Nevada Commission on Ethics weighs switching case-vote emails to SharePoint to reduce workload

The Nevada Commission on Ethics debated changes to how commissioners receive and vote on advisory-opinion requests and complaints, including a proposal to move from individual email ballots to a SharePoint-based workflow and to shorten dismissal recommendations for clear-cut cases.

Executive Director Ross Armstrong told the commission the office’s incoming caseload has more than doubled from a pre‑fiscal‑2019 average of about 74 cases a year and that staff are proposing process changes to reduce repetitive work and speed decisions. “Every once in a while, it’s good to kind of bring the nitty‑gritty process to the commission,” Armstrong said when opening the discussion.

Why it matters: Commissioners are sent many individual emails to vote on jurisdictional or dismissal recommendations, and staff currently tallies replies manually. Commissioners and staff said that manual tallying creates extra work and a risk if staff are unavailable. Using SharePoint would allow automated voting and a central, persistent list of pending items, staff said.

Commission counsel Bassett and staff described options: keep the current email system, send a single weekly email with that week’s cases, send one designated day of the week for case packets, or shift to a SharePoint page with an electronic voting form. Commissioners generally favored trying SharePoint with training and a one‑page guide, saying it could reduce inbox clutter and make vote tallies auditable.

Commissioners who spoke favored different elements of the hybrid approach. Commissioner Langton said he values individual emails because they are easier to mark unread and track, but he also appreciated a periodic summary list. Vice Chair Wallen and others said reply‑all should be limited to comments or objections to reduce unnecessary reply chains. Several commissioners recommended a live weekly summary in SharePoint plus individual notifications for new items.

Staff also proposed triaging written materials: for some recommended dismissals where the facts are straightforward—statute of limitations or non‑public‑officer status—staff would provide shorter, two‑page recommendations instead of full analyses. Commissioners were cautiously supportive but emphasized that dismissals published to the public should explain the reason for dismissal so outsiders understand the outcome.

The discussion produced no formal vote; staff said they will develop a SharePoint pilot, training materials and a proposed approach for truncating dismissal recommendations and return with implementation details.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to prepare a SharePoint pilot, a short how‑to guide, and adjusted templates for dismissal recommendations before launching the new process.