Hampson's Second Brief to the Court in Her Lawsuit Against Seattle Schools
Seventy-four pages to slog through. Again, I do this so you don't have to. But do look at the Table of Contents under "Statement of the Case" - really funny headings.
Reading it, I hear Hampson speaking, loud and clear. Her lawyers come in with case law about districts handling personnel issues and I cannot speak to whether those cases cited are cogent to this particular situation.
Introduction
It is quite clear that Hampson thinks telling the Court, over and over, that she is Native American is really important. Not sure if she's trying to message that POC can't be racist against other POC (as was suggested by several people interviewed for the investigation) or if she thinks she should be believed more because of her NA status but it is front and center for her.
In the second paragraph, we already see a twisting of the truth. It says that she worked for years to develop this policy (true), collaborated with other parents (somewhat true but there was NEVER a community-wide discussion even as she got elected and then was Board president) and lastly, she says "She continued to hear support for it when she campaigned for office."
That may be somewhat true but her own campaign website, on her "Issues" page does not directly use that wording.
Seattle Schools have great strengths, but most of our schools still struggle with racial disparities. On Seattle School Board, I will support thoughtful efforts to acknowledge and address these disparities.
In order to achieve our equity goals, we need to implement structures, policies and practices founded on inclusive decision-making and power sharing with our families furthest from educational justice. As a school system, we must demonstrate that multiculturalism is as an asset and lead toward dismantling racism and discrimination in the wider community.
This wording from her campaign website is the kinder, gentler Hampson who disappeared the minute she got elected.
The brief then criticizes the district for NOT going all in on the anti-racism policy work because they said they had "competing priorities." A pandemic could certainly fit in that category.
But she has a new tactic this time around which is to now say staff "hoped to delay a Board vote" to "change the policy."
There is no way the staff could have prevented that vote if the Board wanted to take it. I'm not sure what she bases that statement on. But yes, every BAR has to run a chute of input from various staff including Finance. Hampson wanted this policy to have major teeth. If you are going to truly punish school staff that violate the policy, some may sue you so this policy, as presented at the time, might have given staff pause.
The investigative report never seemed to ask staffers if there was any reason that staff might have been dragging their feet nor if Superintendent Juneau sent that directive.
Hampson goes on to malign the investigation and say that "An investigation ensued, and the report sided with the staff members."
Intent
What is REALLY hilarious is this:
Director Hampson now appeals because an HIB policy should not be a tool for resolving ordinary conflict, nor a lever to rebalance power over policymaking in favor of District staff, to the detriment of the voters' chosen representatives.
And what would you call the Student Outcomes Focused Governance model? No voters asked for that "rebalance" and yet it's Hampson main concern right now.
And "ordinary conflict?" It was Hampson and DeWolf that demanded this investigation. To the best of my knowledge, they never tried to sit down with the women. Or with the rest of the Board. Or with Juneau to try to iron this out. That's what someone genuinely trying would have done BEFORE demanding an investigation.
There's a notation at the bottom of page 3:
Pseudonyms are used for the complaining employees' names to protect their privacy and because their identities are not relevant to this appeal.
Their identities are not relevant? They are two professional Black women and yet their identities are not relevant? Wow. I get the privacy thing (but I'm not falling in line with it) but they are just blurred faces?
The brief says the district "erred" in adopting the report as final decision of the district. I don't know that the district "adopted" it but rather was given the completed investigation.
The brief says that the Board "erred" in approve a motion sanctioning Hampson.
The brief says that the trial court "erred" in entering its order in April 2022 to dismiss Hampson's initial appeal.
EVERYBODY is wrong except Director Hampson. I should just rest my case right here but I will point out the obvious. Hampson is a self-righteous narassicst.
Statement of the Case
Director Hampson, a Native American, was elected to the School Board with a mandate to adopt a new anti-racism policy for the State's most diverse public school district.
No, she wasn't. I went to the debates and I believe she said there needed to be a policy around race (and discipline) but not an "anti-racism policy." I'd have to go and reread all the articles and look at whatever video there is but I know it sure isn't at her campaign website.
Also, I'm gonna also say this - if I were the judge and I had the term "Native American" thrown out there in a brief on every other page, I would be annoyed. I would think the person in question was trying to gain sympathy for being a POC as if being one excuses her behavior.
