Camas Matters

10/14/2026

ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST STATE HOUSE CANDIDATE — DOES IT INFLUENCE YOUR VOTE?

Vancouver City Councilmember Diana Perez, who is challenging incumbent State Representative and Washougal Mayor Dave Stuebe for Washington's 17th Legislative District, is facing an ethics complaint involving potential conflicts of interest and federal grant funding.

The complaint alleges that Perez voted to approve $100,000 in funding for an organization that subsequently provided financial assistance to a business in which she holds a 33.3% ownership interest.

The allegations raise questions about financial disclosures, eligibility for federal assistance, and potential conflicts of interest. The complainant also reports referring the matter to HUD's Office of Inspector General.

These are allegations, not findings of wrongdoing. No violation has been established by the documents we've reviewed.

Our question to residents: Do allegations like these influence your vote, or do you reserve judgment until an investigation is completed?

Camas Matters does not endorse either candidate. We believe voters deserve access to the facts and the opportunity to reach their own conclusions. While not directly a City of Camas issue, Perez or Stuebe would represent the district for which the City of Camas resides in, in Olympia.

📄 We'll provide links to the supporting documents in the comments.

10/08/2026

Come out and support our Papermakers vs Kelso at Doc Harris Stadium tomorrow, Friday October 9th at 7pm

10/06/2026

CAMAS DOESN’T JUST HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM. IT HAS A PRIORITIES PROBLEM.

Camas is staring at a projected nearly $6 MILLION General Fund budget gap. And what has consumed an extraordinary amount of City Council's time and attention?

Changing our form of government. Last night, council members Norr, Svilarich, Bourke, and Eshgi moved to change our government. Can't seem to focus on more important issues like fixing our spending problem and lack of revenue.

Council has been pursuing putting a change from our current Mayor-Council government to a Council-Manager system before voters — requiring a special February election that has been estimated will cost taxpayers roughly $60,000–$120,000.

Think about that for a moment. We're being told the City doesn't have enough money. We're discussing increasing utility taxes. We're told staffing can't be reduced. We're told services could suffer.

We're told we need more revenue.

Yet we're potentially spending tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on a special election to fundamentally restructure a form of government that isn't responsible for the City's $6 million budget problem nor will it fix it. It will just cement further bad economic decisions within our town.

How does changing who manages City Hall fix City Hall's spending problem? It doesn't. Where is this same urgency to attract businesses to Camas and fill empty storefronts? There is none. Where is the comprehensive review of consultants and outside professional services? Professional service providers pull the strings in our city.

This is also precisely why we have concerns about transferring executive authority away from a separately elected mayor and concentrating more administrative authority under a Council-appointed city manager.

While facing a nearly $6 million projected deficit, we're spending time and potentially $60,000–$120,000 of taxpayer money asking voters whether we should reorganize City Hall.

That's not solving the financial problem. Camas taxpayers are not an unlimited ATM.

Before City Hall asks residents to live with less so government can spend more, it needs to demonstrate that it has exhausted every reasonable opportunity to become more efficient.

Seems the only council members with common sense last night were Hein, Elzingre, and Senescu.

10/01/2026

WHY THE DELAY? MAYBE THE “BOOGEYMAN” DOESN’T HAVE A NAME YET.

Here's a question worth considering.

Council has now delayed action on putting the change of government before voters, with discussion shifting away from the February election and toward more public outreach. So what will be different later?

The candidates.

By waiting until the 2027 election cycle is underway, supporters of changing Camas to a Council-Manager form of government could have something they don't have today: actual mayoral candidates to point to. The ballot deadline for August is April 30, 2027, precisely one week before candidate filing.

And that creates an obvious opportunity to turn a candidate—or candidates—into the “boogeyman.” That's Camas City Councilmember John Norr's preferred argument for change.

Instead of having to demonstrate what is actually broken with Camas' current government, the debate can become:

"Do you really want THAT person to have the power of mayor?"

That's a red herring.

