February 27, 2019

Investigation of Allegations
Made by Trustee Eric Dick
Against Trustee Mike Wolfe
Harris County Department of Education

Report by Harry Jones
Littler Mendelson P.C.
www.littler.com

1

 1. On Friday, January 18, 2019, at 5:12 p.m., HCDE Board attorney Sarah Langlois wrote:
“I am writing on behalf of my client, Harris County Department of Education, to discuss you
serving as the investigator for a matter involving sexual harassment allegations raised by an
HCDE board member against another HCDE board member, with the scope to also include an
investigation into the timing, manner, etc. of the report made by the accusing board member.”

2. We spoke by telephone later that evening. I agreed to lead the investigation immediately.
3. My only prior interactions with HCDE were in 2014 (a review of the Special Schools
Division, which was accepted unanimously by the Board) and in 2016 (a speech to staff).
3.1. I did not know any of the HCDE Trustees, including Eric Dick and Mike Wolfe, who
appeared to be the main antagonists in this story.
3.2. I did not know HCDE Superintendent James Colbert, who apparently chose me to
investigate in consultation with Ms. Langlois.
3.3. I could not identify or detect any conflicts of interest, or even indirect issues, which
could cause me to even unintentionally favor Mr. Dick or Mr. Wolfe, anyone else on the
Board, or any other person or group in HCDE.
3.4. I am politically independent. I am not a member of any political party; nor have I ever
been. I have never run for office.
3.4. Being from Dallas, I have very few ties to Houston, and am not part of any associations
in the Houston area. Nobody at or with HCDE is a personal friend.
3.5. I have led over 90 high-level investigations of educational institutions, spread across the
United States. These have included a full range of issues (allegations of abuse, corruption,
sexual assault, theft, grading irregularities, athlete safety, illicit loan programs, favoritism,
racism, molestation, drug rings, suicide, and human trafficking) with a full range of
outcomes. I knew I had a purely independent view of this situation.
4. The materials I gained on Monday, January 21, 2019 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Day) were:





The January 17, 2019 email sent by Mr. Dick to HCDE Executive Director of
Human Resources, Natasha Truitt, alleging abuse of power by Mr. Wolfe.
A copy of HCDE Policies DIA (Legal), (Local), and (Exhibit).
The most current version of HCDE’s Board Operating Procedures.
Correspondence from Board President Josh Flynn about the matter.

Subsequently, I requested and received:



All HCDE email of Messrs. Dick and Wolfe from July 2018 through January 2019.
The entire file covering the recruitment of a new Board Secretary in July of 2019.
2

 5. On Tuesday morning, January 22, 2019, I met with Superintendent Colbert at HCDE.
5.1. He gave me complete autonomy to investigate any sexual harassment as defined by
HCDE Policy DIA (LOCAL).
5.2. I understood I was to be the Superintendent’s designee as contemplated by Policy
DIA (LOCAL), which describes an investigation as being personal interviews, document
review, and a comprehensive analysis of all circumstances, followed by an oral or written
report to HCDE of findings on the allegations. This is my report. It has taken more than
the ten days contemplated in Policy DIA (LOCAL), but additional time was needed to
complete a thorough investigation, and I updated the Board President, the Board Attorney,
and the Superintendent on my date of completion.
6. Mr. Colbert clarified my scope was to include all angles of the Dick-Wolfe relationship to
the extent it would add understanding to the cause and nature of the allegations against Mr.
Wolfe, and stated HCDE wanted and needed to know, to the degree possible, whether the
claims were true or false, as well as why they had been made at this particular moment, in
this way. He said he just wanted to know the truth. He said he was prepared for any
factual findings, and took no sides in the matter; but stated if true, this type of conduct had
no place in HCDE, at all. Therefore, he said he wanted a fair, thorough investigation.
6.1. Superintendent Colbert promised not to steer or interfere in the investigation.
6.2. This was true, completely, throughout. Mr. Colbert stayed out of the inquiry.
6.3. The only document I sought and obtained from Superintendent Colbert was a onepage Board Contact Information sheet. I did not want anyone from HCDE to set up any
of my interviews; I prefer autonomy, so that nobody even knows who I am talking to,
before I arrive or call them.
7. I began my investigation with Mr. Dick, who explained what led to his January 17, 2019
allegation of sexual harassment by Mr. Wolfe. His post had claimed:
“Recently, I have heard repeated accusations that ... Mike Wolfe ... sexually harassed a
woman applying for a job at HCDE. I have been told that Mike ... would only award a
job to her if she slept with him.”

