Response of Seattle School District No. 1 To Opening Brief of Appelant School Board Director Chandra N. Hampson, Dated March 18, 2022

1 FILED
2022 FEB 16 11:20 AM

2 KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
3 E-FILED
CASE #: 21-2-12876-5 SEA
4
6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY
7
CHANDRA N. HAMPSON, as director of Cause No. 21-2-12876-5 SEA
8
Seattle School District No. 1,
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
9
Plaintiff/Appellant,
10
v.
11
SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,
a municipal corporation,
12
Defendant/Respondent.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Talmadge/Fitzpatrick
2775 Harbor Avenue SW
Third Floor, Suite C
Appellant’s Opening Brief - 1
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Table of Authorities .........................................................................................................................3
3 A. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................4
4 B. ASSIGMENTS OF ERROR ................................................................................................5
5 (1) Assignments of Error ...............................................................................................5
6 (2) Issue Pertaining to the Assignments of Error ..........................................................5
7 C. STATEMENT OF THE CASE............................................................................................5
8 (1) Factual History .........................................................................................................5
9 (2) Procedural History .................................................................................................11
10 D. ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................15
11 (1) This Court Gives No Deference to the School District’s Decisions ......................15
12 (2) Director Hampson Did Not Violate Policy 5207 ...................................................17
13 (a) A Public School District’s HIB Policy Cannot Strip Elected Board
Directors from Setting District Policy and Holding Staff
14 Accountable ...............................................................................................17
15 (b) Director Hampson Did Not Intend to “Bully, Degrade, or Humiliate”

Staff Members When She Moved Draft Policy 0040 Forward and
16 Expressed Disagreement with District Staff’s Inaction .............................20
17 (c) Director Hampson Did Not Act Repeatedly and Was Reasonable
in Her Firm Directives to Push Forward the Draft Policy 0040
18 Despite the District Staff’s Preference for a Different Approach ..............20
19 (d) Director Hampson Did Nothing to Substantially Interfere with

or to Substantially Disrupt the District Staff’s Work Environment
20 Because They Were Not Entitled to Control the Board’s
Policy-Making Agenda ..............................................................................24
21
(3) The Board Erred in Sanctioning Director Hampson for Actions that Did Not
22 Violate Policy 5207................................................................................................25
23 F. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................25
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Table of Cases
3 Cases
4 Bawden v. Seattle Pub. Sch., Br. of Resp’t Seattle Sch. Dist.,

2021 WL 4712894 (Wash. App. Div. I, Sep. 13, 2021) ..............................................16, 19
5 Bawden v. Seattle Pub. Sch., __ Wn. App. 2d __, 2022 WL 277048 (2022) .......................... 19-20
Briggs v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 165 Wn. App. 286, 266 P.3d 911 (2011),
6 review denied, 173 Wn.2d 1034 (2012) .............................................................................16
Haynes v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 111 Wn.2d 250, 254, 758 P.2d 7 (1988) ................................16
7
8 Statutes
9 RCW 28A.......................................................................................................................................18
RCW 28A.320.015(1) ....................................................................................................................19
10 RCW 28A.320.015(1)(a) ...............................................................................................................17
RCW 28A.320.015(1)(c) ...............................................................................................................17
11 RCW 28A.645.010.........................................................................................................................15
RCW 28A.645.010(1) ....................................................................................................................16
12 RCW 28A.645.030.........................................................................................................................16
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 A. INTRODUCTION
2 This state’s elected public school boards must have discretion to carry out the
3 responsibilities that voters—and the Legislature—have charged them with. Appellant Chandra
4 Hampson is, a Director of the Board that governs respondent Seattle School District (“District”).
5 Before becoming a Director, Hampson had volunteered for years as a leader of the parent–student
6 community. Hampson, who is Native American, and her fellow parents had become frustrated with
7 District staff’s lack of progress toward addressing racism and racial inequity in public schools.
8 Based on her collaboration with other parents in the District community, Hampson worked with a
9 School Board Director to draft an anti-racism policy in summer 2019, and then in November 2019
10 she won election herself to the School Board. As a volunteer and as a candidate for elected office,
11 she had heard many voices from BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities
12 expressing their support for the anti-racism policy that she had championed. As the months
13 dragged on, however, two District staff members objected to Director Hampson’s plans for a Board
14 vote, insisting that still more time was needed to elicit still more community input—and to
15 potentially recraft the policy. Director Hampson pressed the policy forward. After a crucial Board
16 Executive Committee meeting in which these staff members’ preferences were sidelined, the staff
17 members lodged a formal complaint against Director Hampson. An investigation ensued. The
18 District found that Director Hampson was allegedly guilty of “harassment, intimidation, and
19 bullying” (“HIB”) in violation of District Policy 5027 for her determined work to move the anti-
20 racism policy forward over staff objections. She now appeals because an HIB policy is a serious
21 matter for addressing real concerns in the workplace, not for the District to use as a lever to
22 rebalance power over policy-making in favor of District staff instead of the voters’ chosen
23 representatives.
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 B. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
2 (1) Assignments of Error
3 Director Hampson raises two assignments of error:
4 1. The District erred in adopting the August 9, 2021 “Board of Directors Amended
5 and Final Report” as a final decision of the District. AR 4-47.
6 2. The Board erred in approving the motion at the Board’s September 9, 2021 meeting
7 sanctioning Director Hampson based on this August 9, 2021 report. AR 311-15.
8 (2) Issue Pertaining to the Assignments of Error
9 The issue presented is whether Director Hampson violated the District’s Policy 5027 with
10 respect to District staff members in August-September 2020.
11 C. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
(1) Factual History

