NEW CLARK COUNTY COUNCILOR, WIL FUENTES (D), PROPOSES TO REMOVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE & INVOCATION FROM COUNTY COUNCILOR MEETINGS
WATCH THE VIDEO CLIP FROM THE MEETING HERE
On just his second day in office (January 8, 2025), Wil Fuentes, the Democrat who moved here from Hillsboro just a few years ago, showed his disdain for faith and patriotism by proposing to remove both the Pledge of Allegiance and the invocation (prayer) from future Council agendas.
Sadly, this doesn’t surprise me, except for how quickly he’s making such a move in his term. Many on the Left seem intent on removing God and dismantling patriotism from our culture—eerily reminiscent of Mao's campaign against the "Four Olds" during the Cultural Revolution of the 1950s. (Check out this video about Maoism and its similarities to today's political climate.)
Councilor Sue Marshall expressed support for removing the invocation. I’ve noticed many times she neither bows her head nor participates in prayer. New Councilor Matt Little, who claims to be an active Christian, and Councilor Glen Yung appeared open to changes regarding the invocation. Meanwhile, the idea of removing the Pledge of Allegiance received no comments, except from Councilor Belkot, who firmly opposed it, stating, "I thought we were all Americans."
The far-left radical Democrats have seized control of Clark County Council. The question is: What will you do about it now?
WATCH FULL MEETING CLIP HERE
EXPOSED: Ridgefield School Officials Promote Citizens For Ridgefield Schools - PDC Complaint Filed 
CLICK HERE: WATCH VIDEO EXPLAINING SOME OF POSSIBLE LAW VIOLATIONS THAT OCCURED DURING THE MEETING
The Ridgefield School District (RSD) has officially crossed the line—or at least that's what a formal complaint I filed (1/7/25) with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) alleges. At a November 2024 town hall, Superintendent Dr. Jenny Rodriquez and school board members openly discussed their cozy relationship with Citizens For Ridgefield Schools (CFRS), a nonprofit historically at the forefront of levy and bond campaigns in the district. What they likely didn’t expect was just how blatant their statements would come across.
For those not aware, the district is asking taxpayers to dig even deeper into their wallets this year, proposing yet another round of levies. One of the two levies is being promoted as just a "replacement." But it’s more than that—a 41% increase in revenue collected, largely due to two illegal teacher strikes over the years. The other levy is essentially a repackaged bond that has failed multiple times but is now being rebranded as a "levy" to pass with a simple majority rather than the supermajority required for bonds. Clever, right?
But now, there's a bigger problem: The school district apparently violated state law by using public resources to actively promote levy campaigns and recruit for CFRS, a clear violation of RCW 42.17A.555.
What’s in the Complaint?
The formal PDC complaint filed paints a troubling picture of coordination between RSD and CFRS. Among the most egregious examples:
1Promotion of Citizens For Ridgefield Schools (CFRS)
Superintendent Rodriquez and Board Chair Brett Jones couldn’t stop name-dropping CFRS during the meeting (over ten references by my count). Jones called the group the typical “platform” for levy campaigns and encouraged community members to “step in” and support it. Rodriquez went further, admitting she’d met with one of CFRS’ board members, any possibly others, to discuss the levies which included campaign ideas.
2Active Recruitment for CFRS
Rodriquez acknowledged that CFRS had “lost some board members” and encouraged attendees to fill those positions. Board Member Jake Bredstrand even suggested inviting a CFRS representative to speak about getting involved—a clear plug for the organization, to which a CFRS board member in attendance obliged.
3Coordination with CFRS Leadership
Rodriquez’s admission that she met with a CFRS officer raises red flags about improper collaboration. The superintendent of a public school district isn’t just discussing “information-sharing” when she’s actively recruiting board members and strategizing with a nonprofit that openly campaigns for levies. Even more damning, when a member of the public asked, “Last time around you used the nonprofit Citizens For Ridgefield but I haven't heard a word of them yet... so, who's going to be doing the campaign?” the board didn’t deny the premise of his question. Instead, they nodded in agreement and answered as if it was an accurate assessment of their relationship with CFRS.
4Admitted Awareness of Legal Boundaries
Here’s the kicker: Rodriquez acknowledged the district’s strict obligations under PDC rules. “We have really strict rules from the Public Disclosure Commission,” she said, before proceeding to discuss CFRS’ role and levy strategies anyway. Knowing the rules and then flouting them makes this all the more egregious.
CLICK HERE: WATCH THE SHORTER VIDEO FROM THE NOVEMBER 19, 2024 MEETING 
Why This Matters
Clearly, this isn’t just about one slip-up at a meeting. This shows a pattern of behavior that insiders have long suspected: RSD officials working hand-in-glove with CFRS to push their levy agenda.The complaint exposes what many have whispered about for years—that this close relationship is an open secret, and now it’s not so secret anymore.
