Judge Joel R Wohlfeil, Case Number: 37-2022-00048594-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2022-00048594-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 10, 2024

04/11/2024 02:30:00 PM C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Writ of Mandate Hearing on Petition 37-2022-00048594-CU-WM-CTL HANSEN VS COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The Petition (ROA # 1, 72, 79, 82) of Petitioner CHRISTIAN ROBERT HANSEN ('Petitioner') for a writ of mandate to compel Respondent COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING ('Respondent' or 'CTC') to adapt the 'ALJ's' proposed decision and for an order to stay the revocation of Plaintiff's teaching credential, is, on the Court's own motion, CONTINUED to Friday April 12, 2024 at 9:00 AM in D 73.

Introduction The Court is conflicted, if not deeply so, by the below findings and orders. In the past decade, the Court's case inventory has routinely exceeded 1,200 cases Though every case is important, very few have caught and maintained the Court's attention as much as this case.

The contrast in this record could not be starker. The public school system is under siege, some of which is for reasons beyond its control but too much of which is for reasons within its control. Here, the system has an opportunity to retain (if not embrace) one of its most important assets ... a teacher, with skills, training and experience, who is devoted to the neediest in the system ... special needs children.

Petitioner has responsibly acknowledged his past mistakes, done his best to learn from and atone for his mistakes, and is now contributing mightily to the system which seeks to eliminate him. The system is better with Petitioner and poorer without Petitioner.

'As stated previously, the Court is impressed with the deliberation, thoughtfulness, and findings and order of this conflict by the Honorable Marion J. Vomhof, Administrative Law Judge ('AU'), Office of Administrative Hearings, State of California. The Court has been similarly impressed with Petitioner, based on his limited appearances to date, and understands why Judge Vomhof exercised the discretion in favor of Petitioner (to wit, at page 23 of the Decision - 'The application of respondent Christian Robert Hansen for a Preliminary 5-year Education Specialist Instruction Credential (preliminary credential) is hereby granted. All teaching credentials and certificates issued to respondent Christian Robert Hansen, including his preliminary credential, are hereby revoked. However, the revocation is immediately stayed, and his credentials and certificates are placed on probation for a period of five years ...') Respondent appears to have accepted Judge Vomhof's findings but rejected the order to stay revocation of Petitioner's teaching credentials.' See ROA # 71.

Though its comments are merely dicta, the Court encourages Respondent to reconsider its decision.

Findings Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3050711 6 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: HANSEN VS COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING 37-2022-00048594-CU-WM-CTL The Petition is DENIED IN PART and will be HEARD IN PART.

As a result of this ruling, the preliminary injunction (ROA # 71) is dissolved as of the date of this hearing.

Respondent is ordered to submit a proposed judgment on the writ.

Analysis To prevail on mandamus review, Petitioner must show that Respondent abused its discretion. Code Civ.

Proc. 1094.5.

Abuse of discretion is established if the Commission's findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Id. The Court is required to determine, based on its independent judgment, whether the weight of the evidence supported the administrative decision. Lake v. Reed (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 448, 456.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 provides that the Court reviewing the decision of an administrative agency exercises its independent judgment in reviewing the evidence and that an abuse of discretion is established if the Court determines that the findings are not supported by the weight of the evidence. San Diego Unified School Dist. v. Commission on Professional Competence (2013) 214 Cal. App. 4th 1120, 1140.

Though the Court is required to exercise its independent judgment on the evidence, it is to give a strong presumption of correctness to the Commission's findings. Id. In a proceeding on a writ of administrative mandate, the party challenging the administrative decision bears the burden of convincing the Court that the administrative findings are contrary to the weight of the evidence. Id. Independent judgment review does not mean that the preliminary work performed by the administrative board in sifting the evidence and in making its findings is wasted effort. Id. at 768, 769.

In weighing the evidence, the Court can and should be assisted by the findings of the board. Id. at 769.

The findings of a board where formal hearings are held should and do come before the Court with a strong presumption in its favor based primarily on the rebuttable presumption (Evid. Code 664) that an official duty has been regularly performed. Id. Considerable weight should be given to the findings of experienced administrative bodies made after a full and formal hearing. Id. Such a procedure gives the Court the power and duty of exercising an independent judgment as to both facts and law, but contemplates that the burden rests on Petitioner to support his challenge affirmatively, competently and convincingly. Id. In other words, rarely, if ever, will a board determination be disturbed unless Petitioner is able to show a jurisdictional excess, a serious error of law, or an abuse of discretion on the facts. Id. This strong presumption of correctness, however, does not relieve the Court of its obligation to make its own findings. Id. The presumption provides the Court with a starting point, but is may be overcome. Id. Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3050711 6 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: HANSEN VS COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING 37-2022-00048594-CU-WM-CTL Because the Court ultimately must exercise its own independent judgment, the Court is free to substitute its own findings after first giving due respect to the agency's findings. Id. There is no inconsistency in a rule requiring that the Court begin its review with a presumption of the correctness of administrative findings, and then, after affording the respect due to these findings, exercise independent judgment in making its own findings. Id. The statutory scheme under the Administrative Procedures Act contemplates that the Commission will have and exercise the final and ultimate responsibility for determining the degree of the sanction to be imposed. Golde v. Fox (1979) 98 Cal. App. 3d 167, 188.

