Commission on Ethics subcommittee backs draft to amend Nevada ethics law

The Commission on Ethics legislative subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend that the full commission approve a bill draft to amend Nevada Revised Statutes chapter 281A for submission to the full commission and, ultimately, the 2023 legislative session.

The subcommittee’s executive director, Ross Armstrong, presented a cleaned-up “bill draft request language for the 2023 legislative session” that retains language from AB 65 and adds new clarifications and procedural changes. “Blue and red text is the language from AB 65 last session…and text in green is either new deletions or additions,” Armstrong said.

The draft would preserve certain section numbering from the prior AB 65 text to ease Legislative Counsel Bureau review and makes a range of changes: clarified definitions and confidentiality rules; explicit statutory authority for settlement conferences and approval of deferral agreements by review-panel members (with party consent); a revised notice-of-investigation process intended to protect complainant confidentiality; narrowed “cooling off” restrictions aimed at decision-makers rather than rank-and-file staff; limited availability of extensions (a single extension) for scheduling adjudicatory proceedings; and, proposed an effective date change from July 1 to Oct. 1 to allow time for system and notice updates.

During discussion, commissioners asked for clarifications about several provisions. Chair Wallen sought explanation of new language allowing review-panel members to participate as mediators and approve deferral agreements after a panel determination; Armstrong and counsel Chase explained the change provides statutory authority for a practice the office already uses in settlement conferences. Counsel Chase and staff also agreed to change a provision that read “shall” issue a letter on dismissal to “may” issue such a letter, following a commissioner’s question about the inconsistency.

The draft would replace sending subjects a full copy of a complaint with a notice of investigation intended to give subjects clearer information while protecting complainants’ identities. Armstrong said the notice should help subjects better understand allegations and reduce confusion. He also described that procedural changes may take effect on the bill’s effective date while substantive elements tied to the definitions of violations would not be retroactive: “Procedural matters can be effective when their effective date is because that doesn't change the actual allegations,” counsel Chase said.

Several commissioners praised staff and counsel for consolidating the language and preparing a readable draft for the full commission and legislators. “Ross has done a great job…this is easy to read, easy to get,” Commissioner Hoskerson said. The subcommittee voted to forward the draft, with commissioners indicating readiness to negotiate language during the legislative process and to meet with legislative leadership before session.

No members of the public offered comment at the subcommittee meeting; one attendee, identified as “Miss Case,” attended as an observer and did not speak.

The subcommittee also discussed next steps: submission of the BDRs to the governor’s office (which will decide which agency requests it will carry) and the need for potential regulations to implement procedural changes. Armstrong recommended the Oct. 1 effective date to allow time for notices and system updates.

The vote to recommend the bill draft to the full commission passed by voice vote; commissioners present voted in favor and the chair declared the motion carried.