LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — Sheriff Kevin McMahill claims to know who he answers to.
"I get to run this police department. I answer to all of you," McMahill said in July to attendees of a public program on policing at the Mob Museum.
He also detailed who he doesn't answer to.
"The mayor doesn't get to tell the sheriff what to do," he said. "The city council doesn't get to tell the sheriff what to do or the county commission."
That's true.
Sheriff McMahill is an elected official without any group or body of people overseeing him.
At that July Mob Museum event, McMahill told attendees, "I'm not asking for your blind support. When we make a mistake, we'll fess up. When we mess up, we fess up, right? And then we're going to fix it."
So, we decided to go to other elected officials to see what they would do.
On Monday, 13 Investigates sought input from County Commissioners Michael Naft, Jim Gibson and City Council members Cedric Crear and Francis Allen-Palenske. They comprise most of the LVMPD Fiscal Affairs Committee, which oversees and approves the department's budget and any legal settlements for Metro's alleged misconduct.
I spoke during the citizen participation portion of Monday's Fiscal Affairs Committee meeting.
"We're coming to this body after our multiple attempts to get this directly addressed by Metro have failed," I said. "Metro Sheriff Kevin McMahill has told Channel 13 that he holds himself and all Metro employees to a very high standard of conduct, yet he has refused to address rampant rumors about his alleged violation of department standards."
Those alleged violations and rampant rumors align with what multiple sources have told 13 Investigates: Sheriff McMahill is believed to have had an affair with a subordinate member of the department who is still employed at Metro.
Neither the sheriff nor anyone in the department has denied the allegations.
When asked, Metro's Public Information Office said, "We don't comment on personnel matters."
I addressed that with the Fiscal Affairs Committee, "These rumors go far beyond being a personnel matter. If true, it's at a minimum a conflict of interest, and potentially abuse of office, abuse of power and violation of the public trust."
The subordinate in question is classified as an "appointed employee." Metro's Personnel Policies Manual states, "Appointed employees serve at the discretion of the sheriff." He determines their salary, promotions and they "can be terminated by the sheriff at will."
As for the sheriff — that's why we went to the meeting. Because who holds him accountable?
"As elected officials," I said to FAC members. "It is your obligation to get to the bottom of this and to ensure accountability if the alleged violations of Metro standards and ethics have occurred. Those violations would include, in part, conduct unbecoming an employee and acts evidencing moral turpitude. We look forward to following up with each and every one of you to see what if any, action is warranted and is taken."
None of the committee members addressed the allegations or asked questions after I spoke.
Sitting just feet away, the sheriff listened in silence, leaving as the public meeting — which lasted less than 10 minutes — was adjourned.
Following Monday's meeting, we called and emailed the four Metro Fiscal Affairs Committee members in attendance.
In a conversation about another matter, Commissioner Jim Gibson said he had no comment on the allegations of misconduct involving the sheriff. We have not heard back from any of the other committee members.
In our last report, we detailed the many attempts and ways we tried to reach Metro for answers before attending Monday's meeting, all of which were stonewalled.
