Ethics Commission subcommittee outlines AB 65 priorities, tables ‘abuse of power’ language

The Commission on Ethics legislative subcommittee met remotely and reviewed recommended bill draft request (BDR) language derived from last session’s AB 65, focusing on definitional cleanups, confidentiality and investigatory procedures, advisory-opinion timelines and related process changes. Chair Wallen called the item and asked Executive Director Armstrong to present staff recommendations drawn from an AB 65 reference guide provided to commissioners.

Staff grouped proposals into three priority tiers: Tier 1 (recommended to keep), Tier 2 (desirable but negotiable) and lower-priority items for substantial revision. Executive Director Armstrong and Commission Counsel Tracy Chase walked commissioners through individual sections and noted examples where language had generated litigation or legislative concern last session.

The subcommittee agreed to preserve definitional cleanup and improvements aligning the ethics law with Nevada’s open-meeting law (including a mechanism for confidential legal sessions tied to chair delegation, discussed in connection with the Hansen and Wheeler litigation). Commissioners supported removing a proposed mandate that subjects personally “cooperate” with investigations, citing existing subpoena powers and enforcement remedies.

A contested proposal would have added a standalone violation for "gross or unconscionable abuse of power." Commissioners including Campbell and Oskarsson expressed concern the language was overly broad, would invite meritless complaints, and lacked workable definitions. Commissioner Campbell and others said workplace harassment and personnel matters are often handled through human-resources or other existing procedures; the subcommittee agreed to table that provision pending targeted drafting and research by staff and Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB).

Other actions the panel discussed or agreed to advance included: removing a statutory requirement that the executive director be a licensed attorney; formally authorizing a settlement/mediation process using a panel member as mediator; clarifying the commission’s ability to subpoena personnel records while preserving investigatory confidentiality; narrowing "cooling-off" restrictions to avoid capturing staff who had no role in contract awards; and changing the advisory-opinion and investigatory timelines to allow limited extensions and to ensure the 45-day advisory-opinion clock begins only after all necessary facts are submitted.

Commission counsel and staff recommended dropping or limiting provisions that would permit informal, appellate-binding "hotline" advice from staff because of capacity, recordkeeping and appellate-process concerns. Commissioners asked staff to return with narrower options (for example, limiting informal advice to agency counsel) and with redlined draft language to clarify intended changes.

On records and referrals, staff recommended against a standing statutory authorization to share confidential investigatory files proactively with law-enforcement agencies, noting existing statutory referral options (NRS 281A.790(7)) and the practical limits created by other agencies’ confidentiality rules. Commissioners asked that orders include clear referrals and contact information when a complaint is outside the commission’s jurisdiction.

Commissioners also discussed procedural clarifications for preliminary jurisdictional fact-finding, party status timing, and review-panel timelines. Several commissioners urged concise, plain-language drafting to improve legislative reception and to reduce the bill’s length; staff said they will produce mock-ups that show prior and proposed language (redline-style) for the next meeting.

After the discussion, a motion was made and seconded to direct staff to proceed with the recommendations discussed and return refined language to the subcommittee and full commission; the subcommittee voted in favor and the motion carried. Chair Wallen and commissioners said staff would meet again in early May and bring a near-final packet to the full Commission by the May 18 meeting so the BDR can be submitted within the statutory timeline.

The advisory-opinion timing, informal-advice limits, subpoena authority for personnel files, cooling-off narrowing, and the treatment of legislative jurisdiction were flagged for follow-up work. The "gross or unconscionable abuse of power" provision was explicitly tabled for more precise drafting and comparative research with other states. The subcommittee adjourned after confirming no public comments were received during the session.