Open Joint Statement in Response to the ICSD Board of Education

Anjanette Brown and Peyi Soyinka-Airewele, January 15, 2021

The Board of Education serves at the request of our community as a check and balance on the superintendent of schools.  First and foremost, I, Ms. Anjanettte Brown, am a parent before I was ever Luvelle Brown‘s “ex-wife”.  For Mr. Eversley-Bradwell to portray me in the media on January 13th as a histrionic ex-wife and malign me as a parent of the Ithaca City School District community in support of Dr. Brown proves my point in its entirety. The Board of Education failed me and failed my children. In view of the relationship that several Board members have with my children’s father where they socialize together, attend parties together, travel to football games together, it is clear that the Board of Education cannot serve as an objective body in an investigative scenario. In addition, its refusal to address my well documented allegations of serious abuse of office indicates that the Board needs to be reformed with community members who are actually willing to protect the children of the Ithaca City School District regardless of who their parents might be. 

I, Peyi Soyinka-Airewele, also read with a grave sense of disappointment the comments attributed to Dr. Sean Eversley-Bradwell in the Ithaca Times regarding the injustices Ms. Brown has experienced within the ICSD system. Dr. Bradwell is a long term colleague and friend, in the same manner that at least two other members of the ICSD School Board are friends, and one, a former student. My three children, now young adults, had memorable experiences while they were in ICSD school. Nevertheless, our commitment to truth and justice must prevail over personal sentiments. 

It is important to note that for over a year, Ms. Anjie Brown and I have deployed various measures, outside of the public gaze, to try to halt this egregious abuse of office.  We wished to protect the children from any public attention. For instance, in March 2020,  along with two leading women’s advocates, I wrote to the principal of Northeast elementary school, the Commissioner of Social services and office of Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, calling for accountability, transparency and justice in their dealings with this case, in the hope they could intervene to prevent further violations. Our promising initial conversations were halted by the COVID lockdown but I have to commend the responses, especially from Ms. Coyle,  current principal of Northeast Elementary school who responded with professional courtesy, integrity and focus on the children’s welfare.

I continued these efforts through the summer and fall with a long meeting at the behest of Ms. Brown with the President of the School Board, Mr. Robert Ainslie in mid-October. Sadly, those measures were countered by a tightening web of retaliative legal measures designed to break, bankrupt and silence Ms. Brown.  Consequently, in late November 2020, Ms. Brown was forced to submit a detailed formal appeal to the School Board. It was the refusal of the Board to conduct an independent investigation of those meticulously documented allegations that culminated in the current situation where Ms. Brown was forced to seek relief at the state level. Consequently, I am aghast at the comments purportedly uttered by the vice-president of the Board of Education and would have preferred to believe he was misrepresented. 

THESE ARE THE FACTS: 

First: Despite the use of terms that might confuse the public, the Board of Education did not conduct an “investigation” of Ms. Anjanette Brown’s detailed petition, which is supported by 200 pages of copiously documented evidence indicating the misuse of school district staff, teachers, facilities and resources to wage a personal vendetta and violate professional ethics and local and state policies. It took several weeks to complete compilation of this petition. The Board suggests that it was adequately convinced after reviewing the petition themselves, (without due process, transparency, or an independent investigator capable of investigating weighty allegations against a District superintendent), that it felt convinced the issues were outside of its purview and thus it dismissed the call for an actual “investigation” of the complaints. Since the board believed the allegations were outside of its purview, that is, outside its scope, authority, range or interest, it did not investigate. Institutions do not investigate things outside their purview. Therefore, it is disingenuous for the Board to simultaneously use misleading phrases that suggest it “investigated” the allegations.

It is important to note that Ms. Brown’s petition stipulates the need for transparency, impartiality and specifically requests for the recusal of three named members of the board, saying:

“ I am herewith requesting that the BOE thoroughly investigate the concerns I outline below through a transparent process that will ensure accountability. Since some members of the Board might be unable to maintain the impartiality and objectivity required due to their very personal friendships and relationships with the ICSD president (Eldred Harris, Chris Malcolm, and Sean Eversley-Bradwell), I request that they recuse themselves from this process and that an independent inquiry should be established.”

