Nevada’s Ethics Commission: All Bark, No Bite
In Nevada, the Commission on Ethics is charged with safeguarding public trust by enforcing the Nevada Ethics in Government Law, ensuring elected officials prioritize the public good over personal gain. This eight-member body, balanced with four appointments each from the Governor and Legislative Commission and capped at four members from any one political party or county, has sought to be a cornerstone of ethical oversight since its reformation in 1985. Yet, critics question whether it truly holds politicians accountable or merely acts as a hollow watchdog, dispensing “wrist slaps” that fail to curb misconduct. Despite its efforts to investigate complaints, offer advisory opinions, provide ethics training, and impose penalties, the Commission’s modest penalties often allow repeat offenders to evade serious consequences.
While several officials have faced one-off ethics complaints, a handful of serial offenders repeatedly draw allegations, yet face minimal repercussions, further fueling skepticism about the Commission’s effectiveness.
Reno City Councilmember Devon Reese exemplifies the Nevada Ethics Commission’s struggle to hold repeat offenders accountable, as multiple investigations into alleged ethical misconduct have resulted in minimal penalties, allowing him to sustain his political influence. In 2021, Reese faced allegations of voting on city contracts that benefited clients of his law firm, sparking significant conflict-of-interest concerns; the Commission dismissed the case for insufficient evidence (Reno Gazette-Journal). In 2023, a second probe found he failed to disclose business relationships with employee unions during contract negotiations, leading to a deferral agreement requiring ethics training and two years of compliance with ethics laws (This Is Reno). In 2024, two complaints filed on March 18 and April 22 accused Reese of misusing city resources, including excessive travel expenses and first-class airfare with no clear public benefit; a review panel found credible evidence, advancing the case for investigation (KOLO News). In January 2025, the Commission unanimously vacated the 2023 deferral agreement after determining that Reese violated its terms with the 2024 travel-related misconduct, reopening a full investigation into all allegations. Despite these repeated probes, Reese continues to hold his position and wield significant influence.
Former Governor Steve Sisolak was investigated multiple times during his tenure as Clark County Commissioner and governor. In 2016, as a commissioner, he faced scrutiny for accepting campaign contributions from developers with pending county projects, resulting in a $3,000 fine. In 2020, as governor, the Commission investigated allegations that he used state resources for campaign purposes, imposing a $4,500 fine and censure. Despite these violations, Sisolak’s political career continued unabated until his 2022 re-election loss, prompting critics to call the Commission’s penalties mere “slaps on the wrist” for a high-profile repeat offender.
Former Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson was investigated twice for ethics issues. In 2015, the Commission found he failed to disclose a conflict of interest when voting on legislation benefiting a company tied to his law firm, levying a $2,000 fine. In 2018, another complaint alleged he pressured a state agency to favor a client, resulting in a $6,000 fine and ethics training. Roberson’s violations drew criticism as evidence of systemic leniency, as he maintained his influence and later pursued a judicial candidacy, with the Commission’s fines seen as inconsequential for a powerful repeat violator.
These cases fuel speculation that the Commission’s penalties fail to match the gravity of violations, particularly for high-profile officials. The fine structure, unchanged for over two decades, is seen as outdated, with penalties amounting to “pocket change” for well-connected politicians. Additionally, the Commission’s inability to directly remove officials or impose criminal penalties limits its deterrent effect, allowing violators to continue their careers with minimal disruption.
Defenders of the Commission argue that its primary goal is to ensure future compliance rather than punish harshly. The Commission’s advisory opinions and training programs help prevent violations, and its fines, while modest, carry reputational weight. In some cases, employers may terminate employees found in violation, amplifying the consequences. The Commission’s limited jurisdiction over legislators and judges also reflects Nevada’s separation of powers, ensuring that each branch maintains its own accountability mechanisms.
With rising public calls for accountability, strengthening the Commission—through higher fines, broader authority, or increased resources—could elevate it from a paper tiger to a robust defender of public trust.
