concurring specially.
The ALJ’s decision, which was adopted as the final decision of the Professional Standards Commission (the Commission), found that:
As disclosed by the evidence, as many as 75 to 100 students were at the [Petersons’] residence that evening and a substantial number of those students were consuming alcohol, either in bottles, cups or cans, and, to a great degree, openly. The alcohol was being consumed both inside and outside the residence. Some of the testimony also placed Mrs. Peterson in the presence of students as they were drinking____For the [Petersons] to have been present for all but 45 minutes during the course of the entire evening and to profess that they had no knowledge that the students were consuming alcohol at their residence indicates either that they were providing inadequate supervision to such a degree that students were allowed to consume alcohol or that they were being untruthful when they denied having any such knowledge. In either circumstance, the [Petersons] violated Standard 10.
I reluctantly concur in the majority’s conclusion that there was an inadequate basis to find that the Petersons violated Standard 10 of the Code of Ethics for Educators because unethical conduct under Standard 10 involves only “conduct that impairs the certificate holder’s ability to function professionally in his or her employment position ... or a pattern of behavior or conduct that is detrimental to the health, welfare, discipline, or morals of students. . . .” Ga. R. & Regs. r. 505-6-.01 (3) (j) (2003). There was no evidence that knowingly allowing underaged high school students to illegally consume alcohol at their residence impaired the Petersons’ ability to function professionally in their employment positions at the elementary school, as required by Standard 10. Although the ALJ found evidence that the Petersons engaged in conduct detrimental to the health, welfare, discipline, and morals of the students at their residence, there was no evidence that the Petersons engaged in a pattern of such behavior or conduct, as required by Standard 10.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Code of Ethics for Educators provides that the type of conduct at issue in this case is unethical conduct justifying disciplinary sanction. Standard 2 of the Code provided at the time of the conduct at issue and presently that:
*430Decided March 22, 2007. Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Dennis R. Dunn, Deputy Attorney General, Stefan E. Ritter, Assistant Attorney General, Penny Hannah, for appellant. Langdale & Vallotton, W. Pope Langdale III, for appellees.An educator should always maintain a professional relationship with all students,2 both in and outside the classroom. Unethical conduct includes but is not limited to ... furnishing tobacco, alcohol, or illegal/unauthorized drugs to any student or allowing a student to consume alcohol, or illegal/unauthorized drugs.
Ga. R. & Regs. r. 505-6-.01 (3) (b) (6) (2003). In its written complaint, the Commission notified the Petersons that their conduct was being investigated as a violation of Standard 10 of the Code, and the ALJ and the Commission found only a violation of Standard 10. Under OCGA § 20-2-984.4 (c), the Commission’s investigation of the Peter-sons “is limited to the matters asserted in the written complaint unless additional written complaints are filed.” See Ga. R. & Regs. r. 505-6-.01 (2) (d). On the present facts, Standard 2 was the applicable section of the Code of Ethics for Educators.
I am authorized to state that Judge Bernes joins in this opinion.
“ ‘Student’ is any individual enrolled in the state’s public or private schools from preschool through grade 12 or any individual between and including the ages of 3 and 17.” Ga. R. & Regs. r. 505-6-.01 (2) (c) (2003).