12
The District is the largest public school district in Washington, and likely the most diverse.
13
AR 17. It encompasses 104 schools and serves over 50,000 students. AR 17. Most of its students
14
come from diverse communities of color: Black students compose 14% of the student population;
15
Asian, 13%; Latino, 13%; Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 0.4%; and Native American, 0.45%.
16
AR 17.
17
The District’s staff do not govern this heterogeneous district; instead, seven elected
18
officials constitute the Board of Directors that governs the District. AR 16. These Board Directors
19
are nominated by Primary Election voters from a geographic area of Seattle to represent them, and
20
then elected citywide in the General Election. AR 16. These elected officials work as a Board to
21
fulfill their responsibilities: the Board passes an annual budget; adopts curricula; hires and
22
evaluates the District’s superintendent; ensures the broader community’s values are represented at
23
the District; and approves the governing policies for the whole District. AR 16. The Directors have
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 no staff of their own. AR 16. Instead, District staff work with Directors as needed. AR 16.
2 Director Hampson, who is Native American, won a city-wide election in 2019 to serve on
3 the District’s School Board. AR 19. Director Hampson grew up on tribal lands in Oregon and
4 Nebraska, and she has spent most of her life living on or beside tribal land. AR 19. Professionally,
5 Director Hampson has worked on community development and financial services projects for
6 Native peoples. AR 19. Director Hampson’s term began in December 2019; she served as the
7 Board’s Vice President in 2020 and became Board President in December 2020. AR 19.
8 Before her election to the Board, Director Hampson was an active volunteer with the
9 Seattle Council Parent Teacher Student Association (“SCPTSA”). AR 19. This organization is the
10 umbrella body that represents the more than 80 such parent/teacher associations in the District. AR
11 17. Director Hampson was the SCPTSA President between June 2018 to June 2019. AR 19.
12 During her time with the SCPTSA in the years before her election, Director Hampson
13 collaborated with her colleagues there on anti-racism work. AR 19. The SCPTSA perceived that
14 students and parents from BIPOC communities suffered from inequitable treatment. AR 19. To
15 address this problem, the SCPTSA worked with District staff and met with them several times in
16 the 2018-19 school year. AR 19-20. Hampson began working with Brent Jones, who was then the
17 District’s chief of equity, and others to develop a new anti-racism policy for the District, Policy
18 0040. AR 49, 81. Hampson saw the District’s existing anti-racism policy as too aspirational and
19 lacking in concrete instruction for District staff. AR 20. Hampson intended Draft Policy 0040 to
20 provide clear direction to staff and to create better tracking and reporting of equity concerns in the
21 District. AR 20.
22 But Jones left the District, and then-SCPTSA President Hampson and others became
23 frustrated with the District’s inaction and lack of progress. AR 19-20, 80, 82. Hampson then began
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 working with then-Board Member Jill Geary on Policy 0040. AR 49, 82. Realizing that the elected
2 Board sets policy for the District, Hampson decided to run for elected office on the Board. In
3 August 2019, before Hampson’s election, Director Geary forwarded this draft anti-racism policy
4 to District employee Jane Doe. AR 20. Hampson was copied on this communication to Doe. AR
5 21. At the time, Hampson and Director Geary believed the draft policy would need only minor
6 tweaks. AR 20. Director Geary provided draft Policy 0040 to Doe because Doe would be the staff
7 member to move the policy through the Board’s policy adoption process, and Doe understood
8 Director Geary’s expectation. AR 20-21.
9 Once elected, Director Hampson joined the Board’s Executive Committee and made Policy
10 0040 a priority. AR 65, 84. Director Zachary DeWolf, who was then the Board President, says, “It
11 was clear that this policy was going to be Hampson’s signature work and that she would be
12 singularly focused on the issue.” AR 65. Once she joined the Board, Director Hampson emailed
13 District staff starting in January 2020 to ask for updates on Policy 0040. AR 65.
14 As an elected official, Director Hampson had constituents of color who wanted this anti-
15 racism policy moved forward, but Policy 0040 stalled as the calendar turned to summer 2020—
16 ten months after Director Hampson and then-Director Geary had first given it to Doe to move
17 forward. AR 32-34. Director DeWolf explained Director Hampson’s sense of urgency: “Hampson
18 spent three years with the SCPTSA building the policy, gathering input from community and
19 families, and hearing stories about racial violence in schools.” AR 65. Doe had delegated the policy
20 to Tammy Roe, another District staff member whom Doe supervised, assigning her responsibility
21 for community engagement. AR 21. Roe did not document her community engagement timeline,
22 but she insisted that she used “culturally inclusive and responsive community engagement
23 practices.” AR 21.
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 Director Hampson pressed for progress. During the Board’s Executive Committee meeting
2 on June 10, 2020, Hampson asked that the next Executive Committee meeting agenda include draft
3 Policy 0040 as a Special Attention Item. AR 23. On June 17, 2020, the Board’s Executive
4 Committee dedicated 20 minutes to the policy. AR 23. The Directors heard from the SCPTSA’s
5 President and Vice President about the policy’s background and development, and Doe and Roe
6 also spoke. AR 23. The discussion topics included the policy’s substance and the community-
7 engagement process. AR 24. On July 1, 2020, the Board conducted a work session on the draft
8 policy, dedicating an entire hour to the task. AR 23, 66. The Board voted 7-0 that month approving
9 a resolution to introduce Policy 0040. AR 66. Roe told the Board that her department would
10 conduct more community engagement and then report back to the Board. AR 23. Three weeks
11 later, Ellie Wilson-Jones, a District staff member who served as the District’s Director of Policy
12 and Board Relations, emailed Roe to inquire about creating a Board Action Report (“BAR”) for
13 the Board’s Executive Committee meeting on August 19, a step that would allow the Board as a
14 whole to vote on Policy 0040 during its August 26, 2020 meeting. AR 23, 49.
15 Director Hampson then pushed for Policy 0040 to go before the Board. On July 24, 2020,
16 she emailed Doe, “I’ll continue to assume we’re on for the August intro,” and requested, “Please
17 let me know when you expect to have a draft BAR for Exec committee review?” AR 24. Doe
18 replied, saying she was not ready to respond but would get back to Director Hampson the following
19 week. AR 24. A few days later, Roe emailed her fellow staff member, Wilson-Jones, insisting that
20 an October date, rather than August, was better. AR 24. Roe stated that she anticipated presenting
21 a new draft of Policy 0040 to District community members in September 2020. AR 24. Wilson-
22 Jones responded that any substantial revisions to the policy would mean that the policy would have
23 to be “rerouted” and then presented again to the Board for discussion. AR 24. Wilson-Jones
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 conveyed the wishes of Director DeWolf that the Executive Committee discuss the new policy in
2 August. AR 24. Two days later, Wilson-Jones proposed to Roe a schedule that would place the
3 policy on the Board Executive Committee’s agenda for an October meeting—two months later
4 than what Director Hampson wanted. AR 24. The record contains no evidence that Director
5 Hampson was apprised of these communications between Wilson-Jones or Roe or that she received
6 these staff members’ proposal to delay Policy 0040.
7 The process dragged into August, now a full year since the policy was first advanced. On
8 August 18, 2020, the SCPTSA President contacted Roe, asking when the newest draft of Policy
9 0040 would be available for the SCPTSA to show to school communities. AR 25. That same day,
10 Director Hampson emailed Director DeWolf and the rest of the Board, noting that District staff
11 had not updated her on Policy 0040 and that Policy 0040 was supposed to be scheduled for
12 Executive Committee action. AR 25. That night, Doe responded to the SCPTSA President, stating
