NRS
281A.420 Requirements regarding disclosure of conflicts of interest and
abstention from voting because of certain types of conflicts; effect of
abstention on quorum and voting requirements; exceptions.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this
section, a public officer or employee shall not approve, disapprove, vote,
abstain from voting or otherwise act upon a matter:
(a) Regarding which the public officer or
employee has accepted a gift or loan;
(b) In which the public officer or employee has a
significant pecuniary interest;
(c) Which would reasonably be affected by the
public officer’s or employee’s commitment in a private capacity to the
interests of another person; or
(d) Which would reasonably be related to the
nature of any representation or counseling that the public officer or employee
provided to a private person for compensation before another agency within the
immediately preceding year, provided such representation or counseling is
permitted by NRS 281A.410,
Ê without
disclosing information concerning the gift or loan, the significant pecuniary
interest, the commitment in a private capacity to the interests of the other
person or the nature of the representation or counseling of the private person
that is sufficient to inform the public of the potential effect of the action
or abstention upon the person who provided the gift or loan, upon the public
officer’s or employee’s significant pecuniary interest, upon the person to whom
the public officer or employee has a commitment in a private capacity or upon
the private person who was represented or counseled by the public officer or
employee. Such a disclosure must be made at the time the matter is considered.
If the public officer or employee is a member of a body which makes decisions,
the public officer or employee shall make the disclosure in public to the chair
and other members of the body. If the public officer or employee is not a
member of such a body and holds an appointive office, the public officer or
employee shall make the disclosure to the supervisory head of the public
officer’s or employee’s organization or, if the public officer holds an
elective office, to the general public in the area from which the public officer
is elected.
2. The provisions of subsection 1 do not
require a public officer to disclose:
(a) Any campaign contributions that the public
officer reported in a timely manner pursuant to NRS 294A.120 or 294A.125; or
(b) Any contributions to a legal defense fund
that the public officer reported in a timely manner pursuant to NRS 294A.286.
3. Except as otherwise provided in this
section, in addition to the requirements of subsection 1, a public officer
shall not vote upon or advocate the passage or failure of, but may otherwise
participate in the consideration of, a matter with respect to which the
independence of judgment of a reasonable person in the public officer’s
situation would be materially affected by:
(a) The public officer’s acceptance of a gift or
loan;
(b) The public officer’s significant pecuniary
interest; or
(c) The public officer’s commitment in a private
capacity to the interests of another person.
4. In interpreting and applying the
provisions of subsection 3:
(a) It must be presumed that the independence of
judgment of a reasonable person in the public officer’s situation would not be
materially affected by the public officer’s acceptance of a gift or loan,
significant pecuniary interest or commitment in a private capacity to the
interests of another person where the resulting benefit or detriment accruing
to the public officer, or if the public officer has a commitment in a private
capacity to the interests of another person, accruing to the other person, is
not greater than that accruing to any other member of any general business,
profession, occupation or group that is affected by the matter. The presumption
set forth in this paragraph does not affect the applicability of the
requirements set forth in subsection 1 relating to the duty of the public
officer to make a proper disclosure at the time the matter is considered and in
the manner required by subsection 1.
(b) The Commission must give appropriate weight
and proper deference to the public policy of this State which favors the right
of a public officer to perform the duties for which the public officer was
elected or appointed and to vote or otherwise act upon a matter, provided the
public officer makes a proper disclosure at the time the matter is considered
and in the manner required by subsection 1. Because abstention by a public
officer disrupts the normal course of representative government and deprives the
public and the public officer’s constituents of a voice in governmental
affairs, the provisions of this section are intended to require abstention only
in clear cases where the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in the
public officer’s situation would be materially affected by the public officer’s
acceptance of a gift or loan, significant pecuniary interest or commitment in a
private capacity to the interests of another person.
5. If a public officer declares to the
body or committee in which the vote is to be taken that the public officer will
abstain from voting because of the requirements of this section, the necessary
quorum to act upon and the number of votes necessary to act upon the matter, as
fixed by any statute, ordinance or rule, is reduced as though the member
abstaining were not a member of the body or committee.
