Opinion

Letter: Burgess's letter doesn't hold up to FPF's contracts’

Reform Clark County Founder Rob Anderson responds to Fourth Plain Forward Executive Director Paul Burgess

By Rob Anderson · October 19, 2026

Listen to this story

Rob Anderson: FPF Contracts Contradict Burgess's Defense

0:000:00

Letter: Burgess's letter doesn't hold up to FPF's contracts’ — Rob Anderson. File photo

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com

I'm the one who filed the ethics complaints against Councilor Wil Fuentes and Councilmember Diana Perez, so I read the letter from Paul Burgess closely. Here's the problem with it: his explanations don't hold up against FPF's own contracts.

Start with the "subrecipient" argument. Mr. Burgess wants you to believe FPF isn't a County contractor. But the County agreement, which is no doubt similar to the City of Vancouver's contract, is titled "Contract." It calls FPF "the Contractor" more than a hundred times, and Mr. Burgess himself signed it "For Contractor." Charter 8.8 doesn't borrow federal grant terms. It says no county elected official shall accept employment or compensation from "any county contractor." FPF is a county contractor, and Wil Fuentes was on its payroll while sitting on the Council. Which grant covered his paycheck doesn't change that.

Mr. Burgess also says Wil "never managed" a CDBG program. Again, look at the contract. It lists "access to loans and other sources of capital" as a CDBG-funded services, and Wil was FPF's business Program Manager and is on video promoting those services (see Reformcast E34 at 5:10 https://youtu.be/do4mbhcgXtU). In Diana Perez's testimony, Wil's assistance and FPF's assistance seem to be one and the same.

Rob Anderson argues FPF's own contracts contradict Paul Burgess's claim that Fourth Plain Forward is not a county contractor. Screenshot courtesy Rob Anderson

Then there's Wil's "prearranged" departure. On October 14, I asked Mr. Burgess in person whether Wil was still with FPF. He didn't want to answer. Only after I pressed did he say, "Today is Wil's last day." I described that exchange on Reformcast Episode 37 (watch here). If this was a routine, planned exit, why the reluctance? If there's nothing to hide, name the grant and show when it ended. But make no mistake: the funding in question, which ran simultaneously with Fuentes's entire tenure on the County Council, is still intact, for now.

Now Councilmember Perez. Mr. Burgess spends his time defending her loan. I never said the loan was improper. Here's what I did say, and what he doesn't want to talk about. Ms. Perez made the motion to award City CDBG funds to FPF. Her business is inside Vancouver city limits. By her own public testimony, she received FPF's business services: the coaching, planning, and launch help that FPF's CDBG agreement specifies and pays for. That isn't in dispute. And to receive those services, the agreement is clear: "ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST EARN AT OR BELOW 80%" of area median income. Did Ms. Perez meet that standard? Was her income ever checked? According to Ms. Perez's own PDC filing, she made far more than the limit allows. Mr. Burgess's letter doesn't say a word about it.

So his argument comes down to labels and funding streams. The contracts say otherwise. FPF is a contractor, lending is a contracted service, and anyone who received those services had to qualify.