Las Vegas newspaper sues county over records of official’s investigation
Alan Riquelmy
(Courthouse News) The Las Vegas Review-Journal sued Clark County sued Clark County last week over access to what it says are public documents linked to a county investigation into a former employee.
In the suit filed in Clark County District Court, the Review-Journal seeks records the newspaper says it has requested through the Nevada Public Records Act. The documents stem from a county investigation into potential conflict of interest by Jimmy Floyd, the former manager of the Construction Management Division of the county’s Public Works Department.
The paper reported last year that a subcontracting business owned by Floyd’s wife could have gotten at least $1.5 million in county dollars for road construction. Floyd oversaw the bidding process, the Review-Journal says.
According to the paper, the subcontractor owned by Floyd’s wife received $442,200 in county funds between 2021 and mid-2025. Floyd’s division had prequalified the subcontractor on Public Works projects up to $10 million.
“The county claims it conducted investigations into the conflict of interest that resulted in Mr. Floyd’s termination in August 2025,” the paper says. “The county has refused to release public records related to the findings of its investigations.”
The paper says several questions remain unanswered. It asks how Floyd ranked the proposals, including his wife’s, during the bidding process; if other evaluators knew his wife owned that subcontractor; if the county’s conflict-of-interest policies were followed; and if any other employees faced discipline after the investigation.
During its reporting, the paper says it made multiple public record requests seeking information about the prequalification process for that subcontractor, the evaluations of construction management proposals for the project in question, and records about its investigations into conflict of interest.
“The county has withheld certain responsive records, or has produced improperly redacted records, in violation of the NPRA,” it says.
The county has provided some documents. The paper says it belatedly handed over requested reviews of the subcontractor, though it had improperly redacted evaluator names — a violation of the public records act. While it later revealed those names, the county wouldn’t release evaluator names on their specific evaluations.
“As of the filing of this petition, the county has refused to remove the redactions of evaluator names on the evaluations,” the paper says. “These redactions prevent the public from learning, among other things, how Mr. Floyd’s subordinates — who were among the evaluators during the prequalification process — ranked his wife’s firm.”
Concerning public records requests about the investigation into Floyd, the paper says it received some 800 documents it called largely irrelevant. No document contained facts discovered during the investigation, and the county declined to provide any more records, saying they’re personnel records and confidential.
The paper argues that the state public records act makes government records open to the public, unless they’re confidential. Additionally, its provisions must be considered liberally.
“The burden falls squarely on the governmental entity seeking to withhold the production of public records to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a record or portion thereof is confidential,” the paper adds.
The government can’t point to general, hypothetical or vague concerns to keep a record private. Additionally, all records are deemed public unless the law specifically states they aren’t, the paper says.
A county law declaring employee investigations are confidential isn’t a state statute, meaning it’s not an exemption to the public records act. Also, even if the documents were confidential — which the paper emphasizes they’re not — the county’s characterization of them as “personnel records” defies the act’s purpose: that a government is held accountable by prohibiting secrecy, the paper argues.
“As most government functions are performed by government personnel, allowing the county to shield employee investigations in this manner would effectively insulate local governments from public oversight, and contravene the legislative purpose behind the NPRA,” it adds.
A county representative couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
“Clark County has gone to extreme lengths, flagrantly misrepresenting the law, to keep secret major elements of this scandal,” Review-Journal Executive Editor Glenn Cook said in a statement. “This kind of obstruction is too common across Nevada governments, but this story, this case, is too important to be hidden from public eyes. That’s why we’re suing.”