The Beaverton School Board voted 4–2, with one member recusing herself, on June 12 to refer a complaint against Director Susan Greenberg to a third‑party investigator.

Board members said they were weighing two competing responsibilities: protecting members’ free‑speech rights and following board policy that requires the district to respond to formal complaints. Several members urged an independent review to ensure a neutral, policy‑based determination; others said the investigation would chill speech and divert funds during a budget shortfall.

Justice, a member of the Beaverton School Board, moved the referral, saying the board must have a fair process: “To me, as in all matters, I think this is about process and, no one has been told they cannot do. No one has been said they cannot exercise their voice.” The motion was seconded by the meeting chair and approved by a show of hands.

Ogana said she would vote no, framing her opposition around free‑speech principles: “I believe in the power of freedom of speech … Using taxpayer dollars to fund a third party investigation into school board members' personal rights to free speech would be a misallocation of resources, especially during a time when our school district is facing a shortfall in budget.” Tammy also said she would vote no, calling protection of First Amendment rights a priority even when she disagreed with Director Greenberg’s statements.

Other board members emphasized the district’s written complaint policy. Sumita said, “When a complaint is brought to the board, our policy is that we have to respond to them,” adding that the board must look into claims that someone is harmed or that board policy was not followed. Melissa argued that the policy explicitly permits asking a third party to examine whether board policy was followed and that an outside review would provide an impartial fact‑finding report for the full board.

At the vote, board members recorded four ayes, two noes and one recusal. The transcript and meeting record do not list individual vote names beyond the recusal; the motion was recorded as passing 4–2 with one recusal. The board chair announced the meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

The complaint’s allegations, the identity of the complainant(s), the scope and cost of the proposed investigation, and the selection process for a third‑party investigator were not specified during the meeting. Speakers referred repeatedly to the board’s complaint policy but did not cite a numbered policy or statute during discussion.