Formal Complaint Re: Board Governance
Submitted March 10, 2026
Dear Members of the Board,
Please see the attached complaint for your review.
The events at the March 9, 2026 board meeting raise significant concerns regarding board governance and consistency in the application of board procedures. In particular, the motion made remotely by Board Member Martha Lane to summarily dismiss Jon Sullivan’s complaint highlights issues that have repeatedly affected the Board’s ability to address governance concerns in a transparent and consistent manner.
Five of the current board members were present, directly involved in, or witnesses to the circumstances in which Board Member Jon Sullivan was denied the opportunity to participate and vote in a prior board leadership decision while traveling for work. Given that history, the dismissal of this complaint without discussion or explanation raises serious concerns about whether these issues are receiving meaningful review.
I am requesting a substantive response addressing the concerns raised in the attached complaint, rather than another summary dismissal. To date, every complaint submitted on these governance matters has been dismissed without discussion or explanation, with the exception of the BEA complaint, which involved allegations of a hostile work environment and should have been addressed in June 2025.
The community deserves confidence that governance concerns raised through the district’s complaint process will receive thoughtful consideration and transparent responses.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Ann Kellogg
Description of Complaint:
This complaint concerns unequal treatment of duly elected board members, obstruction of participation in board governance, and inconsistent application of meeting procedures by board leadership, specifically actions taken by Board Vice Chair AJ Kimball, with the involvement of Board Secretary Connie Roberts.
1. August 2025 Board Meeting-Denial of Remote Participation:
During the August 2025 board meeting, a vote was required that involved board governance and leadership decisions.
Board member Jon Sullivan, who was traveling for work, coordinated in advance to participate remotely so he could fulfill his duties and vote as an elected board member.
During the meeting, Interim Chair AJ Kimball stated that remote participation was not allowed because there was “no policy” permitting it.
As a result, Mr. Sullivan was prevented from participating in the meeting and voting, despite having made reasonable arrangements to participate.
This denial directly impacted the ability of an elected board member to carry out his duties.
2. Subsequent Meetings Demonstrate Inconsistent Application of Rules:
Following the August 2025 meeting, the district allowed other board members to participate remotely and vote, including:
· Claudia Powers, who participated remotely in prior meetings.
· Martha Lane, who participated remotely in the March 9, 2026 meeting, making motions, in fact to dismiss Jon Sullivan’s complaint on this very topic, and voting.
These actions demonstrate that remote participation was in fact allowed, contradicting the justification used to prevent Mr. Sullivan from participating in July 2025.
The selective application of this rule raises serious concerns about fair governance and equal treatment of elected officials.
3. Supportive information showing a Pattern of Obstruction dismissed in Jon Sullivan’s complaint:
The concerns regarding Mr. Kimball’s conduct are not limited to the August 2025 meeting.
Board member Jon Sullivan submitted a formal complaint documenting a pattern of obstruction and unequal treatment by board leadership, including Vice Chair AJ Kimball.
In his complaint timeline, Mr. Sullivan described his attempts to participate in board activities while traveling in August 2025. He documented that he was told regarding his request for remote participation:
“You can watch the online broadcast, but unless we need a quorum there is no need for you to zoom in.”
Sullivan Complaint 12-19-25_Red…
Mr. Sullivan noted that this effectively prevented him from participating as an elected official.
He further documented the lack of support from board leadership:
“Mr. Kimball made no effort to express to the district office the importance of allowing a board member who wanted to attend the district office meeting to do so.”
Sullivan Complaint 12-19-25_Red…
Mr. Sullivan summarized the broader governance pattern as follows:
“Across a period of several months, a clear pattern arose: I would make an attempt to act in my capacity as a board member… board leadership would be informed, and then no action would follow.”
Sullivan Complaint 12-19-25_Red…
These statements demonstrate that the August 2025 incident was not an isolated procedural issue, but part of a broader pattern of conduct affecting board governance.
4. Role of the Board Secretary Connie Roberts:
Communications included in Mr. Sullivan’s complaint exhibits also show involvement by district administrative staff.
Board Secretary Connie Roberts communicated with Mr. Sullivan regarding his request to attend remotely and indicated reluctance to facilitate remote participation.
This correspondence suggests that district administrative staff played a role in discouraging or preventing participation by a sitting board member, despite the availability of technology that would have allowed participation.
5. March 9, 2026 Board Meeting- Complaint Dismissed Without Discussion:
Jon Sullivan’s complaint was presented to the Board during the March 9, 2026 board meeting, despite being submitted December 19,2025.
The Board voted to dismiss the complaint without discussion, explanation, or any opportunity for public dialogue.
This reflects a broader governance issue in which:
· Motions are made
· Votes are taken
· No discussion occurs regarding the substance of complaints or governance concerns
Such practices significantly limit transparency and prevent meaningful public oversight of board decisions. Robert Rules of Order suggest that after a motion is made and seconded, the opportunity for discussion is to be offered. This is consistently never done and a problematic practice in Board management that violates Oregon Public Meeting Law (ORS 192.610-192.690) which requires that the Board must: “Provide the public the ability to observe the decision-making process.” This lack of action suggests that this Board has been voting without visible deliberation or pre-decided outside of meetings, both which violate the spirit of the law.
6. Additional Governance Concern:
The circumstances described above raise a serious concern that the procedural justification used to deny remote participation in August 2025 may have effectively disenfranchised a duly elected board member at the moment an important governance vote was occurring, while similar participation was later permitted for other members.
When a governing body selectively applies participation rules in a manner that prevents one elected official from voting but allows others to participate remotely in subsequent meetings, it creates the appearance that procedural rules are being used to influence board outcomes rather than applied neutrally.
In public governance, the integrity of decision-making depends on consistent application of rules to all elected officials. Any action that results in the exclusion of a board member from participating in a vote raises significant concerns regarding fairness, transparency, and the legitimacy of the board’s decision-making process.
If participation rules were applied inconsistently in a way that prevented an elected board member from casting a vote during a governance decision, it raises the question of whether that vote occurred under fair and equitable governance procedures.
Requested Relief:
To address these concerns, the following actions are requested:
1. Formal acknowledgment by the Board that the August 2025 denial of participation was inconsistent with later practices.
a. The Board should explain why remote participation was denied to Mr. Sullivan despite having allowed it at other meetings.
b. Provide a written explanation of the procedural basis used to deny remote participation to Mr. Sullivan during the August 2025 meeting.
2. Adoption of a clear policy allowing remote participation by board members when necessary to fulfill their elected duties.
a. The policy should clearly define when and how board members may participate remotely and vote.
3. A review of board governance practices to ensure equal treatment of all board members.
4. Ensure that future Board procedures are applied consistently and equally to all elected Board members.
a. Determine whether the denial of participation was consistent with Board governance standards.
b. If the Board determines that the denial of participation did meet governance standards, the Board will reverse all the votes and motions made by Claudia Powers and Martha Lane since August 11,2025 to allow for consistency.
5. Clarification of the role of district administrative staff in decisions affecting board member participation.
6. A commitment to greater transparency in handling public complaints and governance concerns.
Conclusion:
The issues raised in this complaint involve fundamental principles of fair governance, transparency, and equal treatment of elected officials.
The documented experiences of Board Member Jon Sullivan, combined with the events surrounding the August 2025 meeting and the subsequent inconsistent application of participation rules, demonstrate a concerning pattern that warrants review and correction.
The public deserves confidence that school board governance is conducted fairly, transparently, and without selective obstruction of elected officials.