SMOKING GUN: Internal Documents Reveal Evidence Clark County Ethics Commission Deviated From Review Standards And Internal Determinations!

The standard for an initial review of an ethics complaint is straightforward: whether sufficient cause exists for a reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, to conclude that the complaint describes conduct that MAY violate one or more ethical rules.

On June 11, 2024, the HR Director conducted an initial review and explicitly determined that “the issues raised in the complaint, if substantiated, could state an ethics violation as defined in policy and/or state law, and that further investigation may be warranted.”

Yet, despite this clear determination by HR department, which the Charter empowers to investigate complaints, the Ethics Commission completely disregarded it. Rather than investigate further, they voted to dismiss the complaint—against the recommendation of their own HR department.

Moreover, during that same hearing, the Chair of the Ethics Commission, Adam Murray, made reference to his notes, so I requested a copy through a public records request on the day of the hearing, June 11, 2024. After numerous delays, I finally received what was claimed to be the "final installment" of the requested records on September 5, 2024—conveniently after the legal proceedings had concluded.

Upon review, however, I found something deeply concerning: the document I received, which supposedly was to be the Chair’s notes from the June 11th hearing, was actually created on July 30, 2024—almost a month and a half after the hearing took place. So, either the notes used at the hearing were not provided as requested, or these “new” notes were retroactively created. If these notes accurately reflect the original, then they show a predetermined decision, no matter what the HR determination was, to dismiss the complaint.

This begs the question: how can the Ethics Commission justify its decision based on notes that were allegedly created well after the fact?

Clark County’s Ethics Commission offers no meaningful appeal process. They afford no due process to the complainant, and, as this case illustrates, they don’t even follow their own standards of review. Essentially, they operate with zero accountability, are able to ignore clear recommendations for investigation, and dismiss complaints at their discretion, without consequence.

Imagine this: based on the Ethics Commission to dismiss, you can outright ignore the law in Clark County—including the Home Rule Charter—and it’s still not considered an ethics violation.

Two Charter Amendments Remain Inaccurate & Misleading

The explanation statements in our upcoming voter pamphlets and ballot titles, presented as questions, omit crucial details about the changes these amendments would bring if approved. They mislead voters about the amendments' true impact and use biased language to sway public opinion.

After unproductive discussions with the Prosecuting Attorney's office, I filed an appeal as a last-ditch effort to ensure the accuracy and compliance of these explanation statements and ballot titles with state law. Although my appeal was denied, I did secure several changes, but they still failed to inform voters fully. I believe this was deliberately done, by the "experts" who know the laws and requirements better than anyone, to sway voters to think more favorably of the proposals that would result in support. Also, don't forget that both #17 and #18 were solely put forward by Auditor Kimsey, not a well-informed commission or a group of citizens.

#17 Redistricting: This amendment would shift the bipartisan process for redrawing Clark County Council districts, allowing the Council's majority party to select the Redistricting Committee. It grants significant power to an unelected bureaucrat, the so-called "redistricting master," a county GIS employee, to create new districts. Under this system, any changes would require a supermajority vote, making it difficult for the committee to alter the proposed districts. This centralizes most of the power in one person, reducing the committee's role in the process. Although labeled as "non-partisan," the amendment opens the door to increased gerrymandering by the Council’s majority party. The current process ensures bipartisan representation, but the proposed changes would give more control to County employees and the majority party, likely leading to political manipulation disguised as nonpartisan reform.

#18 Initiatives: This amendment significantly alters the "Initiatives Limitations" section of the Charter. Despite repeated refusals by the Prosecuting Attorney's office to acknowledge it, the amendment would expand their powers to review and deny proposed initiatives. The current Charter limits initiatives to six subjects, but the new language, "However, this is not a complete list," would allow the PA's office to block proposed initiatives. The explanation statements and ballot titles omit this critical detail.