Before filing, I reached out to Glen Morgan (wethegoverned.com), who’s filed several PDC complaints regarding Ridgefield and CFRS. Glen wasn’t surprised at all and encouraged me to file this complaint.
Glen pointed out that under RCW 42.17A.555, public resources can’t be used to promote or oppose ballot measures. Yet, based on what was said at the town hall, RSD appears to treat CFRS as their unofficial campaign arm, using public meetings to recruit for them, promote their work, and pave the way for their campaigns.
Does this surprise anyone, coming from the same school district that has had not one but TWO illegal teacher strikes in less than five years?
CLICK HERE: WATCH THE LONGER VIDEO FROM THE NOVEMBER 19, 2024 MEETING
The Bigger Picture: The Levies and the Opposition
This year, RSD is asking voters to approve two levies: a "replacement" Educational Programs and Operations (EP&O) levy and a Technology and Capital Projects levy. The truth is that RSD’s spending is out of control. Over the past five years, the operational budget has skyrocketed by 69%, while academic performance remains underwhelming. It raises the question: Where is the money going?
Taxpayers are also wary of the district's history of mismanagement and lack of transparency. Add this latest PDC complaint to the mix, and you have a growing sense that RSD officials are more focused on “selling” levies than addressing the root problems in Ridgefield schools and respecting the voters. At one point in the meeting, Brett Jones implored the audience, "Sell this. This is a sales job. You have to sell this to somebody who doesn't want to pay more taxes." Sounds like a clear violation by using his position, the official meeting and school resources to support the levy measures.
What Happens Next?
The PDC will review the complaint and decide whether RSD crossed the line. If violations are confirmed, the district could face penalties, and CFRS might be forced to answer tough questions about its role.
For Ridgefield taxpayers, this should be a wake-up call. It’s not just about whether the levies pass—it’s about holding RSD accountable for how they operate. This latest revelation exposes a culture of disregard for rules, which should not be tolerated.
If the board directors have an ounce of integrity—and are proven guilty of breaking the law—they should resign, including Superintendent Rodriquez for her egregious lapse in judgment and example she's set for all of RSD and students.
2025 Is The Year Of The Charter Review Commission Elections 
The Home Rule Charter: Our "County Constitution"
The Home Rule Charter is often referred to as our "County Constitution." While there are some advantages to having a Charter—Clark County being one of only seven counties in Washington State with one—there are also significant downsides, and ours has many.
Earlier this year, Greg Kimsey boasted about writing much of the Charter, which explains why it empowers many executive branch positions while stripping power from the people (the legislative branch). Unfortunately, the first Charter Review Commission served as a puppet for administrative elites and proposed several terrible amendments, including:
- A "woke" preamble (failed)
- Creating a DEI office (tried twice, failed twice)
- Allowing elected executive branch officials to appoint their successors, even if they committed a felony or were being removed from office (passed)
- Restricting initiative and referendum rights (two passed, one failed)
- Ranked Choice Voting (failed)
- Eliminating the Chair position (held by Eileen Quiring-O’Brien), which conveniently redistricted three Republican Councilors into the same district (passed)
- Adding phony non-partisan titles for County officials (passed) - Newsflash: This doesn’t magically remove politics from political positions. Instead, it gives voters less information and allows candidates to deceive voters.
What is the Charter Review Commission?
The Home Rule Charter requires review by a 15-member elected Charter Review Commission. Three members are elected from each of the five County Councilor districts. Under the Charter, the next election for commission members will take place in November 2025.
Here’s the relevant section from the Charter regarding the Commission:
Section 9.1: Charter Review Commission
- Election and Period of Office
- Five years after the adoption of this Charter and at least every five years thereafter, the council shall facilitate the election of a Charter Review Commission. The commission will consist of fifteen members, elected on a nonpartisan basis, with three representatives from each council district.
- Candidates shall file during the regular candidate filing period and pay a $25 filing fee.
- No primary will be held for this election. The election shall occur during the November general election.
- The member receiving the most votes shall convene the commission.
- The term of office for commission members shall be two years or until the commission concludes its work, whichever occurs sooner.
- Meetings may take place at appropriate times and locations within Clark County. Public notice of each meeting must be provided in a countywide newspaper and posted on the county’s website at least 14 days in advance.
- Vacancies
- Vacancies on the commission must be filled by the remaining members within 30 calendar days after the chair declares a vacancy. Notice must be provided to residents of the affected district within 10 days of the declaration. The selected replacement must reside in the district where the vacancy occurs and be approved by a simple majority vote of the commission.
- Financial Support
- Commission members shall serve without salary but will be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. The County Council must provide the commission with necessary resources, facilities, and funding to fulfill its purpose effectively.
Interested in Becoming a Charter Commissioner?
If you’re interested in serving as a Charter Commissioner, please click the button below to send me an email with your name, address, and district. I’ll send you more information!
