TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Sample Clauses
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 secretary Xxxxx to send an email on Xxxxxx’x behalf to her District B PAC 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 he...
TERMS / CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Based on the foregoing, Xxxxxxx 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. Xxxxxxx holds 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 people of Lander County).
x. Xxxxxxx has a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, because Xxxxx Xxxxxxx is his son. See NRS 281A.065(3).
x. Xxxxxxx failed to avoid conflicts of interest between his private relationships/interests and public duties and violated the provisions of NRS 281A.020, NRS 281A.400(2) and (5), and NRS 281A.420(3) by advocating for his son’s interests in the Golf Course contract, and failing to abstain from voting during the August 22, 2013 and October 10, 2013 Lander County Commission meetings and the October 2013 agenda-setting committee meeting.
e. At the time of his actions in August and October of 2013, Xxxxxxx sought and relied upon District Attorney Xxxxxxx’x legal advice regarding disclosure, participation and abstention. However, as the nature of the conflict was clear, and an absolute requirement for abstention exists despite the incorrect legal advice offered, Xxxxxxx violated the Ethics Law. As a public officer, Xxxxxxx has an obligation to understand the requirements of the Ethics Law. The “safe harbor” provision set forth in NRS 281A.480(5) requires reliance upon counsel’s advice to be in good faith, and the advice must not be contrary to the Ethics Law or prior, published Commission opinions. No “safe harbor” is available here.
f. The disclosure should have included information regarding the potential effect of Xxxxxxx’x action or abstention on the agenda items and the effect it may have had on Xxxxx Xxxxxxx’x interests. See In re Woodbury, Comm’n Opinion No. 99-56 (1999) and In re Derbidge, Comm’n Opinion No. 13-05C (2013).
x. Xxxxxxx now fully understands that he should have disclosed sufficient information regarding his relationship with his son, Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, a person to whom he had a commitment in a private capacity through a blood relationship in the first degree, to inform the public of the nature and extent of his relationship and Xxxxx Xxxxxxx’x interests in the Golf Course matter before the Lander County Commission.
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, Strasdin 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. 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 citizens of Xxxxxxxxx County.
x. Xxxxxxxx has a commitment in a private capacity to the interests of Xx. Xxxxxxx because she has a relationship with Xxxxxxx that is substantially similar to a domestic partnership. See NRS 281A.065(6).
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 Xxxxxxxx’x conduct. Specifically, Strasdin 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 her decision on matters before the CCSD Board. See NRS 281A.420(1). As a public officer, Strasdin is also required to abstain from voting or otherwise acting on matters in which the interests of persons with whom she shares such relationships would clearly and materially affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in her 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.
x. Xxxxxxxx understands that she must disclose her relationship with Xx. Xxxxxxx whenever a matter involving Xxxxxxx comes before the Board, even though the relationship is a matter of public record by virtue of Xxxxxxxx’x disclosure at the October 27, 2016 meeting. Such matters include, but are not limited to, the topics of labor management, discussions about salaries, job duties, employment benefits, pension plans, disciplinary matters, litigati...
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, Xxxxxxx 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. Xxxxxxx 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. Xxxxxxx had 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 conflict of interest provisions of the Ethics Law apply to Xxxxxxx’x conduct. Specifically, Xxxxxxx 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, Xxxxxxx 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).
x. Xxxxxxx understands that he must disclose his relationship with and the interests of his school-aged children whenever any matter that directly involves his children comes before the Board. However, he was not required to disclose those relationships before voting on the Jump Start College program at the February 5, 2015 Board meeting. There is no evidence that Xxxxxxx’x children were interested in or intended to participate in the program, or that Xxxxxxx and/or his children would receive any individual benefit from the Board’s decision to cover costs for the Jump Start College program. Accordingly, Xxxxxxx’x action on the matter would not reasonably be affected by his commitments to the interests of his children.
f. Based on the lack of evidence requiring disclosure, Xxxxxxx had no obligation to abstain from voting on the Jump Start College program pursuant to NRS 281A.420(3).
g. In appreciation of the public’s concerns regarding the disclosure and abstention responsibilities of public officers in the context of the CCSD matters, Xxxxxxx and the Commission agree to promote the Commission’s outreach efforts by sponsoring an Ethics in Government Law training conducted by the Executive Director of the Commission to encourage continued compliance with the Ethics Law. ...
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, 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 was a public officer, which constitutes a public trust to be held for the sole benefit of the people of the State of Nevada.
c. As a former public officer, Xxxxxx should not have sought or accepted any gift, service, favor, emolument or economic opportunity 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)). Xxxxxx also should not have used her public position to secure unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or advantages for herself (NRS 281A.400(2)). The Commission considers whether an action is unwarranted pursuant to NRS 281A.400(2) if the action was contrary to statute or otherwise against written policies that are applicable to the public officer.
x. Xxxxxx violated NRS 281A.400(1) because the receipt of unauthorized compensation and leave accrual was not consistent with Xxxxxx’x responsibility to carry out the faithful and impartial discharge of her public duties as the Executive Director of the Board.
x. Xxxxxx secured unwarranted privileges or advantages for herself, in violation of NRS 281A.400(2), because the Board did not have a policy, custom or practice of providing payouts of annual or sick leave during employment and Xxxxxx used her position to issue additional checks to herself and increase her accrual of annual leave without obtaining Board approval to receive additional compensation or annual leave.
x. Xxxxxx’x actions constitute a single course of conduct resulting in one violation of the Ethics Law, implicating the provisions of NRS 281A.400(1) and (2) as interpreted and applied in accordance with the provisions of NRS 281A.020.
x. Xxxxxx’x violation was willful pursuant to NRS 281A.170 because she acted intentionally and knowingly, as those terms are defined in NRS 281A.105 and 281A.115, respectively.
h. For an act to be intentional, NRS 281A.105 does not require that Xxxxxx acted in bad faith, or with ill will, evil intent or malice. However, Xxxxxx acted in reckless disregard of the Ethics Law when she voluntarily or deliberately caused extra paychecks to be issued to herself and increased her vacation accrual without Board approval. See In re XxXxxx, Comm’n Op. Nos. 10-105C, 10-106C, 10-108C, 10-109C and 10-110C (2011) ...
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...