She also says that the Board has no "staff for help." There are three people working in the Board office and while the Board doesn't directly hire or pay them, they are there to help the Board. Is it enough? No, but to say there's no one is ridiculous.
Know what is missing in this lengthy brief? A single mention of COVID/pandemic. Like that had NOTHING to do with the situation. How self-absorbed can one person be?
Know who is missing in this lengthy brief? Then-Superintendent Denise Juneau. Why didn't either the staff members or the board directors go to her for help with this situation? (There's no evidence that anyone did.) I could see how Scarlett felt she needed - as a senior staffer - to handle this on her own. But DeWolf and Hampson? Well, by that time, they were not happy with Juneau and felt they could do as they pleased with staff and look at what happened.
On page 25, I see some damning language about Hampson and yet it is included. It's speaking of what the initial ruling of the Court was and that "the completeness of the report, that it was not required for her (the investigator) to use those words in her findings and her conclusion and that her conclusion that Director Hampson had violated the policy, to the detriment of the employees, was the conclusion that she had intended to harass and bully."
Summary of Argument
Hampson is again saying that the district "engaged in quasi-judicial action subject to de novo review." The brief continues:
The District mounted an investigation, construed policy, made findings of fact, drew a conclusion of law, and selected a sanction for the purported violation. Those steps are quasi-judicial."
The District makes MANY quasi-judicial decisions. On employees, on student behavior, on parent behavior in schools. All - the - time.
Hampson is trying to make a rather large deal over the report not relaying "intent" when the Court's first ruling said it wasn't needed, given the "completeness of the report." I don't think that one's gonna fly.
Hampson also claims that "the record" never showed that her behavior towards the two women caused them pain in their work environment. I'm not sure what Hampson wanted to see but that these two women wrote a very personal plea to the entire Board sure means something was happening to them in their workplace.
Wow! On page 34, there is this wording about the duties of Board directors:
Regardless of what district employees do, Board Directors have 'final responsibility' per the statue, for matters such as district policies, staff performance criteria, teaching materials, curriculum standards, allocation of staff time, and the like."
My goodness, this sure sounds contrary to what the Student Outcome Focused Governance looks like. Hmmm.
Her argument is that there is no legal backing for a district to use "personnel management" on Board members.
The brief also says that using the HIB policy in the investigation "was contrary to law because it prevents elected School Board Directors from using their discretion to make policy."
There was nothing stopping Hampson. She could have gone to Juneau and didn't. She could have worked with directors to craft the BAR for her new policy. Seems a specious argument.
There is a litany on page 37 of all the things in the RCW that school board directors have the authority to do. I will have to keep the "they (staff) had not meet her needs on the timeline" in mind for future reference. I'm sure staff will strive to do better in the future to meet her needs.
Earlier in this report, I mentioned how everyone was wrong but I didn't know to include the investigator who Hampson says was ALSO wrong.
The brief says that "this dispute was a turf battle." Perhaps in a way, but Hampson and DeWolf were definitely feeling themselves as directors and thought they were large and in charge.
It goes on to say, "they (the staffers) did not want to listen to what Director Hampson had to say." I saw NO evidence of that in the investigation so here's Hampson decrying that there is no evidence for certain things against her and. yet where is her evidence for her accusations?
She also wants to equate what the District can do in judging an employee with the Board's ability to criticize staffers' work.
There's a lot of big talk here:
"Yet District staff often see themselves as instrumental - and perhaps even primarily responsible - for developing the District's governing policies. With this precarious arrangement, it is likely that tension, conflict, and hurt feelings will sometimes result when elected officials - accountable to their constituents do not see eye to eye with staff about a policy matter or have concerns about staff performance."
It does go on to say:
"..a District employee cannot trigger a District investigation by complaining only that an elected Director did something that the employee disliked or made the employee feel devalued." Meaning, the director had to act with "harmful intent. Purposeful conduct, not carelessness or mere insensitivity, is what Policy 5207 covers."
NO District employee triggered the investigation - Hampson and DeWolf did. They did NOT have to do that, could have tried other methods but didn't. So that's an untruth right there.
Additionally, I would say if an employee is continually berated and undervalued in front of other employees, that's harmful intent. Was Hampson merely careless? That's quite the statement.
And if you showed insensitivity to Hampson, she would bite your head off. It's funny how she doesn't see how hard she is on others, but only considers it when it's about her.