8. This is not precisely true. Mr. Dick heard from a woman I will call “Jane Doe” about Mr.
Wolfe asking her out during a job application process, being affected in his decisions based
on whether she would go out with him, and being vindictive when she declined to go out
with him, even including trying to prevent her working elsewhere.
As I learned from my conversations with Mr. Dick, and looking at his marketing materials,
while Mr. Dick is pleasant and chatty, he is prone to irony and drama.

3

 8.1. Still, if what he said was true, DIA (LEGAL) was implicated, in that quid pro quo
sexual harassment (explicitly or implicitly making a date or romantic favors the basis for an
employment decision) is prohibited.
8.2. Retaliation is also prohibited by HCDE Policy DIA (LOCAL) and federal and state
law, which could, in this context, occur if someone in Mr. Wolfe’s position refused to hire
an applicant, gave her unjustified negative evaluations, or unjustified negative references;
and of course, if he defamed the rejected applicant and “blackballed” her.
9. HCDE’s policies and posture is to take all steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment,
including conducting prompt and effective investigations of complaints, expressing strong
disapproval of any conduct that could be considered harassment, and penalizing it
appropriately. Taking immediate action upon receiving a report is vital to minimizing
HCDE liability. Thus, HCDE should encourage swift reporting of any outcry or allegation.
9.1. The Timely Reporting section of Policy DIA (LOCAL) states: “Reports of prohibited
conduct shall be made as soon as possible after ... knowledge of the alleged act.” The
point of that, of course, is if months or years pass by, the ability to investigate the matter is
impaired, and correcting or remedying the prohibited conduct becomes futile or
impossible if years pass by.
10. Here, Mr. Dick reported what he believed to be prohibited conduct by Mr. Wolfe within
days of first hearing it, not after months or years. Thus, the ability of HCDE to investigate
the claims was not impaired.
10.1. Earlier, President Flynn had pointed out the timing of Mr. Dick’s report:
“We also need to consider the timing of which Mr. Dick heard about these
accusations and why he chose to announce the allegations through a public email
and not directly to Mr. Colbert or myself. The use of the word “recently” in his
email is in direct violation of DIA (LOCAL) which uses the word “immediately”.
This email appears to be in retaliation for a vote in yesterday’s board meeting. As
unfortunate as this is, we need to consider the delay in reporting this allegation to
the proper authority as an attempt to cover-up Mr. Wolfe’s alleged behavior which
constitutes a violation HCDE DIA (LEGAL).”

10.2. I did consider the timing and the motive. Later, I will discuss Mr. Dick’s range of
motives for relaying the allegation in the way he did, but first, I will deal with Mr. Flynn’s
extreme claim that DIA (LOCAL) requires any non-immediate reports of sexual
harassment or assault to be dismissed or minimized or punished.
Perhaps it is so obvious that it needs not be stated, but this stance would have the
unintended effect of discouraging rape victims or those in whom a sexual assault victim had
confided from coming forward, if they had (as is often the case) wrestled with whether or
not to go public for a week or so.

