A recent discussion before the Clark County Council has raised an important question for local governance: under what circumstances—if any—does the Council have the power to remove its own members from external boards or commissions?

Under the Home Rule Charter, Section 2.2(D) grants the Council the explicit power to appoint its members to external boards and commissions. However, the Charter does not grant the authority to remove those appointments midterm, leading to legal and procedural uncertainty. As noted by local legal experts, this absence deserves attention under the principle that powers not expressly granted are presumed withheld. If removal powers had been intended, the drafters of the Charter likely would have included them explicitly. This distinction between appointment and removal is central to current debates about the Council’s authority.

A report by the Skamania County Sheriff’s Office concluded that in one high‑profile case the Council exceeded its authority and broke the rules. Investigating the March 2025 removal of Councilor Michelle Belkot from the C‑TRAN Board, the report found violations of the county charter, the Council’s rules of procedure, and Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act. Among other findings, investigators concluded the removal was not listed on the public agenda and was improperly coordinated outside open proceedings. They recommended fines for the four councilors involved, reinstatement of Belkot, and removal of her successor from the board. The report was referred to the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office for further action.

In contrast, Clark County Today recently published an opinion arguing that the Council does possess the authority to remove a member when that member votes contrary to a policy direction previously established by the majority of councilors. That interpretation highlights language in Section 2.2(F), which directs councilors to “take action by and pursuant to the vote of at least a majority of its members.” Proponents of this view argue that representatives serving on boards are obligated to follow the Council’s collective judgment—otherwise the principle of representation is undermined. This interpretation, however, remains legally untested and contrasts sharply with the Skamania County findings.

At issue now is not only the legality of removing board representatives lacking explicit Charter authorization, but also broader questions about local accountability and independent judgment. Should councilors on external boards act as true representatives of the Council’s majority vote? Or should they be free to exercise independent judgment—even when it conflicts with a majority position? This tension animates current debates over good governance, transparency, and procedural fairness.

Why this matters
These questions matter to Longview, Kelso, and Cowlitz County residents because Council‑appointed representatives serve on boards—like C‑TRAN—that affect transit decisions, funding, public transparency, and regional representation. Understanding the limits of Council power protects not only procedural integrity but also public trust in democratic governance.