Springfield school board approves new acting superintendent

Correction: A previous version of this story misstated David Collins’ employment status.

The Springfield Board of Education voted unanimously Monday, Feb. 23, to approve Jodi O’Mara as acting superintendent of Springfield Public Schools.

O’Mara will start March 1 and serve as leader of the district through June 30.

Following an impasse after a Friday night meeting and taking a weekend to hear more input, board Chair Jonathan Light and Vice Chair Amber Langworthy changed their votes from Ame Beard, principal of the district’s Academy of Arts and Academics, to O’Mara. Both board members cited the need for prior superintendent experience as a qualifier for the position.

“This has been a really trying year,” Langworthy said. “I would like for someone to be able to come in and just hit the ground running.”

Board members also voted for O’Mara because of her promise to “listen to learn” in order to build back trust within the district.

In an interview after the board meeting, O’Mara said she’s excited to work with Springfield Public Schools staff, some of whom she knows. She served as an administrative mentor for the last three years in Springfield, supporting elementary principals at four schools. 

O’Mara said she plans to rely on input from staff who are “in the trenches” to inform challenging budget decisions, as well as a student-focused decision-making framework.

“Just being present and engaged and in the moment, I think that is going to be really key to helping to calm the waters and move forward,” she said.

The board also approved a resignation agreement with assistant superintendent David Collins, but no comments or details about its contents were provided. Collins, along with superintendent Todd Hamilton, threatened to sue the district and three board members in December for claims including retaliation and defamation.

According to school board member Nicole De Graff’s recent podcast comment, Springfield Public Schools has reached a resignation agreement with Hamilton as well, which includes a settlement that prevents him from suing the district. The board has yet to vote on the agreement, and the district has yet to release it or respond to a request from Lookout Eugene-Springfield to see it. Per his announcement to families, Hamilton’s last day at Springfield Public Schools is Feb. 28.

A parallel search for a new board member

Board members also discussed their next task: appointing a new board member to fill the seat of former board Chair Heather Quaas-Annsa. 

The board will interview candidates for the position at its next meeting on March 9.

Anyone who is registered to vote, has lived within the district boundaries for a year and is not a Springfield Public Schools employee is eligible and can apply online or at the district office at 640 A St. The deadline is noon, Feb. 27.

Board members discussed the challenges of being a school board member and how to improve the onboarding process for its new member.

De Graff emphasized the importance of the new board member understanding how their role differs from district administration. Langworthy shared how challenging it was to get information on her role, responsibilities and policies when she started in July.

She said the earliest date the district offered her onboarding was Aug. 20, after her first board meeting. This was during the month the superintendent and assistant superintendent filed their first complaints against Light. The ensuing leak of the complaints caused an explosion of drama in the district. Not knowing the basics of board governance during this time was “nerve-wracking,” Langworthy said.

“I think as a board member, we need to know what our lane is, but it also needs to be understood that we can be a board member with curiosity,” Langworthy said. “We need to be supported with that curiosity and with grace and understanding and bringing people in gently. I think that would be a really wonderful thing for a new member.”

Light wants to ensure new board members get their binder of information from the district, including its vision, goals and board calendar, as soon as possible, along with Oregon School Boards Association training dates. He also hopes former board members will serve as mentors to new board members.

Strained board relationships

Monday night’s meeting displayed a continued thread of combative communication among board members, specifically between De Graff, Light and Langworthy.

In a discussion about the scope of future board training, Langworthy said so far, she had reached out to the Oregon School Boards Association, Oregon Education Collaborative and Aligned Education Consulting to get an idea of what services facilitators provided and price ranges for services.

Langworthy said Quaas-Annsa delegated this task to her when she was board chair. The district will issue a request for proposals after the board solidifies what training it wants.

Langworthy and Light both said that while they learned a lot from the Oregon School Boards Association, they wanted to explore training from a different organization. De Graff then repeatedly questioned whether Langworthy had the authority to reach out to training facilitators, asking whether she had followed the correct process and whether she had given certain firms an unfair advantage.

“It shouldn’t be a problem for Amber to get budget-level numbers from the firm,” said board member Ken Kohl. “She’s not signing the contract. They will have to go through the RFP process and get selected based on their qualifications. She’s not executing a contract by herself on behalf of the board.”

De Graff also questioned why the board needed more training when members had received training on these topics from the Oregon School Boards Association.

“I’m all for having common ground,” Langworthy said. “To be a united team is what I’m striving for here, and I think we all are.”

Last week, De Graff publicly criticized Light and Langworthy for lack of transparency in the acting superintendent nomination process on conservative podcast host Rick Dancer’s show Feb. 19.

She said she felt left out of decision-making before the Feb. 20 meeting and claimed that “the whole process has been outside public meetings laws.”

Langworthy said in the Feb. 20 meeting that what Light and she did was within the legally appropriate communications for the board chair and vice chair.

“Are you saying that a board chair and vice chair can’t communicate?” she said to De Graff. “We are talking about scheduling and process.”

De Graff also criticized Langworthy and Light on the podcast for voting against the midyear teacher cuts at the Jan. 12 meeting, saying the two board members knew the staff cuts would be necessary. The vote, she said, should have been unanimous.