This and That (and What the Heck?!)

It looked like Seattle Schools was losing yet another senior staffer, Rocky Torres, who appeared set to be the next superintendent of Lancaster School district in Pennsylvania. However, it appears he withdrew his name from consideration. Lancaster's board president said around March 7th that Torres withdrew because of "unsuccessful contract negotiations.".He was not the unanimous choice of all of the members of that board. He also did not enjoy the support of their teachers union. Many seemed to support the interim superintendent who has worked in that district for some time and is better known than Torres. 

Today, in just under 22 minutes, the Seattle School district defended itself in the Court of Appeals from the lawsuit brought by director Chandra Hampson. 

I won't give a blow-by-blow but here are my impressions:

- The district's lawyer was better than Hampson's. The district stressed that the investigator had to consider the totality of all the information gathered, not just one phone call or one meeting. 

- Hampson's lawyer tried to make a case that since Hampson got elected by a majority of the voters, that support made her free to try to enact almost anything. I find that disturbing because that's an argument I hear on the Right - we're elected and the voters trust us. Being elected doesn't mean you have free rein to do whatever you think voters wanted. Here's what Hampson said at her election page on race:

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.

- Her lawyer also made a big deal that if HIB had occurred it wasn't intentional. Meaning, Hampson didn't plan to act that way. Maybe not. But my belief is that Hampson is a bully, pure and simple. I've seen this from almost the moment I met her (when SHE asked ME to come to a community meeting about Sand Point Elementary). And she's only grown worse. 

I'm sure she didn't "plan" to bully the two senior staffers but I also think it likely she did. 

- One justice did say that she felt there was an issue of WHAT was said and HOW the message was delivered. 

- The district's lawyer said that, in this appeal, Hampson was not challenging the investigation itself (indeed she asked for it) but the outcome. The lawyer suggested that hurt feelings from the outcome of the investigation were not enough for a lawsuit.

- Hampson's lawyer tried to make the case that the only time there was HIB behavior was the phone call that started with former director Zachary DeWolf that Hampson took over for him. He said there was no evidence on the phone call to bully or harass but a justice called out the the investigation said there was degrading language used. He admitted Hampson had yelled at the staffers but that they also did. 

I'd lay money that Hampson started yelling first. I'm still going with the one audio witness who said it was the worst business call she had ever heard and went straight to the Superintendent's office when the call ended.  

In the case of What the Heck?!

As I previously reported, the Board is having a retreat on March 11th which is this Saturday.

I am on a mailing list for all the upcoming meetings for the Board for the coming week. I received that email today and found something curious.

Immediately after the retreat, the Board is having a "Board Team Building" meeting at which there may be a quorum. The notation attached to this meetings says, "This meeting will not be open to the public."

Now if a number of Board members might show up at a public event, their office generally lets the public know. But an event is not a meeting and Board directors know better than to cluster at such an event and talk shop.

But this appears to be a private meeting with possibly all the members of the Board that is not attached to an event nor is an Executive Meeting where they have to speak alone because of confidential matters. 

I'm not sure this is legal. I'm hoping that some Board members will refuse to attend.