Vancouver Attorney Angus Lee shares the legal and political consequences of the controversial decision by Clark County councilors to remove Councilor Michelle Belkot from C-TRAN Board of Directors
Angus Lee
for Clark County Today
The Clark County Council’s recent vote to remove Councilor Michelle Belkot from the C-Tran Board appears to be without lawful authority. This decision not only sets a dangerous precedent but also exposes the Council — and C-TRAN—to a prolonged legal battle that could call into question every action the transit board takes for the remainder of the year.
If the C-TRAN Board refuses to recognize Councilor Belkot’s vote, on the basis of a removal that lacks legal foundation, any decisions made with the participation of her unlawfully appointed replacement could be rendered ultra vires — beyond the authority of the board — and subject to revocation by the courts. Such a scenario would create instability in C-TRAN’s governance, jeopardizing transportation policies.
Clark County Charter does not grant the council power to revoke appointments
At its core, this dispute is a question of authority. The Clark County Home Rule Charter functions as the county’s governing constitution, establishing the powers and limitations of its elected officials. Section 2.2(D) grants the County Council the power to appoint its members to external boards and commissions. However, nowhere in the Charter is the Council granted the power to revoke those appointments at will. The Charter is clear: the Council’s role is to appoint, not to remove.
Legal interpretation adheres to the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius—the expression of one thing excludes the other. If the Charter’s drafters intended to provide the Council with the power to remove its own appointees from external boards, they would have explicitly stated so. The fact that they did not is legally significant. Courts generally do not infer the existence of a removal power unless it is expressly granted in a governing document.
The council’s vote lacks historical and legal precedent
Section 2.2(D) of the Charter states, “The council shall vote to appoint its members to boards and commissions.” The language is clear: the Council has the power to appoint. However, it does not grant the Council the authority to remove a member prior to the expiration of their appointment.
No historical precedent exists in Clark County for such a midterm revocation. Traditionally, council appointments to external boards have been viewed as annual designations, intended to provide stability and continuity in governance. If the Council could simply revoke appointments mid-term based on disagreement with a board member’s decisions, the entire purpose of having independent representation on external boards would be undermined.
Additionally, Section 2.4(G) of the Charter gives the Council the power to “confirm or reject appointments to various boards forwarded by the county manager.” This provision, however, applies exclusively to appointments made by the county manager, not to the Council’s own appointment of a fellow council member. Again, if the drafters of the Charter had intended to allow the Council to remove its own members from external boards, they would have explicitly granted such authority — just as they did for appointment confirmations under Section 2.4(G). The absence of a similar provision for Council-appointed members is further proof that no such removal power exists.
A dangerous precedent that undermines independent judgment
The ability of external board members to exercise independent judgment is essential for good governance. The role of a Council-appointed board member is to represent the county’s interests — not to serve as a mere extension of the County Council’s mood on any given day. If removal were permitted based on policy disagreements or voting behavior, it would create a chilling effect on board members, discouraging them from exercising independent thought for fear of political retaliation.
This is precisely why most governing documents — including the Clark County Charter—do not allow for mid-term removals of board appointees. To allow otherwise would turn these appointments into tools of political enforcement rather than positions of governance.
Legal and political consequences
The Council would be wise to consult its legal advisors and ask a straightforward question: Where in the Charter is the authority to remove Belkot explicitly stated? The answer is simple: it is not. There is no provision granting such authority. Likewise, if they look to legal precedent, they will find no case law supporting their action.
And what happens if the C-TRAN Board disregards Belkot’s vote and allows an unlawfully appointed replacement to participate? The board will find itself embroiled in litigation, its decisions subject to judicial review, and potentially nullified. A long and costly legal battle awaits.
Perhaps the Council will reconsider its actions. If not, they should at least have the courage to admit that they are openly exceeding their lawful authority. The voters deserve to know whether their elected officials believe they are bound by the Charter — or whether they see themselves as above it.
Also read:
- Opinion: In-n-Out Burger is so much more than fast food for so many of us
Paul Valencia shares why In-n-Out Burger means more than just fast food for countless fans as Ridgefield nears its grand opening and Vancouver’s location begins construction. - Obituary: Stephen Lloyd Randol, 1945-2025
Stephen Randol, a Clark County resident for over 80 years, passed away on June 15. A celebration of life is scheduled for July 26 at Northcrest Community Church in Vancouver. - Opinion: Washington’s June 2025 budget revisions – revenue up spending up moreMark Harmsworth of the Washington Policy Center critiques the state’s latest budget revisions, warning that new taxes—not organic growth—are driving revenue. He calls for fiscal restraint and long-term reform.
