Port Angeles School Board Censures Director Nancy Hamilton in Heated Vote
The Port Angeles School District Board of Directors delivered a formal reprimand to newly elected Director Nancy Hamilton during a marathon session marked by vocal public participation, multiple recesses, and sharp ideological divisions. By a 4–1 margin, the board adopted Resolution 2526-18, imposing not only a censure but also a set of administrative restrictions that significantly curtail Hamilton’s access to district records and participation in closed deliberations.
The resolution, supported by Board President Sandy Long, Vice President Kirsten Williams, Stan Williams, and Ned Hammar, outlines concerns about Hamilton’s leadership approach since her November election win. It cites her pattern of direct communication with Superintendent Michelle Olsen—specifically, 17 emails over five months containing extensive inquiries into district operations—as evidence of excessive oversight. One December message, for example, posed 56 questions concerning financial matters, contract change orders on a $23,700 agreement, and maintenance histories of district buses.
A central feature of the resolution is the implementation of a new information-request protocol. Under its terms, Olsen may classify Hamilton’s future requests as “voluminous, complex, and/or repetitive.” Should such a determination be made, the superintendent is directed to hold off on responding, forwarding the pending queries instead to the board president for inclusion on a future agenda. Full board approval by majority vote would then be necessary before district staff proceed with responses.
The document also critiques Hamilton for transmitting community concerns to Olsen without disclosing the names of the original complainants, citing concerns among residents about potential reprisal. The board contested this rationale, labeling it unsubstantiated and potentially harmful to Olsen’s professional reputation.
Additionally, the resolution points to a May 26 executive session as a point of procedural misstep. Hamilton reportedly disclosed aspects of that closed meeting in a June 11 letter to the board and district counsel, suggesting it had been convened under the pretense of impending litigation to undermine her leadership and marginalize minority perspectives—particularly as the district’s sole Native American board member. The board determined these disclosures breached confidentiality expectations under the Open Public Meetings Act and the state Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers.
Following the censure, the board moved swiftly to approve Olsen’s three-year contract for 2026 through 2029, again by a 4–1 tally. Hamilton had warned prior to the vote that certain contract provisions conflicted with the Washington Public Records Act and imposed unlawful constraints on board oversight authority. Her objections, however, did not sway colleagues, who proceeded with adoption despite her concerns.
The board majority forcefully denounced her description, dismissing the assertion of bias as “false and offensive,” while cautioning that she had violated the law by generating a disclosable public record of the proceedings.
Consequently, the resolution explicitly states that the board “reserves the right to seek injunctive relief in court” to prevent Hamilton from participating in future executive sessions.
Public Outcry
The board's actions faced widespread and unanimous condemnation during an extended community comment period.
A politically diverse group of residents, educators, and union representatives unanimously condemned the reprimand as a retaliatory strike against transparency and democratic governance.
“I’d like to congratulate you on this resolution concerning Nancy Hamilton tonight. You have done something that nobody else could possibly do. You have unified the Clallam County Democrats and the CC Watchdog people,” a local resident told the board.
Referencing past local controversies that resulted from insufficient oversight, he lambasted the board's decision to punish its newest member for asking tough questions.
“Look at the Port Angeles swimming pool problem. That could have been avoided by having a board member like Nancy Hamilton. You should be proud that you have someone on this board that will speak up,” he said.
“In trampling on Nancy’s free speech rights and in criticizing what Nancy Hamilton was elected to do, you are setting a horrible example for the students in this school district... The time and money that have gone into preparing this resolution in front of you tonight could much better have been spent answering Nancy Hamilton’s questions.”
A neighboring Sequim School District board member opened his remarks by thanking the board for their service, acknowledging that being a director or superintendent is a “very, very tough job.”
However, he urged the board to pause and fully evaluate the legal ramifications of the censure, validating some of the board’s legal concerns while forcefully challenging others.
He noted that releasing information from an executive session involving legal counsel “could be very damaging... it is protected with that attorney-client privilege.”
However, he pushed back on the board’s claim that Hamilton violated protocol by keeping a complainant anonymous.
“Having somebody who made a complaint for concerns, if I read through the contract, I read through policies, I don't see anything that says if a person wants to remain anonymous that it's required for a board member to disclose that individual's name. I do not believe that that's a requirement based on everything I read,” he stated.
“I do think you have to elevate those concerns and then share this person wanted to remain anonymous. I think that’s an important detail to share, but you’re still elevating the concerns.”
He pleaded with the board to table the resolution, warning, “I would strongly recommend that one of you make a motion... to postpone this until all of the legal ramifications can be fully flushed out before there’s something that’s done, which is, once this action is taken, you can’t unring that bell.”
‘Surround Yourself with People Who Say No’
Several commenters took issue with the board’s claim that Hamilton impugned the administration’s integrity when she acknowledged a constituent’s fear of retaliation.
A former Port Angeles Education Association president and high school mathematics instructor addressed the school board, highlighting the widespread apprehension among staff and community members regarding the act of raising issues with district leadership. The educator explained that during his tenure leading the local teachers' union, the organization often had to voice concerns on behalf of members who were hesitant to do so themselves. He urged the board to prioritize trust-building to encourage direct and open communication. Additionally, he suggested that board members should value those who challenge their ideas, as dissent and rigorous questioning ultimately lead to superior decision-making rather than hindering progress.
