TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Xxxxxx and the Commission agree as follows:
a. Each of the findings of fact enumerated in section 4 is deemed to be true and correct.
x. Xxxxxx is a member of the CCSD Board of Trustees.
c. In her role as a Trustee, Xxxxxx instructed her CCSD secretary Xxxx to send an email on Xxxxxx’x behalf to her constituent list, providing information regarding how to support Ballot Question 2, if the reader chose to do so.
x. Xxxxxx relied in good faith upon her understanding of CCSD General Counsel’s opinion that the conduct was permissible. Xxxxxx did not intend for CCSD to incur a cost by sending the email and did not consider the use of a secretary assigned to assist her to communicate to be an expense to the district. However, the Commission does find the use of CCSD personnel, in this instance, to be an expense in support of a ballot question.
x. Xxxxxx’x conduct under these circumstances constitutes a single violation of NRS 281A.520(1)(a) for causing a government entity, the CCSD, to incur an expense or make an expenditure in support of a ballot question.
f. The Commission has determined that insufficient evidence supports a finding of a violation of NRS 281A.400(7) or 281A.400(9) which prohibit, respectively, a public officer or employee from improperly using government resources or influencing a subordinate to benefit a personal interest.
g. Although Xxxxxx’x conduct in causing the governmental expenditure would otherwise be deemed intentional and knowing and therefore “willful”, NRS 281A.170 obligates the Commission to consider whether mitigating factors set forth in NRS 281A.475 and NRS 281A.480(5)(a) and (b) support a determination that the violation was not willful and a civil penalty should not be imposed pursuant to NRS 281A.480.
h. Based upon the consideration and application of the statutory criteria set forth in NRS 281A.475 and NRS 281A.480(5)(a) and (b), the Commission concludes that Xxxxxx’x violation in this case should not be deemed a “willful violation” pursuant to NRS 281A.170 and the imposition of a civil penalty pursuant to NRS 281A.480 is not appropriate for reasons that follow:
(i) As stated previously, the use of a secretary to send the email resulted in the expenditure of public funds to support a ballot question, which though serious as a principle, is in this instance of such a nature, circumstance, extent or gravity as to be deemed as part of a well-intentioned, good faith effort by Trustee Xxxxxx to fulfill h...
TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Derbidge and the Commission agree as follows:
a. Each of the findings of fact enumerated in section 4 is deemed to be true and correct.
x. Xxxxxxxx holds public office which constitutes a public trust to be held for the sole benefit of the people of the State of Nevada (in particular, the people of the City of Xxx).
x. Xxxxxxxx has a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of Xxxxx, a person with whom he shares substantial and continuing business relationships, as Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx are shareholders, officers and directors in Sagebrush 66 and JDD. See NRS 281A.065(5)
x. Xxxxxxxx failed to avoid conflicts of interest between his private relationships/interests and public duties and violated the provisions of NRS 281A.020 and 281A.420(1) and (3) of the Ethics in Government Law by failing to fully disclose the full nature and extent of his conflicts and failing to abstain from voting during the May 9, 2013 and June 13, 2013 City Council meetings regarding the City’s Water Project contract with JCR which affected Xxxxx’ interests, albeit in business ventures unrelated to the Sagebrush 66 or JDD.
e. At the time of his actions on May 9, 2013 and June 13, 2013, Xxxxxxxx had not yet finalized the terms of the stipulated agreement in RFO 13-05C which required disclosure and abstention on JCR matters, and he misinterpreted City Attorney Xxxxx Xxxxxx’ general advice concerning disclosure and abstention offered on January 24, 2013. However, Xxxxxxxx was aware at the time of his votes that his relationship with Xxxxx was the subject of another third-party request for opinion questioning his disclosure and abstention obligations, and rather than heeding Xxxxxx’ specific advice to Derbidge regarding abstention on Xxxxx/JCR matters, Xxxxxxxx applied his incorrect interpretation of Xxxxxx’ general advice and made an insufficient disclosure of his conflict and voted on the JCR matters.
x. Xxxxxxxx now fully understands that he should have disclosed sufficient information regarding his Sagebrush 66 and JDD business relationships with Xxxxx, a person to whom he had a commitment in a private capacity as a substantial and continuing business associate, to inform the public of the nature and extent of his relationship and Xxxxx’ interests in the Water Project. The disclosure should have also included information regarding the potential effect of Derbidge’s action or abstention on the agenda items and the effect it may have had on Xxxxx’ interest...
TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Xxxxxxxxxx and the Commission agree as follows:
a. Each of the stipulated facts enumerated in Section 4 of this Stipulated Agreement is agreed to by the parties.
x. Xxxxxxxxxx held a public office which constitutes a public trust to be held for the sole benefit of the people of the State of Nevada (in particular, the citizens of Lander County).
x. Xxxxxxxxxx had a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of Xxxxxx because they have a substantial and continuous business relationship based on their realtor/client relationship. NRS 281A.065(5).
d. As a public officer, Xxxxxxxxxx had a duty to avoid conflicts of interest. See NRS 281A.020. Specifically, Xxxxxxxxxx was required to commit to avoid actual and perceived conflicts of interest, including publicly disclosing sufficient information concerning any private relationships and pecuniary interests which would reasonably affect her decision on matters before the Planning Commission. See NRS 281A.420(1). As a public officer, Xxxxxxxxxx was also required to abstain from voting or otherwise acting on matters in which such relationships would clearly and materially affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in her position. See NRS 281A.420(3).
x. Xxxxxxxxxx did not adequately avoid the conflict of interest between her public duties and private interests by not disclosing her relationship with Xxxxxx during Planning Commission meetings on April 8, 2015 and September 9, 2015 before voting on agenda items that involved Xxxxxx.
x. Xxxxxxxxxx now understands that she should have disclosed sufficient information regarding her relationship with Xxxxxx, a person to whom she had a commitment in a private capacity, to inform the public of the nature and extent of the relationship. The disclosure should have occurred at every meeting and for every agenda item which the Planning Commission considered that affected Xxxxxx’x interests.
g. The disclosure should have also included information regarding the potential effect of Xxxxxxxxxx’x action or abstention on the agenda items and the effect it may have had on her and Xxxxxx, as the person to whom she had a commitment to in a private capacity. See In re Woodbury, Comm’n Op. No. 99-56 (1999) and In re Derbidge, Comm’n Op. No. 13-05C (2013).
h. Abstention is required when a reasonable person’s independence of judgment is materially affected by the public officer’s significant pecuniary interest or commitment in a private capacit...
TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Ralenkotter and the Commission agree as follows:
a. Each of the stipulated facts enumerated in Section 4 of this Stipulated Agreement is agreed to by the parties.
x. Xxxxxxxxxxx was a public officer, which constituted a public trust to be held for the sole benefit of the people of the State of Nevada (in particular, the citizens of Las Vegas).
c. As a public officer, Xxxxxxxxxxx was prohibited from: 1) seeking or accepting any gift, service, favor, 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 (NRS 281A.400(1)); 2) using his public position to secure unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages for himself (NRS 281A.400(2)); 3) using government resources to benefit a significant personal or financial interest (NRS 281A.400 (7)); 4) using his position to influence subordinates for a significant pecuniary interest (NRS 281A.400(9)); and 5) using his position to negotiate or enter into contracts or employment opportunities with the LVCVA and a business entity in which he had a significant pecuniary interest without disclosing his pecuniary interests (NRS 281A.400(1), (2), (3), (7) and (10), 281A.420 and 281A.430).
d. The Commission considers whether an action is improper or unwarranted if the action was against written policies that are applicable to the public officer.
x. Xxxxxxxxxxx did not adequately avoid the conflict of interest between his public duties and private interests when he accepted free travel for himself and his spouse paid for with LVCVA airline gift cards.
x. Xxxxxxxxxxx violated NRS 281A.400(1), (2), (7) and (9) by his acceptance of personal travel purchased with Southwest Airline gift cards that were held by the LVCVA.2 2 Allegations regarding NRS 281A.400(5) are dismissed in this Stipulation for lack of a preponderance of evidence in support of a violation.
g. Additionally, Xxxxxxxxxxx used his position to negotiate and enter into a post- employment consulting contract with the LVCVA without proper disclosures in violation of NRS 281A.400(1), (2), (3) and (10), 281A.420 and 281A.430.
h. As interpreted and applied in accordance with the provisions of NRS 281A.020, Xxxxxxxxxxx’x actions related to his acceptance of Southwest Airline gift cards for personal travel constitute a single course of conduct resulting in one violation of the Ethics Law, implicating the pr...
TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Xxxxxx and the Commission agree as follows:
a. Each of the stipulated facts enumerated in Section 4 of this Stipulated Agreement is agreed to by the parties.
x. Xxxxxx holds public office which constitutes a public trust to be held for the sole benefit of the people of the State of Nevada (in particular, the people of Mesquite).
x. Xxxxxx has a substantial and continuous business relationship with Premier Properties and each agent of Premier Properties sufficient to create private commitments to the interests of each other under NRS 281A.065(5). In re Public Officer, Comm’n Op. No. 13-71A (2014). Xxxxxx’x status as an independent contractor does not negate the business relationship shared between him and his business associates, the other agents of Premier Properties. Id. The Commission has determined that independent contractors have a commitment in a private capacity to those who hire them as independent contractors, and the same analogy applies to independent contractors who are partners and/or business associates in a company. In re Public Officer, Comm’n Op. No. 11-54C (2011).i
d. By statute, public officers have a duty to avoid conflicts of interest. See NRS 281A.020. As a public officer, the conflicts of interest provisions of the Ethics Law apply to Xxxxxx’x conduct. Specifically, Xxxxxx must commit to avoid actual and perceived conflicts of interest, including publicly disclosing sufficient information concerning any private relationships and pecuniary interests which would reasonably affect his decision on matters before the City Council. See NRS 281A.420(1). As a public officer, Xxxxxx is also required to abstain from voting or otherwise acting on matters in which such relationships would clearly and materially affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in his position. See NRS 281A.420(3).
x. Xxxxxx relied upon the advice of the City Council’s attorney, Xxxxxxx, regarding his disclosure and abstention duties at the October 13, 2015 and October 27, 2015 City Council meetings.
x. Xxxxxx’x disclosures at the October 13, 2015 and October 27, 2015 meetings satisfied the requirements of NRS 281A.420(1) because he disclosed sufficient information to inform the public of the full nature and extent of his conflict. See In re Woodbury, Comm’n Op. No. 99-56 (1999) and In re Xxxxxx, Comm’n Op. No. 13-81C (2014).
x. Xxxxxx understands that he must disclose his substantial and continuous business relationship with Prem...
TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Hall and the Commission agree as follows:
a. Each of the stipulated facts enumerated in Section 4 of this Agreement is agreed to by the parties.
b. Allegations that Hall violated NRS 281A.400(9) are hereby dismissed by stipulation of the parties.
x. Xxxx had a commitment in a private capacity to her private businesses pursuant to NRS 281A.065.
x. Xxxx’x actions in accessing the County’s credit line and purchasing power to purchase supplies for her private businesses constitute a single course of conduct resulting in one violation of NRS 281A.400(2). Specifically, the Commission finds this benefit “unwarranted” as defined in statute because the use was expressly prohibited by policy and is without any other justification.
x. Xxxx’x actions in using the County Card to benefit her private businesses constitutes a single course of conduct resulting in one violation of NRS 281A.400(7). Specifically, the Commission finds the County Card was government equipment and that the facts do not establish any of the limited use exceptions are met. /// ///
f. Based upon the consideration and application of the statutory factors set forth in NRS 281A.775, Xxxx and the Commission agree that pursuant to NRS 281A.170 both violations shall be deemed non-willful:
TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Xxx Xxxx and the Commission agree as follows:
a. Each of the stipulated facts enumerated in Section 4 of this Stipulated Agreement are agreed to by the parties.4 For purposes of the Conclusions of Law, the Commission accepts each of the stipulated facts as true and correct.
x. Xxx Xxxx holds public office which constitutes a public trust to be held for the sole benefit of the people of the State of Nevada and, specifically, the people of the City of Ely.
x. Xxx Xxxx has a personal and pecuniary interest in her properties on Xxxxx Street.
TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Xxxx and the Commission agree as follows:
a. Each of the stipulated facts enumerated in Section 4 of this Stipulated Agreement is agreed to by the parties.
x. Xxxx holds public office which constitutes a public trust to be held for the sole benefit of the people of the State of Nevada (in particular, the citizens of Xxxxxxxxx County).
x. Xxxx has a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of his children.
d. Public officers have a duty to avoid conflicts of interest. See NRS 281A.020. As a public officer, the conflicts of interest provisions of the Ethics Law apply to Xxxx’x conduct. Specifically, Xxxx must commit to avoid actual and perceived conflicts of interest, including publicly disclosing sufficient information concerning certain private relationships and significant pecuniary interests which would reasonably affect his decision on matters before the CCSD Board, as provided in NRS 281A.420(1). As a public officer, Xxxx is also required to abstain from voting or otherwise acting on matters in which such relationships would clearly and materially affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in his position. NRS 281A.420(3).
e. The disclosure and abstention requirements of NRS 281A.420 extend to consent agenda items. See In re Xxxxxx and Xxxxx, Comm’n Op. Nos. 11-76C and 11-77C (2012). Each matter on a consent agenda requires action for final approval. Without a formal vote of the Board, the consent item is not approved and any staff action does not become effective. Accordingly, when considering items on a consent agenda, public officers are required to properly disclose any significant pecuniary interests or commitments in a private capacity to the interests of others and undertake the statutorily directed abstention analysis on the record to determine whether abstention is appropriate.
TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Xxxxx and the Commission agree as follows:
a. Each of the findings of fact enumerated in section 4 is deemed to be true and correct for purposes of this stipulation.
x. Xxxxx holds public office which constitutes a public trust to be held for the sole benefit of the people of the State of Nevada (in particular, the people of the City of Boulder City).
x. Xxxxx has a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of his son Xxxxx Xxxxx. See NRS 281A.065 (2) and (3).
x. Xxxxx now realizes that he failed in his commitment to avoid conflicts between his personal interests and his public duties (NRS 281A.020) when he allowed himself to be inserted into his son’s Civil Rights Complaint against Boulder City as an expert witness. This created an inherent conflict between his public duties to Boulder City and his commitment in a private capacity to his son.
x. Xxxxx acknowledges he used his position in government to secure unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages for his son, a person to whose interests he has a commitment in a private capacity in violation of NRS 281A.400(2). The “… intent of this statute prohibits a public officer from acting in a manner which creates unwarranted privileges, preferences or advantages for a personal interest.” (In re Public Officer, Comm’n Opinion No. 12-15A (2012)). Xxxxx wrongfully used his position in government through his involvement as an expert witness against his own public employer. (See In re Xxxxxxx, Comm’n Opinion 11-78A (2011), holding that a perception that Commissioner Xxxxxxx “…lobbying efforts would be more effective because he is a Clark County Commissioner…” implicates NRS 281A.400 (2)).
f. Furthermore, there was no need or justification for Xxxxx to be an expert witness in this matter as numerous other experts could have been hired to fulfill that role. (See In re Xxxxxx, Comm’n Opinion No. 14-12C (2014), finding violations for creating the ethical conflict through the public officer’s actions).
g. As the City Attorney, Xxxxx obtained unique knowledge and access to non- public information, including knowledge and information concerning Officer Xxxxxxx’x role in the arrest. Xxxxx disputes using any information he obtained in his role as city attorney in support of his son’s case. There is no dispute however that he did have access to those resources. Along with public information and legal research, Xxxxx drafted an expert report and affidavit that found fault with...
TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Xxxxx and the Commission agree as follows:
a. Each of the stipulated facts enumerated in Section 4 of this Stipulated Agreement is agreed to by the parties.
x. Xxxxx is a public employee, which constitutes a public trust to be held for the sole benefit of the people of the State of Nevada (in particular, the citizens of Boulder City).
c. As a public employee, Xxxxx may not use his public position to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages for himself (NRS 281A.400(2)) or use government resources to benefit a significant personal or pecuniary interest (NRS 281A.400(7)).
x. Xxxxx did not adequately avoid the conflict of interest between his public duties and private interests when he used the Records Storage Area as a place to stay overnight.
e. In using the Records Storage Area for personal purposes, Xxxxx used his position in government to secure an unwarranted privilege or advantage for himself, in violation of NRS 281A.400(2). Xxxxx’x use of governmental property to benefit his significant personal or pecuniary interest also violated NRS 281A.400(7).
x. Xxxxx’x actions constitute a single course of conduct resulting in one violation of the Ethics Law, implicating the provisions of NRS 281A.400(2) and (7), as interpreted and applied in accordance with the provisions of NRS 281A.020(1).
x. Xxxxx’x violation of the Ethics Law was willful pursuant to NRS 281A.170 because he acted intentionally and knowingly, as those terms are defined in NRS 281A.105 and 281A.115, respectively.
h. Without limitation, the Commission considered the following factors in determining whether Xxxxx’x violation is willful and the amount of the civil penalty to be imposed on Xxxxx:
1) Xxxxx has not previously violated the Ethics Law.
2) Xxxxx has been diligent to cooperate with and participate in the Commission’s investigation and resolution of this matter.
3) Xxxxx has been reprimanded by his employer for the conduct described in this Complaint and suffered a loss of income and benefits equal to approximately $1,500.
i. Despite the consideration and application of the statutory mitigating criteria set forth in NRS 281A.475 and other mitigating circumstances presented in this matter, the Commission concludes that Xxxxx’x violation in this case should be deemed a willful violation pursuant to NRS 281A.170.
j. For the willful violation, Xxxxx shall pay a civil penalty of $1,000.00, pursuant to NRS 281A.480, on or before Jun...
