Director Chandra Hampson Fires Back at Seattle Public Schools
I have to say, Director Hampson is always good for a laugh. Here's a link to her brief in reply to the district's brief of Feb. 16, 2022. I'll walk you through it.
The most important item to point out is the micromanaging that Hampson apparently did AND believes she is entitled to do as an elected Board member. This is absolutely false and decades of Board members have understood that and some have been battered by the Times editorial board over it. She's wrong on this one.
- Hampson doesn’t waste much time trying to create a situation for which there is ZERO evidence.
Yet the District’s brief ignores this case’s critical facts and circumstances: District staff, who wanted to control the development of an important new policy, did not move the policy forward despite an elected Director’s repeated requests for swift action; the elected Director then expressed disapproval to the staff members, who gave as good as they got in a phone call that was emotional for everyone; and the staff members then attempted to hijack a Board Executive Committee meeting to reassert control over the policy
Nowhere does the investigation say this was about control. As well, staff is not obligated to follow Board members' timeline requests. Where is the notation that Juneau signed off on that one? The answer is that Juneau didn't because the only staff member the Board controls is the Superintendent.
In another area:
- “...no harassment occurs when an elected Director admonishes staff for failing to carry out a Director’s instructions on policy development and the Director then supports the Board Executive Committee’s discretionary choice to press ahead with the policy on its own."
Well, if she thinks the Board can decide what staff does with their time, then I’ve been confused for 20+ years along with nearly every Board member elected.
- Here's a funny statement:
"...the elected Director then expressed disapproval to the staff members, who gave as good as they got in a phone call that was emotional for everyone..."
"Gave as good as they got" as a legal argument? Oh my.
- Also, I do wonder why Hampson involved the staff at all if she wanted to hold so tightly to the development of the policy. At any time, she could have taken it back. As well, I’m confused at the bottom of page 8 because she says DeWolf handed control of the policy to her. He says in the investigation that he was never really part of it and that it was Hampson’s “legacy.” (they completely misspelled his name in the brief as Wolfe).
- She also thinks “elected” and “hired” are the same things - they are not. They are in a manner of speaking but not legally.
- The District never even purported to find that Director Hampson acted with wrongful intent, nor that anything she did caused the type of severe harm defined in Policy 5207. AR 16, 45-46. In fact, the MFR Report says nothing about Hampson’s mental state.
I could say something here but I'll just let that stand by itself.
- Staff involvement was a privilege, not a right.
Really? Let’s put out the memo to senior staff on that one. Most policy work DOES involve the staff and if the Board wants to get snotty about it, well, then they can do it all themselves.
- She also attempts to say that malice/harassment is only when there is “overt” rudeness or disrespect. I think we’ve all seen movies where someone speaks in a quiet, calm manner that chills your blood. Plus, the investigation said she yelled at the two staffers; sounds pretty overt to me.
Comments
Thanks for being the best educational reporter in town.
Boardmember Esquire
However, that doesn't mean board members should engage in anti-Black harassment of the staff, and it certainly does not put Chandra in the right. She is an entitled, privileged, racist bully. Her legal battle against the district, which will wind up costing money the district doesn't really have, is itself evidence of her lack of respect for anyone who doesn't agree with her.
We need a reset of the relationship between board and staff, but Chandra is certainly not the person to help make that happen.
Micro Manager
Meanwhile, as the district was being consumed by a roaring fire, with thousands of students failing to show up for classes because the leadership decided to count the students as in attendance and give them all As even if they never actually attended a single day of class and never turned a single assignment, Scarlett decided to formally accuse Hampson of race-based HIB. The core of Scarlett’s accusation was that Hampson was impinging on Scarlett’s right to lead the development of some school board policy that will do nothing for the students whose lives were being destroyed.
