Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Complaint Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves stipulated agreement resolving complaint against Board of Homeopathic Medical Ex‑aminer official
Summary
The Nevada Commission on Ethics adopted a stipulated agreement resolving complaint 20Four‑109C against Charles Green, finding a single non‑willful violation of the statutory disclosure rule and imposing a $500 penalty (with $250 suspended) and other conditions.
The Nevada Commission on Ethics approved a stipulated agreement resolving complaint 20Four‑109C against Charles Green, former secretary‑treasurer of the Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners, concluding he committed a single non‑willful violation of the state disclosure law and imposing a $500 monetary penalty, $250 of which was suspended.
The settlement, presented by Executive Director Russell Armstrong, says investigators found Green did not appropriately disclose or abstain during a board meeting at which the board voted to compensate him. Armstrong told the commission the board’s enabling statute specifically allows payment for the secretary‑treasurer role, and that the settlement reflects those statutory factors as well as operational irregularities in how the meeting was run.
"The resolution is that Dr. Green will agree to one non‑willful violation of NRS 281A.420 subsection 1," Armstrong said, adding the terms include a $500 monetary penalty with $250 suspended, an admonishment from the commission, the requirement that Green provide the board any materials it needs to continue its work, and that he no longer serve on the board; if he returns to public service he must complete training.
Attorney Tanner, who identified himself as counsel for Charles Green, told the commission the parties were in agreement on the terms. Commissioner Miller moved to accept the stipulated agreement; the motion passed on a 5–0 vote with Vice Chair Wallen and Commissioner Lowery abstaining. The motion directed commission counsel to formalize the agreement in the appropriate legal form.
Commission staff emphasized that the review panel for the matter had included Vice Chair Wallen and Commissioner Lowery, who were therefore precluded from further participation in the proceeding under NRS 281A.220(4). Armstrong also noted the Department of Business and Industry is examining related operational matters involving the board.
The commission’s recorded outcome lists five affirmative votes, two abstentions, the monetary penalty and conditions described above, and an admonishment as part of the stipulated disposition. No contested hearing was held; the parties negotiated the resolution during a settlement conference with a settlement commissioner assigned by the commission.