6. The provisions of this section do not,
under any circumstances:
(a) Prohibit a member of a local legislative body
from requesting or introducing a legislative measure; or
(b) Require a member of a local legislative body
to take any particular action before or while requesting or introducing a
legislative measure.
7. The provisions of this section do not,
under any circumstances, apply to State Legislators or allow the Commission to
exercise jurisdiction or authority over State Legislators. The responsibility
of a State Legislator to make disclosures concerning gifts, loans, interests or
commitments and the responsibility of a State Legislator to abstain from voting
upon or advocating the passage or failure of a matter are governed by the
Standing Rules of the Legislative Department of State Government which are
adopted, administered and enforced exclusively by the appropriate bodies of the
Legislative Department of State Government pursuant to Section 6 of Article 4 of the Nevada
Constitution.
8. As used in this section, “public
officer” and “public employee” do not include a State Legislator.
(Added to NRS by 1977,
1106; A 1987,
2095; 1991,
1597; 1995,
1083; 1997,
3326; 1999,
2738; 2003,
818, 1735,
3389;
2007,
3372; 2009,
1055, 1057;
2013,
3774; 2017,
2496; 2023,
1150)
Notes of Decisions
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 236 P.3d 616 (Nev. 2010).
· cites it 121× “[Therefore, according to [NRS 281A.420] I believe that this disclosure of information is sufficient and that I will be participating in the discussion and voting on this issue.”
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 313 P.3d 880 (Nev. 2013).
· cites it 44× “420(8)(e), which requires recusal for relationships “substantially similar” to the four enumerated ones, is “hopelessly vague.”
Comm'n on Ethics v. Hardy, 212 P.3d 1098 (Nev. 2009).
· cites it 12× “Specifically, we address the Commission’s authorization to entertain allegations that Senator Hardy violated NRS 281A.420 by failing to adequately disclose an alleged conflict of interest regarding a piece of legislation and by failing to abstain from voting on that bill.”
Nevada Comm'n on Ethics v. Carrigan, 131 S. Ct. 2343 (2011).
· cites it 5× “1—Decided June 13, 2011 Nevada’s Ethics in Government Law requires public officials to recuse themselves from voting on, or advocating the passage or failure of, “a matter with respect to which the independence of judgment of a rea sonable person in his situation would be…”
Candelaria v. Roger, 245 P.3d 518 (Nev. 2010).
· cites it 2× “2d ___ (2010), for the proposition that NRS 281A.420(2)(c) must be declared unconstitutional because the statute was not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.”
Comstock Residents Ass'N. Vs. Lyon Cty. Bd. Of Comm'Rs (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 10× “The district court correctly applied NRS 281A.420 Although the parties submitted the matter to the district court for a final judgment on the briefs, the district court, in rendering its decision, nevertheless made factual findings as it would in a bench trial.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281A.420(1) — 1 case
Comstock Residents Ass'N. Vs. Lyon Cty. Bd. Of Comm'Rs (Nev. 2021).
“The district court correctly applied NRS 281A.420 Although the parties submitted the matter to the district court for a final judgment on the briefs, the district court, in rendering its decision, nevertheless made factual findings as it would in a bench trial.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281A.420(2) — 4 cases
Nevada Comm'n on Ethics v. Carrigan, 131 S. Ct. 2343 (2011).
“1—Decided June 13, 2011 Nevada’s Ethics in Government Law requires public officials to recuse themselves from voting on, or advocating the passage or failure of, “a matter with respect to which the independence of judgment of a rea sonable person in his situation would be…”
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 236 P.3d 616 (Nev. 2010).
“[Therefore, according to [NRS 281A.420] I believe that this disclosure of information is sufficient and that I will be participating in the discussion and voting on this issue.”
Comm'n on Ethics v. Hardy, 212 P.3d 1098 (Nev. 2009).
“Specifically, we address the Commission’s authorization to entertain allegations that Senator Hardy violated NRS 281A.420 by failing to adequately disclose an alleged conflict of interest regarding a piece of legislation and by failing to abstain from voting on that bill.”
Comstock Residents Ass'N. Vs. Lyon Cty. Bd. Of Comm'Rs (Nev. 2021).
“The district court correctly applied NRS 281A.420 Although the parties submitted the matter to the district court for a final judgment on the briefs, the district court, in rendering its decision, nevertheless made factual findings as it would in a bench trial.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281A.420(2)(c) — 4 cases
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 313 P.3d 880 (Nev. 2013).