- Washougal fourth graders take flight with hands-on birdhouse projectFourth-grade students in Washougal connected science, math, and hands-on skills through a district-wide birdhouse building project supported by high school mentors and community volunteers.
- Opinion: Pedestrian control signalsDoug Dahl explains Washington state law regarding crosswalks and pedestrian signals, offering safety insights and common misunderstandings about traffic control at intersection
- Letter: ‘How can five part-time legislators without research support or reliable access to information serve as an effective check on six full-time elected executives’Bob Zak expresses agreement with recent opinions on the Clark County Charter’s imbalance and endorses John Ley’s transit preference while questioning light rail costs and Council effectiveness.
- Cowlitz Indian Tribe and Columbia River Mental Health Services announce Letter of Intent to protect behavioral health servicesThe Cowlitz Indian Tribe and Columbia River Mental Health Services signed a letter of intent to transition behavioral health services under the Tribe’s care, ensuring service continuity across Southwest Washington.
The funny thing is Belkot asked the County lawyer, Christine Cook, to give a legal opinion and she just froze and said, “I have no opinion at this time.”
Put her back on the board!
Mr. Lee’s interpretation here is quite narrow and erroneously omits elements in the Charter that are directly applicable in this instance.
2.2(F) states that the council, “shall take action by and pursuant to the vote of at least a majority of its members.”
The council voted, by two-thirds majority, to support the change. While acting as representative of the Council, Ms. Belkot attempted to vote in a manner that directly contravened that determination. Ms. Belkot’s failure to “take action by and pursuant to the vote” of the council is clearly the precipitating violation here.
Similarly, Mr. Lee ignores the preface of Section 2.4, which clearly states:
“The enumeration of particular legislative powers shall not be construed as limiting the legislative powers of the council.”
The inclusion of this clause obviates Mr. Lee’s example of 2.4(G) as exclusive of other exercises of legislative power to confirm or reject appointments. In fact, 2.4(G) is irrelevant in the first case, as it does not address the authority to recall a confirmed appointment made by the county manager at all, only to accept or reject the initial appointment.
As for related legal precedent, it may be instructive to review Houston Community College System v. Wilson. In that case, Mr. Wilson, as a board member, disagreed with the Board about the best interests of HCC – even going so far as to bring several lawsuits challenging their actions. In response, the Board censured him and adopted a resolution forbidding him from holding Board officer positions.
The Supreme Court found that there was a difference between exclusion of a duly elected representative from office and the power to issue lesser forms of discipline. The ruling notes, “even ‘[t]he humblest assembly’ in this country historically enjoyed the power to prescribe rules for its own proceedings.”
We agree that, “the role of a Council-appointed board member is to represent the county’s interests” – but that representation of interest is necessarily bound to the larger direction determined collectively by the body from which the member is appointed. The very term, “representative” is characterized by its reflection of the represented.
Mr. Lee’s argument envisions a system in which officials may make arbitrary decisions based on their own personal determinations, unbound by any duty to their role or consequence for their lack of fidelity to it. The bottom line is that Ms. Belkot was sent to serve as a representative of the position of the Council – a position that was determined by vote of the duly elected majority – not one subject to her personal judgement.
She had an ethical and moral obligation to represent that majority accordingly. Rather than placing us in the position where we would be subject to, “County Council’s mood” Mr. Lee’s position would render us subject to the arbitrary whims of individual Councilors – a considerably worse proposition.
I prefer to know who writes and not hide behind a false name. Saying that I disagree with the Racentour’s position. Let’s battle it out in the court if the council won’t capitulate.
Amen Dick!
There are a lot of choices we have to make about what we allow and don’t allow in terms of comments on our content. It’s virtually impossible to force every person who comments to identify themselves but I certainly wish each would do just that.
I will say that even though I often disagree with the person who we are referring to, he or she is respectful, thoughtful and thorough in the manner they present their thoughts and information. It’s too bad most who read it just immediately dismiss it because of the anonymity.
I can appreciate the sentiment, but, unfortunately, engaging in these sorts of conversations under my real name has led to quite a significant volume of threats and harassment – including people contacting my employer.
Sad a commentary as it may be on the times we live in, I’m simply not willing to expose my family or my livelihood to that sort of abuse. I hope you understand.
You’re gettin’ beat up for your views? Maybe you need to do some self-reflection and determine just why it is that you’re being hounded. Could it be that your views are not in alignment with the majority?
