VANCOUVER, Wash. – On Monday, Oct. 26, the Vancouver City Council will consider Item 13 (subject to change), a memorandum prepared by City Attorney Nena Cook that recommends dismissing an ethics complaint filed against Councilmember Diana Perez. The memo, dated Oct. 20, has been sharply criticized by the complainant, Reform Clark County founder Rob Anderson, who says it misrepresents his filing and exceeds the authority granted by Policy 100-36.
Allegations of Overreach
Anderson’s letter to the city attorney calls the memo “a gross misrepresentation of the complaint I actually filed, produced by actions Policy 100-36 does not allow.” He argues that Section 9.0 of the policy limits the attorney’s role to a facial review – determining whether the complaint, if true, would substantiate a violation – and that any investigative work belongs to an outside investigator. Anderson contends the memo goes beyond that narrow task by gathering Secretary of State filings, relying on Councilmember Perez’s own account of a loan source, and “verifying” that account, which he says amounts to an investigation.
Selective Analysis
The memorandum lists every provision cited in the complaint – Sections 5.0, 6.0(B), 6.0(F), 6.0(G), and the federal CDBG conflict rule (24 C.F.R. § 570.611) – but Anderson says it only analyzes one question: whether Perez had an interest in a $100,000 contract. The appearance‑of‑impropriety allegation under Section 5.0 receives no discussion. Anderson asks, “If, on their face, all allegations are accepted as true, how could this not justify, at the very least, an Appearance of Impropriety investigation and hearing?”
Mischaracterization of the Complaint
According to Anderson, the memo incorrectly claims his complaint alleges Perez co‑owned the Kit‑Tea Café when she voted to fund Fourth Plain Forward (FPF) in May 2025. The actual complaint, he says, alleges that after voting to fund FPF, Perez obtained a loan, a realtor referral, and other assistance for her own business from FPF – an organization that receives significant City CDBG money. The memo spends a page refuting the co‑ownership claim, a claim Anderson never made.
Ignored Supplemental Allegations
The memo acknowledges the Oct. 12 supplemental portion of the complaint but fails to address two of its key allegations. First, Anderson says the supplemental notes that county CDBG contracts exclude Vancouver businesses, meaning any FPF assistance Perez received was effectively city‑supported. Second, the supplemental asserts that Perez’s reported income exceeds the federal low‑ and moderate‑income limit. The memo also omits discussion of Perez’s Sept. 21, 2026 vote on the FPF CDBG results report to HUD, which was cast without disclosure or recusal, and a $2,500 FPF micro‑grant to the café’s owners that was disclosed only after the memo was issued.
Requested Remedy
Anderson asks that the memorandum be withdrawn or corrected, that each cited provision be evaluated on its face, and that the council refer the matter to an outside investigator based on a proper memo. He also requests that Perez be excluded from any investigative process. “The public is entitled to a process that follows the Policy,” he wrote, “not one that shields a sitting Councilmember.”
Upcoming Council Action
The Vancouver City Council meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. at City Hall on Oct. 26. Written comments and online sign‑up for Item 13 close at noon that day. Residents who wish to weigh in can submit comments through the city’s official portal.
About Reform Clark County
Reform Clark County is a citizen watchdog group focused on transparency and ethics in local government. The organization frequently files complaints and monitors compliance with ethics policies across Clark County.
Original reporting: Clark County Today (Vancouver WA) — read the source article.
