PROCEDURAL HISTORY BEFORE COMMISSION a. On or about December 1, 2016, the Commission received RFO No. 16-85C from a member of the public (“Requester”), alleging that Strasdin:
1) Failed in her commitment to avoid conflicts between her personal interests and her public duties (NRS 281A.020(1));
2) Failed to disclose a conflict of interest for which disclosure is required (NRS 281A.420(1)); and
3) Failed to abstain from acting on a matter in which she had a conflict of interest (NRS 281A.420(3)).
b. On or about December 13, 2016, staff of the Commission issued a Notice to Subject under NRS 281A.440(2), stating that the Commission accepted jurisdiction to investigate the allegations regarding violations of NRS 281A.020(1) and NRS 281A.420(1) and (3). Strasdin was provided an opportunity to respond to the RFO.
c. On or about January 18, 2017, Strasdin, through legal counsel, Xxxxxx Xxxxx, Esq., provided a written Response to the RFO.
x. Xxxxxxxx waived her right to a panel determination pursuant to NRS 281A.440 and acknowledges that credible evidence establishes just and sufficient cause for the Commission to render an opinion regarding the allegations implicating NRS 281A.020 and 281A.420(1) and (3).
e. In lieu of a panel determination and a hearing, Strasdin now enters into this Stipulated Agreement acknowledging her duty as a public officer to commit herself to protect the public trust and conform her conduct to Chapter 281A of the Nevada Revised Statutes.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY BEFORE COMMISSION a. On or about August 4, 2014, the Commission received this RFO from a private citizen alleging that Xxxxxxx, in campaigning for the elected office of Sheriff of Washoe County:
(1) Failed to avoid conflicts of interest between his public and private interests by using his office to gain favor for his private campaign, which would have resulted in a pay increase (NRS 281A.020(1));
(2) Used his position and his title as Undersheriff to gain an unwarranted advantage for himself by furthering his private campaign interests (NRS 281A.400(2));
(3) Used governmental time and resources in his capacity as Undersheriff to further his private campaign interests NRS 281A.400(7)); and
(4) Sought other employment contracts through the use of his official position (NRS 281A.400(10)).
b. As required by NAC 281A.410, the Commission gave Xxxxxxx notice of this RFO by mail. Pursuant to NRS 281A.440(3), Xxxxxxx was provided an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
c. On September 4, 2014, Xxxxxxx submitted his written response to the RFO. Xxxxxxx waived his right to a panel determination pursuant to NRS 281A.440, and the Commission and Xxxxxxx agree that there is just and sufficient cause for the Commission to render an opinion regarding the allegations implicating NRS 281A.400(7) and 281A.020(1).1
d. In lieu of a hearing, Xxxxxxx now enters into this Stipulated Agreement acknowledging his duty as a public officer to commit himself to protect the public trust and conform his conduct to Chapter 281A of the Nevada Revised Statutes.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY BEFORE COMMISSION a. On or about November 25, 2013, the Commission received this RFO from Xxxxx Xxxxxx, another member of the Lander County Commission, alleging that Xxxxxxx’x failure to abstain from participating in matters before the Lander County Commission which affected his son’s business interests violated NRS 281A.400(1), (2), (3), (5), (6) and (10) and NRS 281A.420(3).
