The Nevada Commission on Ethics on Oct. 16 accepted a stipulated agreement concluding that a vice chair of the Palo Altoino Valley General Improvement District used district equipment for roadway work and failed to disclose or abstain from votes on related matters, and imposed a $1,000 civil penalty.

The commission’s executive director, Ross Armstrong, said the commission opened an investigation after a complaint filed Jan. 22, 2024, and that the review panel referred the matter to the commission. "The investigation found that Otto, at all relevant times, was vice chair of the board, that the board had a policy for prioritizing road maintenance within the improvement district, that Mr. Otto used that equipment to improve his road, contrary to the road improvement policy," Armstrong said.

Why it matters: the commission enforces Nevada’s public ethics laws and issues sanctions, training requirements and guidance aimed at preventing conflicts of interest among local elected officials and officeholders.

The stipulated agreement, as read into the record by Armstrong, said the vice chair’s conduct will be treated as a single non‑willful violation of the ethics statute cited in the investigation, that alleged violations on other subsections were dismissed, and that the official must pay a $1,000 monetary penalty pursuant to the statute. The agreement also calls for a confidential letter of caution focused on disclosure requirements and provides that if the official returns to public life within one year he must complete required training within 60 days of starting that position.

Armstrong told commissioners the panel considered mitigating factors including that the official had no prior history before the ethics commission, cooperated with the investigation and that the road work also benefited other residents in the improvement district. Attorney Rebecca Brew, appearing for the party, thanked staff for their handling of the case: "I wanted to thank Mr. Armstrong and Ms. Bassett for their professionalism and cooperation and flexibility. This was my client’s first foray before the ethics commission," she said.

Commissioners voted to accept the terms of the stipulated agreement and directed commission counsel to finalize the legal form of the stipulation. The vote passed unanimously with the panel members who served on the review panel recused from participation in that agenda item.

The action resolves complaint number 24‑005C. The commission recorded that the dismissed counts and the letter of caution remain confidential as provided by the stipulation; the commission counsel will finalize the document for signature and formal filing.