Port Angeles School Board Censures Director Nancy Hamilton Amid Protests, Chaos, and Legal Warnings
In a tumultuous, emotionally charged marathon meeting punctuated by public protests, shouts from the audience, and multiple board recesses, the Port Angeles School District Board of Directors voted 4-1 Thursday night to formally censure newly elected Director Nancy Hamilton.
The passage of Resolution 2526-18 not only issues a formal reprimand against Hamilton but institutes strict administrative hurdles that severely restrict her ability to request district information.
Crucially, the document also explicitly threatens legal action to physically bar the elected official from future closed-door executive sessions.
Board President Sandy Long, Vice President Kirsten Williams, and Directors Stan Williams and Ned Hammar voted in favor of the sweeping eight-page document, which accuses Hamilton of micromanaging the administration, unnecessarily burdening staff, and breaching the confidentiality of a May 26 executive session.
Hamilton cast the lone dissenting vote.
Immediately following the censure, the board also approved a new 2026–2029 contract for Superintendent Michelle Olsen in a 4-1 vote, overriding warnings from Hamilton that restrictive language embedded in the contract explicitly conflicts with the Washington Public Records Act and illegally limits board oversight.
The evening laid bare deep fractures within the district’s leadership and sparked a fiery backlash from a community that packed the Lincoln Center.
The Censure Resolution: 17 Emails and a ‘Gag Rule’
Tensions in the room boiled over early as Executive Assistant Casey McDonald spent nearly 30 minutes reading the entirety of the eight-page resolution into the public record.
Audience members repeatedly interrupted the reading, prompting Board President Long to warn the crowd, “If you cannot properly attend this meeting and show respect for our board, then we would ask you to leave.”
The resolution paints a picture of a board majority deeply frustrated by Hamilton’s oversight style since she assumed office after winning her election by a 13-point margin last November.
It formally accuses Hamilton of sending Superintendent Olsen 17 emails over five months containing “voluminous” inquiries into district operations.
The board highlighted a single December email featuring 56 questions regarding district finances, the change-order process for authorizing additional funds on a $23,700 contract, and the age and repair history of district buses.
To rein in her inquiries, the newly adopted resolution establishes a restrictive new protocol: If Superintendent Olsen subjectively deems Hamilton’s future information requests to be “voluminous, complex, and/or repetitive,” the superintendent is directed to disregard them.
The requests will then be forwarded to the Board President and require explicit approval by a majority vote of the full board before district staff can answer them.
The resolution also reprimands Hamilton for relaying constituent complaints to the superintendent while intentionally withholding the identities of the complainants.
Hamilton reportedly did so because community members feared “retribution” from Olsen—an assertion the board fiercely denounced in the resolution as baseless and damaging to the superintendent’s integrity.
Furthermore, the board alleged Hamilton violated the Open Public Meetings Act and the state Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers following a May 26 closed-door executive session.
According to the resolution, Hamilton sent a June 11 letter to the board and district counsel discussing details of that confidential meeting, alleging it was improperly convened “under the guise of potential litigation” to discredit her and “silence minority voices” as the board’s only Native American director.
The board majority furiously rejected her characterization, labeling her claim of discrimination “false and offensive,” and warned that she broke the law by creating a disclosable public record of the meeting.
In response, the resolution formally states that the board “reserves the right to seek injunctive relief in court” to bar Hamilton from future executive sessions.
Public Outcry
The board’s actions were met with overwhelming and united opposition during a lengthy community comment period.
An ideologically diverse stream of community members, teachers, and union representatives universally condemned the reprimand as a retaliatory attack on 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,” resident Ron Richards told the board.
Pointing to past local controversies that suffered from a lack of oversight, Richards 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,” Richards 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.”
Eric Pickens, 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, Pickens 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.
Pickens noted that putting out 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,” Pickens 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.”
Pickens 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.
John Henry, a high school math teacher and past president of the Port Angeles Education Association, noted that it is incredibly common for staff and community members to fear coming forward to district leadership.
“When I was PAEA president... sometimes PAEA would just have to bring the concern forward because of fear,” Henry told the board. “If you want to build that, you need to really start building trust. That’s how you get people to bring their concerns directly and openly... Surround yourself with people who say no. It may seem like it impedes your work, but it actually helps you make better decisions. Cultivate the people who ask the questions.”
Gwen Lewandowski, a paraeducator speaking on her own behalf, praised Hamilton for her recent dissenting vote against a district Reduction in Force. The board’s censure resolution specifically criticized Hamilton for claiming she did not have enough information to vote on the RIF.
“Nancy’s no vote on cutting fellow staff that provide critical support to some of our most vulnerable students on the basis of wanting more information about the budget so she could make a well-informed decision is exactly what the people of Port Angeles elected her to do,” Lewandowski said.
“Nancy stands shoulder to shoulder with the community, and therefore the community stands shoulder to shoulder with her.”
Becky Ritchie, a teacher from neighboring Sequim, warned of the chilling effect the censure would have on future leaders.
“Democracy is not always comfortable. Accountability is not always comfortable. Transparency is not always comfortable, but they are essential,” Ritchie said. “A strong school district is not built on silence or unquestioning agreement. It is built on trust, openness, and the willingness to have difficult conversations in the light of day. Whether you agree with her questions or not, asking hard questions is not misconduct—it’s the job.”
