In the April edition of Senior Spectrum Newspaper, editors of the publication printed a story regarding an ethics complaint filed by a member of the public against Reno City Councilman Devon Reese with the Nevada Ethics Commission.

While a suggestion to retract the article was not made to Senior Spectrum by Councilman Reese, Mr. Reese suggested in an email that “we pick up an RGJ analysis of the issue.” As an update, we decided to print what the Nevada Ethics Commis- sion decided.

The Nevada Ethics Commission instructed the Executive Director to investigate alleged violations made on September 12, 2022. (Case No. 22-104C per NRS 281A.400(2), (3) and (9), and NRS 281A.420(1) and (3).
In a Review Panel, it unanimously found and concluded
that “the facts do not establish credible evidence to support a determination that just and sufficient cause exists for the Com- mission to render an opinion in the matter regarding the alleged violations of NRS 281A.400 (2), (3) and (9). However, the Review Panel unanimously finds and concludes that the facts do establish credible evidence to support a determination that just and sufficient cause exists for the Commission to render an opinion in the matter regarding the alleged violations

of NRS 281A.420(1) and (3). Nevertheless, pursuant to NRS 281A.730, the Review Panel reasonably believes that Reese’s conduct may be appropriately addressed through corrective action under the terms and conditions of a deferral agreement instead of referring these allegations to the Commission for further proceedings at this time. The deferral agreement must confirm Reese’s acknowledgment of the following:

• Comply with the Ethics Law for a specified period of two years from the Panel’s approval of the deferral agreement without being the subject of another complaint arising from an alleged violation of the Ethics Law and for which a review panel determines there is just and sufficient cause for the Commission to render an opinion in the matter;

• Receive training approved by the Executive Director within 60 days of approval of the deferral agreement;

• Develop a disclosure and abstention check process that complies with the requirements of NRS 281A.420 to be used when any issues or clients involving Hutchison & Steffan come before the Reno City Council; and

• Submit minutes from all Reno City Council Meetings refer- encing issues or clients involving Hutchison & Steffan to the Executive Director for the first year of the term of the deferral agreement.

Editor’s Note: Senior Spectrum published the following, “The Ethics Commission ruled there was sufficient evidence that Reese violated state ethics laws for failing to disclose financial interests when representing or counseling in an official matter – and for failing to abstain from an official matter in which

he has a financial interest.” While the Commission decision
did not necessarily find Councilman Reese in conflict, it did require he receive some training in disclosure and abstaining in voting on matters. After all, appearance of impropriety is what brought the complaint. It should be noted that Councilman Reese, who is employed by Hutchison & Steffan, is within the first year of the deferral agreement.

NRS 281A.420 (1) discusses requirements regarding a public officer or employee’s disclosure of conflicts of interest and abstention from voting because of certain types of conflicts; NRS281A.420(3) says a public officer shall not vote upon or advocate the passage or failure of, but may otherwise participate in the consideration of, a matter with respect to which the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in the public officer’s situation would be materially affected by: (a) The public officer’s acceptance of a gift or loan; (b) The public officer’s significant pecuniary interest; or (c) The public officer’s commitment in a private capacity to the interests of another person.