The Vancouver City Council voted on Monday to dismiss an ethics complaint filed against Councilmember Diana Perez, concluding that no violation of the city’s ethics policy occurred. The decision came after a 30‑minute discussion and a recommendation from City Attorney Nena Cook.
Background of the complaint
In May 2025, Councilmember Perez voted in favor of awarding a $100,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to the nonprofit Fourth Plain Forward. Later that year, in October 2025, Perez became an owner of a business that subsequently applied for and received a loan from Fourth Plain Forward.
Rob Anderson, founder of Reform Clark County, filed the ethics complaint, arguing that Perez’s later financial relationship with the nonprofit created an appearance of impropriety.
City Attorney’s recommendation
City Attorney Nena Cook explained that the loan Perez’s business received came from the Washington State Department of Commerce, not from city funds. Cook stated, “The complaint, on its face, alleges facts that if true would not substantiate a violation of the policy.” She added that Perez’s business did not receive any portion of the $100,000 grant, and therefore there was no direct or indirect benefit to her from the council’s contract with Fourth Plain Forward.
Cook concluded that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would not see an appearance of impropriety, because the grant money never went to Perez’s business.
Council members’ comments
Several council members acknowledged that a layperson might perceive a conflict. Councilmember Sarah Fox, who also works for the Department of Commerce, noted that she routinely recuses herself when the city and the department have overlapping business. She said, “If you even think there’s a chance where someone might worry about your impartiality, then say it out loud.” Fox also pointed out that Perez was not an owner of the business at the time of the May 2025 vote.
Councilmember Ty Stober supported Cook’s recommendation, saying, “Would it have been better if some disclosure statement had been made? Sure, but I really struggle to make the connection that there is a true impropriety in what was done.”
Councilmember Erik Paulsen asked for clarification on the definition of an “appearance of impropriety.” He summarized, “A reasonable person without knowledge of the relevant facts could perceive an appearance of impropriety. However, if they were in possession of the relevant facts, a reasonable person would conclude it wasn’t an appearance of impropriety.”
Councilmember Kim Harless, who herself faced an ethics complaint last year, warned that the policy could be used for politically motivated witch hunts and suggested that an independent ethics commission might be a better forum.
Vote and recusal
The council moved the recommendation to a voice vote. No council members were heard opposing the dismissal, and the vote was recorded as unanimous. Councilmember Perez recused herself from the discussion and the vote, adhering to the council’s conflict‑of‑interest procedures.
The council’s decision underscores its view that the facts do not support a finding of misconduct, while also recognizing the importance of transparency and the perception of impartiality in local government.
Original reporting: Clark County Today (Vancouver WA) — read the source article.
