Proposed rule changes follow controversy over a 2025 board removal and raise new questions about council authority
The Clark County Council is considering changes to its Rules of Procedure after a contentious 2025 decision to remove Councilor Michelle Belkot from the C-TRAN Board of Directors — a move that led to lawsuits and a criminal investigation. During a recent council discussion, members acknowledged that key procedures, including whether the council could direct votes or remove a councilor from a board, were not clearly written at the time. Now, with proposed language aimed at clarifying that authority going forward, the debate has shifted to a central question: do these changes suggest the council lacked that authority last year?
More info:
Do the County Council’s proposed changes to Rules of Procedure prove Belkot was correct?
Clark County Council discussions about rewriting its Rules of Procedure raise new questions about whether Michelle Belkot’s removal from the C-TRAN board last year lacked...
Read more
- Camas School District Legislative Advocacy Committee to host Candidate Forum
Six candidates from two federal and state districts will answer education questions at Discovery High School on Oct. 5. - Opinion: Why lawmakers are going after your pension
Ryan Frost argues lawmakers included public pensions in the income tax law in preparation for lowering the $1 million deduction. - Opinion: Washington has an income tax – why won’t the media call it one?
Cargill argues the media is using supporters’ preferred label “millionaires tax” instead of the legally accurate term “income tax.” - POLL: How do you think higher impact fees for school districts affect housing affordability in Clark County?
Clark County Council raised impact fees for La Center, Hockinson, and Woodland school districts, drawing pushback from the Building Industry Association. - WA high court tosses natural gas measure approved by voters
The WA Supreme Court struck down I-2066 in a 6-3 ruling, finding it covered four distinct subjects in violation of the single-subject rule.