13 that “competing priorities” had pushed Policy 0040 back. AR 25. The SCPTSA President
14 forwarded this email to Director Hampson. AR 25. The next day, on August 19, 2020 at 7:13am,
15 Director Hampson responded to the then-SCPTSA President: “Thoughts? You should respond
16 frankly. She didn’t include me on that update and it’s an update that I personally have not
17 received.” AR 26. Director Hampson also emailed Director DeWolf, forwarding the earlier email
18 she had gotten from the SCPTSA President. Director Hampson notified Director DeWolf that she
19 had received no such update from Doe. AR 26.
20 Later that morning, the Board’s Executive Committee met, and Director Hampson moved
21 for Policy 0040 to come before the Executive Committee in the next month. AR 26. Director
22 Hampson said at the meeting, “I will bring forward a BAR if staff is not ready.” AR 26. Hampson
23 explained that she thought that the policy had been discussed enough and should not be held up
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 further. Id. The next day, August 21, 2020, the SCPTSA President forwarded to Director Hampson
2 a new email that she had received from Doe. In that forwarded email, Doe stated, “We have been
3 working with Board President Director DeWolf,” and stated that Doe wanted to do more
4 community engagement on the policy in September. AR 27. Director Hampson did not email Doe;
5 she simply forwarded the email to Director DeWolf and replied to the SCPTSA President that Doe
6 “hasn’t done any of that according to [Director DeWolf].” AR 27. More emails were exchanged
7 between Directors Hampson and DeWolf and the SCPTSA President about the schedule for Policy
8 0040. AR 27-28.
9 On August 28, 2020, Directors DeWolf and Hampson joined a phone call with Doe, Roe,
10 and Wilson-Jones. AR 28. Director Hampson said that she had already heard enough community
11 feedback, having heard many Black voices through the SCPTSA and through her election. AR 29.
12 Doe objected that the policy development process had “tokenized” Doe and Roe. AR 29. Director
13 Hampson disagreed on the need to postpone the policy further. AR 29. Wilson-Jones described the
14 call as the “worst” she had participated in as a professional. AR 29-30. Wilson-Jones characterized
15 Director Hampson as “yelling” and “disrespectful.” AR 46. Doe later said that Director DeWolf
16 had been “admonishing and chastising,” and she described Hampson as “berat[ing]” the staff
17 members. AR 30. Doe described the call as “heated,” and said she “did raise her voice back.” AR
18 30. Doe asserted later, according to notes of her interview, that “[Director] Hampson lied in the
19 meeting and said that [Doe] was not handling the policy.” AR 30. Roe recalled that Director
20 Hampson “continually criticized the process.” AR 31. This phone call lasted over an hour. AR 28.
21 After this call, Director Hampson pushed the policy forward. On September 16, 2020, the
22 Board’s Executive Committee met. AR 33. Director Hampson bypassed the District staff and
23 created a BAR for Policy 0040. AR 33. Director Hampson invited then-current SCPTSA President
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 and a past SCPTSA President to speak about the policy, and they did. AR 33. The SCPTSA
2 President said, “we have been waiting too long and this cannot wait.” AR 33. Someone asked about
3 Doe and Roe’s contributions to the policy. AR 34. Director Hampson responded that the policy
4 was not about “individuals” but about “moving the work forward.” AR 34. “I am accountable to
5 constituents, which are school communities,” she said. AR 34. “Don’t think there is any
6 disagreement that we need an anti-racism policy; it is about moving the work forward so we are
7 no longer forcing the community to wait.” AR 34. Doe and Roe objected to moving forward with
8 the policy at that time. AR 34-35. Ultimately, the Committee unanimously adopted Policy 0040.
9 (2) Procedural History
10 After not getting their way at this Board Executive Committee meeting, Doe and Roe wrote
11 a letter two days later to the full Board complaining that Directors Wolf and Hampson had
12 discriminated against them on the basis of race and had engaged in harassment, intimidation, and
13 bullying. AR 8. The District hired an investigator, Marcella Fleming Reed, who interviewed 20
14 witnesses and reviewed 5,633 pages of emails, agendas, minutes, transcripts, and the like. AR 8,
15 10. Reed then prepared a letter making findings of fact and conclusions about whether Directors
16 Wolf and Hampson violated District Policies 5010 (the District’s policy against workplace
17 discrimination) and 5207 (the District’s policy against harassment, intimidation, and bullying
18 (“HIB”)). AR 37-47. Reed summarized Doe and Roe’s first set of allegations as “discrimination
19 by Dirs. DeWolf and Hampson based on race and/or gender, specifically ‘intersectional racism,’
20 in response to their work on Policy 0040.” AR 36.
21 Reed concluded that neither Director violated the anti-discrimination Policy 5010. AR 40.
22 With respect to Director Hampson, Reed found, “[t]here is sufficient evidence of alignment with
23 and respectful connection to individuals identifying as Black, at least one of whom is female, to
24 determine that the conflict between Dir. Hampson and [Doe] and [Roe] is not race or gender based
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 or evidence of intersectional racism.” AR 40. Reed relied heavily on one witness in particular, who
2 “had worked with and observed Dir. Hampson work with Black women over time and was
3 convinced the conflict between Dir. Hampson and [Doe] and [Roe] was not related to race.” AR
4 40. Reed’s letter emphasized this witness’s explanation for a “critical source of conflict” between
5 Hampson and these District staff members:
6 This same witness also made an observation reflecting a critical source of conflict
that has not been directly called out. She pointed out that the original version of
7 Policy 0040 was intended to address all types of racism, not just anti-Black racism.
The EPE version [advanced by staff members Doe and Roe] entitled “Pro-Black,
8 Pro- Indigenous” appears to have been offensive to some in that it leaves out other
people of color. SCPTSA President (Latinx) makes this point in the November 9,
9 2020, working session when she states the title of the new policy is “Anti-Racism
Policy.” (MFR SPS-BOD 13F-137 to 13F-184 at 13F-150.) Moreover, there is
10 evidence Dir. Hampson’s ire was not reserved for just [Doe] and [Roe]. Dir.
Hampson has been highly critical of [other District employees,] Superintendent
11 [Juneau] (Native) and Chief of Schools and Continuous Improvement [Wyeth]
(White), who she perceives as “the most disrespectful staff member” to Board
12 directors.
13 AR 40-41. Reed’s letter also noted the recollections of the then-current President and a former
14 President of the SCPTSA about Director Hampson’s track record:
15 SCPTSA President [Witness 18] reported that she had personally seen Dir.
Hampson work successfully under the leadership of Ms. [Witness 3] when she was
16 President of the SCPTSA and with Interim Superintendent Brent Jones and Dir.
[Witness 10] . Ms. [Witness 3] took umbrage at the description of Dir. Hampson as
17 anti-Black and in addition to the work Dir. Hampson has done on the anti-racism
policy generally talked about Dir. Hampson’s support of the Sandpoint Elementary
18 School community and Charleena Lyles’ family before and after her death. Ms.
[Witness 3] was adamant that in her experience Dir. Hampson takes steps to ensure
19 that Black voices are heard even before her (Dir. Hampson’s voice is heard).
20 AR 41 (footnote omitted). Neither Doe nor Roe appealed Reed’s decision in this regard.
21 Having concluded that neither Director Wolf nor Director Hampson violated Policy 5010,
22 Reed then considered the staff complaints against them under the HIB policy, Policy 5207. Policy
23 5207 defines “HIB in the workplace” to mean “repeated and/or unreasonable actions of an
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 individual (or group) towards an employee or volunteer … that is intended to intimidate, bully,
2 degrade, or humiliate.” AR 137. Policy 5207 states that HIB in the workplace “includes written
3 messages or images (including those that are electronically transmitted), verbal comments, or
4 physical acts.” Id. For messages, images, comments, or acts to rise to the level of HIB, Policy 5017
5 states that they “must”:
6  Physically harm an employee or volunteer or damage the employee’s or