Going on with the argument that the Court cannot allow the use of a policy that covers workplace issues:
"...hurt feelings that are unintentional rather than born from malice (what this case was, at most)."
Screaming at someone on the phone, berating them in front of others was not Hampson's intent? And yet she did just that in that phone call.
The brief also says that Hampson didn't organize that phone call or know about it in advance. So what? She still behaved badly.
"Because she did not know about the call until right before it began, Director Hampson could not possibly have had ill purpose." What?! First, most directors are busy and yet DeWolf found Hampson AND that she was available for the call seems very lucky on his part. Second, if you are talking to people you have been disagreeing with for months, I'm not sure you can say you had no "ill purpose" in yelling at them.
The brief talks again about "intent." I'll go back and reread the report but my recollection is that the investigator said she wasn't there to find intent but rather, what can be documented as what actually happened.
On losing your temper:
"They reflected only Director Hampson's long-term and short-term concern with staff inaction." Oh.
"Director Hampson had every reason to feel fed up and to be candid with District staff about their failure to move Policy 0040 forward on the timeline that the Board had set."
Interjecting here, again, why didn't the entire Board act in unity? And why hasn't Hampson, now that she has her hand-picked successor to Juneau, moved the policy forward? Hmmm.
I'll say that again - since this investigation, I have seen nothing about Policy 0040. Why not if Hampson insists it's so important? Again, hmmmm.
In an effort to clear her name, Hampson even kind of throws DeWolf under the bus, insisting that he was chairing the meeting and he ended the speaking time of the two staffers. (Like Hampson didn't discuss how that meeting was going to go with him. Please.)
I will agree that when Hampson asked for "a chronology of the community engagement" on the policy so far and didn't get one, that was not good. However, "Roe declined, showing that staff had done little on that front." No, it doesn't. It might but it also might mean that Al-ansi either didn't have the data pulled together or wanted to ask Scarlett about it. Staff does NOT take orders from directors.
And again, the comparison with the work now on the SOFG:
But the District's HIB policy cannot reasonably be construed to mean that the Board and its individual Directors are prohibited from carrying out the essential responsibilities as District fiduciaries and as elected officials..."
The SOFG work says the Board has to act in concert, not individually.
Then there's this:
"Because Policy 0040 was on their desks at Director Hampson's pleasure, her actions taking control of the policy's development...."
Her pleasure? Like she was giving them a gift?
Hampson is also saying she never yelled on the call, "which she vehemently denies." I hate to tell her but there was a witness who says she did. Who, after the call, went to the Chief of Staff because she was so shaken at the harshness of the call.
"....Doe admitted that she herself had also raised her voice during the call."
So blame the other side because they did it, too? How is this adult thinking?
I don't know how long until the district's reply but I'd bet the judge would appreciate a shorter brief than this concocted nonsense.
Comments
2. Does Chandra really want to play the Native American card? Surely she is aware of the looooong history of anti-Black behavior among Native Americans in the USA. I mean, if she wants us to dredge up the stories of Stand Watie and other Native American leaders who not only sided with the Confederacy, but openly supported slavery, we certainly can. If she thinks that citing her ancestry is somehow a get-out-of-jail-free card for her racist behavior, then she is as wrong as the day is long.
Chandra Must Go
Gratitude
The charges were made by the black Chief of Equity and the black Director of Racial Equity Advancement.
The staffers won on HIB, but they LOST on Anti Black Descrimination and Intersectional Racism. The only evidence given that the alleged anti-black HIB was racially motivated was that the staffers were Black and the board members Native American. That's all it seems to take these days in SPS to accuse someone of anti-black racism and descrimination.
It's one thing to file a complaint for HIB, and another to accuse two Native American board members of being anti black racists in a dispute over whether a policy is pro-black enough.
Let's not forget that at the same time the Native American directors were being accused of anti black racism, Native American Superintendent Juneau was accused of anti black racism by the NAACP in the Seattle Times, and was forced to resign.
With regards to the HIB, the investigator conflated the investigations of the two directors into one as part of some conspiratorial. Conspiracy for what? Board directors are elected, can propose any policies they want, and vote.
