The most important lesson from a controversy surrounding the Clark County Council is that its bylaws must be amended.
Such a move, however, would not clarify the current situation involving Councilor Michelle Belkot — an issue that raises questions about representation and the role of elected officials.
Belkot is one of two county councilors on the C-Tran Board of Directors, which also includes representatives of city governments from throughout the county. During a meeting this week, she voted against an issue related to local taxpayer funding for light rail on a planned Interstate 5 Bridge replacement.
That went against a previous decision by the county council, which had voted 4-1 in favor of the funding, with Belkot casting the dissenting vote. At the C-Tran meeting, her vote was guided by her personal opinion and what she said was the will of her constituents in District 2.
During a subsequent county council meeting, Belkot said: “My particular district is not interested in footing the bill for an Oregon transportation system that’s having extreme financial difficulties. County residents have voted in 1995, 2012, 2013 to oppose light rail. They want the bridge without the light rail.”
Those decades-old votes were related to a different project, making her arguments specious and irrelevant. But the issue of whether a C-Tran board member should reflect the wishes of the county council is pertinent.
In that regard, Belkot’s stance violates the dictums of representative government. While she is entitled to her own opinion and has been elected to represent her constituents, when she is a member of the C-Tran board she is representing the county council and the collective will of voters who elected the council members.
To look at it another way, Belkot was elected to the county council in 2022 with 19,975 votes; the other four council members were elected with a total of 84,140 votes. When Belkot is representing the council, the consensus of the other four councilors greatly outweighs her personal preferences.
If Belkot was unable to set aside those preferences, she could have resigned from the C-Tran board and been replaced by another member of the Clark County Council. Instead, the other councilors voted to replace her with Wil Fuentes on the transit board.
“I don’t feel like the direction that was given by the council was actually followed …,” said Sue Marshall, chair of the Clark County Council and a member of the C-Tran board. “The vote was on whether or not to have permissive language related to (operations and maintenance). It was not to provide funding. It was to allow C-Tran to be in a better negotiating position.”
Such infighting among council members would not occur if county bylaws adequately spelled out their duties. County attorney Chris Cook said the bylaws do not include language directing councilors to vote in line with the full council, language that is common in other counties.
As Councilor Matt Little said: “When you’re representing the whole council at that meeting, it’s very similar to a vote of the council at the dais. The result of a majority vote has implications, and you go with the majority even if you voted against it.”
The need for changes does not reflect a desire to silence dissenting voices; Belkot had an opportunity to vote her conscience at the county council level. Instead, it reflects a desire to prevent rogue officials from instituting minority rule rather than effectively representing the entire county.
The Clark County Council’s bylaws should defend that desire.
