Rob Anderson says the public must demand that county officials correct their unlawful actions and work transparently with investigators
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
Clark County residents deserve transparency — yet what we are seeing from our county leadership is the opposite.
For several months, a Skamania County Sheriff’s Office detective attempted to interview four Clark County Councilors — Sue Marshall, Wil Fuentes, Glen Yung, and Matt Little — as well as County Manager Kathleen Otto. All five refused to participate in the investigation. Not one agreed to be interviewed. The only person who cooperated was Councilor Michelle Belkot — the very councilor who was illegally removed from the C-TRAN Board.
According to the detective’s report, “I have not received any further correspondence …” from the County Council’s office after repeated attempts to schedule interviews. That is not transparency. That is stonewalling.
And now we know why.
The investigation concluded that Clark County officials broke the law in multiple ways when they orchestrated the surprise March 12 removal of Councilor Belkot. The findings are stunning:
- They violated the Open Public Meetings Act — which makes the votes null and void.
- They violated the Clark County Home Rule Charter by bypassing the County Manager, who alone has authority over board appointments.
- The detective found evidence of a “secret vote” — indicating the matter was pre-planned outside public view.
- The County Manager may have committed Official Misconduct (RCW 9A.80.010) by failing to perform required duties.
- The detective recommended reinstating Belkot immediately and removing Fuentes from the C-Tran Board.
This wasn’t just a procedural mistake — the report calls it a hasty, unauthorized, and unlawful maneuver. And when law enforcement tried to investigate, these officials simply refused to cooperate.
If any ordinary citizen ignored a request from a law enforcement investigator, they’d face consequences. But these elected officials apparently think they are exempt from accountability.
Even more alarming: these actions directly impacted decisions involving hundreds of millions — even billions — in potential future light rail funding. Residents were denied their right to notice, their right to participate, and their right to transparent governance.
This cannot be allowed to stand.
Clark County residents — regardless of political views — should be united in demanding honesty and accountability from elected leaders. No councilor, no chair, and no county manager should be above the law.
The Skamania investigation makes the path forward clear:
Belkot should be reinstated, and the county must fully cooperate with the ongoing inquiries.
The County Council needs to hear from you. Demand they correct their unlawful actions and work transparently with investigators.
👉 Click here to contact the County Council and demand accountability:
[https://sendfox.com/lp/1w40o6]
Rob Anderson
Ridgefield resident
- Camas School District Legislative Advocacy Committee to host Candidate Forum
Six candidates from two federal and state districts will answer education questions at Discovery High School on Oct. 5. - Opinion: Why lawmakers are going after your pension
Ryan Frost argues lawmakers included public pensions in the income tax law in preparation for lowering the $1 million deduction. - Opinion: Washington has an income tax – why won’t the media call it one?
Cargill argues the media is using supporters’ preferred label “millionaires tax” instead of the legally accurate term “income tax.” - POLL: How do you think higher impact fees for school districts affect housing affordability in Clark County?
Clark County Council raised impact fees for La Center, Hockinson, and Woodland school districts, drawing pushback from the Building Industry Association. - WA high court tosses natural gas measure approved by voters
The WA Supreme Court struck down I-2066 in a 6-3 ruling, finding it covered four distinct subjects in violation of the single-subject rule.