Fact-Checking the Resolution
Other commenters meticulously attacked the text of the resolution itself. Aiden Hamilton publicly fact-checked the document against the publicly available video recording of the May 21 meeting it cited extensively.
“The document goes to quote Director Hamilton nine times with single word or short sentences. But never once gives a full quote of what she said that caused this motion,” he stated, questioning the lack of context.
“There is not a single word that is quoted in the resolution that Director Hamilton said that would have impugned the integrity of the district board members or the superintendent, which is good because I rewound the video several times and did not see her say anything that would imply what is claimed in the resolution.”
He added that the community’s fear of retaliation is real, noting, “Students have asked me to speak on their behalf before in the past because they were afraid of retaliation.”
Resident John Richardson summarized the mood of the room: “This is what I love about school board meetings, is it’s democracy in action. People saw something they didn’t like, they’ve come out in droves to come and talk to you guys... Nobody else here is the boss of the superintendent. That is strictly the board... somebody should never be censored for wanting to know more.”
Hamilton’s Defense and a Fractured Board
Before the board voted, Hamilton offered a fierce defense of her actions, grounding her arguments in constitutional law and her statutory duties as an elected official.
“I have lived my life in a very honorable way. I respect the law. I’m a United States Army veteran. I have never broken a law in my entire life,” Hamilton stated. “First, this resolution makes false references to things it claims that I have said... Second, in response to allegations that I may have broken laws, I have received legal guidance, and I do not believe I have broken any laws. And when there is a difference of legal opinions, those are not litigated at a board meeting.”
She noted that the “voluminous” emails the board was complaining about equated to roughly one email per week. She argued that funneling her questions through the board president effectively strips an elected official of their legislative authority.
“Passing this resolution would hinder my core duties and diminish my capacity to serve. According to RCW 28A.150.230, individual school directors are explicitly held accountable for the proper operation of their district to the local community and its electorate. Funneling any questions strictly through a board president would interfere with the statutory duty,” Hamilton argued.
“Furthermore, under RCW 42.30, the Open Public Meetings Act, all members of a governing board have equal right to participate in deliberations, ask questions, and vote. Forcing an elected official to get permission from the board president to speak or inquire effectively invalidates their election... Put bluntly, the school board cannot vote to take away the duties of individual school board members. It is preempted by state law.”
She also forcefully addressed the accusation regarding constituent anonymity.
“By censoring me for keeping this person’s identity confidential, the rest of the board is sending a message to our constituents. We are saying that if you tell us what is happening in our schools, we will tell the administration who you are,” Hamilton warned.
“After voting to censure me, you will be sending a clear message that you work for the school administration, not for the community who have trusted you with this responsibility... Tonight you are destroying public trust in our school board and our school district.”
Director Ned Hammar offered the only remarks from the board majority explaining the vote.
“Friends, neighbors, and also teachers who have taught or will teach my own kids. The words I’m about to share are mine alone. I do not speak for the board just as myself. I am voting for this resolution,” Hammar said.
“I am so sad that we have arrived at this place. I am also hopeful that with the clarity that this resolution provides we can get on with the work of the board. I believe that we can rebuild the trust and teamwork necessary to do that work. I believe that our diversity as board members is our strength... I will continue to look for the positive intent in all of us, because I know it’s there.”
Hamilton attempted to make a motion to postpone the resolution indefinitely, but her motion died without a second.
When the 4-1 vote to pass the censure was officially recorded, the room erupted in 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 immediately called for a five-minute recess to clear the disruption, marking the second recess required during the turbulent meeting after an earlier outburst where an attendee yelled, “We got a problem here. We got a bunch of yes-men.”
Superintendent Contract Clash with the Public Records Act
When the board returned, it immediately moved to approve Superintendent Olsen’s new 2026–2029 employment contract.
The item sparked another fierce legal debate. Hamilton, who had successfully pulled the contract from the consent agenda earlier in the evening, argued that the board was attempting to use an employee contract to illegally bypass the Washington Public Records Act.
Hamilton pointed specifically to restrictive language in the superintendent’s proposed contract, which attempts to regulate an individual board member’s right to ask questions and gather information.
“Governing rules belong in our official thousand-series board policies, not an individual employee’s contract. Keeping them separate maintains the proper boundary between board governance and staff administration,” Hamilton stated, citing Board Policy 1005, which mandates that accountability and fiscal oversight are non-delegable functions of the board.
“We cannot contractually transfer our oversight authority to an employee.”
Crucially, Hamilton argued that attempting to restrict her access to district documents runs afoul of state transparency laws.
“Finally, the proposed language conflicts with the Washington Public Records Act, RCW 42.56, which guarantees broad information-gathering rights to everyone,” she asserted. “We cannot contractually limit rights that state law guarantees to any member of the public.”
Hamilton motioned to postpone the approval of the superintendent’s contract until July 23 to allow the board time to further evaluate the legal conflicts with the state’s public records laws. However, her motion died without a second from her colleagues.
The board subsequently voted 4-1 to approve the contract as written, with Hamilton voting no.