Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Complaint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clark County ethics panel rules complaint over council C Tran board vote is not an ethics violation
Summary
The Clark County Ethics Commission voted unanimously that a complaint alleging improper council procedure in removing a member from the C Tran board does not meet the county ethics code standard for misuse of public office.
The Clark County Ethics Commission voted unanimously that a complaint alleging council misconduct in a vote to remove a C Tran board member does not constitute an ethics violation.
Commissioner Adam Murray explained the commission’s role and legal standard before the vote. He said the complaint filed by Rob Anderson “does not allege misuse of a public position for personal gain. Instead, the complaint amounts to an appeal of the Clark County Council decision.” Murray said the commission’s ethics code and its governing interpretation focus primarily on abuse of public office for personal benefit, and that alleged procedural errors are matters for other bodies and for Open Public Meetings Act remedies.
The commission considered whether the complaint presented sufficient cause to warrant an ethics investigation under Clark County HR Policy 13.1 and the commission’s procedures. After discussion, Commissioner Barbara Baskerville moved that the matters addressed do not constitute an ethics violation, and the motion was seconded. Commissioners Darcy Rourke, Barbara Baskerville and Adam Murray voted in favor; the motion carried.
The panel had begun the item by moving briefly into an executive session to review the complaint and returned to public session to deliberate and vote. The complaint (No. 2025-03) alleges that county councilors violated ethical standards by voting to remove Counselor Michelle Belcott from the C Tran board and replace her with Counselor Fuentes; the commission concluded that the complaint, as presented, read as an appeal of a council decision rather than an allegation that a public servant used office for personal gain.
The commission’s counsel said state law remedies and other review bodies exist for alleged violations of the Open Public Meetings Act and cautioned the commission against acting as an appellate body for council decisions. The commission’s ruling was limited to the question of whether the complaint, under the county ethics standard, warranted further ethics investigation.
