On the heels of two Portland Community College (PCC) staff unions ending their dual labor strikes, a new complaint over potential conflicts of interest could ensnare the school’s president.
Students, staff, and at least one of the college’s board members recently raised concerns that the school’s unclear relationship with G7 Enterprises LLC—a private company registered by PCC President Adrien Bennings and her husband—may violate state ethics law.
A formal complaint filed March 19 with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) and obtained by the Mercury said Bennings directed the college to use her own trademarked slogan, which could present a conflict of interest, and that the potential conflict was not disclosed to PCC’s full board of directors. Kien Truong, an elected board member, filed the complaint in his personal capacity and noted he did not act on behalf of the board.
A central issue is a phrase Bennings trademarked for personal business use was simultaneously adopted by the school and used as a slogan.
The “One Together, Together One” slogan is used in PCC marketing materials on and off campus, and was used on Bennings’ personal website, according to public records from the US Patent and Trademark office. Bennings’ website was recently taken down.
In his complaint, Truong said it is also unclear if the school has any contract or payment arrangement with G7 Enterprises LLC. PCC spokesperson James Hill said in an April 1 email that PCC does not have any contracts or documentation related to G7 Enterprises. Hill declined the Mercury’s request for an interview with Bennings, saying the school wants to preserve the ongoing OGEC process, but offered a brief comment.
“Dr. Bennings remains focused on wrapping up winter term and preparing for the return of students for spring term, but will respond to the complaint in accordance with the commission’s guidelines,” Hill said.
The G7 Enterprises trademark was filed in August 2023 under the Education and Entertainment Services classification, a trademark class for motivational speaking or educational brands in the field of personal branding, leadership, wellness, personal development, or distribution of course material.
But Truong said even if no financial agreement exists, the institution promoting Bennings’ trademark at her behest could violate Oregon ethics law.
“PCC has publicly promoted a phrase that is privately trademarked by its own President, increasing its visibility, public awareness, and commercial value,” Truong stated in an April 1 email to the Mercury. “Even if there is no direct financial transaction at this time, this constitutes a benefit to a private interest derived from the use of a public position and public funds. There is also a longer-term legal risk if the trademark rights are later enforced against the college.
Truong said there is a difference in the role OGEC plays versus how the board should respond.
“OGEC’s responsibility is to determine whether the actions of the President violated Oregon ethics law,” Truong stated. “The agency is not tasked with determining whether those actions implicate other laws, expose the college to potential legal liability or cause serious reputational harm. Those responsibilities rest with the Board. Regardless of how OGEC ultimately rules, the Board has a separate governance obligation to take this matter seriously and respond swiftly.”
Truong said he hopes the board will address the issue in an upcoming meeting on April 16, saying how the board handles the issue will signal whether it is serious about rebuilding trust after the historic strike.
OGEC spokesperson Casey Fenstermaker confirmed the office received the complaint, but said she could not provide further information until after the commission hears the case or decides to dismiss the complaint. Under Oregon law, complaints filed with OGEC undergo a preliminary review within 60 days to determine whether sufficient cause exists to initiate a full investigation. After that, the Commission may hear the case and vote to open a full investigation, or it could drop the case altogether.
Questions about the potential conflicts come at a challenging time for PCC. While workers in two unions reached tentative agreements on new contracts in late March, the college has already faced significant budget cuts in the 2025-27 biennium. That includes cuts to materials, supplies, and staff, as well as the elimination of educational programs.
Meanwhile, students argue that Bennings’ potential conflicts of interest—alongside a $345,000 base salary plus benefits—adds to a theme of distrust between the students and the administration.
Alena Slee, a student activist who’s enrolled in the endangered Music and Sonic Arts program, said she is concerned about Bennings potentially using a public servant position for personal gain, but said it is a broader theme in education.
“It threatens the community,” Slee said. “The privatization of our public education goes far beyond Dr. Bennings and the Bennings brand.”
In addition to staff reductions and program cuts, she said students are concerned about PCC pushing investments in AI to address the school’s challenges, adding that she believes Portlanders care about the community benefits of affordable public education. But she said the administration is failing to serve the community, with few avenues for accountability.