b. As required by NAC 281A.410, the Commission gave Xxxxxxx notice of the RFO by mail. Pursuant to NRS 281A.440(3), Xxxxxxx was provided an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
x. Xxxxxxx waived his right to submit a response and his entitlement to a panel determination pursuant to NRS 281A.440, and acknowledges that credible evidence establishes just and sufficient cause for the Commission to render an opinion regarding the allegations implicating NRS 281A.400(2) and (5) and NRS 281A.420(3). The allegations pertaining to violations of NRS 281A.400(6) lack sufficient evidence to support a violation by a preponderance of evidence and are therefore dismissed through this Stipulated Agreement.1
d. In lieu of a hearing, Xxxxxxx now enters into this Stipulated Agreement acknowledging his duty as a public officer to commit himself to protect the public trust and conform his conduct to Chapter 281A of the Nevada Revised Statutes.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY BEFORE COMMISSION a. On August 20, 2018, the Commission issued its Order Initiating an Ethics Complaint, Accepting Jurisdiction and Directing an Investigation in Ethics Complaint No. 18-061C, alleging that Xxxxxxxxxxx influenced a subordinate to use tax-payer funded airline gift cards to pay for his personal travel and the personal travel of his spouse, as well as accepted other improper gifts from the LVCVA, in violation of the following provisions of the Ethics Law:
1) NRS 281A.400(1) – Seeking or accepting any gift, service, favor, employment, engagement, emolument or economic opportunity which would tend improperly to influence a reasonable person in his position to depart from the faithful and impartial discharge of his public duties;
2) NRS 281A.400(2) - Using his public position to secure or grant an unwarranted advantage for himself or any person to whom he has a commitment in a private capacity;
3) NRS 281A.400(5) - Acquiring through his public duties or relationships, any information which by law or practice is not at the time available to people generally, and using the information to further a pecuniary interest of himself or any other person or business entity;
4) NRS 281A.400(7) - Using governmental resources to benefit a significant personal or pecuniary interest; and
5) NRS 281A.400(9) - Attempting to benefit his personal or financial interest through the influence of a subordinate.
b. On August 20, 2018, staff of the Commission issued a Notice of Complaint and Investigation in Ethics Complaint No. 18-061C pursuant to NRS 281A.720, and Ralenkotter was provided an opportunity to provide a written response to the Complaint. In lieu of a written response, Xxxxxxxxxxx provided his response to this Complaint in the form of an interview with the Executive Director, which is maintained as part of the confidential investigatory file.
c. On or about December 6, 2018, the Commission issued its Order Initiating an Ethics Complaint, Accepting Jurisdiction and Directing an Investigation in Ethics Complaint No. 18-139C, alleging that while he was still employed as the CEO, Xxxxxxxxxxx negotiated and entered into a lucrative, post-employment contract to provide consulting services to the LVCVA upon his retirement, in violation of the following provisions of the Ethics Law:
1) NRS 281A.400(1) – Seeking or accepting any gift, service, favor, employment, engagement, emolument or economic opportunity which would tend improperly to influence a reasonable person in his position ...
PROCEDURAL HISTORY BEFORE COMMISSION a. On or about January 25, 2016, the Commission received RFO No. 16-11C, alleging that Xxxxxx disclosed but failed to abstain from voting on agenda items during October 2015 City Council Meetings concerning an offer to purchase property from the City. Two prospective buyers presented offers at the meeting: 333 Eagles landing, which buyer is represented by Premier Properties, a real estate brokerage company where Xxxxxx is a real estate agent; and Mesquite Group 118, a company represented by the Requester.
b. On or about February 3, 2016, staff of the Commission provided Notice to Xxxxxx of RFO No. 16-11C, stating that the Commission accepted jurisdiction to investigate the allegations regarding violations of NRS 281A.020(1), 281A.400(1), (2) and (3) and 281A.420(3).
c. On or about February 4, 2016, the Commission received RFO No. 16-20C, alleging that Xxxxxx:
1) Used nonpublic information acquired through his official position to further his own pecuniary interests or those of another person, in violation of NRS 281A.400(1), (2), (3), (5) and (6);
2) Used his official position to seek other employment or contracts by acting with the members of the Mesquite City Council to improperly fund a non- profit company related to the sale of public land, which sale involved Premier Properties, in violation of NRS 281A.400(10);
3) Failed to disclose and abstain from participation on an item heard by the City Council on October 27, 2015, in violation of NRS 281A.420(1) and (3); and
PROCEDURAL HISTORY BEFORE COMMISSION a. On or about November 7, 2016, the Commission received RFO No. 16-78C from a member of the public (“Requester”), alleging that Xxxxxxxxx:
1) Failed in his commitment to avoid conflicts between his personal interests and his public duties (NRS 281A.020(1));
2) Used his public position to secure or grant an unwarranted advantage for himself (NRS 281A.400(2));
3) Suppressed a governmental report or other document related to his pecuniary interests (NRS 281A.400(3)); /// /// ///
4) Used governmental resources for a nongovernmental purpose or for the private benefit of himself or any other person (NRS 281A.400(7));
5) Attempted to influence benefit his personal or financial interest through the influence of a subordinate (NRS 281A.400(9));
6) Failed to disclose his personal interest in certain commercial property he owns/leases related to the City’s approval of an agenda item (NRS 281A.420(1));
7) Failed to abstain from voting on the City’s approval of an agenda item that purportedly had a material effect on his private property (NRS 281A.420(3)); and
8) Improperly participated in negotiating and/or bidding on a contract affecting his private business interests (NRS 281A.400(3) and NRS 281A.430)).