There is no indication that any of this happened and Dr. Eversley-Bradwell’s comments to the press indicates that he actively participated in this review of her petition and in the decision to dismiss Ms. Brown’s allegations in such a disturbingly cavalier manner.       

I, Peyi,  have chaired and participated in institutional and international inquiries into allegations by aggrieved parties and I am disturbed by this disingenuous claim that the District conducted an “investigation” or “thorough review” of Ms. Brown’s allegation. Let me share the facts about what transpired. 

1. After submitting her petition to the school board on November 23rd, Ms. Brown received a singularly stark email response from the president of the School Board a week later,  precisely one short sentence in length,: “Good Evening Ms. Brown, The Board of Education has received your correspondence and will take it under advisement.” 
2. When she wrote back 2 weeks after submitting the petition asking the Board as follows:  “Please let me know your plans in response to my request so that I can move forward,” she was met with a deafening silence- the Board did not deign to respond at all, thus violating codes of professional conduct and in particular, principles for handling complaints of harassment and discrimination. Rather, it demonstrated utter disrespect for her as a person, for her rights, and for her voice by ignoring her email. 
3. This radio silence remained in place till she received via email, on December 28th,  an unsigned letter dismissing her petition on the basis that the Board of Education itself had done a “thorough review”that indicated the issues were a “family dispute between you and your former husband” and thus, outside of the Board of Education’s purview. 
4. The letter from the Board also urged Ms. Brown to address the issues to “the court that issued the order which has the authority to enforce the order.”  Ms. Brown has described this as a “slap in the face”.  She had presented concrete examples of how the superintendent and ICSD staff blatantly disregarded court orders through abuse of authority, and yet the Board’s dismissive response appears to stipulate that the court was required to come to the school to enforce the order. This is a subversion of usual protocols and expectations that the school will do its due diligence to ensure court orders submitted to the school are carried out in the interest of children.  
5. Thus the Board declined to investigate the reams of documented evidence of administrative and official misconduct in favor of its brand of identity politics; refused to even invite Ms. Brown for an interview; discounted her offer to meet with the Board and to provide additional concrete evidence from the legal deposition of an ICSD staff member; it refused to respond to her email of inquiry on process; failed to interview staff and teachers who could attest to the allegations;  declined to even contact the educational experts who wrote evaluations of the impact of ICSD failure to provide mandated support; and did not provide a shred of evidence to indicate they investigated any of the multiple allegations made by Ms. Brown. This callous disinterest in the pursuit of truth and justice, disregard for evidence, disdain for constituted procedures and summary dismissal of her allegations is an indictment of the BoE itself.
6. Permit me to remind the ICSD Board that the old Rule of Coverture was disassembled in the 19th century in the United States. As such, Ms. Brown retains her full rights to legal existence as a complainant. It is indefensible that she appears to have been regarded and dismissed as the personal “affair” or “property” of the Superintendent, involved “in a family dispute.” Tragically, such problematic assumptions are not uncommon in the annals of women’s experiences. Under the principle of coverture,  “the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband.” For that reason, women were typically asked to go and settle violations “at home” and the public viewed their grievances as “domestic”. Although that law is defunct, it still seems to inform the sentiments of those who refuse to acknowledge the severity of the institutional failures and discriminatory treatment Ms. Brown experienced in our taxpayer-supported school system, and by ICSD staff and administrators acting in their official capacities. Dismissing Ms. Brown as an “aggrieved ex-wife” is tantamount to robbing her of her rights to a fair hearing and to justice on the basis of her marital status. 
7. Ms. Brown’s full petition clearly documents and provides evidence for her multiple complaints of discrimination, misuse of office and unethical conflicts of interests by ICSD officials. She documents the weaponization of the school system to harass, demean, and marginalize her and deny services due to her children with severe consequences for their educational development. These  consequences are attested to by external experts whose written reports are included in the materials provided to the School Board. She offers evidence of statements by ICSD staff under oath and conducted during depositions by attorneys. How then can these be casually denied a proper investigation by the Board of Education? It is because of the longstanding nature of these injustices that Ms. Brown calls for a firewall between ICSD business and private relationships.

