Belkot reminds other Clark County Councilors that there is active litigation

Michelle Belkot cited her active lawsuit against fellow councilors as the Clark County Council discussed potential changes to its Rules of Procedure.

The Clark County Council once again discussed changes to its Rules of Procedure this week, and Michelle Belkot, in a not-so-subtle way, said she is against some of the changes … changes that directly relate to her case against her colleagues

Paul Valencia
Clark County Today

It was another eventful week for the Clark County Council, with the reading of a resolution on immigration enforcement as well as a discussion on how to curb unruly behavior in the hearing room.

Perhaps overlooked, however, was the council’s continued discussions on its Rules of Procedures, which might have an impact on a pending legal proceeding.

During Council Time on Wednesday, the council once again brought up Rules of Procedure and possible edits. Clark County Manager Kathleen Otto assured the council and the public that before any changes could be made, a public hearing would have to be held.

Among the changes discussed was to put in writing that the council could remove another councilor from a board or commission. Also, that the council could direct a councilor on how to vote on specific policy items.

Four councilors — Chair Sue Marshall, Glen Yung, Wil Fuentes, and Matt Little — gave a thumb’s up to those two items.

Councilor Michelle Belkot had an interesting response.

“I’m in active litigation against all of you so I’m a no,” Belkot said.

That was in reference to her suit stemming from last year when the council voted her off the C-TRAN Board of Directors. Belkot’s claim is that the council has never been able to direct a member to vote one way or another on a board, and that the council did not have the authority to remove her from a board.

These potential changes to the county’s Rules of Procedure could indicate that Belkot was correct in her assessment of the situation. If in 2026 the County Council wants in writing that it can remove a member from a board, and if the county wants in writing that it can direct a vote, does that mean the County Council could not do those things in 2025?

That is for the courts to decide. Belkot, when asked for an update on her case, did not respond prior to the publication of this story.

The councilors removed Belkot from the C-TRAN board in March of 2025 after she made it clear she would vote to protect taxpayers from having to pay for operations and maintenance costs for light rail, should light rail be part of the new Interstate Bridge. The other four councilors initially voted to remove Belkot. Little did change his vote at the next meeting.

In other Rules of Procedure discussions, the councilors looked for common ground on the order of their meetings. Public hearings first, or public comment?

All agreed.

“Sometimes public comment can go very long and people who came just for the public hearings, they’ll have to wait,” Marshall said. “Sometimes the public hearings go very long, and the people who come for open public comment have to wait. One way or the other, somebody is going to have to wait some time.”

There is no perfect order, Marshall added.

“You can’t please everybody all the time,” Belkot said.

The councilors agreed that the order will be open public comment, consent agenda, separate business, and then public hearings.

On Tuesday, the council did read its immigration enforcement resolution. It should be noted that Belkot, who was opposed to the resolution during debate, did not sign the resolution.