The Nevada Commission on Ethics on Oct. 16 approved a settlement resolving an ethics complaint against a trustee of the Alameda Valley General Improvement District, accepted a one-year stipulated deferral for a library-district official who accepted Super Bowl tickets, adopted its fiscal year 2024 annual report and authorized commission counsel to defend the agency and its named officials in Rodriguez v. NCOE, a lawsuit in the Second Judicial District Court.

The actions were taken during a regularly scheduled meeting held virtually and in Las Vegas; the meeting opened with roll call and two periods of public comment. Jeff Church, a member of the public, raised concerns about Trustee Rodriguez and asked, “who's paying for his legal representation,” and asked about the appeal process for a censure he had received, comments that the commission received as public comment and added to the meeting record.

Ross Armstrong, the commission’s executive director, presented the settlement terms for ethics complaint 24-05C concerning a trustee of the Alameda Valley General Improvement District. Armstrong said the investigation found the trustee used district equipment to repair his own road and other roads, and “used that equipment to improve his road, contrary to the road improvement policy.” Under the stipulation the trustee’s conduct was characterized as a single, nonwillful violation of NRS 281A.400(2); other alleged violations were dismissed. The agreement called for a $1,000 civil penalty under NRS 281A.793, a confidential letter of caution about disclosure requirements, and a training requirement if the official returns to public life within one year. The commission voted to accept the stipulated agreement and directed counsel to finalize the document; the motion carried.

On complaint 24-027C, involving an official identified in the record as Mr. Watson of a public library district, Armstrong reported that investigators found Watson accepted Super Bowl tickets valued on average at about $8,600 and used them personally. Armstrong told commissioners that Watson had asked his agency counsel whether acceptance was appropriate and was advised to accept; the ethics law’s safe-harbor provisions limited the commission’s exposure where an official reasonably follows counsel’s advice. The parties presented a stipulated deferral: a one-year deferral of enforcement so long as Watson complies with the ethics law, arranges and implements ethics training for himself and library-district staff, and works with his board to amend district policies (including a local gift limit). If Watson meets the conditions during the deferral period the alleged violation will be dismissed. Commissioners voted to accept the deferral; the motion passed, with one commissioner recorded as abstaining.

The commission also unanimously approved the fiscal year 2024 annual report as presented and amended. Armstrong said the version in the packet incorporated verified data and typographical and tense-related edits suggested by commissioners; the vote directed staff to publish the report after final formatting and data review.

On litigation, Commission Counsel Bassett asked the commission for authority to defend the commission, the executive director and sitting commissioners in Rodriguez v. NCOE, a complaint filed in the Second Judicial District Court that challenges the commission’s authority to appeal an earlier judicial review order. The commission voted to grant commission counsel authority to defend the named parties and delegated limited consultation authority to the chair and vice chair on legal decisions; counsel will return to the full commission with dispositive orders or settlement agreements.

During regular reports, Armstrong summarized recently adopted regulation changes and operational practices. He said the commission’s updated regulations are approved and include an operational clarification that a person who is certified as elected may seek an advisory opinion before taking office. The commission also adopted an internal practice for rejecting anonymous or deficient complaints: staff will notify the chair and vice chair when complaints are rejected and, where possible, reach out to the filer to allow curing defects. Armstrong said the office experienced a surge of complaints in August–September, and that recruitment for an associate counsel position has not yet produced hires; staff have temporarily shifted responsibilities to handle the workload.

Armstrong reviewed budget priorities submitted for the next legislative cycle, highlighting a requested case management system, modest outreach/training funding (including software for producing training materials), and a possible office relocation to Reno to improve recruitment and retention. Upcoming meeting dates were published; the next regular meeting was scheduled for Nov. 13 in Reno at the State Bar with a tentative Jan. 15 session.

The commission’s outreach and education report noted recent engagement at professional conferences, expanded social-media metrics and the launch of a quarterly newsletter and training feedback surveys. Armstrong said outreach staff have been directing resources to agency attorneys and planners and that training feedback shows most attendees “agree” or “strongly agree” that training increased their understanding of the ethics law.

Two members of the public spoke during the second public-comment period. Jordan Gino raised multiple concerns about judicial procedures and court fees; commissioners and staff explained that the ethics commission generally lacks jurisdiction over the judicial branch and could not address those items. The commission accepted all written public comments and will upload them to the meeting page.

Votes at a glance
- Case 24-05C (Alameda Valley GID trustee): Motion to accept stipulated agreement directing counsel to finalize the stipulation — approved. Terms: one nonwillful violation of NRS 281A.400(2); $1,000 penalty; confidential letter of caution; training requirement if returning to public life.
- Case 24-027C (Watson, library district): Motion to accept a one-year stipulated deferral conditioned on compliance, district ethics training, and policy amendments — approved; one commissioner abstained. If conditions met, alleged violation will be dismissed.
- Fiscal Year 2024 annual report: Motion to approve as amended and publish after final formatting/data review — approved unanimously.
- Rodriguez v. NCOE (Second Judicial District Court, CV24-02169): Motion to grant commission counsel authority to defend the commission and named parties and to delegate limited consultation authority to chair and vice chair — approved unanimously.

What the commission did not decide
- The commission did not take action on matters outside its statutory jurisdiction raised in public comment (for example, alleged judicial misconduct or state-legislative procedures). Staff and commissioners reiterated the commission’s limited jurisdiction under Nevada law.

Documents and next steps
- Staff will publish the finalized annual report and upload both written public comments from the meeting and the board’s adopted documents regarding the two case resolutions. Commission counsel will return to the full commission with any dispositive orders, dismissals or settlement agreements in litigation matters.