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

ICYMI: Belkot Represents The People - NO MONEY TO PORTLAND FOR TRIMET - But County Council Removes Her To Save Light Rail Funding

This week, Clark County was on the verge of stepping back from a disastrous decision that would send millions of our tax dollars to Portland via TriMet and Light Rail—something the majority of Clark County voters have repeatedly opposed.

Councilor Michelle Belkot, who sat on the C-Tran Board of Directors, took a bold stand to stop this from happening. But just as she was making progress, Councilor Sue Marshall of the 5th District, working closely with Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle, stepped in to table the decision. This strategic delay gave Marshall time to rally her Democrat allies behind the scenes to protect Light Rail and guarantee Clark County remains a financial pipeline for Portland.

READ CLARKCOUNTYTODAY.COM ARTICLE HERE

And move they did. The very next day, in what can only be described as a coordinated effort, Matt Little, Glen Yung, and Wil Fuentes voted to remove Belkot from her position. Their justification? A distorted narrative that claimed Belkot was somehow obligated to follow their political agenda rather than represent the voters who elected her—voters who have made it clear they oppose Light Rail and certainly don’t want $20 million a year funneled to Portland. Yet this flimsy excuse was immediately contradicted when Matt Little moved to change the by-laws to restrict councilors’ voting rights in the future—a clear admission that Belkot was justified in standing with her constituents rather than bowing to Portland’s interests.

For context, the proposed “Bridge Shelter”—better described as the Van Mall Homeless Shelter—has an estimated operating budget of $16 million per year. Yet, if the C-Tran Board gets its way, Clark County taxpayers will be forced to fork over even more than that for a mere mile and a half of Light Rail track.

Sue Marshall and her allies have not only betrayed their constituents but also the cities in their districts that have voted against funding TriMet. Worse yet, they have done so in a way that is undemocratic and repugnant to the voters they are supposed to represent.

And if history is any indication, this won’t be the last time Marshall works against the will of the people—unless voters put a stop to it.

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