Port Angeles School District Director Nancy Hamilton Pursues Legal Challenge Against Board Censure
A formal lawsuit has been filed by Port Angeles School District Board Director Nancy Hamilton, escalating her ongoing disagreement with the majority of her colleagues.
On Tuesday, Hamilton initiated proceedings in Clallam County Superior Court, seeking a judicial ruling that declares Resolution 2526-18—adopted by the board on June 18—invalid as “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Her filing also asserts that the board breached the Washington Open Public Meetings Act during its deliberations.
The 16-page complaint, submitted by Seattle-based Cedar Law LLP, names both the district and the board as defendants. It outlines six legal claims: a statutory appeal under Revised Code of Washington 28A.645.010, requests for injunctive and declaratory relief, federal and state free-speech protections, and alleged infractions of the state’s open meeting laws.
State regulations afford board members a 30-day window to contest such decisions in superior court; Hamilton filed her petition on the 26th day, staying well within that timeframe.
New Information-Request Protocol Faces Legal Scrutiny
Central to the legal action is Section 3.2 of the censure resolution, which introduces a formalized process for how board members submit information requests to district leadership. Under this framework, if Superintendent Michelle Olsen determines that a director’s queries are excessively numerous, intricate, or repetitive—and thus potentially disruptive—those requests are referred to the board president. The president then schedules them for full-board discussion and approval before staff proceeds with responses. Requests denied by majority vote are effectively set aside.
This same provision was incorporated into Olsen’s current employment agreement, with Paragraph 7 codifying the protocol. Hamilton voted against its inclusion, which passed alongside the censure resolution with a 4–1 margin.
Hamilton’s filing challenges the policy as an unconstitutional prior restraint on elected officials’ ability to conduct oversight. According to the complaint, requiring directors to obtain board approval—particularly from the same body that censured her—before receiving responses to their inquiries infringes on core democratic functions.
The complaint further argues that the censure constitutes retaliation for Hamilton’s protected speech, including her efforts to promote transparency, her use of established board policy to solicit updates from the superintendent, and her insistence on additional data before casting votes.
One such instance involved the board’s May decision to reduce district paraeducator positions, a move Hamilton opposed.
The complaint also cites District Policy 1010, which explicitly assigns board members the responsibility to “request information” as part of their official duties.
May Executive Session Draws Criticism as “Ambush”
The lawsuit includes Hamilton’s most thorough account to date of a May 26 executive session that ultimately shaped the board’s perception of her conduct.
According to the filing, the session was convened under the Open Public Meetings Act’s exception allowing closed-door discussions with legal counsel regarding ongoing or anticipated litigation.
The complaint notes that district attorney Heidi Maynard opened the session by suggesting potential future legal action against Hamilton—a prospect the filing characterizes as speculative and potentially coercive.
Much of the session, the complaint states, was devoted to expressing dissatisfaction with Hamilton’s questioning style and perceived deviations from the board’s accustomed workflow.
Hamilton labels the meeting an “ambush disguised as an executive session,” emphasizing how its scope expanded beyond its stated purpose to critique her individual履职.
Legal counsel for Sequim School Board Director Hamilton contends that a May 26 gathering, which primarily addressed grievances against a public official, was governed by a specific statute, RCW 42.30.110(1)(f), rather than standard executive session rules. This provision grants the officer in question the authority to mandate that the meeting be open to the public. The complaint asserts that Hamilton exercised this right by requesting an open session, yet she has not received one since.
The dispute escalated following a June 11 email sent by Hamilton to the four other board members and the district’s superintendent. The correspondence, described in the legal filing, addressed several criticisms raised during the May 26 session, including her recusal from voting on a collective bargaining agreement for certificated staff—a step taken because her spouse is part of that employee group. She also defended her decision to withhold the name of a constituent concerned about potential retaliation and her habit of explaining her votes during open sessions. According to the lawsuit, this email triggered the board’s decision to censure her the following week.
