Reviewing the Interviews from the HIB Investigation - Part 2, Keisha Scarlett

The MFR Law Group interviewed 20 people for their investigation report. I had requested only the principals' interviews - Keisha Scarlett, Manal Al-ansi, Chandra Hampson and Zachary DeWolf. Because of my reading of these interviews, I have now requested more of them.

At the time of this episode, Dr. Scarlett was the chief of Equity Partnerships and Engagement. 

One item I didn't mention previously is the issue of the redaction of names. Ninety percent of the time, I know who it is from the context. Other times, I may put in two names in this reporting if I am not sure. 

One new fact - according to the report:

Internally, SPS requires an investigation be conducted within 30 days but Juneau? signed an extension to allow the investigation to be concluded by January 31, 2021. 

- Right up front, the investigation states:

Scarlett is covered under SPS's (sic) anti-retaliation policy and is entitled to not be retaliated against. 

- Like Al-ansi, Scarlett said she wasn't filing "a formal complaint" but was offering a way forward via reconciliation. She believed her letter was "well within her role of chief of equity." She did not file a HIB complaint and believes HIB doesn't cover implicit bias but only "overt discrimination."

What I have trouble making sense of is that both Al-ansi and Scarlett say they believe there are systemic problems with how staff and the Board interact and want the problem addressed at that level. However, they are quite detailed in how they were personally wronged and personally affected. 

- It turns out that SPS talked to "outside counsel" and:

...determined that because of the way Scarlett's documentation went to the SPS Board of Directors, it meets the standard for an internal HIB complaint under their policy. So, SPS has determined it is obligated to investigate the matter under an HIB complaint.

What I wonder here is if Scarlett and Al-ansi had delivered the letter to Juneau, would there have been an investigation?

ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) 

After, the complaint letter went to the Board, Juneau appeared to try to make peace and at first, Scarlett was okay with it. The report doesn't say if the two Board members in question accepted. The report says that Scarlett:

...checked with SPS Director X who had no issue with it personally."

I do not know which director this is; I suspect it is Brandon Hersey.

But Scarlett felt that the behaviors of Hampson and DeWolf continued (even escalated) AFTER the letter of complaint and then declined the offer from Juneau.

So What Did the Complainants Want?

Both she and Amal-asni wanted acknowledgement of the 

...that their (Hampson and DeWolf) behavior is problematic and that the letter sent (from the two women to the Board) had steps for resolution. 

No one from the Board replied to the letter of complaint. Scarlett thought it might be a liability for SPS not to investigate but she also thought it possible that the investigation might be an effort to discredit the two women. From the report:

Scarlett wants her staff to do their work without being muted or silenced, sidelines, or experiencing an untenable work environment. 

There was this interesting quote:

Scarlett feels as though she is Pandora's box and is holding everyone's concerns. Recently there was a meeting of Black female workers at SPS. Sixty-five people were invited and 58 showed up to discuss the need for an anti-racism policy within the District. 

She also said that:

Policy 0040 is designed to deal with anti-Blackness and anti-Black racism. Nobody seems to be able to see it, but it is everywhere. 

Elsewhere, there are people who believe that this policy should address ALL racism that occurs. It does feel like Scarlett and Al-ansi have fully embraced the one pillar in the Strategic Plan for Black boys. Here is where I see a disconnect. While the Strategic Plan can have that kind of pillar but policies that cover behaviors should cover ALL students and staff. 

Starting with the Anti-Racism Policy - Here's how Scarlett saw it play out.

She learned that before Hampson was elected, Hampson was already working with Director Jill Geary who was the director from Hampson's district. I was aware of this and had warned Geary and she claimed she worked with a lot of people on this policy. I never saw it.

August 2019, Scarlett learned that Hampson was "the heir apparent to the role of former Board member Geary." Geary was eager for an anti-racism policy but knew it would not get done during her time on the Board. But she brought Hampson into the fold and, according to Scarlett, only Hampson, Geary and another person had seen the draft policy. 