It is not mandated to accept the recommendation of the administrative law judge. Id. The propriety of the penalty imposed by an administrative agency is a matter vested in the discretion of such agency, and its decision will not be disturbed unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. Id. Even if the penalty were to appear too harsh according to the Court's evaluation, the Court is not free to substitute its own discretion for that exercised by the administrative agency. Landau v. Superior Court (1998) 81 Cal. App. 4th 191, 221.

'The facts that reasonable minds might differ as to the propriety of the penalty imposed fortifies the conclusion that the administrative body acted within its discretion.' Id. The propriety of a penalty imposed by an administrative agency is a matter vested in the discretion of the agency, and its decision may not be disturbed unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion.

Cadilla v. Board of Medical Examiners (1972) 26 Cal. App. 3d 961, 966.

In reviewing the penalty imposed by an administrative body which is duly constituted to announce and enforce such penalties, the Court is not free to substitute its own discretion as to the matter; nor can the Court interfere with the imposition of a penalty by an administrative tribunal because in the Court's own evaluation of the circumstances the penalty appears to be too harsh. Id. Such interference will only be sanctioned when there is an arbitrary, capricious or patently abusive exercise of discretion. Id. The Court has carefully reviewed the administrative record, and has paid particular attention to the record citations provided within the briefs filed by the parties. Based on this review and exercising its independent judgment, the Court finds that the weight of the evidence supports Respondent Commission on Teacher Credentialing's decision revoking Petitioner's certifications. Although this Court could easily conclude the revocation decision constitutes an overly harsh penalty, this Court cannot substitute its own discretion for that exercised by the administrative agency. Reasonable minds can differ as to the propriety of revocation, but the administrative record confirms that that the Commission on Teacher Credentialing acted within its discretion.

In reaching its decision, Respondent applied the factors set forth in Title 5, California Code of Regulations at section 80302. Respondent also applied the aggravating and mitigating factors found at section 80300, subsections (b) and (m). Respondent concluded that Petitioner acted with moral turpitude.

The term 'immoral' has been defined generally as that which is hostile to the welfare of the general public and contrary to good morals. Palo Verde etc. Sch. Dist. v. Hensey (1970) 9 Cal. App. 3d 967, 972.

Immorality is not confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity or dissoluteness. Id. Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3050711 6 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: HANSEN VS COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING 37-2022-00048594-CU-WM-CTL It also includes willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to the opinions of respectable members of the community, and as an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and the public welfare. Id. These factors are somewhat subjective and subject to debate. However, there is evidence within the record supporting Respondent's application of the factors. Petitioner's opening brief makes the following argument: 'The Commission has based its disciplinary action on several aggravating factors; unprofessional conduct, moral turpitude, immoral conduct, harm to students, potential of recurrence, multiple acts, and unfitness for service. Although the failure to disclose the arrangement between the company's officers to the brokerage was undoubtedly unprofessional, Judge Vomhof correctly concluded there was no moral turpitude present, as there was no malice or theft. Additionally, returning capital to help the company succeed cannot be reasonably considered immoral. The conduct was committed before Petitioner began teaching, thus eliminating any suggestion that the conduct harmed students, and the Court has been provided evidence that the singular violation perpetrated by Petitioner in 2017 could never be repeated. Finally, Petitioner has been on campus, at his Alma Mater, Madison High School, since 2015 in a coaching capacity, and teaching special education students in-class since 2018, without incident, garnering 'Excellence' ratings in every formal evaluation, hence rendering moot any suggestion of unfitness for service.' This argument resonates with the Court. Especially material is the undisputed contention that Petitioner continues to competently teach special education students and coach high school sports. However, again, this Court is not free to substitute its opinion for that of the Commission. After an independent review, it cannot be concluded that the administrative record does not contain evidence supporting the revocations ordered by the Commission.

The Court will HEAR, whether once Judgment is entered, execution should be stayed pending the appeal of the Court's findings and orders.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3050711 6