Opinion: Did the Port Angeles School Board Majority Just Hand Voters a Roadmap for Recall?
When the Port Angeles School District Board of Directors gaveled out of their chaotic, protest-filled meeting on June 18, the four-member board majority likely believed they had finally solved their “Nancy Hamilton problem.”
By ramming through a sweeping eight-page censure resolution and a highly restrictive new superintendent’s contract on matching 4-1 votes, the majority sent a clear message: administrative convenience will take absolute precedence over an individual elected director’s independent oversight.
But in their zeal to build a bureaucratic wall around Superintendent Michelle Olsen and reprimand a dissenting colleague, Board President Sandy Long, Vice President Kirsten Williams, and Directors Stan Williams and Ned Hammar may have inadvertently triggered a far more severe democratic mechanism.
By willfully voting to adopt policies that transparency advocates argue explicitly conflict with Washington State law and the state constitution, the board majority potentially handed the voters of Port Angeles a signed, documented, and legally actionable roadmap for a recall.
The High Bar of Washington Recall Law
In the aftermath of last week’s marathon meeting, the word “recall” has already begun to echo through community forums and across social media. But recalling an elected official in Washington State is not a simple popularity contest.
Unlike states where politicians can be recalled simply because voters are unhappy with their policy decisions, Washington has one of the strictest recall thresholds in the nation.
The architects of our state’s laws wanted to ensure that the recall power was reserved for serious abuses of public trust, not run-of-the-mill political grievances.
Under Article I, Sections 33 and 34 of the Washington State Constitution and RCW 29A.56.110, an elected official can only be recalled for three specific reasons: malfeasance, misfeasance, or a violation of the oath of office.
State statute explicitly defines these terms. “Malfeasance” means the commission of an unlawful act. “Misfeasance” means performing an official duty in an improper manner or engaging in wrongful conduct that interferes with official duties. A “violation of the oath of office” means the neglect or knowing failure to perform faithfully a duty imposed by law.
Furthermore, Washington requires a unique judicial “gateway.” Before a single citizen’s signature can be collected, a Superior Court judge must review the recall charges.
As established by the Washington State Supreme Court in the landmark 1984 case Chandler v. Otto, the court does not decide if the charges are actually true. It only evaluates whether the charges are factually and legally sufficient.
If the judge determines that the allegations—if assumed to be true—meet the statutory definition of malfeasance, misfeasance, or an oath violation, the recall is approved for signature gathering.
This rigorous judicial hurdle is where most Washington recalls go to die, usually because citizens file charges based on hearsay, backroom conversations, or vague allegations of mismanagement.
But the Port Angeles School Board is in a uniquely precarious legal position. The actions that could theoretically trigger a recall are not based on rumor. They are written down, signed, and officially entered into the public record.
A Self-Inflicted Legal Wound
If a community coalition were to file a recall petition against Long, Hammar, and the two Williamses, they would not need to search hard for evidence of potential malfeasance or misfeasance. They could simply hand a judge the documents the board approved on June 18.
As this publication detailed last week, the board majority voted to approve an employment contract containing a highly controversial legal clause.
Section 7 of Superintendent Olsen’s 2026-2029 contract explicitly grants her the authority to “disregard” public records and information requests from individual board members if she subjectively deems them “voluminous” or “complex,” unless the full board votes to approve them.
Petitioners could argue this clause operates as a blatant conflict with the Washington Public Records Act (RCW 42.56.080), which strictly forbids an agency from denying identifiable records requests simply because they are overbroad, and prohibits distinguishing among persons requesting records.
By voting to enact a contract that formally instructs a public employee to bypass state transparency mandates, a court could determine the board majority committed an act of misfeasance or malfeasance.
Additionally, the majority voted to adopt Resolution 2526-18, a censure document that explicitly threatens to seek a court injunction to physically bar Director Hamilton from future executive sessions.
Petitioners could argue that preemptively stripping a duly elected representative of her right to attend vital legislative meetings operates as a severe, unconstitutional prior restraint under Article I, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution.
A judge reviewing a recall petition would have to answer a simple legal question: Does an elected board member commit misfeasance or violate their oath of office when they vote to codify a legally dubious records policy and threaten to lock a colleague out of executive sessions?
Given the strict liability nature of Washington’s transparency laws, a court could very well decide that the charges meet the legal threshold to proceed.
The Element of “Knowing Failure” and the Richland Precedent
What leaves the board majority so legally exposed is that petitioners could successfully argue the board cannot claim ignorance.
For an act to constitute a legally sufficient recall charge, case law dictates that there must be facts indicating the officials had the “knowledge and intent” to commit an unlawful act.
During the June 18 meeting, the board was repeatedly warned of their legal exposure.
Director Hamilton explicitly informed her colleagues on the record that the superintendent’s contract violated the Public Records Act and that the censure’s threats violated state precedent.
Members of the public, including a neighboring Sequim school board director, pleaded with the board to postpone the votes so the district’s legal exposure could be properly evaluated.
The board majority ignored the warnings. They refused to even second Hamilton’s motions to delay the votes. They consciously chose to pass the documents.
In the eyes of a reviewing judge, that refusal to pause and verify the legality of their actions could transform a potential administrative mistake into a willful, knowing violation of their duties.
If the board doubts that a judge would allow a recall over transparency and procedural violations, they should look at recent history.
Just three years ago, in the 2023 case In re Recall of Bird, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously upheld recall charges against three members of the Richland School Board.
The court found that the board members had committed legally sufficient malfeasance and misfeasance by knowingly voting to violate the Open Public Meetings Act and a state mandate, despite being warned by legal counsel and colleagues that they lacked the authority to do so.
The Math of a Recall
If a Superior Court judge approves a recall petition against the four board members, the battle shifts from the courtroom back to the community.
Under state law (RCW 29A.56.180), recall sponsors would have 180 days to gather valid signatures from registered voters.
For most school districts in Washington, this requires signatures equal to 35 percent of the total votes cast for that specific school board office in the last election.
If successful, the electoral clock would run out rapidly for the board majority. Directors Long (Position 4), Kirsten Williams (Position 5), and Stan Williams (Position 3) are all currently serving terms that do not expire until December 2027. Director Hammar (Position 1), who was elected just last November alongside Hamilton, is slated to serve until December 2029.
In ordinary times, hitting a 35 percent signature threshold in a local school board race is a steep hill to climb. But these are not ordinary times in Port Angeles.
Last Thursday, the Lincoln Center was packed with a remarkably unified, cross-partisan coalition. Teachers, union leaders, democrats, conservatives, and everyday parents stood shoulder-to-shoulder to condemn the board’s bureaucratic overreach.
If the board’s actions were intended to isolate Nancy Hamilton, they achieved the exact opposite—they galvanized the electorate against themselves.
If that fired-up coalition mobilizes to carry clipboards outside grocery stores and post offices this summer, that 35 percent threshold is well within reach.
The Port Angeles School Board majority gambled that they could use their 4-1 voting bloc to restrict state transparency laws and discipline a colleague who dared to ask too many questions. Instead, by putting legally questionable policies in writing, they may have just written their own political obituaries.
The community warned them. The law is clear. Now, they may have to answer to a judge—and ultimately, to the voters.