4

 As a public policy, I am sure every decent person would actually want reports to come
quickly, because accuracy of investigation would be improved, but more importantly, we
should all want reports of abuse or harassment to come whenever they come, rather than
insist on immediacy or nothing.
10.3. Fortunately, the Policy does not take that draconian stance towards victims and their
confidents, saying merely “an employee who believes ... that another employee has
experienced prohibited conduct should immediately report the alleged acts.” Thus, it is
“should” rather than “shall” or “must,” and only describes employee-on-employee
harassment, not failure-to-hire and harassment or retaliation of a non-employee by a Board
member. The timeliness of reporting that kind of harassment allegation is actually covered
on page 3 of Policy DIA (LOCAL), which speaks of reporting it “as soon as possible” with
the context being avoiding impairment of any investigation.
10.4. At most, the “delay” was a few days. While this is not literally “as soon as possible,”
Mr. Dick did not “sit” on a story for months or even two weeks. The timing was faster than
the vast majority of reports of sexual harassment; this is something I know from being a
Board Certified labor and employment lawyer for almost 30 years.
10.5. HCDE should be very careful not to back itself into a “non-immediate reports will be
punished” stance; it would create massive liability for an institution which is an in loco
parentis guardian for some of the most vulnerable residents in the County, and exemplifies
a focus on procedural technicalities instead of eradicating harassment.
11. The accusation by Mr. Flynn against Mr. Dick as to an underlying motive of political ill will
has more credibility. Before I discuss this, I should point out: people often, or even
usually, have mixed motives.
11.1. I find Mr. Dick does believe Jane Doe’s story, does believe Mr. Wolfe sexually
harassed and retaliated against Jane Doe, and yet also find Mr. Dick was frustrated by Mr.
Wolfe’s political stances on terminating a lobbyist contract, abolishing HCDE, favoring Mr.
Flynn over Mr. Dick for the presidency of HCDE, and even failing to pay back (or
properly disclose) large campaign loans of $28,000 by Mr. Dick to Mr. Wolfe.
11.2. It was obvious that something had changed recently in the Dick-Wolfe relationship,
because as Mr. Dick admitted:
“We’ve been friends a long time! We went to school together. We went to Disneyland
together last year, with Chase, another friend, and Mike’s niece. That was in August [2018].”

Mr. Wolfe confirmed the trip, and the general truth of Mr. Dick’s characterization,
differing only on how good a friendship they had back in school.
11.3. Friends of that nature do not typically turn this acrimonious without an event that
changes their attitudes. The most likely trigger is political, because no “love triangle” or
personal affront has been mentioned by anyone: Mr. Dick was angered by Mr. Wolfe’s
positions on HCDE, the leadership of HCDE, and the direction of HCDE.
5

 11.4. When I asked Mr. Dick for a possible vote where he and Mr. Wolfe divided, he
mentioned HillCo Partners. HCDE did vote recently to end a longstanding contract with
HillCo, a lobbyist for HCDE. In watching the debate, it seemed Mr. Colbert opposed
ending the contract, arguing lobbying was vital to preserving HCDE; citing bills to abolish
HCDE. Mr. Flynn appears to have been the key swing vote in the cancellation, arguing that
it was incongruous to spend taxpayer money for a lobbyist to lobby against the taxpayer .
Mr. Wolfe used a more nakedly partisan reason, explaining “using taxpayer money for
lobbyists is against the Republican Party platform in Texas.” Mr. Dick voted to keep the
contract, citing the employee fears it would engender employee fear, and was hypocrisy.
However, of all the political issues I heard, the most likely to upset anyone in Mr. Dick’s
shoes, in my opinion, was the officer nominations, because a vote on HillCo, two years
prior, had already split Messrs. Wolfe and Dick.
11.5. But, clearly, even if Mr. Dick’s motives for revealing what he sincerely believed to be
sexual harassment by Mr. Wolfe included some “glee” at discovering misconduct he could
exploit politically, HCDE can never condone sexual harassment and retaliation of a Board
member sitting on a hiring committee, against job applicants.
12. Mr. Dick should also have reported the story of Jane Doe in a more careful manner: being
precise in his description, to make it clear his salacious “job for sex” story did not involve
any sex, at all; and directing it only to Ms. Truitt, in HR, which would have still resulted in
this investigation, but preserved the privacy of those involved, until the end of the inquiry.
What would it have looked like if Mr. Dick reported the allegation in a more factual way?
This is what he told me:
“I have a friend. She’s in her early 30s. She applied for the position of Board
Secretary. Mike, Louis Evans and I were going over resumes. We were the committee.
I told Mike and Louis: ‘Full disclosure. She’s my friend.’ We chose seven candidates
to interview. She was one of them. She goes over to Chris Daniels’ office. And she
says Mike [Wolfe] had her in an office, closed the door, and asked her out on a date.”

