Reviewing Interviews from HIB Investigation -Part 3, Zachary DeWolf

These interviews are quite fascinating because of what any given interviewee decided to tell about themselves.  Zachary DeWolf is a great example.

He tells the interviewer that he

...is energized by doing good things in the world...

In late 2020, he had been out of a job but had just gotten a job with Washington Environmental Council as a communications director.  He talks about his therapist, his dog, his husband and learning Cree, a Native language. What it all has to do with the issue at hand is unclear except that he believes he's a good person who works hard. 

But if you read the entire interview, there are several places where he contradicts himself. It's troubling.

Regarding Policy 0040 he says:

It is critical that SPS determine where anti-racism exists in its system. DeWolf believes "if it is mentionable, it is manageable."

In several places in his interview, he shoves off the blame for the current issue elsewhere. He says that Juneau and her Chief of Staff are "not fully equipped for the jobs they are in and it shows." He says his frustration with them is "strictly related to their performance."

On asking for an investigation:

DeWolf felt like he and Hampson needed to take the complaints by the two women seriously and that they had no other choice but to ask for an investigation. 

So, the directors have never heard of mediation? 

He says - "100% - that he had no intention to discriminate against the two women on the basis of race or gender. He claims he has never heard that his communication style can be "viewed as disrespectful, harsh or demeaning to women." He claims comments to Juneau were not harsh but he assumes "he has been impatient."

He says in more than one place that there has to be "accountability" and yet, mum's the word on his own behavior. Or so it seems.

His Connection to Policy 0040

He says he became aware of this push for an anti-racism policy during the time that Chandra Hampson, who was then SCPTSA president, was running for the Board. This seems odd because he was serving while Jill Geary was on the Board. Geary started this policy so why wouldn't she have talked to him and other Board members about it? 

This is an important statement from his interview:

It was clear that this policy was going to be Hampson's signature work and that she would be singularly focused on the issue.

After she was elected he says:

Hampson was adamant about finding out where Policy 0040 went.

This is confusing because she had been working with Jill Geary, the director who had been the first person to bring it up as a Board member. DeWolf said the policy didn't just "magically appear." 

DeWolf puts forth this narrative starting in May 2020:

Hampson spent three years with SCPTSA building the policy, gathering input from community and families and hearing stories about racial violence in schools. 

But COVID came but then, on Memorial Day weekend, so did the murder of George Floyd. That galvanized DeWolf into getting the Board to write a resolution in support of Black students, suspending the SPD from schools, initiating a Black Studies course and introducing Policy 0040. 

So in July there was a Work Session on Policy 0040. DeWolf said he tried to give Hampson "latitude" because she had worked on it so long. He invited some community members who had been working on the policy to come to the Work Session to present a history. 

SPS staff also gave their overview of the work they had done. He says the Work Session was about next steps, community engagement and any gaps from the policy that SCPTSA worked on and what SPS staff worked on. 

What's odd is that he says:

The resolution the Board drafted in July introducing Policy 0040 was a line that the Board was drawing in the sand. Up to this point, SPS staff was hiding and obfuscating their work on Policy 0040 and the Board made it an official action by ruling on it. This vote requires SPS staff to move the process along. (bold mine)

That's some tough talk but that the investigation report doesn't say anything about the SPS staff not working on the policy. And if that was true, why didn't he say that at the Work Session?

But he does say: 

... that he does not believe he is using his power to push Scarlett and Al-ansi down or change the narrative. He is trying to be the medium that turns what the community is asking for into action. 

The Board is responsible and in charge of policy. To not see it for a long time and not understand the actual motivations of SPS staff, it felt like they were burying it a few layers deeper. (bold mine)

Wow. SPS staff was trying to bury this? What evidence is there and why isn't that in the investigation report?

August 28th Call

As you may recall, there was a disastrous phone call with Hampson, Al-ansi, DeWolf and at least one other person (I'm not sure who it is but someone who works with the Board on policy).

He said he scheduled the call with Director Hampson, Ms. Al-ansi and Dr. Scarlett. (Both Scarlett and Al-ansi say they had no idea Hampson had been invited.)

He was unhappy that a forwarded email indicated that Al-ansi said that she had "been talking" to DeWolf about the policy. He says he had "no introduction" to the policy and so he wanted to talk to her. 

I'll interject here that he is contradicting himself because of the July Work Session which did include discussion on Policy 0040. All along he seems to be trying to be innocent who knew little about this policy and yet there is evidence that he had been in several meetings where it likely did.

He opened the discussion by saying that he wanted Al-ansi to be honest when communicating with others about her work with him. He says he wasn't "scolding" and it was a minor issue but he wanted to get that issue out of the way. He says he invited Hampson because he was at the airport needing to get to a funeral and.... It's never been made clear why Hampson chose to continue the phone call at length.

He says he never spoke to Al-ansi about a timeline or next steps. Again, I ask - what about that July Work Session? 

He claims he was only on the call 2-5 minutes which both Scarlett and Al-ansi say is not correct and which the actual report says is not truthful.

He later says he invited Hampson because he didn't want to speak on something he did not know enough about. But wait, if he was only on the phone 5 minutes, how could he even be in that position?

He doesn't explain why he didn't tell Al-ansi and Scarlett that Hampson would be on the call but says he does so on some calls "at the beginning of a call." In many workplaces, that would be called blindsiding.

The September Executive Committee Meeting

He added Policy 0040 to the agenda but said it wasn't an "official public meeting." Yes, it is an official public meeting because the members actually vote on items to move to the full Board. It's open to the public. Minutes are recorded and saved. 

He says Hampson invited Scarlett and Al-ansi to be on the call (this still during the time of COVID so Zoom calls) 

to give background, on public record, of the history of the creation of the policy.

Again, it's weird for him to say this but also say it wasn't an official public meeting. 

He told the investigator:

It is easy for SPS to say what they believe the process has been, but it is dangerous to let SPS write that history.

I could say a lot to that but it would appear those are just hollow words. The district tries to rewrite history all the time so why the pearl clutching here?

He says two people from the community attended the meeting and presented to the committee on the policy from the beginning to the present day history.  I would guess that would be Jill Geary and Manuela Slye but for some odd reason, the minutes from that meeting are not at the district website. I know I read them in the past but they aren't there now.

As previously stated, Scarlett and Al-ansi were in the meeting and Juneau asked if they would get time to speak (given they were the SPS staff who worked on the policy vs the community members who did). 

DeWolf said the meeting was already running long when Juneau asked for time for staff to speak. He said it was "out of protocol" but he "gave space." But when one of the two women began speaking, he realized it was to call him out for the August 28th call and not about the policy itself. 

He said that Board members get tips on facilitating meetings and one tip is, "Thank you, can you please conclude your remarks" in an effort to move people along. So he used that tip several times during this point of the meeting. He also said it was "his" meeting as the Chair. 

And then we learn something else new - 

... the policy had been handed over to an external facilitator, Erin Jones.

Jones has been a great friend and colleague to the Board. 

So Jones, who had run for state superintendent of public schools, is a pretty known quantity. She knows public education but I am baffled as to why the actual report doesn't mention her nor do either Scarlett or Al-ansi. 

As well, it appears that the district has money to burn for consultants.