The Port Angeles School District faces a potential court challenge after receiving a formal demand letter on Friday. The correspondence, addressed to Superintendent Michelle Olsen, Board President Sandy Long, and the district’s public records officer, presents an ultimatum: immediately release specific censure records or prepare to defend a prolonged delay before a Clallam County Superior Court judge. The sender indicated a preference for obtaining the documents over engaging in litigation, emphasizing that the timeline for compliance has officially begun.

The dispute stems from a recent sequence of events. On June 19, the school board voted 4-1 to censure newly elected Director Nancy Hamilton. During the public meeting, an eight-page resolution was read into the record, detailing the specific emails, documents, and anonymous complaints that formed the basis of the reprimand. Following this action, a journalist filed a targeted Public Records Act request on June 22 for the materials cited in the resolution. The request included Hamilton’s June 11 email and attached letter, 17 emails sent by Hamilton to the superintendent, the superintendent’s written replies, and correspondence regarding the anonymous complaints mentioned on page four of the censure document.

By June 29, the district issued a standard response letter, commonly known as a "5-Day Letter," stating that it required 90 business days—approximately until early November—to locate and assemble the records. The delay was attributed to reduced staffing levels. The requester objected to this estimate on the same day, but the district has not responded with a revised timeline, installment schedule, or any other communication since then. Consequently, the matter was escalated to district leadership on July 3 with specific deadlines attached.

The demand letter outlines four key requests. The first involves the production of the June 11 letter by July 8. The requester argues this is the most significant item in the dispute because page four of the board’s own censure resolution explicitly states that the letter is a public record subject to disclosure under Chapter 42.56, RCW. The resolution was read aloud at the public meeting, with the executive assistant spending nearly 30 minutes detailing the contents. The requester contends that the district cannot simultaneously cite the document as public evidence to justify a reprimand and then claim it takes four and a half months to retrieve the same file when requested by a journalist.

The second demand requires the production of the 17 emails by July 15. The censure resolution provides detailed descriptions of these emails, including dates and a count of 56 separate inquiries across seven attachments in one message. The requester asserts that such specific details could only be obtained if the emails were already located and reviewed weeks prior. Therefore, producing an initial set of records with necessary redactions and an exemption log should take a matter of days rather than months.

The third component of the letter seeks a realistic estimate for the remaining records. Citing Washington’s Attorney General model rules for the Public Records Act, the requester notes that agencies should not use generic, recycled estimates for every request. The letter argues that standard estimates issued without regard to the specific nature of the inquiry are rarely considered reasonable under the law.

A Clallam County school district issued a five-day extension letter that cited statutory delay grounds from the Public Records Act without providing specific facts related to the request. The document listed potential reasons for delay in a general manner rather than explaining which specific items required additional time.

Critics of the district’s approach argue that the agency owes the public a written, individualized explanation for any remaining items that cannot be produced immediately, along with specific dates for subsequent releases. This method aligns with the intent of the law, according to the requestor.

Legal analysts suggest the district faces significant risk if the dispute proceeds to Clallam County Superior Court. Under state law, the burden of proof falls on the agency to demonstrate that its time estimates are reasonable, not on the public requester.

Questioners note the difficulty the district will face in justifying its timeline. Specifically, they point out that the district’s board recently quoted certain records in a public resolution, making it unclear why the agency would require until November to locate those same documents.

Washington appellate courts have consistently rejected arguments that administrative inconvenience or reduced staffing excuses non-compliance with the Public Records Act. In the case of *Zink v. City of Mesa*, the court established that internal administrative difficulties do not relieve an agency of its strict obligations.

Similarly, in *Cantu v. Yakima School District*, the Court of Appeals ruled that an agency cannot cite thin staffing or the difficulty of producing records as a reason for lack of diligence. The court also determined that a penalty of $10 per day was legally insufficient in that instance. More recently, Division One of the Court of Appeals dismissed a similar staffing defense presented by the Bellevue School District.

The financial consequences for the district could be substantial. A successful requester is entitled to recover all costs and reasonable attorney fees, in addition to penalties of up to $100 per day for each record. These penalties are assessed based on the sixteen *Yousoufian* factors, which consider the clarity of the request, the public importance of the records, and the reasonableness of the agency’s explanation. Observers note that several aggravating factors, such as the obvious public interest and the time-sensitive nature of the request, are present in this case. The state Supreme Court has previously upheld penalties exceeding $500,000 for delayed production.

Local taxpayers in Port Angeles, who recently absorbed the costs of a Reduction in Force, are expected to ultimately bear the financial burden of these delays, according to the requestor.

The core of the dispute centers on the disparity between the board’s actions and the district’s administrative capacity. The board majority moved quickly to censure a colleague, drafting an eight-page resolution in a matter of weeks. The relevant records were gathered, reviewed, and read aloud to a crowded audience at the Lincoln Center. However, when the public requested access to those same documents to evaluate the justification for the censure, the district cited understaffing and a need for time until November.

Critics describe this as one-way transparency, or narrative control, rather than true openness. The district is required to produce the records declared public by its own board by July 8. The first installment of the remaining records is due by July 15. If these deadlines pass without compliance, the requestor plans to file suit in Clallam County Superior Court, forcing the district to defend its 90-day delay under a strict legal burden.

Canonical URL: https://therealtherealolympicherald.com/news

Questions? Contact us.