b. On November 10, 2016, staff of the Commission issued a Notice to Subject under NRS 281A.440(2), stating that the Commission accepted jurisdiction to investigate the allegations regarding violations of NRS 281A.020(1), NRS 281A.400(2) and (3), NRS 281A.420(1) and (3) and NRS 281A.430. Xxxxxxxxx was provided an opportunity to respond to the RFO.
c. On or about January 12, 2017, Xxxxxxxxx, through his legal counsel, Carson City Chief Deputy District Attorney Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx, Esq., provided a written Response to the RFO.
d. On April 19, 2017, the Executive Director presented a recommendation relating to just and sufficient cause to a two-member investigatory panel pursuant to NRS 281A.440(4).
e. A Panel Determination issued on April 25, 2017 concluded that:
1) Credible evidence supports just and sufficient cause for the Commission to render an opinion in the matter regarding the allegations pertaining to NRS 281A.020, 281A.400(2) and 281A.420(1) and (3).
2) Credible evidence does not substantiate just and sufficient cause for the Commission to consider the alleged violations of NRS 281A.400(3) and NRS 281A.430. Accordingly, these allegations were dismissed.1
f. The Commission notified Xxxxxxxxx of the time and place set for a Commission hearing in this matter. In ...
PROCEDURAL HISTORY BEFORE COMMISSION a. On or about February 25, 2013, the Commission received this RFO from a private citizen alleging that Xxxxxxxx had caused the CCSD, a governmental entity, to incur expenses in support of a ballot question by authorizing CCSD resources to be utilized for the transportation and storage of campaign materials.
b. As required by NAC 281A.410, the Commission provided Xxxxxxxx with notice of the RFO by mail. Pursuant to NRS 281A.440(3), Xxxxxxxx was provided an opportunity to respond to the RFO and submitted a written response through the CCSD’s legal counsel, Xxxxxx X. XxXxxx, Esq., General Counsel.
c. Based on facts developed from the RFO, Xxxxxxxx’x response and the Commission’s investigation, pursuant to NRS 281A.440(4), the Commission’s Executive Director provided a report to a two-member Investigatory Panel consisting of Commissioners Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxx, and recommended a finding that credible evidence established just and sufficient cause to forward the allegations implicating NRS 281A.520 to the Commission for hearing and opinion.
d. On May 20, 2013, the Investigatory Panel reviewed the Executive Director’s report and recommendation. The Panel adopted the Executive Director’s recommendation and forwarded the allegation implicating NRS 281A.520 to the Commission to hold a hearing and render an opinion.
e. The Commission notified Xxxxxxxx of the time and place set for a Commission hearing in this matter. In lieu of participating in a full hearing, Xxxxxxxx now enters into this Stipulated Agreement acknowledging her duty as a public employee to commit herself to protect the public trust by ensuring that CCSD resources are not expended to support ballot questions. See NRS 281A.020 and 281A.520.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY BEFORE COMMISSION a. On or about December 1, 2016, the Commission received RFO No. 16-84C from a member of the public (“Requester”), alleging that Xxxx:
1) Failed in his commitment to avoid conflicts between his personal interests and his public duties (NRS 281A.020(1));
2) Failed to disclose a conflict of interest for which disclosure is required (NRS 281A.420(1)); and
3) Failed to abstain from acting on a matter in which he had a conflict of interest (NRS 281A.420(3)).
