First Records Released in Public Records Dispute

The Port Angeles School District has delivered the initial batch of documents sought under a June 22 public records request, including a pivotal June 11 correspondence from Superintendent Nancy Hamilton to the school board and district legal team. This letter had been at the heart of a recent board controversy involving formal censure.

The document, available for download in full, arrives on July 8—the same day a July 3 formal demand called for its release. Though met on schedule, the timing was unannounced and unexplained, especially given the district’s prior position that production would not occur until early November.

For weeks, the district had cited a 90-business-day timeline to locate and compile records, despite the board itself having already cited, dated, and described the same letter in a public censure resolution. The shift in approach was communicated in an email from HR and Public Records Assistant Stacy McKnight, which introduced a phased delivery strategy. According to the district, splitting records into installments will allow for “the fullest assistance and the timeliest production.”

Notably absent from this update are references to a May 29 five-day letter, the June 29 objection filed with district leadership, or the July 3 demand—none of which prompted formal回应. The district provided no rationale for the delay in disclosure or the timing of its response.

While the first installment meets one of four key requests outlined in the July 3 letter, several items remain pending. These include seventeen emails Hamilton exchanged with Superintendent Olsen from December 2025 through May 2026—records the board specifically cited in its censure resolution. A July 15 deadline has been noted for that segment, though no commitment to that timeline has been formally made.

Other outstanding items include staff responses to Hamilton’s emails, documentation related to anonymous constituent complaints referenced in the censure, and a revised, detailed projection outlining future delivery dates. The most recent email only promises “additional installments as records become available,” a formulation that leaves room for discretion rather than accountability.

Content of the Key Letter

Prior to today’s release, the public relied largely on the board’s summary of Hamilton’s June 11 letter—especially its eight-page censure resolution, which outlined concerns about her conduct. Now, the full text is accessible, revealing a document that diverges in tone and substance from the earlier portrayal.

Hamilton’s letter serves as a point-by-point rebuttal to seven complaints she says were voiced by board members and district counsel Ms. Maynard during a May 26 executive session conducted under the legal consultation exception to the Open Public Meetings Act. In some instances, her explanations appear inconsistent with the nature of the accusations as she frames them, suggesting a possible gap between how concerns were communicated internally and how they were later presented publicly.

Regarding her decision to step away from a collective bargaining vote, Hamilton states that district counsel provided written guidance in an email outlining "recommended next steps," which instructed her to publicly declare her recusal because her spouse serves within the teachers' union. She confirms she read that declaration aloud during the May 7 meeting precisely as the legal advice specified. If accurate, she was criticized in executive session for adhering to the district's own counsel.

On obtaining outside mentorship, Hamilton points out that the Washington State School Directors’ Association, the state's professional development organization for school boards, actively promotes external training, provides resources for new directors, and dispatches consultants to districts upon request.

Regarding her social media activity, she references the district's own Policy 1010, which mandates that the board supports the "free expression of opinions by all board directors." She further notes that elected officials across all levels of government routinely engage with constituents via social platforms.

Concerning the Renker contract, the complaint associated with the proposed censure alleges that Hamilton is responsible for the cancellation of an agreement with Dr. Ann Renker.

Hamilton’s account is that following the board's unanimous approval of the contract, a constituent informed her of an incident where the contractor allegedly made racist comments in a school setting, prompting her to forward the report to Superintendent Olsen as directed by both the superintendent's contract and board policy. This account has not been independently verified, as the allegation is attributed to an unnamed constituent within Hamilton's letter.

Hamilton states she did not order the contract rescinded—a decision she notes was never hers to make unilaterally.

Regarding her refusal to identify a complainant, Hamilton asserts that neither board policy nor the superintendent's contract obligates a director to reveal a constituent's identity if they request anonymity. She argues that mandating disclosure would discourage community members from bringing concerns to their elected representatives.

