[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6248984,"mediaKeyId","3207980-f7c2293774c1342426190f605f9b1551","parentId",3207980,"title","Clark County ethics panel adopts procedural changes, will allow remote testimony for next hearing","audioSeconds",449,"startMs",1238000,"endMs",1687000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3207980-f7c2293774c1342426190f605f9b1551&start=1238&end=1687","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3207980-f7c2293774c1342426190f605f9b1551/thumbnail_1238000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6248984/Clark-County/Washington/Clark-County-ethics-panel-adopts-procedural-changes-will-allow-remote-testimony-for-next-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6248984-8364da046e682bceeabfb5541d735782/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163159&Signature=DutB3-NjryiwhN3lBlfK3u2N-0TNrTUsFfdqntOoBiITZNGPZEpVdn5gNt6Al6~5ZTEiKEYHwFh0qUxx~q-biL-GzzE7UvLaafxkGB6rJA77r5hjb6IUn46bbbLFBLqfFpsRn0tLBYsdV8t01K8ZLH~FnZE5~EfyLs62~DByDI0dNKq0MeLTNjWC1CFZblYaIIknCBK0ZKVtwWtPoP2TdGDELdt6TsVnil44jOaf2nR3J4-wFslB6yUr6OoFrfSjyAu0zhxbGJIpBPFG7Uuu86YZSgwyDHiALU1zI01wXjhjop3iebDHj1NGvn5ZSMwBQ~6iHjXEcUeuWLJF8eOyXw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Clark County, WA","date","2025-05-01T00:00:00Z","article","The Clark County Ethics Commission voted to adopt proposed changes to its business processes and agreed to allow remote testimony for an upcoming hearing scheduled for the 20th.

Amber Smith, counsel for the commission, presented the changes and described them as an initial step toward “more robust business practices” and a universal complaint form. Smith told commissioners she had been working with council and human resources staff to identify a form and to clarify timelines for both the HR office and the commission. Smith said the recommended changes in the packet are “kind of the first of a conversation” and that additional refinements, including appeal timelines, could be developed later.

Commissioners discussed the proposal and expressed support. A motion to approve and adopt the proposed business process changes was made and seconded; the motion carried unanimously. The commission directed counsel and staff to continue work with county staff and council staff on a universal complaint form and clearer timelines.

During the meeting’s final minutes, commissioners considered whether testimony at the commission’s hearing next month on the 20th should be limited to in-person witnesses. Commissioners said they were concerned about recent technical difficulties and about how in-person testimony can convey information differently than remote testimony, but they agreed to allow remote participation for the hearing with the understanding the commission will prefer in-person testimony for future hearings when feasible. The hearing time was confirmed as 2:30 p.m.; parties who intend to call witnesses were asked to be notified of the commission’s decision so they can plan accordingly.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Ethics Review Commission meeting 20250429 2044 1","oneSentenceSummary","The commission approved updates to its business processes and directed staff to work on a universal complaint form; commissioners also agreed remote testimony will be allowed for the hearing scheduled for the 20th.","taxTitle","Clark County, Washington","taxId",2766,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6248989,"Clark County ethics panel rules complaint over council C Tran board vote is not an ethics violation",281,933000,1214000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3207980-f7c2293774c1342426190f605f9b1551&start=933&end=1214","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3207980-f7c2293774c1342426190f605f9b1551/thumbnail_933000.jpg","/articles/6248989/Clark-County/Washington/Clark-County-ethics-panel-rules-complaint-over-council-C-Tran-board-vote-is-not-an-ethics-violation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6248989-6bb0795a45cc278a589d223de9de8b21/orig.mp4?Expires=1771163159&Signature=Bfa~FuYQEyuInIIw9F-rvWebaKghBb5bK~zlB-btqc8uW5e5cz9zNlxnM5AciOOpgI1t4rsXmKNbFRCeyFRQtZZ1AI0tdiae2hBCTjkeM3JeSWPGZ9qB~u4xFNl6DZJYxp8HJKiB70z6jxqMO9qyCnEvGLHnuYihTtCMYZYLPX0Y6snr4aSkjk9qfe4xQN-rtTSbAO0z5q-CPhS-dnySiOdDFaBZgDQ~T8xhL7S0PXR2rheZ~CSpwPHIFkkMstMJ4kJdu8bmxM4FHvAF2b9hisqyTx8h-n~1RKs73na4f~7oMhwMn-hBP11b-iT2wC8LoW8LljwdXCeqVBApP1rxVA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Clark County Ethics Commission voted unanimously that a complaint alleging council misconduct in a vote to remove a C Tran board member does not constitute an ethics violation.

Commissioner Adam Murray explained the commission’s role and legal standard before the vote. He said the complaint filed by Rob Anderson “does not allege misuse of a public position for personal gain. Instead, the complaint amounts to an appeal of the Clark County Council decision.” Murray said the commission’s ethics code and its governing interpretation focus primarily on abuse of public office for personal benefit, and that alleged procedural errors are matters for other bodies and for Open Public Meetings Act remedies.

The commission considered whether the complaint presented sufficient cause to warrant an ethics investigation under Clark County HR Policy 13.1 and the commission’s procedures. After discussion, Commissioner Barbara Baskerville moved that the matters addressed do not constitute an ethics violation, and the motion was seconded. Commissioners Darcy Rourke, Barbara Baskerville and Adam Murray voted in favor; the motion carried.

The panel had begun the item by moving briefly into an executive session to review the complaint and returned to public session to deliberate and vote. The complaint (No. 2025-03) alleges that county councilors violated ethical standards by voting to remove Counselor Michelle Belcott from the C Tran board and replace her with Counselor Fuentes; the commission concluded that the complaint, as presented, read as an appeal of a council decision rather than an allegation that a public servant used office for personal gain.

The commission’s counsel said state law remedies and other review bodies exist for alleged violations of the Open Public Meetings Act and cautioned the commission against acting as an appellate body for council decisions. The commission’s ruling was limited to the question of whether the complaint, under the county ethics standard, warranted further ethics investigation.","The Clark County Ethics Commission voted unanimously that a complaint alleging improper council procedure in removing a member from the C Tran board does not meet the county ethics code standard for misuse of public office.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Clark County ethics panel adopts procedural changes, will allow remote testimony for next hearing

Clark County ethics panel rules complaint over council C Tran board vote is not an ethics violation