Reese Slams Ethics Panel After His Allegations Are Dropped

A Reno Ethics Commissioner Resigns, Citing Concerns Over Investigation Process

A member of the Reno Ethics Commission has stepped down from his position, voicing significant apprehension about the direction of a recent high-profile investigation. The commissioner, who served for several years, publicly announced his departure, stating he could no longer in good conscience participate in a process he believes is fundamentally flawed.

The resignation centers on an inquiry involving a local city council member. According to the departing official, the commission's approach to examining the conduct raised serious procedural red flags. He suggested that the investigation appeared to be veering away from a fact-finding mission and toward a potentially predetermined outcome.

Core Issues Behind the Departure

The former commissioner highlighted several key problems that led to his decision to resign:

• Procedural Shortcuts: He alleged that established procedures for reviewing evidence and interviewing witnesses were being bypassed or rushed.


• Lack of Transparency: Concerns were raised that the deliberations were becoming opaque, potentially undermining public trust in the commission's findings.


• Perceived Bias: The commissioner's statements imply a worry that the investigation was not being conducted with impartiality.

In his resignation letter, which was made public, he wrote that continuing his service would make him complicit in a process he could no longer defend ethically. This abrupt departure throws the ongoing investigation into uncertainty and raises questions about the integrity of the city's accountability mechanisms.

Official Responses and Next Steps

In response to the resignation, a city spokesperson issued a statement thanking the commissioner for his years of dedicated service and affirming the city's confidence in the Ethics Commission's ability to continue its work independently and fairly.

The remaining commissioners are now tasked with deciding how to proceed. They must determine whether to continue the investigation with a vacant seat, appoint an interim member, or pause the inquiry entirely until a permanent replacement is found. This internal turmoil guarantees that the case will remain under intense public scrutiny.

What do you think?

• Was the commissioner right to resign on principle, or does quitting in the middle of an investigation do more harm than good?


• Do public ethics investigations often feel like a "witch hunt," or are they a necessary check on power?


• If an ethics process itself is accused of being unethical, who should be responsible for investigating the investigators?


• Should all ethics commission deliberations be made public to ensure absolute transparency, even if it compromises the privacy of those involved?