Formal Complaint re: Board Quorum and Improper Handling of Sullivan Complaint
Bandon School Complaint Procedure
To: Board chair
Person Making Complaint: Katy Eymann
Level 1 – Date of meeting with Staff: n/a
Level 2 – Complete Form and Meet with Principal, Date of Meeting; n/a
Submit to the Superintendent – Date Submitted: n/a
Level 3 – Date of Meeting with the Superintendent: n/a
Submit to School Board – Date Submitted: January 27, 2026
Level 4 – Date of Hearing with the School Board:
Grade, Subject Area, Sport or Activity Involved:
Staff Member (s) Involved: n/a
Description of Complaint:
On January 12, 2026, at the January Board meeting the Bandon School Board violated Oregon law and its own internal policies when it postponed action on the formal complaint submitted by former board member Jon Sullivan, “Sullivan Complaint.”
The formal complaint I am submitting here is based on the following undisputed facts:
· The Bandon School Board usually has seven members. Under Oregon law, a district the size of Bandon may have a five- or seven-member board. ORS 332.011.
· On January 12, 2026, due to two recent resignations, the Board had five board members
· When it came time to consider the Sullivan Complaint, two board members recused themselves from voting on the matter, without stating a reason for abstention.
· The remaining three members voted unanimously in favor of a motion to refer the complaint to an outside investigator.
· After further discussion the Board voted to postpone consideration of the Sullivan Complaint based on the stated belief that the Board “did not have a quorum.”
This complaint is based on the assertion that an error was committed when the Board postponed action on the Sullivan complaint based on the false reasons that first, it did not have a quorum, or second, four votes were required to act. The third issue is Board Members recused themselves without stating the reason for recusal in violation of Bandon School District Board Policy BDD — Board Meeting Procedures (adopted March 14, 2022), hereafter, “BDD Policy”
It is worth noting that Bandon’s Board Policy does not state that recusal or abstention reduces the number of members counted for purposes of establishing a quorum. Recusal affects only the member’s ability to vote, not whether a quorum exists.
First issue: Did the Board have quorum? BB Policy states: “A quorum will consist of the majority of the Board members.” BDD Policy 1. The Board clearly had a quorum as five board members were present on January 12, 2026. If one considers that the Board has seven members, then five members constitutes a quorum. If one considers the Bandon Board consisted of five members, since two members had resigned, it still had a quorum since all members were present.
Second issue: The relevant question is how many votes were needed for the Board to act. Under ORS 332.055, the affirmative vote of a majority of the board members is required to transact business. The Bandon Board Policy reaffirms this when it states, “The affirmative vote of a majority of Board members will be necessary for exercising any of the Board’s powers.” BDD Policy 2.
Roberts Rules of Order “will govern the Board in deliberations”, unless the Board Policies specifically states otherwise. BDD Policy. Robert’s Rules state that once a quorum is established voting takes place by those present. See BDD Policy 2. A motion passes, if the majority of those present and voting approve the motion. At the meeting, it was falsely stated that four votes were needed to take any action since the Board had seven members. This complaint asserts that when five members of the School Board are present, three votes in favor of a motion is a majority of the Board members. Since a majority of the Board Members present voted to refer Mr. Sullivan’s complaint to the private investigator that action was valid and should have not been postponed due to a false statement regarding a quorum.
Third issue: Bandon Board Policy states: “If a Board member chooses to abstain from voting, and the abstention is due to an actual conflict of interest, the Board member will state the reason for the abstention and such abstention will be recorded.” BDD Policy 3. Chair Cardas and Vice-Chair Kimball did not state the reason for their abstention for the public record. Their failure to explain their recusal violated Bandon Board Policy.
Who should we talk to and what evidence should we consider?
No investigation is needed to grant items numbered 1, 2, and 4 in the Relief Sought section below. The facts are in the record.
Investigation of the matters raised by number 3 and 5 of the Relief Sought, concerns an interpretation of Robert’s Rules of Order concerning this situation. Expert advice on parliamentary procedure should be sought to resolve this issue.
Suggested Solution or Relief Sought:
I respectfully requested the Board:
1. Acknowledge that a quorum existed under BB Policy and ORS 332.055:
2. Reverse the determination that no quorum existed at the January 12th, 2026, board meeting and revise the meeting minutes accordingly;
3. Immediately forward Jon Sullivan’s formal complaint to private investigator Keith Ussery without further procedural delay;
4. Provide a public statement explaining why Chair Cardas and Vice Chair Kimball abstained from the vote; and,
5. Clarify Board procedures to avoid misapplication of quorum and voting rules in future meetings.
Signature of Complainant: Katy Eymann
Date: 1-27-26
Public Complaint Procedure