Commission grants summary judgment on two ethics counts against Lander County official Ramos; willful/non-willful to be briefed

The Nevada Commission on Ethics granted summary judgment on two allegations against Cardenolo Ramos, a former Lander County public works director, finding he violated disclosure and contract-participation provisions of the Nevada ethics statutes. The commission left other allegations for later adjudication and ordered supplemental briefing on whether the conduct was willful.

Associate Counsel Bassett presented the executive director's motion for summary judgment, saying the office sought summary disposition on two counts: failure to disclose a conflict under NRS 281A.420(1) and participating as an agent of government in contract negotiations under NRS 281A.400(3). Bassett described a factual record in which Ramos proposed that the county subcontract material testing rather than have engineering firms perform testing, and identified a local materials-testing business (J and M Materials) owned by Nettie Quintana with which Ramos had family ties. Bassett said Ramos presented a contract to the county commission containing a carve-out that left materials testing to the county and that Ramos did not disclose his connection to the company either to his supervisor or in public commission meetings when invoices from J and M were approved.

Bassett argued the record showed Ramos reviewed, approved and signed J and M invoices that were later presented to the board, and that multiple depositions supported the conclusion he negotiated and participated in arrangements between the county and a person to whom he had a private commitment. Bassett asked the commission to enter findings of multiple violations tied to invoice approvals and to find Ramos violated NRS 281A.400(3).

Rebecca Brew, counsel for Ramos, disputed key factual premises and urged the commission not to grant summary judgment. Brew emphasized testimony she said showed J and M solicited business in the area, that the engineering firm set the scope of work and that no formal contract between Lander County and J and M existed prior to later actions; Brew characterized some arrangements as handshake, oral business agreements rather than formal contract negotiations. Ramos's counsel also argued county officials and others believed the relationship was widely known in the small community and that Ramos relied on county counsel and the county manager for process.

After questioning from commissioners, Commissioner Yan moved to grant summary judgment on the executive director's motion as to NRS 281A.400(3) and NRS 281A.420(1) and to deny subject Ramos relief on those counts. Commissioner Grunewell seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Vice Chair Duffer and commission counsel noted a remaining count (NRS 281A.400(2), use of office to secure unwarranted privileges) was not resolved on summary judgment and that the commission would schedule an adjudicatory hearing for unresolved matters. The commission also directed the parties to file briefs specifically addressing whether the established violations were willful or non-willful and set a process for scheduling further proceedings.

The commission's ruling resolves two statutory counts on the existing record but leaves open both factual and remedial questions: whether the violations were willful and whether additional charges will be sustained at an adjudicatory hearing. The commission authorized a scheduling order and directed counsel to prepare supplemental briefing on willfulness and appropriate sanctions.