The Nevada Commission on Ethics convened on July 6, 2025, to address an alleged violation of a deferral agreement related to ethics case number 22-104C involving Councilman Reese. The meeting focused on whether Reese failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, which required him to adhere to ethics laws following a previous complaint.

During the proceedings, Mr. Armstrong presented the case, highlighting that Reese had engaged in conduct contrary to ethics laws shortly after entering the deferral agreement in April 2023. The agreement mandated that Reese complete ethics training, submit disclosures regarding conflicts of interest, and maintain compliance with ethics laws. However, evidence indicated that Reese participated in unethical behavior, including using city resources for personal travel, just months after the agreement was established.

Armstrong emphasized that the review panel had determined there was sufficient cause to proceed with the new complaints against Reese, which included two ethics complaints filed after the deferral agreement was signed. He argued that the deferral agreement was intended to provide guidance and support for Reese to comply with ethics laws, and that violations should not go unaddressed.

Mr. Shipman, representing the city attorney's office, clarified that the current case differed from other pending cases against Reese, which involved allegations of misuse of city funds. He noted that the current case centered on disclosure and abstention violations, specifically regarding Reese's voting on a collective bargaining agreement.

The commission's decision on whether to uphold the deferral agreement or take further action against Reese will have significant implications for the enforcement of ethics laws in Nevada. The outcome could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding compliance with deferral agreements and the consequences of violations.