The Independent-News recently obtained a recording of the October 4 Mineral County Board of Commissioners meeting.

The 11 a.m. time-specific item on the agenda stated as: For consideration and possible action relative to a presentation by Hillary Womack, Comptroller, and Joan Sciarani-Blake, Independent Auditor, Arrighi, Blake & Associates, LLC, regarding Board of Mineral County Commissioner spending during fiscal years 2022, 2023, and the current portion of 2024, to include appropriateness of amounts spent, compliance with County policies, and recommendations for remedial action, if necessary” drew a full room of people, wanting answers to why Commissioner Hall’s spending was so much greater than the other commissioners’ and what is being done to protect taxpayer money.

“I asked to put this on the agenda following the social media post [that a resident posted to Facebook regarding Commissioner Hall’s spending] and asked our comptroller to look things over and come to a resolution that the public is satisfied with,” Commissioner Curtis Schlepp said in the meeting.

People were then handed copies of travel statements of Commissioner Cassie Hall and her expenditures. Receipts show trips to Colorado and Virginia, travel reimbursements to “Paradigm Enterprises” and “Joe’s Tavern”, baggage fee upgrades, stays in Virginia City, NV, and studio suites. There was a trip to Boston that wasn’t taken, put on Cassie Hall’s credit card. The outside auditor looked at the credit card statements of the commissioner and found that three of them were clearly personal, but all were paid back. Two were paid back within a month and one was paid back within two months, which is maybe not as reasonable, the auditor said.

The outside auditor had findings that suggested she pay back around $844 in expenses, and there was talk of an appropriate timeframe of when accidental purchases should be paid back. Then there was the recommendation to lessen travel expenses, considering the low cash flow within the county’s budget.

Resident Gary Moody, who requested the documentation regarding the commissioner’s spending, brought up the $900 Walmart receipt, and Hall said she didn’t even realize that she used that card when she shopped there. Receipts also showed that she used her county credit card when she shopped at Sam’s Club and Total Wine & Spirit.

“That’s taxpayer money; you’re playing with our money,” Moody said. “A mistake happens one time; this happened several times. The point is, you broke the law,” Moody added.

Commissioner Schlepp said that the goal of this agenda item was to create a policy for all commissioners. The new policy that Commissioners Schlepp and Larry Grant came up with that was borrowed from Lyon County included three main points:

  • Anything over $500 must be approved by the board.
  • Everyone must stay within the budget.
  • Any out-of-state travel must be approved by the board.

As Commissioner Hall argued the new policy, Commissioner Schlepp said that he wanted to get the citizens recommendations to improve board overspending, which is why he requested this special meeting.

“I need the opportunity to have a date to respond. I understand what the perception is, but it’s really skewed. We’re creating a policy based on gossip and vitriol. This audit finding is not completely correct,” Hall said.

“I don’t think it’s too restrictive,” Commissioner Schlepp responded.

After a period of heated public comment, Commissioner Schlepp and Larry Grant voted to enact the new policy while Commissioner Hall abstained and then most of the people in the room left.

Highlights from the New Mineral County Board of Commissioners Travel Policy Adopted October 4, 2023:

A. OVERVIEW

The members of the Board of Mineral County Commissioners (“Board”) are expected to attend a number of events and meetings in the performance of their duties. There are also a number of discretionary events and meetings that a Board member may choose to attend, as authorized. County funds shall only be used to reimburse travel to events and meetings specifically authorized by this policy. Authorized travel must demonstrate a real and tangible benefit for Mineral County and Board members are expected to report on their travels upon return.

C. TRAVEL AUTHORIZED FOR EXPENDITURE/REIMBURSEMENT

The Board specifically authorizes the following travel expenditures or reimbursement from County funds, provided (1) budgeted funds have not been exhausted and (2) the total cost is less than $500 per Board member:

  • Mileage for regular and special meetings of the Board that occur at a location other than the Board’s chambers.
  • Mileage for regular and special meetings of other boards for which the individual commissioner has been specifically assigned to act as a board member by the Board.
  • Mileage for testifying at the legislature or meeting with the County lobbyist for the Chair and/or Vice-Chair, or their designee, on behalf of the County.
  • Travel for official County business, to include depositions and settlement conferences.
  • Travel for the annual Nevada Association of Counties conference (in-state only).

Other travel, including any travel where (1) budged funds are exhausted, (2) the total cost exceeds $500, or (3) out-of-state travel, must be specifically approved by the Board through a formal board action, on a case-by-case basis upon a clear demonstration of a real and substantial benefit for Mineral County.

Commissioner Cassie Hall’s October 9th Response:

It is not clear whether Commissioner Cassie Hall signed or accepted the new policy, and it was mentioned in the meeting that she had until October 9th to respond to the allegations.

In a letter addressed to Mineral County Comptroller Hillary Womack dated October 9, 2023, “RE: Response to Letter with subject line Travel Upgrades dated September 25, 2023”, Cassie Hall stated:

I am in receipt of the above referenced letter. Additionally, I am aware of the expressed concerns that have led to the audit, as well as the intent of your office and the Board to meet the demands of the constituency. While I agree with that intention, I am not in agreement with the issuance of penalty without justification. I’ll explain.

In your letter, you have stated that, per the auditor, there are a variety of unauthorized purchases and as such, you have requested restitution. I respectfully dispute the claim that travel expenses incurred while acting in my capacity as Mineral County Commissioner are unauthorized.

In response to the question of seat upgrades, I respectfully submit Section 7.1 on Page 108 of the Mineral County Personnel Policy (December 2022). I recognize that the seat numbers were not consistently present on previously submitted receipts while the words “Preferred Zone” were, so I can appreciate the drawn conclusions. That being said, I contacted the airline for an explanation on the breakout of the seat charges. They agree that this is not an upgrade charge as much as an assignment charge. As you will see in the attached documentation, the closest I have gotten to first class is Row 10, but most seating is upwards of Row 24. Regardless, seating is not specifically addressed within the above referenced policy and therefore it is not appropriate to penalize seat selections made routinely and consistently within the Check In procedure. This was not fraudulent activity, merely the protocol of this specific airline.

Further problematic is the claim that travel insurance is one of the unauthorized purchases requested for reimbursement as that specific charge has already been reimbursed. This raises questions about what exactly has been audited. Who requested the audit and what were the parameters of that audit?

As an act of good faith, I authorize you to withdraw the amount of $300 from my payroll for the three instances of overweight bag charges, though these are not addressed within policy either. This charge I am willing to make an exception to because I could have been more careful and proactive in this expenditure. This is not an admission to corruption of any kind; had there been a policy in place to this effect, it would never have been an expenditure made to be vilified.