Clark County Councilor Michelle Belkot Files Lawsuit Alleging Civil Rights Violations and Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) Breaches.

READ CLARKCOUNTYTODAY.COM STORY HERE

Clark, WA – On Friday, March 28, 2025, Clark County Council member Michelle Belkot filed a lawsuit in Skamania County Superior Court against Clark County, citing violations of the Civil Rights Act, OPMA, and Quo Warranto claims. The lawsuit challenges her fellow Clark County Councilors' decision to remove her from the C-TRAN Board, in retaliation for her intended vote

on a significant transportation funding matter.

Councilmember Belkot alleges that her removal was an unconstitutional act of political coercion, violating her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The lawsuit contends that the four other Councilors imposed a new and improper requirement—after the fact—that C-TRAN Board appointees vote in alignment with the majority of the Clark County Council. This action, Belkot asserts, was taken solely in response to her position on a critical funding issue that could cost County taxpayers millions of dollars.

“The actions taken by the majority of the Clark County Council sets a dangerous precedent, effectively punishing elected representatives for independent decision making,” said Belkot. “This is not just about my seat on the C-TRAN Board, this is about ensuring that the democratic process is protected, and that no government body can silence an elected official for

representing their constituents.”

The lawsuit further argues that the Board violated OPMA by failing to disclose the planned removal on the official meeting agenda, not allowing public comment on the matter, and proceeding with a decision that may have been premeditated outside of public view.

Additionally, the lawsuit includes a Quo Warranto claim against Wil Fuentes, whom the Council appointed to replace Belkot on the C-TRAN Board. The legal action challenges the legitimacy of his appointment, arguing that the Clark County Council overstepped its authority by removing Belkot without lawful cause.

Councilor Belkot is seeking declaratory relief to overturn her removal, as well as damages for the violation of her civil rights. She is represented by the law firm Stephens & Klinge LLP.

The filed complaint can be viewed HERE

Please consider donating to https://www.givesendgo.com/GF5UC to support Councilor Michelle Belkot's efforts.

UPDATE : County Denied Server Access to Councilors Before Yesterday’s Meeting

Yesterday’s email was scheduled to go out shortly after I had planned to serve the Councilors—or at least some of those present at the meeting. All Councilors were in attendance; however, when the third-party process server attempted to serve them by going to the Councilors' office, staff refused to allow the server access. From what I understand, the Councilors themselves also refused to come out to accept service. The County Auditor was served as the agent for the County, so the legal wheels are now in motion.

Additionally, I don’t believe the Councilors realize that this lawsuit names them both in their official capacities AND individually. Their refusal to accept service yesterday means they will now need to be served at their personal residences as soon as possible.

The County meeting took an unexpected turn when the agenda item concerning changes to the Rules and Procedures—specifically granting Councilors the power to remove committee appointments—was abruptly removed at the last minute. As a result, Chair Sue Marshall attempted to block public comment on the issue, despite many attendees showing up specifically to speak on it. However, Councilor Belkot once again stepped up for the people, requesting that the public still be allowed to comment on the removed agenda item. The other Councilors supported her suggestion, and the public was ultimately permitted to share their views. No explanation was given for the removal of the agenda item, but given the recent attention on this matter, I suspect they may be doing more research into the legal framework of any proposed action.

Stay tuned... and stay engaged

READ ClarkCountyToday Article HERE

ICYMI:

Ethics, Criminal & Civil Complaints Filed Against County Councilors Marshall, Yung, Fuentes & Little

Clark County residents are watching their elected officials get caught breaking laws to push a political agenda—one that a majority of taxpayers don’t want but will be forced to pay for. A series of legal complaints have been filed against Clark County Councilors Sue Marshall, Glen Yung, Wil Fuentes, and Matt Little over alleged ethical violations, criminal misconduct, and Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) breaches related to their unlawful removal of Councilor Michelle Belkot from the C-Tran Board.

Councilors Broke the Rules to Clear the Way for Light Rail

On March 12, these four councilors voted to remove Michelle Belkot, without legal justification or authority to do so, from the C-Tran Board and install Wil Fuentes, a far-Left Democrat, in her place. The County Prosecuting Attorney had already made it clear Belkot’s prior vote was legally sound—but that didn’t stop them. The real motive? A power grab to eliminate opposition and ensure Clark County falls in line with Portland and Vancouver’s Light Rail expansion, no matter how much it costs local taxpayers.

Even more disturbing,audio evidence suggests that Councilor Sue Marshall and Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle were coordinating in advance to “trap” Belkot, further exposing this pre-planned scheme to steamroll opposition.

Criminal Complaint Filed—Will Councilors Face Charges?

Also, a criminal complaint has been submitted to Clark County Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik and Sheriff John Horch, demanding an investigation into possible willful misconduct (RCW 42.20.100) and conspiracy to violate OPMA violations (RCW 42.30). Because the County Prosecutor and Sheriff depend on the Council for funding, there is already concern about whether this will be handled fairly. That’s why the complaint requests a special prosecutor from outside Clark County to ensure a truly independent investigation.