According to the U.S. Constitution, the School Board President had every right to develop policy, the Chief Academic Office had every right to develop policy, I as a parent have every right to develop policy, and my five-year-old niece has every right to develop policy. It’s called the First Amendment. The Schoolboard runs the committee process and votes; that’s state law. For the Chief Academic Officer to allege harassment, and for the investigator to find there was harassment because Hampson impinged Scarlett’s right to develop policy based on past practice, seem to me to be utter nonsense. Hampson should absolutely sue.
To top things off, the district hired an African American Woman to investigate and rule on a case of alleged race-based HIB against African American Woman by a Native American Woman, because the African American Woman believed the policy was under development by the Native American Woman wasn’t “black enough”. Whoever is responsible for coming up with that plan to waste taxpayers’ money should be fired for incompetence.
I read the investigative report thoroughly. The district has tarred Hampson’s reputation with a finding of harassment, intimidation, and bullying because of some heated exchanges over policy that are an everyday occurrence between politicians and executive branch leadership, which is exactly what Hampson and Scarlett are. If Scarlett doesn’t like her job, she should find another one. Hampson should absolutely sue.
OK Boomer
NE Parent
It is unbecoming behavior for any School Board President and Vice President to yell and use their positional authority to silence and intimidate senior level staff- or anyone for that matter. This behavior is unacceptable for an elected official.
During the Broadview Thompson homeless debacle, a concerned parent was handing out flyers. Hampson disagreed with the parent and threatened to charge the parent with trespassing. She is a bully that should not hold public office.
The Hampson/ DeWolf Investigative Report cost taxpayers in excess of $100K. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hampson lawsuit costs the district additional $100K or more; those dollars are taken directly from the General Fund and out of classrooms.
I do agree that the district is failing at it's most basic function- educating students. We don't hear a single word about the fact 90% of Rainier Beach High School students are failing math. We don't hear a single word that Hersey has 95% of elementary school students are failing math at one of his schools. These failures will have life long implications.
Yes, anyone can say anything under the First Amendment (although that is technically not true) but that in not in play here. The directors are the ones to start the ball rolling on new policies (even if the district asks them for one) but directors have no staff to research legal issues, comparisons to other districts, etc. That is why staff is used to create policy.
The disagreement was Hampson's on-fire demands versus Scarlett's big plate of work during a pandemic.
And I don't know where you work but yelling at work, yelling at subordinates is wrong for an elected official.
Lastly, she is suing not for money but for bragging rights. But again, "winning" the lawsuit does not change her actions. The investigative report stands. All winning would do is say the district used the HIB policy wrongly.
DeWolf wanted staff to send out a PRESS Release after the committee meeting which is not usual practice. Press releases are sent out AFTER the entire board votes.
Something is wrong.
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/helping-peace-happen
Farm Boy
Thanks to Melissa for your work on this - you may not always be right (though in my view you are far more often than not), but you do shed light in places that the rest of our local media would rather not closely examine.
What a shitshow.
This case wasn't a fight about homelessness or Advanced Learning; instead, two black staff members fought with two Native American board directors over whether Policy 0040 on Racism was "pro-Black enough." Black Staffers Scarlet and Manal Al-ansi wanted the policy to be more "pro-Black." Native Directors Hampson and DeWolf wanted it to be focused on the "Black, Indigenous and Latinx community." That's straight from the investigation. Search the school board action report from November 18, 2020, where the policy was discussed, and the word "black" appears 28 times, "brown" 3 times, "native" 5 times, and Latino/LatinX/Hispanic never.
This case wasn't just two black women raising issues of HIB. These were the two most senior black women in the district who remain responsible for equity, formally accusing the two Native American school board directors of being racists while the school board members were doing what the staffers should have been doing, which is looking out for the interests of all students, not just the interests of their "pro-Black" community.
At precisely the same time as the Native American directors were accused of being racist, the NAACP accused Native American Superintendent Juneau of being a racist, as reported on the front page of the Seattle Times, and had her forced out without any investigation. Sheer coincidence?
