C-TRAN Board Seat Debate Highlights Clark County Council Divide

This story was written by Paul Valencia

with ClarkCountyToday.com.

Glenn Young didn't want the position,

saying he was too busy to accept a new role.

Michelle Belcott declared her willingness

to accept the position.

For a split second Wednesday afternoon,

it looked like after a year of chaos

regarding the Clark County Council

and its representation on the C-Tran board of directors,

Michelle Belcott was going to be put on the board after all.

Nope, counselor Glenn Young might not want the job,

but he certainly did not want counselor Belcott

back on the job.

Belcott made it clear she would stand by her convictions,

noting that the council is not a dictatorship.

The drama surrounding the council's seats

on the C-Tran board continues.

It appears that the council will have to wait

for the return of Will Fuentes,

absent from Tuesday's council time to have a say.

A recent recommendation by the C-Tran board

composition review committee will give the city of Vancouver

four seats on the C-Tran board,

three to the Clark County Council,

and two to be shared by the other cities

that make up the C-Tran boundary.

Currently, Clark County has two seats on the C-Tran board

filled by Sue Marshall and Fuentes.

If you recall, Fuentes replaced Belcott on the board last year

after the council removed Belcott for trying to protect taxpayers

from paying operations and maintenance costs

associated with light rail on the new interstate bridge.

Fast forward to council time on Wednesday,

Clark County chair Sue Marshall noted that the council

needed a third counselor to take a seat on the C-Tran board.

Marshall nominated young, Belcott,

who is currently the alternate to the C-Tran board,

had a question, so I'm not going to be considered

even though I'm an alternate, she asked,

I think you could be considered if you're nominated.

A second later, counselor Matt Little,

not only nominated Belcott,

but asked that if two people accept the nomination,

he would like to hear from them both

before making a decision, young declined the nomination,

and Belcott enthusiastically accepted the nomination.

I'll be happy to serve as the alternate.

Young said, I just have a workload

that cannot take on another assignment at this point.

With Young out, Marshall simply said,

I guess we can vote, but it seems like

there is only one candidate running.

Belcott expressed her passion for transportation issues,

noting it was a big part of her candidacy

when she was elected to the council.

Young though had concerns.

He noted that the council has been working on new language

in its rules of procedure,

which would force board committee members

to vote in whatever direction the council gives.

Last year, Belcott went against the rest of the council

when she vowed to protect taxpayers on the light rail issue.

She was replaced at the next council gathering.

Belcott has said that historically,

Clark County counselors have voted separately

on C-Tran board issues.

It was never an issue until last year.

Young wondered how Belcott would react

in anticipation of new language in rules of procedures.

If the Collective Council does give our C-Tran reps direction,

how do you intend to handle that, young asked?

As you know, it's not part of the rules of procedures

and never has been for the Clark County Council.

You are trying to adopt a city of Vancouver rule

or procedure that has never been something for us.

Why even get elected if we have to vote in collaboration?

Belcott continued,

I represent my district.

What would even be the purpose of a counselor getting elected

if they would just go along with another group of people?

That's not democratic.

Young said, it is the council's purview

to assign individuals to a seat.

Whether we place them on that board or not,

it hinges on that person's willingness

to listen to the entirety of the council, young said.

He added, you are correct.

It is not currently in our rules of procedure,

but I anticipate it likely will be here shortly.

So my question is, if it's adopted,

do you intend to follow that?

Belcott did not appreciate that young is anticipating

something that has not yet been brought up for public comment.

Marshall weighed in.

If the council took a position to direct a vote on C-Tran,

would you follow that or not?

Marshall asked Belcott.

No, it's not part of our rules of procedure.

This is not a dictatorship, Belcott said.

I believe we have case law at this point.

Marshall shot back.

That was in reference to a federal judge

dismissing Belcott's case against her colleagues

on the council for removing her from the C-Tran board last year.

The judge dismissed all five claims last week,

including an accusation that the four other councillors

violated the Open Public Meetings Act.

Belcott refused to back down.

Yes, Belcott lost the case, but she still believed she had a case,

which is basically a federal judge didn't agree with OPMA,

so there is no existing OMPA.

You all can just do what you want, Belcott said.

With that, Marshall ended the discussion

and went to a vote.

Young and Marshall voted no.

Little and Belcott voted yes.

Motion does not carry.

I think we will have to wait and bring this back

when we have full council, Marshall said.

Marshall and Fuentes are already on the C-Tran board.

Young said he is too busy to add to his workload.

Belcott did not receive three votes on Wednesday.

Does that mean Councillor Little will be asked to take that seat?