Port Angeles School District Moves to Dismiss Hamilton’s Censure Lawsuit
The Port Angeles School District has filed a formal response in Clallam County Superior Court, urging a judge to dismiss Director Nancy Hamilton’s legal challenge to a board resolution that censured her and altered how elected directors submit information requests to the superintendent.
Filed September 23, the district’s answer acknowledges the board’s censure of Hamilton and confirms her complaint correctly quotes the resolution’s key provision governing director-initiated inquiries. However, the district contests her claims that the process infringes on her constitutional free-speech rights and impedes her ability to carry out her elected role.
Hamilton’s lawsuit asserts that, as the board’s sole Native American director, her perspective has been marginalized. In response, the district disputes that characterization outright, stating Hamilton is neither the only minority voice nor being systematically silenced.
The board further contends that many of the legal issues Hamilton raises stem from her own actions. It is seeking dismissal with prejudice, along with reimbursement for costs and attorney’s fees—entitlements permitted under state law.
Hamilton initiated the suit on July 14, contesting Resolution 2526-18, which the board approved 4–1 on June 18. Hamilton cast the sole “no” vote, setting the stage for her current legal position.
The resolution introduces a new threshold for director requests to Superintendent Michelle Olsen. If a request is deemed substantial, intricate, or repetitive enough to disrupt operations or shift staff focus away from current goals, it is forwarded to the board president for inclusion on an upcoming meeting agenda.
The answer affirms the accuracy of Hamilton’s quoted language—that unapproved requests may be set aside by Olsen—but notes that this clause represents only a segment of the broader resolution.
Earlier reporting indicated the board majority maintains Hamilton continues to hold full powers of her office, unimpaired by the censure. Hamilton’s complaint pushes back on that view, arguing that requiring board approval—particularly from the same group that reprimanded her—creates a procedural hurdle to effective oversight.
According to records from the June 18 meeting, the board cited Hamilton for overwhelming district staff with inquiries, pointing to 17 emails over five months, including a single message with 56 questions. Hamilton maintains her conduct aligned with existing board policy and that pre-meeting questioning is standard practice.
The district’s filing confirms Hamilton kept submitting questions to Olsen ahead of meetings but treats much of her interpretation of policy compliance as interpretive legal points rather than factual disputes.
The answer also outlines four affirmative defenses: lack of a viable legal claim, insufficient effort to reduce impact, absence of an adverse employment action affecting Hamilton, and attribution of legal breaches to Hamilton herself. Each defense appears as a concise statement without elaboration, and the filing does not elaborate on how the employment-action defense applies to Hamilton’s role as an elected director.
Additionally, the district challenges Hamilton’s description of a May 26 executive session held just before the censure vote.
A school district and its board of directors filed a response to a lawsuit claiming that a closed-door meeting held to seek legal counsel was misused to criticize a board member for challenging the group’s established norms. The district contends that the session was strictly limited to obtaining legal advice and argues that the plaintiff’s characterization of the event violates state open meeting laws. The defendant further disputes the plaintiff’s interpretation of the relevant statutes.
The legal dispute over confidentiality also encompasses a letter written by the board member on June 11, which addressed the earlier executive session. The board cited this correspondence as a breach of confidentiality when it voted to censure her. The district later provided the letter to The Real Olympic Herald on July 8 following a public records request.
In her lawsuit, the board member argues that the district’s release of the letter effectively waived any claim of attorney-client privilege and demonstrates that the closed session exceeded its proper scope. The district’s answer addresses this specific argument with a single-word denial. This response does not separately address the act of releasing the document or clarify the district’s stance on privilege, instead treating the plaintiff’s legal conclusions as part of the factual allegations being denied.
The complaint also details alleged improper communications via email and phone, as well as unauthorized closed-door discussions that occurred during a public session on June 18. The district’s legal response characterizes these claims as legal conclusions and denies the underlying facts.
Lori M. Bemis, an attorney with the Tacoma firm McGavick Graves, signed the answer on behalf of the district and the board. This filing follows her July notice of appearance, which formally identified the defense counsel without commenting on the specific allegations.
The board member is seeking a court order to suspend and invalidate the censure resolution, a declaration that the board violated the Open Public Meetings Act, and protection against future rights violations. She is also requesting the recovery of legal costs and fees. Additionally, her federal civil rights claim seeks monetary damages.
The matter is currently under the jurisdiction of Judge Brent Basden.