Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fernley council votes 3-2 to permanently expel Councilman Stan Laauo after misconduct hearing
Summary
After an extended hearing and debate over notice, evidence and legal risk, the Fernley City Council adopted a resolution to permanently expel Councilman Stan Laauo, 3-2. The action followed an independent investigation and testimony about two April–May 2025 incidents, including an alleged threat; Laauo apologized but disputed parts of the report.
The Fernley City Council voted 3-2 on March 4 to adopt a resolution permanently expelling Councilman Stan Laauo following a public hearing on allegations about his conduct in April and May 2025. Councilman Albert Torres introduced resolution 26-004 and read findings from an independent investigation conducted for the city.
Torres said the probe documented two incidents during regular meetings, including an April outburst and a May budget meeting incident in which he said Laauo threatened to "kick my ass" after a suggestion about the city manager. "The matter before this body affects ... personal character and competence," Torres said, and asked the council to consider sanctions up to expulsion.
Laauo addressed the council and apologized for his outbursts, saying his passion ‘‘got away with me’’ and that he had already publicly apologized on May 28. He disputed specific phrasing of the accusation, saying he had invited Torres to talk outside and denied using the phrase Torres later attributed to him. Laauo also argued he had previously been sanctioned in September 2025 and called a permanent removal a violation of voters' rights and likely to invite costly litigation.
City Attorney Aaron Mortonson advised the council on legal notice and procedural requirements for a NRS 241 hearing and confirmed certified mail service of the notice. During the hearing other council members raised concerns about double jeopardy, consistency with prior actions and the risk of litigation if the body attempted permanent removal beyond customary censure.
After extended debate over relevance of other investigations, the handling of recordings and whether permanent expulsion was lawful or prudent, Councilman Mendoza moved to adopt resolution 26-00002. The motion passed 3-2. The council then recessed briefly to effectuate the expulsion.
What happens next: Council members repeatedly warned that court review could reinstate an expelled member if the permanent removal exceeds the council’s lawful authority. Councilman Laauo said he would not resign and objected to the action, and several council members cautioned that permanent removal could trigger litigation and expense to the city.
The hearing records and the investigative report were entered into the public record during the proceeding.
