The City of Reno Doesn’t Enforce Its HR Rules

We were told that City Clerk Mikki Huntsman was terminated due to staff complaints. If that is true why hasn’t Reno Police Records Division Manager Shawna Allen been terminated?

Michael Leonard

A Tale of (what should be) Two Terminations

Recently, the City of Reno publicly stated that former City Clerk Mikki Huntsman was terminated because of “workplace complaints.” “This Is Reno” repeated that explanation, framing the decision as a straightforward HR matter.

Link: Reno council removes city clerk without cause after HR investigation

A newly surfaced internal document — a formal vote of no confidence submitted by the Reno Police Department Records Division on March 25, 2026, to City Manager Bryant — raises a fundamental question:

If complaints truly justify termination, then why is Records Manager Shawna Allen still employed?

The complaints against Allen are not only similar to those cited in Mikki’s case — they are more severe, more numerous, formally documented, and collectively signed by an entire division.

The City acted decisively in one case and ignored the other. That contradiction is not just a personnel issue. It shows a deeper breakdown: Reno is not enforcing its own HR rules.

This letter was delivered to City Manager Jackie Bryant on behalf of the Reno Police Department Records Division, and a person in the know sent it to Mike’s Reno Report.

The Records Division Letter: What It Says

The Records Division’s vote of no confidence is not vague, emotional, or ambiguous. It is a structured, detailed list of allegations about mismanagement, retaliation, intimidation, and operational incompetence.

The letter states that Allen has demonstrated:

“lack of knowledge and unprofessional behavior.”

It further alleges:

“failure to appropriately address employee concerns, inconsistent decision-making, lack of transparency.”

Employees report that Allen:

  • does not understand department procedures

  • does not understand operational processes

  • has not attempted to learn them

  • makes decisions disconnected from day‑to‑day realities

The letter describes a workplace where staff feel unsupported, intimidated, and retaliated against:

“Employees… have experienced what appears to be adverse treatment.”

And most alarming:

“intimidation… including threats of potential legal or felony consequences.”

The division also reports measurable harm:

“The division has… experienced the loss of multiple employees which is directly related to these conditions.”

This is not a minor complaint. It is a department‑wide crisis.

The City Ignored These Complaints Completely

The Records Division states plainly:

“These concerns have been raised through the appropriate channels; however, they have gone ignored.”

The letter was delivered to:

  • City Manager Jackie Bryant

  • The Police Union Steward

Yet no investigation was opened. No corrective action was taken. No disciplinary process was initiated. No administrative leave was imposed. No HR review occurred. The City did nothing.

This is a direct violation of municipal HR policy, which requires:

  • timely investigation

  • consistent enforcement

  • protection from retaliation

  • documentation of findings

  • corrective action when warranted

None of these steps were followed.

Meanwhile, Mikki Huntsman Was Terminated With Severance

The City claims it terminated Mikki because of complaints. But the City’s actions contradict that explanation.

1. Severance is not given to employees terminated for misconduct.

If Mikki had been removed for:

  • retaliation

  • intimidation

  • incompetence

  • hostile workplace behavior

she would not have received severance.

Severance is given when:

  • the City wants silence

  • the City wants to avoid litigation

  • the City wants to avoid discovery

  • the City wants to avoid public records exposure

  • the City wants to remove someone without alleging wrongdoing

This alone undermines the official narrative.

2. The complaints against Shawna are more severe than those cited against Mikki.

Yet Shawna remains employed even after the entire Records Division has complained to the City Manager.

3. The Records Division letter predates Mikki’s termination by months.

If complaints were truly the City’s priority, Shawna would have been investigated long before Mikki.

4. The City acted swiftly in one case and ignored the other.

That is not HR enforcement — it is selective enforcement.

The Mysterious Removal of City Clerk Mikki Huntsman Reveals a Critical Fault Line in Reno’s Accountability Structure

This article explains that Huntsman’s termination may have stemmed from a cover-up of fund transfers from the Building Permit fund, according to a whistleblower report.

The Anonymous Tip Confirms the Contradiction

A person connected to the issue wrote to Mike’s Reno Report:

“Following the recent termination of Mikki due to complaints, I am writing to inquire why the complaints filed against the RPD Records Manager have gone unaddressed.”

This is not an outsider’s speculation. An internal whistleblower is pointing out the inconsistency.

Employees inside the City see the same problem: The City enforces HR rules only when it chooses to — not when policy requires it.

The City of Reno is not enforcing its HR rules.

Reno uses HR selectively to protect itself and reduce liability. Mikki’s termination fits the pattern of a political removal, not an HR‑driven one.

Reno’s failure to remove or even investigate Shawna Allen shows that HR rule enforcement is selective, or possibly nonexistent.

Why This Matters for Reno

When HR rules are not enforced:

  • employees lose trust

  • departments lose stability

  • retaliation becomes normalized

  • accountability collapses

  • transparency disappears

  • governance becomes political instead of procedural

This is not just a Records Division problem. It is not just a City Clerk problem. It is not just a Building Permit Fund problem.

It is a City of Reno governance problem. And it is ongoing.

The City cannot claim that “complaints” justify termination in one case while ignoring a formal, signed, department‑wide vote of no confidence in another.

Reno residents deserve a government that enforces its rules consistently — not selectively.

This story is not about one manager or one clerk. It is about a system that is failing to protect employees, enforce policy, and uphold public trust.

Do you have a story to tell? Write to me at: mike@mikesrenoreport.com

Support independent journalism. Click to donate to: Mike’s Reno Report.

Next
Next

Reno Municipal Court: A System Without Pre‑Trial Justice