A fundamental change in how Camas is governed should be evaluated on the merits of the two systems—not on whether someone likes or dislikes whoever happens to be running for mayor in one particular election.

We've already heard the hypothetical argument that Camas is “one election away from chaos" from John Norr (no one else seems to be in that camp). Once candidates declare, that hypothetical suddenly gets a name and a face.

Residents should recognize the difference.

And we're also not convinced that relatively low attendance at these government-change events demonstrates that residents simply “need more education.” There's another perfectly reasonable explanation: a large portion of the community may simply not believe there's a problem requiring a change in the first place.

More information and public participation are always worthwhile. But lack of enthusiasm shouldn't automatically be interpreted as lack of understanding.

So when this discussion comes back, pay attention to whether the argument remains about the structure of government—or suddenly becomes about who is running for mayor.

Those are two very different questions.

09/29/2026

BEFORE CAMAS CHANGES ITS GOVERNMENT, MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE HISTORY

The debate over changing Camas from Mayor-Council to Council-Manager isn't happening in a vacuum. Some of the same people recommending the change today were involved in a very real power struggle with Mayor Barry McDonnell's administration in 2021.

It's no wonder he quit. And the emails tell an interesting story.

During a dispute over Council authority and meeting procedures, then-Councilmember Greg Anderson circulated private notes to Bonnie Carter and Steve Hogan describing the administration's actions as an “obstruction” and “lockout.”

One benefit Anderson listed for Council pushing back?
“Keep control.”

And one potential downside?
“Some may see this as anti Jamal, anti Barry (personal).”

Anderson, Carter, Burton and Hogan ultimately joined together in calling a special meeting concerning Council's ability to set agendas and modify meetings. The conflict was apparently noticeable outside City Hall.

Councilmember Melissa Smith wrote at the time that she'd heard a rumor that “Council does not like our Mayor and City Administrator,” while making clear that she personally trusted the administration. When McDonnell resigned months later, he wrote that Council had been “very critical of the executive branch in our government, but not so much on their own actions.”

Now fast-forward to 2026.

Mayor Steve Hogan selected Greg Anderson and Ellen Burton to serve on the committee examining whether Camas should change its form of government. The committee majority ultimately recommended Council-Manager. Anderson also initiated the 2018 examination of this same change, saying at the time there was “no current situation that caused this study.”

And in 2026, committee chair Nan Henriksen acknowledged:
“We are not here because something is broken.”

That's the part residents should think about.

Under our current system, the mayor is independently elected by the voters and can disagree with Council. Under Council-Manager, Council selects the professional manager responsible for city administration.

That doesn't prove Anderson, Burton or Hogan have improper motives. But their history makes the question entirely legitimate:
Why are people who previously fought with an independently elected mayor over authority and control now recommending a system that shifts executive authority away from the independently elected mayor and toward a manager selected by Council?

And if, by the committee's own admission, nothing is broken, what exactly are we fixing?

Maybe before Camas changes its government, residents deserve a very clear answer to that question.

09/26/2026

Congratulations to our Camas High School Papermakers in their win over Union High School last night!

09/25/2026

John Svilarich: The Conviction Camas Shouldn’t Forget

Camas City Councilmember John Svilarich is a convicted criminal. That is not an insult or political hyperbole. He pleaded guilty in Clark County Superior Court to fourth-degree assault, a gross misdemeanor, on December 18, 2025.

The conviction arose from an August 2024 confrontation on the Washougal River Greenway. Svilarich was accused of throwing a rock during an argument over a cigarette butt and pointing a fi***rm at the other man. Prosecutors originally charged him with second-degree assault with a deadly weapon — a felony — and reckless endangerment. The case ultimately ended with his guilty plea to fourth-degree assault under a plea agreement.

Perhaps even more troubling is what happened afterward.

When the Camas City Council formally reprimanded Svilarich, it specifically cited “a lack of remorse or acceptance of responsibility for doing anything wrong.” The Council concluded that his conduct violated its standards of accountability and responsibility and brought disrepute to the City and City Council.
Residents can judge his conduct in office for themselves as well.

