At the IVGID Board of Trustees meeting on October 9th, 2024, troubling actions by Chairperson Sara Schmitz came to light, raising questions about potential election interference. On or around September 26th, Schmitz requested staff pull a report of parcel owners who missed their first property tax payment to Washoe County, despite residents having until October 1st to make the payment. Staff was instructed to include names and parcel numbers (APNs).
It appears Schmitz was aware that one of the candidates for the IVGID Board of Trustees had not yet paid and instructed Interim General Manager Karen Crocker and Interim Director of Finance Sue Griffith to prepare the report five days before the deadline.
The report listing parcel numbers was included in the IVGID Board of Trustees agenda packet and posted to the public website on October 4th—an unprecedented move, as parcel numbers had never before been exposed in such a manner. Fortunately, staff took the step of redacting the names, but the incident still raises concerns about the inappropriate release of sensitive information.
The day before the agenda was released to the public, a Schmitz supporter who also supports an opponent of the candidate took to Nextdoor, stating, “A certain candidate running for IVGID board has not paid his/her property taxes this year.” It’s unclear how this community member singled out one candidate’s late payment, especially from a list of 485 parcel numbers. The only plausible explanation is that they received the information from someone with access to the full list, which included names—a troubling indication of a potential leak by Chairperson Schmitz.
During the October 9th meeting, Trustee Tonking questioned why the report was posted before the October 1st deadline, noting that this violated board policy Ordinance 7, Section 44. Interim Director of Finance Griffith responded that she and Crocker were directed by Schmitz to include the parcel information in the packet.
We have provided a video of the key moments around this topic from Wednesday’s meeting. You can watch that here. The full video from the meeting is available at the end of this article.
This raises serious questions about the integrity of the election process and Schmitz’s leadership. Her actions suggest micromanagement and a willingness to direct staff without the knowledge or involvement of the full board—behaviors that directly contradict her stated commitment to transparency and collaboration.
Even more concerning is the timing of this maneuver, coinciding with a clear attempt by Schmitz’s supporters to discredit a specific candidate. Such actions not only violate district policies but may also breach election-related laws.
The potential ramifications extend beyond just the candidates. Schmitz’s decision has unnecessarily dragged 484 residents, whose parcel numbers were listed in the report, into this political controversy. This episode calls into question her repeated denials of similar behavior in the past and casts a shadow on her leadership.
Is this an isolated incident, or part of a larger pattern of disregard for policy? What role should the rest of the Board of Trustees and legal counsel play in addressing these violations? Does the Secretary of State need to investigate this matter to ensure election integrity?
Trustee Noble raised an important point about aligning Ordinance 7, paragraph 44, with NRS 361.483, which governs property tax delinquency reporting. Noble expressed appreciation for the need to avoid any “gotcha” moments, like the one that orchestrated by Schmitz and proposed a more transparent and proactive approach, suggesting that parcel owners be contacted directly about overdue payments before such information is made public. This would give residents a chance to rectify the issue and prevent unnecessary embarrassment, aligning with good governance practices.
IVGID residents deserve transparency and fairness, especially in matters as crucial as board elections. We cannot ignore these events, and it is imperative that the board and legal team take immediate action.
You can watch the entire meeting here (video) and the key moments took place at these time stamps:
- 27:58: Candidate Jezyski speaks about the attempt to discredit her.
- 54:35: Griffith confirms that Schmitz asked for the parcel information “At your direction, we were supposed to have the parcel information on there…”
- 1:00:10: Trustee Tonking inquires how this report came to by and why it was included when it broke Board policy.
- 3:13:53: Candidate Homan responds to Schmitz’s actions.