Former Councilor Gary Medvigy weighs in on recent actions by current members of the Clark County Council
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and do not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
Gary Medvigy, former Clark County councilor
for Clark County Today
Each county councilor has a dozen or more boards they are assigned to. There are many votes per committee meeting that the full council may never be aware of – a bylaw change may be impossible to accomplish to start with but is an awful idea from the outset.
Each councilor should vote THEIR independent vote as a representative and in the best interests of the board they are on, like C-TRAN – not a separate city, county or partisan position. To change the county bylaws to require block voting weakens democratic processes. Diversity of viewpoint on each board increases the quality of the decision. Requiring groupthink degrades the decision.
What the county council did probably violated their own charter but was also an example of big- boss Tammany Hall bullying.
There could be a rare issue where a city or county has an overwhelming interest in a separate board vote in an outside agency. The county doesn’t have a current procedure or authority to handle this. A county rule of procedure, with public participation would need to occur. The council acted without a process to follow.
If they amend the bylaws in the future, then procedurally, at a minimum there should be a noticed agenda item, public hearing and after public comment a public vote by the council. The council didn’t do this and blatantly excluded public participation on this issue and then removed Councilor Belkot from C-Tran prohibiting her from exercising her lawful vote. Her term on C-TRAN doesn’t expire until January 2026.
There was no lawful basis to remove her from her assignment. This action was an affront to her constituents, violated her right to vote on her assigned board and her 1A rights to express an opinion.
Former County Councilor Gary Medvigy has worked 33 years in the government sector. He is a retired California Superior Court judge and served as major general in the U.S. Army. He has a master’s degree in strategic studies in national studies from the United States Army War College, a law degree from Vermont Law School and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Vermont.
Also read:
- Opinion: Inviting courts into health care policy discussion
Elizabeth New (Hovde) warns that Senate Joint Resolution 8206 could invite lawsuits by placing vague health care mandates into Washington’s Constitution. - Opinion: 24 States In. Washington Out? $732 Million Lost?
Vicki Murray argues Washington risks forfeiting $732 million in federal education funding if state leaders do not opt into the federal tax-credit scholarship program. - Opinion: Nationwide strike in support of illegals and opposing the rule of law?
Lars Larson argues that a reported nationwide strike reflects opposition to immigration enforcement and the rule of law, criticizing political leaders and media coverage. - POLL: Should councilors serving on boards be required to vote the way the full council decides?
A new poll asks whether Clark County councilors serving on boards should be required to vote in line with the full council’s position or retain independent judgment. - VIDEO: Washington lawmakers clash over bills directed at limiting ICE officers
A heated House committee hearing on legislation aimed at limiting ICE officers in Washington was temporarily recessed after sharp exchanges between lawmakers over testimony and procedural disputes.
Thank you Gary Medvigy for your sage advice and wisdom on this matter!
Spot on, my friend!
Sadly, the four groupthink councilors who made the monumental mistake of removing Belkot from the C-Tran board will not likely heed the wisdom shared by Medvigy.
Something is seriously amiss with their first move. Now, they are going to double down and change county policy and procedures to validate their decision, preventing Belkot from ever serving on the C-Tran board. That won’t change the fact that they violated the Charter with their vote, opening themselves up to a looming legal battle. This smells of corruption that needs to be investigated.
Thank you, Gary Medvigy, for weighing in.
Mr. Medvigy, although I appreciate your thoughts on this matter, I respectfully disagree with several of your conclusions.
It seems self-evident that the purpose of appointing a Councilor to an external Board is so that the best interests of the County can be represented in decision making by that external body. I agree with your assessment that diversity of viewpoint in discussions often increases the quality of final decisions. It’s politics – disagreements will inevitably arise and should not be avoided or prevented in those conversations. However, when it comes to final determinations, the role of the appointee is to represent the coherent interest of the body they represent (in this case, the whole of the Council), not their own personal positions.
I agree that it would likely be infeasible (to say nothing of inefficient) to poll the Council for every single vote or decision point. By that same token, most of those votes and decisions do not implicate major, long-term policy decisions on the scale of the one we are discussing here. I think you nod to this principle in your comment on “rare issues” of “overwhelming interest.” For those issues in particular, it seems especially inappropriate for an otherwise minority position of the represented body to leverage an appointed position to advance their own views at the expense of the majority.
Unity in direction is as critical as diversity in deliberation to the success of decision making.
