present. Attomey Rodney Freeman appeared on behalf of the complainant. Kandice Schlagel personally appeared along with her counsel, Robert Konrad. Schlagel requested a private hearing. Based upon the evidence presented and the records on file, the Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS of FACT 1. Schlagel is the holder of a valid South Dakota Teaching Certificate No. 73428-0 issued on May 25, 2011 and expiring on July 1, 2021. 2. On October 18, 2013, Brian Heupel, Canton School District Superintendent, filed a complaint against Schlagel with the Commission. 3. The complaint alleged that Schlagel violated sections of the South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers. 4, The complaint was served on Schlagel on or about November 7, 2013. EXHIBIT ti5. A hearing on the complaint commenced on January 8, 2014 and a continued hearing occurred on April 30, 2014 at Conference Room 1, McKay Building, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota 6. On or about April 30, 2014, Schlagel, through her attomey, voluntarily agreed to surrender her teaching certificate. 7. During the 2013/2014 school year, Schlagel was a school counselor for the Clark School District 8. At that time, Student was 16 years old and a student in the Clark School District, 9. Prior to the beginning of the school year, as a result of information provided to the school, the superintendant and principal met with Schlagel and discussed with her the need for her to maintain a professional relationship with Student. 10. On or about September 30, 2013, based upon another report concerning Schlagel’s conduct with Student, the superintendent and principal met with Schlagel again. 11. At this meeting, Schlagel was specifically told that her friendship and contact with Student had to stop. 12. Schlagel agreed to end her contact with Student. 13, Schlagel told the superintendent and principal during this meeting that if she had a hard time with Student accepting the ending of the contact with Student that they might have to have a conversation with Student, 14. On or about October 8, 2013, law enforcement agencies commenced an investigation into Schlagel’s activities with Student. and Schlagel 15. Law enforcement interviewed Schlagel on or about October 30 2013, admitted to engaging in sexual contact with Student. 16. After being informed of the sexual relationship that Schlagel admitted to having with Student, the superintendent and principal met with Schlagel. 17, During the meeting between Schlagel, the superintendent and principal, Schlagel admitted to the inappropriate relationship with Student. 18. At the conclusion of the meeting between Schlagel, the superintendent and principal ‘on October 8, 2013, Schlagel resigned her position with the Clark School District. 19. During the fall 2013 semester, Schlagel had a sexual relationship with Student while Student attended the Clark School District. 20. By engaging in a sexual relationship with Student, Schlagel violated ARSD 24:08:03:01(10) in that she engaged in or was a party to sexual activity with a student 221. By engaging in a sexual relationship with Student, Schlagel violated ARSD 24:08:03:02(8) in that she failed to exemplify high moral standards based upon her engaging in or being a party to sexual activity with a student. 22. Any finding of fact improperly denoted as a conclusion of law is hereby incorporated as a finding of fact. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission hereby issues the following conclusions of law: CONCLUSIONS of LAW 25. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to SDCL 13-43-28 and 13- 43-28.1, SDCL Ch, 1-26, and the Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Chapters 24:08:03 and 24:08:04.01. 24. The burden of proof in this matter is clear and convincing, InRe: Selliff, 202 SD 8, 645 N.W.2d 601, 605. 25, The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:01 that in fulfilling their obligations to Students, educators shall act as follows: 4 (10) Not engage in or be a party to any sexual activity with students including sexual intercourse, sexual contact, sexual photography, or illicit sexual communication, 26. Clear and convincing evidence exists that Schlagel violated ARSD 24:08:03:01 (10) 27. The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:02 that in fulfilling their obligations to the public, educators shall act as follows: a. (8) Exemplify high moral standards by not engaging in or becoming a party to such activities as fraud, embezzlement, theft, deceit, moral turpitude, gross immorality, sexual contact with students, illegal drugs, or use of misleading or false statements. 28. Clear and convincing evidence exists that Schlagel violated ARSD 24:08:03:02 (7) and (8), 29. Any conclusion of law improperly denoted as a finding of fact is hereby incorporated as a conclusion of law.Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter be referred to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education for proceedings to revoke the teaching certificate of Schlagel as provided for in SDCL 13-43-28, Itis further ORDERED that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order be sent to parties herein and to the superintendent and school board president of the Clark School District. It is further ORDERED that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order be Provided to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education for placement in the Department’s permanent certification file and that notice be placed on the NASDTEC. clearing house. It is further ORDERED that the Department may release the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order to the certification office of any state in which the respondent holds or applies for a certificate, Dated this “7 day of May, 2014 PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS PRACTICES and STANDARDS COMMISSION "By _* Tm fe Thomas Keck, Chair 800 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501-2294STATE OF SOUTHDAKOTA +) DIVISION OF THE SECRETARY 88 COUNTY OF HUGHES ) SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION ) Tn the Matter of the ) DSE 2014-16 ‘Teaching Certificate of ) Gregg Wilson. ) ORDER SUSPENDING ) SOUTH DAKOTA TEACHER ) CERTIFICATION ) Pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education by SDCL 13-43-28.1 and 13-42-9, following receipt of a Complaint Tequesting suspension of a certificate ftom the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission, and after review of the complaint, exhibits, and order, the Secretary enters the following order: 1. _ The Secretary has entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which are hereby incorporated into this Order by this reference as if set forth in full. 2. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the teacher Certificate No. 76039 issued to Gregg Wilson is hereby suspended for a period of two years, effective June 30,2014. 3.___Inorder to be considered for certification at the conclusion of the suspension period, Wilson must reapply and meet all legal requirements for certification at the time of the application, 4. Notification of this suspension will be placed on the NASDTEC registry and be placed in Wilson’s permanent certification file within the South Dakota Department of Education, 5. This Order and incorporated findings and conclusions are a public record ‘pursuant to SDCL Chapter 1-27 and 1-26-2. See PTPSC v. Tuma, Hughes Co. Civ. 08-170, Letter Decision Re: Respondent's Motion to Seal Court File (Wilbur, J., July 18, 2008). This constitutes final agency action. Dated this 24th day of November, 2014, g yh oy WM bé ¥ceb Dr. Melody Schopp, Sedretary South Dakota Departitient of EducationSTATE OF SOUTHDAKOTA +) DIVISION OF THE SECRETARY Ss COUNTY OF HUGHES ) SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION ) In the Matter of the ) DSE 2014-16 Teaching Certificate of ) Gregg Wilson, ) FINDINGS OF FACT ) AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) OF THE SECRETARY FINDINGS OF FACT 1. __ Any Finding of Fact more properly designated as a Conclusion of Law is hereby so designated. 2. Gregg Wilson (“Wilson”) was issued South Dakota Teacher Certificate No. 76039 on May 29, 2013. This certificate expired on July 1, 2014, and lapsed on September 30, 2014. All parties have stipulated that Wilson is still subject to licensure acti 3. The last known address of Wilson is 20 North 700 East, Spanish Fork, Utah 84660. 4. Onor about April 24, 2014, the Lemmon School District filed a complaint with the South Dakota Teachers Practices and Standards Commission against Wilson alleging that he violated the code of professional ethics for teachers 5. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Wilson inappropriately had texting and verbal communication with a high school gir! and that Wilson violated school district. policies through this inappropriate communication. 6. Prior to a hearing on the complaint, the Lemmon School District and Wilson, through their attorneys, entered into the Stipulated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Stipulation”) attached hereto as Exhibit A. 7. The stated reason for entering into the Stipulation was “to efficiently resolve the Complaint, and to prevent the Lemmon School District student and her family involved in this Complaint from having to testify at the Noticed hearing...” 8. __ Inthe Stipulation, the parties agreed to a two year suspension of Wilson's certificate. The Stipulation also purported to allow either party to withdraw the Stipulation and proceed to hearing if the Commission did not accept the Stipulation in its entirety.9. The Commission accepted and adopted the Stipulation and took no additional evidence in regard to the complaint, 10. Onor about October 14, 2014, the Commission filed a complaint with the Secretary recommending a two year suspension of Wilson’s certificate. 11. Except as otherwise referenced herein, the Secretary adopts from the Stipulation Findings of Fact 1-29, and 32-33. 12. _ The Secretary rejects Finding of Fact 30 from the Stipulation because Wilson’s certificate did not lapse until September 30, 2014. ARSD § 24:15:02:03. 13. The Secretary rejects Finding of Fact 31 ftom the Stipulation because it is vague and ambiguous. 14, Nothing in the Stipulation explains why Wilson as an assistant boys? basketball coach would need to reach out to a female student to build the athletic program at Lemmon High School. Therefore, that portion of Finding of Fact 14 in the Stipulation is rejected. 15, _As student’s teacher and supervisor of open gym, Wilson was in a position of authority over student. Wilson abused that authority through his actions. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. _ Any Conclusion of Law more properly designated as a Finding of Fact is hereby so designated. 2. The Secretary adopts Conclusions of Law 1-11 from the Stipulation and makes the following additional Conclusions. 3. The authority to issue, deny, suspend and revoke certificates is vested with the Secretary of the Department of Education. SDCL §§ 13-42-4, 13-42-7, 13-42-9, 13-42-15, 13-42-28.1. The Secretary may revoke, suspend, or not issue a teaching certificate for Violation of the code of ethics. 4. The Secretary has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this matter Pursuant to the complaint for revocation or suspension filed by the Commission. Although the Commission can make a recommendation regarding a revocation or specific length of suspension, this recommendation is not binding on the Secretary. 5. _ The Secretary is not bound by the Stipulation before the Commission to a two year suspension, and the parties have no right to withdraw the Stipulation if the Secretary imposes a greater penalty.6. Wilson admits that he acted as student’s friend rather than her teacher. However, itis important to note that Wilson’s position of authority over the student would call into question any true friendship. 