volunteer’s property; or
7  Have the effect of substantially interfering with an employee’s or volunteer’s
work environment; or
8  Be so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it creates an intimidating or
threatening work environment; or
9  Have the effect of substantially disrupting the orderly operation of the work
place.
10
Reed decided that Directors DeWolf and Hampson had both violated this policy. AR 42-46.
11
Reed concluded that Director Hampson “used her position and authority to the detriment
12
[Doe] and [Roe] in violation of Policy 5207.” AR 45. In support of this conclusion, Reed’s letter
13
cited three events. First, Reed cited Director Hampson’s email with the SCPTSA President
14
conveying her concerns about whether Doe had accurately described her work with Director
15
DeWolf on the scheduling of Policy 0040. AR 45. Reed’s letter did not, however, conclude that
16
Director Hampson’s belief that Doe had been inaccurate was unreasonable. AR 45. Reed’s letter
17
also did not find that Director Hampson had ever forwarded the email to Doe or that Doe had ever
18
seen any of Director Hampson’s emails with Director DeWolf and the SCPTSA President. AR 45.
19
Second, Reed cited the call on August 28, 2021 in which, according to Reed, “Dir. Hampson
20
criticized [Doe] performance, the work of her team, and challenged her veracity in front of [Roe]
21
and Ms. [Witness 20].” AR 45. Reed cited the notes of Ms. [Witness 20] claiming that “Dir.
22
Hampson was ‘abusive to staff throughout … [the call] by yelling, [being] disrespectful, [and]
23
challenging comments as untrue.’” AR 46 (citations omitted). Third, Reed cited the Board’s
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 September 16, 2020 Executive Committee Meeting. AR 46. Reed found that Director Hampson
2 “was not overtly rude or disrespectful.” AR 46. Instead, Reed criticized Director Hampson for
3 calling on other meeting attendees (a former SCPTSA President and the then-current SCPTSA
4 President) to speak rather than allowing more time for Doe and Roe to speak. AR 46. Reed also
5 faulted Director Hampson for interrupting Doe to point out the Board Executive Committee was
6 considering a proposal for board action that had been generated by Board Directors, not by District
7 staff. AR 45.
8 In Reed’s letter, Reed made no finding regarding Director Hampson’s intent. Reed did not
9 find that any of Director Hampson’s email and subsequent actions were unreasonable, unfounded
10 in fact, or untethered to her concern that District staff had taken too long on anti-racism policy and
11 were trying to override her judgment that her constituents wanted to move forward with Policy
12 0040. AR 45-47. Reed made no specific findings regarding the effects on the workplace or on Doe
13 or Roe, other than her finding about “detriment.” Id.
14 On August 19, 2021, a District staff member emailed a cover letter and Reed’s report to
15 Director Hampson. AR 1-2. This new letter stated that Reed’s report was “a final decision of the
16 District.” AR 2. The letter concluded by describing Director Hampson’s appeal rights. The letter
17 stated that “School Board Directors are not employees of the District and there are no internal
18 appeal rights connected to Reed’s findings or conclusions that you violated Board Policy No.
19 5207.” AR 2. The letter then noted, “If any external appeal is possible it would be to the King
20 County Superior Court under RCW 28A.645, which requires that any appeal be made within 30
21 days of receiving this letter.” Id.
22 On September 9, 2021, the Board met to consider sanctions against Director Hampson.
23 AR 311-15; RP 1-14. Director Hersey moved as follows:
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 I move that the School Board take the following action with respect to the
conclusions of the Seattle Public Schools Board of Directors Amended and Final
2 Investigation Report prepared by MFR Law Group: (1) provide a copy of Policy
5207 and Procedure 5207SP to Directors Hampson and DeWolf; (2) instruct
3 Directors Hampson and DeWolf that they are required to comply with Policy 5207
and Procedure 5207SP and request that they review the Policy and Procedure and
4 direct any questions regarding its provisions to District staff; and (3) request that
District staff provide training on Policy 5207 and Procedure 5207SP to all new
5 School Board Directors prior to or as soon as practicable after commencement of
Board service and provide ongoing training regarding Policy 5207 to School Board
6 Directors as needed, and I further move that the School Board waive the provision
of Policy No. 1420 for posting to the District’s website at least three days in advance
7 of Board meetings.
8 AR 314-15. The Board approved this motion by a vote of 4-0-3, with Directors Wolf, Hampson,
9 and Harris abstaining. AR 315.
10 On Monday, September 20, 2021, Director Hampson filed a notice of appeal in this Court
11 pursuant to RCW 28A.645.010 under cause number 21-2-12503-1 SEA. On September 28, 2021,
12 she resubmitted her notice of appeal under cause number 21-2-12876-5 SEA. Sub No. 1. Her notice
13 states that she “did not violate School Board Policy No. 5207 in exercising her responsibilities as
14 [an] elected District board member[] in holding District staff accountable for their failure to
15 perform their duties and to execute policy as established by the District’s elected board.” Id. at 1-
16 2. The notice also states that “[a]ny sanctions against plaintiff/appellant should be vacated.” Id. at
17 2.
18 D. ARGUMENT
19 (1) This Court Gives No Deference to the School District’s Decisions
20 This appeal comes to this Court under RCW 28A.645.010, the statute that confers the
21 appeal right that Director Hampson invokes here:
22 Any person, or persons, either severally or collectively, aggrieved by any decision

