Nevada ethics panel vacates deferral agreement for Reno council member Devon Reese

The Nevada Commission on Ethics voted on Jan. 16 to find that Reno City Council member Devon Reese failed to comply with the terms of a deferral agreement and to vacate the agreement, sending the matter for additional proceedings before the commission.

The action followed a presentation by Executive Director Ross Armstrong, who told the commission that review‑panel findings showed new complaints included conduct occurring after Reese entered the April 2023 deferral agreement and therefore triggered the deferral agreement’s compliance provisions. Armstrong said the later complaints included allegations that Reese used city resources for private travel and that the private benefit totaled in excess of $1,300.

Armstrong described the purpose of a deferral agreement as giving a person resources and monitoring to bring conduct into compliance and said the agreement’s central requirement was continued obedience to the ethics law. “The carrot in an agreement is if you comply, at the end, the case is dismissed. The stick is if you don't comply, then the case will proceed,” Armstrong said.

Jonathan Shipman, counsel for Reese, argued the prior matter that resulted in the deferral agreement involved disclosure and abstention and was not factually comparable to the later complaints alleging misuse of government resources. Shipman said the deferral agreement had produced corrective steps — training, a conflict‑check process and monitoring — and urged the commission not to re‑adjudicate the deferred matter now, arguing the other pending complaints should be adjudicated on their own merits.

After questions, deliberation in closed session and public reconvening, Vice Chair Wallen moved that the commission find Reese had failed to comply with the deferral agreement, that the deferral agreement be vacated and that the commission conduct further proceedings in the matter. The motion carried; the vote was unanimous among those voting, with Commissioner Lowry abstaining because she previously served on the review panel that handled the earlier case.

The commission’s action vacates the administrative protection the deferral agreement provided and will allow the commission to proceed to an adjudicatory phase on the earlier matter and consider the evidence and any appropriate sanction. Executive Director Armstrong told commissioners that the other two, more recent complaints were factually more complex and that scheduling for those matters had not been set, though he expected them to be ready for hearing in the first half of the year.

The commission did not make a final finding of willfulness in public session; Armstrong and Shipman both described that as an evidentiary question for a later proceeding.