Parents, staff raise retaliation, safety and discipline concerns during Hermiston School District public comment

At the Hermiston School board meeting on Feb. 10, several parents, a local business owner and district staff used the public-comment period to accuse district offices of retaliation, inconsistent discipline and poor complaint transparency, and to press the board for action.

The complaints were made during the public comment portion the board moved earlier on the agenda; four people signed to speak that night specifically on district policies and conduct. Jenny Estes, who identified herself as owner-operator of AJ's Printed Apparel, said she has not done any business with the district since 2021 and told the board she was shown an email that told principals and coaches not to use her company. "I just I'm wondering if they are receiving the same retaliation that my business, had received," Estes said.

Other speakers raised related concerns about how complaints are handled and how staff and students are protected. Chris Elliott, who described himself as a long-time resident and community volunteer, urged the board to increase transparency and suggested the district hold a public "listen and learn" or town‑hall session so families understand complaint routes. Amber Davis, who said she works in an emergency room, described what she called gaps in emergency response at school sites — teachers without radios, unclear secondary evacuation sites and reliance on email for urgent incidents — and urged the board to pursue modern emergency communications.

Tamara McCord, who identified herself as a district employee, asked the board to adopt a policy to solicit input from all staff when evaluating the superintendent and to create formal coverage plans for long-term administrative leave. Holly Starr, speaking as a parent, asked the board to pursue immediate protections for staff who raise concerns and to comply with ORS 332.075 by publishing the district's annual equity survey.

Board chair Sally Hansel reiterated the board’s public-comment rules and said the district follows Board Policy KL for complaints and that some employment‑related matters are handled in executive session. Superintendent Dr. Mooney and staff were asked to clarify complaint routes and policy steps for commenters; board members did not take immediate formal action during the meeting.

Why it matters: speakers said the issues affect safety, staff morale and public trust. Several asked for concrete steps — clearer complaint instructions on the district website, protections for staff who report problems, formal policies for administrative coverage and faster action on emergency communications.

Board response and next steps: the chair and district staff pointed to Board Policy KL as the procedural path and said the district will review complaint channels; no new board policy or vote was announced at the Feb. 10 meeting. Speakers asked the board to follow up publicly and to consider a community meeting; several said they would submit written materials to the board office.

Details and context: the board had earlier explained public-comment limits (three minutes per speaker) and warned speakers against naming individual employees in open comment because of employee privacy and employment‑law protections. Commenters said they had tried lower-level complaint channels and HR with limited success and asked the board to make the complaint process easier to find on the district website.

The public-comment period closed without further board action that night; the board proceeded to the scheduled reports and agenda items.