Let's not forget that staff moved the Native Americans around the district for years, including to the old Lincoln High School attic. Finally, the school board voted to house them in the new building at the Wilson Pacific Site (aka Robert Eagle Staff aka Licton Springs) on sacred tribal land over staff objections. Until three years ago when two senior black staffers came up with a plan to squeeze them out. And while Native American students testified in tears about how they were made to attend class in the halls, the two black staffers, one of whom still works for the district, allowed the janitorial staff to run vacuum cleaners over the student's voices as they testified and refused to have the machines turned off when parents protested.
Know where the Native American students are now? It's not their sacred land near the new light rail station at Northgate, accessible by tribal members from throughout the city; it's isolated out in Ballard. Context matters.
The strategic plan says African American Males are the district's number one priority. It meant the creation of the department of African American Male Achievement staffed by African Americans with no other similar departments for any other minority group. It's meant writing into the district budget of over half a million dollars annually focused on African American Males with no similar funding for any other minority group. It's meant replacing the Native Superintendent with a Black Superintendent. It means that while the district is only 14.9% black, 25% of the principals are black, the most overrepresented group out of all races. Compare that to the 13.4% of the district that is Hispanic and the only 4% of the district's principals that are Hispanic, one of the groups that Hampson and DeWolf were fighting for in 0040. Context matters.
...
Scarlett and Manal Al-ansi do not work for the school board; they work for the Superintendent. The school board directors cannot order what staff work on; that is the responsibility of the Superintendent. I've repeatedly watched staff ignore school board directors' requests for information when it didn't support staff policy positions, with the directors completely powerless to do anything about it. Kicking the Native Americans off their sacred land is a case in point as staff went entirely against the vote of the lawfully elected school board. HIB means the employees are harmed in the work environment. Staffers Scarlett and Manal Al-ansi instead got promotions and pay raises. If only I could be so harmed.
RCW 28A.150.230 states, "each common school district board of directors shall be vested with the final responsibility for the setting of policies." According to OSPI, "Just as the legislature passes laws, school districts adopt policies. In doing so, they act "quasi-legislatively"-like a legislature." If I, as a parent, want to hire ten lawyers to draft a policy and lobby the school board directors to adopt it, that's my constitutional right, as protected by the First Amendment. Staffers Scarlett and Manal Al-ansi have no more right to be heard than anyone else. If Scarlett and Manal Al-ansi feel they are being silenced, they should run for the school board. They are not elected; they are paid employees. Directors Hampson and DeWolf had no obligation to entertain the staffers' "pro-Black" agenda, or any other agenda, just as a Republic Congress doesn't have to limit itself to policies proposed by a Democratic President; In most districts, that's taught in Civics 101.
The investigation references only one contentious call. The parties were arguing over whether Policy 0040 was "pro-Black" enough or should instead be focused on the "Black, Indigenous and Latinx community." Only Black Staffer Manal Al-ansi, a lawyer, took notes, so according to the investigation, her notes won. Next time Native Directors Hampson and DeWolf will know to send themselves an email with their notes after such a call. And perhaps next time, they should turn on a vacuum cleaner as well, just as was done to the Native community. Is an unrecorded disputed conversation in such situations really evidence of HIB?
Besides some emails detailed in the summary findings, the only other incident is the September 16, 2020, Executive Committee Meeting run by Native Director DeWolf. According to the investigation, Scarlet stated, "One of the things we are committed to is to ensure 0040 is a pro-Black antiracist policy for Seattle schools." Scarlett charged that Hampson called on SCPTSA President to speak, which limited the time for Staffers Scarlett and Al-ansi to speak. Hampson said her proposal came from the "Black, Indigenous and Latinx community." De Wolf said, "This is my Executive Committee meeting; if you could please wrap up." Scarlet charged, "This is antiblack by Board Directors." The investigation found this was HIB as it was "to the determinant of Staffers Scarlet and Al-ansi." I've been cut off by the timer at a school board meeting. Hampson and DeWolf were elected; Scarlet and Al-ansi were not. DeWolf had every legal right to limit Staffers Scarlet and Al-ansi. I, as a voter, am glad he did because, as far as I'm concerned, Scarlet and Al-ansi's "pro-Black" advocacy to the detriment of Hispanics and Native Americans as advocated by the directors was racist and out of line.