On her correspondence and meeting attendance, she cites board policy instructing members to direct inquiries to the superintendent before meetings. This is the very practice the censure resolution characterizes as micromanagement.

The Procedural Bombshell

The letter’s most consequential passage may be its final argument.

Hamilton contends the May 26 executive session was improperly noticed under the Open Public Meetings Act.

The session was convened under RCW 42.30.110(1)(i), which addresses potential litigation. Hamilton argues that because the session focused substantially on complaints against her, a public officer, it should have been noticed under RCW 42.30.110(1)(h), which governs sessions "to receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer."

That subsection includes a critical guarantee: upon the officer’s request, the discussion must be held in public.

Because the session was noticed solely under the litigation provision, Hamilton writes, she was never afforded the opportunity to invoke that right.

Her letter concludes by demanding that any future discussion of her conduct "take place in a public hearing, properly noted in the agenda."

One week later, on June 18, the board responded to that demand by reading a censure resolution into the record at a public meeting—a resolution accusing her of breaching executive session confidentiality by writing the letter.

The Competing Narratives

The dispute now reduces to two irreconcilable accounts.

The Olympic Peninsula’s Clallam County school board has issued a formal response to recent criticism from a district director, resulting in a sharp escalation of tensions between the administrator and the governing body. The central conflict revolves around the interpretation of confidentiality rules and the procedural validity of a recent executive session.

The director, who serves as the sole Native American representative on the board, previously submitted a letter characterizing the board’s actions as an attempt to silence minority voices and discredit her professional standing. She described the underlying allegations as frivolous. In reply, the board adopted a resolution that explicitly rejects her claims. The document labels her discrimination complaint as baseless and offensive, asserting that such accusations expose the district to potential legal liability.

The resolution also addresses procedural objections raised by the director. It dismisses her argument that the executive session was improperly noticed, stating that the gathering was validly convened under the district’s litigation provisions. The board maintained that reviewing legal risks with counsel was the primary purpose of the meeting.

Beyond rejecting the director’s arguments, the board’s resolution asserts that her June 11 correspondence violated the municipal code of ethics for public officers. The document claims this action resulted in a waiver of attorney-client privilege. It further cites two specific state criminal statutes: one defining willful neglect of public duty as a misdemeanor, and another classifying certain unauthorized intentional acts by public servants as gross misdemeanors.

The resolution concludes with a demand for the director to cease her current actions, warning of further censures if the behavior continues. It also reserves the board’s right to pursue injunctive relief in court to prevent her from attending future executive sessions.

A tension exists within the document itself. While one section declares that the resolution imposes no sanctions, restrictions, or penalties on the director, and affirms that she retains all powers of her office without diminution, other sections outline mechanisms that appear to limit her authority. Specifically, one provision allows staff to disregard her information requests without full board approval, while another threatens to bar her from executive sessions.

Legal observers note that the core dispute hinges on whether the session was properly noticed and what specific protections apply under the Open Public Meetings Act. This is a technical legal question that requires examination of the underlying records to resolve.

The board’s censure resolution references seventeen emails, which it characterizes as excessive demands placed on staff. Conversely, the director has described these same communications as routine pre-meeting diligence encouraged by written board policy. The content of these emails is critical to determining which characterization is accurate.

The district has produced only one category of records from the four requested by the director. It has not provided a timeline for the remaining documents and has not offered a revised estimate to replace its initial 90-business-day projection, a timeframe it has effectively abandoned.

If a significant portion of the seventeen emails is provided by July 15, accompanied by legally required redactions and a proper exemption log, the dispute may de-escalate. If the deadline passes without production, the terms of the director’s demand letter remain in effect: the matter will proceed to Clallam County Superior Court, where the district will bear the burden of proving the reasonableness of its conduct.

The recent partial production suggests the district acknowledges this legal burden. The next seven days will indicate whether it has fully accepted the implications of that responsibility.

  • Don’t sell the story or use it primarily to sell advertising.

Questions? Contact us.