Seattle Schools Fires Back at Director Hampson over HIB Finding

Seattle Schools has submitted a response brief to the Court of Appeals for Washington State over the HIB (harassment, intimidation, bullying) finding against Director Chandra N. Hampson in 2021.  All bold mine.

The initial finding by the Superior Court as stated in this brief by the district:

As the Superior Court properly ruled, neither action was arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law, and thus is not subject to reversal by this Court.

We are now in the appeals phase of Director Hampson's version of being Don Quixote. She filed her appeals brief after she lost initially and this is the district's response. I would say it's a bit of a smackdown. If I had to sum it up in terms of what the district says Hampson presented on appeal, I'd say they said, "There's no there, there."

Highlights

Pages 1-2
Contrary to Director Hampson’s claims, her appeal does not raise issues touching on the authority of Board directors to make policy or to direct District staff. Nor does this case
implicate the rights of elected officials to adequately represent their constituents.

The irony here is that Director Hampson - just last week - wanted to put a pause on the creation of ANY policy by the Board for months on end in the name of SOFG (Student Focused Outcome Governance). She never has community meetings and, for the SOFG work, did little about community engagement and communication about what it will mean to her constituents. 

Page 19
Rather, it is undisputed that courts do not historically perform internal reviews of personnel issues for compliance with internal policies.


Page 20
Director Hampson cites no authority where application of an internal personnel policy was determined to be a quasi- judicial function. This is because “as [courts] have said many times, the courts of this state are ill-equipped to act as super personnel agencies.


Page 25
Rather, throughout her brief, Director Hampson highlights facts that Ms. Reed considered, but argues she should have reached different conclusions based upon those facts.


Page 26 

But here, again, Director Hampson asks this Court to review certain portions of the record while ignoring others (e.g., CP 34-36, 48, 49, 50-52, 61-63, 101-02, 255). Moreover, Policy 5207 does not require proving a pattern of conduct, only that the conduct be “repeated and/or unreasonable.”

Page 27
Far from demonstrating arbitrary and capricious action by the District, Director Hampson’s brief simply recites the same series of events carefully investigated and considered by Ms. Reed and declares them in her view to be “wholly appropriate”, not indicative of ill-intent, “entirely reasonable” or insufficient to interfere with the workplace. Op. Br. at 38-54, 57-58, 61. Mere disagreement with the District’s decision, however, is an insufficient basis for this Court to overturn it.

(“Where there is room for two opinions, an action taken after due consideration is not arbitrary and capricious even though a reviewing court may believe it to be erroneous.”).

Page 29 

Director Hampson has not identified any material facts that were disregarded, she just disagrees with the investigator’s conclusion drawn from the facts she considered. This is insufficient to overturn the District’s decision.

Page 30
In sum, Director Hampson identifies no authority under which this Court could substitute a contrary judgment for the District’s thorough investigation. The arbitrary and capricious standard recognizes deference is owed to agencies which are better positioned than courts to decide issues involving personnel.

 

Page 31
Director Hampson does not allege that the District’s decision violates any law, nor does she challenge the authority under which the Board promulgated its former anti-harassment policy. Rather, Director Hampson merely disagrees with its application to her own conduct.


Page 33-34
But nothing in former Policy 5207 or the District’s application of it curtailed Director Hampson’s statutory policy-making authority. Rather, the Policy required only that she exercise her authority in a civil and equitable manner.

Director Hampson has pointed to nothing in the record demonstrating that either the finding or the “sanction” has impeded her work. 

 

Pages 34-35 

Finally, while Director Hampson objects to the application of Policy 5207 to her conduct as a director, she neglects to acknowledge that it was Director Hampson who insisted upon an investigation under the Policy in the first place. 

 

Page 37
(“The choice of sanction is a policy decision....which neither judge nor jury is entitled to usurp from the board.”); Bawden, 2022 WL 277048, *2 (the district “must have wide discretion and control over the management of its personnel and internal affairs.”) 

Doing armchair lawyering, I'd guess Hampson will lose again.  Question is, will she seriously take this all the way to the Washington State Supreme Court?