When the Port Angeles School District Board of Directors concluded its extended session on June 18—marked by vocal public participation and spirited debate—they appeared confident that the matter of Director Nancy Hamilton had been addressed.
A pair of closely contested measures, each passing 4–1, advanced the board’s vision: an eight-page censure resolution targeting Hamilton and a revised superintendent’s contract designed to reinforce centralized administrative authority.
Board President Sandy Long, Vice President Kirsten Williams, and Directors Stan Williams and Ned Hammar formed the majority bloc that backed both proposals. Their collective stance underscored a preference for streamlined decision-making over individualized oversight, especially where a sitting director’s actions diverged from leadership priorities.
Yet the board’s deliberate course may have opened a broader democratic channel—potentially empowering local voters to act independently if they perceive the board overstepped its legal boundaries.
Washington’s recall framework, among the most rigorous in the country, demands more than mere public discontent. Under constitutional provisions and state statute, officials may be recalled only for malfeasance, misfeasance, or breach of oath—each with specific legal meanings.
Malfeasance refers to unlawful conduct, misfeasance to improper execution of lawful duties, and oath violations to deliberate failures in fulfilling legally mandated responsibilities.
A key procedural safeguard exists before signature collection begins: a Superior Court judge must first approve the factual and legal sufficiency of the proposed recall charges. This judicial gatekeeping function, affirmed in the 1984 *Chandler v. Otto* ruling, does not require proof of guilt but only that the allegations, if credited, satisfy statutory recall standards.
Many recall efforts stall at this stage due to insufficient specificity or reliance on non-admissible evidence. In contrast, the Port Angeles school board’s recent actions rest on concrete, documented decisions—resolutions, contracts, and votes—all formally adopted and accessible in public records.
This written trail positions the board at the center of a potential recall calculus, turning its internal deliberations into objective benchmarks for voter scrutiny.
Should a local advocacy group pursue a recall effort targeting Long, Hammar, and both Williamses, they would find ample grounds for a petition within documents approved by the board on June 18. Earlier reporting highlighted that the majority voted to ratify an employment agreement containing a contentious legal provision.
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.
A superior court has determined that four members of the local school board engaged in legally sufficient malfeasance and misfeasance. The ruling indicates that the board members voted to contravene the Open Public Meetings Act and a specific state mandate while aware, through advice from legal counsel and peers, that they did not possess the necessary authority to proceed.
The Mechanics of a Recall
Should a judge validate the recall petition targeting these four officials, the conflict will move from the judicial system to the community at large. State statute RCW 29A.56.180 grants sponsors of such petitions a 180-day window to collect valid signatures from registered voters.
For the majority of school districts in Washington, the required number of signatures corresponds to 35 percent of the total votes cast for that particular school board position in the most recent election. If this threshold is met, the electoral timeline for the current board majority would accelerate significantly.
Three of the targeted directors, including the occupant of Position 4, the director in Position 5, and the director in Position 3, are currently serving terms that extend until December 2027. The director in Position 1, who was elected in November of the previous year alongside a colleague, holds a seat that remains valid until December 2029.
In typical circumstances, achieving a 35 percent signature threshold in a local school board contest presents a significant challenge. However, the political climate in Port Angeles has shifted. A recent gathering at the Lincoln Center featured a dense and cohesive coalition spanning multiple political affiliations. Educators, union representatives, members of the Democratic and conservative parties, and local parents united to criticize the board’s perceived bureaucratic expansion.
While the board’s maneuvers may have been designed to marginalize one specific colleague, the outcome has instead energized the voter base against the board itself. If this motivated coalition successfully organizes to gather signatures at locations such as grocery stores and post offices during the summer months, the required 35 percent threshold appears attainable.
The majority faction on the Port Angeles School Board relied on its 4-1 voting advantage to limit state transparency requirements and address a colleague who raised frequent inquiries. By formalizing policies that are now under legal scrutiny, the board may have inadvertently set the stage for its own political removal. After community warnings and legal clarifications, the board members now face potential judgment from a court and, eventually, a direct vote by the electorate.