Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fernley City Council votes 3–1 to adopt resolution removing Councilman Stan Laauo
Summary
On April 15, 2026, the Fernley City Council adopted Resolution 26-002 to permanently remove Councilman Stan Laauo from the council following an independent investigation that the agenda summary said supported findings of a hostile work environment. The motion passed 3–1; Laauo declined further comment at the meeting.
The Fernley City Council voted 3–1 on April 15, 2026, to adopt Resolution 26-002, immediately removing Councilman Stan Laauo from the council following a report the agenda described as an independent investigation that supported findings of a hostile work environment.
Rebecca Brew, panel counsel for the city of Fernley, confirmed for the record that Laauo had received notice under NRS 241.0365 and could present a response; Laauo said he had no further comment. Councilman Stan Laauo also said during the public forum that he was returning a paycheck the city issued after his March 4 expulsion and reserved the right to reclaim pay if a court reinstates him.
Councilman Mendoza moved to adopt Resolution 26-002 to remove Laauo; Councilwoman Zaberski seconded. Councilman Hannon, explaining his vote, said: “At the advice of legal counsel, I'm voting no on this item. I believe this process is being mishandled and opens the city to litigation and a lawsuit.” The clerk recorded the motion as passing 3–1.
The agenda item referenced NRS 241.0365 (notice and opportunity to speak regarding character and competence) and NRS 266.240 (authority for removal). The public agenda text summarized an independent external investigation by Sutton Law and Counseling and listed possible corrective actions including censure, removal from committees, requests for resignation, and permanent expulsion under state statute.
Laauo acknowledged receipt of notice at the council table but did not dispute the investigation at the meeting. No court action or appeal was announced at the meeting; council members said the removal would take effect immediately.
Next steps identified at the meeting are procedural: the action’s effective date is immediate per the motion, and legal counsel remains involved. Councilman Hannon urged caution, noting that removal by council may expose the city to legal challenge and that statute-based recall processes exist for voters.
The council did not take additional personnel actions during the session. Any litigation or administrative follow-up related to the resolution was not detailed during the meeting.
