Port Angeles District Defends Censure’s Information Limits, Seeks Dismissal of Hamilton Lawsuit

The Port Angeles School District is asking a judge to dismiss Director Nancy Hamilton’s lawsuit challenging a censure resolution that makes certain information requests from elected directors subject to approval by the full board, while denying that it silenced her.

In an answer filed September 23 in Clallam County Superior Court, the district and its Board of Directors acknowledge censuring Hamilton and admit that her complaint accurately quotes the resolution’s information-request provision.

They dispute her allegations that the censure violated her free-speech rights and unlawfully obstructed her work as an elected director.

Hamilton’s complaint says that, as the board’s only Native American director, her minority voice was being silenced.

“Deny that she is the only minority voice on the board; deny that she is being silenced,” the answer states.

The defendants also assert that the legal violations Hamilton complains of were “her own doing.” They seek dismissal with prejudice and recovery of their costs and attorney’s fees as allowed by law.

Hamilton filed suit July 14, challenging Resolution 2526-18, which the board adopted 4-1 on June 18 with Hamilton casting the lone opposing vote.

The resolution established a process for requests from individual directors that Superintendent Michelle Olsen considers so extensive, complex or repetitive that they disrupt district operations or divert her or staff from current priorities.

Under the provision quoted in Hamilton’s complaint, those requests go to the board president for placement on the next board meeting agenda.

“If the requests are not approved by collective Board action, the Superintendent will disregard the request(s),” the provision states.

The district’s answer accepts the quotation as accurate but emphasizes that it is only part of the full resolution.

The board majority has maintained that Hamilton “retains all rights and powers of her office without diminution,” as the Herald previously reported.

Hamilton’s lawsuit challenges that characterization, arguing that requiring approval from the same board that censured her interferes with the information gathering necessary to perform her elected duties.

In its censure resolution, the board accused Hamilton of burdening district staff with information requests, citing 17 emails over five months, including one containing 56 questions, according to our coverage of the June 18 meeting.

Hamilton has denied wrongdoing and contends that asking questions before meetings followed board policy.

The answer admits that Hamilton continued sending questions to Olsen before meetings. It characterizes the remainder of her allegation about compliance with board policy as legal conclusions requiring no response.

The filing also lists four affirmative defenses: failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, failure to mitigate, absence of an adverse employment action, and an assertion that Hamilton caused the legal violations she complains of.

“Plaintiff’s complained of violations of the law are her own doing,” the answer states.

Those defenses appear as four brief statements without supporting explanation in that section. The filing does not explain how its employment-action defense applies to Hamilton’s claims concerning her duties as an elected director.

The district also disputes Hamilton’s account of the May 26 executive session that preceded the censure.

Her complaint alleges that the session, called to discuss pending and potential litigation, was largely used to berate her for asking questions and disrupting the board’s established culture. She contends that complaints about her should have been discussed publicly at her request.

The answer says the session was called to obtain legal advice and asserts that Hamilton’s description of it in her complaint violates the Open Public Meetings Act. It also disputes her interpretation of the law.

The confidentiality dispute extends to Hamilton’s June 11 letter responding to the executive-session discussion. The board cited that letter as a confidentiality breach when it censured her.

The district subsequently released the letter to the Herald on July 8 in response to a public records request.

Hamilton’s complaint argues that the release waived any attorney-client privilege claim and supported her contention that the session went beyond its proper scope. The answer responds to that paragraph with a single word: “Deny.”

That paragraph combines the fact of the letter’s release with Hamilton’s legal conclusions about its significance. The answer does not separately address the release or explain the district’s position on privilege.

Hamilton also alleges improper private discussions by phone and email and improper closed-door meetings during the June 18 public session. The answer characterizes those claims as legal conclusions and denies the factual allegations.

Attorney Lori M. Bemis of Tacoma firm McGavick Graves signed the answer for the district and board. It follows her July notice of appearance, which identified defense counsel without addressing the allegations.

Hamilton seeks to suspend and invalidate the censure resolution, prevent further violations of board members’ rights, obtain a declaration that the board violated the Open Public Meetings Act, and recover costs and attorney’s fees. Her federal civil-rights claim also seeks damages.

The case is currently assigned to Judge Brent Basden.