“420(8)(e), which requires recusal for relationships “substantially similar” to the four enumerated ones, is “hopelessly vague.”
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 236 P.3d 616 (Nev. 2010).
“[Therefore, according to [NRS 281A.420] I believe that this disclosure of information is sufficient and that I will be participating in the discussion and voting on this issue.”
Candelaria v. Roger, 245 P.3d 518 (Nev. 2010).
“2d ___ (2010), for the proposition that NRS 281A.420(2)(c) must be declared unconstitutional because the statute was not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281A.420(3) — 1 case
Comstock Residents Ass'N. Vs. Lyon Cty. Bd. Of Comm'Rs (Nev. 2021).
“The district court correctly applied NRS 281A.420 Although the parties submitted the matter to the district court for a final judgment on the briefs, the district court, in rendering its decision, nevertheless made factual findings as it would in a bench trial.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281A.420(4) — 2 cases
Comm'n on Ethics v. Hardy, 212 P.3d 1098 (Nev. 2009).
“Specifically, we address the Commission’s authorization to entertain allegations that Senator Hardy violated NRS 281A.420 by failing to adequately disclose an alleged conflict of interest regarding a piece of legislation and by failing to abstain from voting on that bill.”
Comstock Residents Ass'N. Vs. Lyon Cty. Bd. Of Comm'Rs (Nev. 2021).
“The district court correctly applied NRS 281A.420 Although the parties submitted the matter to the district court for a final judgment on the briefs, the district court, in rendering its decision, nevertheless made factual findings as it would in a bench trial.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281A.420(4)(a) — 1 case
Comstock Residents Ass'N. Vs. Lyon Cty. Bd. Of Comm'Rs (Nev. 2021).
“The district court correctly applied NRS 281A.420 Although the parties submitted the matter to the district court for a final judgment on the briefs, the district court, in rendering its decision, nevertheless made factual findings as it would in a bench trial.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281A.420(4)(b) — 2 cases
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 236 P.3d 616 (Nev. 2010).
“[Therefore, according to [NRS 281A.420] I believe that this disclosure of information is sufficient and that I will be participating in the discussion and voting on this issue.”
Comstock Residents Ass'N. Vs. Lyon Cty. Bd. Of Comm'Rs (Nev. 2021).
“The district court correctly applied NRS 281A.420 Although the parties submitted the matter to the district court for a final judgment on the briefs, the district court, in rendering its decision, nevertheless made factual findings as it would in a bench trial.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281A.420(6) — 1 case
Comm'n on Ethics v. Hardy, 212 P.3d 1098 (Nev. 2009).
“Specifically, we address the Commission’s authorization to entertain allegations that Senator Hardy violated NRS 281A.420 by failing to adequately disclose an alleged conflict of interest regarding a piece of legislation and by failing to abstain from voting on that bill.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281A.420(8) — 3 cases
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 236 P.3d 616 (Nev. 2010).
“[Therefore, according to [NRS 281A.420] I believe that this disclosure of information is sufficient and that I will be participating in the discussion and voting on this issue.”
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 313 P.3d 880 (Nev. 2013).
“420(8)(e), which requires recusal for relationships “substantially similar” to the four enumerated ones, is “hopelessly vague.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281A.420(8)(a) — 3 cases
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 313 P.3d 880 (Nev. 2013).
“420(8)(e), which requires recusal for relationships “substantially similar” to the four enumerated ones, is “hopelessly vague.”
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 236 P.3d 616 (Nev. 2010).
“[Therefore, according to [NRS 281A.420] I believe that this disclosure of information is sufficient and that I will be participating in the discussion and voting on this issue.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 281A.420(8)(e) — 3 cases
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 236 P.3d 616 (Nev. 2010).
“[Therefore, according to [NRS 281A.420] I believe that this disclosure of information is sufficient and that I will be participating in the discussion and voting on this issue.”
Carrigan v. Comm'n on Ethics, 313 P.3d 880 (Nev. 2013).
“420(8)(e), which requires recusal for relationships “substantially similar” to the four enumerated ones, is “hopelessly vague.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.