He described how Jane Doe agreed to the date, reluctantly, just to get out of the closed
office, left the building immediately and then canceled the date by text, as she had planned
all along. Mr. Dick said he felt Mr. Wolfe was “mean” in the interview, made harsh
comments to Jane Doe, including innuendoes that she slept around to get ahead, and gave
her poor grades. Finally, Mr. Dick described a “blackballing” effort by Mr. Wolfe even
after she had been rejected by HCDE, whereby Mr. Wolfe used his connections in the
Republican Party to sabotage Jane Doe’s subsequent job search. It would have been better
if Mr. Dick had kept the story rigidly to those understandings he had from Jane Doe.
12.1. Still, all the “defensive road blocks” put up by Mr. Flynn in his email and subsequent
conversations with me should in no way build a false equivalency between the alleged
actions of Mr. Wolfe and the alleged actions of Mr. Dick.
12.2. If all of it were true, Mr. Dick would merely be “guilty” of exploiting the truth about a
political opponent in rather rude way, which is as old as politics itself.
6

 12.3. On the other hand, if it were all true, Mr. Wolfe would be guilty of abusing his office,
violating policy and law against quid pro quo sexual harassment against job applicants, and
retaliating against the rejected applicant, all of which would expose HCDE to significant
risks of an expensive and risky lawsuit, and fall far short of the standards set for Trustees of
HCDE.
13. HCDE Board members are supposed to promote the best interests of the Department as a
whole, which necessarily requires them to adhere to the ethics of “honor in conduct,”
trustworthiness, and integrity of character. Policy BFF (Local).
13.1. This precludes making personal promises or taking private actions that could
compromise a Board Member’s responsibilities.
13.2. Furthermore, a public official commits a Class A misdemeanor if, while acting in his
official capacity, intentionally subjects an applicant to verbal expressions of a sexual nature,
submission to which is made a condition of the job sought. Penal Code 39.03; DIA
(LEGAL).
13.3. While no reasonable District Attorney would prosecute Mr. Wolfe for asking an
applicant out on a date during the hiring process and being mad enough about her refusal
to try to prevent her from getting a job at HCDE or anywhere else he had influence, we
should not construct this issue as an imaginary criminal trial. Mr. Wolfe is not “innocent
till proven guilty” in an investigation of whether his actions were honorable or met the
standards for being a Trustee or exposed HCDE to legal risks.
13.4. HCDE’s Trustees should be aiming at higher ethical goals. A job applicant to HCDE
should be entitled to expect not to be asked out on a date by a Board Trustee on the
committee in charge of vetting candidates and be free to decline without retaliation.
Anything less than that does create the appearance of an abuse of power.
14. How did the job search at issue begin?
14.1. At the end of 2017, HCDE posted a job: Executive Assistant to the Board.
14.2. The initial posting drew 103 applicants.
14.3. However, HCDE Administration was not able to obtain sufficient clarity from then
President Louis Evans to proceed with the search.
14.4. The position was posted a second time, and the initial applicants were emailed. Only
45 applicants chose to apply the second time (Ms. Truitt explained to me they “advertised
more heavily” the first time).
14.5. Messrs. Dick and Wolfe sat on the committee to evaluate and interview applicants.

7

 14.6. Members of HR ranked the 45 applicants’ education, experience, and technical skills,
using columns. The process is as objective as is practicable.
14.7. The committee (Messrs. Dick, Wolfe, and Evans) met with Ms. Truitt and Mr.
Colbert on June 7, 2018, and provided the tally sheet, replete with detailed rankings. They
were to cut 45 to 17, and then finally, after another HR screening, to a group of seven
finalists.
Here is the timeline:
5/10/18
5/24/18
5/29/18
5/30/18
6/07/18
6/19/18
7/11/18
7/11/18
7/12/18
7/18/18
7/18/18
7/18/18

Timeline
Position posted
Posting closed
Screening of applicants
Committee meeting re applicants
Give committee screened resumes
Applicant pod selected
Interviews of seven
Choose top two
Background checks
Interview of two
Choose finalist
Make offer

14.8. Ms. Truitt was taken aback by what the committee did with the detailed tally sheet:
“I was concerned by the process used. Typically, we would take experience, specific to
the job, and use it to narrow the field. But this time, each committee member got to
select their one or two people.”

