001Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Uh, so I've got a kind of a brief introduction and then we'll turn it over to you. So, this item uh is the second consideration of PLSB licensure action from Mr. Danny Mars. This matter was reviewed by the Clebrron County Circuit Court based on appeal by Mr. Mars and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that order. In the order, the court held that the board's authority is limited to rec uh to reconsidering the existing record. The record provided to you is the exact same record that was lodged with the court pursuant to the administrative procedures act. The court instructed the board to issue a new written order and clarified that the board may but is not required to modify its prior findings and decisions by reason of the different adjudicators
002or reconsideration of the matter. The final decision shall be solely at the discretion of the state board of education in its best judgment based on the court's instructions limiting the board's authority to quote reconsidering the existing record. The board is not to allow additional testimony or argument. The board must hear any preliminary motions, make disclosures required under the order, and then move straight into the deliberation based on the members prior review of the record. Following the board's deliberations, the board will vote to resolve the matter. I recommend roll call votes for these. Uh, three decisions are to be made. This is the standard stuff. The initial question is whether the code of ethics was violated and if so what provision of the code of ethics were violated. Second question if if the that one is
003answered in the affirmative if a violation is found. The second question before the board is the sanction what sanctions should be imposed and if you find a violation impose a sanction the third question is what is that rationale? There's no questions of me. I'll turn the matter over to uh chairman woods for your proceedings. >> Thank you. Okay board, this will be very similar to our hearings in that we have three motions that we have to find. The first one be um whether we have a violation of the standard of ethics. If we do, we have to impose a sanction and then we also have to provide a rationale for our decision. So trusting that everybody has reviewed the record, is there any discussion to be had? And I will open the floor. I can
004entertain a motion. Anybody has that? >> I'm also happy to review the findings and fact and conclusions of law from the record or if that anybody would like to hear that as well. >> I don't think I heard what you said. >> I'm happy to review the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the initial hearing if that would be helpful. I'm also happy to entertain a new motion if everybody's ready to proceed. >> Could you review facts, please? >> So on December the 6th, 2024, the ethics subcommittee authorized an investigation into the allegations that educator Mars violated standard one, which was that an educator should maintain a professional relationship with each student both inside and out outside of the classroom. that he violated standard two. That he should an educator should maintain competence
005regarding his or her professional practice inclusive of professional and ethical behavior, skills, knowledge, dispositions, and responsibilities relating to his or her organizational position. And violated standard three, that an educator honestly fulfills reporting obligations associated with his professional practice. And standard seven, an educator maintains the confidentiality of information about students and colleagues obtained during the course of the educator's professional services that is protected under state law or regulations, federal law or regulations of written policies of the educator's school district. Educator Mars was notified on December the 9th, 2024 of the ethics subcommittee's authorization to investigate this allegation. After considerating the investigator's report on um and evidence on March the 6th, the ethics subcommitt committee unanimously found that by a prepoundonderance of the evidence existed to substantiate violations of one, two, and three against educator Mars. He
006lacked supervision, exhibited inappropriate disposition inclusive of professional and ethical behavior. He violated district, state or federal policies, and also failed to report. The ethics subcommittee recommended that the state board take the following actions, which was probation of license for two years, a $250 fine, and require the educator to complete the following coursework. It's outlined there. This was given to the state board on April the 10th, 2025. We voted to move it to the next available action agenda, and that occurred on June the 12th of 2025. The educator and his attorney appeared at the state board meeting. We heard oral arguments and based upon that the board found that he had violated standards one, two, and three. And we found the following rationale that he lacked supervision, exhibited inappropriate disposition inclusive of professional and ethical behavior,
007failed to follow his district's policy and failed to report. We also found that the educator had 14 years of experience and he lacked mitigating factors and there were several aggravating factors. And so we imposed the following sanction that we suspended the license for one year followed by probation of the license for two years and we required the educator to complete the following coursework. Written reflections of each book and training on how they will impact the educator's professional practices in the future and then due to the PSB's approval within 30 days prior to the end of the suspension for suspension removal. Also quarterly reports were due. So at this time please Dr. more discussion from the board. I don't have a question. I was going to make a motion. >> I would move uh that there
008is a prepoundonderance of the evidence that the educator violated standards one, two, and three of the Arkansas Code of Ethics. >> Okay. >> Second. >> I have a motion by Dr. Arnold. >> I have a second by Miss Hunter. We'll do a roll call vote. >> Mr. Bragg. >> Yes. Mr. Henderson, >> yes. >> Miss Hunter, >> yes. >> Dr. Arnold, >> yes. >> Dr. Abbott, >> yes. >> Okay, moving on to sanctions. Motion passes. We find that educator Mars violated the code of ethics. As to the sanction, was appropriate. So, um I make a motion that we uphold, uh the recommended sanction Okay. So, just to repeat, um, we are asking for the suspension of a license for one year, followed by probation for two years, require the educator to complete the following course
009word. And I'm just going to go ahead and read it. The 85% solution, how personal accountability guarantees success, and the code of ethics part four, professional responsibilities and mandated reporter requirements in Arkansas. You're asking for written reflections on each book and quarterly reports from the educator supervisor and that he is also to pay all associated costs. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And I have a motion by Miss Hunter for the f that sanction. Do I have a second? >> Second by Mr. Henderson. We'll do another roll call vote. Um Dr. Abbott, >> yes. >> Dr. Arnold, >> yes. >> Miss Hunter, >> yes. >> Mr. Henderson, >> yes. >> Mr. Bragg, With four yeses and one no, the motion the sanctions pass and we have to provide a rationale for our decision. Do
010you want to adopt the previous rationale or do we want to come up with a new rationale? >> So I move that we accept the rationale as previously stated. If everybody would look, if you have your record pulled up, it's on page three and four of what the was and it's lengthy. So, right now I have a motion on the floor by Miss Hunter to accept the rationale, the previously stated rationale. I will need a second for it to continue. Second >> seconded by Dr. Abbott and we will go ahead and take a roll call. >> All right. So the motion to adopt the previously adopted rationale. Miss Hunter. >> Yes. >> Dr. Arnold. >> Yes. >> Dr. Abbott. >> Yes. >> Mr. Henderson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bragg. >> Yes. >> All right. With
011five yeses and zero nos, the rationale has been adopted. Mr. Schultz, is there anything else? Otherwise, I have I want to make a statement before we move on. >> No, I just wanted to make clear for the record that this was escalated to us after a court of law weighed in on the matter. The outcome of that proceeding directed that this matter had to return to the board with certain people not participating. And I just want it to make clear that we respected the court's directive and have followed it so that today's proceeding is without procedural question. But I also think that it's important for the record to reflect that the members who are not participating have served this board with integrity and with a sincere commitment to these students of the state of Arkansas,
012even amidst personal attacks on their character and profession. So whether we're all present or not, I just want to make it clear that we unequivocally remain committed to ensuring that all matters matters before us are completed with procedural fairness. We take very seriously our ethical obligations and the duty to uphold the standards of the teaching profession. And so our focus today and as always is to review the evidence, apply the law, and hold those who violate our shared commitments accountable. And I hope that the best decision was made today to serve the students of Arkansas. Thank you. Okay, then we will adjourn the hearing. Thank you.