She petitioned the ICSD board to address violations that are clearly ICSD based so as to protect the wellbeing, educational development, and rights to non-discriminatory treatment that her children deserve like any other child within the school system. It is the ICSD Board and the superintendent who have proven unwilling and unable to uphold their oath of office and chosen to enthrone the dictates of personal friendships and collegial bonds. This precisely is the nature of the web of silencing that Ms. Anjanette Brown has been fighting for so many years and it is the reason she was compelled to remove them from the ICSD system this past fall. It is important to note that Ms. Brown did not request compensation in her petition. However, the signatories to the supportive petition addressed to the Commissioner chose to remind the ICSD Board that moving forward, they should be accountable for the continued failure to correct the unjust environment in the public school system that forced Ms. Brown to remove her children from their school and incur additional crushing educational expenses.

Second: According to the Ithaca Times, Dr. Bradwell erroneously claims that Ms Brown has issued a previous petition to the Board, apparently stating that  “this had been going on over several years, and it wasn’t the first time the board had received allegations from Anjanette.”  However, what is more telling is that this fallacy is used to cast aspersions on Ms. Brown’s character. Such misleading innuendo then serves to warn all women, indeed, all members of the community, that those who might actually be forced to appeal for justice to the ICSD Board more than once will be cast as hysterical and unworthy of attention. Is this really the message the Ithaca Board of Education wishes to send to the community? Does the Board regard students, staff, and guardians who exhibit tenacity and courage in fighting for a fair hearing and redress for injustice as emotionally unhinged and a nuisance to be perfunctorily dismissed? Such an attitude is unbecoming of the Board of a school district, particularly one presumably dedicated to the “culture of love” as propagated by the ICSD Superintendent. If Dr. Bradwell responded in his capacity as Vice-President of the ICSD BoE, then his statement illustrates perfectly the role blurring that makes the school board complicit in the forms of gaslighting Ms. Brown endured, and which I personally witnessed when I accompanied her to the school district office in November to request school records. 

Third: The superintendent’s resignation was sympathetically affirmed and defended and signaled by the school Board as an independent career move based on his personal needs. Such loyalty is impressive. Sadly, it also brings into sharp focus a startling disparity in their attitude, language and actions with regards to the lack of compassion and professionalism with which the same Board had treated Ms. Brown’s account of her harrowing experiences within the school system and its devastating impact on her children. What would it have looked like if the Board of Education had exhibited a comparable culture of love in its dealings with Ms. Brown? 

Fourth: Dr. Bradwell insists in a tone of certainty and anticipatory victory that Ms Brown’s appeal will be rejected by the State Department of Education before the end of the week. The Ithaca Times notes that regarding the petition to the Commissioner of Education, “Bradwell expects to hear something back by the end of the week” and he is cited as saying “I’m quite certain the state will not look at this because there is nothing to look at”. This opens up the question of how and why the Board or Dr. Bradwell went to the extent of sourcing for such information about when Ms Brown would hear back from the state; whether they sought to intervene in the process of Ms. Brown’s appeal to the state; and why a Board charged with impartially protecting the members of the district would appear to be so gratified and certain that a complainant’s request for a state hearing would be rejected. Contrary to this assertion, Ms. Brown has received a very helpful response at the state level with additional guidance on ensuring the effective processing of the two main trajectories of her grievance. In fact, her allegations were not in any way delegitimized as an “ongoing family dispute” as the ICSD Board of Education had done. 

Finally, to return to the spurious claim that the Board “investigated” before dismissing Ms. Brown’s allegations as “domestic dispute”, we would like to say that if the ICSD Board is uninformed of the basic elements of conducting an investigation, we would like to remind them that the Ithaca community has an abundance of human resource experts, faculty members, administrators, lawyers and community agencies who are all well schooled in the basic guidelines for handling an independent investigation. The call for impartiality in investigating allegations of harassment as requested by Ms. Brown is a legal expectation, not a choice. 

The school Board is well advised to adhere to the best practices from the Department of Education and the Office of Civil Rights’ guidance on conducting an investigation in schools. For those interested, we list some of these basic protocols below our letter. Suffice to say that none of them were followed in addressing Ms. Brown’s petition. There was no investigation of her claims. 

