Chandra Hampson's (Late) Reply to the Court of Appeals Over Her Lawsuit Against Seattle Schools
Hampson's reply to the Court of Appeals (via her lawyers) was almost a week late. Apparently, there was this holiday called Thanksgiving that her lawyer forgot was happening and he had plans, blah, blah,blah.
You might not even need to read the entire thing because the Argument outline (pages i and ii) say more than enough. Now I am not a lawyer so I'll let lawyers duke it out over using De Novo review. But here's what I see in the outline:
- The claim is that it was an "exploitation" of the HIB policy "to block an elected school board director's effort to guide the development of a districtwide policy."
There is nowhere in the district's investigative report that said anything about either staffer deliberately trying to block Hampson's efforts. Neither staffer was against the policy and both tried to make sure many community members weighed in (as Hampson desired). As well, you might need to extrapolate that the then-superintendent, Denise Juneau, was directing these staffers to do so. There is no evidence of that.
There is just no truth to the first argument.
- The Law is contrary to the District's equating intentional harassment, bullying, and intimidation with an elected director's efforts to overcome staff obstruction of her policymaking agenda.
Again, there is no evidence in the report that staff was trying to obstruct Hampson. Historically, there has always been this tension between the Board and the staff over what gets done when. However, in this case, you had a full-blown pandemic going on that the entire staff at JSCEE was addressing in trying to deliver both academics and food to students and their families. That one single policy wasn't pushed to the top of the list is Hampson's hubris, not a district failure.
And again, if this was such an important policy, why did Hampson drop it like a hot potato after the report was released? DeWolf said it was Hampson's signature policy. Hampson is always full of spit and fire so is she really afraid to work with these two women again?
Two other issues to keep in mind:
- Hampson and former director, Zachary DeWolf, DEMANDED the investigation. That its findings did not go how they wanted is not something a court can address. (I note Hampson's lawyers make the case that the HIB policy should not have been used AND that even if it was right to use it, the investigation report used it wrongly.)
- Where was then-superintendent Denise Juneau and what did she know and when? This is one question that has never been truly asked out loud or answered. I have some theories. One, Hampson and DeWolf, early on, had a good relationship with Juneau. And then something changed (but I can't say what). Distancing ensued.
As well, the two senior staffers - being professionals AND knowing how swamped Juneau was with COVID coordination - probably decided that they could handle the situation themselves. Clearly, that didn't work.
The brief seems to argue over whether the district had some "judicial" oversight which would have been wrong on their part. But again, the two directors demanded an investigation, which the district was responsible for and that they got done. In the brief, Hampson's lawyers try to throw ALL their blame on the district.
However, the final "judgment" came from the Board in the form of agreeing to accept the report and its conclusions. And the majority of the Board did so with Hampson, DeWolf and Harris abstaining.
- The District's report was arbitrary and capricious because neither it nor the record show that Director Hampson acted with bad intent.
This is a tough one to chew on. Did she act with "bad intent?"
I would say as time went by, Hampson's behavior towards these women got worse and worse. I would also say - having seen this personally - that Hampson has no problem being aggressive and cold towards those she disagrees with. If you were a staffer trying to work with her, that might be an increasingly uncomfortable situation for you.
I don't think Hampson had a personal animus towards the two women - she would have acted the same way with any staffer and was just pissed because the staffers didn't say "how high" when she told them to jump.
- The District's report was arbitrary and capricious because neither it nor the record showed that Director Hampson caused the serious effects to which Policy 5207 applies.
You just have to shake your head over a couple of issues in this statement.
One, the policy that Hampson was so desperate to get done was an "anti-racism" one. Hampson appears to have done the work to truly understand what racism can look like to different POC but, per the Strategic Plan, it appeared the policy would really be largely applicable to Black students.
I would guess that Hampson knows the history that Black people have had so many barriers to their ability to move forward in this society and not the least of which is having their skills not being honored and being treated to microaggressions or even out and out aggression. There were all of these things noted in the report.
I think the record showed that Hampson in no way honored the skill set and experience of the two staffers. I think the record shows that time and again Hampson tried to force the two staffers on a schedule and road of Hampson's choice.
So how was this supposedly "anti-racist" director unaware of the damage she was doing to these two women in their work environment? It's hard to fathom.
Two, it looks like Hampson thinks that there had to be a longer time period or more actions to prove HIB. Reading the staffers' complaint to the Board, you can feel how painful that period of time had been for them. It's not "oh they got their feelings hurt," it was because of a director who was unrelenting in her demands and her tone.
On page four, it is noted that Hampson did not have "any supervisory control over the complainants." Well, not on paper but if you read the report, she sure acted like she was their boss. I'm not sure what the Court can make of that but Hampson trying to say she wasn't trying to tell them what to do is surely not the case.
For a long time there has been this idea that board directors should not "micromanage" staff. There is NO bigger example of a director trying to do that than this case.
Ironically, Hampson is the one who pushed this Student Outcome Focused Governance (SOFG) for the Board to follow. Under SOFG, Hampson absolutely would be out of line. Hmm.