I’m NOT getting into the free speech arena here. I’m just saying that free speech has consequences.
I used to think that commenting here in CCT was a bit like preaching to the choir. My attitude has changed over time. I now lean more towards these comments being a reflection of the silent majority who are tired of it all, who are no longer willing to accept it, and who are now speaking up.
Forthright Ranconteur comments seem to be those of a sore loser. I personally have harbored many similar thoughts for the past 4 years but find it refreshing that I experience fewer such thoughts now. Maybe Forthright Ranconteur just needs to be honest with him/herself?
I note that you haven’t made your own last name known, Susan. Is there some reason you feel the need to hide your identity? Or are the “consequences” of free speech only important when they’re applied to people you disagree with?
As I hope has been demonstrated here, I’m happy to engage on the merits of an argument, but there are far too many people who are content to ignore the merits and simply attack the person.
Either your ideas stand on their own merits and are defensible or they aren’t. If the only way you can “engage” with an opposing idea is by having a target to personally attack or intimidate, your position is critically flawed in the first instance.
I will also note that the representative from battle ground and camas, using the Racentour’s interpretation, have voted not to table the vote given their city council’s public position.
Battle Ground CTRAN Rep Troy McCoy said he would follow the directive of the council and vote to return to 2022 conditions of NOT funding Light Rail O&M. Then, instead of casting his vote that way, he voted to table the issue. Molly Coston from Washougal did the same thing. If these two had voted as they said they planned to, representing the majority in their city, CTRAN would not be spending $ on light rail today.
Reading through the rambling semblance of legalese of orator Forthright Ranconteur is like being fed a hearty diet of soup sandwiches fed between two slices of water…the striking issue his argument seems to advance is how do you get a hold of it! Geez, he’s citing a vague Supreme Court rendering and invoking Houston Community College matters as if we don’t have enough on our plate here in sleepy ‘ol Clark county…where if a council member does not comply with the majority, then just remove her.
It seems to me that if a sense of fair play and active participation results in you being excluded from the process, let’s just save ourselves the time, money, representatives and appoint a dictator.
I was responding to Mr. Lee’s article in kind, addressing each of the points he raised. The reference to the HCC ruling, for example, was to point out that there is case law related to these sorts of decisions.
That said, if it would be helpful to you to have a simplified version, here it is:
Ms. Belkot was appointed to the Board to represent the position of the Council as a whole, not her own personal position.
I could imagine that if the Council had decided to vote against the change and Ms. Marshall decided that she was going to vote for it anyway, your opinion on the topic might be quite different.
Mr. Lee’s argument would allow any Council member to effectively “go rogue” once in an appointed position with no recourse for the Council as a whole. That strikes me as a fundamentally disorganized method of governance and one that could potentially give rise to all sorts of abuses.
If we can’t expect that a Council member that is appointed to an external board is going to reflect the decisions of the larger council, we’re also likely to see a chilling effect on the appointment of members that are seen as “hostile” to particular positions.
Would Ms. Belkot ever have been appointed to the C-Tran Board if the other members knew of her intentions? Highly unlikely. Would she ever be appointed in the future? Again, highly unlikely.
I think we want people like Ms. Belkot to be able to serve in those positions, to make their concerns known, and to raise important questions. However, if the larger Council cannot rely on her to accurately convey the majority position of that body, she will likely never be in that sort of position again.
I think this would ultimately be a loss, but I also think that pursuing this road will leave the Council with little choice – if not in this specific instance, than certainly in the future.
You are patently WRONG! Councilor Belkot was elected to represent HER constituents, just like the others were elected to do the same! The issue is that the 4 councilors VIOLATED THEIR OATH OF OFFICE by NOT honoring the will of THEIR constituents when they voted to ignore them and support funding Light Rail O & M! Remember that 98% of the County’s 200+ precincts VOTED LIGHT RAIL DOWN! Had the 4 councilors ACTAULLY honored their oath by representing the wishes of “We the People” then we wouldn’t be having this conversation! Councilor Belkot was the ONLY councilor who represented the TRUE wishes of the citizens of Clark County! You need to go back and rethink your misplaced conclusions! .
Is there anything that can be done?
The Mayor of Vancouver is corrupt.
stop the corruption, this is not what the people want.
What an interesting unravelling of ideas, caused by one political event, predicated on something as simple as exercising one’s free will and knowledge…seemingly with the notion that only in America is where expressing your opinion is granted and indeed expected, but has somehow denigrated into innuendo and the caustic fear of retaliation!
