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

The Nevada Commission on Ethics voted Jan. 16 to find that Reno City Council member Devon Reese failed to comply with a deferral agreement entered in April 2023 and to vacate that agreement, referring the matter for further proceedings before the commission.

The commission’s action followed a presentation by Executive Director Ross Armstrong, who told the commission the matter was "in my mind, a simple and straightforward matter," and described evidence the office collected showing two travel-related complaints filed after Reese signed the deferral agreement. Armstrong said the investigation found the private benefit from those trips exceeded $1,300 and that the earliest trip occurred about 90 days after the agreement was signed.

Why it matters: Deferral agreements permit respondents to avoid immediate formal adjudication if they take corrective steps. The commission’s vote means the earlier agreement will not shield Reese from a full review of the later complaints; the commission will proceed to adjudicate whether ethics violations occurred.

What the commission heard: Armstrong summarized the office’s timeline: the deferral agreement was entered in April 2023; Reese completed required ethics training in May 2023; new complaints alleging use of city resources for private travel were filed in March–April 2024; and a review panel concluded in September 2024 that there was just and sufficient cause to proceed on the new complaints. Armstrong told the commission the deferral agreement contained four requirements (training, a conflicts-checking process, disclosure when matters involving his firm appeared, and continued compliance with the ethics law) and argued the continued-obey-the-law provision had been violated.

Reese’s counsel, Jonathan Shipman, urged the commission not to vacate the deferral agreement. Shipman said the earlier matter (case 22-104C) alleged disclosure and abstention failures under the ethics law and argued those facts and the corrective steps Reese took were not comparable to the allegations in the later complaints, which involved use of government resources. "I would submit that... the deferral agreement is not a gift. It worked," Shipman said, adding that the pending matters should be adjudicated on their own merits.

Commissioners discussed whether the panel’s finding of "just and sufficient cause"—the procedural trigger in the deferral agreement—was the correct threshold to vacate the agreement. Executive Director Armstrong urged the commission not to treat a deferral agreement as an unconditional shield. "You can't be on a deferral agreement, and violate the ethics law and have nothing occur," he said.

Motion and vote: Vice Chair Wallen moved that the commission find Reese failed to comply with the deferral agreement, vacate the agreement and conduct further proceedings; the motion was seconded (second speaker not clearly named in the public transcript). The commission adopted the motion unanimously among those voting; Commissioner Lowry abstained because she had served on the original review panel.

What will happen next: With the deferral agreement vacated, the commission’s staff will prepare the adjudicatory record for hearings on the underlying allegations. Counsel and staff signaled scheduling for further proceedings will follow the commission’s usual processes.

Legal sources cited: commissioners and counsel referenced provisions of Nevada law and the commission’s practice around deferral agreements (transcript references included to NRS chapter 281A as cited during the meeting).