Mesquite residents, union and city officials spar over termination of Officer Ryan Hughes; calls for transparency

At its Jan. 14 meeting, the Mesquite City Council heard more than a dozen public commenters contesting the termination of Officer Ryan Hughes and the city’s handling of an ongoing personnel investigation involving Police Chief McKay Chesley.

The Mesquite Police Officers Association (MPOA) and multiple speakers urged the council to reinstate Hughes and to follow what they described as required due‑process steps. Brent Horlock of the MPOA said the termination was “both foolish and unlawful” and predicted the city would be required to reinstate Hughes. Del Slosser, MPOA president, read a legal letter calling the city’s handling of Chief Chesley inconsistent with how officers had been treated in past investigations and asking the council to reconsider the chief’s status.

City officials and staff responded during the public comment period. The city attorney said hiring and firing decisions are made by HR and police administration, not the city attorney, and said staff had found no evidence that Hughes completed a required background check when he was originally hired. The city attorney said elements of the background process required by Nevada statute were not completed before the department submitted a name to Nevada POST for certification and that if documentation comes forward proving the checks were done, Hughes would be reinstated.

Speakers described a wide range of evidence and claims. Daniel Miller said he obtained text messages from department‑issued phones through a public‑records request and read excerpts at the meeting; multiple commenters described the messages as unprofessional and argued they supported termination. Family members and supporters of Hughes, including his father Clifford Hughes and others who said they have known Hughes for years, said those excerpts did not reflect their experience of him and that he deserved due process.

Several residents and MPOA leaders also questioned how internal investigatory material became public. Jamie Stout Owen (identified in the meeting as city manager) and other speakers noted that an internal affairs file is not ordinarily subject to public disclosure while the investigation is open and asked staff to investigate how material was released.

Council members expressed concern about the situation and asked staff to review available audits and records. One council member said the council should require staff to bring a follow‑up agenda item if staff does not voluntarily investigate the missing records and the background‑check question. No formal council action on Hughes’ employment status or on Chief Chesley occurred at the meeting; speakers requested impartial review and reiterated conflicting accounts about the presence or absence of required hiring documentation.

The meeting record shows strong public interest and repeated calls by the MPOA for reinstatement and further review. City staff stressed they were attempting to follow Nevada statutory hiring requirements and said that if Hughes can prove the missing background items existed in 2016, the city will reinstate him. The city also said it had reached out to outside counsel and to other agencies to confirm its records.

The council did not adopt a formal directive or reach a final personnel decision at the meeting. Several speakers asked the council to require independent review and to preserve confidentiality of internal‑affairs materials until the investigator’s report is complete.