The Airport Authority Shell Game: When Board Appointments Become Political Favors
Mayor Hillary Schieve Instagram post when Brian Kulpin joined her team.
Three Candidates, Two Spots, Zero Citizen Representation
The Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority board nominations currently under consideration perfectly illustrate everything wrong with how Northern Nevada's political establishment operates. Three candidates are vying for two open City of Reno appointments, and each one raises serious questions about whether anyone is actually representing the interests of Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County residents—or if this is just another exercise in political back-scratching and insider dealing.
Let's examine this trio of candidates and ask the uncomfortable questions that our elected officials apparently hope we're too distracted to notice.
Jennifer Cunningham is currently serving her first term on the airport authority board, which runs from July 2021 to June 2025, and is seeking reappointment. On paper, Cunningham appears qualified with her background in strategic planning and organizational development. But her reappointment raises fundamental questions about board turnover and fresh perspectives. What innovations has Cunningham brought to airport operations? What cost savings has she delivered? These are the questions that should matter in evaluating whether an incumbent deserves another term, yet they're rarely asked in our rubber-stamp appointment process.
Edward Ableser presents the most intriguing case study in questionable qualifications. Ableser is associated with Tri-Strategies, described as "one of Nevada's most comprehensive public strategy firms" with offices in Reno. He's also serving on the RSCVA board, giving him experience with quasi-governmental tourism and economic development authorities.
But here's where things get interesting: persistent rumors suggest Ableser doesn't actually reside in Reno or even Nevada. If true, this raises fundamental questions about representation and accountability. Why would someone who doesn't live here be considered for a position overseeing an airport that serves this community? How can someone represent the interests of local residents if they're not actually one of those residents?
The residency question isn't just about technicalities—it's about understanding the daily impact of airport operations on local communities. Noise issues, traffic congestion, economic development impacts, and service quality all affect people who actually live here. Someone whose primary residence is elsewhere simply cannot have the same stake in these outcomes.
Even if Ableser maintains business interests in Reno through Tri-Strategies, business ownership is not the same as residency and community investment. Many consultants and lobbyists maintain offices in cities where they don't live, precisely to influence local decision-making without experiencing the consequences of those decisions.
The City of Reno Mayor’s right hand seeks Airport Authority power. Perhaps the most problematic nomination is Brian Kulpin, who currently serves as Chief of Staff to Mayor Hillary Schieve. Kulpin's appointment would represent either a stunning conflict of interest or a transparent attempt to extend mayoral influence into what should be an independent authority.
Kulpin undoubtedly brings relevant experience, having previously worked at the airport. His understanding of airport operations could be valuable. But his current role as the mayor's chief of staff creates insurmountable conflicts that should disqualify him from consideration.
Consider the dynamics: if Kulpin is appointed to the airport authority board while serving as Mayor Schieve's chief of staff, whose interests will he represent when airport authority decisions affect city policies? When the airport authority and city government disagree on development projects, noise ordinances, or economic development strategies, will Kulpin advocate for what's best for the airport or what's best for his boss's political agenda?
The appearance of impropriety alone should be disqualifying. Appointing the mayor's chief of staff to the airport authority board would essentially give Mayor Schieve a direct line of influence into airport authority decisions—influence that no single elected official should have over an independent authority.
The deeper problem as we see it is these boards are becoming political playgrounds. These three nominations reveal the deeper dysfunction in how Northern Nevada fills critical board positions. Instead of seeking candidates who bring independent judgment, diverse perspectives, and genuine commitment to serving public interests, the political establishment treats board appointments as opportunities to reward allies, extend influence, and maintain control.
The airport authority isn't just another bureaucratic body—it oversees a critical piece of regional infrastructure that affects economic development, tourism, business travel, and quality of life for hundreds of thousands of residents. Board members should be chosen based on their ability to make tough decisions in the public interest, not their political connections or loyalty to particular elected officials.
What would real representation look like?
If Northern Nevada's elected officials were serious about citizen representation, they would seek airport authority board candidates who:
Actually live in the communities served by the airport
Bring diverse professional backgrounds beyond politics and consulting
Have demonstrated records of independent judgment and fiscal responsibility
Represent different geographic areas within the region
Include perspectives from frequent travelers, local businesses affected by airport operations, and residents dealing with airport-related issues
Instead, we get the same tired rotation of political insiders, consultants, and mayoral staff members who treat public service as an extension of their political careers rather than a responsibility to serve community interests. Remembering the City of Reno appointed former Commissioner Kitty Jung to the Airport Authority in 2023 six months after she stepped off the county dais. Political favor, could be.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of these nominations is how they highlight the complete lack of accountability in our appointment process. When was the last time a sitting elected official held a genuine public forum about airport authority appointments? When have voters been asked what qualifications they want to see in board members?
The answer is never, because our elected officials prefer to operate in the shadows when making these appointments. They announce their choices, hold perfunctory confirmation hearings, and expect the public to accept whatever political deals they've worked out behind closed doors.
This approach treats citizens as subjects rather than stakeholders. It assumes that ordinary residents are too uninformed or uninterested to have opinions about who should oversee major public infrastructure. It's both arrogant and anti-democratic.
Here are the questions that should be front and center in evaluating these nominations:
For Cunningham: What specific accomplishments justify reappointment? What fresh perspectives would she bring to a second term? Why is continuity more important than bringing in new voices?
For Ableser: Where does he actually live? How can someone potentially not residing in the region adequately represent local interests? What are his specific qualifications beyond running a consulting firm?
For Kulpin: Can he serve the airport authority's interests while remaining loyal to Mayor Schieve? What safeguards would prevent conflicts of interest? Why should one mayor have this level of influence over airport operations?
For all three: How do these appointments serve ordinary citizens rather than political networks? What diversity of thought and experience do they bring? How will they be held accountable for their decisions?
The choice facing Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County isn't really about which of these three candidates is least problematic. The real choice is whether we'll continue accepting appointment processes that prioritize political connections over public service, or demand genuine representation that puts community interests first.
These airport authority appointments represent millions of dollars in public resources, critical infrastructure decisions, and policies that affect everyone who lives in or visits Northern Nevada. They deserve better than the political insider trading we're witnessing.
The current slate of airport authority nominees perfectly encapsulates how Northern Nevada's political establishment views citizen representation: as an afterthought to be managed rather than a responsibility to be honored. Whether it's reappointing political allies, nominating consultants with questionable local ties, or extending mayoral influence through staff appointments, the message is clear—public boards exist to serve political interests, not public ones.
Until voters demand better and elected officials face real consequences for these political games, we'll continue getting board appointees who represent everyone except the people who actually live here. The airport authority nominations aren't just about who sits on one board—they're about whether citizen representation means anything in Northern Nevada, or if it's just another political slogan our elected officials use when they want our votes.
The three current nominees may think they're qualified to represent us, but the more important question is whether any of them are actually interested in doing so. Based on the appointment process we're witnessing, the answer appears to be no.
City of Reno Staff Report regarding appointment/reappointment to the Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority June 11, 2025.