Why a Seattle School Board member plans to appeal harassment case that’s cost taxpayers thousands

A Seattle school board member has gone to court to fight the outcome of a district investigation that concluded she harassed, intimidated and bullied two Seattle Public Schools employees. And it’s costing taxpayers thousands of dollars. 

School Board Member Chandra Hampson appealed the outcome of the investigation in September. King County Superior Court Judge Mafé Rajul dismissed the case in April and, shortly after, Hampson’s attorney filed an appeal in the state’s Court of Appeals. 

So far SPS has spent $36,238.53 defending the case against Hampson, according to public records. District officials said that number will increase because the case is ongoing.

Hampson’s attorneys are seeking to overturn the finding that their client violated the district’s harassment, intimidation and bullying policy and say the district has not explained how events that led to the investigation meet the threshold of causing “substantial harm” to staffers under the policy. But attorneys representing SPS are arguing a thorough investigation was conducted, and that the outcome is supported by 20 witness interviews and thousands of documents. 

“There’s been an issue on whether the staff of Seattle Public Schools runs the district or if the superintendent and board do,” said Hampson’s attorney, Philip Talmadge, a former Washington State Supreme Court justice. “This case highlights that particular problem and ultimately can bring affirmation to the board and the superintendent they hire.”

As a result of the SPS investigation conducted by the MFR Law Group PLLC, Hampson, who was elected in 2019, and board member Zachary DeWolf, who has since left the board because his term expired, were required to review the board policy that prohibited harassment, intimidation and bullying. Neither board member had to pay a fine, nor were they disciplined. The district was also to provide harassment, intimidation and bullying training to board members as needed. 

The investigative report was submitted last August and “concluded that Director Hampson used her position and authority to the detriment of [staff] in violation of [the harassment, intimidation and bullying policy],” according to court documents. “The report further concluded Director Hampson and Director DeWolf violated [the policy] because they intended to and did degrade and humiliate [staffers] in their workplace.”

Last month, the school board voted to repeal the harassment, intimidation and bullying policy for adults (a student policy still exists) and replace it with civility procedures, citing the extraneous resources it took to go through complaints that often didn’t meet the threshold of the policy and prevented more serious complaints from being addressed. Hampson recused herself from voting.

Seattle school officials declined to comment on the case, although spokesperson Beverley Redmond said the replacement of the harassment, intimidation and bullying policy does not impact the superior court’s decision. The attorneys representing the district, Pacific Law Group LLC, referred to the district for comment.

Hampson did not respond to requests for comment. Her attorneys filed a brief on Friday to the appeals court.

The controversy began about two years ago, when SPS hired a law firm focused on employment law and human-resource services in the Pacific Northwest to investigate claims that Hampson and DeWolf violated a board policy during meetings that took place in August and September 2020. Two Black women staffers — who still currently work at SPS — were working with Hampson and DeWolf on developing an anti-racism policy, but as disagreements started, contentious conversations followed.

The anti-racism policy has not been adopted by the school board. 

In the summer of 2020, the two staffers and board members disagreed on when the anti-racism policy should go to a board vote. Board members accused both employees of inaccuracies in the policy.

During a group phone call in August 2020, the situation took a turn for the worse. Board members raised their voices at staff and the conversation has been described as “terrible,” “heated,” and “berating,” according to interviews conducted by investigators. The two staffers sent the board a memorandum in September 2020 that said Hampson and DeWolf “orchestrated a campaign of bullying, escalating intimidation, gaslighting, and retaliation,” according to court documents. 

The two SPS employees believed board members were “silencing,” “undermining,” “discrediting” and discriminating against them based on gender and race, court documents say. However, the investigation did not conclude Hampson and DeWolf discriminated against staffers based on their race or gender.

Hampson and DeWolf later tried to expedite the board vote on the anti-racism policy during an executive committee meeting without the staffers. The two staffers attempted to present the policy during the meeting in September but were cut off by board members. “Staff involvement was a privilege, not a right,” Hampson’s attorneys argue in court documents. 

It’s not considered harassment when an elected board member reprimands staff for failing to follow board directives, Hampson’s attorneys argue in court documents. “District staff thought they knew better and felt sidelined. But the authority over direct policy lies in the hands of the governing directors, not staff. The district has improperly employed … [the harassment, intimidation and bullying policy] to rebalance the power between elected directors and staff.”

Board members are elected to advise and approve policies, Talmadge said. If a superintendent or board member directed staff to get something done by a certain time and the employee refused to and claimed that was bullying, “I mean that’s just unworkable,” said Talmadge, who served as a state senator for 16 years. “As a former elected official, it’s bloody nonsense.”