or order of any school official or board, within thirty days after the rendition of such
23 decision or order, or of the failure to act upon the same when properly presented,
may appeal the same to the superior court of the county in which the school district
24 or part thereof is situated, by filing with the secretary of the school board if the
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 appeal is from board action or failure to act, otherwise with the proper school
official, and filing with the clerk of the superior court, a notice of appeal which
2 shall set forth in a clear and concise manner the errors complained of.
3 RCW 28A.645.010(1). Briggs v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 165 Wn. App. 286, 291, 266 P.3d 911
4 (2011), review denied, 173 Wn.2d 1034 (2012). When an aggrieved person invokes this statutory
5 right, another statute establishes the standard of review: “Any appeal to the superior court shall be
6 heard de novo by the superior court.” RCW 28A.645.030 (emphasis added).
7 Despite the statute’s plain use of the term “de novo” to establish the standard of review,
8 the District has argued before that the standard of review is deferential. See, e.g., Bawden v. Seattle
9 Pub. Sch., Br. of Resp’t Seattle Sch. Dist., 2021 WL 4712894 at *7-*8 (Wash. App. Div. I, Sep.
10 13, 2021). That argument would be incorrect if advanced here.
11 Under RCW 28A.645.030, this Court reviews de novo the actions of the District and the
12 Board that are quasi-judicial in nature. See Haynes v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 111 Wn.2d 250, 254,
13 758 P.2d 7 (1988) (construing former RCW 28A.88.015, which was recodified as the present
14 version of RCW 28A.645.030). Only if the District’s action is a nonjudicial agency action does a
15 court apply a deferential standard of review. Id. at 254-55. When reviewing a nonjudicial agency
16 action, the superior court reverses if the school district “acted arbitrarily, capriciously or contrary
17 to law.” Id. at 255.
18 The District’s decisions here were quasi-judicial. Reed’s letter set out factual findings,
19 interpreted the District’s HIB policy, and reached a conclusion as to how the HIB policy applied
20 to the case. AR 4-47. Then the Board accepted Reed’s report and chose sanctions based on Reed’s
21 findings and conclusions. AR 314-15; RP 1-13. All these are the acts of a body acting in a quasi-
22 judicial capacity. Accordingly, this Court must apply de novo review, making its own decision
23 without giving any deference to the District’s determinations.
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 (2) Director Hampson Did Not Violate Policy 5207
2 (a) A Public School District’s HIB Policy Cannot Strip Elected Board Directors
from Setting District Policy and Holding Staff Accountable
3
Policy 5207 is meant to ban persistent harassment, intimidation, and bullying in the
4
District’s workplaces, not to constrain the Board’s elected Directors from advancing the Board’s
5
policymaking agenda or expressing concern about whether District staff are adequately assisting
6
Directors with that fundamental endeavor. The District’s staff should not be permitted to equate
7
an elected Director’s effort to govern the District with harassment, intimidation, and bullying.
8
Otherwise, the District’s staff would be free to use Policy 5207 to seize power from the District’s
9
elected governing officials, or, for that matter, from the District’s Superintendent. But that
10
undesirable consequence is exactly what the District has advanced here.
11
This misapplication of Policy 5207 is made clear in the Reed report’s analysis of the
12
Executive Committee meeting that took place on September 16, 2020. Reed found that Director
13
Hampson “was not overtly rude or disrespectful.” AR 46. Instead, Reed criticized Director
14
Hampson for not allowing Roe and Doe to speak more during the meeting. AR 46. Reed’s
15
determination, as adopted by the District, is squarely antithetical to the statutory discretion
16
afforded to elected School Board Members. The Legislature has vested public school districts’
17
governing boards with “broad discretionary power to determine and adopt written policies not in
18
conflict with other law that provide for the development and implementation of programs,
19
activities, services, or practices.” RCW 28A.320.015(1)(a) (emphasis added). In addition to this
20
broad grant of express authority, the Legislature has confirmed that a School Board may exercise
21
“[s]uch powers as are necessarily or fairly implied in the powers expressly authorized by law.”
22
RCW 28A.320.015(1)(c). If a Board is to be able to exercise its power to establish policies
23
governing the District, as Director Hampson sought to do here, then Directors must have discretion
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 to place their preferences above staff’s preferences and to run meetings how they see fit. The
2 District can point to nothing in RCW 28A vesting a school district’s employees with the right to
3 participate in the Board’s policymaking process, to lengthy speaking time during Executive
4 Committee meetings, or to override Board Members’ decisions.
5 In accord with the broad discretion vested in the Board, during the September 16, 2020
6 meeting Director Hampson called on the then-current SCPTSA President and a past SCPTSA
7 President. AR 46. It was wholly appropriate to invite parent community leaders to speak about the
8 draft anti-racism Policy 0040. After all, the SCPTSA had been involved with drafting the policy
9 the year before, and the anti-racism policy was meant to serve the community to which the elected
10 Board was accountable. Yet Reed objected because “there had been no plan for that prior to the
11 meeting.” AR 46. Reed also criticized this unplanned invitation for these parent community leaders
12 to speak because their input cut into the time of Doe and Roe to speak. AR 46. And Reed critiqued
13 Director Hampson for not planning to give Doe and Roe more time to begin with, and Reed
14 emphasized that Director Hampson had interrupted Roe to clarify for her that the Board’s
15 Executive Committee was considering a Board-created BAR, not a staff-created BAR. AR 46. In
16 other words, Reed believed that District staff were entitled to speak for a long time at a Board
17 Executive Committee meeting and that Director Hampson was wrong to tell staff that the Board,
18 not they, would be making the decision. This construction of Policy 5207 would require elected
19 Board Directors to be cowed by District staff. It is error. Director Hampson had every right to push
20 forward Policy 5207 as she did.
21 The District’s misapplication of Policy 5207 in this case is not an isolated concern. Given
22 the District’s governance structure, interpersonal conflict between Board Members and District
23 staff, from the Superintendent on down, is inevitable. While the Board does not hire and fire
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 District employees, other than the Superintendent, Board Members often work closely with
2 District staff. The District has not provided Board Members with their own staff, leaving them
3 dependent on the District’s full-time professionals to assist them in carrying out the Board’s
4 business. AR 16. But despite staff’s significant role, the Board sets policy for the District; staff
5 members do not. Yet District staff often see themselves as instrumental—and perhaps even
6 primarily responsible—for developing the District’s governing policies. With these arrangements,
7 tension, conflict, and hurt feelings are sure to follow when elected officials—accountable to their
8 constituents—do not see eye to eye with staff about a policy matter or have concerns about staff
