FIREWORKS ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK... AGAIN

This Wed May 21st at 1PM - County Wide Fireworks Ban Discussion

Let’s pack the Clark County Council Board meeting to voice our opposition.

Participate in the following ways:

• In person, 6th floor of the Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin Street, Vancouver, WA 98666
• Join by computer: WebEx Link
• Join by phone:
• Dial: 1-408-418-9388
• Webinar Number: 2486 209 7035
• Password: BOCC (2622 from phones) 
• *3 to raise hand during public comment

County council members will be discussing the use of fireworks, and will very likely move to vote for a total ban on fireworks county wide.

PLEASE DON’T LET THAT HAPPEN – WE NEED YOU!

This Ban on Fireworks will also take funds away from all the local nonprofit organizations that use firework sales as fundraisers for local programs.

https://clark.wa.gov/councilors/clark-county-council-meetings

Council Meetings are held in a hybrid format.

The Empire Strikes Back... Clark County & Four Councilors Win Change of Venue to Clark County Courts

On May 1, at 3 p.m., I sat before the judge and saw not one, not two, but three Seattle lawyers Zoom in on behalf of the County for what turned out to be a fairly standard hearing. The judge ruled to move the case to Clark County based on a statute regarding civil cases against public officials that supersedes the law allowing such cases to be tried in neighboring counties.

I was hoping to keep the case in Skamania, but it’s still moving forward in Clark. The County and the Councilors’ real hope is to get the case tossed on technicalities or preliminary procedures because the merits are strong.

This change of venue does slow the process down. Instead of having a preliminary injunction hearing on May 1st, I now have to start the process over with a new judge in Clark County. As of today, the County has filed the needed paperwork to transfer the case but this has caused a significant delay.

Stay tuned...

BIG NEWS COMING ON CHARTER REVIEW EFFORTS...

As Expected, Ethics Complaint Tossed Out

Based on my last two ethics complaints—one of them being that the PA's office broke the law (the Charter) and got caught red-handed—you’d think that filing a complaint like these would at least warrant an investigation. Yet, magically, it wasn’t even considered a possible ethics violation, let alone worthy of investigation.

So, why did I file, knowing the ethics complaint would likely get tossed? Because public officials breaking the law—like not following OPMA—should be an ethics violation, one would think. Even though this clearly warranted an investigation, the Ethics Commission only further exposed itself by dismissing another legitimate complaint.

I figure that if I keep submitting these very credible complaints, that most people would understand as being an ethics violation or at minimum deserve an investigation, eventually more and more people will start to see that something isn’t right with this Ethics Commission or the process.

As Judge Vanderwood grilled the County attorney last summer when I tried to file an appeal, it became clear: there is no due process and therefore no accountability. Without due process, justice is almost aways thwarted and can be twisted to suit political outcomes. Not very American, if you ask me.

The first stage of an ethics complaint review is an initial review, where they are supposed to presume the complaint is accurate and determine whether it may constitute an ethics violation. But for some reason, when my complaints come forward, they use a different—and higher—standard, and often reinterpret my complaints in order to justify a dismissal.

One more fun fact: my complaint is based on the very lawsuit I’ve filed, and the County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office is ultimately responsible for defending it. Yet, guess who provided legal advice to the Ethics Commission during their executive session regarding my complaint? The County attorney. In other words, the same office who are named defendants are also giving legal direction to the Ethics Commission Board—the body deciding whether those same defendants acted unethically. That doesn’t sound fishy at all, right? Nothing to see here.

You can't make this stuff up... Stay Tuned

ICYMI: Ridgefield School District Broke State Law in Levy Campaign – PDC Confirms Violations

The Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) has confirmed that Ridgefield School District officials violated Washington state law during their recent levy campaign. This isn’t speculation—it’s now officially on record.

After I filed complaints earlier this year, the PDC conducted a thorough review and issued a formal written warning to the district. The violations center around illegal use of public resources to promote levy measures (Propositions 12 and 13), and officials' coordination with a private campaign group, Citizens for Ridgefield.

Let’s break it down:

• District Officials Used Their Positions to Promote a Private Campaign Committee: At the November 19, 2024 board meeting, Superintendent Jenny Rodriquez and Board President Bret Jones actively endorsed Citizens for Ridgefield and encouraged the public to join and volunteer—clear electioneering using public facilities.
• The Superintendent Published a Promotional Op-Ed: In February 2025, the week before election day, Superintendent Rodriquez used her official title and district resources to publish an op-ed in The Reflector newspaper thanking voters for their "continued support." According to the PDC, this went beyond factual communication and violated campaign conduct rules.
• These Were Not First-Time Offenses: The PDC noted the district has prior violations of the same law—RCW 42.17A.555. These aren’t accidents; they’re repeated, knowing violations by trained officials.
• Public Resources Were Used to Influence an Election: The law is clear—public agencies cannot use taxpayer-funded facilities, time, or platforms to sway elections. Yet RSD did exactly that.
• The Impact Was Real: The Reflector op-ed, the board’s promotional meeting comments, and their active collaboration with Citizens for Ridgefield almost certainly helped the levies pass.

The PDC has now formally warned the district, and stated future violations may result in enforcement actions.

This is not about opposing schools—this is about holding public officials accountable and ensuring transparency in elections. Voters deserve accurate information, not taxpayer-funded promotion disguised as “fact-sharing.”

Now, I don't think a "written warning" is justice, especially considering this isn't RSD's first violation. There should be accountability because breaking the law to saddle citizens with more taxes shouldn't be happening.

Let’s stay vigilant and demand fairness

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