So where does the truth lie?
With the likes of an anonymized author or someone whom was duly elected and has repeatedly expressed her concerns regarding a proposed project?
I think a compelling question to ask in this instance, is what criterion was used, and by whom, in electing someone to a board?
I don’t believe that Councilor Belkot was elected to the board to be an automaton.
I believe that she was elected to her position based upon her represented values, abilities, and willingness to represent her constituencies.
Anything less should be construed as a fraud.
And the only seeming fraud that I am witnessing is the charade that is currently taking place within the powers that be within this board.
I agree with you that she was elected to her position on the Council to represent her values. However, she was appointed to the Board by the Council, to represent the Council, not to represent her personal position.
I think your compelling question is exactly the one we should be wrestling with here.
Is it reasonable for the Council to expect that its selected representative to another external body will faithfully represent their majority position?
I have a hard time seeing the rationale for any argument to the contrary.
If not, what is the point of having the Council vote their support or dissent in the first place? If their representative is free to make an arbitrary choice on their behalf, and they can say nothing about it, they aren’t much of a representative.
More importantly, there is no reason for the Council to ever appoint a minority member as a representative again. Why would they, when that person could arbitrarily vote however they please once in the position?
Surely that cannot be how you want our government to run.
But isn’t the Council a representation of the people? Not everyone is going to agree within the Board and the Council even within it’s own organization, which is why healthy debates take place in the first place. Why are both the board and the council trying to remove Belkot, seems a bit monarch to me, and last time I checked, we were a constitutional republic. Healthy debate, while being respectful is, and should always be welcomed, or have we forgotten that? Rules are rules and laws are laws while both are interpreted differently by all especially if it benefits them, not the masses, in the end. We have seen that multiple times throughout history.
Yes, the Council is a representative of the people – that’s entirely the point.
The Council is comprised of representatives elected by the people. The Council supports the change at a vote of 4-1 – Ms. Belkot, in her capacity as the lone dissenting vote, is effectively overriding the majority position of the Council.
It ceases to a representative republic if the minority viewpoint can arbitrarily overrule the majority.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain how it’s remotely fair or ethical that Ms. Belkot can have her 1 vote count as equal to a combined 4 other people’s votes – that’s not how majority rule has ever worked.
And therein lies the reveal, you forthright raconteur, nay rapscallion you…Councilor Belkot was elected to a political position, not as a great arbitrator, but as a representative of, for, and by the people whom elected her to represent them! And she is being true to her colors! And to that end deserves the respect and support from her constituents…please lead me in extending a simple thank you to
Councilor Belkot
Yes, and the other four people who were elected, and their constituents, deserve for their votes to be counted as well. We have four votes on the council in favor and one vote against. On the Board, that is being translated into one vote in favor and one against. Tell me how it’s the case that 4 against 1 is being translated into equal votes? Where is the representation of the actual majority?
Michelle disputes that vote ever took place. And, even if it did its not representative of the Clark County citizens who have repeatedly shown a majority opposed to light rail. Specifically, in this case, it’s safe to say that 80 percent of Clark County citizens are not in favor of their transit agency paying maintenance and operations for TriMet’s light rail extension. So a 4-1 split of this County Council does not represent their constituents.
Thanks for your thoughts here, Ken. I’d offer two of my own for your consideration in response:
(1) I found your closing sentence to be a bit confusing (maybe, concerning?). Each member of the County Council was elected by a majority of the voters in their district. I don’t think there is any meaningful evidence to suggest that the Council members supporting the change are any less representative of their constituents than Ms. Belkot.
In fact, if we count and pool individual “votes for” each candidate we arrive at a combined 84k vs 20k (80% support, 20% opposed). If we use a “votes for minus votes against” paradigm (to better incorporate opposition within districts), we’re still looking at 7,278 vs 3,466 (68% support, 32% opposed).
At the very least, I don’t think there is any evidence-based support for your argument that the four Council members supporting the change are somehow “less representative” of their constituents.
(2) On that same note, I wanted to briefly address the idea that Clark County holds a “majority opposed to light rail.” The three votes that are most frequently invoked to make this argument are all well over a decade old. None of them captured a majority of registered voters (the most recent capped at around 30%), none reached an 80% consensus (as per your claim), and the population of the county has actually increased by a greater number of people than the total that voted on the most recent advisory.
