Nevada Commission on Ethics vacates Devon Reese deferral agreement, orders further proceedings

The Nevada Commission on Ethics voted Friday to find that Devon Reese failed to comply with a previously issued deferral agreement and to vacate that agreement, sending the underlying matter to further proceedings before the commission.

The vote followed presentations from Executive Director Ross Armstrong and counsel for Reese. Armstrong told commissioners the case “is, in my mind, a simple and straightforward matter,” and said the commission’s investigation showed two trips that provided private benefit to Reese with a total value “in excess of $1,300.” He said those trips occurred after Reese signed a deferral agreement in April 2023 and after Reese completed required ethics training.

The commission’s action matters because a deferral agreement is intended to give a subject time and assistance to bring conduct into compliance; the commission said a review-panel finding of just and sufficient cause on a subsequent complaint is the contract trigger to consider vacating a deferral.

Armstrong outlined the timeline in the materials provided to the commission: a deferral agreement signed in April 2023, training completed in May 2023, two trips within months after the agreement, complaints filed later and an investigation that led a review panel in September to find just and sufficient cause to proceed on at least one subsequent complaint. Armstrong said the panel finding — not merely the filing of a complaint — is the contractual trigger for a violation of the deferral agreement and that the commission should not allow a party to remain on a deferral agreement after that trigger occurs.

Jonathan Shipman, counsel for Reese, acknowledged that the review panel moved the subsequent matter forward but urged the commission not to vacate the deferral agreement. Shipman argued the matters pending before the commission are factually distinct (one concerns disclosure and abstention, the others involve alleged misuse of city funds for travel) and said the corrective measures required by the earlier deferral — training, a conflict-checking process and disclosures — had been implemented. He said the pending matters had not yet been adjudicated and urged that the commission not re-open the earlier deferral case for additional proceedings as a matter of efficiency and fairness.

Commissioners asked questions about the scope of the deferral agreement, the standard that triggers vacatur, and whether findings in the pending, separate complaints could be used later in adjudications. Armstrong and counsel explained the office’s view that the agreement requires compliance with NRS chapter 281A in all material respects and that a review-panel determination of just and sufficient cause on a post-agreement complaint is the contract trigger.

After a closed-session discussion with counsel, Vice Chair Wallen moved that the commission find Reese failed to comply with the deferral agreement; Wallen also moved that the commission vacate the agreement and conduct further proceedings in the matter. The motion was seconded. The motion carried unanimously among those voting; Commissioner Lowry abstained because she had served on the review panel that considered the subsequent complaint.

The commission will schedule further adjudicatory proceedings so the facts underlying the panel’s determination can be litigated before the full commission. The executive director said that, if the commission referred the vacated deferral agreement for adjudication, the commission could then determine whether any violations were willful or nonwillful and consider appropriate remedies.

The action does not itself resolve the merits of the separate, pending complaints about alleged misuse of city funds; those matters remain scheduled for later proceedings and, as counsel noted, will be decided on their own merits.

Ending: The commission’s vote to vacate the deferral agreement returns the matter to the formal adjudicatory track; the executive director and commission counsel said they will notify the parties and issue a scheduling order for the next phase of proceedings.