BT -88-001 -PE
4-1302-1696-2
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE MINNESOTA BOARD OF TEACHING
FOR THE MINNESOTA BOARD OF EDUCATION
In the Matter of the FINDINGS OF FACT,
Proposed Revocation of CONCLUSIONS AND
the Teaching License RECOMMENDATION
of Ronald L. Studt.
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before Administrative Law
Judge Peter C. Erickson at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 30, 1987, at the
Office of Administrative Hearings, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The record on this
matter was left open through February 9, 1988 to allow the Licensee to submit
additional documentation and the Board to respond.
Laura E. Mattson, Special Assistant Attorney General, 1100 Bremer Tower,
Seventh Place and Minnesota Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, appeared on
behalf of the Minnesota Board of Teaching and the Minnesota Board of Education.
Ronald L. Studt, b31-1/2 Third Avenue Southwest, Rochester, Minnesota 55902,
appeared and testified on his own behalf.
This Report is a recommendation, Rot a final decision. The Board of
-aching and Board of Education will make the final decision after a review of
the record which may adopt, reject or modify the Findings of Fact,
conclusions, and Recommendations contained herein. Pursuant to Minn. Stat.
14.61, the final decision of the Boards shall not be made until this Report
has been made available to the parties to the proceeding for at least ten
days. An opportunity must be afforded to each party adversely affected by
this Report to file exceptions and present argument to the Boards. Parties
should contact Kenneth L. Peatross, Executive Secretary, Minnesota Board of
leaching, Room 608 Capitol Square Building, 550 Cedar Street, St. Paul,
Minnesota 55101, and George Droubie, Minnesota Department of Education,
Room 610 Capitol Square Building, 550 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101,
to ascertain the procedure for filing exceptions or presenting argument.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Mr. Studt's
license to teach in the State of Minnesota should be revoked pursuant to Minn.
Stat. 125.09, subd. l(l) (1986).
Based upon all of the proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Ronald Studt obtained a Bachelor of Science degree from Winona State
College in 1980. He began teaching in Chatfield, Minnesota in the 1980-81
school year. Mr. Studt has not been under contract as a full-time teacher in
Minnesota since that time. He has, however, substitute taught on an
infrequent basis over the past several years. At the present time, Mr. Studt
has a learning disabled teaching license for grades K-12. Mr. Studt is
38 years old.
2. In November of 1986, Mr. Studt was convicted by a jury of criminal
sexual conduct in the second degree, a violation of Minn. Stat. sec. 609.343.
Mr. Studt was sentenced to 15 months in prison but was released in November of
1987.
3. The circumstances of the crime show that Mr. Studt used force to
engage in sexual contact with an adolescent female which resulted in an injury
to that individual. See, Minn. Stat. 609.343. The victim was not a student
or former student of Mr. Studt's and the crime did not occur in the context of
the teaching profession. Mr. Studt accosted and attacked the victim at a
gravel pit swimming hole in a rural setting. The sexual contact was forced
touching of the breasts and genital area through clothing and Mr. Studt put
his tongue in the victim's mouth. The victim's injury was "sore" breasts as a
result of the touching.1
4. On January 15, 1987, the Minnesota Board of Teaching received a
complaint alleging that Mr. Studt had engaged in immoral conduct unbecoming a
teacher. After investigation, the Board of Teaching and Board of Education
issued a joint Notice of and Order for Hearing on July 1, 1987 concerning its
proposed action to revoke Mr. Studt's teaching license. The hearing on this
matter was continued at Mr. Studt's request until he was released from prison
and could effectively participate in the hearing process.
5. A psychological evaluation of Ronald Studt was performed by John J.
Johnson, Ph.D., on December 20, 1986 as a referral from the Minnesota
Department of Coorections. Dr. Johnson's summary and recommendation read as
follows:
Ronald Studt is a mentally competent individual who is
capable of organizing his thoughts and controlling his
behaviors. There is no indication of emotional extremes
nor unusual thought process. He does appear to be suspi-
cious and distrustful of authority and seems to have strong
feelings of insecurity and dependency which belie an
outwardly composed, extroverted manner.
In my judgment, Mr. Studt would not profit from psycho-
therapy and if requested to enter into a counseling
relationship involuntarily, he would comply but not profit
from the experience. He would seem to benefit from therapy
1the victim was not called to testify. Rather, a transcript of her
testimony at the criminal trial was made a part of this record. Consequently,
the Judge has not made detailed findings concerning all aspects of the
criminal activity as related in her testimony. The Judge previously ruled
that the elements of the crime would be res judicata for purposes of this
proceeding.
-2-
which would assist him in coming to terms with his feelings,
but it is quite unlikely that he could give himself over to
such efforts, choosing to remain on the cognitive level.
Personality disorders of the type which he seems to manifest
do not respond effectively nor readily to psychotherapeutic
intervention.
6. Mr. Studt is not currently receiving treatment or engaged in any type
of counseling activity regarding the sexual offense for which he was convicted.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge
makes the follows:
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Minnesota Board of Teaching, the Minnesota Board of Education and
the Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to
Minn. Stat. 125.09, subd. l(l); 214.10; and 14.50 (1986).
2. The Notice of Hearing was proper and served in a timely manner. All
other substantive and procedural requirements of law or rule have been
complied with by the Boards.
3. Minn. Stat. 125.09, subd. l(l) provides that the Board of Teaching
may suspend or revoke a teacher's license to teach if the teacher has engaged
in acts of immoral character or conduct.