Given their age, non-representativeness, and the ongoing demographic shifts in the county, I don’t think that these votes provide significant evidence of an ongoing majority opposition, much less one compelling enough to warrant unilaterally overturning the decision of the rest of the board.
That last sentence is, I think, the really compelling issue here and the one I’m most interested to get your thoughts on.
It feels concerning to me that the justification being offered for Ms. Belkot’s decision is that she is somehow a qualitatively “better” representative than her four colleagues and that therefore her decisions should, in a very real and practical way, “count” for more. This despite the fact that she represents significantly fewer people – seemingly flying in the face of the most basic principles of representation and majority rule.
I guess I’m wondering:
(a) How you reconcile those ideas in the larger philosophical sense?
That is, apart from the specific issue at hand, how would you address concerns about the idea of effectively disenfranchising elected officials on the basis of unconfirmable claims about the quality of their representation?
And
(b) How would you address questions raised about the lack of contemporary evidence recommending opposition?
This would encompass theoretical question like: How long are should we be allowed to hold on to prior policy positions before we’re allowed to reconsider? How reliable and/or comprehensive should our evidence in support of those positions be? How stringent should we be about the interpretations that people can draw from specific questions about more general positions?
Perhaps waxing a bit philosophical, but I think these are critically important things to discuss, given that they seem to drive so much of modern political conversation.
I decline your ridiculous homework assignment. I was once called a monumental word waster. I wonder what that person would think of you?
You make a number of ridiculous assertions based on semantics and hypothetical.
You are correct to assert we don’t know exactly how split Clark County residents are when it comes to light rail. I’m very comfortable it is not 80/20 in favor as you attempt to make an argument for, therefore our current County Council is not representative of their constituents as you attempt to assert.
And, as I have pointed out, the issue at hand in this conversation is the maintenance and operations of TriMet’s Yellow Line extension into Vancouver. I don’t need any analytics to tell me there is no chance that 80 percent of Clark County residents are in favor of C-TRAN paying for that expense. Had a vote of the C-TRAN Board taken place and Marshall voted for the new language and Belkot voted to return to the old language, that 1-1 split would have been much more representative of our community than 2-0.
You are one of the reasons I rarely engage on these threads. You’re participation here is for sport, not purpose. You avoid common sense and reality in favor of an attempt to make your case with your skills of debate, regardless of how absurd that deduction actually is.
For now, go on using our comment threads for your anonymous blather. I will continue to approve your comments as long as it remains appropriate to do so.
If you’re going to be rude about it, here’s a very short version:
The critical problem with your analysis is that we are “represented” by our elected officials. That’s the entire purpose of holding elections in the first place.
Would you argue that the President only holds 32% of the power of his office, because that’s the actual proportion who voted for him? Of course not.
You can’t simply dismiss a 4-1 vote on some vague supposition that they “aren’t representative” because of your own biased opinions on the subject.
People were elected and they are empowered to act on behalf of their constituents. That’s the “common sense reality” of how our system works.
Keep fighting the good fight Forthright. In my experience, when the editor joins in with the torch and pitchfork crowd you likely have a good point.
I enjoy your observations on this website. You make valid, reasoned criticisms of the majority opinion. You do so without being condescending or rude. I could never manage that last part. I come here to better understand my community. But your ability to question the orthodoxy here, without being a jerk about it, makes this space more interesting.
I haven’t read any critiques of the actual points you tried to raise here, but apparently you must be wrong because:
1) You use a pseudonym (so do I, so do a lot of people they have never criticized for it)
2) You do too much research and your vocabulary is too large. This expressed by a contributor through a cliched old southern lawyer character and followed by the audacity to use the word “rapscallion” in a later post.
3) You are accused of being here for “sport” not “purpose”. This one is by far the most disingenuous. A huge portion of the comments here are performative either as a form of resistance or virtue signaling.
A lot of people don’t want you here Forthright. That’s why I appreciate you being here.
Thanks Jack, I appreciate your comments. I’ll be honest, I’ve been disturbed by the reactionary nature of many of the comments as well as the unwillingness to actually engage with the real, practical ramifications of many of the positions espoused by the “leading voices.”
It always seems to come back to, “I don’t like you/it/whatever, therefore you/it/whatever must be wrong.”
It has not escaped my notice that many of the commenters are anonymous (or easily could be – not like there is identity verification), but that it’s seemingly only an issue for those that disagree with the majority view.
I give Mr. Vance credit for his willingness to at least allow dissenting voices. Whatever criticisms one might level about equal reporting or bias, he has the integrity to keep an open forum for (mostly?) respectful dialogue.