The staffers were upset the policy in question wasn't "pro black" enough and "would uphold white supremacy cultural norms." Since when does being anti-racist mean promoting one race overall others? Staff also argued there wasn't enough community input; like that ever upset staff before. The reality is the directors had no legal obligation to entertain staffs pro-black agenda or additional community input, and for the black investigator to find that the directors did have an obligation based on custom and to use this as evidence of HIB is absurd.
During a special board session, the black staffers said they wanted the policy to be more "pro black". Dewolf asked the staff to finish up. Staff accused Dewolf of being "anti-black". The black investigator found the fact that Hampson invited others to speak thus cutting into the time for the staffers to be evidence of HIB by Hampson, even though legally she had every right to do so. The black investigator found that the agenda being sent out late to be evidence of HIB by Hampson. The black investigator claimed the only purpose of having the SCPTSA speak was to cut into staff time and thus evidence of HIB by Hampson. The black investigator found that Hampson clarifying the BAR was a board BAR and not a staff BAR evidence of HIB by Hampson.
Sending out a late agenda by a unpaid board member as evidence of HIB? Really? Having the SCPTSA speak as evidence of HIB? Wow. Making a statement of fact with regards to the BAR as evidence of HIB? Who would have known?
Both black staffers ended up getting promotions and pay raises, yet the black investigator found the directors violated the HIB policy to the "detriment" of the promoted black staffers while never defining exactly what that detriment was.
The Chief Academic Officer, the Superintendent, the Chief Equity Officer, and the Head of HR are now all black in a district the investigator herself points out is only 14% black. In Seattle Public Schools, everything now seems to be about race.
- I agree that the accusations of racism (which I think stem from the directors' actions that were so hard on the staffers) don't have a lot of basis. I was surprised when I read the original letter of complaint and that was stated. I was also surprised that the two women pulled out these quotes from notable Black leaders and put them in the letter as if that somehow made their point.
- My reading of the investigation shows that the policy had a decided lean towards Black children and the SCPTSA president at the time had said she felt it left out Latino children (she's Latina). So it's not clear who the policy was for.
- Juneau was not forced out because of the NAACP; they may have had a hand in it but it really was Hampson that made it happen. I'll wonder to the end how Juneau and Hampson and DeWolf had a good relationship and it seemed like suddenly it soured.
- I do think that Hampson and DeWolf, at several points, talked about how this policy work was going. Is that a conspiracy? I don't know but this innocent, big eyes about that Executive Committee meeting just doesn't fly.
- I think the issue of community input WAS important because the only people that Hampson wanted to hear from were POC especially Black community. If you are going to have a policy that will punish actions of any and all people in the district, you damn well should be having community meetings throughout the district.
- You can say the directors could do whatever they wanted, sure, and yet they didn't. Instead Hampson steamed for months over the lack of "progress" without ever acknowledging that COVID made it all hands on deck in the district even senior staff.
- Are directors paid? Technically they are and know this when they run. Not sure that's a valid point.
- As someone who has attended MANY committee meetings, it is pretty rare to bring in outside voices. The directors usually explain what they have been told by outside groups or staff do but if everyone who wanted to speak at a committee meeting did, it would not work out well. That's why it was weird to have SCPTSA speak and not the actual staffers who were entrusted with the work.
- Al-ansi got a promotion? To what? As to pay raises, I know Scarlett was both elevated and got a raise but how do you know Al-ansi got one?
- The "detriment" that Hampson's brief and your statement miss is that Hampson went on and on about them, again, not giving an inch over the pandemic. That was wrong. Who hasn't had a job where you go to work with a knot in your stomach over someone in authority criticizing everything you do?
-Your final point? Well, it's all true. It does seem over a short period of time, that there have been a lot of changes at the top. Why that happened is anyone's guess. But given that Scarlett has tried twice to leave for a superintendent position elsewhere means her spot could be gone soon.
The South Seattle Emerald railed for months over the belief that Juneau didn't like Black people, particularly Black men. And your statement about Black students being only 14% of the population is true. You do have wonder where all the Latino and Asian senior staff are because their numbers are near the same as the Black population.
Lastly, the Strategic Plan has multiple pillars but I agree with you, both the Superintendent and the majority of the Board have made it about race. That may not have been a good choice for the district but time will tell.
Thank you for your insights.
Hampson's appeal read more like an autobiography with an attorney throwing -in some RCW's.