7. ___ Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the teacher Certificate No. 76039 issued to Gregg Wilson should be suspended for a period of two years, effective June 30, 2014. Dated this 24th day of November, 2014, A } AWM bk web Dr. Melody Schopp _/ Secretary / South Dakota Department of Education 800 Governors Drive Pieme, SD 57501STATE OF SOUTHDAKOTA —)_—- SOUTH DAKOTA PROFFESSIONAL TEACHERS )S8_ PRACTICES AND STANDARDS COMMISSION COUNTY OF HUGHES ) Lemmon School Distric/Rick Herbel 209 3" St. West Spanish Fork, UT 84660 ) ) Lemmon, SD 57638, ) PTPSC 2014-04 ) Complainant, ) ) STIPULATED FINDINGS OF FACT vs. ) AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) Gregg Wilson ) 20N. 700 B. ) ) ) ) Respondent. On or about April 24, 2014 the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission (herein PTPSC) received a complaint from the Lemmon School District #52-4 against Gregg Wilson (herein Wilson). A hearing on the matter was properly noticed and scheduled to take place in front of the PTPSC on September 9, 2014 at 1:30 pm CDT in Conference Room 1, MacKay Building, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota. Now, in an effort to efficiently resolve the Complaint, and to prevent the Lemmon School District student and her family involved in this Complaint from having to testify at the Noticed hearing, the parties offer the following Stipulated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Parties respectfully request the PIPSC consider this proposal for adoption by the PTPSC as a fall and final resolution of the above captioned Complaint. Should the PTPSC not accept this Stipulation in its entirety as a full and final resolution. of the above captioned matter, either party reserves the right to withdraw this submission and EXHIBIT 1 y Aproceed to hearing as previously noticed. In that case, none of the proposed Findings of Conclusions contained herein shall be used against either party. STIPULATED FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Wilson completed his college degree and received Teaching Certification in the state of Utah, 2. Utah issued Wilson a Teaching Certificate on May 13, 2013. 3. Thereafter Wilson applied for an available teaching position at the Lemmon High School located at 209 3" Street West, Lemmon, South Dakota, 4. Wilson applied for and received a 1 year Teaching Certificate from the State of South Dakota. 5. Wilson ultimately was hired by the Lemmon High School to teach Industrial Arts and to act as the assistant boys basketball coach for the 2013/2014 school year. 6. Wilson moved to Lemmon, SD from Utah on or about August 22, 2013 and began his first year of teaching on August 22, 2013. 7. In addition to Wilson’s duties at the Lemmon High School, he also taught at McIntosh High School, 4 times per week. 8. Throughout the 2013/2014 school year Wilson made efforts to become involved in all Lemmon High School sporting events. He and his family attended nearly all basketball games and he came to personally know several of the student athletes. 9. In addition Wilson was assigned and volunteered to work and supervise open gyms scheduled at the Lemmon High School gymnasium. 10. When he worked at the open gym events, he often offered to give students a ride home, and engaged directly with students participating in the open gym event.11. Wilson also directly invited students to participate in the Industrial Arts program. In an effort to do so, he had an open door policy and invited students to his office. 12. During the 2013/2014 school year, Student attended the Lemmon High School as an 11 grader, a junior. 15. Student was on the girls basketball team and often participated in the open gym events supervised by Wilson. '4. Student is considered a leader at the Lemmon High School both academically and athletically. As a result, Wilson intended to reach out to her for her assistance in building the athletic program at the Lemmon High School and increasing participation in the Industrial Arts program. 15, Wilson obtained Student's personal cell phone number from a student at the Lemmon High School, 16. Wilson communicated with Student on a regular basis via text message. 17. Wilson’s communications with Student were not always directly related to either academics or athletic involvement, 18. Wilson invited Student to his office to discuss both school related topics and items of relevance in Student’s personal life. 19. Wilson made attempts to involve himself in Student’s personal life in addition to Student's academie and athletic life. He utilized communication through personal cell phones via text messages as a means to do so. 20. The Professional Teacher’s Practices and Standards Commission has promulgated rales for a code of professional ethics for teachers in South Dakota pursuant to authority granted by South Dakota Law. This code of ethics is found in ARSD 24:08:03.21, The teacher's code of ethics provides that teachers “maintain a professional relationship with students...” see ARSD 24:08:03: ‘01(7). 22. The teacher's code of ethics provides that teachers, “perform duties in accordance with local, state and federal rules...” see ARSD 24:08:03:03(13). 23. The Lemmon School District had an employee policy which prohibited the following conduct (i) improper fratemization with students, (i) staff members providing private phone ‘numbers, (iii) inappropriate phone contact with students 24. Although Wilson maintains that his direct communication with Student was intended only to build the academic and athletic community at the Lemmon High School, he admits he did not maintain the appropriate professional distance from Student's personal life. 25. Wilson did not intend to put Student in a compromised position, but admits he should not have communicated with Student on Student’s private cell phone for the purpose of sending text messages. 26, On or about March 8, 2014 the communication Wilson had with Student came to the attention of Superintendent Rick Herbel. Asa result, Mr. Herbel held a meeting on April 14, 2014 with Wilson, Student and Student’s parents, 27. During the meeting Wilson admitted he communicated with Student on Student's person cell phone via text message. He admitted his communication with Student went beyond conversation regarding academics or athletics. 28. On April 15, 2014 Wilson's employment with the Lemmon School District was terminated. 29. On April 18, 2014 Wilson and his family moved to Utah 30. On July 1, 2014 Wilson’s 1 year South Dakota Teaching Certificate lapsed.31. Wilson now lives and works in Utah, He disclosed this matter to his current employer. 32. Wilson admits he violated ARSD 24. ‘08:03:01(7) when he failed to “maintain a professional relationship with students...” when he communicated with Student about Student's personal life and attempted to become Student’s friend. 33. Wilson admits he violated ARSD 24:08:03:03(13) when he became friends with Student rather than remaining Student’s teacher, when he utilized Student's personal phone number and when he sent Student personal text messages, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Department of Education, South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding Pursuant to SDCL 13-43-28 and 13-43-28.1, SDCL Ch 1-26, and the Administrative Rules of ‘South Dakota, Chapters 24:08:03 and 24:08: 04.01. 2. A South Dakota teaching certificate may be revoked, suspended or not issued for violations of the Teacher's Code of Ethics as set forth by South Dakota administrative rule. 3. Wilson does not currently have an active South Dakota Teacher’s Certificate, however he is still subject to licensure action. 4. The burden of proof in this matter at a contested case hearing is clear and convincing. In Re: Setliff, 202 SD 58, 645 N.W.2d 601, 605. 5. The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:01 that in fulfilling their obligations to the profession, educators shall act as follows: @ (7) Maintain professional relationships with students without exploitation of student for personal gain or advantage©. Clear and convincing evidence exists that Wilson violated ARSD 24:08:03:01(7) when he when he communicated with Student about Student’s personal life. 7. The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:03 that in fulfilling their obligations to the profession, educators shall act as follows: 4. (13) Perform duties in accordance with local, state, and federal rules and laws. 8. Clear and convincing evidence exists that Wilson violated ARSD 24:08:03:03 when he became friends with Student rather than remaining Student's teacher, when he utilized Student’s personal phone number and when he sent Student personal text messages. 9. Any conclusion of law improperly denoted as a finding of fact is hereby incorporated as a conclusion of law. 10. Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the patties stipulate and agree to a two year suspension of Wilson’s teaching certificate and that Wilson will be ineligible to apply for a teaching certificate for two years. 11. The Commission may file a complaint with the Secretary of the Department of Education seeking a two year suspension of Wilson’s teaching certificate. Dated this LM 0s of September, 2014. 217 Main Ave PO Box 178 Lemmon, SD 57638-0178 Attorneys for ComplainantDated this C3 day of September, 2014. MAY, ADAM, GERDES & THOMPSON, LLP » Poul. Kara C, Semmler PO Box 160 Pierre, South Dakota 57501 (605) 224-8803 Attorneys for RespondentSTATE OF SOUTHDAKOTA +) DIVISION OF THE SECRETARY ss COUNTY OF HUGHES ) SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION ) In the Matter of the ) DSE 2015-03 ‘Suspension of the ) Teaching Certificate of ) ORDER SUSPENDING SARAH SCHMASOW ) SOUTH DAKOTA TEACHER ) CERTIFICATION ) Pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education by SDCL 13-43-28.1 and 13-42-9, following receipt of a Complaint requesting suspension of a certificate from the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission, and after review of the entire file herein, the Secretary enters the following order: 1. The Secretary has entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which are hereby incorporated into this Order by this reference as if set forth in full. 2, Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the teacher Certificate No. 66410 issued to Sarah Schmasow is hereby suspended for a period of one year, from July 1, 2015, through July 1, 2016. 3, In order to be considered for certification in South Dakota at the conclusion of the suspension period, Schmasow must reapply and meet all legal requirements for certification at the time of the application. 4, Notification of this suspension will be plaved on the NASDTEC registry and be placed in Schmasow’s permanent certification file within the South Dakota Department of Education. 5. This Order and incorporated findings and conclusions are a public record pursuant to SDCL Chapter 1-27 and 1-26-2 ‘This constitutes final agency action. Dated this 30th day of June, 2015. Nab y. edehopp Dr. Melody Schopp, Secretary South Dakota Department of EducationSTATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA DIVISION OF THE SECRETARY COUNTY OF HUGHES SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION ) In the Matter of the ) DSE 2015-03 Suspension of the ) Teaching Certificate of ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND SARAH SCHMASOW ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW OF ) THE SECRETARY ) FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Any Finding of Fact more properly designated as a Conclusion of Law is hereby so designated, 2. Sarah Schmasow (““Schmasow”) is the holder of a valid South Dakota Teaching Certificate, No, 6410-2, issued on September 13, 2011, and expiring on July 1, 2016. 3. Onor about July 29, 2014, the McLaughlin School District (“District”) Board of Education approved a contract with Schmasow to be a fourth grade teacher in the District. Schmasow signed the contract on August 11, 2014. 