Lawsuit Filed Over Open Public Meetings Act Violations

A civil lawsuit has also been filed in Skamania County Superior Court against Clark County and the four councilors for violating the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA). The suit claims that these councilors made key policy decisions without proper notice, denying the public’s right to transparency and to give input, all in service of their agenda to ram through Light Rail. Clark County voters are shocked at how elected officials continue to cut corners to force them to foot the bill for Portland’s failing transit plans.

A Clear Pattern of Elected Officials Ignoring the Law

“These four Councilors not only acted willfully outside their authority but also deliberately shut the public out of critical decisions affecting our community,” said one concerned resident. “This past week, many in the County have learned the hard way that the ‘non-partisan’ label these Councilors use is just a smokescreen. It is now very clear that they are running roughshod over the law to push through their political agenda that opens the door to stick taxpayers with Light Rail—whether they like it or not.”

Next Steps: Will They Be Held Accountable?

The Clark County Ethics Review Commission must now decide whether to take action against these councilors. Meanwhile, the courts will weigh in on whether the council’s actions were illegal. If justice is to be served, an independent prosecutor must be appointed to investigate these violations without interference from the County Council or their political allies.

Enough Is Enough—Clark County Deserves Honest Leadership

Time and time again, elected officials in Clark County have been caught ignoring the law to force their will on taxpayers. This latest scheme is just one more example of local politicians trying to force Light Rail into Clark County by any means necessary. But the public deserves transparency, accountability, and a say in decisions that affect them.

It’s time to demand that elected officials follow the law—not change the rules to silence opposition.

Copy of Ethics Complaint Filed to Clark County Ethics Commission on 3/26/25

Allegations:

I allege that Councilors Sue Marshall, Glen Yung, Wil Fuentes, and Matt Little violated ethical and legal standards by taking final action in voting 4-1 on March 12, 2025, to remove Councilor Michelle Belkot from the C-Tran Board without authority or proper notice (violating Open Public Meeting Act laws). Also, on March 12, 2025, during the same meeting, Sue Marshall, Glen Yung, Wil Fuentes, and Matt Little violated ethical standards by taking final action in voting 4-1 to replace Belkot with Fuentes. These premeditated and retaliatory acts, coupled with evidence of conspiracy and disregard for the County Prosecuting Attorney’s (PA) pre-vote clarification that Belkot’s C-Tran vote was not mandated by Rules & Procedures, breaches Clark County’s ethical framework (Oath’s of office), HR Policy 13, and State law (RCW 42.20.100– willful misconduct, and a conspiracy to violate RCW 42.30– OPMA).

Summary:

On March 12, 2025, during “Council Time,” Councilors Sue Marshall, Glen Yung, Wil Fuentes, and Matt Little voted 4-1 to remove Councilor Michelle Belkot from the RTC Committee (C-Tran Board) without legal authority and in violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), which prevented public input on the decisions. Fuentes read a prepared statement, and Marshall raised the issue under “Councilor’s Report,” demonstrating premeditation. Separate audio evidence suggests that Marshall conspired with Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle to “trap” Councilor Belkot, potentially in relation to light rail disputes. Before the vote, Councilor Little asked the County PA whether the Rules & Procedures compelled Belkot’s C-Tran vote, and the PA confirmed that no such restrictions existed, thereby undermining any legal basis for her removal and showing their actions to be relatalitory in nature. Subsequently, after the illegal vote to remove Belkot, Councilors Marshall, Yung, Fuentes, and Little took final action again by voting 4-1 to appoint Fuentes to the RTC/C-Tran Board. The Council upheld this action on March 19 by rejecting a motion to rescind by 3-2, violating ethics, HR Policy 13, and state law. I request an investigation and appropriate remedies.

Factual Basis:

• On March 12, 2025, during “Council Time,” Marshall introduced an unagendized motion under “Councilor’s Report” to remove Belkot (3/12/25 agenda :https://clark.wa.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/2025-03/031225-ct-agenda.pdf).
• Before the vote, Councilor Little asked the County PA if the Rules & Procedures compelled Belkot’s C-Tran vote; the PA confirmed no such requirement existed.
• Fuentes delivered a prepared motion moving to remove Councilor Belkot, indicating premeditation (video: https://youtu.be/BDvPA0e6tLE timestamp 1:30:05-30).
• Councilor Belkot inquired about the legality of the motion during the meeting (video: https://youtu.be/BDvPA0e6tLE, timestamp 1:31:34-1:32:10), and County Attorney Christine Cook responded, “I cannot give an opinion at this time… it hasn’t happened,” indicating no clear authority existed yet the four Councilors failed to reconsider their vote and proceeded to vote again, taking final action, to replace Belkot with Councilor Fuentes.
• On March 14, Mayor McEnerny-Ogle’s “trapping” comment suggests collusion with Marshall (access audio file and transcript HERE).
• The Council is now in the process of amending its Rules of Procedure to permit such removals, reinforcing that the authority was absent when Belkot was removed on March 12, 2025.
• The Council upheld their unlawful actions on March 19, 2025, by a 3-2 vote to reject the motion to rescind the March 12 final action to remove Councilor Belkot.

