Seattle School Board Director Chandra Hampson Loses Her Case...Again
From the opinion:
Hampson first argues that the applicable standard of review is de novo because the Board’s decision was quasi-judicial. We disagree.
When the District adopted the MFR Report and required Hampson to review the policy, neither the District nor the Board applied facts to law.
The HIB (harassment, intimidation, bullying) Policy is analogous. There is no applicable law, therefore, no law applied to fact.
The application of an internal policy is not a normal function of the courts. There is no binding law for the courts to apply, rather, interpretation of an internal policy. This is a like an administrative adjudication, not a quasi-judicial function.
As courts have said many times, the courts of this state are ill equipped to act as super personnel agencies.
Hampson argues that the Board’s actions were arbitrary and capricious because it lacked any findings to establish that Hampson violated the HIB Policy. We disagree.
Arbitrary and capricious agency action is “willful and unreasoning action . . . without consideration and in disregard of the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Porter, 160 Wn. App. at 880. “Action is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration where there is room for two opinions, however much it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion was reached.” Porter, 160 Wn. App. at 880.
But the MFR Report concluded that the e-mails along with the conduct at the September 16 executive committee meeting, showed that Hampson intentionally coordinated to inappropriately curtail the employees’ participation.
Hampson next argues that her conduct was not a part of a pattern and was not unreasonable because her conduct on the conference call and vocal criticisms of the employees were merely candid evaluations on job performance. But the HIB Policy does not require a pattern of conduct, but that the conduct be repeated, unreasonable, or both. The MFR Report concluded, with substantial evidence from witness reports, that during the conference call Hampson yelled and made abusive and disrespectful comments and questions. This is the type of unreasonable conduct that violates the HIB Policy.
Hampson may disagree with the outcome of the MFR Report, but that is insufficient. The District’s decision was based on due and thorough consideration. The District’s investigation, and Board’s acceptance of the resulting report, were not arbitrary or capricious actions.
Hampson argues that the District’s application of the HIB Policy was contrary to law because it prevents elected school board directors from using their discretion to make policy. We disagree.
When determining whether an agency action is contrary to law, we “accord substantial deference to the agency’s interpretation of law in matters involving the agency’s special knowledge and expertise.”
“The [g]overnment, as an employer, must have wide discretion and control over the management of its personnel and internal affairs.”
Hampson argues that applying the HIB Policy to her conduct was improper. But as the trial court recognized, her claims cannot warrant judicial intervention.
And Washington courts give great deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own properly promulgated policy, especially where the policy concerns personnel operation.
Hampson next argues that applying the HIB Policy to her would preclude her from adequately representing her constituents, her statutory role as an elected Board Director. RCW 28A.320.015. Nothing in the HIB Policy interferes with her statutory authority to make policy.
Rather, the policy required that she exercise her authority without harassment and bullying. The MFR Report found that Hampson failed to execute her authority as director without harassment and bullying, and the Board directed her to review the HIB Policy and abide by it going forward.
Finally, Hampson cannot now claim that the HIB Policy should not apply to her as a director after insisting on the investigation under the HIB Policy and stating, she “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.”
The District’s report and resulting decision by the Board were not contrary to law. Affirmed.
I hope that Director Hampson will stop this legal nonsense which is costing the district thousands of dollars they cannot afford to spend.
Comments
I don’t love watching her waste district time, money, and what‘s left of its credibility and reputation. Her behavior is a black eye to every kid who is bullied at school, a liability to every lawsuit that comes through, and an embarrassment to voters.
Our Collective Shame