4, The contract specifically stated that the employee would comply with the board policy handbook and the code of ethies for teachers. In addition, the contract stated: It is further agreed that this contract may be terminated only by mutual consent of the contracting parties ... and if no mutual consent as to termination exists and if the Teacher initiates the termination of the contract prior to its termination date, the District may assess liquidated damages by withholding money due to or collect from the Teacher pursuant to McLaughlin School Board Policy. On or about July 30, 2014, Angie Thunker (“Thunker”) from the District emailed Schmasow the phone number of an individual who had upstairs living space to rent in the District. 6. Onor about August 5, 2014, Schmasow informed Thunker via email that she did not have funds to relocate. The school board approved expending funds to assist ‘Schmasow in moving to the District, and $786.00 was wired to Schmasow via Western Union on or about August 7, 2014, This money was not part of Schmasow’s employment contract with the District, There was no signed, written agreement regarding these funds7. The District held in-service training for new and returning staff the week of August 11-15, 2014, Schmasow was present at the District for this training 8 Schmasow never moved to the District. 9. Onor about August 17, 2014, Schmasow submitted her resignation via email to Thunker. Schmasow stated that she was taking her granddaughter because of personal issues and therefore could not make the upstairs housing work. Schmasow also stated, “I know that you provided travel expenses and since I have worked 5 days, I hope that we can just call it even.” 10. District school board policy stated that the District could withhold or collect $800 in liquidated damages when a teacher terminated a contract after August 1 11, On or about September 7, 2014, Schmasow purported to accept a teac! position with Sitting Bull School in Little Eagle, South Dakota, which included a $5,000 sign on bonus and free housing and utilities. However, the contract was ultimately not approved by the schoo! board. 12. On or about September 8, 2014, the District school board unanimously accepted the resignation of Schmasow and authorized the assessment of $800 in liquidated damages. In addition, the board authorized the superintendent, Scott Lepke (“Lepke”), to pursue a complaint with the Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission (“Commission”) “if the District is not reimbursed the traveling expenses ... and/or the liquidated damages are not paid.” 13. The District was not able to find a permanent replacement for Schmasow’s position and was forced to utilize a long-term substitute teacher to instruct students, 14 Incorrespondence dated September 17, 2014, Lepke informed Schmasow that her resignation had been accepted and that the District had assessed liquidated damages against her. Lepke also provided an explanation of the wage calculations and payroll deductions. An invoice reflecting Lepke’s explanation was enclosed with the letter. 15. The District calculated the amount due to Schmasow for hours worked during the week of in-service at $28.38/hour for 36 hours, ot $1,021.68 in gross wages. Taxes and withholding were calculated and the amount of $786.00 for reimbursement of the travel expenses was deducted, with a remainder of $48.49 owed to Schmasow. Liquidated damages of $800.00 were applied to the remaining amount, leaving a net amount of $751.51 in liquidated damages owed to the District.16. On or about October 9, 2014, Lepke filed a complaint against Schmasow with the Commission for alleged violations of the code of ethics surrounding the breach of her contract with the District and pursuit of another contract with a different school. 17. _ The complaint was served via certified U.S. mail on Schmasow on or about October 15, 2014, at 14 19" St. N., Great Falls, MT, 59401. 18. On or about October 21, 2014, Schmasow contacted Lepke via email offering to return to finish out the contract or asking for time to pay the liquidated damages. Lepke responded that the complaint would remain in place until the liquidated damages were paid. 19, Schmasow submitted a response to the complaint to the Commission on or about October 21, 2014. The return address on Schmasow’s response was 14 19" St. N., Great Falls, MT, 59401 20. A notice of hearing was served on the parties via first class U.S. mail on or about December 19, 2014. The notice of hearing advised Schmasow that a hearing had been set for January 22, 2015, at Conference Room 2, Kneip Building, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota, at 1:00 p.m, Central Time. 21. ‘The notice of hearing was mailed to Schmasow’s last known address of 14 19" St. N., Great Falls, MT, 59401 22, The notice of hearing informed Schmasow that the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether Schmasow violated Sections 24:08:03:02(4) and 24:08:03:03(5) of the South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers, as found in the South Dakota Administrative Rules, as set out in the complaint before the Commission. 23. No mailing addressed to Schmasow was returned to the Commission as undeliverable. 24, At some point after submitting her response to the Commission, Schmasow moved to Arizona, Despite responding to the original complaint and knowing of the pending complaint against her, at no time prior to the hearing did Schmasow notify the Commission that her mailing address had changed or that she had not received the notice of hearing. 25. A hearing on the complaint was held on January 22, 2015, at Conference Room 2, Kneip Building, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota, at 1:00 p.m. Central Time. 26. Schmasow failed to appear at the January 22, 2015, hearing to request a private hearing. As a result, a public hearing was held in front of the Commission.27. _ Even though Schmasow failed to appear at the hearing, the Commission took notice of the information provided by Schmasow in her response to the compli 28. — Schmasow claimed to receive the Notice of Hearing after the hearing. At that point, she provided the Commission by phone with an incomplete address in Arizona. 29. Onor about February 27, 2015, the Commission filed a complaint with the Secretary recommending a suspension of five years, with a reduction to three years if| Schmasow remitted the outstanding liquidated damages within 60 days of the Commission’s order. This complaint, along with the Commission’s findings and conclusions, were served upon Schmasow at the Arizona address she had provided. 30. _ Schmasow subsequently contacted the South Dakota Department of Education claiming that she had not received proper notice of the hearing and providing her complete address in Arizona. 31. Schmasow was provided with copies of all documents, and Schmasow and District were given the opportunity to supplement the record through written submissions and testimony before the Secretary issued the final decision in this case. 32, Schmasow’s last known address at the time of the Secretary’s decision is 2901 S. Palo Verde Lane #49, Yuma, Arizona 85365, 33. In response to the complaint filed by with the Commission, Schmasow filed complaint against Lepke with the South Dakota Professional Administrators Practices and Standards Commission, which was dismissed. She has also filed complaints against the District with various state and federal agencies alleging discrimination due to her race. 34. There is no credible evidence that the District’s filing of a complaint with the Commission, through Lepke, was motivated by anything other than perceived violations of the code of ethics by Schmasow. 35. Schmasow has not paid the outstanding liquidated damages amount and has indicated that she does not intend to pay. 36. Schmasow has refused to accept responsibility for her actions in regard to breaking her contract with the District. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Any Conclusion of Law more properly designated as a Finding of Fact is hereby so designated.2. The authority to issue, deny, suspend and revoke certificates is vested with the Secretary of the Department of Education, SDCL §§ 13-42-4, 13-42-7, 13-42-9, 13-42-15, 13-42-2811 3. The Secretary has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to the complaint for suspension filed by the Commission, SDCL §§ 13-42-10; 13- 43-28.1. Although the Commission can make a recommendation regarding a revocation or specific length of suspension, this recommendation is not binding on the Secretary. 4, The burden of proof in this matter is clear and convincing, In re: Jarmon, 2015 S.D. 8, 860 N.W.2d 1 5. Schmasow received proper notice of the hearing before the Commission, Notice was mailed to the address she provided, and she provided no notice before the hearing that the address had changed. ARSD § 24:08:04.01:03; SDCL § 1-26-16; American: Healthcare Center v. Randall, 513 N.W.2d 566, (S.D. 1994), citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co,, 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L-Ed. 865 (1950) (Due process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections) 6. __ Inaddition, Schmasow was provided with ample opportunity to supplement the record after the Commission hearing and before the final decision. SDCL 13-43-28.1 7, Schmasow’s email of resignation acknowledged that there was an implied agreement that she would pay back the $786 travel expenses advanced by the District. Additionally, allowing Schmasow to retain those funds would have been inequitable be she did not utilize them for the intended purpose of moving to the District. SDCL § Bollinger v. Eldredge, 524 N.W.2d 118, 123 (1994). use 8. Schmasow’s actions of accepting the travel advance and then not moving to the District were timely mitigated by the fact that the District was reimbursed in full through withholding of Schmasow’s wages, with her consent. 9. A teaching contract is a binding legal document, and both the school district and the teacher are presumed to have read and understood its terms. Ryken v. Blumer, 307 N.W.2d 865, 868 (S.D. 1981). 10. Schmasow breached her teaching contract with the District. 11, The District’s imposition of liquidated damages as a result of Schmasow’s breach was authorized by the contract.12, _ Under the facts of this case, Schmasow’s alleged reasons for breaching her contract are not mitigating factors 13, Schmasow’s refusal to accept available housing in the District was due to a change in her family status regarding the care of a grandchild and should not be attributed to the District. 14, __ Schmasow’s negotiation with Sitting Bull School for what amounted to a better compensated position, before the District had formally accepted her resignation, calls into question Schmasow’s claim that breaching the contract with District was based entirely on housing, 15, However, there is no evidence that Schmasow engaged in a pattern of breaching contracts or accepting signing bonuses or expenses thet she did not intend to pay back. 16. Schmasow’s offer to fulfill her contract more than two months after the breach, and only after the imposition of liquidated damages, is not a mitigating factor. 17. SDCL § 13-42-9 authorizes the Secretary to revoke or suspend a certificate for violation of the code of ethics 18. However, SDCL § 13-42-9 also states: ‘The secretary ... may suspend any certificate for a period not to exceed one year for breaking or jumping a contract, if such suspension is requested by the school board. However, the secretary may not suspend a certificate for breaking or jumping a contract if the school board collected liquidated damages pursuant to the terms of the contract. 