Springfield school board removes board chair, vice chair from roles

The Springfield Board of Education overhauled its leadership during a special meeting Nov. 3. 

The shake-up followed the board’s review of an investigator’s findings regarding the conduct of two board members.

The investigation began after Springfield Public Schools administrators made four complaints against board Chair Jonathan Light and Vice Chair Ken Kohl. 

Following a nearly three-hour executive session during which board members discussed the investigation’s results, the board voted to remove Light and Kohl from their leadership positions. 

They also voted to formally censure Light, an action boards can take to express disapproval of a board member’s actions. Both Light and Kohl will stay on the board unless they choose to resign or are recalled from office by voters.

The board voted unanimously for Heather Quaas-Annsa to be the board’s new chair, and they voted 4-1 for Amber Langworthy to be vice chair. Quaas-Annsa joined the board in August 2024 and Langworthy began in July 2025. Both are parents of children in the district.

Springfield schools’ administrators alleged in their complaints that both Light and Kohl overstepped their authority by reaching out to the Oregon Department of Education —without district or board knowledge — about district matters. Administrators filed both complaints in August, as well as two complaints about an information leak that the investigator appears to have pinned on Light.

Why board leaders were removed

While the board did not release the investigation results to the public, board members revealed some details of the investigation in their public comments. 

Nicole De Graff said the independent investigation “substantiated or partially substantiated multiple complaints involving board member Jonathan Light.”

Lookout Eugene-Springfield obtained the four complaints through public records requests. One complaint from the superintendent and assistant superintendent was against Light for seeking information from the state about an Oregon Department of Education curriculum investigation without coordinating with district administrators or fellow board members. 

Administrators made two other complaints, accusing the board of leaking the initial complaint about Light to the public. 

In the Nov. 3 meeting, board members grouped the complaint against Light and the complaints about the leak together when voting on consequences for Light, indicating that the investigator implicated Light as the leaker.

“These aren’t minor disagreements or political differences, because they show breakdown of integrity and respect for the whole process,” De Graff said during the board discussion.

Light, who has been on the Springfield Board of Education for 20 years, defended himself in the meeting.

“We need to have, as a board, timely information and adequate information,” Light said. “I have input from a large number of people, at all levels, that say that we can do better. So if I’m not provided information, I feel that I need to do my homework, which I’ve done.”

The fourth complaint in the investigation was filed by Brett Yancey, chief operations officer of Springfield Public Schools, against Kohl. In the complaint, filed Aug. 27, Yancey alleges Kohl abused his power by reaching out to the Oregon Department of Education without board or district consent to “inquire about the status of my job responsibilities and if I was completing all of my tasks.”

He also claimed Kohl created a hostile work environment for Yancey, targeted him, and bullied and harassed him through repeated inquiries and “refusing to accept his role as an individual board member without administrative authority.”

“These actions have caused significant personal stress both at work and at home and have interfered with my ability to maintain professional relationships with ODE (Oregon Department of Education) staff, “ Yancey wrote in his complaint. “In my 30-year public service career, I have not encountered this level of unauthorized interference by a public official.”

Because the investigation findings are not public, it is unclear whether this complaint was fully substantiated.

New board leadership

Both Quaas-Annsa and Langworthy were vocal during the Nov. 3 meeting, but about different topics.

Quaas-Annsa made several statements against Light’s conduct and her frustration with the amount of time the board has spent on the conflict between board members and district leaders. She also made a motion requesting that Light resign. Only Nicole De Graff supported the motion.

“His conduct has caused disruption, interfered with district operations and undermined staff and community trust,” Quaas-Annsa said. “And that’s not even going into all of the other things that have happened while I’ve been on the board that have impacted me personally.”

Langworthy said she found the investigation report to be biased.

“It seemed to be heavily focused on confirming complaints rather than conducting a purely impartial fact-finding mission,” she said. “I felt there were many biased questions. It was very leading.”

Langworthy also spoke about the dysfunction on the board that she’s witnessed since stepping into her role, especially in the relationship between the board and district. She said she was saddened to see Light and Kohl receiving “the brunt” of the discipline.

“It takes two to tango,” Langworthy said. “I can see frustrations.”

Correction: A previous version of this story miscalculated the amount of time the board spent in executive session.