She admitted this process resulted in some applicants more experienced being cut, when
she would have selected them. “This was the first time it was ever like this,” she told me.
14.9. All the Board members confirm this: Messrs. Dick and Wolfe “got two” of their
friends or “hand-picked” committee favorites and they all made the final seven, despite not
having being the top seven in the objective criteria. One of Mr. Dick’s “picks” was Jane
Doe. One of Mr. Wolfe’s picks was Melissa Smith, the eventual hire. Both Ms. Doe and

Ms. Smith would not have even made the group of 17 if judged initially on their scores.
For instance, Ms. Doe is one of only 14 in the 45 without a degree, one of 8 without
clerical experience, had the third least “total related experience,” and was one of only two
without MS Office skills, but got to the finals. Another of Mr. Wolfe’s picks, Jennifer
Tashenberg, had the least clerical experience (none) and least technical knowledge out of
the entire group, yet made the final seven.
Mr. Evans says it was “not optimal.” He said: “I’m used to doing it the right way. I’ve
managed for 30 years.” What did he think should have happened? “A hiring manual.
Training. We all need a refresher on the law.”
8

 15. Even if Board members want their friends to apply for a job they may be qualified for,
those applicants should go through the first step of screening “blind” by HR, and not beat
out more educated, experienced, and skilled applicants. If the committee had used the
platform HR built, and followed the objective criteria, we would not be sitting here, today.
15.1. Mr. Wolfe (who met me at his lawyer’s office, voluntarily) freely admitted:
“We wanted to bring people in who were more friendly – politically and otherwise – to
our philosophy; people we could trust. We all had people we wanted to apply for the
position. I had two, Eric had two, Louis had one, one was an existing employee, a
black lady in her 50s or 60s, and one was from the outside who just had a resume that
looked good. She was the no-show.”

Mr. Evans denied having a “personal pick,” but Mr. Wolfe said Mr. Evans’ invitee was a
“blonde, young woman from HEB,” who made the top three. Mr. Wolfe said he met the
eventual hire, Ms. Smith, a year earlier at the Harris County Republican Primary office.
My impression was that Mr. Wolfe did not even know that what he had just told me was a
boon to any decent plaintiff’s attorney who might want to accuse HCDE of deviating from
their objective criteria to disfavor and discriminate, and that he was oblivious to the law.
Mr. Evans essentially confirmed my impression:
“Mike is a bit less formal than he should be. I did have to tell him not to ask certain
questions. Illegal questions. I don’t think he’s ever held a management position.”

Mr. Flynn flat out told me:
“Michael is a child. He doesn’t even know what he is saying. He may be autistic.”

15.2. In any event, the verbally undisciplined Mr. Wolfe sat on the interview committee.
16. Did Mr. Wolfe know Ms. Doe before the interviews? Yes. They had met four times.
17. Mr. Wolfe and Ms. Doe meet at the San Jacinto Day Dinner (March 2017):
17.1. Mr. Dick invited Mr. Wolfe to the San Jacinto Day Dinner in March of 2017, as a
guest at Mr. Dick’s table.
17.2. Mr. Dick wanted to set him up with Ms. Doe, who Mr. Wolfe says “looks halfAsian,” after telling Mr. Wolfe for a long time he needed to date an Asian.
17.3. Mr. Dick’s table had prominent local Republicans, including attorney Chris
Carmona, a good friend of Ms. Doe.
17.4. Mr. Dick introduced Ms. Doe to Mr. Wolfe, and during the dinner, texted
Mr. Wolfe to move to sit by Ms. Doe. Mr Wolfe said it made him angry.
9

 “It ticked me off because Eric told me ‘you need to get an Asian girl’ and then he
popped this on me.”

18. The Election Watch Party (May 22, 2018):
18.1. Mr. Wolfe was in a close campaign for JP, and the runoff was in May:
“I heard about [Jane Doe] being vicious to me online, the weekend before my runoff.
It was a heated race. I was running against a sitting JP. The issues included gay
weddings. The social conservatives were upset because it was almost like he was too
eager to do these weddings, that he wasn’t required to perform, for money, than do his
actual duties. And I heard she was attacking me on social media.”

18.2. He says he never saw the actual posts, and could not tell me what the gist of her
political “attack” was. Ms. Doe says: “I did nothing to this guy except for tell everyone
he was not qualified for the position of Justice of the Peace, ‘cause he wasn't. And I
don't regret not being on his side.”
18.3. Thus, he was surprised to see Ms. Doe at his May 22, 2018 election “watch party” at
Café Adobe. “What’s she doing here?” he asked himself, and then, Mr. Dick:
“I told Eric: ‘She leaves or I leave,’ after he said he had invited her. Eric took her out
of the party room, and defused it. So I just left it alone. At the end of the night, there
was only about seven to ten people at the bar,” and after we knew I had lost Eric said
he was ‘gonna get really drunk.’ And she came to me and thanked me for letting her
be there. I wanted to laugh. She even asked for one of my campaign t-shirts to run in.”

