Reform Clark County serves notice to four County Council members to expect legal action

Rob Anderson of Reform Clark County told four Clark County council members that they are about to be served in a legal action for their actions against fellow council member Michelle Belkot. Photo by Paul Valencia

Rob Anderson of Reform Clark County believes four Clark County Council members acted unethically and potentially illegally when they removed fellow council member Michelle Belkot from the C-TRAN Board of Directors

Paul Valencia
ClarkCountyToday.com

Legal action has been set into motion by Rob Anderson of Clark County Reform in an effort to hold four Clark County Council members accountable for what he said was an unethical and potentially illegal move when they voted to remove a fellow council member from the C-TRAN Board of Directors.

To make sure there was no miscommunication, Anderson signed up for Public Comment at the Clark County Council Time meeting on Wednesday to tell them in person.

“Councilors, I want to inform you that some of you will be served soon,” Anderson said, adding that on Tuesday he filed a civil complaint against council members Sue Marshall, Glen Yung, Wil Fuentes, and Matt Little for Open Public Meeting Act violations.

This was in response to the County Council’s vote to remove member Michelle Belkot from the C-TRAN board after it was made clear that Belkot would vote against Clark County having to pay operations and maintenance for the extension of Oregon’s light rail transit system into the city of Vancouver.

Anderson told the councilors that he filed an ethics complaint and that he emailed Clark County Sheriff John Horch and Clark County Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik, requesting they open a criminal investigation into the actions of the four council members. Anderson added that he asked that a neighboring county conduct that investigation due to a potential conflict of interest.

Anderson added that there is “no excuse for these violations and they demand accountability.”

Per meeting rules, council members are not allowed to respond during Public Comment. The four who were told they were going to be served, as well as Belkot, sat silently as Anderson made his allegations.

“Why have you acted in such a rash and reckless manner? Why have you disregarded the public’s desire to not want light rail?” Anderson asked. “It appears you want to make Mayor Anne happy and do her bidding rather than your constituents.”

That was a reference to Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle. In a press release from Reform Clark County, that organization believes the mayor and Clark County Chair Marshall premeditated this action against Belkot.

Public comment during Council Time is usually allowed only for items on the agenda. The council was going to discuss changes to its policies in regard to being able to remove a member from a board. The agenda was modified at the beginning of Wednesday’s meeting, with that discussion being deleted from the day’s agenda. Several council members noted that many people were at the meeting to discuss that specific agenda item and the members agreed to allow public comment.

Several people spoke in support of Belkot, while one citizen spoke out against Belkot in the meeting room. There was one more who spoke out against Belkot who was online.

While the council did not discuss changing its policies on Wednesday, Anderson was ready if they were to attempt to do so.

Continuing with his Public Comment remarks:

“Now you are rushing to cover your illegal actions by changing the rules,” he said.

“The people, through the charter, granted you powers to appoint. You now look to grant yourselves the power to remove, without the people’s consent. I do not consent,” Anderson said. “Stop the madness and look to do the people’s business instead of Mayor Anne’s or, worse yet, Portland’s interest.”

Anderson told Clark County Today that the Clark County auditor had been served as of Wednesday afternoon, but he was unsure when the four council members named in the legal action would be served.

Reform Clark County had more information in this press release:

Rob Anderson, founder of Reform Clark County (reformclarkcounty.com), one of the largest groups working for reform in Clark County, started a series of legal actions against Clark County Councilors Sue Marshall, Glen Yung, Wil Fuentes, and Matt Little for alleged ethical violations, criminal misconduct, and Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) breaches related to the removal of Councilor Michelle Belkot from the C-Tran Board.

Ethics Complaint Filed with the Clark County Ethics Review Commission

Anderson submitted an ethics complaint to the Clark County Ethics Review Commission, believing the councilors’ March 12 votes to remove Councilor Michelle Belkot from the C-TRAN Board violated ethical policies. The complaint alleges that these actions were taken without proper legal authority, violated ethical standards, violated Open Public Meeting Act laws, and disregarded the County Prosecuting Attorney’s pre-vote clarification that Belkot’s prior C-TRAN vote was not bound by Council Rules & Procedures. Anderson asserts that the councilors’ conduct violated Clark County’s ethical framework, HR Policy 13, and State law.

The complaint further details alleged premeditated coordination, referencing audio evidence suggesting that Councilor Marshall possibly conspired with Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle to “trap” Belkot, in relation to Light Rail policy disputes. Anderson is requesting a full investigation and appropriate remedial actions.

Criminal Complaint Submitted to the Prosecuting Attorney and Sheriff’s Office

In addition to the ethics complaint, Anderson has submitted a criminal complaint to Clark County Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik and Sheriff John Horch. The complaint calls for an independent investigation into potential misconduct by the councilors under RCW 42.20.100 (Willful Misconduct) and RCW 42.30 (OPMA violations). Anderson argues that the removal vote was illegal, premeditated, and possibly conspiratorial.

Given that the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s Office receive funding from the County Council, Anderson has requested that a special prosecutor from a neighboring county be appointed to ensure impartiality. He asserts that an independent investigation is necessary due to potential conflicts of interest involving both local and state authorities.

Civil Lawsuit Filed for OPMA Violations

Anderson has also filed a civil lawsuit in Skamania County Superior Court against Clark County and the four councilors, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as civil penalties (read the complaint HERE). The lawsuit alleges multiple Open Public Meetings Act violations stemming from the council’s February 26 and March 12, 2025, meetings, where significant policy decisions were made without proper public notice or opportunity for input. Anderson argues that these violations denied the public their statutory rights to participate in decisions impacting regional transportation.

“These four Councilors not only acted willfully outside their authority but also deliberately shut the public out of critical decisions affecting our community,” Anderson stated. “Because of this, 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 they are running roughshod over the law to push through their political agenda to stick taxpayers with Light Rail—whether they like it or not.”

Next Steps

Anderson urges the Clark County Ethics Review Commission to conduct a thorough investigation into the conduct of the four councilors. He also calls for the immediate appointment of a special prosecutor to assess potential criminal misconduct and for the courts to hold the council accountable for OPMA violations.