Moreover, the amendment would enable a handful of County officials to create potentially biased legal opinions and financial projections required on petitions and ballots. This undoubtedly will result in only county-approved initiatives having a chance of success—effectively silencing grassroots efforts and restricting the people's right to petition and self-govern.

VOTE NO ON #17 (redistricting) & #18 (initiatives) Charter Amendments

Are You Going Back To Sleep?

It seems that many people who woke up during the "pandemic" fiasco are starting to drift back to sleep. During that time, many became aware of the corruption and elite control at the national, state, and local levels. Yet now, some are hitting the "snooze" button, slipping back into a slumber of normalcy. The alarm was raised about how corruption and Marxist ideologies have infiltrated so many of our social institutions—education, entertainment, government, corporations, and yes, even churches. But too many have chosen to look the other way or fall back asleep. True reform requires decades of work, dedication, and sacrifice to expose and drive real change.

DON'T HIT THE SNOOZE BUTTON AGAIN!

UPDATE: Winco's Lawfare Against Me Could Cost $50,000

Since my last update, I’ve connected with an excellent lawyer currently handling another case involving Winco Foods. He’s willing to take on my case but requires a $50,000 advance. This attorney is the same one that recently filed lawsuits against King County regarding the Land Commissioners recount. I know that’s a significant amount of money—much more than I have—but it’s reasonable for a case like this, which will likely go to trial. Winco Foods seems determined to drag this into court, despite earlier indications from their attorney that we were close to an amicable resolution.

I’m reaching out to you—many of whom stood with me during the Mini-Initiative to stop unconstitutional mandates and the Restore Election Confidence here in Clark County—because I need your help.

I don’t have anywhere near $50,000. But if Winco succeeds, they will use this judgment to push for changes in policing policies in Clark County or even statewide, potentially restricting signature gathering at all Winco stores and possibly other grocery stores. This would be a major hurdle for future initiative efforts, a constitutionally protected right in Washington State.

Please give it to my legal fund, or if you know of any resources or organizations that might assist, I believe Winco Foods is trying to exploit my lack of resources to secure a judgment entirely in their favor.

Please Help Me Pushback Against Corporate Lawfare & Other Legal Efforts

Click Here To Help With Legal Support

Here are the facts:

• I never directed volunteers to gather signatures at Winco stores; instead, I encouraged them to focus on other locations like Fred Meyer and Walmart, etc.
• A volunteer, not knowing concerns about signature gathering at Winco, set up at the Brush Prairie Winco 3-4 times, but only briefly. Deputies who responded found that the gatherer wasn’t blocking entrances or causing disruption in any manner.
• Only because my name is on the Petition as the sponsor, Winco Foods served me with a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and lawsuit, making numerous false accusations and statements.
• Upon receiving the lawsuit, I immediately contacted the Winco attorney, explaining there must be a misunderstanding since I never encouraged volunteers to set up at Winco. I even reminded volunteers to stay away from Winco stores. Given the decentralized nature of our campaign, I wasn’t aware of every individual collecting signatures, some of whom simply mailed in petition sheets out of the blue.
• Throughout the summer, the attorney led me to believe on several occasions that we would most likely reach a mutual agreement. However, after mentioning in May that he was preparing documents, he became unresponsive.
• Last Friday, while waiting for the Ethics Complaint appeal before Judge Vanderwood, I was surprised when the judge called the "Winco v. Robert Anderson" case, something that God ordained to put me in the right spot at the right time. Even more surprising was that Winco’s attorney was in court, claiming that I was unwilling to settle and that Winco was preparing to go to trial.

This is a spiritual battle, and I have no doubt this attack is not from flesh and blood but from spiritual forces that mean to harm to me for their advantage.

Please contact me immediately with support, prayers, and thoughts on additional resources so I can fight this corporate attack and possibly prevent signature gathering from being negatively impacted here in Clark County.

Rob Anderson

Reform Clark County

www.reformclarkcounty.com