Update: Belkot’s legal team submits sheriff’s report to its case against Clark County Council

Michelle Belkot’s legal challenge against the Clark County Council advanced after a sheriff’s report alleging rule violations was accepted into evidence.

Lawyer says: ‘People appointed to boards should be able to vote their conscience without retribution, and the County should not be involved in stacking the deck with more C-TRAN members voting the interests of the City of Vancouver.’

Paul Valencia
Clark County Today

As the year comes to an end, the Clark County Council might be thinking ahead to 2026 and just who will be representing the council on the C-TRAN Board of Directors.

Interestingly, no one knows yet if a former C-TRAN board member will be reinstated.

Michelle Belkot is still waiting on her case to be heard, or decided, in her legal battle to be reinstated to the C-TRAN board.

“This is an important case,” wrote Richard Stephens, Belkot’s lawyer, in an email to Clark County Today. “People appointed to boards should be able to vote their conscience without retribution, and the County should not be involved in stacking the deck with more C-TRAN members voting the interests of the City of Vancouver.”

Last March, if you recall, Belkot was removed from the C-TRAN board by her Clark County Council colleagues after she had vowed to protect taxpayers from being on the hook for operations and maintenance costs for light rail should C-TRAN partner up with Oregon’s TriMet on the new Interstate Bridge.

A vote at the C-TRAN meeting was about to be taken on language used in the Modified Locally Preferred Alternative (MLPA). Belkot was hoping to revert to older language that stated C-TRAN — or Clark County taxpayers — will not be responsible for O&M costs of light rail. The present language states that C-TRAN may participate in the funding.

When it became clear that Belkot’s vote, along with four others on the C-TRAN board, would mean language would revert to protecting taxpayers, a move was made for no vote that night. The next day, Belkot was removed from the C-TRAN board.

“They can’t just take any councilor off any board based on they don’t like your vote,” Belkot told Clark Count Today this week.

Other members of the Clark County Council argued that Belkot was supposed to vote the way the council wanted, not her own will. Initially, the four other councilors voted to remove Belkot. The next meeting, Matt Little changed his vote.

Still, Belkot lost her seat on the C-TRAN board.

“She was removed for exercising her First Amendments rights — stating how she would vote,” Stephens wrote in the email. “The County never before required C-TRAN members from the County to vote in lockstep with the majority of the County council. Nor is there any legal requirement to do so.”

By comparison, city of Vancouver bylaws require its council members to vote in unison on any issue that has already been brought before that council. As Stephens pointed out, Clark County has no such bylaws.

Two lawsuits were filed against Clark County as well as one request for a criminal investigation. Belkot’s lawsuit has gone federal and is still awaiting a resolution. Another lawsuit was withdrawn, but the request for a criminal investigation did lead to new evidence for Belkot’s case.

In early December, Stephens was granted permission from the court to file the Skamania County Sheriff’s Office report that concluded the Clark County Council violated rules. That report, filed in November, suggested fines and a possible criminal charge to those involved in Belkot’s removal. Skamania County was asked to investigate due to a potential conflict of interest for the Clark County Sheriff’s Office.

Clark County Prosecuting Attorney Tony Golik said in November that his office would forward the report to another county’s prosecuting office to determine the next steps.

In the meantime, that report is now part of the Belkot case.

“I thought the report was very well done,” Stephens wrote.

“The (sheriff’s office) report helps only in that it confirms what we understood to be true,” Stephens said. “It’s just confirmation of the facts.”

To read that report, go to: https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/25-05127-Skamania-Report.pdf

Stephens said a judge could make a ruling based on the briefs or perhaps set a hearing date for the case.

The language vote on the MLPA, by the way, was put on pause for months as C-TRAN board members waited for a conclusion to the legal maneuverings. However, by September, the vote did happen, with the board maintaining the current language — that C-TRAN may participate in the funding of light rail O&M.

Which leads to an interesting question: If Belkot is reinstated to the C-TRAN board, what does that do to the September vote?

Tim Hein, representing Camas on the C-TRAN board, has wondered that, as well.

“If Michelle gets reinstated, I’m not sure if all the votes since then are going to count,” Hein said.

By the way, the MLPA might be discussed again at January’s C-TRAN meeting. Troy McCoy of Battle Ground requested a discussion on the MLPA.

This week, McCoy told Clark County Today that he has an interest in discussing language to protect C-TRAN financially and to protect any municipality involved with C-TRAN from non-voter approved light rail taxes. The exact language would be determined.

This is a reaction to the Board Composition Review Committee. If that new language is agreed to, McCoy said he would be in favor of the 4-3-2 model — giving Vancouver four seats, Clark County three seats, and two to be shared by the small cities. Without that language protection, McCoy said he would support the 3-3-3 model while awaiting judgement on that legal battle.

Yes, there is pending legal action with board composition, as well.

“Never a dull moment with C-TRAN,” Belkot said with a laugh.

Under the Grok Lens

Analysis created with Grok

This independent analysis was created with Grok, an AI model from xAI. It is not written or edited by ClarkCountyToday.com and is provided to help readers evaluate the article’s sourcing and context.

Quick summary

Michelle Belkot’s legal team has successfully entered a Skamania County Sheriff’s Office report into evidence in her federal lawsuit against Clark County, which claims her March removal from the C‑TRAN Board of Directors was improper retaliation for her intended vote on light‑rail funding language.

What Grok notices

Quotes from Belkot’s attorney Richard Stephens and board members such as Troy McCoy give direct insight into disputes over voting independence, board authority, and taxpayer protections.
Summarizes key milestones in the federal lawsuit, including the September MLPA vote and questions about how a potential reinstatement could affect past board actions.
Notes that the Skamania County report has now been admitted into evidence, signaling it may shape how the court views Belkot’s removal and alleged retaliation.
Touches on related discussions about C‑TRAN board composition and representation, placing the case within broader regional governance tensions.
Indicates that readers may need to consult the full investigative report and federal docket filings to follow the latest procedural steps and legal arguments in detail.

Questions worth asking

If Belkot is reinstated, how might that affect the validity of C‑TRAN board votes on the MLPA and related items taken after her removal?
What legal precedents address how independently appointed board members may vote compared with the positions of the bodies that appoint them?
How could the federal court’s eventual ruling shape future appointment practices or removal standards for regional transit boards in Washington?
In day‑to‑day decisions, how are the interests of smaller cities and jurisdictions balanced against those of larger members within C‑TRAN’s governance structure?
What safeguards are in place to protect taxpayers when local agencies negotiate long‑term, multi‑jurisdictional commitments tied to light‑rail or other major infrastructure projects?