Alleged Violations:

1. Clark County Code of Ethics (Chapter 2.07):

• Section 2.07.030 - Standards of Conduct: The councilors breached their duty to act with integrity and within lawful authority by removing Belkot without Charter or legal support and without public transparency, thereby eroding trust.
• Oath of Office: They violated their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, Washington State Constitution, state laws, and the Clark County Charter by acting beyond their legal authority and OPMA mandates.

2. HR Policy 13 - Employment Standards:

• Section 13.4 - Conduct Expectations:
• Acting Within Scope: The vote exceeded Charter authority, violating the requirement to act within legal bounds.
• Compliance with Laws: Proceeding without Charter, statutory, or OPMA compliance breaches the duty to follow laws.
• Public Trust: An unannounced, unauthorized action undermines public confidence.
• Section 13.8 - Ethical Standards:
• Failing to ensure legal grounding and transparency, and potentially acting retaliatorily (e.g., Belkot’s dissent on light rail), violates ethical duties.
• The County PA confirmed no rules compelled Belkot’s C-Tran vote, eliminating any legal justification for her removal. Nevertheless, the four councilors proceeded, indicating retaliation.

3. Clark County Home Rule Charter and State Law:

• Charter Section 2.2: Grants appointment powers but lacks explicit removal authority; the vote may be ultra vires.
• RCW 42.30 - Open Public Meetings Act:
• Notice Violation (RCW 42.30.060(1)): The removal, a final action during “Council Time,” was intentionally not agendized, denying public notice despite OPMA applying to all meetings with a quorum taking action.
• Public Comment Denial: The omission prevented input on the decision, violating transparency requirements.
• RCW 36.32 (If Applicable): If the Charter is silent, RCW 36.32.120(2) limits acts to those “prescribed by law,” potentially invalidating the removal.
• RCW 42.20.100 - Misconduct: Knowingly exceeding authority and bypassing OPMA could constitute misconduct.

Requested Action:

1. An investigation by the Ethics Review Commission into the four councilors’ conduct.
2. A determination of violations under the Clark County Code of Ethics, HR Policy 13, and state law, including RCW 42.30.

Thank you,

Rob Anderson

PO Box 692

Ridgefield, WA 98642

Copy of the Letter of Criminal Complaint sent 3/26/25

Dear Sheriff Horch & Prosecuting Attorney Golik,

I request an investigation into potential criminal misconduct by Councilors Sue Marshall, Glen Yung, Wil Fuentes, and Matt Little stemming from their March 12, 2025, vote to remove Councilor Michelle Belkot from the C-Tran Board. This act, executed without legal authority or OPMA notice, appears premeditated and possibly conspiratorial, violating RCW 42.20.100 (willful misconduct) and a conspiracy to violate RCW 42.30 (OPMA).

However, as the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff’s Office are funded by the Council and the PA’s failure to clarify legality during the vote suggests bias or negligence, I believe an independent investigation is necessary. Under RCW 36.27.030 and RCW 43.10.232, this warrants a special prosecutor. Given potential conflicts, I request that a neighboring county investigator be appointed since there could also be conflicts of interest between Attorney General Nick Brown and Councilor Michelle (Bourret) Belkot. 

These actions suggest intentional abuse of office and violation of public meeting laws. I urge your office to initiate an investigation by a special prosecutor and pursue appropriate charges.

Sincerely,

Rob Anderson

PO Box 692

Ridgefield, WA 98642

[email protected]

CLICK HERE TO READ KEN VANCE OPINION ABOUT COUNTY COUNCIL ACTIONS AGAINST BELKOT

CLICK HERE to read the ClarkCountyToday.com opinion by Angus Lee regarding the Belkot removal issue.

"Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, "I will never leave you nor forsake you." So we can confidently say, "The LORD is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?" - Heb 13:5-6

Charter Review Commission - Do You Want To Help Shape Clark County For The Next 10 Years?

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 (one passed, two 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

1. Election and Period of Office
2. 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.

1. Vacancies
2. 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.
3. Financial Support
4. 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!

Click Here To Email Me You're Interested

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).

Support Reform Clark County Efforts Here

Click Here To Support

Your support helps with legal and other expenses needed to reform Clark County

Click HERE To Follow On X (Twitter)

Click HERE To Follow On Facebook

Or HERE To Follow On Instagram

www.reformclarkcounty.com

Reform Clark County only encourages lawful and respectful action that leads to meaningful constitutional reforms in Clark County