CC Ethics review commission 11/21/24
Observer: Jackie Lane
(Disclaimer – JL is currently on the board of Friends of Clark County, mentioned in one of the complaints)
All commissioners and legal counsel (Chris Cook) present. 10 online attendees. Can’t see the hearing room.
3 submitted complaints: 2024-06, 2024-11, 2024-12
Ethics Review Commission | Clark County
(2024-06 was previously reviewed and found to possibly be a violation. From the June 27 minutes: In the case complaint number 2024-06, Lynn Mueller vs Vanessa Gaston, Clark County Director of Community Services, it was MOVED by Commissioner Baskerville that reasonable cause exists to warrant an investigation. Commissioner Rourk seconded the motion. All aye/Motion passed.)
Public Comment - none
Immediately to executive session. The agenda says they will review the complaints first but that was not done. Sent email asking about that.
Return at 11:35
2024-06: Investigation completed. Need time to review report, continued to next meeting.
2024-11: Rodney Harvey complainant, deputy fire marshal Noble: violated HR policy to get space at fairgrounds for himself and family. 13.1 subsection 2. There is sufficient cause to warrant investigation. Will proceed.
2024-12: Filed by Gary Medvigy, who forwarded email from CCCU (Clark County Citizens United) claiming Sue Marshall has a conflict of interest. CCCU is still researching. Claims Sue should recuse herself from land use/comp plan decisions. They (Commission) are assuming this is a complaint from Gary since he forwarded. Allegations suggest past conflicts, not current. No cause to warrant investigation into this complaint. They don’t have enough information from Gary to proceed. Noted that CCCU did not file the complaint. (that is likely an email that showed up amid public comment for something – issue is Sue’s prior membership on the board of Friends of Clark County, which she quit before running for County Council).
Other business:
Chris Cook and Kathleen Otto re: comments from the public: Why are we having special meetings. Business process has a timeline for initial review which is tighter than quarterly meetings. Either have more meetings or remove timeline and say “at next quarterly meeting”. Cook: 15 days is not adequate for HR director to do the initial investigation.
At next quarterly meeting will consider changing the bylaws to deal with timing issues, staying with the quarterly meeting. Want time to look at bylaws and business procedure and consider changes.