SPRINGFIELD – Lane County on Feb. 10 released a “condensation” of a months-long outside investigation regarding claims of Commissioner David Loveall retaliating against Lane County staff. The report outlined how Loveall allegedly engaged in multiple incidents of retaliation against several staff members. Loveall rejects these claims, saying that the investigation is “a brazen attempt to influence the upcoming election.”
Loveall has been serving as the Lane County Commissioner representing Springfield since 2023. He won the position by defeating the incumbent, Joe Berney, by just 48 votes, securing 50.2% of the vote compared to Berney’s 49.8% in the 2022 election. Loveall is up for re-election in November. So far, his opponent is Springfield Mayor Sean VanGordon.
According to the 12-page report, which primarily relied on the Lane County Administrative Procedures Manual, the investigation concluded that Loveall violated county policies by retaliating against three employees.
“The county’s report contains the misrepresentation of private conversations from closed-door meetings and attempts to criminalize salty and religious speech,” Loveall said.
Loveall calls the report “one-sided” and questions the decision to release it publicly before the Feb. 18 executive session, during which the commissioners will discuss the investigation’s findings.
On Feb. 18, during a public session, the board addressed Loveall’s investigation before moving to an executive session.
Clashes with employees
On Feb. 1, Mountain Lakes Employment Investigations, LLC (MLEI) released its final report on allegations of retaliation by Loveall against Lane County policies. The investigation involved interviews with 15 county employees and officials, as well as a review of numerous documents. While the retaliatory actions occurred from June to December 2025, they largely stemmed from incidents in May 2025. The investigator determined that Loveall’s threats to Lane County Administrator Steve Mokrohisky’s job, an unjustified performance rating of 1 out of 5, and disparaging public remarks constituted policy violations.
In May 2025, Loveall met with two employees for coffee, during which one employee alleged Loveall made an inappropriate comment about a community partner involved with the County’s grant, saying, “Every time I think of that community partner, I think of a stripper on a pole, her hands moving like this.”
No employees initially objected to Loveall’s statement. However, by month-end, “Employee 1” filed an HR complaint about it. Loveall then threatened to “get rid of” those involved and withheld project information, according to the report.
That same month, an employee, identified as “Employee 2,” filed a complaint regarding Loveall’s frequent use of religious language, specifically citing a birthday card where he wrote the term “Kingdom work.”
That employee reported experiencing “religious trauma” and requested not to discuss religion at work. After filing a formal complaint, the employee claimed retaliation, including threats and belittling comments from Loveall.
Loveall asserted that the complaint from this employee was a “direct attack on a person’s First Amendment rights, writing to Mokrohisky in a Nov. 20 email that “the gist of … what was said is relatively close, exaggerated in some parts to benefit you, and surely yes, I could’ve said a few fewer ‘f-words’ in airing my frustrations.”
Clashes with county admin
Mokrohisky, who has served as Lane County’s county administrator since 2014, was reportedly retaliated against for his involvement in addressing employees’ complaints and for informing them of Loveall’s directive to cease those complaints.
The investigation found that Loveall told Mokrohisky to “Tell employees to stop (the complaints.) There’s nothing they can do to stop commissioners from saying and doing whatever they want. … and if you don’t fix this, then you and I have a problem, and I am going to do everything I can to get rid of these people.”
On June 17, 2025, Loveall instructed Mokrohisky to tell employees to “f*** off” regarding their concerns, asserting that “commissioners can do what they want and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.”
On Aug. 26, 2025, Loveall rated Mokrohisky 1 out of 5 on his performance review. The investigation found Loveall’s justifications for this score to be “unsupported” and “internally inconsistent,” despite his claims that the low rating was non-retaliatory.
Reports indicate that Loveall publicly stated his intention to oust Mokrohisky as soon as he secured a third vote on the Board, even if it cost the county $500,000. The investigation revealed Loveall discussed internal complaints and HR processes on podcasts and texted a former employee for “county toxicity” to use against Mokrohisky. Lane County’s Administrative Procedures Manual prohibits retaliation against those who report harassment, discrimination, or whistleblowing.
Loveall responds
Loveall claims that the investigation has been “a partisan attack that has relied on suspect allegations and a flawed investigation” that has ignored evidence that did not fit into the narrative or the “pre-decided conclusion.”
He says, since he was elected, he has “pushed back on the system to ensure greater accountability and make our local government responsible to the people of our county, and it is clear the system is now pushing back as the county has ignored every safeguard and protocol to publish this report before it’s been officially presented to the board.”
Loveall has faced public criticism for integrating religion into his government role, notably starting and ending his State of the County address with a prayer that mentioned God and his work as an international missionary.
“Government isn’t the people’s savior. I believe 2,000 years ago, someone else already took that job,” Loveall said in his speech to the county. “I believe that God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”
Loveall said that being elected county commissioner “did not negate my First Amendment rights and I will NEVER apologize for using ‘religious language’ in my day-to-day life as my relationship with God is a deeply held and personal part of my life.”
County officials stated that, until the Board decides what, if any, action to take, they will not comment on the investigation.
Loveall said he is “exploring every avenue to pursue against the county for their mishandling of this matter and look forward to a quick resolution of these baseless accusations brought by activist staff members attempting to insert themselves into the political process.”
Loveall directed to issue an apology
On Feb. 18, during a public session, the board addressed Loveall’s investigation before moving to an executive session.
In the public session, Loveall argued that he had not received proper notice of the meeting and requested that it be held openly, claiming that neither he nor the other commissioners had access to the full investigative report, which he felt violated due process.
His attorney, Jill Gibson, said that Loveall’s demand for an open hearing was valid and highlighted that the allegations against him were based on his speech, claiming this violated his First Amendment rights.
Gibson criticized the investigation’s summary as flawed and suggested that Loveall had strong legal claims and could consider filing a lawsuit.
Loveall maintained that elected officials should be accountable to voters, not internal policies, and disputed several factual inaccuracies in the investigation, including mischaracterizations of his speech and performance evaluations.
The board then entered executive session to seek legal advice, where journalists are permitted, but are not allowed to report.
Upon reconvening in another public meeting, they discussed the discrimination and harassment outlined in the investigation and ultimately passed a motion requiring Loveall to issue an apology.
The motion passed 3-2, with Loveall and Commissioner Ryan Ceniga opposing it. The commission outlined that the apology must address the harms suffered by affected individuals and be delivered before the March board meeting.
Loveall issued a statement after the meetings, stating that he “looks forward to defending myself from these false and politically motivated attacks in an open and transparent process once the evidence is made available,” arguing that the process is not fair.
“Political accusations have been made against me, yet I am not able to listen to or review the evidence,” Loveall stated. “Neither I nor the commission has been given the complete report … Releasing partial and inaccurate information and demanding responses in the middle of an election year is a reckless way to handle a serious matter that deserves fairness and transparency.”
“Both I and the county commission deserve the opportunity to review and respond to the complete record, and voters deserve to see everything as well. Complete and full transparency is essential to maintain public trust,” he stated.
