Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
QuickTake:
The district superintendent contends Jonathan Light interfered in an ongoing investigation. Two other complaints filed by administrators accuse board members of wrongly leaking information to the public.
Top administrators at Springfield Public Schools are accusing school board Chair Jonathan Light of violating board agreements, policies and potentially Oregon law.
Superintendent Todd Hamilton and Assistant Superintendent David Collins submitted a formal complaint Aug. 6 to the Springfield Board of Education about Light, according to records provided to Lookout Eugene-Springfield by the school district.
Among other issues, they accuse Light of seeking information from the Oregon Department of Education regarding an investigation into the district’s curriculum compliance without coordinating with district leaders or having the endorsement of fellow board members.
The state investigation began June 27, 2024, after a Springfield teacher appealed a determination from the district that the teacher’s complaint about a lack of social studies and science curriculum, among other concerns, was unsubstantiated. ODE is required to complete investigations within 90 days but has extended its deadline twice due to a backlog of cases as well as the legal complexity and size of the case.
Leaders say Light’s actions were “a misuse of authority, disregard for Board policy, and a breach of the Board member Oath of Office,” according to the complaint.
Collins and the district’s human resources director, Dustin Reese, also filed two separate complaints, saying board members illegally leaked information to the public about the Light complaint. The Community Alliance for Public Education — a group of parents, teachers and community members — posted on social media Aug. 22 about the complaint against Light. Collins and Reese allege the leak was retaliatory and intimidating toward administrators and was meant to undermine their complaint against Light.
The Board of Education voted Aug. 25 to hire an independent investigator to look into the three complaints. Board Vice Chair Ken Kohl declined to comment on the complaints due to the investigation in progress. Light said he is waiting to see what the independent investigation reveals.
“My motivation as a board member has always been about doing what’s right for kids,” he said in an email to Lookout Eugene-Springfield.
The complaint against Light
In their complaint, the administrators, who reviewed “internal and external communications and supporting documentation,” alleged five ways that Light may have broken rules:
- Interference in an ongoing complaint process
- Unauthorized communication with ODE
- Failure to disclose relevant information
- Improper use of board title and district resources
- Potential violation of Oregon Public Meeting law
Hamilton and Collins say Light may have collaborated with Mikell Harshbarger, the teacher who filed the curriculum complaint appeal with ODE, when communicating with the department’s staff about the curriculum investigation. They accuse Light of advocating for Harshbarger and attempting to influence ODE’s response to Harshbarger’s complaint.
“This conduct, taking place during an open investigation, raises substantial concerns about Board member neutrality and creates the appearance of interference with an external oversight process,” Hamilton and Collins state in their complaint.
Hamilton and Collins wrote that Light used his official board email and board title in emails asking ODE for updates regarding the curriculum compliance investigation “without board authorization or coordination with the Superintendent.” The district leaders say this made it seem like the board of education was involved in or endorsed Harshbarger’s complaint, when Light had not consulted the board about the matter.
Administrators said the superintendent should have been informed of Light’s communications with ODE and privy to what ODE told Light. Hamilton and Collins wrote that there is an expectation that board members share information with the superintendent that is “pertinent to district operations and Board oversight.” According to the complaint, Light received updates on the investigation from ODE staff, including from operations and policy analyst Mark Mayer.
“Despite their significance, Director Light neither shared the information with the Superintendent nor acknowledged it during his own request for an update from the Superintendent on April 13, 2025,” Hamilton and Collins wrote.
District leaders also allege that Light’s solicitation of input from board member Amber Langworthy and “several non-board individuals” on a draft message to the full board and district staff could constitute a violation of Oregon’s public meetings law.
The law states that members of a governing body cannot communicate with a quorum, or majority, of members outside a public meeting. There are five members of the Springfield Board of Education and three members would make a quorum. But Hamilton and Collins said the pattern of emails and coordination with an advisory group on official board business could be a violation “or, at minimum, create the appearance of circumventing public transparency.”
The district’s suggested resolutions for the board to consider included the formal censure, or disapproval, of Light; removing him from the position of board chair; requiring him to complete training; giving him reminders of board policy; and requiring him to reaffirm his obligations as a board member.
Complaints against the information leaker
Collins and Reese, the human resources director, both wrote formal complaints against board members after the district’s complaint about Light was leaked online through the Community Alliance for Public Education’s Facebook page. The administrators allege Hamilton and Collins faced retaliation and intimidation because of the post.
The complaint against Light was shared in the confidentiality of an executive session and was not supposed to be public. The post, shared with more than 700 followers, urged members of the public to attend the meeting in support of Light to make clear “the public is watching.”
Collins wrote in the complaint: “This deliberate disclosure and coordinated effort undermine the integrity of the complaint process, compromises confidentiality, and creates an intimidating environment for me as a district administrator.”
Collins and Reese argued the leak and subsequent Faceboook post violated the protections from retaliation an employee has through board policy and Oregon law when they report a potential violation of law or policy of their employer, also known as “whistleblower protections.”
Reese stated in his complaint that he will file additional complaints with the Bureau of Labor & Industries and the Oregon Government Ethics Commission “due to the overall lack of accountability to date for the inappropriate actions and behaviors of school board members.”
Collins called for the resignation of the board member responsible for the complaint being leaked.
When asked for comment on the complaints filed with the board, Hamilton declined.
“Superintendent Hamilton is looking forward to putting this process behind us,” said director of communications Brian Richardson.