4. Ronald L. Studt has been convicted of a felony charge of criminal
sexual conduct in the second degree. Such conduct constitutes immoral
character or conduct pursuant to Minn. Stat. 125.09, subd. l(l) (1986).
5. The Boards have shown that the crime for which Mr. Studt was
convicted directly relates to the occupation of teaching pursuant to Minn.
Stat. 364.03, subd. 1 (1986). Because less than one year has elapsed since
Mr. Studt's release from prison, rehabilitation cannot be proved.
6. Due to the seriousness of the crime for which Mr. Studt was convicted
and the fact that no psychological treatment is being pursued, revocation of
Mr. Studt's teaching license is appropriate.
Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, and for the reasons set forth in the
Memorandum below, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
RECOMMENDATION
11 IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Minnesota Board of leaching and the
Minnesota Board of Education take appropriate disciplinary action against the
teaching license of Ronald L. Studt.
Dated this 22 day of February, 1988.
PETER C. ERICKSON
Administrative Law Judge
NOTICE
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. sec. 14.62, subd. 1, the agency is required to serve
its final decision upon each party and the Administrative Law Judge by first
class mail.
Reported: Taped.
MEMORANDUM
The Minnesota Board of Teaching is empowered to suspend or revoke the
teaching license of persons who exhibit "[i]mmoral character or conduct."
Minn. Stat. 125.09, subd. l(l) (1986). The Minnesota Appellate Courts have
not defined "immoral character or conduct" that supports teacher license
revocation. However, guidance is available from other jurisdictions and
judicial interpretations of similar Minnesota laws. The criteria established
by the California Supreme Court to determine whether a teacher has engaged in
conduct that warrants teacher license revocation are:
[T]he likelihood that the conduct may adversely affect
students or fellow students, the degree of such adversity
anticipated, the proximity or remoteness in time of the
conduct, the type of teaching certificate held by the party
involved, the extenuating or aggravating circumstances, if
any, surrounding the conduct, the praiseworthiness or
blameworthiness of the motives resulting in the conflict,
the likelihood of the recurrence of the conduct, and the
extent to which disciplinary action may inflict an adverse
impact or chilling effect upon the constitutional rights of
the teacher involved or other teachers.
Morrison v. State Board of Education, 82 Cal. Reptr. 175, 186, 461 P.2d 375,
386 (1969).
The Minnesota Supreme Court has established a similar standard to determine
whether a school board may immediately discharge a teacher for "conduct
unbecoming a teacher" pursuant to Minn. Stat. 125.12, subd. 8 (1984). In
Kroll v. Independent School District No. 593, 304 N.W.2d 338 (Minn. 1981), the
court declared that in teacher termination cases, three factors must be
considered. First, the teacher's prior record; second, whether the cited
conduct can be remediated; and, third, whether the conduct has resulted in
harm or threatened harm. Id. at 345 and 346.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled that immediate discharge is
appropriate where a teacher egnages in sexual conduct with a student.
Fisher v. Independent School District No. 622, 357 N.W.2d 152 (Minn. App.
1984). In Fisher, an elementary school principal was immediately discharged
when the School Board discovered that, 12 years prior to the action, the
principal had engaged in sexual contact in his office with a male elementary
school student over a four-year period. The court's decision to uphold the
discharge, despite the time lapse between the conduct and the disclosure, was
based on the eight-factor analysis in Morrison:
-4 -
We believe that Morrison, if applied, would mandate
Fisher's immediate dismissal. In the terms employed in
Morrison, the adverse effect upon the students and the
degree of that adverse effect easily outweigh the
remoteness of the conduct charged.
Fisher, 357 N.W.2d at 156.
This case is somewhat different than the cases cited above because the
Licensee, Mr. Studt, is not currently engaged in the occupation of teaching.
Additionally, the criminal offense did not involve a student and was not
committed while Mr. Studt was working as a teacher. However, the Judge is of
the opinion that the three factors set forth in Kroll must be considered.
First, there is nothing in the record to show that Mr. Studt had any previous
record of sexually-related offenses or conduct. The Boards are basing this
action on only the conviction discussed in the Findings above. No evidence
was offered to prove or disprove Mr. Studt's prior abilities as a teacher.
Second, the Boards' witness, Dr. Sandra K. Hewitt, PhD., testified that
remediation is only possible if a sexual offender successfully completes a
program of treatment. Dr. Hewitt explained that the offender must be able to
accept the behavior that happened and deal with it to ensure that it does not
happen again. Mr. Studt has not, however, sought treatment for the behavior
which resulted in his criminal conviction. This is a critical element which
weighs heavily against Mr. Studt's ability to teach and eventually show
rehabilitation sufficient to regain a teaching license. Although Dr. Johnson
concluded in his report that Mr. Studt may not benefit from counseling, Dr.
Johnson did not testify or give any opinion as to the likelihood of similar
behavior reoccurring.
Third, the victim of the crime did not testify at the hearing.
Consequently, the record does not show the degree of harm that has been
experienced by the victim. However, the Judge must assume that the experience
of forceable sexual contact, which resulted in an injury, produced some harm
to the victim.
Based upon the seriousness of the criminal offense and Mr. Studt's failure
to obtain treatment for his obviously anti-social behavior, the Judge can only
conclude that revocation of Mr. Studt's teaching license is the appropriate
remedy at this time.
P.C.E.
-5-