Four hours. That’s how long the board at Lane Community College argued, questioned, and weighed options before voting to censure director and former chair Zachary Mulholland. The move came after an outside investigator substantiated allegations that Mulholland engaged in bullying, used profane language, and acted in a discriminatory way while serving on the board.
Censures are rare and public. They don’t remove an elected official, but they put a formal reprimand on the record. By taking this step, the board said plainly that the behavior described in the investigation doesn’t meet the standards they expect from themselves, especially from someone who has held the gavel.
Lane Community College is based in Eugene and serves students across Lane County. The Board of Education oversees policies and the annual budget. So when a board member crosses lines at work, it’s not just an HR issue—it’s a governance problem with ripple effects for staff, students, and the public that funds the institution.
What the censure means
A censure is the strongest disciplinary tool most public boards can use against one of their own without involving voters or the courts. In practical terms, it’s a formal resolution that states the findings and the board’s disapproval. It’s not suspension or removal. In Oregon, elected board members generally can’t be voted off by colleagues; removal typically requires a recall by voters or very specific legal circumstances.
Boards sometimes add conditions to a censure—things like mandatory training, limits on leadership roles, or a written commitment to abide by policy. The action Wednesday signals a reset of expectations. Whether the board pairs it with training or specific restrictions will shape how effective it is at preventing repeat behavior.
Why does that matter? Because college governance depends on trust: trust between board members, trust from employees who expect a safe workplace, and trust from students and families who want a stable campus. When a director uses profane or demeaning language, it can chill honest feedback, drive away talent, and erode confidence in the board’s leadership.
The board’s own policies typically ban harassment and discrimination and require professional conduct in meetings, emails, and any college-related setting. Those standards apply to everyone, including elected directors. Wednesday’s vote suggests the board believes the line was crossed in multiple ways, including conduct the outside investigator judged discriminatory and inappropriate.
How the investigation unfolded—and what’s next
Independent workplace investigations in public institutions follow a familiar path. The college hires a third-party investigator to avoid conflicts of interest. That person interviews those involved, reviews emails and messages, and maps what happened against college policies and state and federal laws. The board doesn’t do the fact-finding itself; it receives findings and decides on a response.
In this case, the investigator substantiated claims of bullying, profanity, and discrimination. That’s a high bar. Substantiated means the evidence—witness accounts, documents, or both—met the investigator’s standard for concluding the conduct likely occurred. Boards usually get a written report or a summary and, after legal review, deliberate on discipline in public.
The meeting stretched nearly four hours as members debated the findings and the appropriate remedy. That kind of length is typical when a board is weighing reputational risk, legal exposure, and the message it sends to employees. It’s also a sign that the board wanted its reasoning on the record, not just the vote tally.
What should people watch for now? A few things:
- Transparency: Whether the board releases a redacted version of the investigation’s findings or a detailed censure resolution so the public can see the standards applied.
- Training and safeguards: Whether directors receive additional training on respectful workplace rules, discrimination and harassment prevention, and how to handle conflict during meetings.
- Role changes: Whether leadership assignments or committee seats are adjusted to reduce friction and rebuild trust.
- Reporting channels: Clear reminders to staff and students about how to report concerns and protections against retaliation.
For a college, cultural repair matters as much as discipline. Administrators and board leaders will likely spend the coming weeks meeting with employee groups, reviewing meeting protocols, and tightening procedures around complaints. Staff will be watching whether managers model the expectations set for the board.
There’s also the civic piece. Board members are elected, and accountability ultimately runs through voters. If constituents want different leadership, recall and regular elections are the avenues. A censure doesn’t foreclose those options; it documents the problem and shows how the board addressed it.
Meanwhile, the day-to-day work continues. The board still has budgets to pass, contracts to approve, and policies to update. To keep that work on track, directors will need to keep disagreements focused on issues, not people, and stick to the rules they’ve set for everyone else.
This episode is a reminder that the tone at the top matters. When leaders keep their cool, model respectful debate, and own mistakes, it filters down. When they don’t, it does the same. The board’s vote was about more than one person—it was a public reset of the standards that define how Lane Community College governs itself.
Write a comment