Hamilton files suit against Port Angeles School District and its board

Published 2:05 pm Thursday, July 16, 2026

PORT ANGELES — A Port Angeles school board member has filed a lawsuit against the school district and the board, alleging violations of the First Amendment and the state Open Public Meetings Act.

Nancy Hamilton, whom the board censured last month, is represented in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Clallam County Superior Court.

“This matter is an appeal of the unconstitutional and illegal efforts by the Port Angeles School Board to silence its newest board member, Director Nancy Hamilton, since her election in December 2025,” stated the lawsuit, which was filed by Cedar Law LLP of Seattle. “The School Board has prohibited her from engaging in her rightful and necessary duty as an elected official to ask questions of the Superintendent and to understand the functioning of the Port Angeles School District.”

The board censure, which passed 4-1 on June 18 — with Hamilton casting the no vote — formally disagreed with and disputed the accuracy of Hamilton’s statements during a board meeting on May 21, in addition to Hamilton’s claim that a May 26 executive session was held for an improper purpose in violation of the OPMA, and Hamilton’s claim that the board is trying to “silence minority voices.”

Board President Sandy Long and directors Ned Hammar, Kirsten Williams and Stan Williams voted for the censure.

All are named in the lawsuit, in addition to the school district.

The district and the school board each had 20 days to respond in writing as of Tuesday, according to court documents.

A hearing date had not been set as of Thursday afternoon.

Hamilton is seeking an order to suspend the resolution that censured her and to remove the restriction on information gathering by elected school board members, according to the lawsuit. She’s also seeking attorneys’ fees.

The lawsuit states that the board “berated Director Hamilton for her requests for information, specifically on a May 7, 2026 motion for reduction in force (‘RIF’) of District paraeducators.”

Hamilton requested the matter to be tabled in order to gather “sufficient information for an informed vote,” the lawsuit stated.

“Board President Sandy Long made a show of asking who on the Board had enough information by a show of hands, then pointed out that Director Hamilton was the only member whose hand was not raised,” the lawsuit stated. “President Long continued to ask if there was something ‘wrong’ that prevented Director Hamilton from accessing the same information as the other members. This exchange was heated and accusatory.”

Hamilton’s motion to table the issue was voted down, and the vote on the reduction in force went forward, the lawsuit stated.

The board met in executive session on May 26 with school district attorney Heidi Maynard to discuss pending and potential litigation, a permitted reason under state law.

However, the lawsuit stated Maynard attempted to “intimidate Director Hamilton with the possibility of future (albeit frivolous) ligation” and “the session was largely used to berate Director Hamilton for asking too many questions and generally disrupting the established culture of the Board.”

The lawsuit stated Hamilton emailed a letter to the other four board members and Maynard to respond to their accusations during the executive session, and that letter is what prompted the censure because they claimed she had violated the executive session.

Among other points, the resolution to censure Hamilton said she “made multiple antagonistic and inaccurate statements regarding the Superintendent and the Board” and, “despite being asked to stop, (Hamilton) has persisted in making numerous requests for information that interfere with the day to day operations of the district, that unnecessarily and unreasonably burden the Superintendent and staff tasked with responding to those requests, and that violate district policy and principles defining the role of Board members and the Board in the operation of the district.”

It also states Hamilton had documentation of the reduction-in-force process at least two meetings prior to May 21 and that the other directors received the same information and considered it sufficient.

The censure resolution cited one instance in which Hamilton requested from the Superintendent Michelle Olsen seven attachments containing 56 separate inquiries, including questions about district finance, transportation, capital projects, legislative priorities and more.

It also cited statements Hamilton made on May 21. The censure alleges she implied without factual basis that, prior to her election, the board had not been conducting its business in public, that other board members are not representing the community, that Olsen is not trusted in the community and that Olsen has a reputation for “retribution” against those who file complaints.

The resolution did not strip Hamilton of any of her powers as an elected board member and imposed no formal penalty.

________

Editor Brian McLean can be reached by email at brian.mclean@peninsuladailynews.com.