We can only hope that when the Court agrees with the district (as I think they will), that Hampson will hang it up because taking it to the Washington State Supreme Court would be a step too far.
Comments
Unnecessary Roughness
The mind numbing response brief tried to align community members reporting to the legislature to members of the SCPTSA taking over the Executive Committee meeting. The response brief did not include the fact that staff was trying to get input from a broader community.
It would be awful for the board to place Hampson into VP or Executive Committee considering she has filed a lawsuit against the district and board.
Everyone in SPS can tell you about the anti-LGBT+ legislation in Florida or racist book-banning in Texas or whatever, but they know nothing of the corruption in their own institution--the racism, the abuse of students with IEPs, the negligence around sexual assault, the financial self-dealing and cronyism.
This is the byproduct of living in a one-party state with a statist newspaper and NPR affiliate who bury news items that are unflattering to the ruling party.
SP
Karen
You write that Hampson demanded an investigation.
The policy on HIB is distinct from the policy on non-discrimination. An investigation would not automatically happen under both. Findings for both investigations are distinct, both are different policies, and both have different procedures.
Can you confirm that Hampson demanded an HIB investigation? Discrimination is a violation of federal law, and there is significant related case law. HIB is simply a school district policy.
Discrimination was not proven.
In the end Hampson and DeWolf were only found guilty of breaking the HIB policy. HIB is subject only to what the district and it's investigator says is HIB. What constitutes HIB is a fuzzy area and subject to manipulation.
For accuracy, please confirm that Dewolf and Hampson demanded both an HIB and a discrimination investigation, and that it wasn't staff that chose independently to conduct the HIB investigation.
If Hampson and DeWolf demanded both investigations, they have no argument.
But if they only he asked for a discrimination investigation which the win, then you can't write that they demanded both, because that would not be accurate.
I don't know the answer, I am curious.
I do remember reading about a student that was expecting a discrimination investigation, and after the entire process found out the district had only conducted an HIB investigation, which the student lost.
Had the district in that case conducted a discrimination investigation, it would have been subject to state appeal, where as HIB investigations are 100% under district control and are not subject to state appeal.
If Hampton and Dewolf only asked for a discrimination investigation, that doesn't mean they didn't commit HIB. But it does mean you can't write that they demanded an HIB investigation. Instead it would mean that staff asked for the HIB investigation.
It would be interesting to know if a parent has ever won an HIB claim against senior staff. I very much doubt it but it, because the investigator is selected and paid for by senior staff, and there is no appeal to the state.
Right, there was no discrimination proven. I never said there was nor is there any proof I know of that the directors directly asked for the investigation of discrimination. They asked for an investigation based on the letter of complaint and the charges within that the two staffers filed with the Board. The staffers claimed discrimination and violations of HIB.
It has never been clear to me what - if anything - any other Board members did or said when they learned an investigation was happening.
The investigator got hired to find out if the HIB policy that a past Board helped to create was violated. Of course, any behavior challenge could be "fuzzy" but that was the job of the investigator to apply the policy to the behavior that happened.
That continues to be my thru-line - It doesn't matter if Hampson wins. She STILL behaved in a terrible manner to those two staffers in trying to order them around and get her way. The behavior happened and no lawsuit can change that.
I continue to believe that the courts are not buying what Hampson is selling (you'll note that DeWolf walked away a long time ago, probably on the "discretion is the better part of valor" idea).
But if she filed with the WA State Supreme Court, voters should start a recall.
Thanks for your response, but it's still not clear. I can see Hampson demanding a Descrimination investigation, and the descrimination investigation cleared her of descrimination.
Is there evidence Hampson demanded an HIB investigation? An HIB investigation is distinct from a Descrimination investigation, even if the are conducted at the same time by the same person. They do not both automatically happen at the same time. Someone has to make the active decision to open one, the other, or both.
I am asking if Hampson demanded both, or only one. By federal law Descrimination is illegal for everyone, including school board directors. There is no federal law or state law regarding HIB for the school board. And as I understand it, the district has now made it clear HIB policy does not apply to the school board.
You can't write that Hampson demanded both an HIB investigation AND a Descrimination investigation if she only demanded a Descrimination investigation.
That doesn't mean she didn't commit HIB. But you can't say she demanded an HIB investigation if it was staff that decided to open the HIB investigation in parallel to the descrimination investigation.
I can see staff opening the parallel HIB investigation knowing the were going to lose the more serious descrimination investigation. If only staff would be so thorough when it didn't serve their own interests.
I don't know the answer, but I believe the distinction is relevant.
She was charged with racism, and wanted to clear her name of racism, which she did by insisting on the descrimination investigation.
She is only appealing the HIB ruling in court. You can't say she demanded an HIB investigation if she only asked for a Descrimination investigation. I'm doubtful she demanded an HIB investigation. That would have been very risky because HIB is not a matter of law and therefore it's whatever the District and staff hired investigator says it is.
I realize this seems like an irrelevant distinction, but I believe it's highly relevant.
The investigator was an African American female finding for two African American females. Don't believe for a second that was accidental. Staff can hire whoever the want.