The board majority charged Hamilton with violating executive session confidentiality and committing a criminal misdemeanor by creating a public record that the district was obligated to disclose. The complaint highlights an inconsistency in the district’s position by noting that on July 8, the district released the entire June 11 letter in response to a public records request. This release, which followed a request filed on June 22, allegedly waived any claim of attorney-client privilege and implicitly supported Hamilton’s argument that the May 26 discussion fell outside the proper scope of a closed session.
The lawsuit further expands its claims under the Open Meetings Act to include conduct beyond the censure. It alleges that a majority of the board engaged in private coordination through telephone calls and emails, labeled as "agenda meetings" but functioning as serial meetings, while also discussing topics not disclosed in public meeting notices. New allegations regarding a June 18 meeting claim that President Sandy Long moved the board into an enclosed room twice during five-minute recesses triggered by audience outbursts. While in that private space, other directors allegedly continued to pressure Hamilton, asking if she had invited the public commenters and questioning her knowledge of them. The filing notes that every public comment that evening supported Hamilton, a detail consistent with previous accounts of the crowded gathering at Lincoln Center.
The board’s own censure resolution presents a contrasting narrative that the lawsuit must address. The eight-page document accuses Hamilton of sending 17 emails to the superintendent over five months, including one containing 56 distinct inquiries, and of making inaccurate public statements that damaged the reputation of the superintendent and her colleagues. It also cites state law violations for the disclosure of executive session details in her June 11 letter. Hamilton maintains she acted under legal guidance and committed no infractions. The resolution states that Hamilton retains all powers of her office without reduction, a stance her lawsuit directly challenges.
Board’s Censure of Director Hamilton Faces Constitutional Scrutiny
County officials appear to have prepared in advance for legal pushback over their formal reprimand of one of their own, grounding the action in established constitutional doctrine. The adopted resolution points to recent rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, notably *Houston Community College System v. Wilson*, a 2022 case in which the Supreme Court concluded that a formal verbal censure issued by fellow elected members does not, without more, trigger a First Amendment retaliation claim.
The *Wilson* decision emphasized that courts should distinguish between censures that are purely symbolic and those accompanied by concrete sanctions. In that landmark case, the Court declined to extend constitutional protection to speech-restrictive effects stemming solely from a legislative body’s expression of disapproval.
What distinguishes Hamilton’s challenge is precisely that combination: a formal statement of disapproval paired with tangible limits on her day-to-day operations as a board member.
A Director’s Vision and Background
Hamilton, who served as a medic in the U.S. Army and is a member of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, holds the distinction of being the sole Native American director on the nine-member board. Her election last November came on a platform centered around transparency and accountability, helping her unseat a sitting director by a margin of 13 percentage points.
Her legal filing revisits longstanding concerns about the way her perspective is treated in board proceedings, echoing prior assertions that her voice is being edged out despite formal voting parity. The majority on the board has consistently dismissed such concerns as lacking factual foundation.
In a June 17 radio appearance referenced in the complaint, Hamilton described the resolution’s practical implications, warning it would “strip me of my core duties and diminish my capacity to serve.”
Requested Remedies and Legal Grounding
Hamilton is currently serving in her role and has not yet seen the district respond in court. Her lawsuit seeks multiple forms of relief: an order halting implementation of Resolution 2526-18 and treating it as legally nonviable from inception; a judicial determination that the censure functions as an unconstitutional prior restraint under both state and federal constitutions; a finding that the board exceeded its obligations under the state Open Public Meetings Act; a permanent injunction against recurring procedural shortcomings; and reimbursement for litigation costs and legal fees under RCW 42.30.120(4) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The federal claim also includes a demand for compensatory damages.
Earlier reporting noted the board’s openness to litigation, and the scope of the requested remedies suggests Hamilton’s team is positioning the case as a test of how symbolic rebukes can evolve into structural constraints on public officials’ speech and function.