9 performance. In this environment, an adjudicatory body, whether within the District or this Court,
10 should not construe a policy on harassment, intimidation, and bullying in a way that rebalances
11 responsibility in favor of bureaucrats and away from the voters’ chosen representatives on the
12 Board, contrary to the statutory authority conferred on school boards by the Legislature. See RCW
13 28A.320.015(1).
14 Besides obstructing the Board’s policymaking function, the District erroneously
15 interpreted Policy 5207 so broadly that an elected Director cannot even criticize staff performance.
16 Policy 5207 is not meant to prevent the Board’s elected Directors from evaluating staff work and
17 holding them accountable. Indeed, in another recent case, the District warned the Court of Appeals
18 against construing Policy 5207 in a way that would stop school principals from giving a negative
19 job performance evaluation for teachers. See, e.g., Bawden v. Seattle Pub. Sch., Br. of Resp’t
20 Seattle Sch. Dist., 2021 WL 4712894 at *12-*15 (Wash. App. Div. I, Sep. 13, 2021). The District
21 argued that applying Policy 5027 broadly would lead to “absurd results, essentially prohibiting the
22 District from ever finding any employee’s job performance is deficient in anyway.” Id. at *14.
23 And the Court of Appeals agreed. See Bawden v. Seattle Pub. Sch., __ Wn. App. 2d __, 2022 WL
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 277048, at *2 (2022) (unpublished) (“Concluding that a negative job evaluation is prohibited
2 harassment, intimidation, or bullying, would prevent the District from determining that an
3 employee’s performance is deficient in any respect.”). The District cannot explain why teachers
4 should be subject to candid evaluations of their job performance while staff in the District’s central
5 office should not be when an elected Board Member has a concern about the failure to execute a
6 Director’s mandate.
7 (b) Director Hampson Did Not Intend to “Bully, Degrade, or Humiliate” Staff
Members When She Moved Draft Policy 0040 Forward and Expressed
8 Disagreement with District Staff’s Inaction
9 The text of Policy 5207 confirms that the District erroneously sided with a District
10 employee rather than an elected representative of the Seattle community. The HIB policy bans
11 only actions that are “intended to intimidate, bully, degrade, or humiliate.” AR 137. But Reed’s
12 report made no finding on Director Hampson’s intent, and the Board did not either when it
13 sanctioned Hampson based on the Reed report. AR 4-47; RP 1-14. Simply put, there was no
14 evidence that Hampson acted with that culpable intent. Consider her supposedly harassing emails
15 in August 2020. As the Reed report itself recognizes, these emails did not go to Doe or Roe. AR
16 45. Instead, Director Hampson emailed Director DeWolf and the SCPTSA President. AR 45. And
17 there was no evidence presented by Reed that Director Hampson expected Doe or Roe to ever see
18 those messages. Sending emails to other people hardly shows intent to harass, intimidate, or bully
19 Doe and Roe.
20 (c) Director Hampson Did Not Act Repeatedly and Was Reasonable in Her
Firm Directives to Push Forward the Draft Policy 0040 Despite the District
21 Staff’s Preference for a Different Approach
22 Besides not acting with such malicious intent, Hampson acted neither repeatedly nor
23 unreasonably. That reality should have been the end of the District’s inquiry, because Policy 5027
24 applies only to “repeated and/or unreasonable actions.” AR 137. Director Hampson’s actions were
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 isolated and were well grounded in fact. And she did nothing unreasonable. Consider again the
2 supposedly problematic emails in August 2020:
3  On August 18, 2020, at 3:05pm, Director Hampson emailed the other Board Directors
4 and the District staff director for policy and board relations, expressing her concerns
5 that the minutes for the last Executive Committee meeting did not accurately reflect the
6 Committee’s decision to set Policy 0040 for Committee action and that she had not
7 been updated by staff on the policy’s progress. AR 25. There is no evidence that
8 Director Hampson’s concerns were not well grounded in fact. AR 25. Thus, Director
9 Hampson had reason to be concerned that the Executive Committee’s decision to move
10 forward with Policy 0040 was not being honored by District staff and that the Board
11 was being kept in the dark on the status of the policy’s development.
12  On August 18, 2020, at 10:42pm, Director Hampson received then then-SCPTSA
13 President’s emailing forwarding a copy of the email between Doe and the then-
14 SCPTSA President in which Doe asserted that Policy 0040 was on hold and awaiting
15 another round of community engagement in September. AR 25. Here again, Director
16 Hampson had reason to be concerned that the Executive Committee’s decision to move
17 forward with Policy 0040 was not being honored by District staff and that the Board
18 was being kept in the dark on the status of the policy’s development.
19  The next day, on August 19, 2020 at 7:13am, Director Hampson responded to the then-
20 SCPTSA President: “Thoughts? You should respond frankly. She didn’t include me on
21 that update and it’s an update that I personally have not received.” AR 26. Director
22 Hampson’s emails was professional and stated nothing negative about Doe; it only
23 reiterated her ongoing concern that the District staff was not moving forward with the
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 anti-racism policy on the schedule that Director Hampson wanted and the Executive
2 Committee had voted on.
3  A few minutes later, Director Hampson emailed Director DeWolf, forwarding the
4 earlier email she had gotten from the SCPTSA President. Director Hampson notified
5 Director DeWolf that she had received no such update from Roe. AR 26.
6  Later that morning, the Board’s Executive Committee met, and Director Hampson
7 moved for Policy 0040 to come before the Executive Committee in the next month. AR
8 26. Director Hampson said at the meeting, “I will bring forward a BAR if staff is not
9 ready.” AR 26. Hampson explained that she that the policy had been discussed enough
10 and should not be held up further. Id.
11  The next day, August 21, 2020, the SCPTSA President forwarded to Director Hampson
12 a new email that she had received from Doe. In that forwarded email, Doe stated, “We
13 have been working with Board President Director DeWolf,” and stated that Doe wanted
14 to do more community engagement on the policy in September. AR 27. Director
15 Hampson did not email Doe; she simply forwarded the email to Director DeWolf and
16 replied to the SCPTSA President that Doe “hasn’t done any of that according to
17 [Director DeWolf].”
18 Those were all the emails that Director Hampson sent. AR 25-28. Not a single one was to Doe or
19 Roe, and all of them were reasonable based on Director Hampson’s longstanding concerns about
20 staff inaction on anti-racism policy and about her immediate concerns that staff were not moving
21 the policy toward Board action as quickly as Director Hampson wanted. All evidence in the record
22 showed that Doe and Roe had sat on the policy for nearly a year. In August 2020, Doe herself had
23 stated in an email that “competing priorities” had pushed Policy 0040 back. AR 25. When Reed
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 asked Roe to produce a chronology of the community engagement that Roe had done on the policy,
2 Roe declined, showing that staff had done little or nothing on that front. AR 21. The SCPTSA
3 President’s emails confirm that the SCPTSA had been kept in the dark too, further confirming that
4 District staff had failed to act since receiving the draft Policy 0040 in fall 2019. AR 25. In short,
