Port Angeles School Board Weighs Censuring Newly Elected Director Over Information Requests and Transparency Push
Tomorrow evening, the Port Angeles School District Board of Directors will vote on an eight-page resolution to formally censure Director Nancy Hamilton, a move that comes after months of friction over the newly elected board member’s persistent inquiries into district operations.
Hamilton, who unseated an incumbent by nearly 13 percentage points last November, has spent her first six months in office pressing district leadership for detailed information regarding taxpayer finances, capital projects, and transportation.
However, according to the proposed censure resolution, the school board’s majority and Superintendent Michelle Olsen view Hamilton’s requests for documentation as “voluminous, complex, and/or repetitive” to the point of disrupting district operations.
To illustrate this burden, the resolution cites a December 2025 email from Hamilton that included 56 questions regarding district business.
Among the inquiries the district cited as examples of this disruption were questions asking for the average age and mileage of district buses, whether those buses had been properly repaired over the last decade, and requests for clarification on the change-order process for authorizing additional funds on a $23,700 contract.
While the resolution states answering these inquiries required “hours” of staff time, it notes Hamilton sent a total of 17 emails requesting operational information over a span of more than five months between December and May.
The board’s resolution alleges that these types of oversight questions, along with public statements Hamilton made regarding a recent personnel Reduction in Force, cross the line into micromanagement.
The document states Hamilton has overstepped her role by attempting to act independently rather than through collective board action. Hamilton, meanwhile, is quoted in the district’s document as asserting her questions are simply meant to “make sure management is managing correctly.”
The underlying tension regarding district transparency escalated significantly following a May 26 closed-door executive session.
The board alleges that Hamilton breached confidentiality and potentially violated state ethics laws by discussing details of that closed session in a June 11 letter sent to the board and district legal counsel.
The resolution claims her email created a disclosable public record that exposes the district to legal liability and potentially waives attorney-client privilege.
In her June 11 letter, excerpts of which are quoted in the district’s resolution, Hamilton defended her actions and questioned the board’s motives for meeting behind closed doors.
She alleged the executive session was held “under the guise of potential litigation” when its actual purpose was “an effort to discredit [her] and [her] work.”
“As I am the only Native American on this Board, it is hard to see this attack as anything other than an attempt to silence minority voices on the Board,” Hamilton wrote.
The board’s proposed censure strongly disputes her allegations, characterizing Hamilton’s claim of discrimination as “false and offensive.”
The resolution asserts the executive session was properly convened under the Open Public Meetings Act and counters her claim by pointing to the district’s ongoing partnership with the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe.
The resolution also highlights a divide over how community complaints should be handled.
According to the document, Hamilton relayed concerns from community members to the superintendent but intentionally withheld the complainants’ identities. The board argues this anonymity violates district policy by hindering formal resolutions.
However, the resolution acknowledges Hamilton’s stated reasoning: she relayed community fears that the superintendent has a reputation for “retribution” against those who complain—an assertion the board insists is baseless and impugns the administration’s integrity.
If adopted Thursday night, the Resolution will not remove Hamilton from her elected seat or strip her of her voting rights.
However, it carries severe warnings and institutes new hurdles for information gathering.
The board threatens that if Hamilton’s conduct continues, it reserves the right to seek a court injunction to physically bar the elected director from attending future closed-door executive sessions.
Furthermore, the resolution outlines a restrictive new protocol for document requests.
Going forward, if the superintendent deems an individual board member’s request for information to be too “voluminous, complex, and/or repetitive,” the administrator is instructed to forward the request to the Board President.
The elected board member’s questions will then be disregarded by staff unless explicitly approved by a majority vote of the full board.
The board will review and vote on the censure at its scheduled meeting tomorrow, June 18.
Well IMO sounds like they don't like the questions she is asking.
The bigger question is why.
Just like all the other city, county, government agencies they want nothing but you to shut up and not speak.
Why not want transparency, we the taxpayers pay for these things and want to KNOW where are money is going and if there’s better ways to help save money because us taxpayers are tired of getting lied to etc.