19, __ Therefore, although the remedy for a violation of the code of ethics is normally within the Secretary’s discretion, the Legislature has specifically limited that discretion in breach of contract cases to a maximum one year suspension if the school board has not collected outstanding liquidated damages. 20. __ Schmasow has violated ARSD 24:08:03:03(5), which states, “Adhere to the terms of a contract or appointment unless the contract has been altered without the consent of the affected patties, except as provided by law, legally terminated, or legally voided.” 21, Even if Schmasow’s actions in regard to Sitting Bull Schoo! would amount to 2 separate violation of the code of ethics, those actions are so interwoven with the breach of contract that I cannot conclude the Legislature intended to allow a penalty beyond the one year suspension authorized by SDCL 13-42-9.22, Schmasow’s refusal to accept responsibility for her actions is an aggravating factor, 23. The limit of the Secretary's discretion in this case is a one year suspension, so the Secretary rejects the recommendation of the Commission. 24. There is clear and convincing evidence to suspend Schmasow’s teaching certificate for one year. 25, _ Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the teacher Certificate No. 66410 issued to Sarah Schmasow should be suspended for a period of one year, effective July 1, 2015. Dated this 30th day of June, 2015. Listecleg acbutings Dr. Melody Scho Secretary, South Dakota Department of Education 800 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501STATE OFSOUTHDAKOTA DIVISION OF THE SECRETARY 88 COUNTY OF HUGHES ) SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION DSE# 2015-06 In the Matter of the ) PTPSC # 2014-15 Revocation of the ) Certificate of } ORDER REVOKING ) SOUTH DAKOTA TEACHER ) CERTIFICATION ) Pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Edueation by SDCL 13-43-28.1 and 13-42-9, following receipt of a Complaint for the Revocation ofa certificate dated April 9, 2015, from the South Dakota Professional crs Practices and Standards Commission, and after review of the entire record of the belore the Commission, the Secretary orders the following: The Secretary affirms and adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Commission, ‘These findings and conclusions, atached as Exhibit A, are hereby incorporated into this Order by this reference as if set forth in full 2. ____ Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the certificate of Justin Dean Kiefer # 74428-0 is hereby permanently, immediately, REVOKED. > og Nolification ofthis revocation shall be placed on the NASDTEC registry and be placed in Justin Dean Kiefer's permanent certification file within the South Dakota Department of Edueation. gps Order and findings and conclusions will be provided to Justin Dean Kiefer, the executive secretary of the Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission and its counsel. the complainant before the Commission (and counsel). and the schoo! district where Justin Dean Kieter was last employed. F cis Order and incorporated findings and conclusions are 8 public record pursuant to SDCL Chapter 1-27 and 1-26-2. ‘See Cv. Tuma. Hughes Co. Civ. 08-170. Letter Decision Re: Respondent's Motion to Seal ‘ourt File (Wilbur, J., July 18, 2008).This constitutes final agency action, Dated this’/ day of April, 2015. South Dakota Department of Education 800 Governors Drive Pierre. SD 37501PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ) ss: PRACTICES AND STANDARDS COUNTY OF HUGHES ) COMMISSION ) CARLA LEINGANG, ADMINISTRATOR, ) OFFICE OF CERTIFICATION AND ) ‘TEACHER QUALITY, S.D.DEPT.OF —_) PTPSC 2014-15 EDUCATION , ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT Complainant, ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) AND ORDER v. ) ) JUSTIN DEAN KIEFER, ) ) Respondent. ) This matter came on for hearing pursuant to the provisions of SDCL 13-43-28 before the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission on April 1, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. in Conference Room 1, MacKay Building, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota, as previously scheduled and duly and formally noticed for hearing. The following members of the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission (Commission) were present at the hearing: Michael Amolins, Connie Gretschmann, Thomas Keck, Bev Kopren, Tammy Jo Schlechter and Paul E. Bachand, counsel for the Commission, and Ferne Haddock, Executive Secretary of the Commission, were also present. The complainant personally appeared with attorney Bobbi Rank. Justin Dean Kiefer failed to appear at the hearing and the Commission conducted a public hearing. Based upon the evidence presented and the records on file, and Kiefer’s failure to appear at the hearing, the Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On or about May 5, 2012, Kiefer was issued initial South Dakota teaching certificate number 74428-00. The certificate is valid until July 1,2017, 2. On or about December 23, 2014, Carla Leingang, Administrator, Office of Certification and Teacher Quality, South Dakota Department of Education, filed a complaint against Kiefer with the Commission, 3. The complaint alleged that Kiefer violated the South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers. 4, The complaint was served on Kiefer on or about December 29, 2015. EXHIBIT Ae10. 1, 12. 1B. 14. 15. 16. 17. ‘A notice of heating was served on the parties on or about February 17, 2015. The notice of hearing advised Kiefer that a hearing had been set for April 1, 2015, at Conference Room 1, MacKay Building, 800 Govemors Drive, Piene, South Dakota. Kiefer failed to appear at the hearing. Kiefer’s failure to appear at the hearing acts as an admission to the items alleged in the complaint. Kiefer responded to the complaint and his response is attached as Exhibit A. Kiefer’s response acts as an admission to the items alleged in the complaint. In the fall of 2013, Kiefer was a 5® grade teacher at Park River Public Schools, Park River, North Dakota. In the fall of 2013, Victim was a sixteen-year-old student at Park River Public Schools, Park River, North Dakota. On or about November 8, 2013, Kiefer unlawfully engaged in sexual intercourse with Victim, a sixteen-year-old juvenile, in Walsh County, North Dakota. On or about November 16, 2013, Kiefer unlawfully engaged in sexual intercourse with Victim, a sixteen-year-old juvenile, in Walsh County, North Dakota. On or about November 26, 2013, Kiefer was charged with two counts of Corruption or Solicitation of a Minor (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-5; Class C felony) for engaging in sexual intercourse with Victim, a sixteen-year-old juvenile, in Walsh County, North Dakota. Asa part of Kiefer’s conditions of release for the offenses listed in paragraph 14 Kiefer was ordered not to have any form of contact or communication with Victim, Between approximately December 16, 2013 and January 20, 2014 Kiefer exchanged dozens of text messages with Victim. The text messages exchanged with Victim included the following: a. “Tmiss you so much too baby cakes but time will fly and before you know it we will be together” (December 17, 2013). b. “baby Tove you so much and I am so sorry for upsetting you I have been driving myself nuts the last few days please talk to me” (December 21, 2013). c. “No stop talkin like that I love you no matter what I like hearing about you but it ‘would just be nice for you to act more like my girlfriend and be sympathetic to me 00 can you please cali me tonight?" (December 22, 2013). 4. “Haircut time, gotta get cleaned up before cout” (December 23, 2013).e. “Well I hope you had a good birthday I went out for a bit with my younger cousin hated it your mom ruined my life and did something really stupid and is dragging you through the mud along with I hate this I hate my life im losing hope and I don’t know what to do why would someone do this to me she ruined my life and shattered my hopes and dreams im such a good person what did I do to deserve this besides falling for you” (January 1, 2014). £ “... Ljust cannot wait until next year and I cannot wait until you graduate so we can be together we need to start talking about the future and how happy we will be together . . .” (January 2, 2014). 8. “Ok I miss when you wanted to talk to me every night but thanks for texting me good luck on your tests I love you” (January 6, 2014) 18. On or about March 18, 2014, Kiefer was charged with 20 counts of Disobedience of a Judicial Order (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-10-05; Class A misdemeanor) for texting the victim of the charges described in paragraph 14 on dozens of occasions, on a phone he provided to Victim, in direct violation of bond conditions imposed by the court in Walsh County, North Dakota. 19. On or about September 9, 2014, Kiefer pled guilty to the two counts of Corruption or Solicitation of a Minor (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-5; Class C felony). Kiefer received the following sentence: a. Count 1: Incarceration for a term of five years, with three years suspended and credit for 229 days served. He was also placed on probation until September 9, 2019. b. Count 2: Incarceration for a term of five years, with five years suspended. He was also placed on probation until September 9, 2019. 20. On or about September 9, 2014, Keifer pled guilty to two counts of Disobedience of a Judicial Order (N.D.C.C. § 12.1-10-05; Class A misdemeanor). The remaining 18 counts were dismissed by the prosecutor. Keifer received the following sentence: a, Count 1: Incarceration for a term of one year, with nine months suspended. He was also placed on probation until September 9, 2016. b. Count 2: Incarceration for a term of one year, with one year suspended. He was also placed on probation until September 9, 2016. c. The sentencing court ordered that the incarceration periods described in paragraphs 17 and 18 run consecutively, while the probationary periods were to run concurrently. 21. The North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board initiated proceedings on November 6, 2014, to revoke Kiefer’s North Dakota teaching certificate. Kiefer's North Dakota certificate was revoked on November 26, 2014, 22. Any Finding of fact improperly denoted as a conclusion of law is hereby incorporated as a finding of fact.Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission hereby issues the following conclusions of law: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 23. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to SDCL 13-43-28 and 13-43- 28.1, SDCL Ch. 1-26, and the Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Chapters 24:08:03 and 24:08:04.01. 24, The burden of proof in this matter is clear and convincing. In Re: Setliff, 202 SD 58, 645 N.W.2d 601, 605. 25. The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:01 that in fulfilling their obligations to the students, educators shall act as follows: (10) Not engage in or be a party to any sexual activity with students including sexual intercourse, sexual contact, sexual photography, or illicit sexual communication. 26. Clear and convincing evidence exists that Kiefer violated ARSD 24:08:03:01(10). 27. The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:02 that in fulfilling their obligations to the public, educators shalll act as follows: (7) Engage in no act that results in a conviction; (8) Exemplify high moral standards by not engaging in or becoming a party to such activities as . .. deceit, moral turpitude, gross immorality, sexual contact with students, 28. Clear and convincing evidence exists that Kiefer violated ARSD 24:08:03:02(7) and (8). 29. ARSD 24:15:03:04 states, in pertinent part: “An applicant whose certificate has been revoked or suspended by another state or a commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States or a foreign country may not be certified until that revocation or suspension has been vacated.” 