5 Director Hampson’s critiques of the pace of staff work were entirely reasonable.
6 The August 28, 2020 phone call did not violate the HIB policy either. A witness’s notes
7 from the call catalogued a disagreement between Director Hampson and Doe on whether additional
8 community engagement was necessary. AR 29. Director Hampson explained that the SCPTSA,
9 which includes Black families, had already been a conduit for community engagement. AR 29.
10 Director Hampson also noted that she was elected by voters and had heard from many Black voices
11 about the policy already. AR 29. To be sure, the Reed report noted a witness recalling yelling and
12 “challenging comments as untrue.” AR 46. But isolated moments of losing one’s temper are not
13 the same as harassment, intimidation, and bullying. These moments did not recur, and they
14 reflected only Director Hampson’s long-term and short-term concerns about staff inaction. After
15 seeing District staff failing to act since her days as a volunteer with the SCPTSA, and then seeing
16 that staff had still not moved forward for another year once she was elected to Board service,
17 Director Hampson had every reason to feel frustration and to be candid with District staff.
18 Besides the District staff disagreeing with Director Hampson on the process, District staff
19 members also appeared to be steering the policy’s substance in a direction that concerned some
20 portions of the student and parent community. AR 40-41. The staff was editing the policy to
21 emphasize anti-Black racism. While anti-Black racism was rightly seen by all as a major concern,
22 the policy was supposed to address racism directed at Black, Native, and other people of color. Id.
23 And Policy 0040, once adopted, reflected this broader target. Id.
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 (d) Director Hampson Did Nothing to Substantially Interfere with or to
Substantially Disrupt the District Staff’s Work Environment Because They
2 Were Not Entitled to Control the Board’s Policy-Making Agenda
3 There is no basis for concluding that Director Hampson’s actions in taking greater
4 responsibility for the policy’s development somehow “substantially affected the workplace”
5 within the meaning of the HIB. The only complaint that Doe and Roe might lodge is that Director
6 Hampson’s efforts resulted in them losing control over Policy 0040’s development. But the
7 District’s HIB cannot reasonably be construed to mean that the Board and its individual members
8 are prohibited from carrying out the essential responsibilities as District fiduciaries and as elected
9 officials who, by the District’s own reckoning, are responsible for adopting the polices that govern
10 the District. AR 16. Staff are there to assist the Board, not the other way around. AR 16.
11 A single heated phone call is not enough to alter the workplace. As the Reed report itself
12 recognizes, the August 2020 emails did not go to Doe or Roe. As the Reed report also
13 acknowledged, Director Hampson was perfectly professional and polite during the September
14 2020 Executive Committee meeting. AR 46. Even if Director Hampson had yelled during the call,
15 which she vehemently denies, Doe admitted that she herself had also raised her voice during the
16 call. AR 30. The call embodied the staunch disagreement between elected Directors and staff about
17 whether staff were moving forward an important Board policy quickly enough, and, frankly,
18 whether the District staff or the Board make policy. Director Hampson had been frustrated for
19 years that District staff were not doing enough. And Doe’s and Roe’s clamoring for more process
20 was more of the same, in Director Hampson’s view. Director Hampson had every right to stand up
21 for her own views as an elected Board Director. Nothing suggests that one call changed the
22 workplace for Doe and Roe.
23 Indeed, evidence showed that Director Hampson was not singling out Doe and Roe;
24 evidence showed that she had expressed frustration with other District staff members. Reed’s
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 report stated that “Dir. Hampson has been highly critical of [other District employees,]
2 Superintendent [Juneau] (Native) and Chief of Schools and Continuous Improvement [Wyeth]
3 (White), who she perceives as ‘the most disrespectful staff member’ to Board directors.” AR 40-
4 41. A HIB policy should not become a weapon for a public school district’s employees to use as a
5 shield against reasonable criticism or as a weapon in a power struggle with elected officials who
6 govern the district.
7 (3) The Board Erred in Sanctioning Director Hampson for Actions that Did Not Violate
Policy 5207
8
Because the District erred in deciding that Director Hampson violated Policy 5207, the
9
Board also erred in sanctioning Director Hampson based on that flawed decision. Just as a sentence
10
must be vacated when a jury’s conviction is vacated on appeal, so too must this Court vacate that
11
Board’s sanctions decision. The Board motion to sanction Director Hampson was expressly
12
predicated on the Reed report, which constituted the District’s decision. AR 314-15; RP 2 (stating
13
that the motion was “based on conclusions in a Seattle Public Schools Board Amended and Final
14
Investigation Report”). During the Board’s discussion, Director Rivera-Smith expressed concern
15
about “two of our members having been found [to] have violated the HIB policy.” RP 6. Plainly,
16
the Board sanction would never have occurred had the District correctly concluded that Director
17
Hampson did not violate Policy 5207. This Court should vacate the Board’s motion.
18
F. CONCLUSION
19
For these reasons, this Court should reverse the District’s decision concluding that Director
20
Hampson violated Policy 5207, and this Court should vacate the Board’s sanction.
21
I certify that this brief contains 7,249 words, excluding the words in the caption, the tables
22 of contents and authorities, the headers and footers, this certificate of compliance, and the signature
block. This brief is therefore within the word limit of 8,400 words established by this Court’s order
23 dated January 11, 2022.
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1 DATED this 16th day of February 2022.
2
/s/ Philip A. Talmadge
3 /s/ Gary W. Manca
Philip A. Talmadge, WSBA #6973
4 Gary W. Manca, WSBA #42798
5 2775 Harbor Avenue SW
6 Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1
6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY
7
CHANDRA N. HAMPSON, as director of Cause No. 21-2-12876-5 SEA
8
Seattle School District No. 1,
9
Plaintiff/Appellant, DECLARATION OF SERVICE
10
v.
11
SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,
a municipal corporation,
12
Defendant/Respondent.
13
14
On said day below, I had delivered by electronically served via King County E-service true
15
and accurate copies of the Appellant’s Opening Brief to the following parties:
16
Kymberly K. Evanson, WSBA #39973
Pacifica Law Group LLP
17
1191 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101-3404
18
Tel: (206) 245-1700
19
Judge’s Working Copies delivered via E-service to:
Honorable Judge Regina Cahan
20
King County Superior Court
516 Third Avenue, Room C-203
21
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: (206) 477-1385
22
Original electronically filed via King County E-service to:
23
King County Superior Court
Clerk’s Office
24
Declaration of Service - 1
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661
1
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United
2
States that the foregoing is true and correct.
3
DATED this 16th day of February, 2022, at Seattle, Washington.
4
5
/s/ Matt J. Albers
6 Matt J. Albers, Paralegal
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Declaration of Service - 2
Seattle, WA 98126
(206) 574-6661