Representing herself, a paraeducator commended Board Member Nancy Hamilton for her recent dissenting vote against a district workforce reduction. The board’s censure resolution had previously faulted Hamilton for stating she lacked sufficient information to cast a vote on the personnel cuts. The paraeducator argued that Hamilton’s decision to withhold her vote in order to seek further budget details was precisely the responsible behavior voters expected from their elected officials. She emphasized that Hamilton aligns with the community’s interests, and in turn, the community supports her stance.
A teacher from the neighboring town of Sequim warned that the censure action could create a chilling effect on future leadership. She noted that while accountability, transparency, and democratic processes can be uncomfortable, they remain fundamental. The educator argued that robust school districts are founded on openness and the capacity for difficult discussions, rather than on silence or uniform agreement. She maintained that posing challenging questions is a duty of the office, not a form of misconduct, regardless of whether the board agrees with the specific inquiries.
Critics also scrutinized the textual accuracy of the censure resolution. Aiden Hamilton, a relative of the board member, cross-referenced the document’s claims against the public video recording of the May 21 meeting. He pointed out that the resolution cited Director Hamilton nine times using fragments or single words, yet failed to include the full context of her statements. He noted that upon reviewing the footage multiple times, he found no language in her remarks that would have undermined the integrity of the board or the superintendent, as implied by the motion. He further highlighted the genuine fear of retaliation within the community, recalling instances where students had asked him to speak on their behalf due to similar concerns.
A local resident captured the sentiment of the audience, describing the meeting as a vivid demonstration of democracy in action. He observed that community members had attended in large numbers to voice their objections to the censure. He clarified that the board holds sole authority over the superintendent, not the general public, and argued that a board member should not face censure simply for seeking additional information.
Hamilton’s Defense and a Fractured Board
Director Hamilton mounted a vigorous legal defense prior to the board’s final decision, asserting that the proposed measure conflicted with her statutory obligations and constitutional rights. As a United States Army veteran, she emphasized her lifelong record of lawfulness and contended that the resolution contained factual inaccuracies regarding her previous statements. She explained that while she had sought legal counsel regarding allegations of potential violations, she maintained that no laws had been broken, and she argued that disputes over legal interpretation should not be resolved during a public board session.
Hamilton challenged the board’s concern over the volume of her electronic correspondence, noting that the "voluminous" emails amounted to approximately one message per week. She contended that requiring her to direct inquiries exclusively through the board president would undermine her legislative independence. Citing RCW 28A.150.230, she stated that individual school directors bear explicit accountability to the district’s community and electorate for the proper operation of the district. She argued that mandating a single channel for communication would interfere with this statutory duty.
She further invoked RCW 42.30, the Open Public Meetings Act, to support her position that all governing board members possess an equal right to participate in deliberations, pose questions, and cast votes. Hamilton asserted that compelling an elected official to seek permission from the president before speaking effectively nullified the significance of her election. She concluded that the board could not vote to remove the individual duties of its members, as such actions were preempted by state law.
Addressing the criticism regarding her protection of a constituent’s anonymity, Hamilton warned that the board’s actions signaled a lack of confidentiality. She suggested that by censuring her for keeping an identity confidential, the remaining members were telling the public that they would reveal the identities of those who reported issues with the schools to the administration. She claimed that the censure would demonstrate that the board served the school administration rather than the community that elected them, ultimately damaging public trust in the district.
Ned Hammar, a director representing the voting majority, provided the sole explanation for the majority’s position. He addressed the audience, which included neighbors and educators of his children, clarifying that his remarks reflected his personal views rather than a unified board stance. Hammar expressed regret at the board’s current dynamic but expressed hope that the clarity provided by the resolution would allow the group to resume its work. He emphasized that the diversity among board members was a strength and pledged to continue seeking positive intent in his colleagues.
Before the final tally, Hamilton proposed a motion to postpone the resolution indefinitely, but the effort failed when no other member offered a second. Upon the official recording of the 4-1 vote to adopt the censure, the audience reacted with visible anger.
Shame on you! Absolutely shame on you! I hope you’re sued!” an audience member shouted from the gallery. “You are not true public servants!”
President Long paused proceedings to allow a five-minute recess, the second such break during the evening’s contentious session. The disruption followed an earlier outburst in which an attendee noted, “We got a problem here. We got a bunch of yes-men.”
When the gathering reconvened, the board turned its attention to approving the superintendent’s updated employment agreement, covering the years 2026 through 2029.
The item ignited a robust legal discussion. Hamilton, who had earlier removed the contract from the consent agenda, contended the board was leveraging the superintendent’s agreement to sidestep state transparency requirements.
She highlighted clauses in the proposed pact that constrain how individual board members may request documents and seek clarification on district operations.
“Governing rules should reside in our official thousand-series board policies—not embedded in an individual employee’s contract,” Hamilton said. “Maintaining that separation ensures the board retains its core governance role without overreaching into staff management.”
She referenced Board Policy 1005, which affirms that oversight and financial accountability remain exclusively within the board’s purview and cannot be delegated outward.
Hamilton emphasized that restricting her access to district records undermines state law, specifically the Washington Public Records Act.
“State statutes grant broad access rights to any member of the public,” she said. “We shouldn’t be able to contractually narrow those rights for board members.”
She proposed delaying approval of the superintendent’s contract until July 23, giving the board additional time to assess how the agreement aligns—or conflicts—with existing public records statutes. Her motion, however, failed to gain a second from fellow board members.
Ultimately, the board endorsed the agreement by a 4–1 margin, with Hamilton casting the sole dissenting vote.