30. Pursuant to ARSD 24:15:03:04, Kiefer may not be certified in South Dakota due to the revocation of his North Dakota teaching certificate. 31. Any conclusion of law improperly denoted as a finding of fact is hereby incorporated as a conclusion of law. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is herebyORDERED that this matter be referred to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education for proceedings to permanently revoke the teaching certificate of Kiefer as provided for in SDCL 13-43-28. It is further ORDERED that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order be sent to parties herein, It is further ORDERED that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order be provided to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education for placement on the NASDTEC clearing house and that it remain with the Department's permanent certification file. It is further ORDERED that the Department may release the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order to the certification office of any state in which the respondent holds or applies for a certificate Dated this day of April 2015. PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS PRACTICES and STANDARDS COMMISSION thomas Keck, Chair 800 Governors Drive _/ Pierre, SD. 57501-2294STATE OF SOUTHDAKOTA DIVISION OF THE SECRETARY "ss COUNTY OF HUGHES ) SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION ) In the Matter of the ) DSE 2015-10 Revocation of the ) Teaching Certificate of ) ORDER REVOKING THOMAS MARK WENDELGASS SOUTH DAKOTA TEACHER ) CERTIFICATION ) Pursuant (0 the authority granted to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education by SDCL 13-43-28.1, 13-42-9, and 13.42.15 following receipt of a Complaint requesting revocation of a certificate from the Sowth Dakota Professional renghers Practices and Standards Commission, and aftr review of whe entire file herein, the Secretary enters the following order. asif set forth in full, Cente et MPO the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the teacher Cenficate No. 70989 issued to Thomas Mark Wendelgase i hereby immediately, Permanent revoked. 2 wen stification of tis revocation will be placed on the NASD TEC registry and be placed jn Wendelgass' permanent certification file within the South Dakots Department of Education, 4. ___This Order and incorporated findings and conclusions are a public record pursuant to SDCL 13-42-17.1, This constitutes final agency action, Dated this) day of July, 2015. Dr. Melody Schopp, Seér South Dakota Department of EducationEXHIBIT A STIPULATED FINDINGS OF FACT 1 Ono about May 6, 2014, Respondent Thomas Mark Wendelgass (Wendelgass) ‘was issued renewed South Dakota teaching cectficate number 70989-01. The certificate is valid until July 1, 2019. 2. Prior to September 18, 2014, Wendelgass" previous criminal charges were limited to minor traffic offenses. 3 Onorabout September 18, 2014, Wendelgass was arrested in Beadle County, South Dakota, for Possession of a Controlled Substance—LSD (SDCL § 22-42-55 Class 5 Felony), Possession of Two Ounces or Less of Marijuana (SDCL § 22-49-6; Class | Misdemeanor), and Disseminating Material Harmful to a Minor (SDCI. § 22-24-28; Class | Misdemeanor). On or about October 20,2014, Wendelgass was indicted by a grand jury on these charges. 4 On or about November 25, 2014, Wendelgass pled guilty to the felony Possession of@ Controlled Substance—LSD. He admitted that he bought the drugs ata concert in 2011 ‘The Possession of Two Ounces or Less of Marijuana charge was subsequently dismissed by the Prosecutor in exchange forthe plea, 5. On the same date, Wendelgass also pled guilty to the misdemeanor Disseminating Material Harmful toa Minor, which rose out of knowingly sending a nude photo of himself to a Seventeen year old former student over Snapchat, a social networking application, 6 On or about December 23, 2014, Wendelgass was sentenced to three years in the Penitentiary for the felony drug charge, with three years suspended. He was also sentenced three‘years of probation with terms and conditions, as well as various fines and costs. One of the conditions of Wendelgass’ probation was that he serve sixty days in jail 7. On the same date, Wendelgass was sentenced on the Disseminating Material Harmful to Minors charge. He was sentenced to forty-five days in jail, with twenty days suspended and credit for twenty-five days served. Wendelgass was also sentenced to 360 days probation with terms and conditions, including no contact with the former student for two years, 8. Wendelgass was suspended from the Huron School District as a result of the charges and is no longer is employed in that district or in the teaching profession. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Wendeigass has violated the following subsections of the Code of Ethics for ‘Teachers found in ARSD 24:01 (obligations to students): (9) Maintain professional relationships with students in a manner which is free of vindictiveness, recrimination, or harassment. (10) Not engage in or be a party to any sexual activity with students including sexual intercourse, sexual contact, soxual photography, or illicit sexual communication. 2. Wendelgass has violated the following subsections of the Code of Ethics for ‘Teachers found in ARSD 24:08:03:02 (obligations to the public): (7) Engage in no act that results in a conviction; (8) Exemplify high moral standards by not engaging in or becoming a party to such activities as .. . moral turpitude, gross immorality, sexual contact with students, [or] illegal drugs. ... 3. There is clear and convincing evidence to support the permanent revocation of Wendelgass’ teaching certificate,STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ) DIVISION OF THE SECRETARY 38 COUNTY OF HUGHES }) SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION ) Tn the Matter of the ) DSE 2015-17 ‘Teaching Certificate of ) Jessica Nielsen. x ORDER REGARDING ) SOUTH DAKOTA TEACHING ) CERTIFICATION ) Pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education by SDCL 13-42-9, 13-42-15, and 13-43-28. 1, following receipt of Complaint from the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards ‘Commission, and after review of the entire record herein, the Secretary enters the following order: 1 ‘The Secretary has entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which are hereby incorporated into this Order by this reference as if set forth in full. 2. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the South Dakota teacher Certificate No, 73095 issued to Jessica Nielsen is hereby immediately permanently revoked. 3. Notification of this Order will be placed on the NASDTEC registry and be placed in. Nielsen's permanent certification ile within the South Dakota Department of Edueation. 4, This Onder and incorporated findings and conclusions are a public record pursuant to SDCL 13-42-17.1, ‘This constitutes final agency action, Dated this 21st day of December, 2015. a ‘Wala Sohepe Dr. Melody Schopp, Secretary South Dakota Department of EducationSTATE OFSOUTHDAKOTA —)_—_ DIVISION OF THE SECRETARY ‘88 COUNTY OF HUGHES } SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION ) Inthe Matter of the ) DSE 2015-17 Teaching Certificate of ) Jessica Nielsen. FINDINGS OF FACT ) AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) OF THE SECRETARY ) FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Any Finding of Fact more properly designated as a Conclusion of Law is hereby so designated. 2. The Seoretary adopts the following Findings of Fact of the South Dakota Professional Practices and Standards Commission, attached as Exhibit A: Findings of Fact 1-38 and 40-48, 3. The Secretary makes the following additional Findings of Fact based upon the record: a. Nielsen testified that she replied to the student's personal messages because ‘they had established a “trust relationship” and he needed someone to talk to, so she returned his personal messages with “things he wanted to hear.” b. _Atthe time of the inappropriate communication between the student and Nielsen, student was sixteen years old, and Nielson was twenty-seven years old. c. Nielsen, as the teacher, was in a position of authority over the student, ‘whom she admitted was experiencing mental and physical difficulties d. Nielsen abused her authority through her actions. fc. tthe heating, the partes stipulated to supplement the revord with the administrative decision regarding Nielson’s Nebraska teaching certificate. £ The Nebraska Professional Practices and Standards Commission ; recommended, and the Nebraska State Board of Education imposed, a five year revocation of Nielson’s Nebraska teaching cortficate effective August 31, 2015CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Any Conclusion of Law more properly designated as a Finding of Fact is hereby so designated. 2. The Secretary adopts Conclusions of Law 49-61 of the South Dakota Professional Practices and Standards Commission attached as Exhibit A. 3. __ The Secretary makes the following additional Concfusions of Law based upon the record: a. _ The authority to issue, deny, suspend and revoke certificates is vested with the Secretary of the Department of Education, and the Secretary has personal and subject matter jurisdiction inthis matter. SDCL, 13-42-4, 13-42-7, 13-42.9, 13-42-15, 13-43-28.1 b. _Altnough the Commission can make a recommendation regarding a revocation or specific length of suspension, this recommendation is not binding on the Secretary. ©, The decision of the Nebraska State Board of Education is not binding regarding Nielson’s South Dakota certificate. d. _Nielsen’s admission that she made a mistake is a mitigating factor. ©. _ Nielsen's active participation in the exchange of sexual communications and at least one partially nude photograph with a current student over whom she was in a Position of authority, amounting to numerous violations of the code of ethics, are aggravating factors, 4. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Nielsen’s South Dakota teacher Certificate No. 73095 should be permanently revoked, effective immediately, Dated this 21st day of December, 2015. ¥ of os ata Seta Dr. Melody Schopp Secretary South Dakota Department of Education 800 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ) PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS ss PRACTICES AND STANDARDS COUNTY OF HUGHES ) COMMISSION ) EWING PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ) ) PTPSC 2015-06 Complainant, ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, * ) AND ORDER ) JESSICA NIELSEN, ) ) Respondent } ‘This matter came on for hearing pursuant to the provisions of SDCL § 13-43-28 before the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission on October 8, 2015, at 10:30 am, Central Time in Conference Room 1, MacKay Building, 800 Govemors Drive, Pies, South Dakota, as praviously scheduled and duly and formally noticed for hearing, ‘The following members ofthe South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission (Commission) were present at the hearing: Connie Gretschmann, Thomas Keck, Bev Kopren, and Kenneth “Lance” Vander Vorst, Paul E, Bachand and Holly Farris, counsel forthe Commission, and Femme Haddock, Executive Secretary of the Commission, were also preseat. Ewing Public School Superintendent Alberta Moore was present and appeared through counsel ‘Thomas Harmon of Pierre, SD, Respondent Jessica Nielsen was personally present and represented by counsel Andrew Marshall of Creighton, NE. Prior to the hearing, counsel for the complainant and respondent prepared and presented joint stipulation to the Commission. Based upon the facts presented inthe stipulation, evidence presented at the hearing, and the documents contained in the official file, the Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT . Respondent isthe holder of a valid South Dakota Teacher's Cestficate, No. 73095-0, issued on February 1, 2011, and expiring on July 1, 2016. On May 15, 2015, Bwing Public Schools, in Ewing, Nebraska, through its attomey Karea ‘Haase, filed a complaint against Nielsen with the Commission, ‘The complaint alleged that Nielsen violated sections of the South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers as a result of her interactions with a 16-year-old male student at Ewing Public School. 