b. On or about December 13, 2016, staff of the Commission issued a Notice to Subject under NRS 281A.440(2) stating that the Commission accepted jurisdiction to investigate the allegations regarding violations of NRS 281A.020(1) and NRS 281A.420(1) and (3). Xxxx was provided an opportunity to respond to the RFO.
c. On or about January 18, 2017, Xxxx, through legal counsel, provided a written Response to the RFO.
x. Xxxx executed a Panel Waiver and Waiver of Confidentiality to permit the Commission to consider this Stipulated Agreement.
e. In lieu of a panel determination and a hearing, Xxxx and the Commission now enter into this Stipulated Agreement, pursuant to NAC 281A.275, finding no violation of NRS 281A.020(1) or NRS 281A.420(1) and (3).
f. This RFO presented a case of first impression for the Commission with respect to a public officer voting on a consent agenda item that approves his appointment to a volunteer coaching position that does not involve anything of economic value. This Stipulated Agreement provides an opportunity for the Commission to promote and clarify the goals of the Ethics Law and to educate all public officers similarly situated to Hyde.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY BEFORE COMMISSION a. On or about December 3, 2015, the Commission received this RFO from a private citizen, alleging that Xxxxx:
1) Failed to avoid conflicts of interest between her public and private interests by designating a longtime personal friend as a PEBP consultant (NRS 281A.020(1));
2) Accepted gifts which would tend improperly to influence a reasonable person in her position to depart from the faithful and impartial discharge of her public duties (NRS 281A.400(1));
3) Used her position as Quality Control Officer to gain an unwarranted advantage for a friend (NRS 281A.400(2));
4) Failed to disclose a conflict of interest (NRS 281A.420(1)); and
5) Failed to abstain from acting on a matter in which abstention is required (NRS 281A.420(3)).
b. As required by NAC 281A.410, the Commission provided Xxxxx with notice of the RFO by mail on December 16, 2015. Xxxxx was provided an opportunity to respond to the RFO and requested an extension of time to submit a response through her legal counsel, Xxxx Xxxxxxx, Esq. An extension was granted and the response was due on February 29, 2016. A response was not submitted and no additional extensions of time were requested.
c. Pursuant to NRS 281A.440, on March 16, 2016, a two-member Investigatory Panel of the Commission reviewed the RFO, the Executive Director’s recommendation and other evidence.
d. A Panel Determination issued on March 23, 2016 concluded that:
1) Credible evidence supports just and sufficient cause for the Commission to conduct a public hearing and render an opinion regarding whether Xxxxx violated NRS 281A.020(1) and 281A.400(1) with regard to acceptance of gifts; and
2) The facts do not establish credible evidence to substantiate just and sufficient cause for the Commission to conduct a public hearing and render an opinion regarding the alleged violations of NRS 281A.400(2) and NRS 281A.420(1) and (3). Accordingly, these allegations were dismissed.
e. The Commission notified Xxxxx of the time and place set for a Commission hearing in this matter. In lieu of a full hearing, Xxxxx now enters into this Stipulated Agreement acknowledging her duty as a public employee to commit herself to protect the public trust and conform her conduct to Chapter 281A of the Nevada Revised Statutes.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY BEFORE COMMISSION a. On or about January 30, 2014, Xxxxx filed a Third-Party RFO (14-11C) regarding his own conduct, requesting a Commission opinion concerning whether an email sent at his direction by his CCSD secretary to constituents within his district caused the CCSD, a governmental entity, to incur an expense in support of a ballot question (NRS 281A.520).
x. Xxxxx waived his rights to a notice and an opportunity to respond to the RFO pursuant to NRS 281A.440 and NAC 281A.410.
x. Xxxxx waived his right to a panel determination pursuant to NRS 281A.440, and acknowledges that credible evidence establishes just and sufficient cause to forward the allegations implicating NRS 281A.520 to the Commission for hearing and opinion.
d. In lieu of a panel determination and hearing, Xxxxx now enters into this Stipulated Agreement acknowledging his duty as a public officer to commit himself to protect the public trust and conform his conduct to Chapter 281A of the Nevada Revised Statutes.