I would welcome some modification of the rules of procedure to more explicitly define the responsibilities of both Councilors serving in appointed positions and of the County Council more generally in making formal determinations of policy direction in this area. By that same token, we should also remain cognizant that those sorts of bureaucratizations can quickly become unwieldy. It may be worth establishing some sort of bi-partisan group to explore options and formulate recommendations.
I don’t think we disagree about many of the fundamental underlying principles at work here, just the manner in which they are being prioritized and executed.
That aside, given your history, I was profoundly disappointed that you would engage in impugning the integrity and conduct of the four members of the Council with whom you disagree. Hyperbolic comparison may be fashionable in our current political discourse, but that does not make it appropriate. As I have commented elsewhere, I recognize that this is a heated topic, but equating your political opposition, especially people you served alongside, with pervasive institutionalized corruption should be beneath a person of your character.
Similarly, as a former lawyer and judge commenting on this matter, you may be interested to know that the Supreme Court unanimously held (in Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan) that voting by public officials on public matters is not considered protected First Amendment speech. From that opinion:
“…the act of voting symbolizes nothing. It discloses, to be sure, that the legislator wishes (for whatever reason) that the proposition on the floor be adopted, just as a physical assault discloses that the attacker dislikes the victim. But neither the one nor the other is an act of communication…a legislator has no right to use official powers for expressive purposes.”
I hope that, as a community, we can find a way to move forward respectfully and with care and I hope that you will continue to contribute your leadership and experience toward a well-reasoned and fair solution.
On a personal note, I had the pleasure of watching a recording of your Civil Military Ops keynote to NPS while conducting research for a project and found it very informative.
Former Clark County Councilor Gary Medvigy is spot on. The rest of the council is trying to “rubber stamp” what is being pushed by the “tax and spend” Legislature and Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle. While serving in Boy Scouts of America, as District Committee Chair, I was a member of that board as a chaplain aide, assisting District Chaplain Dale DeField, Troop 393, in teaching religious topics to our units’ youth. Anne was soft spoken, focused on BSA district needs always allowing each member to voice their opinions, needs and voting for their section. Now Anne, a Democrat, seems to be totally focused on IBR light rail, regardless of public opinion. Now with Councilor Belkot representing her constituents in CCD #2, she is the target of the “light rail” mob on both councils. Gary is right, the CCC has violated their charter, due process and they are ignoring the will of the people they serve since this matter has been voted on several times. Please council members, both city and county, put this matter to rest and honor Councilor Belkot for properly representing the people in her district, restore her to the C-Tran Board, and put IBR LR on the back shelf and apply common sense to the issue.
There’s a phrase the Leftist Libs, Democrats, Media and Deep State Bureaucracy have been spouting in lock step with each other since We The People voted in a new federal administration: “Constitutional Crisis”. If ever I have seen it actually played out in real time, this is it, at a grass roots level. Either our dually elected representatives are allowed to govern on our behalf or we do not live in a democratic republic. I have a glimmer of hope for America; perhaps we have a chance to save this wonderful country! But, I am nearly to the point of despair for Vancouver, Clark County and Washington State. It makes me want to sell the house I just paid off with my blood sweat and tears, and move to another state! At age 58, working full time, single parent still with a kid at home, you’d think I could catch a break, but No! The TAXES ARE KILLING ME!
I voted for Michelle to represent ME, as did the majority, obviously because she won, in Vancouver. SHE MUST REPRESENT US!
Oh, and please contribute to her legal fund. I did!
Valerie, I hear you loud and clear and identified this local ousting of a representative to silence her vote as a clear sign of corruption of democracy, like the NY Tammany leadership that FDR finally put a stop to even though it was his own party. It is not an overstatement, representing one party rule in its worst form at the grass roots level. I saw one commentator object to criticism of our county council for this, but i suggest they need a broader view of this local example of overbearing governance. Also, i have noted by council statements their desire to have uniform positions of the county reflected in every board and commission as a positive out come. They and the public that regurgitates this misses a layer of the role of the councilors on the dozens of boards they sit. It is not a nuance. They represent the interests of that board, are there to increase that board’s capacity, and to give the council direct linkage to the needs of the agency, so the county can best support those needs. The individual councilors are not there to principally foist the county policy position on the agency. Being on the individual boards to assist particularly the smaller agency boards is critically important . Whether juvenile justice, elder abuse, law and justice, RTC, Ctran , lower columbian fish recovery board, etc, they all benefit from the individual representation of each councilor sitting as a board member. There should be no block voting. To do so deny’s the individual councilor’s ability to represent their constituency and greatly diminishes the board’s capacity to come to the best balanced decisions- the very purpose of each board.
Thanks for weighing in Gary. Wise words, backed up by years of experience!