18.4. Mr. Wolfe said he felt Ms. Doe was “possibly flirting” with him. I find that very

unlikely; perhaps delusional, but more likely just a strategy to explain what happened later.
19. Texas GOP Convention (June 2018):
19.1. Mr. Wolfe remembers seeing Ms. Doe in the lobby of the Grand Hyatt Hotel in San
Antonio on June 15, 2018, at the state Republican Convention.
19.2. He was waiting for Brent Webster to meet him for lunch when Jane Doe said hello.
“I thought ‘Is she stalking me? What on earth! I stood up. We hugged hello. She
said she wanted to make amends for the Facebook posts.”

Mr. Wolfe’s version of this meeting—if sincere—is absurd. Jane Doe and Mr. Wolfe are
highly active in the Texas GOP, both knew at that time she was applying for a job at
HCDE, had met twice already in memorable circumstances, and it would have been more
odd if Ms. Doe did not come over and greet Mr. Wolfe, and was seen by him.
I do not find it credible that Ms. Doe was stalking Mr. Wolfe, flirting with him, or in any
way interested in him as a romantic partner, no matter how much Mr. Wolfe may have
wished. In fact, it is laughable.
10

 19.3. On that day, Mr. Wolfe and Ms. Doe are seen in a photo taken by Mr. Wolfe’s
friend, with Mr. Webster, on Mr. Webster’s phone; Mr. Wolfe does not appear “stalked:”

20. At the Courthouse (June 28, 2018):
20.1. Well after the seven finalists were chosen for interviews, but before the July 11
interviews, Ms. Doe visited Chris Daniel and Mr. Wolfe at the Harris County District
Courthouse. She brought a bag of baked goods. Mr. Wolfe said:
“I was astonished. Oh my! What is going on? I didn’t know what to say. So I told
Chris Daniel ‘Guess who’s here!’ Chris said ‘Bring her in!’ They knew each other.”

20.2. Ms. Doe was also astonished, but for a different reason. She went to the Courthouse
because she was still worried Mr. Wolfe was angry at her for opposing him in his race (“I
have the treats and I said I just want to have a peace offering”).
Her surprise came, she says, when Mr. Wolfe took her into his office, after she spoke to
Mr. Daniel, and closed the door:
“When he closed the door, like it got, that was weird and, and he didn't lock the door
but he closed the door and it was just, it was all really, really bad and so, then he asked
me to dinner and then I said ‘uh sure’ so I could get out of the room and then I texted
him after that and was like ‘no I'm busy, I forgot about these things’ to get out of it.”
***
“You can't describe this to people and this is why girls get f---d over because you can't
describe what you feel and where, when he shut the door, it wasn't like he shut the
door and went to his desk. You know, where it's not like he shut the door and went to
his desk, you know like a normal little meeting or something. It was just, you know, it
was just weird, it was weird, you know.”
***

11

 “He showed me some of his stuff and um and then he was like well what are you doing
this, I think it was tomorrow evening or something like that. It was a Friday night and
um I'm in this situation. I'm applying for this job, I wanna get the job, you know what I
mean and he was like well I'd like to take you to dinner and I was like oh, okay sure …
but then I just like was really uncomfortable.”

20.3. Ms. Doe makes it clear what her purposes were, and what Mr. Wolfe knew:
“He knew I was applying for the job, and that isn't okay. Like, he knew I was applying
for the job and I was coming there as a peace offering.”

I find, due to the nature of the committee’s search, and how all three members knew who
Mr. Dick’s and Mr. Wolfe’s “friend-picks” were that Mr. Wolfe had to have known Ms.
Doe was a job applicant when he asked her out. This is in fact, the leverage he was using.
He had no real prospect to date Ms. Doe in a normal setting; it was only because of the job
she was seeking.
20.4. Jane Doe’s boyfriend was waiting for her in the car. She told him immediately, since
he saw her crying.
20.5. She pulled out of the “date” but characterizes it as “super inappropriate” for an
elected official to ask an applicant out on a date:
“I texted him and I said that I had to watch my niece on Friday which is actually true,
but just got out of the situation, but I should have [said] it's super inappropriate. And it
was not ok, kind of uncomfortable that he did that. It's just like, I just think like, you
know it's super inappropriate when someone is applying for that position for you to ask
them to dinner. I mean that's just not okay. You know, he's an elected official, like it's
just not okay.”