As Ms. Brown’s struggle continues, we are mindful of the many other community members who have fought and are still struggling for accountability and redress for various injustices in the ICSD community. We understand the great emotional, financial, professional, and social toll of such struggles and are deeply thankful for many, (including my Ithaca College human rights students), who have offered solidarity and support to Ms. Brown. It was a tough journey just to get an attorney to represent her in custody and child support proceedings. Despite Ms. Brown’s lack of resources, Attorney Elizabeth Aherne did so based on her own commitment to justice and protecting vulnerable individuals. Although Ms. Aherne has three children in the school district, she took on a case in which Ms. Brown was at a disadvantage in finding counsel who would represent her because of the bias in the community. 

The goal has not merely been for justice for Ms. Brown and her children, but to ensure institutional changes that would allow the school system and community to become a safe space for all.  It is our hope that we can all come together to work for transparency, due process, and equity and to cultivate a culture of inclusive respect for the rights and protection of all irrespective of their identity and status. 

Ms. Anjanette Brown  and  Prof Peyi Soyinka-Airewele  (Ithaca, New York)

COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION: THE BASICS

Community members facing similar ordeals might find it useful to read, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) protocols and checklists booklet on Protecting Students from Harassment, which includes Marta Larson’s “Complaint Investigation: The Basics.” Here are some excerpts (with emphasis added in bold): 

• Complaint Investigator: The investigator must also be completely independent in the conduct of the investigation to avoid suspicion of a biased result (emphasis added); 
• Must be knowledgeable – “She/he should especially know the content of the district harassment policy, related state and/or federal laws, procedures for investigating cases, due process issues, methods for minimizing district legal liability, and requirements of the Freedom of Information Act” 
• “The investigator must also be sure she/he is communicating with the complainant, alleged harasser, and witnesses effectively”
• “The investigator is a neutral fact-finder. The investigator must keep her/his opinions private…”
• “The investigator must make a complete and careful investigation…The investigator must realize that a court appearance may result from the complaint investigation process and be prepared to testify regarding the preparation, objectivity, and thoroughness of the investigation”.
• “It is not necessary to receive a formal complaint. The investigator must investigate all complaints. Even if a fearful complainant requests that the district not investigate, or is unwilling to file a formal complaint, the courts have found that districts are responsible for knowing about harassment through effective utilization of their complaint procedures and have held them responsible”.
• “The complainant and witnesses should also be protected by district policy against retribution from accused harassers or their supporters. The investigator has the duty to inform them of this and to monitor the situation during and following the investigation.”
• “Key Steps in Conducting an Investigation: 
• Complaint investigations should be done both promptly and thoroughly.
• The investigator should plan all interviews carefully
• The complainant should be interviewed first to clarify the details of the complaint. As a part of the interview, the complainant should be informed about the process that the investigation will follow. This includes the complainant’s legal rights, what the investigator will do, what will happen and when, the content and process of the investigation, and who will determine remedies following the investigation. Additionally, the investigator should ascertain whether the complainant has any immediate needs, such as fear, that might need to be addressed at once. While maintaining a businesslike manner, the investigator should treat the complainant considerately and respectfully.
• An important part of the investigation is determining the effect of the harassment on the victim
• The investigator should identify as specifically as possible the part or parts of the district policy or state/federal law that are alleged to have been violated. All interviews and efforts to obtain evidence should be aimed at proving whether the specified policy or law has been violated.
• The investigator should keep a timeline of what happened as part of the process
• Assemble an investigative file and keep it in a secured location. The file should be organized so that anyone opening it could determine the main issues involved in the case and the history of the investigation
• Define and further plan the investigation.
• After the interview has been completed, a signed, written statement detailing all events that took place related to the alleged harassment incident should be prepared and signed by the alleged harasser and placed in the file.
•  If anyone who is to be interviewed wishes to have another party including a union representative or legal counsel present, this must be allowed.

 (see https://www2.ed.gov/offices/OCR/archives/pdf/AppB.pdf )

CONCLUSION: 

It is obvious from the ICSD Board of Education’s communications that they failed to observe these basic protocols. They jettisoned the necessity for neutrality, transparency, communication, factfinding, conducting interviews etc. Indeed, the very failure to create an independent investigation panel or appoint an independent Investigator imperiled their reading of the allegations from the start. Such failures are indefensible and unacceptable in view of the fact that these grave allegations were levied against the ICSD Superintendent himself. The Board therefore had no justification for dismissing Ms. Brown’s petition.