September 2019, Scarlett and Hampson meet to talk about the policy. Scarlett agreed to advance the policy but communicated to Hampson that she didn't even have a team yet. She had to replace herself and replace Dr. Concie Pedroza; both women had been promoted.

The work proceeded in October 2019. Hampson and Scarlett seemed to be on the same page about gaining insights from the community which would then mean the policy would need updating. 

The report has Person X (who I think is Al-ansi in this case) saying she had concerns:

...that a White woman with a limited view of understanding racism and the mechanisms for anti-racism was driving and had drafted the policy. However, Al-ansi understood it was not her role to speak out about these concerns."

Al-ansi also knew:

...that the absence of any reference to Black or Indigenous people and their experiences in the country as core tenants of the policy was problematic.

I will insert myself here and say that I think the above is a resolution-type effort and doesn't necessarily need to be part of the policy.

By mid-October, Scarlett and Al-ansi had organized policy planning engagement, curriculum and soliciting feedback from different groups around the policy.

Early 2020, Scarlett had heard from Person X who wondered

...why there was such a big gap and difference between the community engagement version of the policy and the original policy created by Geary and Hampson.

This is when Hampson's revisionist history began. Hampson claims that the original policy came from the community. 

It also appears that the one community organization that was the go-to for Hampson was the Seattle Council PTSA. (That's no surprise; Hampson has great sway there.) And, Scarlett thought Hampson believed the SCPTSA should be 

..given status over the communities that Al-ansi was connecting with.

July 2020, Scarlett says 

Hampson had staged an elaborate process. People from the SCPTSA began testifying at Board meetings.

Scarlett became aware that her relationship with Hampson was not good and tried to mend it. But according to Scarlett:

Hampson had started to immerse additional people in her cause of discrediting SPS staff and engaging SCPTSA members to be a community-led group spearheading the policy. 

Scarlett also thinks this is when DeWolf jumped on-board to discredit her.

Then there was the out-of-control August 28th phone call with DeWolf at the airport on the phone allegedly berating Scarlett and Al-ansi and then passing the baton to Hampson to go on doing so. Scarlett said it was a tough day for her because she had an upsetting meeting with the president of the SCPTSA - at that time - Manuela Slye - and Chadwick Boseman had died. 

This situation escalated as Hampson later told both women that if they did not have a redraft of the policy by a Board meeting in September, she'd write her own based on past drafts. Apparently, Hampson texted Scarlett and told her:

"I feel like I handed you an infant and you returned back an unrecognizable child." Hampson was so committed to the policy language that she wanted to invalidate the community engagement feedback in pursuit of anti-racism.

Hampson was pushing hard on a timeline that interfered with long-planned vacation plans for Scarlett that were known by Superintendent Juneau. 

Scarlett didn't send a policy draft to Hampson. She felt

...she had to stand her ground and would not be coerced to move past the community engagement process. 

September 16, 2020 Executive Committee meeting

Frankly, there's a lot of back and forth here about what was supposed to happen, i.e. Scarlett and Al-ansi making a presentation on the work for Policy 0040. Juneau did advocate for time for them but apparently DeWolf waved that off until the comments section of the meeting.

Here's also where it gets messy. Juneau and Scarlett seemed to feel that DeWolf was trying to silence them but, on the other hand, as Board president, DeWolf did have the right to control the meeting. Scarlett and Al-ansi seemed determined to say that they had been mistreated in this process and DeWolf wasn't having it. 

Scarlett said she received texts later on from people in the meeting, wondering why no one spoke up. I would suggest that it's difficult to be in a meeting where you are not in charge and then speak out against the top person. However, if people in the room felt that Scarlett and Al-ansi were being mistreated, maybe that's a good question. 

