The Vancouver City Council voted to dismiss an ethics complaint against Diana Perez and take no further action, but a couple of council members did acknowledge that it might have been easier if Perez had simply recused herself from a vote to grant city money to the Fourth Plain Forward organization.
In May of 2025, Perez voted to give $100,000 to the non-profit organization. In October of 2025, she became one of the owners of a business. She applied for and received a loan from Fourth Plain Forward.
An ethics complaint was filed by Rob Anderson, founder of Reform Clark County.
At Monday’s City Council meeting, the council members heard from City Attorney Nena Cook, who explained why she recommended that the council dismiss the complaint. Cook said that the loan that Perez’s business received came from the Department of Commerce and not any funds from the city.
After a nearly 30-minute discussion, the council agreed.
A few council members acknowledged, however, that they could understand why a layperson, without all the facts, could see a potential conflict.
Council Member Sarah Fox, who also works for the Department of Commerce, noted how often she recuses herself whenever the city and that department have any business before the city council.
She also used an example that if she was applying for funds from a credit union, and the city or the commerce department ruled in favor of that credit union on any matter, the credit union could look favorably on her application.
With the Perez complaint, though, the council took into account the timing. Perez was not an owner of the business when she made her vote in May of 2025.
Fox said she has no idea when Perez was contemplating ownership of the business.
“If you had even been considering ownership, she should have recused herself,” Fox said after Monday’s meeting. “If you even think there’s a chance where someone might worry about your impartiality, then say it out loud.”
During the meeting, Cook gave her explanation.
“My job is to read the complaint and all the supplemental materials and submit this report to council with a recommendation,” she said. “The complaint, including those supplemental materials, on their face, allege facts that if true would not substantiate a violation of the policy.”
The complainant argued that Perez getting anything from Fourth Plain Forward after her vote is an ethics violation.
Cook disagreed.
“Her business did not receive any dollars from the city of Vancouver. If her business subsequently got something from Fourth Plain Forward, that is unconnected with her vote,” Cook said.
“Council Member Perez did not have a direct or indirect benefit to the city council’s contract with Fourth Plain Forward for $100,000 in CDGB (Community Development Block Grants) grant funds because her company did not receive any portion of those dollars,” Cook added.
She then gave her official recommendation to dismiss the complaint.
Council Member Ty Stober agreed with the recommendation.
“Would it have been better if some disclosure statement had been made? Sure,” Stober said. “But I just really struggle to make the connection that there is a true impropriety in what was done.”
Council Member Erik Paulsen questioned Cook to come up with a similar understanding. He asked: What is the definition of an appearance of impropriety? If Perez appeared to have done something wrong, isn’t that the very definition of appearance of impropriety?
Cook said a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would conclude that Perez did not violate the appearance of impropriety because she didn’t take any of the $100,000.
Paulsen summed up his understanding:
“A reasonable person without knowledge of the relevant facts could perceive an appearance of impropriety. However, if they were in possession of the relevant facts, a reasonable person would conclude it wasn’t an appearance of impropriety,” he said.
Council Member Kim Harless took her time to call out the policy that allows such complaints. She was accused of an ethics complaint last year.
“Once again, I feel like we have an ethics policy that empowers politically motivated witch hunts,” she said. “And that this isn’t the proper forum for this. We should have an ethics commission.”
The recommendation was then moved to a voice vote. There was no roll-call vote, but Clark County Today did not hear any nays from the council. Perez did recuse herself from this discussion and vote.
Comments
Loading comments…