Svilarich has supported tax increases and is among the councilmembers supporting the effort to replace Camas' current mayor-council government with a council-manager system — a change that would transfer executive authority from the independently elected mayor to a professional city manager selected by the council.

Camas Matters (and the court system) believes elected officials should be held to a high standard, particularly when exercising power over residents, taxes and the structure of their government.

Svilarich's current at-large term expires December 31, 2027.

When that election arrives, residents will have the opportunity to examine his entire record and decide whether they want him representing Camas for another four years.

And other Camas residents will have the opportunity to run for that seat. We hope they do.

Because whether the disagreement is about a cigarette butt, a tax increase, the structure of our government or something said at a City Council meeting, residents should be able to disagree with their elected representatives without being treated with contempt.

Remember the record. Read the documents. Watch the meetings. And make your voice heard at the ballot box.

09/24/2026

Good chance to meet your local firefighters and learn a thing or two about fire safety. Saturday, September 26th from 10am-2pm at Station 42.

09/23/2026

Their decisions also affect Camas residents. We encourage you to attend and listen to how they will work to make your lives better.

Join us for a free, nonpartisan candidate forum focused on public education on Monday, October 5 at Discovery High School! Doors open at 6:15 p.m and the forum runs 6:30 to 8:00 p.m.

The Camas School District Legislative Advocacy Committee has invited the following candidates:
3rd U.S. Congressional District: John Braun and Marie Gluensenkamp Perez
17th Legislative District, Position 1: Ben Christly and Kevin Waters
17th Legislative District, Position 2: Diana Perez and David Stuebe

Committee members and Camas High School students will moderate. Each pair of candidates will receive the same prepared questions, and the forum will be recorded.
The event is open to everyone. Signs and campaign materials are not permitted inside the building.

09/22/2026

CONDEMN FIRST, FIGURE OUT THE DETAILS LATER?

Monday night’s Camas City Council meeting on the Lake Road/Sierra roundabout exposed what looks like a remarkably **incomplete and disorganized process** for something as serious as eminent domain.

Affected homeowners Steven Nelson and Kelly Green aren't trying to stop the roundabout. Nelson told Council they would **GIVE the City the roughly 256 square feet it needs without compensation.** Their condition? Address the increased traffic noise affecting their home with an appropriate sound barrier.

According to Nelson and Green, **the City NEVER contacted them to sit down and try to resolve that issue before initiating condemnation proceedings.**

Even more troubling, the City's own consultants have known about the noise concern for more than two years. A 2024 MacKay Sposito email discussed noise barriers and monitoring—including the remarkable comment by Jason Irving that actual noise monitoring “may open a can of worms.” A later noise analysis was prepared, yet Nelson testified that the consultant never even visited the property.

When Councilmembers asked whether the sound issue could be resolved first, they were repeatedly told by City attorney Shawn MacPherson that condemnation and noise mitigation were “two separate things.”

Sure. But separate doesn't mean condemnation had to come first. Who's running this city? The attorney or the mayor?!?!?!?

The project isn't scheduled for construction until 2027. Why not finish negotiating with homeowners who say they're willing to voluntarily provide the property before authorizing the government to take it?

Instead, Council authorized condemnation 6–1, with Camas City Council Jennifer Senescu the lone NO vote. The sound-wall issue? Councilmember Tim Hein requested that it be discussed later.

So the process effectively became:

-Condemn the property now.
-Discuss the homeowner's unresolved concern later.

Translation: we're taking your property, screw your noise concerns.

Camas unquestionably has eminent-domain authority for legitimate street projects. The bigger question is whether it should be reaching for that extraordinary power before it has exhausted a reasonable path to voluntary agreement.

When homeowners are willing to give you the land you need, perhaps the first response shouldn't be “See you in Superior Court.”

As a side note, Camas City council has clearly shown they shouldn't be given power via a government change - they can't even govern properly under the current model.