The Nevada Commission on Ethics on Nov. 13 discussed changes to how commissioners are notified and vote on advisory-opinion requests and complaints after staff said annual incoming cases have more than doubled since fiscal 2019.

Executive Director Armstrong told commissioners that the commission’s historical annual average for incoming cases was about 74 before fiscal 2019 and that the current volume makes the old practice of holding a hearing on every advisory opinion infeasible. "Are there different ways the commission would like to see it?" Armstrong asked, outlining options including continuing the current individual-email approach, sending one weekly email with all cases, or shifting votes to a SharePoint platform with electronic forms.

Why it matters: Commissioners routinely vote by email on jurisdiction and dispositions for complaints and advisory opinions. As caseloads rise, staff say a more automated system could reduce the time they now spend tallying replies and preparing vote announcements.

Commissioners generally supported keeping individual emails for convenience but favored adding a weekly summary of outstanding items. Vice Chair Wallen and Commissioner Langton said individual emails help them track and respond to items at different times, while several commissioners and staff said a SharePoint form would let staff automate vote tallies and reduce the risk of losing voting records in mixed inboxes.

Commissioner Langton said he "especially appreciate[d] the individual emails" but liked the summary list staff recently circulated. Commissioner Olsen said individual emails were useful but a weekly summary would help ensure commissioners didn't miss anything.

Staff described other proposed changes to save time on routine dismissals. Armstrong said staff could prepare shorter dismissal recommendations for clear-cut matters — for example, where a complainant is not a public officer — while reserving full analysis for close cases or dismissals with compliance conditions.

Concerns raised included the need to preserve the ability to pose questions and flag concerns before voting. Several commissioners stressed that any platform should permit questions or comments tied to a specific vote so concerns are visible to the full panel before finalizing an outcome.

Staff noted they had tested a SharePoint voting form and could add a comment box for commissioners to record questions or dissenting views. Armstrong said the office would prepare step-by-step guidance and offer training for commissioners who are unfamiliar with SharePoint before any transition.

No formal vote or policy change was taken; staff said they would implement incremental changes based on feedback (weekly summaries, test the SharePoint form more broadly and provide training).