The Nevada Commission on Ethics voted on Jan. 16, 2025, to find that Devon Reese failed to comply with a deferral agreement the commission had imposed in 2023 and to vacate that agreement, sending the underlying allegations to further proceedings before the commission.

The action, moved by Vice Chair Wallen and seconded on the record, followed a presentation by Executive Director Ross Armstrong that said the review panel had found just and sufficient cause to proceed on new complaints alleging violations that occurred after Reese entered the deferral agreement in April 2023. Armstrong told the commission, “This is, in my mind, a simple and straightforward matter,” and urged the panel to vacate the deferral agreement so the commission could adjudicate the subsequent allegations.

The commission’s vote was unanimous among those voting; Commissioner Lowry abstained because she served on the review panel for the matter.

Why it matters: Deferral agreements are intended to give public officers an opportunity to correct conduct and avoid formal sanctions if they comply with specified conditions. The commission’s decision to vacate a deferral agreement and proceed to adjudication reopens the earlier matter and makes any finding from a future proceeding part of the commission’s record.

What the commission heard: Armstrong summarized the timeline in the materials: Reese entered the deferral agreement in April 2023, promptly completed required training, and then — according to the office’s investigation — engaged in two trips that produced private benefits to him totaling “in excess of $1,300.” Armstrong noted the review panel in September 2023 had determined there was just and sufficient cause to proceed on the later complaints and said that the deferral agreement’s compliance requirement applies to “all parts of your conduct.” Armstrong told the commission, in part, that if a party signs a deferral agreement and then is the subject of an investigated matter that the review panel finds has sufficient cause, that circumstance triggers the deferral agreement’s enforcement provisions.

Jonathan Shipman, counsel for Mr. Reese, argued that the matters now before the commission were factually and legally distinct from the disclosure-and-abstention allegations that gave rise to the deferral agreement. Shipman argued the deferral agreement “worked” for correcting the disclosure-related conduct and stressed that the other complaints had not been fully adjudicated. "The deferral agreement worked," Shipman said, arguing the commission need not reopen the earlier disposition solely because a review panel forwarded other allegations to the commission.

Commission discussion focused on (1) whether the review panel’s finding of just and sufficient cause to proceed satisfied the deferral agreement’s triggering condition, and (2) whether the new allegations — which the executive director described as involving alleged use of city resources for private travel — were sufficiently serious to warrant vacatur and additional proceedings. Commissioner Moran confirmed he would vote, noting he had joined his current law firm after the events in question and said he had no personal connection requiring recusal. Commission counsel Bassett disclosed a private client relationship with a law firm that had represented parties in other matters and did not participate on this item.

Outcome and next steps: The commission’s motion found Reese failed to comply with the deferral agreement, vacated the agreement, and referred the matter for further proceedings before the commission. The next step is an adjudicatory process in which the commission will consider the merits of the newly alleged violations. The executive director said that if the deferral agreement is vacated, the commission will have the opportunity to receive evidence and determine whether violations occurred and whether they were willful or not.

Clarifying details and limits: The commission’s action was based on a review panel finding of just and sufficient cause to proceed; the commission did not at this meeting make a final determination on the underlying allegations in the new complaints. The executive director’s presentation stated that the travel-related private benefit alleged in the new complaints totals more than $1,300 and that the trips occurred within months after completion of required ethics training. Commissioner Lowry abstained from the vote because she served on the prior review panel.

What the record shows next: The matter is referred for adjudication before the commission; scheduling for that adjudication was not set during the Jan. 16 meeting.