Investigation finds Loveall retaliated against employees, administrator

Lane County Commissioner David Loveall broke county policy and retaliated against County Administrator Steve Mokrohisky and two other county employees after complaints surfaced about him, a county-commissioned outside investigation found.

Lane County officials took the unusual step Tuesday, Feb. 10, of publicly disclosing the 12-page summary of a report into Loveall conducted by Mountain Lakes Employment Investigations. Lane County commissioners ordered the document’s release in advance of a closed-door executive session meeting planned Wednesday, Feb. 18, to discuss the matter, according to a release.

The report lays bare details of a monthslong clash between Loveall, the county administrator and others — and it shows how rising tensions and repeated conflicts have escalated.  

The central details around the complaints that spurred the investigation were made public already. Lookout Eugene-Springfield first reported about Mokrohisky’s Sept. 4, 2025, email to Loveall, which laid out concerns about the first-term commissioner’s behaviors and his response to complaints.

The details of the complaints initially centered around Loveall’s choice of wording. In one instance, a county employee complained Loveall described a community member as a “stripper on a strip pole, her hands moving like this,” the report said. 

Another employee complained when Loveall signed a birthday card with “religious language.” 

But Loveall’s vigorous defense of those initial complaints — and how he went about that — stirred matters up even more. He ordered the county administrator to stop the complaints and “tell the employees to f— off,” the report found. 

In a text message to Lookout Eugene-Springfield, Loveall blasted publication of the report, saying the county “ignored every safeguard and protocol to publish” it before officially presenting the document to the board.

“The process surrounding this investigation has been a partisan attack that has relied on suspect allegations and a flawed investigation that has ignored any evidence that did not support the seemingly predecided conclusion,” Loveall said.

He said his efforts to increase government accountability have been rebuffed. Loveall, who faces a reelection bid in May, said “it’s clear these allegations are being brought forward now as a brazen attempt to influence the upcoming election.”

Loveall didn’t identify what findings he disagrees with, but said he’s “exploring every avenue to pursue against the county for their mishandling of this matter.” 

In a statement to Lookout Eugene-Springfield, Mokrohisky said:

“For those of us who are passionate about serving our community, especially in an environment where resources are limited and choices are hard, there is naturally room for spirited debate and healthy conflict. At some point, however, there must be a baseline standard of professionalism and respect that we should all strive to uphold — especially for those of us in leadership roles.

“My hope is this investigation brings these issues to a close for everyone involved. I remain committed to serving our community and leading our outstanding team of public servants.”

The county’s report is based on interviews with 15 county employees or elected officials, and a review of hundreds of pages of records. Here’s a look at its conclusions:

‘Stripper on a strip pole’

In May 2025, Loveall and two county employees were having coffee and a “certain community partner” came up during their conversation. The report said Loveall essentially stated that every time he thought of that individual, “I think of a stripper on a stripper’s pole, her hands moving like this.” 

The comment caught one of those two — identified as “Employee 1” — by surprise, though neither worker objected at the time.

Employee 1 filed a complaint about the “stripper pole” comment later that month, alleging Loveall used potentially discriminatory language.

In June 2025, that employee and Loveall met virtually. The employee said the comment was “very inappropriate” and informed Loveall that it has been referred to human resources.

In July 2025, the two met again. The employee asked Loveall if he’d heard concerns about a certain community program, and Loveall said he would “hold off on sharing” information, saying that in the past he’d been “bitten.” That employee then told their supervisor they didn’t want to meet with Loveall in the future.

The report found Loveall violated policy with his demand that the county administrator fix the problem and with his threat to remove the employee who complained by himself if necessary. The report characterized Loveall’s response to the complaint as “adverse action” against the employee, including his refusal to share information.

Another employee complains

In May 2025, Loveall signed an employee’s birthday card, thanking the staffer for doing “kingdom work.” The religious phrase was unsettling to the worker — identified as “Employee 2” — who complained about it to human resources, along with Loveall’s repeated use of “religious language.”

When a county staffer brought the concerns to Loveall’s attention, Loveall said the employee was “estranged” from family, partly over religious matters. 

In August 2025, Loveall appeared on the podcast “Captive Audience” to talk about the employee complaints. Without naming the employees, Loveall defended himself. 

Afterward, Employee 2 complained about Loveall’s podcast appearance, calling it retaliation.

The report found Loveall violated county policy and discouraged reporting of wrongdoing by taking “adverse actions” against the employee, asking the administrator to fix the complaint and talking about the matter on the podcast.

Loveall and Mokrohisky

During that time, Loveall’s relationship with the county administrator frayed, the report shows.

In June 2025, Loveall walked into the administrator’s office, closed the door and told him his job was to make the complaints stop. 

“Tell the employees to f— off, commissioners can do what they want and there’s nothing anyone can do about it,” Loveall said, according to the report based on Mokrohisky’s notes.

Loveall warned him that if he didn’t “fix this,” the two of them would have a problem, adding he would do everything he could to “get rid of these people.” 

In a follow-up meeting, Loveall told the administrator they needed a “culture shift.”

Two months later, in August, Loveall gave Mokrohisky a 1 out of 5 rating on his annual performance evaluation, which was “unsupported by documentation,” the report said. 

On Sept. 4, Mokrohisky sent the email to Loveall outlining concerns about the complaints and Loveall’s workplace conduct over a wider period of time.

On Nov. 17, Mokrohisky notified county officials that Loveall was disparaging him in the community. A local business owner involved in politics told the administrator Loveall is “telling people he is just trying to get his third vote” to get rid of the administrator. (The five-member commissioner board would need three votes to fire the administrator.)

On Nov. 20, Loveall emailed Mokrohisky, defending himself and accusing the administrator of sending the Sept. 4 email to “circumvent the confidentiality laws for executive session and attorney/client communications.”

In the Nov. 20 email, obtained by Lookout through a public records request, Loveall aired a variety of concerns and accusations. Some of it is redacted.

In that email, Loveall said he thought the two had an agreement to talk candidly about private matters — including a “gentleman’s agreement” and a “wall of trust.”

Loveall also said in the email that he could have used different words in the June 17, 2025, office meeting, but also called some details exaggerated.

“The gist of your account of what was said is relatively close, exaggerated in some parts to benefit you, and surely yes, I could’ve said a few less ‘f-words’ in airing my frustrations,” Loveall said. “Yet, if six years in the Navy taught me anything, it’s that eloquent vocabulary sometimes gives way to emotions of ‘blowing off steam’ which hinder better word choices.”

In his statement Tuesday to Lookout Eugene-Springfield, Mokrohisky took issue with Loveall’s statements in the Nov. 20 email and said: “While it would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail on the investigation at this time, many of the statements made in the email are demonstrably false as sustained in the investigation summary that was publicly released.”

The report found Loveall took “adverse action” against Mokrohisky in part by threatening his job during the June office meetings, giving him low job evaluation ratings and making critical statements in the media.