Here's how Scarlett saw Hampson after that meeting:

Hampson is a politician, and once it narrated (sic), she was the person to drive policy forward. When Hampson did not feel that she was in control of the community engagement processs or that partnership with SPS staff was not sufficient , she moved into different behaviors and used intimidation tactics and bullying to drive her own political agenda and how she wanted to be involved in the policy process. Hampson used her power to galvanize and weaponize women of color and lend more credibility to her own agenda.

Scarlett does understand that the Board develops and adopts policy while staff "develops policy and procedures." (I believe that MFR misunderstood Scarlett here and Scarlett likely meant "staff develops procedures FROM Board developed policy.")

Scarlett seemed worried that Hampson and DeWolf were trying to write a narrative about how this policy was developed and that it would be come "ratified in the system." 

She also said (partial)

Policy 0040 was written before COVID, before the newest take on Black Lives Matter. It has transformed from a suggested policy into a feeling for some, like the only way that SPS can really move forward is in pursuit of racial justice. 

Policy 0040 is about the people most impacted at intersections of injustice with COVID and racism. Their needs should be met. This process has become a war cry for many community organizers because everybody is looking for hope.

Policy 0040 has brought about the perfect storm of ego and politics, while children and families hang in the balance. 

And then there's this:

Scarlett sees a drive for solidarity between Indigenous and Black communities. Policy 0040 moves Black communities closer to the indigenous communities. DeWolf and Hampson are both Native, but Scarlett cannot speak to their leadership and Native communities. They both claim they are Indigenous and people of color, but Scarlett does not see any underlying intention or connection of risk between Black and Native  communities. The problem lies in that they are perpetuating acts of institutional, structural and direct racism. People may think they cannot do these things because they are people of color, but what it means to be racist or anti-racist is based on committing acts of racism and committing acts of anti-racism. (bold mine)

Wow.

 I will say that it seemed quite easy for Hampson and DeWolf to get rid of the UNEA (Urban  Native Education Alliance) when Juneau came in, even as UNEA had worked with the district for a decade. Yet another mystery. 

But I give Scarlett much credit for basically saying that all people can be racist if they stand by and allow racism to exist within their sphere of life. 

And then there is this oddity:

Scarlett's community connections include people not loved in the community and a group of "community losers" called the Equity Synergy Group. 

What?

And then,

Currently, SPS is doing a high-level trend analysis and analyzing qualitative data. They hired an external consultant firm, global development consultants, to take all of their policy drafts and create an independent term analysis to give SPS feedback on where the final drafts of the policy and contrast, and ensure the policy include direct language and work from communities. 

Truly? Well, this is yet another thing to ask SPS about. How many consultants do they have on the payroll?

She also claims the Board did adopt the policy but I have not seen evidence of this happening. 

She also takes aim at Hampson:

Before Hampson adopted a community narrative with regard to Policy 0040, she often took up time in community spaces with no regard to the fact that she was positioning herself as an expert or writer of the policy.

Scarlett has heard that Hampson's behavior in community spaces has reeked of White privilege. Once, Person X and Hampson attended a work session and used more than 12 minutes to talk about themselves and their resumes. They told community members that they wrote the policy, what their intention was, and tried to influence the space. This behavior is disrespectful to the community. Staff has to engage Board members, but it can come at a cost as they may ruin processes trying to position themselves as authorities. 

Scarlett, who describes herself as "a six-foot tall Black woman, who must carry all the beauty and glory and character of a Black woman." Continuing

Because people attribute her physical characteristics as a threat toward (sic) them, she has to stomach microaggressions. She must have the ability to both navigate White supremacy and uphold and disrupt it at the same time. 

Scarlett suggested to MFR to interview Director Lisa Rivera Smith who was at the September 16th Executive Committee meeting (she was not a member at that point) who spoke up.

"I don't know what is going, but something is wrong. I can't name the dynamic but I see there is one. I'm very concerned about staff treatment." 

You don't hear this from anyone else on the Board. There certainly is a split on the Board between the bullies and their allies and the few who are not seeing this kumbaya that the bullies are pushing.