Since there are no primaries for Charter Commissioners, it’s crucial to identify and support the three best candidates from each district. Coordination is essential to avoid splitting votes, as happened last time.
Quick Facts About the Charter Review Commission:
- Serious Responsibility: This is an opportunity to bring much-needed reforms to Clark County.
- Term of Office: Two years or until the commission’s work concludes, whichever comes first.
- Representation: Only three commissioners will be elected from each of the five County Council districts. [Click HERE to find your district.]
- Commitment: Be prepared for at least two meetings per month, with the potential for more during busy periods.
- Election Timing: Commissioners will be elected in the November 2025 general election (no primary election).
ICYMI: 2024 Was A Very Busy & Fruitful Year 
2024 began with a bang, bringing a series of legal battles that exposed underlying issues in Clark County.
In 2023, I was in court for the first time, appealing the dismissal of my HAVA complaints regarding the 2022 recounts. Little did I imagine that I would find myself battling in court FIVE times in 2024!
JANUARY
- The Clark County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (led by Tony Golik) refused to follow the Home Rule Charter, attempting to block the Restore Election Confidence initiative from gathering signatures and reaching voters.
- A Writ of Mandamus filed in Skamania County forced the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office to reverse course and comply with the law.
- Against Auditor Kimsey's wishes, the PA’s office determined the Restor Election Confidence initiative was legal, paving the way for the Restore Election Confidence initiative effort to begin.
- Volunteers started collecting thousands of signatures, educating the public about needed reforms in election processes—issues that became even more evident in the months ahead.
- I filed a second ethics complaint, this time against the PA’s office, for failing to uphold the law.
MARCH
- Uncovered that illegitimate ballots were being mailed to voters who had canceled registrations or were being forwarded to people in other states or voting districts.
APRIL
- WinCo served me with a lawsuit for a volunteer gathering signatures at their Brush Prairie location.
MAY
- WinCo secured a preliminary injunction, but the judge limited its scope to the Brush Prairie store.
- The Restore Election Confidence initiative gathered over 8,000 signatures but fell short of the threshold to advance. Auditor Kimsey dismissed the initiative’s proposals, like adding cameras at county ballot boxes—a stance that later backfired.
JUNE
- In a shocking development, the Ethics Commission broke standing procedures and dismissed both complaints against Greg Kimsey and Tony Golik (but this fight may not be over yet:-)
JULY
- Filed an appeal of the Ethics Commission's decisions.
AUGUST
- A judge dismissed the ethics appeals for lack of jurisdiction but grilled the County Attorney for denying due process. It was clear from his comments that the current setup of the Ethics Commission is not Constitutional.
- While reviewing ballot language for proposed Charter amendments, I discovered that the submitted ballot titles were misleading and biased, violating state law. Though my appeal was dismissed on a technicality, the PA’s office made some changes. However, Charter Amendment 18 remained misleading, failing to disclose how it would increase the PA’s authority to screen initiatives. This story will most likely expand in 2025.
OCTOBER
- Following ballot box attacks, we intensified pressure on Kimsey for rejecting the need for cameras and was the first to obtain and release footage of the second attack.
NOVEMBER
- WinCo dropped its lawsuit, effectively conceding its case was weak and would most likely not advance out of preliminary challenges.
- Charter Amendment 18, which would have restricted future initiatives, was defeated.
DECEMBER
- Drafted “against” statements for Ridgefield School levies on the February ballot.
The Restore Election Confidence (REC) initiative was by far the most significant and impactful effort. Dozens of volunteers stepped up, collecting signatures and raising awareness about election system flaws. Though we fell short of the required signatures, we put Kimsey on notice and forced him to address these issues publicly—positions that ultimately came back to haunt him. Instead of improving election processes, he pushed Charter Amendment 18, aimed at stifling future REC-like initiatives. Thanks to our efforts and Kimsey’s missteps, election reform momentum is growing, and we may see big results in 2025.
The ethics complaints revealed misconduct by County officials and highlighted the Ethics Commission’s lack of impartiality. The Commission ignored the stated processes to dismiss my complaints and Angus Lee's (regarding ethics violations when handling the John Ley case). Left unchecked, this body risks becoming a tool for protecting political insiders while punishing dissenters.
WinCo’s lawsuit was a prime example of this. Their case was riddled with falsehoods about me and our initiative. Despite big threats and accusations, they ultimately withdrew, wasting significant resources. Although their efforts consumed my time and hindered other initiatives, we prevented them from securing a verdict that could have reshaped local policies and jeopardized future grassroots initiative efforts.
Support Reform Clark County Legal Efforts Here
Your support helped with legal and other expenses needed in efforts to reform Clark County
Click HERE To Follow On X (Twitter) 
Click HERE To Follow On Facebook
Or HERE To Follow On Instagram
Reform Clark County only encourages lawful and respectful action that leads to meaningful constitutional reforms in Clark County
0 comments