Skamania County Superior Court docket Decide Randall Krog granted a movement for a change of venue, transferring the lawsuit to Clark County, throughout a listening to Thursday.
Along with suing the council as a complete, Anderson additionally named Councilors Sue Marshall, Glen Yung, Wil Fuentes and Matt Little individually. In his go well with, Anderson is looking for to reverse the council’s March 12 determination to take away Councilor Michelle Belkot from the C-Tran board. The go well with alleges the council “intentionally and willfully” eliminated Belkot from the transit company’s board regardless of not offering the required public discover.
The council voted to take away Belkot from the board after Marshall, who can be on the C-Tran board, raised the problem through the council experiences part of the assembly. Marshall stated Belkot voted towards the council’s majority opinion to assist mild rail funding throughout a C-Tran board assembly the day earlier than. In February, the council voted 4-1 in assist of the funding, with Belkot the lone dissenting vote.
Belkot stated county coverage doesn’t require particular person councilors to vote consistent with the remainder of the council.
In its movement for a change of venue, the county stated though Skamania County is a correct venue for fits towards Clark County, it’s not a correct venue for claims towards the person county officers.
Moreover, the county’s movement stated state regulation makes it necessary for such circumstances to be heard in the identical county the place the alleged actions that gave rise to the lawsuit occurred.
Anderson stated he’s now ready to see which choose is assigned to the case and for the following listening to date to be scheduled.
Ethics criticism
On Wednesday, the county Ethics Evaluate Fee unanimously voted to dismiss Anderson’s criticism towards Marshall, Little, Fuentes and Yung throughout its common assembly.
Fee Chair Adam Murray stated the criticism included a variety of allegations difficult the procedures the councilors adopted and characterised them as ethics violations and as violations of the state’s Open Public Conferences Act.
After assembly in govt session, the fee voted to dismiss the criticism.
“Mr. Anderson’s complaint does not allege misuse of a public position for personal gain. Instead, the complaint amounts to an appeal of a Clark County Council decision. Moreover, state law provides a cause of action and remedies for violations of the Open Public Meetings Act,” Murray stated. “Because we’re not an appellate body for county council decisions and since other bodies have jurisdiction to consider those decisions and to rule on alleged violations of the Open Public Meetings Act, I do not think that the allegations in Mr. Anderson’s complaint fall under our review.”