The document contained a lot of discussion regarding Hampson's life and policy, but little about Hampson's behavior...except to state that a staff member yelled. The document didn't state that Hampson requested the Investigative report and the fact that legal hadn't finished analyzing policy 0040. Pushing policy without a full legal analysis is sloppy- at best.
It seems to me that Hampson and DeWolf's votes could have pushed the policy out of committee. The report seemed to indicate that staff held-back the policy.
The report failed to mention that staff was in the midst of dealing with a once in a hundred year pandemic.
Hampson suing the district and board highlights board dysfunction, and Hersey and board majority should have never permitted Hampson to sit in VP seat.
Thanks for staying on this story, Melissa.
-uber annoyed
I finished reading Hampson's appeal beyond page 34. Reading Hampson's appeal was incredibly painful.
Hampson has a 74 page document that tries to claim that staff interfered with Hampson moving 0040 forward. When, in fact, board members can write their own Board Action Reports and move items forward. The Executive Committee consists of 3 board members. DeWolf and Hampson could have voted 0040 out of committee, but they didn't. So, I don't know why Hampson is trying to make the case that staff prevented policy from moving forward.
Hampson goes into great pain to mince the word "intent". Again, Hampson's behavior isn't mentioned ..only minces words about the word "intent" which is present in policy 5207. And the manner in which Hampson used her positional authority to yell at staff, and the manner in which those actions were received were not present.
Hampson's appeal goes on for pages about why the person writing the Investigative Report was wrong, why the district was wrong, why the board was wrong and why the court was wrong.
Hampson's appeal also talks about the unusual manner in which the SCPTSA President presented to the board which is very strange.
This is dictionary definition anti-Black racism on display, alongside narcissism and unprofessional conduct. Hampson's behavior is bad enough. But the silence of the rest of the board is no better.
Chandra Must Go
“Racial equity.
Seattle Schools have great strengths, but most of our schools still struggle with racial disparities. On Seattle School Board, I will support thoughtful efforts to acknowledge and address these disparities.
Cultural transformation.
In order to achieve our equity goals, we need to implement structures, policies and practices founded on inclusive decision-making and power sharing with our families furthest from educational justice. As a school system, we must demonstrate that multiculturalism is as an asset and lead toward dismantling racism and discrimination in the wider community.”
What does the author think Director Hampson mean by “implementing structures, policies, and practices”? Especially as it relates to “equity goals”.
Seems disingenuous for the author to state this is untrue. It’s almost as if there’s a personal ax to grind here.
Campaigning on “equity” is such a wide open term, open to interpretation and the equivalent of running on “freedom” in Seattle. Strip away all the legal jargon, policies, etc and you find a person in power who yelled at staff in several meetings which shouldn’t fly under any value system. Not sure why anyone is showing up to defend her bahavior.
Golden Rule
As well, Hampson threatened a Broadview Thompson parent with trespassing. The parent was concerned about the situation behind Broadview Thompson and was handing out flyers on school property. Hampson didn't agree with the parent's view and she decided to use her positional authority to threaten the parent with trespassing.
Anonymous, I'm letting your comment stay but again, be a grown-up and give yourself a name next time. Hampson's bland campaign talk is nothing like what she supports. If she had been the person she is now when she first ran, I'd bet she would not have won.
Do I have a personal ax? I do and I have always said that. But see, all this is much bigger than me and that is the fault of Hampson. She is an equal opportunity offender and I suspect she is going to reap what she had sown.
Golden Rule, I don't know why anyone is defending her either. You certainly don't see DeWolf defending her. He didn't even TRY to run again. Also, great example of Hampson being the bully is her behavior towards that Broadview Thomson parent.
-uber annoyed
You are right and is a school district after all, teachable moment??? 1) Stop electing leaders with buzzy vague campaign promises that can’t possibly hold anyone accountable. An old school promise like ‘I will bring up the graduation rate’ or ‘I will scrutinize district spending and operations’ would be a breath of fresh air. 2) SCPTSA is a pipeline of school board ideologues that color way outside the lines of their role. Rankin also went along for the schoolyards as homeless encampments ride and that did not end well for anyone. There are lessons to be learned for future elections.
Smart Democracy
100% agree with you and it would be helpful to know who on the SCPTSA supported this trust-busing waste of money, effort, etc. Are you naming names or do we have to guess?
-uber annoyed
Keep an eye on the West Seattle race.