Champions of Truth Under Fire: When Civic Engagement Is Met With Government Deflection
In any thriving democracy, the voices of the people should not only be heard—they should be respected. The residents who take the time to speak at public meetings are not nuisances or enemies of the state. They are champions of truth, guardians of transparency, and, more often than not, the last line of defense between good governance and unchecked authority.
Yet in Reno, a troubling pattern has emerged: those who dare to speak truth to power are being publicly shamed by the very officials they elected.
Take, for example, recent public meetings where councilmembers and commissioners have accused commenters of “doxing” elected officials or even implying involvement in the incident where a private investigator placed a tracking device on the mayor’s vehicle. While the individual responsible for planting the tracker has been identified, the mayor continues to speculate—without evidence—about who might have hired the investigator. This speculation casts a shadow over critics and public commenters alike, fueling suspicion and attempting to discredit community members who are simply demanding answers. Those same community members have questions as to how Mayor Schieve is affording her ‘Trakergate’ legal team, but those questions from residents are frowned upon.
Let’s be clear: using innuendo to implicate constituents in acts they had no part in is not leadership. It’s political Russian roulette with reputations. And it's a tactic aimed squarely at silencing dissent.
Accusations of “doxing” are being thrown around as a smokescreen for the real issue—lack of transparency. When public officials operate in secrecy, avoid accountability, or make questionable claims, residents have every right to investigate, question, and demand honesty. If the city council operated with full transparency, residents wouldn’t feel compelled to bring such concerns to light in the first place.
Case in point: Councilman Devon Reese recently stated at the May 7, 2025 council meeting that he wouldn’t be able to afford living in the exclusive Rancharrah neighborhood. Yet public property records show that Reese resides in a home valued at nearly $2 million. When citizens point out these inconsistencies, they are accused of doxing or character attacks. But how is citing publicly available information an invasion of privacy? Isn’t the real issue the misleading public statement?
Councilmember Reese’s home value. If the councilmember had not made his “Rancharrah” statement about whether he could afford the development we would not have posted this information. What is said needs to be verified, true or false. in this case it would seem to be false based on Mr. Reese’s home’s price one would think he could make a move to Rancharrah.
This narrative—of painting vocal residents as aggressors—is dangerous. It turns civic engagement into a liability and deters citizens from participating in the democratic process, but that is exactly what these elected officials want - no public discourse. The people who attend city meetings, unpaid and on their own time, are not enemies of the state. They are modern-day knights of the roundtable, fighting to preserve the integrity of the city they love.
Silencing these voices with shame, intimidation, or misdirection is not governance. It is cowardice.
We must ask ourselves: what kind of government fears transparency? What kind of leadership turns its back on engaged residents instead of welcoming scrutiny?
The answer is simple: one that has something to hide.
Picon Staff