The initial defense filing has entered the record in Director Nancy Hamilton's legal action against the Port Angeles School District. Court documents from Clallam County Superior Court indicate the complaint has also been resubmitted to correct an administrative oversight.
Lori M. Bemis, an attorney with the Tacoma-based firm McGavick Graves, P.S., submitted a notice of appearance on behalf of the district and its Board of Directors on Thursday, July 23.
This filing serves a procedural function only, offering no response to Hamilton's claims or arguments regarding the case's merits.
However, the document outlines potential avenues for the defense. The notice specifies that the defendants appear "without waiving" seven potential objections, including lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficiency of service of process, failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and failure to join a party under Rule 19.
Reserving these defenses in a notice of appearance is standard practice in Washington civil litigation. It preserves the district's ability to raise them later without committing to any of them now.
The appearance was filed the same day the board held its first regular meeting since the lawsuit, the July 23 session at which directors declined to approve the minutes of the June 18 censure meeting, as earlier reporting noted.
A refiled complaint, with the exhibits this time
On Monday afternoon, Hamilton's lawyers at Seattle education-law firm Cedar Law LLP filed a notice of errata asking the court clerk to replace the complaint filed July 14 with a corrected version.
The original filing, the notice states, did not include Attachments A, B, and C. The attachments "were provided to the filer but were inadvertently not included with the original filing," according to the notice.
The refiled complaint, docketed Monday at 12:58 p.m., carries the same July 14 date and, according to the notice of errata, differs from the original only in including the attachments.
It is the 16-page pleading detailed in coverage from July 15, bringing six causes of action, including a statutory appeal of the censure, federal and state free-speech claims, and alleged violations of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act.
The correction matters mostly for what it adds to the public court file. The three attachments are the documentary spine of the case:
Attachment A is district Policy 1010, the "Operating Principles for Board Directors" that lists "Requests Information" among the board's own duties and that Hamilton cites in defense of her questions to Superintendent Michelle Olsen.
Attachment B is Hamilton's June 11 letter to the four other directors and district counsel Heidi Maynard, the letter responding point by point to accusations she says were leveled at her in the May 26 executive session.
The board majority cited that letter as a confidentiality breach when it censured her; the district later released it in full under the Public Records Act, including to this publication on July 8 in response to a records request filed June 22.
Attachment C is Resolution 2526-18 itself, the eight-page censure the board adopted 4-1 on June 18, including Section 3.2, the information-request protocol Hamilton's suit attacks as an unconstitutional prior restraint.
Judge Basden assigned
Court records list Judge Brent Basden as the assigned judicial officer. No hearing dates appeared on the docket as of Tuesday.
The district's formal reply to the lawsuit remains outstanding. As of Monday, no substantive response had been filed. Once submitted, it could take the form of an answer or a motion asserting one of the defenses the district has reserved.
Hamilton, an Army veteran and member of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, continues to serve as a director. She is the board's only Native American member. Five weeks following the censure, the board appointed her as its legislative representative for the 2026-27 term during its July 23 session.
Hamilton has denied any wrongdoing. The board majority has stated that the censure carried no penalty and that she "retains all rights and powers of her office without diminution," a characterization her lawsuit disputes.