...
Ask any education attorney in the city, and they will tell you that the district can totally influence the outcome of an investigation through the choice of the investigator. Was the investigation biased? The only way to know what really happened is for the directors to sue because the state doesn't provide oversight. To appeal means to sue.
Staffers know this. Staffers count on people not suing because whereas staffers are defended by the district's legal counsel funded by the public, hiring a lawyer is expensive for everyone else.
Hampson not only has the right to sue, but she also has a public obligation to sue, and the school board has a public obligation to pay her legal fees.
This doesn't mean I like Hampson. I hope she is voted out of office. This doesn't mean she hasn't been a bully in other cases, and if she has someone should file a complaint. But in this case, I believe Hampson and DeWolf have been grossly wronged, and it hurts not just them but also the entire district.
1) Manal Al-ansi is not senior to Mia Williams.
2) There is no "alleged" to the yelling that Hampson did on that call. Even Hampson admits this.
3) You are absolutely wrong in saying that Hampson and DeWolf were trying to stand up for Latinx and Native students. If only. Manuela Slye - who Hampson is very tight with - actually had to bring up Latinx students at a committee meeting. Hampson and DeWolf have been on-board with the focus of the Strategic Plan from the start.
4) I'm not going to touch your "institutionalization of Black power" in SPS. I will say that there certainly has been an aggressive outcry over the number of Black employees at JSEE. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Native Americans and/or Latinx folks raised the same kind of issue.
5) Yes, I was at that Licton Springs meeting and I agree; very poor form to allow the vacuums to be going during a meeting. And Licton Springs should NOT have been moved but the district wants to kill it. It's unclear to me what you mean about staff overriding a Board vote on that.
6) I can say on the Strategic Plan that there are 5-6 pillars but there's only one that seems to get much attention. I have found that odd all along.
7) For some reason the U.S. Constitution keeps being brought up. This is not a free speech issue. This was about Hampson and DeWolf asking professionals to work on a policy and then berating them and/or trying to stop them from giving said professional opinion.
8) You are wrong on the phone call. There was a staffer on the call to take notes. If Al-ansi took notes, well, she was not the only one. In fact, the staffer was so upset at the tone of the meeting, she called someone in JSCEE and that person just happened to be meeting with the Superintendent and the super's aide, Sherri Kolx. She told them what was said.
9) Hampson wants to determine what/who is "community." That is incredibly dangerous because it's the same voices all the time. That's one thing Scarlett and Al-ansi were pushing back on.
10) Tell me the names of these education attorneys you speak of.
11) Hampson is not suing over the actual work of the investigator; she's suing over the use of a Board policy that she believes the district never should have used. As I continue to state, the Court could find she's right on that but so what? The actions that happened still happened. No court victory will change that.
12) The district won't be paying Hampson's legal fees but if they do, please let us know. This is not Hampson defending some principle; she's trying to hide her own bad behavior.
I miss the days when Scott Pinkham was on the board.
Yes, we get that there is a pissing match between factions at the district. And a contingent of embedded/disgruntled bureaucrats in the district who are cause and effect of its dysfunction (eg TCG).
At the end of the day, we have an elected official who poorly treated a staffer, in violation of a policy. There are more positive ways to communicate than she or DeWolfe did. Leaders should be held to high standards particularly in a school culture where modeling behavior is everything. The end. Not sure why you keep making excuses for this.
Any leader worth their salt would apologize, try and repair trust, and move on. Instead she has lawyered up. Although it’s funny to see her fingerprints all over the legal briefs.
Dead Horse