20.6. Presumably because he worries Ms. Doe recorded him, Mr. Wolfe admitted to me
that he showed Ms. Doe photos in his office and then asked Ms. Doe out. However, he
premises the story on this claim: “I did not know at that time [Jane] was applying to be
Board Secretary.” This is simply not credible. Mr. Wolfe wanted a Board Secretary he
could trust; remembers each step of the job application process, how the 45 applicants
were culled to 17, and then 7, only days before the Courthouse meeting; remembers Ms.
Doe was Mr. Dick’s pick, and remembers each social interaction with Ms. Doe with great
detail; but claims he forgot her status as a job applicant with interviews only days away. No.
20.7. In fact, Mr. Wolfe claims he was afraid to “eat the baked goods.” He says he took
the bag downstairs to the jury room.” He showed me a photograph of this event:

12

 20.7. Mr. Wolfe told me he did not want to even touch the bag, out of fear. Yet, he told
me: “The people [he gave it to] were excited.” This makes absolutely no sense, if he
feared poison or some other danger. I wondered who felt it was a good idea for Mr.
Wolfe to be on a recruiting committee.
20.8. The most confusing thing Mr. Wolfe told me (being worried about the safety of

cookies, so giving them to others, and photographing their excitement pre-bite) was
followed by the most disturbing insult towards Ms. Doe by Mr. Wolfe: “I’ve been told
that’s her M.O. Her reputation is she sleeps with guys to pay her rent.” When I pressed
Mr. Wolfe to name someone who told him that, he claimed not to remember. My
impression is merely that he remains extremely angry at Ms. Doe for turning him down.
21. My hunch and Ms. Doe’s fears were correct. Mr. Wolfe has tried to sabotage Ms. Doe.
Jeff Yates, Executive Director of the Harris County Republican Party, told me Mr. Wolfe
“blackballed” Ms. Doe when she was applying for a job with state congressman Dennis Paul:
“I know [Jane Doe]. I run campaigns. We were looking for campaign manager. I had
an established State Representative, Dennis Paul. My employee and I met with the
young woman. She was absolutely a finalist. Not the final two. Top five. I’ve known
Michael for 15 years, in Republican circles. He called me and said ‘You do not need
to hire her.’ This was July or August of last year. He definitely called me and said that.
Unsolicitated. Came out of nowhere. He didn’t have a good impression of her. If she
had made the final two, I would’ve asked more details.”

21.1. This is wholly unacceptable, and cannot be minimized with the Flynn approach (“he
is a child” or “he’s probably autistic”). Mr. Wolfe has told me, even in the context of an
investigation (in the presence of his own lawyer) that Ms. Doe sleeps around to pay her
rent, without any factual basis, and is trying to ruin Ms. Doe’s career in her chosen party.

13

 21.2. Ms. Doe is not seeking to sue HCDE, nor does she even want to receive an apology.
What Ms. Doe wants is to move on, and be free to pursue employment within the Harris
County or Texas Republican “orbit” without fear of Mr. Wolfe and his allies spreading Mr.
Wolfe’s brand of disparagement. It was Mr. Wolfe who brought this whole investigation
on, with his attempts to cost Ms. Doe a job; Ms. Doe had moved on, but one can
understand why she would draw a line at a concerted effort to cut her out of GOP jobs. As
Ms. Doe said:
21.3. HCDE has a strong interest in stopping Mr. Wolfe from spreading baseless rumors,
and ceasing any efforts to harm Ms. Doe’s career.
22. The Interview:
There are many facts which create risk for HCDE and fall short of HCDE standards
(allowing such a poor communicator--unable or unwilling to observe basic interviewing
skills--like Mr. Wolfe to serve on a recruiting committee, the way the committee ran
roughshod over the process set up by HR, picking favorites, Mr. Wolfe asking Ms. Doe
out on a date right before the interviews, disparaging her, and trying to hurt her job hunt),
but one good point for HCDE on the risk meter is that everyone on the committee agrees
Ms. Doe was not even close to the best candidate among the final seven.
22.1. This mitigates risk because the worst quid pro quo cases are ones in which the best
applicant who should have got the job, does not because of her refusal to go on a date with
the person in power.
22.2. Here, we have an applicant who should not have even been in the final seven, who
turned Mr. Wolfe down, and that might have ended it, except for his efforts to smear her.
Ms. Doe’s take on her interview was that it was affected by her turning Mr. Wolfe down:
“That man does not like me, for sure, he hates, like he hated me. He was trying to
kick me out. It’s just weird. He's very temperamental. It's weird. It's weird and it's super
uncomfortable. To me I think it's very weird for an elected official to ask someone out
currently, ‘cause he saw my name on the list. I had already made it through the first
cut and stuff. He already know that I was applying for the job.”