That's not to say Hampson didn't commit HIB. And that's not to say the investigator didn't do exactly what she was hired to do. My question is who asked for the HIB investigation, staff or Hampson? That would be interesting to know.
The Investigative Report indicates that Hampson and DeWolf wanted an Investigative Report.
The Investigative Report shows that 20 people were interviewed. The interviews are unsurprising to those that watched both directors bully and try to silence a previous board director during board meetings.
Thank you.
Parent
Check out the investigative report. The original accusers state they did not want a HIB investigation because they thought that would be traumatizing and deflect from the racial intent of the behavior. Around page 8, Hampson and DeWolf state they want a HIB investigation because they didn’t want to be held to a different standard than other staff. So SPS did an EEO and HIB investigation.
This district has every reason to bury an allegation of improper behavior by leadership - enrollment is tanking, finances are a wreck, multiple lawsuits etc etc. The fact that this surfaced anyway is testament to me that something went very, very wrong. I’m not sure why you’ve latched on to “but did Hampson *ask* to be investigated…” She did but also, why does it matter?
https://www.scribd.com/document/529881770/Seattle-School-Board-Final-Investigation-Report-September-2021-on-Allegations-of-Harassment-Intimidation-and-Bullying-by-Board-members-Chandra-Hampso
The incident started with the letter on September 18, 20202 accusing Directors Hampson and DeWolf of, “Bullying, Intimidation, and Anti-black Racism.” On page 7 it states, what Ms. __ and Dr. __ “are trying to prove is anti-blackness.” On Page 22, the report talks about, “racism… blacks… black community… blacks… blacks… blacks… black community… Africa, blacks... black and brown constituents… pro-Black… antiracist, black community… black leaders… anti-black racism…. Black girls…”
The directors were formally accused of anti-black racism. The directors demanded a 5210-nondiscrimination investigation to prove they were not anti-black racists.
On page 7, Dr. __ and Ms. ___ explain, “DeWolf, the person whom the allegations are against, is the person requiring and pushing for a HIB [5207] investigation.” That is not a quote from DeWolf, that is hearsay from the accusers, which the investigator chose to include in the report.
On page 7, the investigator states, prior to the initiation of MFR’s investigation, the concerns were explored with, “Chief Legal Counsel Narver, Superintendent Juneau, and Chief of HR ___. It was determined that pursuant to SPS Procedure 5210SP and 5207SP unless Complainants were able to successfully mediate their dispute, an investigation would need to be conducted.” The report makes it clear that it was staff’s decision to open both 5210 Nondiscrimination and 5207 HIB investigations.
On page 8, the investigator states, “While Dr. __ and Ms. ___ did not want the complaints investigated under Policy 5210 [Nondiscrimination] or addressed informally through a conflict resolution process with Dirs. DeWolf and Hampson, Dirs. DeWolf and Hampson expressed frustration at the substantial allegations made against them and the lack of substantive action being taken. Both Board directors felt it was important to move forward with an investigation so that it was clear they were not being held to a different standard or process than other SPS staff.” This quote suggests that in fact DeWolf and Hampson wanted an investigation under 5210 and says nothing about them wanting a 5207 HIB investigation.
I don't dispuate that Hamspon and DeWolf wanted an investigation. But I believe the evidence in the report suggests they wanted a 5210 investigation, which they won. I can find no evidence they ever asked for a 5207 HIB investigation.
Who decided to investigate under 5207 HIB? Staff. Who selected the black female investigator to investigate the claims of the two black female staffers? Staff. What is the evidence that Hampson and DeWolf ever asked for a 5207 HIB investigation? Hearsay testimony by the accusers included in the report.
Personally, I don’t like Hampson or her policies. But I also don’t like staff making unsubstantiated accusations of racism against directors over a policy dispute, and I don’t believe Hampson and DeWolf are anti-black racists.
The evidence suggests Hampson neither asked for nor demanded a 5207 HIB investigation. Therefore she has the right to appeal it through the courts.
I suppose anyone has the “right” to appeal anything, I mean Trump just keeps filing appeals left and right. Is it a good look for the district? Is it a good use of public dollars? Is it a good example for 50,000 kids who are navigating what bullying means and how to be good people in a worse for the wear school district?
Nope
It wasn't that long ago when CH threatened an upset Broadview Thompson parent with trespassing because the parent was handing out flyers on school property and Hampson didn't agree with the parent's concerns. And, yes, Broadview Thompson went into lockdown for what appeared to be a rifle within an encampment with just a chain link fence between the encampment and playground.
As well, SHE got herself into this mess. You want to excuse her behavior which was micromanaging to the largest degree and yet here we are with her SOFG governance where she wants directors to have less oversight of the Superintendent and staff. Hmm.
Lastly your comments like this one:
"The investigator was an African American female finding for two African American females."
It is ugly and it is wrong to speak in those terms.
Do I believe that staff pushed this investigation? Nope.
Do I think they deliberately hired someone Black in order to support the two Black staffers? Nope.
We are now moving on. I look forward to the ruling to be to dismiss the case. If Hampson goes further to the WA Supreme Court, someone needs to start a recall.
SP