The Nevada Commission on Ethics convened on January 16, 2025, to address significant allegations concerning compliance with a deferral agreement related to ethics case number 22-104C. The meeting began with procedural clarifications, including the recusal of certain commissioners due to their involvement in prior proceedings. Senior Deputy Attorney General Lena St. Jules was appointed as commission counsel for the case.

The primary focus of the meeting was the alleged failure of Mr. Reese to adhere to the terms of his deferral agreement, which required him to maintain compliance with ethics laws following a previous violation. Executive Director Ross Armstrong presented the case, outlining that Mr. Reese had engaged in conduct contrary to the ethics law shortly after entering the deferral agreement. This included two trips that allegedly used city resources for personal benefit, raising concerns about compliance with the ethics law.

Armstrong emphasized that the deferral agreement was intended to provide Mr. Reese with guidance and monitoring to ensure adherence to ethical standards. He argued that the commission must take action in response to the violations, as failing to do so would undermine the integrity of the deferral agreement process. Armstrong noted that the review panel had determined there was sufficient cause to proceed with the new complaints against Mr. Reese, which included conduct occurring after the deferral agreement was established.

In response, Mr. Shipman, representing Mr. Reese, argued that the deferral agreement should not be viewed as a punitive measure but rather as a corrective tool. He highlighted Mr. Reese's compliance with various requirements of the agreement, including completing ethics training and establishing a conflict-checking system. Shipman contended that the nature of the allegations in the current case differed from those in other pending cases, suggesting that the commission should not rush to adjudicate the matter without fully considering the context and Mr. Reese's efforts to comply with ethical standards.

The discussions highlighted a divide between the commission's view of the importance of strict adherence to ethical guidelines and the defense's perspective on the corrective nature of the deferral agreement. The meeting concluded with a call for further deliberation on the implications of Mr. Reese's actions and the appropriate response from the commission.

Overall, the commission's proceedings underscored the ongoing challenges in maintaining ethical standards among public officials and the complexities involved in adjudicating such cases. The next steps will involve further examination of the evidence and potential actions to address the alleged violations.