Response of Seattle School District No. 1 To Opening Brief of Appelant School Board Director Chandra N. Hampson, Dated March 18, 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Response of Seattle School District No. 1 To Opening Brief of Appelant School Board Director Chandra N. Hampson, Dated March 18, 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Response of Seattle School District No. 1 To Opening Brief of Appelant School Board Director Chandra N. Hampson, Dated March 18, 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 FILED

2022 FEB 16 11:20 AM

2 Table of Authorities .........................................................................................................................3

4 B. ASSIGMENTS OF ERROR ................................................................................................5

5 (1) Assignments of Error ...............................................................................................5

6 (2) Issue Pertaining to the Assignments of Error ..........................................................5

7 C. STATEMENT OF THE CASE............................................................................................5

8 (1) Factual History .........................................................................................................5

9 (2) Procedural History .................................................................................................11

12 (2) Director Hampson Did Not Violate Policy 5207 ...................................................17

15 (b) Director Hampson Did Not Intend to “Bully, Degrade, or Humiliate”

19 (d) Director Hampson Did Nothing to Substantially Interfere with

4 Bawden v. Seattle Pub. Sch., Br. of Resp’t Seattle Sch. Dist.,

2 (1) Assignments of Error

3 Director Hampson raises two assignments of error:

5 and Final Report” as a final decision of the District. AR 4-47.

7 sanctioning Director Hampson based on this August 9, 2021 report. AR 311-15.

8 (2) Issue Pertaining to the Assignments of Error

10 respect to District staff members in August-September 2020.

11 C. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

(1) Factual History

8 Director Geary’s expectation. AR 20-21.

6 these staff members’ proposal to delay Policy 0040.

19 had received no such update from Doe. AR 26.

9 (2) Procedural History

20 in response to their work on Policy 0040.” AR 36.

5 Hampson and these District staff members:

14 President of the SCPTSA about Director Hampson’s track record:

5 states that they “must”:

6  Physically harm an employee or volunteer or damage the employee’s or

13 or Roe, other than her finding about “detriment.” Id.

21 days of receiving this letter.” Id.

23 AR 311-15; RP 1-14. Director Hersey moved as follows:

9 and Harris abstaining. AR 315.

19 (1) This Court Gives No Deference to the School District’s Decisions

21 appeal right that Director Hampson invokes here:

22 Any person, or persons, either severally or collectively, aggrieved by any decision

6 heard de novo by the superior court.” RCW 28A.645.030 (emphasis added).

10 13, 2021). That argument would be incorrect if advanced here.

17 to law.” Id. at 255.

23 without giving any deference to the District’s determinations.

4 Committee meetings, or to override Board Members’ decisions.

20 forward Policy 5207 as she did.

14 Besides obstructing the Board’s policymaking function, the District erroneously

19 Doe and Roe.

2 supposedly problematic emails in August 2020:

12  On August 18, 2020, at 10:42pm, Director Hampson received then then-SCPTSA

15 another round of community engagement in September. AR 25. Here again, Director

2 Committee had voted on.

10 and should not be held up further. Id.

14 to do more community engagement on the policy in September. AR 27. Director

22 workplace for Doe and Roe.

6 govern the district.

You might also like