Reno voters are being asked to evaluate serious claims of corruption, illegal funding, Open Meeting Law violations, and lobbyist misconduct—based on a Facebook post from December 10th with no meeting date, no agenda citation, no vote reference, and no clear timeline.
Mayoral candidate Eddie Lorton made that post. And that is a problem.
Not because candidates should avoid criticizing City Hall, but because unverified accusations create misinformation rather than accountability.
On top of these issues, Eddie doesn’t make it clear what the meeting is about. What is the problem that prompted the meeting that voters should care about?
The Post That Sparked the Concern
Eddie recently posted a lengthy, unpunctuated Facebook statement alleging:
“Wrongdoing from local lobbyists.”
An “illegal” transfer of city funds
An Open Meeting Law violation
Improper handling by the city attorney
Abuse of ratification procedures
He did not list:
The meeting date
The agenda item
The governmental body
The staff report
Or the financial account allegedly used “illegally.”
Those omissions alone make the claim unverifiable.
But the problems go much deeper.
Click the image to see the Facebook post from December 10th by Eddie Lorton.
The Screenshot Tells a Different Story
The screenshot Eddie attached clearly shows Park Lane Mall, a site demolished in 2016 and redeveloped as part of one of Reno’s post-recession urban renewal efforts.
The Reno Gazette-Journal published the article he referenced on December 9, 2016.
Eddie’s caption is written in the present tense, using words like “now,” “at the meeting,” and “the city attorney doesn’t want to do a reconsideration.” The post is framed as if a current illegal act just occurred. That is factually false.
“Go to this meeting more wrong doing from local lobbyists in unpresidented deal finding ways to get money from the city for their clients projects at the expense of the taxpayers. Also the city is taking money out of the wrong pot illegally to do so at our expense. While stating at the meeting the system there had 20 years of life left. So there was an open meeting law violation so the public wasn’t aware of what was happening they voted on it and now the city attorney doesn’t want to do a reconsideration so the council can be accountable to the public if they choose to be there. Instead he’s doing a radification which means the vote stands the publics opinion doesn’t matter and they are just reagendising it to take care of the open meeting law violation but I say if not noticed properly the last vote should not count because the public was not aware of what was happening. Paul McKenzie, Jenny Brekhus, Naomi Duerr, David Bobzien. Please do it right. Thank you.”
Possibly, Eddie meant this as sharing a memory, but that isn’t how it was posted. Posting as a memory would only clarify a few of the issues around the timeframe, and getting this wrong adds to the negligence of this post. Even if Eddie intended this as a historical “memory” repost, his caption did not read like a retrospective. It read like a present-day accusation of illegality. He did not identify the meeting or the agenda item, but instead implied that sewer rate impacts and improper fund transfers were still unfolding today.
Whether labeled a memory or not, the post still presented an unverifiable and factually misapplied corruption claim.
The Punctuation Problem Is Critical
The post is written as a single, unbroken stream with no sentence structure. That matters because Eddie is making criminal-adjacent accusations.”
Eddie’s post is written as a single, unpunctuated block of text mixing:
“illegal”
“wrongdoing”
“open meeting law violation”
“ratification”
“city attorney”
“unprecedented deal”
With no clear sentence boundaries, the reader cannot tell:
Who is being accused of what
On what date
Under what authority
Accusations blur together
Subjects and actions become unclear
Timeframes collapse
And responsibility cannot be assigned appropriately.
For an everyday citizen, that is sloppy.
For a mayoral candidate alleging illegality, it is reckless with legal implications.
It’s cheap and easy to get a grammar and style checker for your browser. Come on, Eddie, get with it!
Three of the Four People He Named Are No Longer on the Council
Eddie named:
Paul McKenzie – left office years ago
Jenny Brekhus – no longer serving
David Bobzien – left the council in 2014
Naomi Duerr – the only current member listed
This creates a false impression that a sitting council is engaged in present-day misconduct, when, in reality, the dispute he appears to be referencing dates to a different council composition almost a decade ago.
The Open Meeting Law Claim Is Procedurally Misrepresented
Eddie asserts that:
The public was not properly notified
A vote was taken illegally
The city attorney avoided “reconsideration.”
And instead used “ratification” so that “the public’s opinion doesn’t matter.”
That is not how ratification works. Under Nevada law, ratification is precisely the tool used to cure Open Meeting Law defects.
Ratification requires:
Re-noticing the item properly
Full public disclosure
And re-adoption in a legally compliant forum
Ratification does not erase public participation. It restores it.
By presenting ratification as a corrupt maneuver rather than a compliance mechanism, the post misrepresents the fundamental principles of municipal law.
The Missing Meeting Is the Biggest Red Flag
If an Open Meeting Law violation truly occurred, the most basic facts would be:
Date of the meeting
Governmental Body
Agenda report
Vote record
None of that was provided. That makes this post:
Impossible to verify
Impossible to fact-check
Impossible to defend if challenged
A member of the public can’t investigate independently
That is not whistleblowing. That is rumor framing.
What This Signals to Voters
To supporters, the post may read as passion.
To undecided voters and professional reviewers, it reads as:
Lack of verification
Lack of document discipline
Confusion between past and present
Misuse of legal terminology
Reckless accusation framing
And disregard for basic public sourcing norms
A mayor does not get to govern emotionally.
A mayor governs through:
Verified facts
Precise language
Careful legal framing
And disciplined public communication
This post demonstrates none of those traits.
This Undermines Legitimate Oversight
Reno absolutely does need:
Strong redevelopment scrutiny
Aggressive lobbying transparency
Strict Open Meeting Law compliance
And real consequences for misuse of public funds
But when a candidate posts an unsourced, misidentified, legally confused allegation, it damages public trust in the system he claims to support.
This was not:
Investigative reporting
Document-based whistleblowing
Or a verified legal complaint
It was an emotional reaction posted without verification, timelines, procedural clarity, or accountability safeguards.
That is not leadership. That is recklessness, and it should concern anyone evaluating who is fit to serve as Reno’s next mayor. That is not what Reno should accept from anyone seeking the city’s highest executive office.
Reno needs a mayor who understands the difference between:
Past vs. present
Error vs. crime
Procedure vs. corruption
And outrage vs. evidence
Right now, Eddie Lorton’s social media conduct shows that distinction is not being made. He is sloppy and careless and needs to clean up his act if he wants to win.
Great job…please keep up your well insightful communication …
Klaus Wohlgemuth
I appreciate the balance ! Is EL one of those , last person he talked to ,told him, guys? If the story was recently related to him, he could have thought it was happening in the present.