22.3. One of the worst facts for Mr. Wolfe, but not necessarily for HCDE, is that after the
interviews, but before he called Mr. Yates to sabotage her job search, Mr. Wolfe texted Ms.
Doe to ask her out again. She said she was busy.
23. Any category of claim has an “error rate,” either because a percentage of accusers lie for
monetary, political, or psychological rewards, but in this matter, Ms. Doe is the most reluctant
of witnesses, who merely told a friend, who ended up telling the world. We can fault Mr. Dick
for how he disclosed what happened, and why, but it is difficult to find any motive for Ms. Doe
to make up a story, and in any event, the facts are actually for the most undisputed, except for
Mr. Wolfe’s non-credible denial that he knew Ms. Doe was in the group of seven finalists.

14

 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Knowing Ms. Doe was seeking a job with HCDE, Mr. Wolfe asked Ms. Doe out on a date after
closing the door to his office. She accepted just to leave the office, went down to her boyfriend in
the car, cried, and immediately declined, telling Mr. Wolfe she was busy.
2. Mr. Wolfe asked Ms. Doe out again, after the interviews, during which—and this is not clear--he
was perceived as harsh to her. She declined.
3. Mr. Wolfe told a decision-maker for a prospective employer, Jeff Yates, connected to him
politically not to hire Ms. Doe.
4. Mr. Wolfe made a baseless claim that Ms. Doe sleeps around to pay her rent, during this
investigation. When challenged to give a basis for this disparagement, he was unable to do so. He
also makes non-credible claims of Ms. Doe “stalking” him.
5. Ms. Doe is not seeking money or fame; she is a reluctant witness, who wants only for Mr.
Wolfe to cease and desist from interfering with her career.
6. In addition to being unwise, putting his own interests ahead of HCDE’s, and exposing HCDE
to risk of a lawsuit, Mr. Wolfe’s actions described in Findings 1-5 (and the description in this
Report) violate Board Policy BBF (LOCAL), the principles underpinning the Board, Policy DIA
(LEGAL), Policy DIA (LOCAL), and the common law governing defamation.
7. Mr. Wolfe’s conduct during the process, and thereafter, brings the Department into disrepute.
He has made highly disparaging statements about Ms. Doe’s reputation without a shred of
knowledge, and tried to sabotage her job hunt elsewhere, whilst even trying one last time to ask her
out (after she was rejected by a committee he sat on). For all these things, he should be censured.
8. Mr. Dick should have relayed the claims of Ms. Doe to HCDE’s HR Department as soon as he
was able, and in a completely confidential way; however, reports do not need to be “immediate” or
motivated only by pure goals. Mr. Dick can and should do better, but it is unlikely this exact
scenario will play out again. Still, I recommend Mr. Dick not serve on any committee with
Mr. Wolfe. It would be a recipe for disaster, as this feud is long from being over.
9. The process of hiring the Executive Assistant was tainted by Messrs. Dick and Wolfe.
Transparency was sacrificed in the cause of political cronyism. The testing/ranking process was
turned into a sham. The way Messrs. Dick and Wolfe, in particular, pushed their less-qualified
friends and allies into running for the job of Board Secretary opened HCDE up to charges of
favoritism and bias, caused employees to lose faith, and rendered the process arbitrary.
10. Mr. Wolfe should not do interviews or recruiting for HCDE any longer, and should be
removed from any committee which does this. Further, Mr. Wolfe should have to complete
training in effective communications, as a condition of his trusteeship, and to pass the training,
should be able to demonstrate awareness of legal risks from his communications.

15