4. The complaint was served on Nielsen on or about May 20, 2015. EXHIBIT5, Nielsen admitted in her response to the complaint “that she engaged in inappropriate conduct through text messaging and Stapchat messages witha student.” 6. Inher response, Nielsen informed the Commission that ¢ criminal charge stemming from the same underlying conduct as the South Dakota ethics complaint had been filed in Holt County, Nebraska. Nielsen also informed the Commission that a complaint was also pending in frout of the Commission of Education for the State of Nebraska. 7. A notice of hearing was served on the parties on or about July 6, 2015, The notice of hearing advised the parties that a hearing had been set for August 10, 2015, at I p.m. or as soon thereafter as may be heard at Conference Room 4, Second Floor, 800 Govemors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota, 8, Nielsen requested a continuance of the complaint until the resotuton of the criminal charge against ber in Holt County, Nebraska, 9, An order granting the continuance until the resolution ofthe criminal charges against ‘Nielsen was entered by the Commission and served on the partes on or about July 31, 2015, By agreement of the parties, the order also prohibited Nielsen from accepting employment ‘in a public or accredited school within the state of South Dakota until the resolution of fhe complaint. 10. Nielsen was charged with one count of Contributing to the Detinguency of a Minor (Class 1 Misdemeanor, Neb. Rey. Sta § 28-709) in Holt County, Nebraska, as a result ofthe communications with (@, a 16-year-old male sophomore at Ewing Public School. 11, On or about August 5, 2015, Nielsen pled guilty to and was convicted of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor in Ffolt County, Nebraska, Nielsen was sentenced to a fine of $250.00, 12, An amended notice of hearing was served on the parties on or about August 21, 2015, The notice of hearing advised the parties that a hearing had been scheduled for Ootober 8, 2015, at 10:30 am. or as soon thereafter as may be heard at Conference Room 1, First Floor, 800 Governors Drive, Piere, SD. 13. On or about September, 2015, counsel for the parties filed a joint stipulation with ‘the Commission, stipulating to certain facts and presenting a recommended sanction 14, On October 8, 2015, Nielsen appeared at the scheduled hearing. 15, Nielsen was employed by Bwing Public Schools as a K-12 music education teacher, from the 2011-2012 school year through the 2014-2015 school yeat. 16, On or about April 23, 2015, Ewing High School Principal Greg Appleby was contacted by the parents of QI about text messages the parents had discovered on i's phone.17. The parents discovered 99 text messages exchanged between ther on and Nielsen on April 22, 2015, 18. The text messages, a partial transcript of which was attached tothe complaint as Exhibit A, included the following exchange on April 22: IN (Jessica Nielsen): Ok, you looked f cking hot today, That clear enough? WD (student): Really? JN: Mmammm, YES How? Getting to see you again made my day!!! How did I look good | You looked good with your shirt tucked in this moming, was kinda bummed when. you undid it Sony ‘Yesterday and today, you look freaking tipped through your shoulders... zmajor tum on Really? I struggle to keep my hands to myself 28 20 2m 19. The text messages also included the following exchange on April 22: JN (Jessica Nielsen): What aré you doing now WB studeny: Working ona disk Til give you something to work on (wink) ‘That's so hot ‘You might have to get dirty... with me = The bott may get stuck in the hole Oh my....gonna put it all the way in? Oh yeah JN: Ineed it, Ineed you JN: Ineed it, [need you. GBR need you sucking it JN: Gonna have to put it somewhere else besides just my mouth, yeah ® ‘You got me so f cking hot right now 20, After April 6, 2015, the communications between Nielsen andf{i§ escalated into ‘exchanging photos via Snapchat, ¢ picture-sharing intemet application 21,QNM sent Nielsen approximately ten photos via Snapchat, at least two of which depicted him ‘tude trom the waist down while sexually aroused, 22, Nielsen sent (QM approximately four photos via Snapchet, atleast ono of which depioted her snude from the waist up.(GBB vias a 16-year-old sophomore atthe time of the reported communications, 24 BB was enrolled in one of Nielsen’s music education classes atthe time of the ‘communications and had been enrolled in her classes in prior academic years. 25. Nielsen and had communicated via text for school-telated purposes such as scheduling or coordinating transportation during the spring 2015 semester, prior to April 1, 2015, 26, Nielsen and) developed a “trust relationship” wherein Nielsen acted as someone fo to talk to about issues he was dealing with in his personal life such as diabetes, anxiety, and bullying. 27. Nielsen did refer Ito seek out the school principal to discuss hs issues with bullying at ‘one point. 28, The inappropriate communication began on o about April 1, 2015, and ceased on or about Aptil 23, 2015, whenf fis parcats notified the school of the text messages found on their son’s phone, BBB initisted the escalation of the text messages to a sexual nature including sending the fitst nude photograph 30, Nielsen did not notify either school administration or I's parents when the text messages became inappropriate and sexual, =” 31. Nielsen did not cut off communication with J when the text messages became inappropriate and sexual. 32, Nielsen and had an “understanding” that they would not flirt at school. 33, Nielsen and§{Mj had no additional contact in person or via phone after April 22, 2015, 34, No sexual contact occurred between Nielsen and) 35, Nielsen was placed on administrative leave by Ewing Public Schools on April 23, 2015, and ‘remained on administrative leave for the remainder of the 2014-2015 academic year 36, Nielsen had submitted her resignation to Bwing Public School onMarch27, 2015, informing them she would not be retuming for the following academic year. Her resignation ‘was accepted by the Ewing Board of Education at its meeting on April 16, 2015, 37, Nielsen had fesigned ftom Ewing Public Schools in ordet to take ajob in Bon Homme, South Dakota. Nielsen subsequently withdrew her acceptance of employment at the Bon ‘Homme School District.38, Nielsen testified that Initiated the personal, non-school related, communications betyreen them, including sending her # photo of himself nude from the waist down and asking her for @ photo in return, 39, Nielsen replied to J's personal messages because they had established a “trust relationship” and he needed someone to talk to, so she retumed his personal messages with “things he wanted to hear.” 40, Nielsen admitted that she enjoyed the attention from 41. The text messages show that Nielsen was an active participant in the communications ad did not stop the exchange of texts when they escalated into a sexual nature and nude photographs. 42. The testimony of Nielsen that she exchanged messages wii because she fel: he needed someone to talk to and that she felt she could not report ihe conversations without i ‘being subject to additional personal issues, bullying, or discipline at school is not consistent with the volume of messages exchanged, the inappropriate sexual innuendo and language used in the texts, othe photos that were sent and received. 43, Niclsen adtnitted that she made a mistake by sending text messages and photographs toll) 44. Nielsen has a strong desire to retum to education. 45, The text messages and photos exchanged between Nielsen and constituted inappropriate communication between a teacher and a student. 46. Nielscu’s inappropriate communications with MJ demonstrate a lack of judgment as to ‘what constitates appropriate communication with students. 47, Nielsen’s inappropriate communications with (i demonstrate a lack of judgment as fo appropriate boundaries between students and teachers. 48, Any finding of fact improperly denoted as a conclusion of law is hereby incorporated a3 a finding of fact. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission hereby issues the following conclusions of law: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 49. The Commission bas jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to SDCL §§ 13-43-28 and 13-42- 28.1, SDCL Ch, 1-26, and the Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Chapters 24:08:03 and 24:08:04:01,50. The burden of proof in this matter as a contested case hearing is clear and convincing. Jn re, Setliff 2002 SD 58, 245 N.W.2d 601, 605, 51, The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:01 ‘that in fulfilling their obligations to the students, educators shall act as follows: (4) Make a reasonable effort to maintain discipline and order in the classroom and the school system to protect the students from conditions harmful to leaning, physical and emotional well-being, health, and safety; (8) Conduct professional business in such a way that they do not expose the students to unnecessary intimidation, embarrassment, or disparagement, (10) Not engage in or be a patty to any sexual activity with students including sexual intercourse, sexual contact, sexual photography or illicit sexuat communication. 52, The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:02 that in fufilling their obligations tothe public, educators shall act as follows: (7) Engage inno act that results in a conviction; (8) Exemplify high moral standards by not engaging in or becoming. party to such activities as fraud, embezzlement, theit, deceit, moral turpitude, gross immorality, sexual contact with students, illegal drugs, or use of misleading or false statements 53. The complainant has met its burden of proof asa result ofthe exhibits entered into the record and testimony presented atthe hearing. 54, Clear and convincing evidence exists that Nielsen violated ARSD 24:08:03:01(4), (5), and 0), 455, Clear and convineing evidence exists that Nielsen violated ARSD 24:08:03:02(7) and (8). $6, Nielsen violated ARSD 24:08:03:01(4) in that she failed to protect her student from conditions that were harmful to learning, as well as the student’s emotional well-being, health, and safety. 57, Nielsen violated ARSD 2408:03:01(5) in that she failed to conduct professional business in away that did not expose the student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement 58, Nielsen violated ARSD 24:08:03:01(10) in that she engaged in or was a perty to sexual activity with # student, including sexual photography and illicit sexual communication 59, Nielsen violated ARSD 24:08:03:02(7) in that she engaged in an act that resulted in a conviction. 60, Nielsen violated ARSD 24:08:03:02(8), in that she did not exemplify high moral standards ‘by engaging in and becoming a party to such activities as moral turpitude.61. Any conclusion of law improperly denoted as a finding of fit is ereby incorporated as conclusion of law. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is, hereby (ORDERED tha! this mater be refered tothe Secretary ofthe South Dara Department of dustin for proceedings to suspend the teaching certificate of Nielsen s provided fr in SDC. § {343-28 1, The Commision commends a suspension period effective ofthe dt the apicble onderis signed bythe Secretary of Zducaton and ending on July i, 2018. The Commission also recommends tha, upon et re-entry into the teaching profession, Nilsen be requited to obitn & ptofessional mentor within the teaching profession, inform the Commission of the mentor’s ‘Hevty, and maintain amentocimentee relationship with tha person fora ptiog of two years fr the purpose of professional development and guidance. Its further ORDERED that a copy ofthe Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Low, and Onder be seat ‘the parties herein. It is further ORDERED that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order be provided to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education. for placement on the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification | Clearinghouse and that it remain with the Department's permanent certification file. ORDERED thatthe Department may olease the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order to the cectifiction office of any state in which the respondent holds or appties for © certificate, miberm 2015 PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS PRACTICES ‘AND STANDARDS COMMISSION he Dated this Psy of, By ee Thomas Keck, Chair _/STATE OF SOUTHDAKOTA —) DIVISION OF THE SECRETARY 188 COUNTY OF HUGHES } SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION ) In the Matter of the ) DSE 2015-18 Revocation of the ) Certificate of ) ORDER REVOKING Christia Ault ) SOUTH DAKOTA TEACHER ) CERTIFICATE, J Pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education by SDCL 13-43-28.1 and 13-42-9, following receipt of a Complaint for the Revocation (Complaint dated November 17, 2015) of a certificate dated May 4, 2012, complaint filed by the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission, and after review of the entire record herein, the Secretary orders the following: 1, The Secretary affirms and adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Commission. These findings and conclusions, attached as Exhibit A, are hereby incorporated into this Order by this reference as if set forth in full. 2, There is clear and convincing evidence that Christia Ault violated the South Dakota Code of Ethics for Teachers established under SDCL 13-43-25, namely ARSD 24:08:03:01(7) and 24:08:03:01(8) 3. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the certificate of Christia Ault (# 74399-0) is hereby permanently, immediately revoked. 4. Notification of this revocation will be placed on the NASDTEC registry and be placed in Christia Ault’s permanent certification file within the South Dakota Department of Education. 5. This Order and findings and conclusions will be provided to Christia Ault and the Executive Secretary of the Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission and the Commission’s counsel, the complainant before the Commission, by and through her legal counsel, and the Superintendent of the school district where Charistia Ault was last employed. 6. This Order and incorporated findings and conclusions are a public record pursuant to SDCL 13-42-17.1 This constitutes final agency action. Christia Ault has a right to appeal pursuant to SDCL 13-42-16 unless appeal has been waived.Dated this /4/ day of December, 2015. Licaletadeslelor Dr. Melody Schop} d Secretary South Dakota Department of Education 800 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ) PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS ss: PRACTICES AND STANDARDS COUNTY OF HUGHES ) COMMISSION ) CARLA LEINGANG, ADMINISTRATOR, ) OFFICE OF CERTIFICATION AND ) TEACHER QUALITY, S.D. DEPT.OF PTPSC 2015-07 EDUCATION, ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT Complainant, ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) AND ORDER v. ) ) CHRISTIA LYNN AULT, ) ) Respondent. ) This matter came on for hearing pursuant to the provisions of SDCL 13-43-28 before the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission on October 8, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. in Conference Room 1, MacKay Building, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota, as previously scheduled and duly and formally noticed for hearing ‘The following members of the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission (Commission) were present at the hearing: Connie Gretschmann, ‘Thomas Keck, Bev Kopren, and Kenneth “Lance” Vander Vorst. Paul E. Bachand, counsel for the Commission, and Ferne Haddock, Executive Secretary of the Commission, were also present. ‘The complainant personally appeared with attorney Bobbi Rank. Christia Lynn Ault was personally present and requested a private hearing. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the records on file and Ault’s admissions to the allegations as contained in the Complaint, the Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Onorabout May 4, 2012, Ault was issued initial South Dakota teaching certificate number 7439-00. The certificate is valid until July 1, 2017. 2. On or about June 22, 2015, Carla Leingang, Administrator, Office of Certification and Teacher Quality, South Dakota Department of Education, filed a complaint against Ault with the Commission. 3. The complaint alleged that Ault violated the South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers. EXHIBIT PA4, The complaint was served on Ault on or about June 24, 2015. 5, Annotice of hearing was served on the parties on or about August 27, 2015. 6. Onor about July 7, 2014, Ault was charged with the commission of the following four felonies in Pennington County, South Dakota: (1) possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (SDCL 22-42-5, class 5 felony), (2) unauthorized ingestion ofa Controlled drug or substance, methamphetamine (SCL 22-42-5.1, class 5 felony), 3) grand theft by receiving stolen property (SDCL 22-30-17, class 6 felony), and (4) Commission of a felony while carrying a firearm (SDCL 22-14-12, class 2 felony) County 2, unauthorized ingestion of 7. Onor about November 12, 2014 Ault pled guilty to Ault were ‘methamphetamine, a class 5 felony and the remaining charges against dismissed. 8. Onorabout December 23, 2014, Ault was sentenced to two years in the South Dakota State Penitentiary, with two years suspended. Ault was also sentenced to two years of probation with terms and conditions, as well as fines and costs. One of the conditions of ‘Ault’s probation required that Ault have no contact with Mark Afraid of Lightning. 9, Onor about June 22, 2015, Ault along with her boyftiend Mark Afraid of Lightning, drove to an apartment complex in North Rapid City, South Dakota in order to purchase controlled substances. 10, Ault drove Afraid of Lightning to the apartment complex in North Rapid City in Aul's vehicle. 11. Ault provided Afraid of Lightning $50 in order for Afraid of Lightaing to purchase 2 controlled substance. 12, On June 22, 2015, prior to driving to the apartment complex, Ault used ‘methamphetamine and marijuana. 13, Afraid of Lightning went into the apartment complex and purchased what he believed to be ecstasy pills 14, After purchasing the purported ecstasy pills, Ault’s vehicle was lawfully stopped by & police officer with the Rapid City Police Department shorly after leaving the apartment complex. ‘Ault informed the police officer that she 15, During her discussions with the police officer, 1. Ault informed the officer that there ‘was a teacher and was teaching summer schoo] wasn’t anything illegal inside her vehicle. igital scale, a tube with methamphetamine, white 16. A search of Ault’s vehicle uncovered a di black pouch containing a marijuana pipe. pills, a Taurus .38 special revolver and17, The digital scale was located in a red pouch in between the driver's seat and the door. The digital scale contained marijuana residue on it 18. Ault denied knowledge of the scale, tube and pills but indicated that the pistol was hers and that she purchased it from “Cliff” in the valley for $100. 19. Ault indicated she had used marijuana a few months ago, but later indicated that her marijuana usage was within the last couple days. 20. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant for her urine which subsequently indicated the presence of marijuana and methamphetamine, 21. In a subsequent interview of Ault by a DCI Agent, Ault stated that she purchased the gun from Antonio Dreamer for $100. 22. The firearm found in Ault’s vehicle and purchased for $100 was a stolen firearm. 23. A search warrant was later obtained in order to conduct a search of Ault’s cell phone, Aus cell phone contained evidence of a text message between Ault and another person wherein Ault informed this person that the police were watching a residence and a parking lot. 24, The residence where Ault’s vehicle was at on June 22, 2014 had been under surveillance by the law enforcement for a period of time. 25. Law enforcement had received numerous tips that Ault's vehicle had been at that location and at the apartments on previous dates. 26. Ault consented to a request by law enforcement to search her residence. 27. A search of Ault’s residence on or about June 22, 2014 uncovered a glass lightbulb used for inhaling methamphetamine, clean baggies used to hold drugs and “dirty” baggies that previously contained controlled substances. 28. The clean baggies and “dirty” baggies were located in a satchel in Ault’s bedroom. The saichel contained school papers and appeared to be used for school purposes. 29, Ault denied knowledge of the “dirty” baggies in the satchel and denied that she had recently used the satchel. The Commission, having an opportunity to observe Ault during her testimony and based upon all the testimony presented at the hearing, determines that Ault was not credible and that Ault utilized the satchel for teaching and transported controlled substances in the satchel.30, As aresult of the stop of Ault's vehicle, law enforcement conducted three separate search warrants to include a search of the apartment where Mark Afraid of Lightning purchased the pills with Ault’s money, 31. The investigation by law enforcement as a result of the stop of Ault’s vehicle and subsequent searches, identified 17-20 individuals involved in drug trafficking. 32. An analysis of the pills purchased by Afraid of Lightning on June 22, 2014, found that the pills did not contain any controlled substances and were fake, 33, For a period of time on and prior to June 22, 2014, Ault was involved in the use of marijuana and controlled substances. 34, For a period of time on and prior to June 22, 2014, Ault was involved in the distribution of controlled substances either directly, as an aider and abettor or as a co-conspirator. 35, Prior to June 22, 2014 Ault’s vehicle had been seen at the apartment complex in North Rapid City where Afraid of Lightning attempted to purchase controlled substances. 36, Ault’s vehicle used on June 22, 2014, was forfeited by the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office. 37, Ault was and is currently involved in a relationship with Mark Afraid of Lightning who is. significantly involved in drug trafficking. 38. On June 22, 2014, Afraid of Lightning was on probation for a prior drug conviction. 39. On June 22, 2014, Ault was aware that Afraid of Lightning was on probation for a prior drug conviction. 40. Ault continued her relationship with Afraid of Lightning after her arrest in June 2014 and in July 2015 Ault gave birth to a child, Afraid of Lightning is the father of this child. 41, Mark Afraid of Lightning’s criminal record contains numerous arrests for drug offenses and violeat crimes, including arrests for the felony offense of aggravated assault. Due to Afraid of Lightning’s criminal record, he is considered a Repeat Serious Violent Offender. 42, Afraid of Lightning is ourrently in prison, 43, After Ault was sentenced on December 23, 2014, Ault continued to have contact with Afraid of Lightning 44, Ault has violated her condition of probation by having multiple contacts with Afraid of Lightning since Ault was sentenced on December 23, 2014.45. Ault expressed an unwillingness to the Commission to end her relationship with Afiaid of Lightning. 