After nearly two years of investigation, three ethics complaints against Reno City Council member Devon Reese were dismissed last month. The Nevada Commission on Ethics voted 4-2 to close the cases, saying there wasn’t enough evidence to prove wrongdoing.
Reese says he’s been cleared. But the way this played out raises big questions about government processes and what happens when investigations drag on and on.
In September, Reese announced that he’s running for mayor of Reno. This makes the timing of these dismissals particularly interesting for voters trying to decide who should lead their city.
What Happened
The ethics commission looked into complaints about Reese’s conduct as a council member. After a lengthy review, commission attorneys said they couldn’t find proof of violations. The commission voted to dismiss two complaints outright and closed a third after bringing back a deferral agreement.
A stipulated agreement says Reese:
“fully cooperated throughout the investigation and discovery process, providing detailed testimony, documentation, and third-party confirmations.”
It also states that:
“The investigation was thorough and comprehensive, lasting a significant period of time to ensure a complete and fair review.”
The agreement concludes:
“The process has demonstrated that the allegations were unfounded.”
Reese called it a complete exoneration.
The Other Side of the Story
But here’s where it gets interesting. While the final agreement says Reese cooperated, comments from commissioners and case filings tell a different story about timing.
According to documents, Reese:
“refused to provide any documents, even in response to discovery served by the executive director, until a motion to compel was granted by the commission chair.” The documents were “finally provided … more than a year after they were first requested from Reese.”
Two commissioners voted against the dismissal, suggesting they had concerns about how things unfolded.
The Original Problems
The first ethics complaint came in September 2022. It alleged Reese failed to disclose that his law firm represented city employee unions. At the same time, he was voting on those same unions’ contracts with the city. His law firm stood to benefit from the deals he was approving.
The Ethics Commission found sufficient evidence that Reese violated state ethics laws for failing to disclose financial interests when representing or counseling in an official matter and for failing to abstain from an official matter in which he has a financial interest.
In March 2023, Reese signed a deferral agreement. He had to take ethics training and stay out of trouble for two years. If he did that, the case would go away.
But then came two more complaints in March and April 2024. These were different. They were about how Reese spent taxpayer money on travel.
The Spending Problem
In summer 2023, Reese attended a three-week executive leadership training at Harvard Kennedy School that cost the city $21,651, including a $17,400 course fee. That’s more than many working families in Nevada make in months.
Travel records from these trips appear to show what appears to be a pattern of violating the city’s travel and purchasing policies. Reese charged the city for first-class airfare, extra room nights and meals at hotels on additional travel days and even for meals that were provided during conferences.
One complainant, described as an “expert in financial crimes and investigations,” said Reese “submitted frivolous official travel expenses which were extravagant and personal in nature.”
Reese claimed he paid back the extra expenses. But city records showed no such payments.
Think about that. While regular people in Reno struggle with inflation and high costs, their city councilman was flying first class and adding vacation days to work trips on the taxpayer dime.
Why This Matters
For people who believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility, this case hits on several key issues.
First, there’s the spending itself. Should city councilmembers be spending over $21,000 on Harvard training and flying first class? That’s not how most people travel for work. It’s certainly not how private businesses would handle employee travel.
Second, there’s the accountability question. When someone in government spends like this, shouldn’t there be consequences? Or at least a quick investigation?
Third, there’s the investigation process itself. Government ethics commissions are supposed to protect the public. But when investigations drag on for years with unclear results, they become tools for harassment rather than accountability.
What Comes Next
The case leaves important questions unanswered about spending oversight and ethics procedures.
City councils control millions of taxpayer dollars. The people deserve clear rules about travel spending and quick enforcement when those rules are broken.
Conservatives should push for reform. Tighter spending rules. Faster investigations. Real consequences for wasteful spending. And protection for officials against endless, drawn-out probes that become punishment regardless of the outcome.
Government should be accountable to the people. That means officials who spend wisely and investigations that move swiftly. Right now, Reno residents aren’t getting either.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
