Clark County Councilor Michelle Belkot said her colleagues united to replace her on the C-TRAN Board of Directors in order to save funding for light rail, and when she accused them of violating her rights and the Open Public Meetings Act, a judge, she said, said ‘no big deal’
Paul Valencia
Clark County Today
See Grok’s analysis of this story
Michelle Belkot described herself as being “in shock” after learning last week that a United States District Court judge dismissed her case against her colleagues on the Clark County Council.
“It doesn’t matter if you violate OPMA,” Belkot said this week, referring to the Open Public Meetings Act. “Why does it even exist if you can come along and violate it and a federal judge says, ‘No big deal.’”
Last week, U.S. District Judge Tiffany Cartwright denied Belkot’s motion for a summary judgement against her colleagues.
Last year, the other councilors — Sue Marshall, Wil Fuentes, Glen Yung, and Matt Little — voted to remove Belkot from the C-TRAN Board of Directors after she had vowed to protect Clark County taxpayers from paying for operations and maintenance costs associated with Oregon’s light rail should light rail be part of the new Interstate Bridge. They replaced her on the C-TRAN board with Fuentes.
Belkot filed suit, claiming, among other things, that the council violated OPMA by withholding information to the public before voting her off the C-TRAN board.
“This case wasn’t about me,” Belkot said. “Really, it’s about Clark County councilors in a seemingly coordinated effort to replace me in order to save light rail and keep it from the public until after it happened.”
The judge disagreed.
In all, there were five claims in the case:
• 1) Belkot claimed her First Amendment rights were violated when she was removed from the C-TRAN board.
• 2) Her Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated, the “one person, one vote” principle when she was removed from the board and replaced by Fuentes.
• 3) A claim that the council violated the Clark County Charter by removing Belkot.
• 4) The OPMA claim alleging the council failed to publish a detailed agenda to allow for public comment regarding Belkot’s potential removal.
• 5) A request to be reinstated to the C-TRAN Board, replacing Fuentes.
The plaintiff’s “claims are dismissed with prejudice,” the judge ruled.
Belkot’s attorney, Richard Stephens, had successfully argued to enter into evidence a report from the Skamania County Sheriff’s Office that came to the conclusion that the four other county councilors could be fined and the Clark County manager reprimanded for violating the county charter, rules of procedure, and the OPMA. Skamania County was asked to conduct the investigation due to a potential conflict of interest.
The OPMA ruling is in regard to the agenda. The county council used vague language, Belkot said, when it put on its agenda “Policy Updates” and/or “Council Reports” instead of stating that councilors were going to discuss the possibility of removing Belkot from the C-TRAN board.
In fact, Marshall is quoted in the judge’s report that “maybe [she] should have mentioned it as an agenda item.”
With the Skamania County investigation and Marshall acknowledging she could have been more specific, the judge still ruled that OPMA was not violated.
“The ‘Policy Updates’ and ‘Council Reports’ section headings encompass what the Council discussed,” the judge wrote.
What does that mean for the future of the Clark County Council?
“The county council can do whatever they want whenever they want with agendas now,” Belkot said, noting that specifics are not needed when trying to hide something from the public.
Belkot’s team also argued that, historically, council members on the C-TRAN board have disagreed and voted differently on several issues. There was nothing in the charter that suggested she had to go along with the council’s recommendation.
In fact, at the next council meeting after Belkot’s removal, Little changed his vote to remove Belkot from the C-TRAN board, noting that he could not find any justification for removing her in the charter nor in the rules of procedure.
Interestingly enough, the council is voting this year on language to allow itself to remove board members and/or to force councilors on boards to vote as directed by the rest of the council.
The judge, though, said the council did not need those measures in its rules.
“Because the Council has authority to appoint two C-TRAN board members who serve at the Council’s pleasure, the Council may also remove those board members at any time without violating the Clark County Charter,” the judge wrote.