46, Ault’s continued relationship with Afraid of Lightning demonstrates an unwillingness by Ault to separate herself from drug use and drug trafficking. 47. Auli denied to the Commission that she was addicted to methamphetamine or marijuana, however the Commission does not believe her testimony was credible. 48. Ault denied to the Commission that she was aware that a scale was in her vehicle, however the Commission does not believe her testimony was credible, 49, Ault’s testimony to the Commission regarding her purchase of the 38 Taurus was not credible, 50. The stolen gun found in Ault's vehicle belonged to Afraid of Lightning and Ault’s admissions to purchasing the gun for $100 was for the purpose of protecting Afraid of Lightning from additional serious criminal charges. 51. Any Finding of fact improperly denoted as a conclusion of law is hereby incorporated as a finding of fact, Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission hereby issues the following conclusions of law: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 52. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to SDCL 13-43-28 and 13-43- 28.1, SDCL Ch. 1-26, and the Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Chapters 24:08:03 and 24:08:04.01, 53. The burden of proof in this matter is clear and convincing. In Re: Setliff, 202 SD 58, 645 N.W.2d 601, 605, 54. The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:02 that in fulfilling their obligations to the public, educators shall act as follows (7) Engage in no act that results in a conviction; (8) Exemplify high moral standards by not engaging in or becoming a party to such activities as... theft, deceit, moral turpitude, gross immorality .. [or] illegal drugs[.] 55. Clear and convincing evidence exists that Ault violated ARSD 24:08:03:02(7) and (8).56. Any conclusion of law improperly denoted as a finding of fact is hereby incorporated as a conclusion of law. Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter be referred to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education for proceedings to revoke the teaching certificate of Ault as provided for in SDCL 13-43-28, It is further ORDERED that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order be sent to parties herein. It is further ORDERED that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order be provided to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education for placement on ‘the NASDTEC clearing house and that it remain with the Department's permanent certification file, Itis further ORDERED that the Department may release the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order to the certification office of any state in which the respondent holds or applies for a certificate, Dated this__ |‘ day of November, 2015. PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS PRACTICES and STANDARDS COMMISSION ae By [i Lee _t Je ‘Thomas Keck, Chair 800 Govemors Drive Pierre, SD 57501-2294STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA DIVISION OF THE SECRETARY COUNTY OF HUGHES SOUTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF EDUCATION ) In the Matter of the ) DSE 2015-19 Revocation of the ) Certificate of ) ORDER REVOKING Tonya Marie Drueppel. ) SOUTH DAKOTA TEACHER ) CERTIFICATE ) Pursuant to the authority granted to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education by SDCI. 13-43-28.1 and 13-42-9, following receipt of « Complaint for the Revocation (complaint dated November 14, 2015) of a certificate dated June 28, 2012. complaint filed by the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission, and after teview of the entire record herein, the Secretary orders the following: 1. The Secretary affirms and adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Commission. These findings and conclusions, atached as Exhibit A, are hereby incorporated into this Order by this reference as if set forth in full 2. There is clear and convincing evidence that Tonya Marie Drueppe! violated the South Dakota Code of Ethies for Teachers established under SDCL 13-43-25, namely ARSD. 24:08:03:01(7); 24:08:03-01(8); 24:08:03:01(9); and 24:08:03:01(10). 3. poased upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the certificate of Tonya Marie Drueppel (#74468-0) is hereby permanently, immediately revoked, 4. Notification of this revocation will be placed on the NASDTEC. registry and be placed in Tonya Marie Drueppel’s permanent certification file within the South Dakotas Department of Education. 2 the ws Order and findings and conclusions will be provided to Tonya Marie Drueppel and the Executive Secretary of the Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission and the Commission's counsel, the complainant before the Commission by $74 through her legal counsel and the Superintendent of the school distit where Tonya Marie Drueppel was last employed, 6. This Order and incorporated findings and conclusions are a public record pursuant to SDCL 13-42-17.1 This constitutes final agency action, ‘Tonya Marie Drueppel has a right to appeal Pursuant to SDCL 13-42-16 unless appeal has been waived.Dated this /7 day of December, 2015. bey tb, Dr. Melody Schopp 7 Secretary South Dakota Department of Education 800 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ) ss PRACTICES AND STANDARDS COUNTY OF HUGHES ) COMMISSION ) CARLA LEINGANG, ADMINISTRATOR, ) OFFICE OF CERTIFICATION AND ) ‘TEACHER QUALITY, S.D.DEPT.OF —_) PTPSC 2015-08 EDUCATION, } ) FINDINGS OF FACT Complainant, ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) ‘AND ORDER v. ) ) TONYA MARIE DRUEPPEL, ) ) Respondent. ) This matter came on for hearing pursuant to the provisions of SDCL 13-43-28 before the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and Standards Commission on October 8, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in Conference Room 1, MacKay Building, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota, as previously scheduled and duly and formally noticed for hearing. The following members of the South Dakota Professional Teachers Practices and ‘Standards Commission (Commission) were present at the hearing: Connie Gretschmann, ‘Thomas Keck, Bev Kopren and Kenneth “Lance” Vander Vorst. Paul E, Bachand, counsel for the Commission, and Feme Haddock, Exccutive Secretary of the Commission, were also present. ‘The complainant personally appeared with attomey Bobbi Rank. Tonya Marie Drueppel failed to appear at the hearing and the Commission conducted a public hearing, Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the records on file and Drueppel’s failure to appear at the hearing, the Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Ono about June 28, 2012, Tonya Marie Drueppel (“Drueppe!”) was issued initial South Dakota teaching certificate number 74468-00. The certificate is valid until July 1, 2022, 2, On or about July 20, 2015, Carla Leingang, Administrator, Office of Certification and Teacher Quality, South Dakota Department of Education, filed a complaint against Drueppel with the Commission.10, iL 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. ‘The complaint alleged that Drueppel violated the South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers, ‘The complaint was served on Drueppel on or about July 21, 2015. A notice of hearing was served on the parties on or about August 27,2015. ‘The notice of hearing advised Drueppel that « hearing had been set for October 8, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in Conference Room 1, MacKay Building, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, South Dakota Drueppel failed to appear at the hearing, Drueppel’s failure to appear at the hearing acts as an admission to the facts as stated in the complaint, On or about February 12, 2014, Drueppel was charged with the following five felonies in Minnehaha County, South Dakota: Counts (1)-(3) Rape in the Fourth Degree (wherein victim is 13 years of age, but less than 16) (SDCL § 22-22-1(5); class 3 felony) and Counts (4) and (5) Sexual Contact with a Child under 16 (SDCL § 22-22-7, class 3 felony). ‘The charges were as a result of a sexual relationship between Drueppel and a fourteen-year-old student (“Student”) in the Sioux Falls School Disitict, between September 2012 and January 2014, On or about February 27, 2015, Drueppel pled guilty to Counts 4 and 5, sexual contact with a child under 16, both class 3 felonies. On or about May 22, 2015, Drueppel was sentenced to fifteen (15) years in the in the South Dakota State Penitentiary with credit for 483 days served During the 2012/2013 School year, Student attended middle school in Sioux Falls and Drueppel was Student's teacher, During the period in time in which Drueppel was Student's teacher, Drueppel ‘engaged in sexual activity with Student. ‘The sexual activity included sexual contact and sexual penetration This sexual activity commenced on or about October 2012 and lasted until approximately January 2014, During this period of time, Drueppel sent pornographic photos of herself to Student ‘on two different occasions.17 During approximately October 2013, Student spent the night at Drueppel’s residence and Drueppel engaged in sexual activity with Student. 18, Any Finding of fact improperly denoted as a conclusion of law is hereby incorporated as a finding of fact. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Commission hereby issues the following conclusions of law: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 19, The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to SDCL 13-43-28 and 13- 43-28.1, SDCL Ch. 1-26, and the Administrative Rules of South Dakota, Chapters 24:08:03 and 24:08:04.01. 20. The burden of proof in this matter is clear and convincing. In Re: Setliff, 202 SD 58, 645 N.W.2d 601, 605. 21. The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:01 that in fulfilling their obligations to students, educators shall act as follows: (9) Maintain professional Telationships with students in a manner which is free of vindictiveness, recrimination, or harassment. (10) Not engage in or be a party to any sexual activity with students including sexual intercourse, sexual contact, sexual photography, or illicit sexual communication, 22. Clear and convincing evidence exists that Drueppel violated ARSD 24:08:03:01(9) and (10). 23. The South Dakota Code of Professional Ethics for Teachers provides at ARSD 24:08:03:02 that in fulfilling their obligations to the public, educators shall act as follows: (7) Engage in no act that results in a conviction; ify high moral standards by not engaging in or becoming a party to theR,, deceit, moral turpitude, gross immorality. .. [or] illegal 24, Clear and convincing evidence exists that Drueppel violated ARSD 24:08:03:02(7) and (8). 25. Any conclusion of law improperly denoted as a finding of fact is hereby incorporated 88 a conclusion of law.Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter be referred to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education for proceedings to permanently revoke the teaching certificate of Drueppel as provided for in SDCL 13-43-28. It is further ORDERED that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order be sent to parties herein, Tt is further ORDERED that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order be provided to the Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Education for placement on the NASDTEC clearing house and that it remain with the Department's permanent certification file, It is further ORDERED that the Department may release the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order to the certification office of any state in which the respondent holds or applies for a certificate Ma Dated this__/“f" day of November, 2015, PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS PRACTICES and STANDARDS COMMISSION ‘Thomas Keck, Chair 7 800 Governors Drive Pierre, SD 57501-2294