With that ruling, Belkot is concerned about future actions from this council.
“I am trying to wrap my head around this right now. They have full authority now to kick me off any board or committee they want,” Belkot said. “The only thing I can think of is getting different people elected.”
Belkot also pointed out that she is the lone Clark County councilor from … Clark County. She called the rest of the councilors “carpetbaggers” who clearly are not representing the county if they are in favor of light rail.
“This is a bi-partisan issue. (Just about) every single precinct in Clark County voted no on light rail,” Belkot said. “Three times.”
Her colleagues on council, Belkot said, “are saying, ‘I don’t care about my constituents.’”
Belkot concluded: “I am the only councilor who grew up in Clark County and is from Clark County, and apparently I’m the only one representing Clark County constituents.”
For that, she said, she was punished.
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
U.S. District Judge Tiffany Cartwright dismissed all five claims in Clark County Councilor Michelle Belkot’s federal lawsuit challenging her 2025 removal from the C‑TRAN Board of Directors. According to the article, the court ruled that the council had authority to remove her and that the agenda language used for the meeting did not violate the Open Public Meetings Act, resulting in dismissal with prejudice.
What Grok notices
- Explains the five claims Belkot raised and summarizes why the judge rejected them, giving readers a clearer view of the legal basis for dismissal with prejudice.
- Quotes portions of the ruling related to council authority and agenda notice, helping distinguish between political disagreement and the narrower legal questions before the court.
- Connects the lawsuit to last year’s events, including Belkot’s independent votes on light rail operations and maintenance issues and the broader dispute over regional board representation.
- Places the decision alongside related developments mentioned in the article, including prior OPMA findings by the Skamania County Sheriff and the council’s effort to formalize rules around removal and directed voting.
- Includes Belkot’s reaction and references to earlier council vote shifts, showing that the legal ruling does not necessarily end the political conflict surrounding C‑TRAN representation.
Questions worth asking
- How might this ruling affect future council decisions about appointing or removing members from C‑TRAN and other regional boards?
- What kinds of agenda wording would provide clearer public notice under OPMA while still giving local governments flexibility in meeting administration?
- Could the ruling influence how independently appointed members feel they can vote on controversial regional issues without risking removal?
- How do the court’s conclusions about council authority compare with the county charter’s language and the public expectations surrounding board representation?
- What role could elections, charter interpretation, or public pressure play in shaping future accountability over appointments and removals?
Research this topic more
- Clark County Council – agendas, minutes, and rules of procedure
- U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington – court information and docket access
- Washington Attorney General – Open Public Meetings Act guidance
- C‑TRAN – governance and board information
- Washington State Legislature – statutes on local government appointments and governance
Also read:
- Opinion: Voting with the Democrat Party – Back to the future!
Lars Larson connects the history of election rules to today’s debates, highlighting Supreme Court concerns over counting ballots after Election Day. - Michelle Belkot fired up over judge’s decision to dismiss her case against Clark County Council
A federal judge dismissed Michelle Belkot’s claims that the Clark County Council violated her rights and public meeting laws by removing her from the C-TRAN Board after she opposed light rail funding. - Vancouver city leaders appreciate the feedback at Monday’s community forum
Guests filled six tables as Vancouver officials listened to conversations sparked by structured questions touching on connection, barriers, and belonging. - Video: Can accelerated home construction replace need for WA income tax?
A new report suggests boosting housing production by 20,000 units yearly could bring in over $600 million in revenue, offsetting a portion of proposed income tax revenue. - WA Gov. Ferguson to meet with NBA commissioner as hopes rise for Sonics’ return
The meeting this week comes before a vote that could clear the way for the league’s expansion to Seattle Jake Goldstein-StreetWashington State Standard Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson on Thursday previewed an upcoming meeting with NBA Commissioner Adam Silver ahead of a planned vote on league expansion that could bring men’s professional basketball back to Seattle. …
